Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

This is a follow up of discussion started on RS noticeboard

Hello, myself and User:Roscelese are in disagreement about whether this link is appropriate for inclusion in forced abortion of Feng Jianmei. His position is that the Christian Post is insufficiently reliable on abortion topics to be used as a source and therefore the link should not be included. My position is that the paper is a reliable source in general, even if not comletely objective on abortion, and the link is appropriate as something that adds depth to the topic but shouldn't be covered in the article. Since it is just the report of someone's claim, and is only described as a claim in wiki article's EL, I feel any issues of reliability can be determined by the reader who chooses to click through. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the situation would be different if we were talking about a Christian Post story on Feng Jianmei. I mean, I would probably still find it unsuitable because the CP demonstrably fails WP:RS on anything tangentially related to this topic area, but in this case, the only claim of relevancy comes from the unreliable source itself. WP:ELYES, which talks about "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", clearly has nothing to do with this link, WP:ELMAYBE still calls for "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", and WP:ELNO specifically prohibits "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" and "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." See also the EL guidelines on BLP and DUE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, many pro-life advocacy groups have drawn the connection, not just the (non-advocacy group) CP newspaper. Ms. Zhang says she came forward with her story b/c of Feng's story. Her story isn't really fact-checked, so it is not appropriate for coverage in Feng's article itself. However I feel that people coming forward with their stories as a result of Feng's story is relevant, hence the use of an external link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If the only sources drawing a connection are unreliable ones, that suggests that the connection should not be made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this could probably be used for an article on Forced abortions in China, but not for the article about a specific incident, even though a summary of that specific incident is at the end of the short news article. It's "relevant", but probably not "relevant enough". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarking is a page on the Czech version of Wikipedia discussing social bookmarking websites such as Digg, del.icio.us etc. The following link shows a section for external links of which there are six external sites links (not links to Wikipedia articles): http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarking#P.C5.99.C3.ADklady

An additional Czech social bookmarking site was added to this list in good faith, but deleted according to the editor 'Kohelet' because "a) the site sucks and b) it's an advertisement" - the site sucking or not sucking in one person's opinion should not be a basis for deletion, nor is it an advertisement... it is simply another relevant external link alongside the other six currently shown. He went on to add, "your shitty site passed as a spam. ... a self-promotion".

You can view the exchange on the discussion page here: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse:Social_bookmarking

--90.178.66.175 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, we can't help you with problems on the Czech Wikipedia. --Versageek 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is deliberately in English for that reason. What is your suggestion for such a dispute? --90.178.66.175 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you have the discussion at the Czech Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia only makes rules and decisions for the articles at the English Wikipedia. The Czech Wikipedia may have very different rules and make very different decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to review the second external and the talk about it at Geocaching and the associated talk page about it and give us you opinion.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed this link, as did another editor. This user makes some good contributions to articles related to the history of a small county in Florida, but does not get that WP:ELNO means only links which can add significant value to the article should be included. A couple of pages on the subject of Geocaching in a local history magazine, of which the submitter is the author, do not add any value to this article whatsoever - even if there were no COI. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to copyright text hosted without permission

On Brinsley Le Poer Trench, 8th Earl of Clancarty I removed an external link to a site hosting the text of the subject's Daily Telegraph obituary, which seems to me to be a copyright infringement. I have been reverted by User: Damac with the edit summary, "I am the owner of ballinasloe.org and give my permission. In any case, it's the text of a newspaper article, so no copyright applies on that."

I've not heard this contention before, and would be glad of further opinions. I have a paper copy of this obituary, and can confirm that the text on ballinasloe.org is indeed that which appeared in the Daily Telegraph. William Avery (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that I am the owner of the website concerned, ballinasloe.org, and transcribed and uploaded the text of the obituary. I see no copyright infringement here and I give my full permission for the link to my website. --Damac (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The text of the obit is copyrighted to the Daily Telegraph; your transcription to your website is technically a copyright violation (you have no rights on the transcription of the Telegraph's work) but might fall within fair use (eg I wouldn't expect the Telegraph to go after you). However, for us at WP, we can't link to that; we would link to the Telegraph's publication, if we needed to reference the obit. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree and WP:ELNEVER is clear about linking to copyright works and I can see no fair use assertion on the site. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't think a mere assertion of fair use would carry much weight. It would need a detailed rationale for using the whole text of the obituary. William Avery (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"In any case, it's the text of a newspaper article, so no copyright applies on that." I do not have time to do it myself right now, but considering how many legal problems that mistaken notion could cause here, it might be worth checking that person's other edits looking for similar bad decisions. DreamGuy (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but considering that the copyvio link was introduced with this edit in November 2005, that's a lot of contributions to go through. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I checked for links to the same website and all I saw that caused concern (apart from the obvious conflict of interest in adding one's own website) was a newspaper obituary reprint at Matthew Harris (Irish politician), which I removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this what Wikipedia has come to? Best of luck with it, guys.--Damac (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always been against copyright violations. It's also always been about education. You now know something about copyright law you did not previously know. DreamGuy (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article, Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity, contains a discussion on Mike Huckabee's 2007 Christmas commercial. I added a link to this commercial on YouTube and it was automatically reverted by XLinkbot. I received an email that referred me to various policies which I have read and it invites me to undo the change if appropriate. I would like guidance whether my link was appropriate.

The main concern appears to be copyright, however I believe that this particular video was posted to YouTube by the copyright holder as this has the appearance of being Mike Huckabee's official campaign account. I have sought to confirm this but have been unsuccessful. That said: a) it appears official b) the YouTube account went dormant about the time that Mike Huckabee's current YouTube account was created. Is this sufficient to clear the copyright hurdle?

The other concerns seem to be regarding the appropriateness of YouTube in general. My view is that if a video is being discussed in an article then a link to that video is appropriate. Is that reasonable in this context?

Thanks for your consideration!

XLinkBot assumes that all new or unregistered editors who link to YouTube are probably wrong, and about 98% of the time, it's right. If you think thatthis really is a justifiable link (and nobody else at that article objects), then feel free to WP:UNDO the removal from the article's history tab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditional healers of South Africa

Aloha. I'm seeking independent experts on the use of external links to comment on this GA review in progress: Talk:Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa/GA1#External_links Thank you very much. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to add this link of Medical Training Schools to Phlebotomy article as it contains useful information to the user. Let us know if this can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.195.97.37 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:ELNO. How does this link add value to the Wikipedia article? What, for example, does it add that would not be in the article if it were of Featured Article quality? Given that Wikipedia is not a directory I can see no reason why a directory of training schools in just one country is of value to a global encyclopaedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I also think that a list of schools is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The list adds little value to the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Undressed - link to episodes

Kn0wItAll has attempted to add a link to episodes of this series to the article Undressed. I didn't notice the link until it was removed by Abu-Dun here with a question about its legality. Kn0wItAll reverted the edit claiming the site is legal. After looking at the link, it appears to be fansite with no real copyright clearance to the episodes. After leaving a note on Kn0wItAll's talk page, (s)he informed me that it was my duty to come here to get community consensus regarding inclusion of the link. Personally, I think the episodes are probably not cleared and shouldn't be linked on Wikipedia. Pinkadelica♣ 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not attempt to add a link, I simply changed the location of the link and updated the description of the content to which it points. The link has been in place since April of 2008 and dozens of other editors of the article saw no reason to remove it for the last 4 years. I did revert the edit by Abu-Dun, both to restore valid content to the article and answer the user's question. I believe the episodes are cleared and should be linked on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I propose that, if there are no Wikipedia guidelines instructing otherwise:
  • The link should remain in the article until this issue is resolved by community consensus because it has received implied approval by the community for the past 4 years
  • The burden of proof is on Pinkadelica to show at at least reasonable suspicion that the link infringes copyright

Kn0wItAll (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all mentions from the body of the article because this is, at best, giving undue weight to an external website; and at worst is spam, linking to a copyright violation, or even both). Even if there is agreement that this isn't a copyright violation, it is not acceptable under the guidelines for external links as promotional. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The guidelines concerning undue weight are strictly part of the neutral point of view requirement. The website in question was not used to support any POV. In fact, there isn't even a POV disagreement between any of the editors. Please re-read WP:WEIGHT before making additional unjustifiable edits. As for your other reason for removal, which part of WP:ELNO do you believe this link would fall under? Kn0wItAll (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What about the very first of the criteria - that it adds nothing to the article were it to become of FA quality. The website is highly questionable, which is why three separate editors have removed it from the article. There is already a signficant amount of material about the series available through the official MTV link. This unofficial, likely copyright-infringing fansite has no place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The exact wording of part 1 of the criteria is "... that does not provide a unique resource ..." A link to viewable episodes of the topic is very much a unique resource. Do you think being able to view episodes of the show is not a valuable resource for anybody researching the show? If you state that three or four editors removed the link, I will simply point out that a far greater number of editors did not. It is not a question of numbers - it is a question of following Wikipedia policy. You seem to share Pinkadelica's opinion that this is a fansite while multiple online sources refer to it as an official website. For starters, how do you think an unofficial fansite could be publishing content that has never been released on DVD? Kn0wItAll (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If it's a 100% legal way to watch the episodes then they SHOULD be in the ELs, as such an article "should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work is in fact one of the main criteria of WP:ELYES. But it NEEDS to be completely legal. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue, if it isn't a copyright violation, with the link being in the External links section; however it shouldn't be placed (especially not multiple times) in the body of the article.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the link should not be placed multiple times in the body. However, I don't know if it is appropriate to have it in the body once as it is the only currently available source of the episodes. For example, the editors of the article Scream of the Shalka seem to think that such use of external links is appropriate. Is there official policy on this? Kn0wItAll (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah yeah, links shouldn't be in the body, which is a different rule, and has nothing to do with the legality of the links. All non-ref ELs should be in the EL section at the bottom, including links to the actual media. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, this looks, smells and sounds like a copyright infringing website. If you look at the domain's whois information you can't find an individual or company, only hosting and domain-registration companies. A legitimate website would have contact details, whereas it is very common for a copyright infringing site to do everything it can to hide the real owner's identity - as in this case. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is not Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, "The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases." If lack of direct site ownership information in the WHOIS is evidence of copyright infringement then the WHOIS showing the site has existed for 5 years, in a competent jurisdiction where copyright is easily enforceable (USA and Canada), is even stronger evidence than it is legitimate. Care to provide additional evidence to support your suspicion? Kn0wItAll (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Knowitall, you are wrong on several different points. First of all, no, links don't go in the main body. If another article has them, please remove them. While exceptions are allowed, they should be extremely rare. Second, WP:UNDUE absolutely does apply to things other than POV, as is clear in the line, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." For example, in an article about a city, we cannot spend half of the article talking about crimes committed in that city, unless the city's primary reason for being famous is crimes. Third, and most importantly, copyright is a very serious matter. It's not one where we can rely on discretion, or on deduction, or on analysis like you're suggesting. We need proof that the owners of that site hold the copyright to those videos, or have otherwise been given permission to re-post them. In the absence of such proof (here, a clear statement on the website stating that the site is owned by the producer of the show would be sufficient), we cannot link to it for fear of being found guilty of contributory copyright. Please read WP:ELNEVER, which spells this out very clearly. In short, do not re-add these links until you get a clear consensus to do so and you establish that the site is not violating copyright. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, thanks for answering my question in the first point. I am in agreement with your third point, concerning copyright. I would appreciate it if you could clarify your second point as I am having trouble understanding how it is applicable here; I just can't see how your analogy (which does illustrate WP:UNDUE clearly) is related to an external link. Wouldn't this external link be far more similar to something like "Crime statistics for the city of Gotham can be found at XYZ" than half an article being about crime? Kn0wItAll (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if WP:UNDUE really applies in this specific case, since it was only 2 instances of the link; I was merely correcting your more general idea that UNDUE can't apply to anything other than points of view. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

herbcompanion.com - linkspam?

Herbcompanion.com is the web site of a magazine called Herb Companion. It publishes articles about herbs that can be found on Wikipedia as sources and external links for herb and herb-related articles. Each page has a very large subscription promotion at the bottom and the main page is basically a catalog of products for sale. Here are two examples:

The articles themselves appear to be well written and researched though many lack proper references (as expected in the popular media). If we set aside the reliability issues of using the site as a source, what is the sense among editors here of the suitability of linking to the site in external links sections? Jojalozzo 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing really prohibiting a single advertisement at the bottom of a page. You'll have to make a decision about whether it's a valuable contribution. Would you want this link, if it had no subscription form at the bottom of the page? If so, then I'd leave it. If not, then I'd pull it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

imsdb.com

The website imsdb.com is a repository of film scripts. The site offers a disclaimer which excerpts US law concerning fair use, but does not elaborate if, how, or why the website's content is acceptably fair use. As far as I can tell, imsdb.com is a big repository of copyvio, and we shouldn't link to it, as per WP:ELNEVER. I can think of few, if any, exceptions (e.g. public domain scripts, or certain Creative Commons categories) and such exceptions could qualify for Wikisource, anyway. (Perhaps I should note that I haven't attempted to look for such exceptions.) The example I found is in the James Sloyan article, which contained a link to a script for The Sting (until I removed the link). Even under the most generous (but still, I believe, incorrect) interpretation of fair use, such a link would have made more sense at The Sting article, not in an article about an actor who appeared in the film. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the risk of copyvios. I would recommend that you remove all such links as you happen to find them, unless someone has a convincing explanation of why it's okay for a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Witherspoon Institute‎‎

Article: Witherspoon Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ext link: http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf

This link passes WP:EL and should be included. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles is a significant and important publication of the WI and is covered in the article. We are fortunate that the copyright holder has made available a downloadable version. Having access to the download copy is an invaluable resource for our readers.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That article is about the Witherspoon Institute, not the publication "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles". The link to the main site for the Witherspoon Institute is perfectly sufficient. We don't link to every important page within official sites just because they are important. If the publication is notable enough for its own article, the link would be more than welcome there, otherwise leave it out. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's currently linked as ref #6 in the article. We don't normally duplicate refs in the external links section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted one instance of gratuitous self-linking by Phillipwserna (talk · contribs), but it seems there are many more, which I cannot go after myself. Thanks for any help finding & implementing the proper response to these edits. Wareh (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pardon the infraction, they have all been removed, so you need not hunt them as I have remedied the issue completely. After your helpful message, & your helpful lead to the policies and issues entailed...although to be honest, I am not sure if I am responding the right way here as I am still getting used to how things are working on here. phillipwserna (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed a few. The easiest way to find them is to look at your edit history over here:Special:Contributions/phillipwserna. As Wareh explained on your talk page,if you want to link to your website(s), that would be an acceptable thing to do in the external links section of a an article about Phillip W. Serna, should you meet the notability requirements. Kn0wItAll (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I will hunt them down and fix - again, really appreciate the heads up! phillipwserna (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Phillipwserna (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the best way to hunt for these is to use Special:LinkSearch. A search for *.phillipwserna.com reveals that nothing on Wikipedia links to that site. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to Lathe article

Hello! I am trying to add videolink to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathe The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9L9txEQXaA&feature=g-upl I think that this video helps people to understand correcting rest work basic principles. Video shows that roundness errors can be minimised. Can this link be posted here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stas SPb (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of linking to your video on Youtube, consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. However, I don't know enough about Lathes to state whether the video has valuable or useful content to be included in the article. Kn0wItAll (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Tanks for your comment, I'll upload this video to Wikimedia Commons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stas SPb (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in a discussion about external links in ABC notation at Talk:ABC notation#External links. However, no reply has been made since 30 August and there is no agreement on a course of action. I would therefore request wider community input on the validity of the external links. Michael Anon 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I see one person is defending the list of links as not being very many, all things considered. Were there really twenty-seven (27) links? We don't write this down (because some people understand "maximum" as "the number of external links the article needs"), but the usual maximum is ten, and six or eight is generally considered quite sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm an occasional consultant to C-SPAN's communications team, and earlier this year I posted a Reward Board offer to find volunteer editors willing to add links to interviews with notable figures in existing parameters of templates such as {{C-SPAN}} and {{CongLinks}}.

To make it as easy as possible, I pre-populated the templates ahead of time; to make it attractive, I offered a barnstar-style award for adding one link, and C-SPAN baseball caps for ten (U.S. only, alas). I found some takers, and we sent out a hat or two, but it never gained much traction. (And yes, I'm aware of the Reward Board's reputation for uselessness.) But I'd still like to see the project toi completion.

Because of my financial COI with regard to C-SPAN, I'd like to avoid making the edits directly. Off-wiki, I recently asked another editor what their advice might be, and this editor suggested I come here. Any thoughts? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading it right, you have the links but don't want to put them into specific articles because of the COI right? Well simply go to the articles' talk page, and describe your COI and why you think they'd make good ELs. Someone else should add them if they are useful. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. And I certainly follow your point, though I should have mentioned that I have around 100 or so of these links prepared, so it would be a wildly inefficient way to go about adding information that, by virtue of the templates' existence, has been pre-determined as useful. However, as recently as this summer, Jimbo has said he opposes paid advocates editing article space at all, hence the abundance of caution. This is my first time at EL/N, so I'm curious, has this sort of question come up before? Is there any prececedent for an inquiry like this? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo was talking about someone who is paid to edit Wikipedia, not someone with a mere conflict of interest. But the general adive for COI is to do what I said. I understand you have a lot of links, but one of the major rules of ELs is that they need to be considered in an article by article basis. Adding the same or similar thing en mass can be considered spamming and even if fully in good faith and reasonable links will often get quickly reverted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pakdef.info

This site www.pakdef.info was declared a non-reliable source at RSN some months ago. Now some days ago I observed User:DBigXray removing links to this site in articles where it was being used as a source and/or external link. I restored this site to relevant articles where it appeared as useful external link, citing the external link guideline. But I was reverted with reasoning that it is an unreliable source per the RSN discussion. I asked the closing admin (User:The ed17) of that RSN discussion and he said:"... there's nothing preventing it from being an external link should there be significantly unique content...". After which I restored it in some articles but was again reverted.

I would like this link to be reviewed for use as external link, where it provides useful information in relevant articles. --SMS Talk 20:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Why was it declared non-reliable in the first place? (I haven't gone through the RSN thread as I say this, so I'll plead ignorance). But I do know that something is clearly wrong when you have this website declared non-RS and it's external links removed from all articles, while the likes of Bharat Rakshak which defines itself as a "consortium" (which Pakdef.info is also, ironically) are cited all over the place on Wiki. I think there should be a broader discussion on this, and we should also look into whether Bharat Rakshak is legit. Mar4d (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN's opinion is pretty much irrelevant, because their job is to see whether it is reliable for supporting a particular statement, and external links do not support any statements. WP:ELMAYBE #4 specifically authorizes "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

NB that I'm not saying that this link is necessarily desirable, but the reason given for its removal is invalid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the site. It's clearly not a RS per Wikipedia's definitions as it lacks any kind of clear editorial control and/or content from recognised experts. The news pages contain copied and pasted stories from other sources, which are clear copyright violations and mean that the site fails criterion 1 in WP:ELNEVER. Moreover, while the site's content seems credible it's fairly sparse and patchy and doesn't appear to contain anything which isn't available from the relevant Wikipedia articles and websites which are clearly reliable sources - as a result the site also doesn't meet criteria 1 and 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. As such, this isn't a suitable external link. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ArchivesHub.co.uk

Hi, I'd like some clarification as to whether external links to archive catalogues at www.archiveshub.ac.uk would be permissible. I do not work for, maintain or represent this website. I do contribute to the website as a representative of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. The archive catalogues are free to access and use and I do believe that these links would significantly add to the quality of the corresponding articles.

I have found many instances throughout wiki where similar links are in use (The Women's Library (London), John Gielgud, Ted Hughes and Harold Pinter Archive to mention just a few). I would be happy to follow advice on the format of these links; placement, wording etc.

Any and all advice welcomed, many thanks.

(I have requested a username change and understand that I cannot make any edits with my current username.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taparchives (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I believe that you want to go say hello to the WP:GLAM folks. They're the "specialists" for archives, and it sounds like your interests would fit right in. There are several pages of advice, and then don't forget to say hello to the group by leaving a note at the bottom of WT:GLAM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Petran1988 (talk · contribs), a new user, has posted external links to a number of cruise ship articles which link to relevant pages on http://piraeus.forumgreek.com/ . Those links show videos, apparently taken by the user, and apparently also posted to the external site by him. They have been deleted, by bot in several cases where the links were to youtube videos, by another user, but principally by me. Petran has posted to my talk page to complain of this, User_talk:Kablammo#Deleted_Videos, and I have posted to his page to tell him of my deletions, and to advise him of this forum. User_talk:Petran1988#External_links Can someone look at these links and advice if they are appropriate? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well... it's kind of odd. My first thought was WP:ELNO#EL10, no discussion forums.
But these pages aren't actually discussions; they're just pictures (and sometimes video) that someone happens to have used web discussion forum software as a way to post, so that rule doesn't really apply.
I think what I'd like to know is why the user hasn't uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. Are they not actually his pictures (in which case, see WP:LINKVIO and we're done), does he not want to give up his rights to his pictures (fair enough), or did he just not know that he could do that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps he is unaware of commons. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Hey everyone,I apologise for not posting before but I had exams in my universtity..The lesson was microeconomics ..so imagine what kind of practice and reading I had to do :$ Despite I have this account for 3 years ,I have not contributed a lot in Wikipedia. As you may see I have plenty videos of ships. As I know Wikipedia does not accept Youtube links ,that's why i post them through my forum. Can you explain me how Wikimedia Commons work? Petran1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petran1988 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is similar to Wikipedia, except that is hosts images, videos and sound files so that they may be used in any language Wikipedia. If you are willing to release videos to commons, they must be made availabli with a licence that allows re-use (including commercial re-use), adaptation etc. You may insist that you are credited as the author with any such re-use. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Additionaly the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states "You should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent", and in this case, Petran1988 (talk · contribs) is an admin (PetranPireotis) on the forums being linked to [1]. This also is a conflict of interest --Hu12 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Petran, I hope that your exams went well. We do sometimes take YouTube links. The problem is that most brand-new people (like 99% of them) who post YouTube links are adding either copyright violations (this week's copy of a music video) or junk, so if a new user adds it, the bot automatically reverts it.
Commons is a video- and image-uploading site. Most of the pictures in Wikipedia articles are on Commons. Also, everything is supposed to be in a category, so people can go to commons:Category:Queen Mary 2 (ship, 2003) (for example) and find all the images people have donated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Steeler Nation Criticism

Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you.

This appears to be a question about whether an editorial piece is a reliable source for a ==Criticism== section, not whether it should be listed as an ==External link==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

YouTube Public Domain films

I recently came across an edit by User:Lazlocollins as seen HERE that added a link to youtube - was about to revert (as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID ) but after looking at the host page - it seems to be in the public domain and valuable. So I was going to leave it and move on till I noticed the editor has been added links of this nature to many many articles. So a few questions I think we need a few eyes to look at - Firstly are the videos in question in the public domain as claimed and are they an asset to our readers? Secondly is this user adding the links be they good or not simply to promote the host/parent page of Change Before Going Productions - could commons host this?. Would like a few more people to look at this situation and give an opinion on the matter. I see no malaise intent just a new editor that may or may not be doing a bit of good meaning spamming.Moxy (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See also this discussion raised at the Film Project. Lugnuts And the horse 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Lets keep/move this here as more experienced editors in this regard will get involved here then there.Moxy (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just highlighting the source of this discussion. Lugnuts And the horse 18:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I do hope the links (films) are ok. Just not sure so think its best we get more eyes on it. I could see many editors just mass reverting because of were the links lead to - over there content and PD status. Lets get a broad community consensus about them.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The page is a wall of text - best to start fresh with no text wall.Moxy (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
By creating a new wall of text elsewhere? I somewhat fail to see what that would achieve.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont really care were we talk about it - just best to get more involved. But walls of text drive people away.Moxy (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean for this to cause a big problem. Was only trying to be helpful. As I stated on the other board, my goal is to increase the odds that these films will be watched. That is my desire. I thought IMDB, Archive, and YouTube as the cleanest, most consistent way to give people the best options since we all have different preferences. When I add YouTube, I've been pulling from Change Before Going Productions as they've proven reliable to me and were a wealth of resources for my doctorate dissertation on early cinema. I search Archive.org as well, but not all films have entries. LazloCollins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that adding links to Youtube is ok under certain circumstances but they should be by exception and not as a general rule. One example are videos uploaded that are clearly and obvious works of the US government or videos uploaded as part of the Fedflix project. Due to file size limits (100MB) for Wikipedia and commons, it is sometimes needed to upload a video or large file to Youtube in order for it to be used here. Generally speaking though you are correct, Youtube should be avoided whenever possible. Kumioko (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If these are in the pblic domain, is there any reason not to move them to Wikimedia Commons? I realize someone would have to actually do it, but is there any reason not to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons (still) has size and format restrictions on videos afaik.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

www.made-pcb-pcba.com

This website has been inserted multiple times into Printed circuit board, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The editing IP addresses change and there is also a blocked SPA Bjct2000 (talk · contribs) involved. Perhaps this EL should be blacklisted? HumphreyW (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And so it continues: [10], [11]. HumphreyW (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

link is now blocked--Hu12 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was advised I should ask if posting these particular links were appropriate in Talk:Real-life_superhero#RLSH_Wikia:

If so, they would be posted in Real-life superhero. Thanks for any advice about this situation! --Kainee (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion: maybe the first, not the second. I'm just not sure that the reader is going to get all that much information out of even the first one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

G'day everyone,

There are several articles that contains citations which link to www.balkanpeace.org, the website of a small NGO in Toronto, Canada. I first raised these links at RSN because there were anonymous op-ed's linked, but this has now been dealt with per [12], and the WP:SPS links have been deleted. However, the issue of citations linking to pages at the website that reproduce articles from news services like Bloomberg, CNN, newspapers etc is the issue I would like to get some guidance on here. Up until last week when I started tagging such links with the copyvio link template, there was no mention on the website regarding copyrighted material. Now, (coincidentally) it has a disclaimer at the bottom of the webpage which reads "This web site, intended for research purposes, contains copyright material included "for fair use only"!" Does this mean that the website is no longer infringing copyright by reproducing news articles in full, or is it still an issue for WP? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:ELNEVER is what you're driving at. I'm not sure if or how their reproductions fall under fair use. If they credit the other news sources then I would suggest directly citing those. (It doesn't look like they link to the originals, but Googling the headline should find it - if it can't be found then it may not be WP:RS in any case.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair use requires something more than saying it's "for research purposes". They have to actually be commenting on the copied material. I believe that it is still a copyvio and that the links should be removed. BTW, if the citations already have a proper citation written (author, date, title, etc.) then all you have to do to make it legal is just remove the URL to the copyvio website. Newspapers are valid reliable sources even if there's no link to the story online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Bypassing the CPB and linking to the original source may avoid the immediate problem of WP:ELNEVER, but there is a broader problem; balkanpeace has a rather firm editorial line on certain Balkan issues which is far from mainstream, and I'm concerned that the third-party content they copy may be selected to fit this line. Which poses an NPOV problem for any of our article content which is influenced by the CPB. In which case it would be better to update our wording to reflect what other sources say, or remove it altogether.
Let me give a slightly different example; once upon a time there were several editors updating many articles using geographical data from a temptingly large, free online database, which I'll call X. Unfortunately, much of that database was wrong, or easy to use in the wrong way (because of geographical uncertainties rather than bias) so the community decided that source X should not be used. One editor was warned that the content they added to thousands of articles based on X was probably wrong, so what did they do? They went back through the articles and removed all the citations of X, but the actual content they'd based on X was left intact. They felt they'd done good; the bad links had been removed; but in reality the bad content was still online and now even harder to pinpoint. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll delete the urls at the very least. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The discussion above does not provide a single proof of copyright violation. When talking about bias, an amateur's point of view is no more than a bias if not supported by a valid scholar reference. --Juraj Budak (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Above it says "Fair use requires something more than saying it's "for research purposes". They have to actually be commenting on the copied material. I believe that it is still a copyvio and that the links should be removed." That is the basis on which I removed the url from the link, and I believe WP:ELNEVER applies. However, I will submit this to the copyright violation team for a final word. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Management Lucknow

Is it recommended to add the following links at the external links section at IIM Lucknow page?

These are official pages of the institute, but the pages are updated by students belonging to the Media and Communication Cell of the institute. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:ELOFFICIAL recommends including very few official links. Wikipedia is not a complete source for every single link associated with a school. Give the main link, and let the students/marketing department/whoever is in charge of the main link add all the social networking and other links to their website, not to ours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

24 Game

I recently removed two external links on 24 Game. Both links ([13] and [14]) point to Rosetta Code, an open wiki. Per WP:ELNO #12, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." So, the question is, what is Rosetta Code? Well, the answer, as far as I can tell, is a site so non-notable that I've prodded it. I can't find reliable sources that discuss it at all, much less raise to the significantly higher bar of having a substantial history and substantial number of editors. My opinion is that it's just obvious, on the face of it, that these links do not belong in the article; however, User:Paddy3118 keeps re-adding them, based on...well, I don't actually know based on what. I'll notify xyr and see if xe responds here. Meanwhile, of course, I'd like outside opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rosetta Code does seem to be reasonably active and it doesn't have the usual spam problem, so I don't think it's all that bad. I think the ELs are inappropriate but it's not something I'd lose sleep over in this case. 24 game would really benefit from more sources though. I share your concerns about notability of Rosetta Code. bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Rosetta Code does try and eliminate spam and not only links to good content, it is in turn linked to from good sites such as OEIS. Rosetta Code has contributions from several lead developers and maintainers of programming languages such as Perl 6, and TCL.
It seems that user Qwyrxian is still trying to support an initial blanket removal of all links from a page made without due care and attention. --Paddy (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

AP.Google

I'm finding a LOT of these : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fap.google.com are seeming dead links, although I'm trying to see if Wayback has copies of the actual articles.

It seems that ap.google.com links are NOT stable.

I would not suggest using them as a long-term WP:EL, and would appreciate some assistance in finding Wayback or other versions of them.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! On the ReachOut Healthcare America I had posted a link to a law firm's website about a case involving the ReachOut company. Moriarty Leyendecker is suing ReachOut over a matter discussed in the article body (the "In October 2011 a Camp Verde, Arizona boy treated by a dentist affiliated with ReachOut complained of pain.[...]") - This is not a 100 year old company that is just facing a minor lawsuit relative to its history; a lot of the press about ReachOut, which started in 2011, has to do with disputes over its Medicaid system. So I believed it was necessary to link to the law firm page. What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The law firm's website is going to be a major WP:NPOV fail. Link to press coverage of the matter, but not the website. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to a BBC History article hosted in an academic site

Hi, I'd like to get your opinion about the inclusion of a link to an article from BBC History.

The article is this one and is hosted in the web site of the Department of Geography at Royal Holloway, University of London. It's suggested as reading for a field trip in Spain, as you can see here. It can be accessed from said page through the section Spain: contemporary geopolitics (one of the blue tabs at the bottom of the page). Moreover, the author of the article, Klaus Dodds, is one a reader in political geography at said Royal Holloway. As such a reference is used in the article Political development in modern Gibraltar, I've included the link (considering that Dodds, the author of the text, has possibly the right to include his work in the web page of the university he works for), but it has been removed on the claims of being a copyvio. Is it sensible? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Published in BBC History in 2004, the article hosted on those servers appears a clear violation of copyright from the BBC magazine. Unless we have a clear direction that the author has waived copyright we should not be linking to a copyright violation. Speculation that the author has the right to include that article on a webserver is not a substitute for verifying the copyright status. Something that a veteran editor like you should know. Note I would be delighted to include a weblink, since it would become obvious to everyone that you're adding fact tags disruptively in the clear knowledge that the afore mentioned article supports the statements made explicitly. You removed material from the article claiming Dodds did not support the statement made in the article, when it did verbatim. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I was asked to give my opinion. In terms of the actual link, that's a tough one. My general assumption with such course materials hosted on educational websites is that they are probably relying on fair use, but when the author is engaged by the hosting university that does lend a bit more credibility to the idea that it is hosted with his permission. It would be helpful, though, if he were directly involved in the area that hosted it. Of course, the link is not necessary to cite the publication. It's reliable without it. If the link is essential, I would be inclined myself to write Dodds and ask if it is hosted with his permission. If he says it is, that communication can easily be stored in OTRS for future reference. Alternatively, it's fine to use the "quote" parameter to precisely duplicate a small amount of text if it helps clarify the content in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks by your involvement. Of course I know that the link it's not necessary, but it would make it easier for anybody wishing to verify its contents to be able to read it. I do think that this is a clear case of fair use, but I don't understand your statement about asking Dodds "if it is hosted with his permission".
Professor Klaus Dodds is a Professor of Geopolitics in the Department of Geography at the Royal Holloway University of London. He's written an article for BBC History. His department organizes field trips. The one in the first year is to Andalucía. Klaus Dodds is one of the teachers involved in this field trip (see 'Projects' in the aforementioned link) and provides his own article as supporting material (see 'Spain: contemporary geopolitics'). It's sensible to think that BBC History has the exclusive copyright of Dodds work, but also that Dodds have a right to host a copy of his work. There's something I agree with you. It's really tough :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Technically, this isn't an WP:EL question at all, but that's okay. People tend to shoot first and ask questions later where WP:LINKVIO is concerned. Links are not required for a reliable source. I would therefore remove it if there were any question at all. The university professor might have a fair-use case, but that doesn't mean that his/her rationale applies to our link to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hir WhatamIdoing. Sorry for shooting first but I don't think anybody is able to know all the wikipedia policies :-)
If you go to the policy you mention, it clearly says: if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Dodds is actually the author of the work, so it's difficult to think that our policies prevent us to provide a link to Dodds work in the academic institution Dodds belongs to. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Macroevolution.net

Cross-linked from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Macroevolution.net (diff)

Over several years, Koolokamba (talk · contribs) has added roughly 20 external links to his own website (acknowledged). To what extent should these links be treated as self-promotion, and to what extent should the existing links be removed? Novangelis (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like self promotion of "Creation science" - should be removed as per WP:ADV and WP:ELPOV - let alone Wikipedia:Fringe theories.Moxy (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You're foolish to remove those links. I'm a biologist with a Ph.D. in genetics. I'm not religious and never go to church. So how can I be a creationist? The external links I've inserted over the years, were virtually all to such innocuous topics on my website as the stages of mitosis or the biographies of famous biologists, and have never raised any objections by anyone. In fact, the genetic information I linked to on my site was invariably more accurate than what appears on Wikipedia. The biographical information, too, usually supplements and fills out the information on Wikipedia. Of course, by removing these links you will only be harming Wikipedia users, not me, by dooming them to the often inaccurate information provided on the pages in question. These links gained me next to nothing (over that last month they brought only 792 visitors to my site out of a total of 218,000). My motive for putting them in was to provide Wikipedia users with accurate information. Also, the vast, vast majority of my editings on Wikipedia (which I'm sure must run into the thousands by now) have been in the nature of grammar, spelling, typos, etc. It's only when I recently linked to a page on my website that offers an alternative theory of evolution that eyebrows were raised. I can see how that action could be construed as self-promoting. However, these days anyone who writes a book will likely have to do some self-promoting. I think I do far, far less of that than most authors, even academic ones. Moreover, I was disgusted by the highly biased account that Wikipedia gives of the evolutionary process and evolutionary theory. It's as if a particular faction within the academic community has taken over there. But it's really no skin off my nose if you want to remove those links without even evaluating the material that they link to. As I say, they generate only a minuscule amount of traffic for my site. But after being treated in this way, I certainly will do no editing in the future -- I can now only construe such activities a large waste of my time. Koolokamba (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, its your website. Multiple mentions of how your actively tracking visitor hits from Wikipedia and statements like "...anyone who writes a book will likely have to do some self-promoting. I think I do far, far less ..." is in direct conflict with WP:NOTADVERT. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site
Additionaly, I don't think this link meets the specific requirements of our External Links or Reliable Sources guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Your rule-book thumping has just lost Wikipedia a highly trained, expert editor. I only checked the Wikipedia traffic to my site because this issue came up. It amounts to .27% or my total traffic, so if it's self-promotion it's piddling promotion indeed, which means you're cutting off your visitor's noses to spite my face. In working on Wikipedia, I was merely trying to improve what I have always considered to be a very shoddy, error-riddled source of information. I know beyond doubt that your genetics and biology pages are littered with massive numbers of mistakes. With the links I inserted, I at least gave your visitors a better chance of obtaining accurate information. What a terrible crime! Reliable sources guidelines? Ha! I'd be ashamed to have a similar level of quality on my site. But that's the sort of thing you always get when small-minded people rise to a position of power. It becomes a bureaucracy and the spiders sit in the shadows waiting to pounce. Anyway, I've had more than enough undeserved abuse at your hands. I will contribute no more. And don't bother to respond to me. I won't be here. Koolokamba (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are unhappy with your experience here. If you think about what a spam target Wikipedia is, I'm sure you'll understand why people get nervous over anyone adding their own website, no matter how reasonable it might be.
I agree that there are serious problems with many pages. Especially with the hard sciences, it is ultimately our goal to have everything supported by really top-quality sources, like review articles and major university-level textbooks. We have made some progress towards that goal in some areas, such as mathematics, physics, and medicine, but it's complicated and never-ending. The last time I checked, fully a quarter of our medicine-related articles were tagged as needing some work—and that's not counting the ones whose problems aren't tagged, and notice that this is an area where sourcing is, on the whole, noticeably better than average. It's a good thing that WP:There is no deadline, because WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, not anything like a finished product. I hope that in the future you will consider setting an example for others of citing the highest-quality, scholarly secondary sources you can find. We need more people who are able to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The such bad thing

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: This is not real Drbug (an impersonator). Drbug live in Saint Petersburg, this IP from Krasnodar. Saint Johann (ru) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Update: I confirm, the message below is from an impersonator. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

I am http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Участник:Drbug - Vladimir V. Medeyko (anonymously to be free of the big shame). Why exists the such bad thing without measures to delete trouble? Trouble: [deleted link] - ABOUT WIKIPEDIA - О ВИКИПЕДИИ (cache of the community on Mail.Ru - celebrities). Please do not delete topic for the constructive discuss and respect my anonym status now. - 2.93.246.34 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

I'm sorry, you have a question about an article at Russian Wikipedia? If so, then you need to work with people there. This is English Wikipedia, and we have nothing to do with what happens over there. --Jayron32 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This have relation to the reputation of all Wikipedias. If cache is not work now (webcitation) - see original: [deleted link] (the great damages for Wikipedia and even for other projects of Jimbo and partners). If somebody thinks that this text for very wide public is good (mistake):

"If an article contains suggestions regarding dangerous, illegal or unethical activities, remember that anyone can post this information on Wikipedia. The authors may not be qualified to provide you with complete information or to inform you about adequate safety precautions and other measures to prevent injury, or other damage to your person, property or reputation. If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, marital or risk management) please seek a professional licensed or knowledgeable in that area".

To understand this situation now - easy. Russian text there else "better" (shame can not be good). Do not need to close - when on agenda all projects of Jimbo. Russian partner wants of respecting - also (any partner wants).- 2.93.246.34 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

We can't help you with problems on a different website. You may as well be talking to a wall. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing and specific variety of broken English mean this is our Russian Beatles copyright violator again, again, again. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bo Gabriel, comte de Montgomery

Newly created article (not sure if the subject is notable, but that's another issue). It has 11 external links, 10 to Google books, 1 to Google patents. This seems to be the result of a dispute over a long list of publications, but am I right in thinking these are inappropriate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is theatrehistory.com an appropriate external link?

I recently deleted a link to theatrehistory.com in Theatre because relevant pages at the target website are in many cases direct copies of published works. Shortly thereafter, the link was reinserted by the original editor with no reason stated, and then deleted again by a third editor for reason WP:ELNO. I poked around and discovered that several other wp articles link to theatrehistory.com. It occurred to me that despite the blatant copying, it's possible that said works are not copyrighted. Is this a suitable external link for articles? I'm not a copyright expert, nor am I always the best judge of what is a suitable external link, and would greatly appreciate an expert's opinion on this. Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single original word on that website. Much of the content is lifted from old issues of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other content seems to be duplicates of what is available elsewhere on the Internet (i.e. it is copied). So we shouldn't be linking at all on the basis of linking to copyright violating works (WP:ELNEVER). Furthermore the website seems to be set up as an Amazon referral site - either through the bookstore links at the top, or the individial links present at the top of some articles. The site has no place on Wikipedia and every link should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There are 131 links to theatrehistory.com. Can these be eradicated in an automated way or must they be manually removed? Also, should this url appear in some sort of a blacklist to prevent creation of new links to it? Lambtron (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You start at the top, I'll start at the bottom and we meet in the middle. As for blacklist, consider listing it at WP:RSPAM. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The top half is done, but the process for making a WP:RSPAM entry isn't clear to me; is that something you can do? Lambtron (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Folks, you need a little more of a consensus to do a mass deletion than this scant discussion. I've rollback many of these, and I'll do others as I find them until you have a legitimate consensus discussion about this. At this moment, the ground for deletion are hardly convincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
And just to be clear, what you're deleting are not external links, they're citations, about which WP:ELNO does not apply, so the proper place for a discussion to take place is WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mentioned WP:ELNO because all of my edit summaries clearly stated the reason as WP:ELNEVER, and contributory copyright infringement problem applies to all links, whether external or citation. Even so, many of my edits deleted only external links, so I hope you haven't reverted those too. Please don't revert any more related edits until you have taken the time to visit and evaluate the website; you might be surprised at what you find there. As for whether theatrehistory.com is a suitable source, I will start a thread at WP:RSN as you suggested. Lambtron (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the linked-to texts were well older than 100 years. Removing all links to a website regardless of merits or context (surely citations of copyright-protected material are allowed?) seems unhelpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, that begs this question: Why should an article have an external link to a tertiary source that is merely a copy of a book when it could link directly to the primary source? Especially when that tertiary source contains annoying inline and pop-up advertising that violates WP:ELNO and quite possibly WP:SPAM? Lambtron (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting these references, especially since you have not replaced these in-line references and links with other reliable sources. I think that TheatreHistory.com is a useful site. I have linked to some articles in the British Theatre section of the site and the linked sections there. I am not aware of any copyvios, although it contains some quotations from public domain materials that appear to be properly attributed. This part of the site contains a collection of short articles about theatre works, together with references to lots of research links, as well as presenting the full searchable text to many public domain plays. For articles about theatre and theatre works, it seems to be very useful. Can you elaborate please? Note that we prefer secondary sources to primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I did replace the inline refs with other reliable sources in several places but all were reverted without comment. Lambtron (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
A quick search on google reveals that TheatreHistory.com is recommended by other theatre sites, such as Jewish-Theatre.com, and it is recommended in this Theatre History Resource Guide. This teacher site calls it a "smorgasboard of information". This teacher site says: "This is a comprehensive academically-oriented site that is almost an e-course. It provides insight into issue of theatre history as well as an index of topics and other features.". -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: the same matter has been raised by Lambtron at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#theatrehistory.com. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This thread is concerned with EL to the website, whereas another thread is focused on its use in citations. I realize that pre-1923 works have no copyright issues; my concerns are about content by unnamed authors. Are these also copies of original works, and if so, are those original works copyrighted, and by whom? Also, if we don't even know who the author is, or their academic qualifications or sources, why is it worthy of EL?

Aside from the website's argumentum ad populum value, what remains is a compendium of theatre info that is plastered with advertising. In particular, I find the pop-up ads for Netflix, etc. quite annoying when arriving at the site or following its internal links. If some part of this site is deemed a useful EL because of its content, why not copy that content to the article instead of linking to the spammy website? Lambtron (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

More eyes need on Library.nu

Various links are regularly added there as new alternatives to that defunct web site; latest example [15]. The problem is they fail WP:ELNEVER and possibly WP:SPAM as well. Such "alternatives" should only be mentioned if a reliable source does that. I should add that some of the previous accounts adding such info were block-evading sockpuppets of an indef-blocked user, e.g. Special:Contributions/JohnSmith1984. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the links added by Dlimage (talk · contribs) acceptable? They seem like self-promotion to me, and I can't see how they add to the understanding of the topic in each case. --Jameboy (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

First it's blatent WP:LINKSPAMMING, second the user's name obviously is an abreviated account representing David Lane Images. I've reverted and warned. They add nothing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for links. Its just self promotion, most likely by David Lane himself. --Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

TV.com is an entertainment-related web service whose textual content is generated by users and only by users. It fails Wikipedia's external links policy as it is comprised solely of user-submitted reviews and discussions and offers incentives for the incorporation of self-published original research which in many cases proves questionable. Where it explains what it is, the site states:

"Registration allows you to write reviews, participate in our lively discussions, and contribute to show, episode and person guides! ...After you register, you will start getting points. Pretty much everything gives you points - even just visiting the site! - but the biggest totals come from adding episode summaries, writing reviews, posting to forums, blogging, filling out your profile and adding friends. As you get more and more points you will reach higher and higher levels. There are over 100 levels to reach, and the higher the level the more awesome bragging rights you have. Get enough points and you might even become the Editor of a show." -- tv.com/aboutus.html

Furthermore, TV.com's coverage of many television programs appears to be incomplete and/or incorrect. The site has no editorial staff and thereby, no established fact checking process. For the previously stated reasons, TV.com is not a reliable source for television-related information of any kind. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository for links, images, or media files.

Please note that these templates were previously discussed for deletion at the "Templates for discussion" page, which is the inappropriate venue for discussing the deletion of external link templates, such as the TV.com templates, which format over 5,200 links. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, December 2, 2012, 21:50 UTC.

Great catch. I would definitely support its deletion. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion is not an inappropriate venue to discuss the future of a template, it's the correct venue. {{Tv.com}} was being discussed because it is now deprecated and redundant to the {{Tv.com show}} and {{Tv.com show}} which were not nominated for deletion. As indicated at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy", which is different to discussing the possible deletion of a template. It would be inappropriate for this noticeboard to decide that {{Tv.com}} should be deleted and any nomination would have to proceed to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't someone once suggested TV.com template deletion in the past and it was refused?--Sd-100 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TV.com does have a staff of writers ([16]) and given that it is owned by CBS Interactive, I would also assume they have some team of user-content checkers to at least review content added that may be scandlious. Yes, the bulk of the site is user contributed, but I would thus equate that to IMDB in terms of being an EL - rarely appropriate as a cited source (unless its coming from the staff), but certainly acceptable as an EL. Or to put it simply, you have to talk about removing IMDB links in the same breath you talk about removing TV.com, and I really doubt you will get any traction on removing IMDB. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Move to close this discussion - As I have indicated above,[17] this is not the appropriate venue for proposing deletion of a template. The appropriate venue is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion where there is already a discussion underway. Ultimately, the fate of {{Tv.com}} will be determined there, not here, as this noticeboard is "for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy", not for discussing the deletion of templates. The template does not breach policy and this noticeboard can not make a determination as to the future of the template, only the future use of tv.com as an external link, which is not the purpose of this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel and World66 replacement

The above domains are owned by Internet Brands, a bunch of proven spammers who sue their own volunteer contributors. The domains have been on XLinkBot for the past two years, and now that we have Wikivoyage, it's time to clean them out. I've replaced about 100 of these over the past week, but there are about 1300 more mainspace links. Links should be replaced with {{wikivoyage|page on Wikivoyage}} (nothing should show until Wikivoyage exits beta). MER-C 13:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Is Ancestry.com acceptable as an external link in the "Further reading" section of Richard Tylman? It is a user-generated site that requires paid enrolment, although some information is available free. Here are the specific links:

  • "Richard Tylman, III. Born 1546. Died 1584. His children's names". Ancestry Archive™ by Surname. 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Richard Tylman (1546 - 1584)". Source: Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538–1812, London, England. Ancestry.com. 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • "Parents: Richard Tylman and Ellen, with children". Family Members. Ancestry.com. 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • "William Tylman, VII (1562–1613/1614), with children". Browse Ancestry Archive™ by Surname. Ancestry Archive. 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • Other (March 29, 2003). "Richard Tylman IV (1569–1614)". Born to Nycholas Tylman III and Jane Benson. Browse Ancestry Archive™ by Surname. Retrieved October 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

TFD (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a different person from the previously deleted article. This Tylman lived in 1500s England, while that Tylman lives in 21st century Canada. TFD (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

guitargeek.com

I believe that Jetpack66's repeated additions of links to guitar rig diagrams[18] to this site are linkspam. Jetpack66 insists they are a credible source based on interviews.[19] Input by additional editors would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Links blacklisted at Meta --Hu12 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

An issue has arisen today regarding many links to pages at klassik-resampled.de that user Fahl5 has been adding. I've summarized the issue on my talk page, however I would like to: get input from those knowledgeable in such matters, and also to centralize any discussion that might arise here. Accordingly, I've notified those involved. Thanks for any assistance which can be provided. GFHandel ♬  00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not yet listened to his recordings, but I should point out that his project attracted a lot of commentary (mostly negative) at the well-known piano forum Piano Street. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No doubt quality should eventually be considered, however I'd like to concentrate on things like: self-promotion, self-publication, and lack of secondary sources supporting the efficacy of the links. GFHandel ♬  01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK lets discuss here the few reason you named in your "summarization".

1)Sorry, but your Alarmbells rang wrong: What the Links offer and promiose are audiofiles and not textual information. It is possible that you don't like my few introductional words. They are neither meant nor promised to be the substance of the linked contribution. It is more likely and obvious that your Alarmbells use those few cited Words just as wrong pretext for your Linkvandalisme, without any substancial reason at all, why the shared and CCC-Licensed Audiofiles should not be linked in WP.

2) Even if there are now not two but now three guys like you (wow did you have that much friends?) are eliminating arbitrarily Links in articles. The Problem is that none of them has yet named even one good reason for. All are just Pretending those Links are "Spam" or contradict "Wikirules" without the faintest proof for those false Pretentions.

3)You Pretend I would Promote my name or my Domain. If you know CCC-License a bit, than you should know that it is quite usual that creative common licensed creative Contents demand the naming of the author. Is this already promotion?? Definitly not! If it were so, than you consequently have to eliminate all Links to content with named Authors which makes nearly all Links everywhere in WP. You know that this would be absolutely nonsense! Yes my site has a domain. Otherwise one would not find it. If Links with URL would contradict to WP Rules, you would not at all be anymore able to have any Link in WP. If you just don't like it named outside the Linktext, than just eliminate the Domainname klassik-resampled. But you eliminated the whole Link! But keep reasonable: neither my personal Name nor my domain is nor has any product or commercial interest or anything alike to promote. It is just necessary to give the Information, who has done this recording and where one can find it. If this would contradicts ans WP-EL-Rule, than nearly every external Link would break this alleged WP-Rule to.

4) You demand I should upload my Content to Wikipedia. Why should I. What you think are external Links made for. Of course not only to be elimited. Yes the same recordings are also interesting for other Sites shareing open Knowledge as for instance the IMSLP. My Musicsite contains more than 1000 recordings making several Gigabites-of Data to be uploaded. Must I really upload everything twice ore more. Running my own Site, allows me to easily manage and improve all Content I am responsible for. The Time I have to spent for this would be more than doubled, if I really would follow your Idea and upload each correction or improvement for every Website seperatly which might be interested in. So please stay reasonable. The External Links are just the right way for me to share what I can contribute.

5) You cite criticisme on one pianoforum thinking you might judge quality by the Forumcontributions of e few posters there. Look at the statistics of my own site 30-40% of the recordings are already voted. Nearly 90% have best voting - only less than 2 % are voted not so good or bad. You think that the IMSLP, the LexM from the musicological Department of the Hamburg University, the MUGI from the Hochschule for Music Hamburg, The Joseph Haydn-Institute have not the musical Judgment comparable of some shitstorming Posters at pianostreet? If you look more precise, you can also find People there who think quite positive about recordings I have shared there.

6) You ask for secondary sources, study the Informationsection of my site. But for recordings just finished you should be able to wait meanwhile there is also alredy is some friendly reaction of my new Bachrecordings aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahl5 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Still you have not named one single reason, why all WP-Editors in so much Languageversions of WP and why the IMSLP and other online Dictionaries and Websites (LexM, MUGI, Joseph Haydn-Institute Cologne etc.) are in your opinion all wrong in approving and sharing my links. No this is just another unqualified pretext for your Linkvandalisme but no quality arguement.

As far as you are not able to argue more reasonable and proved, please stop your Linkvandalisme and let contributors help to make WP as rich as possible. best Fahl5 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I remind you that the most productive discussions on WP do not involve personal attacks (such as your "friends" comment above), and you should now read WP:AGF. I have no recollection of ever having worked or communicated with the other two editors who reverted your additions today. Even though I have issues with just about everything you just posted, the most telling is your interpretation of my comment "why don't you consider uploading it to somewhere like Wikimedia Commons" as "You demand I should upload my Content to Wikipedia".
I feel that I have acted in good faith today in trying to protect WP (and my actions are identical to other editors on this issue), and I've certainly made my feelings on this matter plain to all, both on this page and my user page. Accordingly, and because I don't wish to subject myself to the type of attack posted above, I will leave this issue for others to decide here. I will of course adhere to whatever consensus forms. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Fahl5's contributions one can see that he is involved in blatant self-promotion. His links add little or nothing to this project. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your website, please see WP:LINKSPAM and WP:COI. Jschnur (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass global spamming for klassik-resampled.de occuring;
Fahl5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Iorijapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
84.144.84.247 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
79.193.65.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.48.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
79.193.65.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.71.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
884.144.84.247 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.48.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.71.233 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.84.247 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
79.193.65.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.40.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.56.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.68.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.84.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.56.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Spammer(s) blocked--Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
More Steffen Fahl Related global spam;
91.38.59.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
91.38.61.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
91.38.81.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.36.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.132.181.182 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.69.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.85.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.47.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.71.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.47.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.144.28.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
91.38.107.165 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
This case is a Global example of extreme abuse, self promotion and Widespread exploitation of wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Amen to that.Jschnur (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of User:CaribDigita? I think that virtually of all of his or her recent contributions that merely add social networking sites to various articles are unnecessary and unwelcome. (In fact, I'd love to see those templates deleted entirely as they're more trouble than they're worth.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most of these links are unnecessary and indeed explicitly discouraged and am a little surprised that the community tolerates the templates for them. Kilopi (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
CaribDigita has been notified of this discussion as required

Hi there, thanks for the notification. I went through and cleaned up a bunch also.

  • Many had Facebook and Twitter URLs (or invariably one or the other) -- (example: see history of Time_(magazine) & France 24),
  • some were incorrect or broken (example: see history of Russia Today,
  • some were just URLs i.e. [See Joe Shmoe's page on Facebook] (example: see history of CNN International) and I converted these to the standardised templates.

To the comment of "as they're more trouble than they're worth." There's a bunch more templates that could probably be put up for deletion. See the whole list also at Category:Templates_for_linking_to_a_social_networking_site. I was mainly trying to clean these up this weekend. Between those three and finding the mobile site if there is one (which would be key for Wikipedia's mobile phone version which wouldn't use the main official link.) | CaribDigita (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Alpha History

The site of this company is being added[20] to a variety of articles. Here's the page describing it[21]. It seems to be a new site as it indicates that it isn't finished yet. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

SPA spammer. Site is quite low value - if you read the detail of the articles they fail the WP:ELNO FA test. This is someone pulling info from elsewhere on the Internet and books and republishing it without regard to copyright - yet claiming copyright himself. Wikipedia needs this sort of link as much as my pet fish needs a bicycle. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that the same user has been spamming lawgovpol.com which is owned by the same company as alphahistory.com --Biker Biker (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I have posted a blacklist request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I am the manager of Alpha History and have just become aware of this issue. The user "Serumy" is a student who made these edits under the impression that he was helping me to promote the site. He was not acting with my knowledge or endorsement. While I have no particular interest in adding links to Alpha History to Wikipedia, and vice versa, I would ask that you refrain from blacklisting at this time. Our site is a collaboration between several teachers who write all our content, other than documentary sources. We do not steal or copy material from other sites, as claimed by the user above. Thank you. BCDoone58 (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I am a contributing author to Alpha History. The user "Biker Biker" is utterly incorrect. We DO NOT just take information from elsewhere and republish it. We research using primary and secondary sources, and write articles that synthesise information so that it is digestible for students. In other words, we do what textbook authors have been doing for decades. AH claims copyright on articles or material written by its authors and nothing else; this should be apparent to anyone who bothers to look at the site. Decide on the issue of links as you will, but please don't insult or defame the people who contribute to our site. 119.12.246.113 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I looked and there is evidence that Wikipedia was even used as source information;
I'm sure if others looked deeper theres plenty to be found.--Hu12 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be obvious that that quote is from a user in our forums, not from one of the site authors. Our site authors collaborate regularly and one of the issues they have agreed on is not to rely on Wikipedia for anything other than cursory information, such as dates or spelling.BCDoone58 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Alpha History Pty Ltd, here are a few established Wikipedia policies you familiarize yourselves with;
Spamming is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates). Since this is limited to one account I declined blacklisting, however if another instance occurs, I have no objection to adding it. Understand that Persistent spammers have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Please acknowledge that this won't reoccur . --Hu12 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have spoken to the person who added the links initially and also emailed all our site authors. All have been advised not to add links to Wikipedia. I should reiterate that I have little interest in Wikipedia and no interest whatsoever in using it for promotion. If links to Alpha History are added to Wikipedia in the future, it will not have been done by anyone associated with the site. BCDoone58 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Chocolat (band)

An editor with more knowledge of this band than of our guidelines persists in re-adding a bunch of "official" links to the article, contrary to WP:ELNO--better yet, WP:ELOFFICIAL. Perhaps it would help if someone else confirmed this; I seem to have no weight in this particular dispute. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your EL cleanup was spot-on. ThemFromSpace 05:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Film Numud

Film Numud (http://film.numud.com) is a website which offers free-to-view documentary films on world countries and cultures. I (User:Faisal 1918) and User:Gogo Dodo hold different opinions whether the links to this website are acceptable, therefore we have agreed to settle the dispute here.

In my opinion links to Film Numud website are useful from articles on particular countries/regions in the same fashion as the links to Travel guides, Worldstatesmen entries, CIA World Factbook entries, National Atlases and many other websites with additional information on the subject are provided. It does not anyhow breach WP:EL as:

a)Due to its nature the content of Film Numud could not be reproduced in Wikipedia even if articles would become featured contents (there are full-lenght documentaries on the website and they present additional non-encyclopedia type of information on the topic for those who seek it).

b)Film Numud does not offer any user generated content and handpicks the films it offers and provides original synopsis (see its copyright section on the right of the main page).

c)Film Numud has a sound copyright policy and seeks to reproduce only the movies where copyright holders agree with this - in case of documentaries such possibility is there as many documentaries are made not for sale profits (again see the copyright section).

e)With exception of User:Gogo Dodo nobody objected to the Film Numud links and I only received supporting opinion at my talk page. Some links stayed well over a month before removed by User Gogo Dodo without anybody attempting to remove them inbetween. When User Gogo Dodo removed the links he did so indiscriminatively to all links I have added.

f)Film Numud is neutral in its content by providing films from left, right and other ends of political spectrum. Even where it concerns controversial political topics such as Palestine (for example) Film Numud fairly evenly provides films from various viewpoints.

g)Film Numud does not breach any other Wikipedia rules for links presented at WP:EL.

I suggest adding links only to the pages where a number of documentaries available is large (e.g. if there are only a few documentaries on Film Numud on the country a link from Wikipedia should not be provided but if there are many it should be provided).

Examples of links which were removed and could be readded if there is support:

Do you agree that Film Numud website is acceptable for linking from Wikipedia? Faisal 1918 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Had I seen the site before Gogo Dodo I would have removed links too. It says, for example, that "Only videos hosted at copyright-respecting websites (e.g. Youtube) are embedded." That's a laugh. Youtube, copyright respecting? I don't think so. You say the site doesn't breach any rules at WP:EL, yet to me it breaches most of them at WP:ELNO and through the uncertain copyright status of each video it certainly breaches WP:ELNEVER. Also, as a single purpose author whose only real contributions have been the repeated addition of this site, I have to question your motives. Are you connected to it in some way, and if so have you read WP:COI? Bottom line, Gogo Dodo is right and the site does not belong on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for an opinion. To clarify, I don't feel I have a conflict of interest on the issue, I have previously edited Wikipedia without a user account but this does not allow edit semiprotected articles e.g. Israel so I had to register. I would prefer therefore if the issue would be considered because what would be established here would apply also to other users who would want to add similar links. Regarding copyright, Youtube indeed regularly removes items breaching copyright and bans the accounts of those who breach copyright (unlike e.g. The Pirate Bay and similar sites). Faisal 1918 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding YouTube and copyright -- they do a horrible job at it. It's ridiculous how many violations are up there. They do just barely enough to pretend they respect copyright while ignoring reports of violations unless they specifically come from the owners... which means some owners find the violations and complain, those violations are removed, and then some other person posts the exact same content up under a different name and YouTube leaves it there until there's yet another complaint, which never ends. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This site clearly does not meet our standards for external links in any way and should not be used, especially with the copyvios. Sorry. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael A. Hoffman II

In Michael A. Hoffman II, is it appropriate to link to his official website ( http://www.revisionisthistory.org/ ) as well as one of the many essays on that website: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/essay23.html ? I'm OK with the official website, but I'm not sure what makes the second more appropriate for inclusion than any of the others that someone could find. Thanks! Location (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to double up on links. If the second can be found on the first, then linking to the first is all that is needed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Location (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

PD Verlag Sheet Music

A newly registered account Zengraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding external links to a large number of articlea on classical composers. These lead to the external site on google. On trying to access files, the user is asked to log into their google account. I have not been able access any files and only see lots of advertisements. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Even without that, it's a small archive that's pretty irrelevant with IMSLP existing (not to mention ChoralWiki and a couple others). I've already removed all the links, and there seem to be none left for now (also, the user name is Zengraft, which I've fixed in the previous post). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I did manage to access the PDF files in the end. The version of the Ravel LH piano concerto was a strange Russian edition, so no improvement on IMSLP. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Facebook ad nauseam

Linkspam or not linkspam?

71.139.142.147 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Those links are not linkspam in the sense that they were added en-masse with the intent of driving views, but that isn't to say that they are not inappropriate. The google+ link in particular appears to be unwarranted, the Facebook ones also appear dubious. On the whole I think your edit was justified although the edit summary was incorrect. It is probably the incorrect summary that got your edit reverted without explanation. ThemFromSpace 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. That same user has reverted other similar edits, e..g., [24], [25], [26]. I think WP:OWN is what got the edit reverted. Doesn't WP:ELOFFICIAL say to minimize the number of links for the subject of an article? 70.134.227.167 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The links definitely are excessive, only the official link is needed as nearly the others can be reached from that main website. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I also trimmed the same set of links from the company's other TV and radio station articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com

Following the recent deletion of the Tv.com template, I propose that links to Tv.com should be prohibited strongly discouraged. While owned by CBS Interactive, Tv.com is mostly user generated, failing WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Tv.com resembles a site like Wikipedia and is certainly not encyclopedic.

With regards to IMDB, there is a clear distinction, as entertainment industry professionals are known to oversee content there. From an interview with IMDB's founder:

I propose that all Tv.com links -- including Tv.com season/series/episode templates -- should be removed strongly discouraged from Wikipedia and support the deprecation of the Tv.com templates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Actually, tv.com seems to be exactly what WP:LINKSTOAVOID clause 12 is talking about. In my personal experience (I have multiple television GAs and so forth) it is actually reasonably accurate and useful. I'm sure there's probably bad content there, just like here, but I have yet to see anything so egregiously wrong in any popular television article that would justify such an action. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jclemens (except for the bit about GAs - I don't have any), who beat me to the point. WP:LINKSTOAVOID clause 12 provides an exception for sites "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". As I've indicated at the most recent TfD, tv.com related templates are transcluded 10,127 times so the Wikipedia community at large seems to support use of tv.com as an external link. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Repeating my comment from elsewhere: I am getting pretty disgusted by the constant attacks on IMDB.com as a valid source for media historical content. TV.com, at least in the realm of television is the best suitable fallback. Personally, I find IMDB and TV.com both to be as accurate as wikipedia itself, which I actually think is pretty good. What we have effectively done is eliminate the best, certainly the most complete sources of our media history. And logically, without sources, there is a faction of wikipedia (expletive deleted)s who then use the absence of an acceptable source to campaign to delete the articles. It has happened repeatedly, I fought that war during the BLP mass deletions. It made me feel like I was building sandcastles against a strong tide. Sure they can't attack the top echelon of TV, film or music stars with a wide variety of sources, but the historical articles about bit players even in major productions frequently rely on an IMDB or TV.com sources to document their credits. Before you blank out these sources, provide an acceptable alternative, lest we have a lot of perfectly valid content on wikipedia washed away. We have slippery slopes around here. Eliminating the template is just a step before the source is eliminated, followed by the articles reliant on the source. Watch out. Trackinfo (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the above quote: You are concerning yourself with current credits for yet to be made films. That kind of sourcing could fall under WP:CRYSTAL anyhow. My reference is to historical information. That information, like wikipedia information itself, passes through thousands of eyeballs over the course of years. Under those circumstances, both databases are weeded constantly by people in the know. Bad information can temporarily appear, but it doesn't survive. It is for that reason, those user generated databases are actually highly accurate. There are simply too many interested parties to let it be otherwise. Trackinfo (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The language in the proposal is much too strict. We rarely ban ELs outright, unless they are malicious or used in persistent spamming campaigns. That being said, I do agree with the proposer that the majority of TV.com links fail WP:EL, point 12 and most importantly, point 1. Seldom do they add anything special to our articles that couldn't be directly written in. A good rule of thumb is, when it comes to ELNO point 1, if a website's content falls entirely within our scope, then it is probably not a good site to link to externally. So TV.com links should be discouraged and removed when they are determinded, on a case-by-case basis, to fail WP:EL. In this way TV.com links should be treated the same as Facebook and Twitter links. Their usefulness is oftentimes dubious, but that does not mean they are helpful from time to time. Removing them all without a second look is throwing the baby out with the bath water. ThemFromSpace 07:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support the the strong discouragement of the use TV.com particularly there should be no "official" templates - if you are looking at EL #12, to use TV.com; a good share of the content there is just lifted from Wikipedia and hence it is essentially a "wikipedia mirror" which #12 clearly also says to avoid. the "large use" stems in part from the apparent "officially sanctioned" condition of having (multiple) templates. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, I've found exactly the opposite. All too often, I've had to revert the addition of episode summaries that have been directly lifted from tv.com. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Noting that all sites with user-generated content at all may have a problem on individual articles as external links, and it may not be suitable for all articles, this proposal seems to assert that if a site is found to be unsuitable for one article that therefore it must be banned for all articles. The exact same logic could be applied to many RS sites used as cited sources within articles - that is, if a site published "wrong material" on one topic, the same logic would bar it from use as a source on all topics. I did not think Wikipedia worked in quite that manner. Let individual consensus be reached where any issues arise, but let us not ban it ab initio unless we have substantial cause to do so. Collect (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This approach accomplish's very little even though it fails #2 and #12. By withdrawing the template nominations almost assures that mass amounts of these unchecked Self-published, Origional Research and Questionable links will remain everywhere on wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've yet to see a strong argument in how much different tv.com is from IMDB, the latter which is allowed as external links all the time even with the recognizition as a SPS with user generated content. Additionally, there are articles published by editors at tv.com (clearly distinguished from user-generated content), that a complete tv.com ELNO would make difficult to include. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
at IMDB the user generated content is easy to identify as the non-credits portion (the "trivia" and "goofs" garbage). at TV.com there is no indication or differentiation of what may have had some time of oversight and editorial control and what stuff is just random crap posted by anyone who may know or may not know or may have specific malicious or promotional intent. when we dont know what we are sending our users to, we shouldnt be sending them there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Need editors to use quality sources and external links that are reliable and have credibility by way of editorial control (Its an open wiki that publishes original research). The fact this has come up indicates to me that a portion of our editors see the site as detrimental or at the least not an asset to our reader's (If this is so what do our readers think?) - We should not encourage low quality links and references. We are here to build a credible encyclopedia not promote websites that are questionable. If "good and reliable" published sources do not include the information that is available at tv.com, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include.Moxy (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment External links do not need to comply with the same reliable source critira as inline source, external links represents external sites with information ont eh subject. at the end of the day the reader decideds i they trust the source of informaiton personal i dnt trust tv.com but i dnt think thata reason not to include itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the fact that reliable source criteria and external links are not the same. Thus if it does not comply with the less strict criteria then its not good for both. I mentioned quality sources because the first "vote" indicates to me some are actually using this site for sources in GA level articles.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not staying that tv.com is a reliable source. I'm saying it compares favorably to reliable sources, and I can often browse tv.com episode listings for tidbits, and then I search with Google for those tidbits to appear in reliable sources and thus incorporate them on the basis of those RS mentions, which is really backwards from WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... but whatever. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Good points - still very surprised to see so much support for such a bad site. I would guess that those that work on TV articles dont have much to work with - so thus the support for this Wiki. Its to bad that there's not more books published on this topic. Our music articles have the same problem - that is low quality refs being used because of the NEWS type factor. Just imagine if our history articles used sources like Alternate History Wiki - a wiki that publishes OR. Moxy (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont know how "good" the points are. any editor can use the content at tv.com in the very same manner whether or not there is an "official" template linking or external link from the wikipedia article to the tv.com page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support discouraging the use, but no need to "ban" them. these are frequently low quality links, and should be avoided unless they are providing higher quality information. especially when you consider that the content is user generated. of course, we don't specifically prohibit linking to other user generated sites, just using those sites as sources is suspect. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have changed the wording of the proposal to reflect comments here. I support strongly discouraging the use of TV.com, and would support deleting the TV.com templates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some fan site. We have to stop linking to poor quality sites. TV.com absolutely should not be used as a source per WP:RS rules (though why that's being discussed here is beyond me) and it should be strongly discouraged as an external link. The templates need to go, as their existence strongly encourage adding the links instead of discouraging. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
We're not discussing tv.com as a reliable source so WP:RS doesn't apply, we're discussing it as an external link, which is why we're discussing it here at the external links noticeboard. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the outcome of the 2-week-old TfD discussion seems dependent on the outcome of this discussion. There's clearly no consensus here to prohibit use of tv.com as an external link, although there is some support for discouraging its use. At the TfD, the votes are split 8:4 in favour of deleting the templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems there is some confusion here. This is WP:ELN, which is used for discussing external links. Wikipedia uses external links to provide readers with additional information that cannot otherwise be included in the encyclopedia. This is not WP:RSN, which is where reliable sources are discussed. Reliable sources are used to validate that our content is accurate and correct. External links are used to provide the reader with additional information. The two things are distinctly different from one another. It might be a good idea to revisit the {{nutshell}}s for both WP:EL and WP:RS so that people don't get confused between the two as this seems to be a problem. Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.118 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty much concur with other opposers comments above. In addition, the idea of discouraging them is also very silly, because anyone who knows about cross-database usage understands that when links to missing gaps are linked to from other sources, they are much sooner filled than otherwise, which is a much more positive outcome than them not being so. Hence in the these repeated cases of template removal that are coming up time and time again on WP, having the link from WP to the site (in this case TV.com) is more likely to get the TV.com page to be filled with missing data, but much more importantly for WP policy the exact opposite; the WP page being improved upon (i.e. vice-versa)! Really this is such a short-termist, ill-informed, and ill-conceived idea to remove such things. Jimthing (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Madison City Guide

User:Madison City Guide has been repeatedly adding external links to a commercial guide to Madison, Wisconsin, first as 24.240.44.94 and then as Madison City Guide. It is clear that these links were added solely for advertising purposes, by a user with a transparent conflict of interest. -- Mesconsing (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of half marathon races

The following links are various directories of half marathon races. Are they permitted?

Thanks! -Location (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Email to OTRS to endorse website?

Hello. A link to a notable fan site (Sherlockology) has been removed from the Sherlock (TV series) article. The site has won a Shorty Award, with coverage in some legitimate publications. I think it is worthy of inclusion as it stands. It provides much more information than Wikipedia is able to, and the existing links to Yahoo et al are lacking.
However, it is possible that the producer or production company of Sherlock might be prepared to submit a statement to the Foundation to endorse the site and to retain its link. How do we proceed? The JPStalk to me 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, being nominated for a "Shorty award" is..."free for everyone to enter, simply by tweeting a nomination" ---shortyawards.com. It appears they've nominated themselves 2 years in a row for best "fansite", and are actively canvassing their own fans for votes. Is it an official website of the television series ? --Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No it is not official due to, I guess, protocol issues within the BBC. The point, however, is that it appears that the producer or production company might be able to endorse the site -- surely a direct email to Wikimedia from such an official is good enough for Wikipedia purposes. 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Producers and production companies have no control over Wikipedia's content nor do they have a say in what is or is not included. Particularly when it fails Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. Why don't they just link it from their own website, it's a more appropriate venue for it than Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why an email to OTRS would result in a link being re-included in an article. OTRS has no control over content, or community-determined inclusion criteria, other than to verify permission for including copyrighted material, as far as I know. A link to any site is never included at the pleasure of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
So what is the difference between the website being branded 'offficial' and an statement saying it's endorsed? Why do we allow links to the likes of Yahoo TV, which is full of adverts? The JPStalk to me 13:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
An Official site is one that is controlled by the subject of the Wikipedia article, Sherlockology is not. Moreover it is not even included in the list of other official Sherlock related websites. You were aware that linking to it was not apropriate, you stated so yourself; "I think WP:FANSITE suggests that Sherlockology is not appropriate... "--30 September 2011 The JPS. You've also asked this same question about OTRS endorsement back in 2011;
"Would tweets from their accounts be acceptable to indicate endorsement? Is it possible that the producer could email OTRS, or similar, to endorse the site?"--9 December 2011 The JPS
You were told essentially the same thing.--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

mazakony.com

Mazakony.com is an Arabic-language website, presenting itself as a discography, though it contains links for downloading the albums themselves. This seems to be a simple case of WP:ELNEVER. I first noticed such a link in Assala Nasri (diff), but having checked the editors other contributions, I have seen it in other articles about Arabic musicians. I have warned the editor and I am currently reverting the edits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In at least one instance, the editor specifically identified it as a download site (example). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely a never. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder

This edit added podcasts to the external links of Antisocial personality disorder. They seem inappropriate to me, but could someone more knowlegable on external links policy have a look. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Chess engine

Is Chess engine a WP:LINKFARM? If so, should the links be removed, or should they be moved to list of chess engines? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes for everything in Chess Engine#Categorizations except the last three sections (Chess engine#Dedicated hardware and Chess engine#Commercial dedicated computers and Chess engine#Historical) which should be reorganized and kept. Quale (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There is an objection to the removal at Talk:Chess engine#Is this a WP:LINKFARM?. I would like another set of eyes to look at this to make sure that my edit was appropriate. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:LINKFARM claim has a little merit but instead of removing the links the content was removed against WP:PRESERVE. I recommend reverting(to re-add content) and removing only the links. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I just put it back in. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

AllRovi movie template

There is now an RfC regarding AllRovi as an external link. The RfC can be seen on the template talk page here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Kneipp.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Kneipp The article Sebastian Kneipp had an external link to www.kneipp.com. The company sells products branded with the Kneipp name. The link is a sales link and does not provide any usefull information about the subject. I deleted per WP:EL guidelines. Quote from the guidelines of links to be avoided. "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" Another editor restored it. I am new and I do not want to edit war. Is the link a violation or not? 71.108.134.58 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

agreed that the link is only commercial advertising and no encyclopedic value to the subject of the article. it has been removed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 71.108.134.58 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association

The International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association website at www (dot) ifopa (dot) org has been compromised by spammers. For example "Product and Services Database" on the first page is now "Product and purchase generic viagra Services Database".

Especially hard hit is www (dot) ifopa (dot) org/fop-skeleton (dot) html -- a page that gets a lot of links from Wikipedia.

Alas, I don't see a good solution to this problem. Any ideas? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Commenting out links per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: site is serving spam content to HTTP 1.0 requests, normal content to HTTP 1.1 requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: all attempts to contact the website owner have been ignored. Spammers removed the obvious spam links, but HTTP 1.0 requests still redirect to a site controlled by the spammers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Jan 1#International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: ifopa (dot) org still controlled by spammers. 302 Redirects to server285 (dot) com if the request is HTTP 1.0 but not 1.1. www (dot) frankelfund (dot) com is also controlled by the same spammers, but in this case it is HTTP 1.1 that redirects but not 1.0 I tried contacting the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association several times more -- no response. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Update: Update: ifopa (dot) org still redirects to a malicious website. The malicious website is dead at the moment, but it is still not safe until ifopa fixes the problem. All attempts to reach ifopa have failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OpenBVE

OBVE (talk · contribs) has added multiple external links to the article, openBVE. Most of them were removed by myself and C.Fred (talk · contribs) because they were violations of WP:NOTDIR. He continues to re-add the links, refusing to acknowledge policy and concluding that I have a conflict of intrest based only upon my location. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Highway (talk · contribs) has repeatedly deleted edits by myself and other users at openBVE, without concensus. Please, review his edit history carefully and take appropriate action, with fair consideration for the contributions of others to the site. OBVE (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: OBVE has subsequently been blocked and the article has been listed at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBVE (3rd nomination) --Biker Biker (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Article now deleted. Suggest we close this thread as "overtaken by events". --Biker Biker (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Master of Finance: MSFHQ.com

On the Master of Finance page, a link to the webpage MSFHQ.com has been routinely added. Over the past few years, it has been removed multiple times by other editors, but seems to continually be added back. I do not believe that this website is notable or establishes enough reliability to be included as an external link, but would like to get a second opinion. The conversation about this site can be seen hereTalk:Master_of_Finance#MSFHQ.comEtanaLF (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the individual who adds the link back and has laid out a thorough case in the talk history supporting it. My response has been ignored and the only justification is that it isn't reputable, without further explanation. I would like someone to address my concerns as this is a valid resource and one that provides information above and beyond the wikipedia page. Whitman2010 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

SkyScreamer

A few editors with more love for roller coasters and Six Flags than for WP:ELNO are disputing my removal of seven (7!) links to the pages for those roller coasters on the web sites of their amusements parks (here's one; the others are no different). I think our policy is clear. They shouldn't be in the article, plain and simple. There is no mandate that such links be in the article; they're not web sites, they're just pages; they contain no information whatsoever that isn't already in the article; they're purely commercial; the ones for San Antonio, St. Louis, San Francisco, and New Jersey are exactly the same, as are the ones for Arlington and Atlanta, and they're essentially the same as the La Ronde one. I'll take this up at WP:ELN: Wikipedia is not a repository for commercial links. The very first point of ELNO (avoid linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article") is already enough. I've been reverted by two of them already, and I'm showing my good faith by posting here rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: I'm sure they don't want to spam, but promotion is the only thing that those links are good for. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

www.rozabal.com

This is the personal website of an editor, SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) who has added it to Roza Bal (along with her self-published books). I've raised the issue of COI at WP:COIN - she either doesn't understand it or accept it, I'm not sure which, but my question here is whether anyone think that this is an exception to ELNO. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a nightmare that contributor is. I would suggest pushing for the domain to be blacklisted. As a short term measure it would be good to get the article fully protected (now requested at WP:RPP) to stop her activities until any outcome from the COI noticeboard is decided. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps even WP:ANI for a suggested topic ban? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • First things first: there is no indication whatsoever that this person is an acknowledged expert on this subject matter. The website is a big fat promotional piece, and if she were an expert we'd have to glean this from secondary sources. This self-published book that someone forgot to proofread proves nothing, and the few newspaper hits (this and this seem to be the best of the half dozen hits) are all casual mentions of the fact in sources that cannot establish the scholarly importance of her work anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After reading over the website, the various user and article talk pages, and a perusal of the edits, I would not be opposed to a topic ban. What we have here is a combination of promotional edits and a lack of competence in the basics of neutral editing--odd, considering that this has been going on for years. Doug, if you wish to take this to AN, drop me a line so I can follow you. (Oh, blacklisting this is more trouble than it's worth--it's not likely to become a widespread issue.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
We'll see what happens. No recent edits I believe, if she comes back and repeats the same behaviour, then we will have to. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why Doug...what a surprise to see you here! Now you want to bar all mention of me (unfamous nobody) and my terrible self-promoting website? You started this topic off right away with misleading information. My website was first added to Wikipedia years ago, and has remained because it is and always has been relevant- I did not go around Wiki inserting it everywhere as some authors have done.. I am grateful when some have included it, and mindful when others have deleted the links..I have no idea where some may be... I actually don't follow myself around Wiki to check and only stumble upon this once in a while. Otherwisae I would not be aware it happens...You know that is the truth.. I didn't contribute anything to Wiki- other than the roza bal page under discussion..and that link first appeared years ago-not by me. Of course my name and web page come up- It has the same name as Roza Bal...geesh. I wonder why? Could it be that I was in India for years before this Roza Bal page even appeared at Wiki? Is it a sinister evil plot? A big COI? Perhas. Or not. For those reading this, be advised that there have been links to my website at Wiki for years....there is nothing sinister or self promoting going on here. That is all in the mind of Dougweller.. I was very new to internet when I first learned about Wikipedia. I did not even know what a 'sock puppet' was until I let my granddaughter use my computer and make contributions. Then the accusations started flying. I was even asked to prove my age and provide a birth certificate. It became illogical harassment and discrimination because I challenged Mr. Doug Weller's editing right from the first....Regarding Roza Bal, of course it is of primary interest to me. Of course I am aware of the page here about Roza bal. It is in appalling shape and very misleading. When I returned to Wiki a few weeks ago, it was because I was updating (not adding to or deleting) an existing link that was years old- because someone pointed it out to me... That's all. Nothing sinister and no COI intended..I never went to any other pages to add or correct anything. Links to me probably appear at several Wiki places. I dont know for sure...I suggested to Doug ways to improve the Wiki Roza bal page to bring it up to date with more information because it had been reduced to a scant few lines, and much relevant info had been deleted through the years.., including current films on the topic (made since the page first went up) and a description of the relics and how these contributed to establishing the theory about the tomb of Jesus. If you miss that, you really miss the whole point of the theory! I also recommended additional books on the topic. One was written by a former head of the India Archaeology Department, Fida Hassnain. He was/is accused of being "not famous enough" and a "questionable source" by one or two of the Wiki editors here. How can the head of an entire Government history department be accused of not being a reliable source about history? I fail to grasp that. And another author, Aziz Kashmiri, was accused of being 'not notable enough' to include his book about Roza bal, although he has lived near the tomb his entire life and offered little known inside information in his book.. Same with other authors who contributed to this topic...they are labeled as "not knowledgeable" enough, or "crackpots" promoting a fringe theory (the few million Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide notwithstanding) Other POV are not permitted at the Roza Bal page. However, a self-published, self-promoting author of fiction on the topic is allowed to remain at Wikipedia as a source of information about Roza Bal because he is more 'famous'?? ...what does that tell you about the "judgement" of these editors? I say it smacks of personal prejudice. With the permission of Doug and a few other editors, I HAD made recent contributions to the Roza Bal page. He failed to mention that at first everyone was agreeable to my input....we were discussing contributions as we progressed..it seemed to start off cordial enough...I used YouTube links because I did not know the policy then. These were removed together with an explanation. OK I got that. But there was no opportunity to allow corrected links to remain. What you are construing as a 'headache' from my editing is not a headache at all. It's about biased editing and personal vindictiveness of some Wiki editors, and I tried to stand up to them. Even my author bio page lacks relevant info (as someone pointed out above-I am a nobody here) because it was edited out or challenged (such as proving my birth date and providing my birth certificate)years ago. Rather than make waves or be accused of more COI, I just left that page alone-including errors and lack of sources ...Is this fair and unbiased behavior on the part of Wiki editors? I dont think so.. I think it's spiteful and vindictive. Yes, it has been going on for years. It is a personal agenda of Mr. Dougweller's..I can point you to any number of pages here that break every rule of Wikipedia, and talk about "self promotion!" Whew. I dont even come close to that category. I also asked Mr. DougWeller to consider the Talpiot tomb- which lacks any substantiating proof and is also a crackpot- 'fringe' theory- yet gains more attention and grander pages than Roza Bal, which has an overwhelming amount of more corroborative evidence - all edited out of the page.. A lot more could be done and should be done, but it will never happen here. I am sorry that DougWeller is so prejudiced and personal..I have been following and reading comments from others and I see there are similar complaints about his judgement all over Wikipedia by others. I tried to take a stand and fight back against his bad editing judgement...For this I am harassed and made to look like it's somehow all my fault. I dont believe that. I can pull up a long list of others who object to his kind of editing. My apologies to those at Wiki who try so hard and do so well. The Roza Bal page is a lost cause. Of course my web site and external link will come up. It has the same name! And it contains relevant historical and factual info that is edited out of the Wiki page. That does not make me a villain here. (Doug does that pretty well). I am deeply saddened. I am quite sure he'll succeed in getting me and my web site banned although I have done nothing nor contributed anything to warrant such drastic action. .. He's a man on a mission and he's very good at vindictiveness. I hope most of you can see this for what it really is. Just take a look around Wiki at some of the other complaints about his kind of editing..and I also recommend that you research more about Roza Bal outside of Wikipedia- coz there is nothing left here that is valuable, encyclopedic, or remotely accurate. This is not about COI. That would be too easy to recognize and I sure am putting up a hell of a struggle making myself look 'bad' here over "COI" if that's the real issue (which it isn't).. I'd be delighted if a thousand people found my web site relevant enough to link many Wiki pages to me! I know many categories I'd fit in with- "Jesus in India before crucifixion, and after.." "The Lost years" -"Bloodline" "desposyni".."Holy Grail"- "Ancient DNA"- "genealogy"- ..."cultural terrorism"...."Merovingians" "Brahma as Abraham" "Pilate and the crucifixion" "Yuz Asaf" and lots more..wow...heady stuff for a simple nobody- a self published author to contemplate! Ideas that go far beyond "Roza bal"..Deep sigh here. Meanwhile, you all have a wonderful and blessed day. Thank you. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)
Although Suzanne seems to be begging (above) to be blocked again, as long as the article itself is not edited with OR again, can I ask that Suzanne be given opportunity and encouragement to focus on trying to find some basic sources. for example these 5 questions. As it stands the article is a crock, it's possible that Suzanne knows where sources exist which other editors don't, but other editors can weigh and decide whether these sources are reliable and other editors can then add to the article in a non-OR way. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at meta:WebCite regarding external links on Wikipedia that would be of interest to those that follow this noticeboard. For those who don't know, webcitation.org is used to archive websites that disappear from the net. Wikipedia currently has 182,368 links to this archive site. Regards. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is regarding user GogoW24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is linking the Web site of a private art gallery to a large number of articles. These edits have continued after three separate editors have queried the user, who has made no response. This looks like spam, but I'd like a second opinion before reverting across multiple articles or resorting to ANI. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF and all, and I do see some useful edits, but this might be just a promotional account. If the behavior continues a preventive block might be in order. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
By all means, Aing GF. The behavior has continued, although the user did leave a note on my talk page. I don't see a crisis here, but there should be no further edits of this type unless there's consensus that they're appropriate. Rivertorch (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No good faith to assume. This is 100% pure spamming - each artist linked has works for sale on this gallery site. The sooner the contributor stops adding links, via a user block and site blacklisting if necessary, the better. --Biker Biker (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
My two cents (see how far that gets you at a gallery like this one!): Gagosian is, in fact, one of the leading art galleries in the world, and the material at the linked pages isn't pure spam--at least on the pages I looked at, there's biographical material, exhibition info, etc. And, practically speaking, just about no one is going to end up buying one of Gagosian's overpriced artworks because they found them through Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the guidance at WP:ELNO would suggest that if the artist has an independent official website, there's no need for an additional gallery link, unless the gallery website contains additional, clearly valuable, non-commercial material that can't be found from the artist's official website). In a case where there is no other official artist website, the gallery page could qualify and be kept under WP:ELYES#1.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Alleged holocaust denial site

A few days ago, I started a RfC regarding Talk:Buchenwald Trial and I just realized that maybe this would have been the most appropriate place for the discussion, since it refers to the entire wikipedia and not only the above article. Having said that, I repeat my statement: Niemti admits having started a crusade to eliminate any links to the website scrapbookpages.com from Wikipedia. I thought his holocaust denial allegations were questionable, so I asked for some explanation. I am not satisfied with his explanations, as you can see in the above discussion. And now he also accuses me of revisionist, so I think the dialogue is broken. I want to hear opinions about this website and whether or not is a holocaust denial site. Andreasm just talk to me 02:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I read the website and that whole talk page. Reliability of the website aside, I am wholly unconvinced that it is a holocaust denial site. As a matter of fact, its author seems quite convinced that the holocaust was real. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
That was my first impression, too. But I have to say the blog (prominently linked from the home page of the site) raises a red flag or two. I'm not seeing Holocaust denial per se, but it looks like a laundry list of alleged inaccuracies in the generally accepted accounts of what happened at various camps. While most of the allegations sound reasonable when considered individually, taken together the effect comes across (to me) as downplaying the scope of the Holocaust. Raising questions about details in a complex historical account can have the effect of undermining the veracity of the entire account. I am not suggesting that that's happening intentionally with this blog, but I can see how it might look that way. For the purposes of this noticeboard, however, I think all of the above may be a moot point. I do not believe that any page at scrapbookpages.com is a good candidate for use as an external link. Some of the pages might meet WP:EL—barely—by virtue of their pictures, but the text carries no signature or byline (of anyone at all, as far as I can see, let alone an recognized authority), references Wikipedia in at least one place, and has the essence of Personal Web Site written all over it, even down to the semi-illegible Mac OS screen font. My recommendation is to avoid linking to the site. There are better resources out there. Rivertorch (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Android Rooting - links to rooting tools

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_rooting , there is a link to a "Free Easy One Click Rooting software". This link was added in the following revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_rooting&diff=537459493&oldid=537457370

Contrary to the Wikipedia linking policy, this link does not provide resources where users can learn more about rooting. Instead, it's merely a tool for rooting. The link itself adds no educational value.

I would appreciate it if you could evaluate and/or remove this link if you determine it doesn't meet wikipedia's content policies.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.2.59 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. It's history. --Biker Biker (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

AllRovi.com

It has been suggested that all external links to the movie review site AllRovi.com be removed from Wikipedia. This would not include links that are used as references. or reliable sources. Because of some misunderstandings, the discussion is being held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 15#Template:AllRovi movie rather than here. The nominator would prefer to keep the discussion over there. Any interested parties may comment at that discussion. Regards. 64.40.54.59 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. You may also wish to post a note at the reliable sources noticboard. I have brought up Rovi reliabilty there a few times as well as BLPN and other fora. Many feel they shouldn't be relied on as a source for some material including birth and death dates. I started a small list at User:Canoe1967/Rovi and came across a larger list at User:JackofOz/Unresolved questions that probably has Rovi issues as well as other sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Blog recipes being used as references

I....have no idea what to do here. Thai salads has a remarkable amount of references, but the vast majority of them are from personal blogs (thaifoodmaster, panix, sheshimmers, joysthaifood, etc). It seems that these site owners (assuming it is the owners) are finding statements in the article that mention some ingredient and then reference their own recipe that uses that ingredient, presumably to bring traffic to their site. My gut says to remove all the links as unreliable, but are they? Especially the ones that are sourcing some obscure ingredient? I don't know, I've just never seen this massive of a blog spamming in a very long time (and came across similar issues in Lao cuisine and Thai cuisine, but at least those were mostly limited to the external links section). It's a little overwhelming. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 03:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't an ELN issue but rather WP:RSN, unless there's spamming going on...
Food-related articles tend to be like that when no one keeps an eye on them. It looks like the article is almost entirely written by a single editor. Start a discussion on the talk page linking this discussion, and let the editor know. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking to scans of copyrighted documents

WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. How do we know if it does? I came across an external link to this in the References section of Coordinated Universal Time, is it a violation? R.stickler (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove the link, but the paper is a reference that can be cited (as a journal article, not a web link, that is). --MASEM (t) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
McCarthy, according to the back cover of the book he co-authored, TIME From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics, worked in the US Naval Observatory for "the past 40 years" (that would be from 1969 to 2009, based on copyright date of book). Works prepared by employees of the United States government, created in the course of their employment, are not eligible for copyright. The bottom of each page of the journal article states the article is a "U.S. Government Work Not Protected by U.S. Copyright". Thus I am reverting the deletion of the link. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this one [27] in the Further reading section of Paper size? R.stickler (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not so obvious, because although page 52 contains a statement prohibiting reproduction, it is not a standard copyright notice. Whether a work published without a proper copyright notice forfeits copyright depends on when it was published and in what country. Then there is the matter of fair use of works no longer in print. The person responsible for the web site where it is posted, Dr. Kuhn, describes himself as a "University Senior Lecturer in Computer Science at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory", and the site is widely cited by many reputable websites and publications. I am inclined to think Dr. Kuhn probably knows what he is doing with respect to copyrights and has taken appropriate steps to make sure it is acceptable to post the pamphlet at his site. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

princess consort of morocco

The external links on the wikipedia page about the queen of morocco include a link to the Salma Bennani tribute site, but content there indicates that the site is for sale Seems inappropriate: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.193.80 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The link worked for me, but I have removed it because it appeared to contravene Wikipedia's guideline on external links. (For the record, the article at issue is Salma of Morocco.) Rivertorch (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Digital mailroom Page Contains External Link Spam

The following two links on the [mailroom] page seem to be spam:

  • Implementing a Digital Mailroom White Paper
  • Example Digital Mailroom Solution

--Bridgeway04 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed both. Thanks. (The article is Digital mailroom.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone else please take a look at User:Bamajr? He advertises himself as an "Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization and Web Design consultant" but it looks like two dozen or so links on his User page are ol' fashioned link spam. But maybe I'm grumpy and unwilling to AGF anyone who has anything to do with SEO so additional opinions or action are welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as blatant advertising/spam. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
User also indef blocked as a spammer. Nice result. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Shadow government (conspiracy)

I don't think the EL section of this article should be a breeding ground for original research and otherwise unpublished thoughts on who is part of a "shadow government". WP:ELNO #2 states: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." The above ELs appear to violate the first part pertaining to "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", however, I'm not sure how to interpret the second part. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved thanks to Orangemike. Location (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1001 Club

Similar to the preceding inquiry, this particular page presents conspiracy-type information about individuals that is "factually inaccurate" and appears to be "unverifiable research". Does this fail WP:ELNO #2? Thanks! Location (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a strong argument under WP:ELNEVER to removing links to copyright violating content. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback. Location (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Teleidoscope

This link to an App Store product page would appear to fit categories 4 and 5 of 'Links normally to be avoided' section from the external links policy page.

Specifically section 4 mentions 'Links mainly intended to promote a website'. While section 5 refers to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services.

I am the author of a competing product and I do not believe that a link from a Wikipedia article to the iTunes store page for my 'Hippy-Dippy Kaleidoscope' would be appropriate. Likewise for the link in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewNorrie (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that link, as well as another one that isn't promotional but probably doesn't meet the guideline. Thanks for stating your conflict of interest up front and bringing this to the noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com

Resolved

I recently noticed an editor adding these links across a large number of beer-related articles. His viewpoint is that these sites are on par with Imdb (WP:IMDb) and are appropriate external links for an a large number of beer-related articles.

I'm aware of the problems we've had with IMDb (Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb) and similar sites. Do we feel that ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com should be treated in the same manner?

If so, in what type of beer-related articles? As an external link, a reference, or both? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has any place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, it's me! I came across a few links to RateBeer while adding these as well, so there are probably many more out there. People use these sites to find good beer. They are privately owned but 99.99% of the work on them has been volunteer. Through this discussion we should decide a) whether the sites should be banned throughout the External Links sections (excepting of course on the Beer rating article), and if allowed b) where they should be placed. I added the Canadian individual brewer pages to their respective articles (example here) and the "top" lists to their "Beer in x country" articles for most countries with a page (example here). Is there a problem with both, or mainly the country articles? Thanks.
Also what part of WP:LINKSTOAVOID does this break so I know in the future? I don't think the sites break Rule #11 (No blogs, personal webpages, and most fansites) in the same way that Find a Grave does because the individual memorials there can be made by fans, while each individual beer rating on these pages are decided upon by large groups of people, in the same nature as the IMDb.
And could someone please bring Wikiproject Beer's attention to this so we can hopefully arrive at a consensus on links to these two sites across the board? Cheers, PhnomPencil (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you couldn't do it, but I've notified that WikiProject per your request. Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Responding from WikiProject Beer. Linking to those sites has been a contentious issue for years. So much so that arguments over those sites, combined with arguments over linking to BJCP, broke the spirit of the project and people drifted away. Some people have had firm opinions and have either added them on mass or removed them on mass. And then vigorously debated the issue. Is there much encyclopaedic value in the sites that we should put them in the external links? No. I'm a long term contributor and admin on RateBeer. I know Joe Tucker, the owner of RateBeer, personally, and I helped shape RateBeer as it was growing. But I don't see in general what value Wikipedia readers are getting, other than random consumer opinions. These are not expert opinions, and the comments are frequently of the ilk: "This beer goes down as smooth as a top class whore". Linking to such opinions is not doing our readers a service. RateBeer falls under the EL category of a blog or fansite - it is user generated with minimal editorial control (we do have guidelines and will remove comments that are not appropriate or ask the user to amend what they have said - but on the whole we let people alone to say what they want). Where, however, the site can be useful, is in linking to some of the articles that have been published under editorial control - [28]. Sadly, article publishing stopped a couple of years ago as it was difficult to maintain a weekly output, but the articles are still kept on file. The basic information on breweries and their production can also be useful to link to if there are no other sources to provide that information. Admins are in control of that information, and the information is peer reviewed on an editorial forum. However, as we mainly rely on published information, a better source can usually be found. The main aspect where the site can be useful is in providing a quick overview of a brewery's brands. If there is no easily available source showing a list of brands produced by a brewery, then linking to RateBeer or BeerAdvocate can be of assistance. But as a general external link, no. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Rivertorch. After being called a linkspammer by Ronz I thought there was a large enough possibility that he would call me a canvasser for going there that I decided to make a request instead.
SilkTork is more of an expert than anyone else I can think of in regards to the suitability of these links. I therefore respect his opinion and have removed them. Sorry for making a little more work for everybody, but at least now a bit of a precedent has been set for beer review links. I did look through the Wikiproject Beer archives before these additions and found nothing relating to the suitability... if I were to do it differently, I would have started a discussion there first, just to be certain. Thanks again to the External Links watchers, if it weren't for you this encyclopedia would be full of spam. Thankless work you do; glad some people are out there keeping an eye on things. PhnomPencil (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Post-script: I was pretty happy this affair was over. I'd made a mistake, corrected it, and apologized. But Ronz has written on my wall: "After being called a linkspammer by Ronz" I don't believe I ever did so. How about we drop it now that it's crystal clear you shouldn't have been adding the links as you did?", and I realized that I'd forgotten to include the diff.
I appreciate that people watching over the external links can make a strong comment in one out of thousands of reverting edit summaries, so I'm not accusing him of breaking agf over that. But he's gone and called me a liar over this on my talk page... is there a way to keep him away from my talk page on matters further regarding the mistake I made? I feel some personal angst toward me over my mistake and just want him to stop. Thanks, PhnomPencil (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm marking this thread as resolved because any questions within the purview of this noticeboard appear to have been settled. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

If the official website is already listed in the infobox, should it ALSO be in the EL section? WP:EL seems to indicate it should be in both places: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable But to me that seems like duplication. What do others think? Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it in that infoboxes typically duplicate information already in the article. Location (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Quran and Al-Fatiha

Well, I cam here after a discussion with an aadministrator with his edit summary here. The Website cannot be a personal blog, or personal webpage, and it just gives a word by word analysis and interpretation of the maings of the Book in English Language and Urdu. I request to approve it to be added to these articles, it can be examined and is not an advertisement or vice versa. Faizan (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a personal web site to me. Whatever it is, it credits its content to one person (with assistant) and fails to provide any information about who that person is or why we should trust him. The Internet is replete with interpretations of religious texts, and linking to any of them without a very good reason seems at odd with our goal to be a neutral encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
ok. Faizan (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Steven P. Croley CV

Please remove the external link to Steven P. Croley's CV (footnote 5). It is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.56.116 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. Having said that, I'd note that that source is used to support no fewer than 17 different statements in the article, and I'm a little reluctant to remove the citation and leave the statements in place. CVs inevitably become outdated (and really aren't good sources for our purposes, anyway), but if they're ever marginally acceptable as primary sources until something better is found, I don't see why a given one would suddenly be beyond the pale inasmuch as it describes (accurately, we hope) what was the case at a given time. I don't recall running into this exact situation before, and I'd like to hear what other editors think. If no one else responds, you might consider reposting to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Larry Allen Abshier

In the article on Larry Allen Abshier, I found the link to larry-allen-abshier.co.tv to be useless because the page it refers to is in turkish and does not provide any information.

Now, my question is what should/can I do? This page is very specific and might be viewed very rarely which is why I refused to put this issue on the talk page. (The links might remain there for too long)

Should I just edit / remove the reference? Or is posting this issue here "the way to go"? Should I notify somebody of the Korea-Project? (Whom? How do I find the right guy?)

Any help/advise is appreciated. Shurakai (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The link is used in an inline reference to support a statement about Abshier, so the principal question, I think, is not so much whether it's an appropriate link as whether it's a reliable source. There's a noticeboard for asking about reliable sources, and you're welcome to post your query there. Since you asked here, however, I'll go ahead and give you my opinion: there's no evidence that the page supports the content in question. Since the relevant paragraph makes no extraordinary claims, is primarily about an individual who is deceased, and begins by mentioning a book whose existence is verifiable, my inclination would be to leave the content as is and replace the reference with a "citation needed" tag—i.e., {{cn}}. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Chartstats.com and Chartarchive.org

Noted amongst bot requests :- Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Chartarchive.org

Apparently compiling UK chart data isn't allowed by Database rules.

Does anyone know of a US source for equivalent data so Feist applies? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but it was my impression that a mere list of facts (e.g., which UK singles were at which position on which date) cannot be copyrighted. You might ask at one of the music-related WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of external media in origami article

There is currently a disagreement at Talk:Origami#External_video about the inclusion of an external video with this edit. It is a link to a video about the use of mathematics in origami.

There is an initial problem that the video if it should go in would really be better in the article Mathematics of paper folding which that section links to. But there is the general problem even if it was there instead, should we be putting in external videos and pictures like this in the first place without a great deal better reason? The WP:EL guideline says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." and "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." At that talk they quote 'Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.' as practically overriding the general restrictions on externals.

Additionally I really do not think we should put in talks inline which introduce any new material, they should just be subsidary illustrations as the image use policy says 'Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article.' This whole idea of sticking loads of externals inline rather than in the citations or externals does not strike me as something to be done except in very restricted circumstances.

I pointed out dissention about the template at Template talk:External media but that is dismissed as no being current and the number of uses as indicative of general acceptance. I am unable to verify their figures as many of the uses of the template are in the external section and I'm happy with external links being there.

What do people here think of inclusions like this in the main body? Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Noting first that there's no copyright issues with the video (it's hosted on the site that the talk was given for), can the video be used as an inline or additional reference? I would as an "External link" (that section) it can be a problem, but if there's information in that video that can be used as part of the origami article, and can be cited, it ought to be included. But if it is just an interesting video that is just tangently related to origami , yea, as an EL that's waiting space. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well it is quite an interesting video and directly related to origami though to the mathematical aspects and I certainly support it as an external link. Does that help? Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) My two cents: I think it's not a good idea. Except for the links in a dedicated External links section (and maybe a link to toolserver or bugzilla, although I'm not so sure those are ever appropriate in article space), our readers should expect to be able to click on anything in an article without leaving the Wikimedia family of sites. I won't say there should never be an exception, but I can't think of one offhand and I'm worried that it would be impossible to police our external links if we start allowing them to be anywhere. Obviously, this is an issue because of link rot, but there are also concerns about spam and malware. While we're at it, the external links that constitute the section Origami-related computer programs should be moved to the External links section (or replaced with wikilinks if the programs are notable and we have articles for them). Rivertorch (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I put in the external video in the template because it adds to the article, makes more information easily available right where people are likely to need it. In other words, it improves the encyclopedia. It is not "just an interesting video that is just tangently related to origami." As far as 'Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article,' that's exactly what it does, in exactly that section.

Note that this is not SPAM, the link is not selling anything - it's to Ted Talks which is a non-profit, and should definitely be considered a reliable source. There's no copyright issue, except as CC-BY-NC-SA we can't upload it to Commons. If we could upload it to Commons, I'd definitely put the video in the same place. This is exactly the situation the external media template was designed for, and it has been around since at least 2008, specifically mentioned in WP:EL since 2010. There should be no question of link rot or malware with the TED Talks, TED will be around as long as Wikipedia will be.

I'm wondering what DMCQ means by "should we be putting in external videos and pictures like this in the first place without a great deal better reason?" What better reason is needed than increasing the quality of the encyclopedia? If he would spell out what he thinks is needed then I can use the template in appropriate places, but as it stands now, it just looks like he is against ever using it.

That would be contradicting our current policy which has specifically accepted the use of this template since 2010. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of precision, it should be noted that WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. In any event, I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that the link in question was spam or malware. What I said is that it will become impossible to police our external links if we start allowing them to be anywhere. I suppose that's a slippery-slope argument, since I don't question the encyclopedic value of this link, but I think it's a valid one. Could you please explain why placing the link in the External links section would be undesirable? Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
What I was saying in that quote from policy about images is that that they should not say more than is said in the body - they are for illustration. Extra information is given in the citations and externals. Putting externals into the article detract from the process of improving the encyclopaedia and moves it towards being more a collection of links. I believe such things should only be in the main body where leaving them out would leave an incomplete message. For instance there may be a point in linking to a recording of a speech for instance even on a site with ads if an article is about a speech and we can't have it freely. That is what I mean by a great deal better reason. Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_12&oldid=1151027301"