Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Planet of the Apes (novel)

Per a discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL regarding a link that was removed after nearly three years on the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. I only want to restore the link to the site, not reuse the images on Wikipedia. This is how the EL appeared:

La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls - History of the novel's international editions with book cover images.

The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. I've been maintaining the article for nearly two years, and I found The Sacred Scrolls site to be very useful in ways WP cannot. We obviously cannot post dozens of book cover images on a WP page. The Sacred Scrolls is the main "go to" site for people interested in the Planet of the Apes series. Removing it on the issue that the page enables copyright infringement is not appropriate, as this was resolved at WP:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/March#External link copyright issue. It is not covered under WP:ELNEVER. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if The Sacred Scrolls site meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case. The copyright has been cleared so there isn't a policy reason to keep the link out, we just need the intention behind ELNO#12 elaborated on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Consensus has determined that open wikis that do not have a significant number of editors do not make appropriate external links, and this is reflected by WP:ELNO #12. This wiki's recent changes shows that there are no active editors, aside from a small handful that make a few edits every week or so, but as of writing this, no named accounts have edited the wiki in over a week. Open wikis are subject to vandalism and inaccurate edits, and without an active community of editors there's no guarantee of such things being noticed and corrected, which means that Wikipedia should not be linking to it. Even looking through the archives of this noticeboard, there are indidents of wikis that are more active than this one that editors have determined have an insignificant number of editors. Even if the number of recent editors are ignored and just the raw Special:ListUsers is taken into consideration, in the ~7 years this wiki has existed, only 166 editors have made any edits. Compare that to other wikis even on the same wikia domain, most wikis that are actually linked from Wikipedia have tens of thousands of editors on their Special:ListUsers page, and hundreds of edits every single day from dozens of editors. These wikis have an active community with content quality control and that quickly spots and reverts vandalism within minutes, and this one cannot make that claim. Adding a few images to the bottom of the page does not make it a unique resource because (1) those images are nowhere near the focus of that article, and (2) it is not a unique resource because those same images can be found all over the internet, hardly unique. - SudoGhost 00:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's see you back that up. Show me one other site where all those dozens of international book cover editions can be seen in one place, well organized. Or show me where you can see all of them spread out over different sites, which would be nowhere near as useful. And I know of at least two editors who will be watching The Sacred Scrolls and reverting any vandalism. There hasn't been much in the past, so there wasn't much call for revert activity. It's been a stable site, as was demonstrated at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL. Future unreverted vandalism at The Sacred Scrolls is not a legitimate concern. ELNO #12 does not define a required number of editors. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
"WP:ELNO #12 does not define a required number of editors" is a red herring that nobody ever suggested, so what point were you trying to make? This wiki has no editing community, and that's critical for the reasons given above. When your defense is that Wikipedia editors will be cleaning up an external wiki, which didn't happen until it was pointed out on the talk page, that should show you something; the wiki should be able to keep its content in check. When an external site has to do it for them, that's a huge red flag, in addition to the other reasons given. On the subject of the images, a simple Google search shows each and every book cover there, and it looks like that wiki just did what I did, used a Google search, and saved the results and put them on their site. This is supposed to make the site unique somehow? - SudoGhost 12:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A huge red flag? In your opinion. You say the site is in danger of vandalism, even though it has little history of such, and when that concern is answered you don't like how unlikely future vandalism might be dealt with. All that matters is that it gets dealt with. And a Google search is not a good replacement for a well-organized site. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can get WP:ELNO #12 changed, the opinion that "future vandalism" might be dealt with is irrelevant, since that's not the concern nor it is why the link does not belong. It's not an issue of not liking it, it's that what hypothetically happens in the future is not a reason to include a link. WP:ELNO does not give that provision, because that amounts to WP:CRYSTAL and neatly avoids the concerns that were brought up. Google-search results on a website also does not make it unique, so it also fails WP:ELNO #1. - SudoGhost 15:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Google-search results on a website? What's your evidence of that? Search results for images are not well organized. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that every single image can be easily found through a quick Google search means the site is not unique, the criteria is not "well-organized". - SudoGhost 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In your opinion. It is certainly better organized than a search result for images. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
How can it be both better organized and unique? If it has something to be better organized than, then it is not unique. - SudoGhost 03:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm only going to quickly recap my comments at the article, since I have no desire to repeat everything I've already written. Three points were raised in opposition to the link, although I only opposed it on one: WP:ELNEVER. The copyright issue was addressed as detailed above, so I no longer have a problem with its inclusion in the article.
  1. WP:ELNO#1 – Opposition to the site has been that the page in itself does not constitute "a unique resource". The criteria however applies to the site, not uniquely to a page on the site. The site hosts over 1600 pages of content which provides substantial coverage of the topic. It's my conclusion the site is a unique resource, in that it provides substantial coverage that we don't provide, and are likely to never provide, so linking to the site is justifiable in this regard, and a link to this page inparticular seems reasonable.
  2. WP:ELNO#12 – The interpretation of this guideline has proven contentious due to the ambiguous nature of the language. How is one supposed to interpret a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors? In one sense it's a drop in the ocean compared to the Star Wars open wiki, in another it easily surpasses the number we ask for when establishing a Wikiproject. Personally I think a raw number is somewhat arbitrary—a hundred editors can be more productive than a thousand depending on their commitment. Maybe the best way of looking at this is whatever it takes to create a substantial amount of content, which appears to be the case here.
  • At the end of the day, it wouldn't hurt the article if the link weren't present, but it does provide readers with another research avenue if they don't find the information they are looking for on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That sort of rationale renders the entirety of WP:ELNO #12 moot then. Consensus has determined that insignificant editing community means that an external link is inappropriate. That does not somehow mean that "there's no bright line number, so we can safely ignore a community consensus-established requirement". I have looked, and I cannot find a single instance of an external link being appropriate with such few editors, in fact wikis that have a lot more editors have still been shown to be insufficient in terms of WP:ELNO #12. If nobody editing is somehow still significant, what could possibly be insignificant? The external link fails WP:ELNO #12, and only weak protestations have been given in response saying "well it's a vague guideline so let's ignore it". In that case, WP:CONLIMITED would apply and the external link would be removed anyways, since the larger consensus addresses something, and that reasoning has panned out here, any consensus which would purposely ignore that issue would be superseded by the relevant guideline. A WikiProject is not an external link, so that's a horrible example, and has nothing to do with WP:ELNO #12 in any capacity. You asked how you're supposed to interpret a substantial number? Well for starters, the wiki's RecentChanges should have someting other than two edits from IPs, one of which is vandalism. That you are unsure how to interpret a consensus-established rule doesn't mean it can be ignored, because by all measures this wiki falls short. - SudoGhost 12:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the link. Along with Betty's summation of WP:ELNO#12 WP:IAR would certainly apply when all of the covers are available at one site. Far better one site than creating a linkfarm to numerous sites. MarnetteD | Talk 07:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As has been stated above, the site does provide a unique resource beyond what is available here as required by WP:ELNO #1. In regard to WP:ELNO #12, while the concern of future vandalism is legitimate there is no evidence of any history of vandalism on this site. In fact, even the few incidents that strangely occured in the last few days were quickly reverted. So the site does have a history of stablity as required by WP:ELNO #12. Of course, if at some time in the future that is no longer the case, the link can be removed from the page here at that time. Finally, I agree that WP:IAR applies. The link does improve and enhance the article here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. The site is neither unique (even a Google search can replicate the images, and that appears to be where the images came from), nor does it have an active community, and the raw number of editors isn't significant in the first place. "No history of vandalism" is not a requirement, a history of stability is required in addition to having a significant number of editors. Nobody has edited the wiki in over a week; obscurity and stagnation is not the same as stability, since the reason for that requirement is an assurance that vandalism will be quickly dealt with, and that has not been shown. - SudoGhost 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
What "Ignore all rules" means is an essay, not policy. You keep repeating the same opinions over and over. Soon this page will be as expansive as the article's Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
...and yet what it says is true, WP:IAR is a policy...but isn't being used correctly here. You also keep repeating the same comments over and over, yet yours lack any explanation as to how it meets WP:ELNO #12 other than saying it's a vague thing, and therefore can somehow be ignored. - SudoGhost 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That was responded to above and below. We're not obligated to follow your opinion of what is correct use of policy. And I'm not writing out paragraphs of the same thing repeatedly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
A diff supporting that assertion would help your case, because it is not "my opinion"; I did not decide that WP:IAR should specifically point out that essay, that was the result of countless editors and discussion because WP:IAR is often cited inappropriately. You don't have to "follow my opinion" because it's not my opinion, it's Wikipedia's consensus-formed opinion. - SudoGhost 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it belongs. Wikia is an open Wiki with little or no editorial control exercised over its contents. However good a page looks, it is likely to be original research and of little or no value. We should not be linking to it. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It has been demonstrated how the site is useful and valuable to readers who are interested in the article's subject. And I also agree that WP:IAR applies. The link does improve and enhance the article as a starting point for research. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I can see merit in the arguments of both sides here. I'd almost always avoid placing such an external link in an article myself, and I fear the slippery slope that could lead from acceptance of such links. However, WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy, and as such its "bright lines" really aren't all that bright and can be overridden by WP:IAR fairly easily: all that should be required is someone making a reasonable case that the link provides a uniquely useful resource for our readers (that case was made) and that it's unlikely to do any harm (that case was made, too). I don't like it, but that's neither here nor there. Rivertorch (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Be careful with saying "WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy", that suggests that only policies should be followed. Being a guideline doesn't mean it can be ignored when inconvenient, guidelines must be followed unless a good reason is given to ignore it. WP:N is a guideline, and WP:AFD shows that a guideline is not something that can be ignored just because a given thing is "unique" or "useful". Not to mention that in this case, "unique" is demonstrably false, it's not unique if the images can be found elsewhere, especially when the images are nowhere near the focus of that site, and are only found buried deep in the page after a bit of searching. - SudoGhost 19:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
A bit of searching? One has only to scroll down the page, and at least five here found it useful despite that hardship. "Unique" is not demonstrably false because of a Google search - you could obviously say that about anything on the web. And the most important rule is WP:Consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I really truly do not see how something is unique if it also exists elsewhere, that goes against the very definition of the word unique. You could indeed "obviously" say that most images on the web are not unique, and that is why images aren't convincing factors in determining if a resource is unique, especially a wiki that took the images from elsewhere on the internet. - SudoGhost 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No further comment after two and a half days. Five support restoring the link to the site. Two are against it. I think this process is done. Thanks to those who contributed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
"Useful and unique" seems to be the consensus here, but that's only half the issue. Nobody has even tried to argue that the number of editors on the wiki is substantial, only that WP:ELNO #12 is too vague or should be ignored. A small group of editors, however, cannot decide that WP:ELNO #12 can be ignored or that it does not apply; the wider community consensus would supersede that, and that is policy. - SudoGhost 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest an RfC at this point. I consider the consensus shaky, and SudoGhost makes a valid point about local consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Betty, MarnetteD and SonOfThornhill all addressed WP:ELNO #12 in their Support statement. And I agree with the position that it is met - the site is useful and valuable to readers who are interested in the article's subject. I posted a request asking for more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be most helpful if you made your notifications neutral, as required by WP:CANVASS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The notification I posted briefly explains why this discussion is still going on. Those who see it can judge for themselves. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose link: a further reading source has been added that includes the cover images supplied by the site as well as additional information. This disproves the "unique resource" hypothesis. Furthermore, because open wikis are inherently unreliable, having a reliable source for such information is far preferable. Finally, a wiki with fewer than 30 active editors cannot be said to meet the "substantial number" clause of ELNO#12. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It has well over 30 editors, but I'll leave that to the others who have debated that point on the Talk page. ELNO #12 does not define a required number of editors. Your book to be used as a further reading source does not include all the cover images supplied by the site. And an offline source is obviously not very useful for most online readers. Now that Betty Logan has added a Google preview link I can see some of it, but I only get a limited number of views and the page it's supposed to directly jump to, 269, does not display. Instead a msg says the page is unavailable for viewing. I can see that page 270 has 12 black-and-white cover images. That is not comprehensive, nor is it better than the dozens of color images of covers that can be seen at The Sacred Scrolls site. You have not demonstrated the site is inaccurate either, if anything this book backs up its accuracy. Though note the book describes itself as "unauthorized", and it's out of date, being published in 2008, three years before Rise of the Planet of the Apes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that The Sacred Scrolls site has over 40 cover images in full color vs. the dozen black & white cover images available in the Timeline book. Plus each of the covers on the The Sacred Scrolls site can be clicked on individually by the user for a larger detailed view of each cover. This is not true of the Timeline book preview link. This does make the The Sacred Scrolls site a unique resource for users. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that the book has over 350 cover images, most in full colour and detail - judging the book by a single page is a poor choice. Open wikis are inherently unreliable (and "unauthorized" too); books from identified authors are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but that is just not so. Much more than a single page can be viewed in the link Betty provided, the cover images are not in color, they are all in black and white. Most of the 350 covers provided are not for the original novel by Pierre Boulle but for novelizations, comic books, home video, etc. The book is a good reference and should be included on the page but it is not a good replacement for The Sacred Scrolls site. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The book sounds great for the further reading section. Not so good as an EL. Accessibility is the main issue with this book. I saw the whole thing that's available online - many pages, but the covers are only seen together on that one page in black-and-white thumbnails. It has some thumbnail covers here and there on other pages. Only this book's cover itself is in color. The Sacred Scrolls has dozens more of the original novel's international editions well organized, in color, and easily accessible for online users. And you can click on them individually for a larger detailed view, as SonOfThornhill explained above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, because I haven't looked at the link or the page. I can answer the question above about "How is one supposed to interpret a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors?"

Generally speaking, the goal is enough active editors that if most of them quit, there would still be many available to catch vandalism on the page that we link to. This means that we need to have enough editors on both an absolute and a relative scale.

  • In terms of the absolute number of editors, 10 editors making a change each day (or at least most days) is normally the minimum. IPs count, if the wiki allows them. More than 100 different contributors per day is always sufficient on this score.
  • In terms of the relative number of editors, you need enough people-per-page that you can be reasonably sure that every page is being watched. There's no set ratio, but use your common sense here. 100 editors a day is obviously enough to keep track of changes on 100 pages, but obviously not enough for 100,000 pages. You might also consider whether the specific page that we're looking at is likely to be heavily watched.
  • In terms of history, we expect the wiki to have been running for a couple of years, and to generally have had an acceptable number of editors throughout. We wouldn't want to accept a site based on activity during an unusual spike of popularity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The Sacred Scrolls is not like WP where a registered user needs to check their Watchlist, and it only shows activity on pages they've edited themselves or added to their list. If anyone looks at any page on the Sacred Scrolls site, they are shown a Recent Wiki Activity box on the right side of the page. It lists the last few pages on the whole site that have been changed. They can then easily click on any page listed there. The See more link there and the Wiki Activity link at the top of every page gives all activity going back weeks. Multitudes of people could be routinely making sure there's no vandalism, and as long as there isn't any, their watchfulness would not be registered as activity. So it's not necessary for hundreds of editors to be making changes everyday. Just one person checking any page can easily discover if there's been any vandalism anywhere on the site. And the site's history shows there's been very little. Its stability should not be held against it. There's no reason why a site like this should be getting updated every day. The original series is more than 40 years old. The original novel we're discussing here is 50 years old. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It's "stability" isn't being held against it, it's the fact that there is no activity or editors making any edits, and that's what WP:ELNO #12 is looking for. We can't speculate on if someone is or is not looking at a site to ensure that it isn't being vandalized, it has to be shown that if vandalism were to occur, it would be dealt with. This is done by ensuring that there are editors around to check for those sort of things and showing a history of stability. When a wiki's RecentChanges only shows 5 edits within the last seven days, all from IP editors and two of them involving vandalism, that's not a case for "a substantial number of editors"; it would be difficult to find a wiki with fewer edits than that, so that's far from substantial. - SudoGhost 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
So you're admitting the site is stable, and when there is vandalism, it's dealt with. That is all that matters. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Stagnation and obscurity are not the same as stability, and there's no significant number of editors, and that is what matters. In no way is stability "all that matters", especially assumed stability based on speculation. - SudoGhost 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is that the La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls external link is appropriate for the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)}}

Welcome to ELN, Jreferee. It is not customary at this noticeboard to mark anything as resolved, and it is definitely not customary to do so while people are actively discussing it. You are doubtless not familiar with the entire guideline on external links, so I'll add that the rule is that contested links are always removed unless and until consensus emerges per WP:ELBURDEN. The standard for consensus is quite high for external links, because links are assumed to be relatively low-value for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by this discussion should remain open until the participants are satisfied? Certain editors will never be satisfied. More people are for including the link than are against it. Six, if you include Jreferee, five if you don't. It should be noted Jreferee, an administrator, twice tried to close this discussion, with the summary Closed as particular external link is appropriate. This discussion has now become quite lengthy, with the same points made repeatedly. Five or six may not be a landslide, but it is a majority. That's consensus. If the standard was everyone has to be satisfied, nothing would be brought to a conclusion. The link is useful. It was there for nearly three years and no harm came from it. It should be restored per consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not operate by "votes". Majority, especially a weak claim to majority, does not equal consensus, especially when (1) part of the "consensus" was to ignore a larger consensus, which according to Wikipedia policy cannot occur, and (2) yet another source has been given that shows that the resource is not unique, which means that the discussion that it was "unique" needs to be reexamined, since the basis for that conclusion is no longer true, and (3) a consensus that the resource is "unique", even if that occurred, does not mean the link belongs, because unique is not the only concern brought by WP:ELNO. - SudoGhost 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It has been re-examined, and the two people here who care about the subject have shown the offline book is not a suitable replacement for the EL. Since being on WP I've been lead to believe that WP:Consensus is the most important policy. You are trying to overcome it with all the above. People voted to include the link despite your concerns. That should be the end of it, but no, like others I've come across you refuse to acknowledge consensus, move the goalposts and try to draw the process out endlessly. You're trying to set up a new debate because you know people don't want to come back and vote over again on what's really the same thing - whether to include the EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If WP:Consensus is the most important policy, WP:CONLIMITED is part of that policy. That people "vote" to include the link despite WP:ELNO doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, per the policy you believe is most important. You have argued that an offline book, which oddly enough I can view online, is "not suitable", but that's hardly an argument that the wiki is unique, and that's also not a consensus, especially since "unique" is far from the only criteria which is preventing it from being included. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:CONLIMITED is about changing policy. We're not doing that. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if The Sacred Scrolls site meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case. So your claim we're definitively going against some important rule is not true. The rule itself allows exceptions, and the consensus here fits in that exception. Anybody losing at consensus can come back with more arguments claiming they're right and consensus should be ignored. And I explained above you cannot see the whole book with that Google preview link, and you only get a limited number of views with it. Even if it was as accessible, it's not as comprehensive as The Sacred Scrolls. I've already explained this, but you love repetition. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
CONLIMITED is not about changing policy pages. It is also particularly relevant, because the long-standing, community-wide consensus (as documented at ELBURDEN) is that disputed links are removed, even if a majority of editors at an article are in favor of the link.
You have the option of continuing to discuss it here, or you can proceed to other forms of dispute resolution, such as an RFC on the article's talk page. Given that ELBURDEN clearly defaults against this disputed link, I recommend that the supporters of this link think about how to win friends and influence people, no matter which process they choose to engage in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It's already been discussed extensively on the article's talk page. WP:ELBURDEN does not clearly default against this link - it says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard. Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. We did that, and got consensus to restore the link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to concur with Gothicfilm here. This issue has been discussed for over two weeks now. Most of those involved in the discussion here and on the article's talk page support restoring the link. And I say restoring because the link was included for years until just a few weeks ago. At this point, all the arguments for and against restoring the link have been made and most have supported restoring it.SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A few people agreed that it was unique and should be included on that criteria; larger Wikipedia consensus is that open wikis are held to a certain criteria that this wiki does not meet. Unless a consensus determines that this wiki meets WP:ELNO #12, WP:ELBURDEN does indeed apply here. As has been said numerous times, how long it takes for someone to notice an external link does not give it some immunity to the consensus formed at WP:ELBURDEN. There's no consensus to restore the link, there's an arguable weak consensus that it is even unique, but it seems like the "unique" aspect is being focused on because it cannot meet WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you still have people disputing the link, then you don't really have consensus (a word that means "agreement", not "majority"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not policy. I've been here a little while, and I know how consensus works. That is not it. Not when you're dealing with certain editors who believe they're right and will never back down. Majority has to rule, and it does. That is policy. I showed above how you misstated WP:ELBURDEN (as can be seen with this dif). So far you haven't answered that. Instead you come back with this general statement about the word consensus? That is not policy. WP:Consensus says Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable). - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
...and there is no consensus that this link meets the criteria that the larger consensus has determined it must meet. You did not "show above" anything other than your opinion, and your opinion is contradicted by WP:ELNO and WP:CONLIMITED, even if there were a consensus to include the link on "unique" ground, which there is not. As an aside, "majority has to rule" is not policy by any means. What the policy says is that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view" so I don't know where "majority has to rule" came from. - SudoGhost 03:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes there is a consensus among most of the editors who have reviewed this link. They have concluded that the link meets the criteria of both WP:ELNO #1 & #12 and that WP:IAR applies as well. And as stated by GothicFilm above, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. It should also be noted that according to WP:FIVEPILLARS, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's wishful thinking; there is no consensus that the wiki meets WP:ELNO #12, and there are few editors that even addressed the subject other than to say "we should ignore that one"; WP:IAR doesn't apply in the way you're suggesting, otherwise I could just as easily say that I'm removing the link per WP:IAR. If you believe that the "interpretation has evolved", then as has been suggested numerous times now, you're welcome to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links and see if consensus has changed. - SudoGhost 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin on the Sacred Scrolls site in question. I'll try to clarify a few points here, purely so that you might be able to bring this to a conclusion. I know from being involved in a number of groups and online forums over the past decade that the number of Planet of the Apes fans worldwide - or at least those willing to get involved in anything online - is a tiny fraction of virtually all major sci-fi franchises, and this is reflected in the numbers of editors contributing to the Sacred Scrolls. It's pathetic when compared to the likes of Star Wars or Doctor Who, etc. And that was the main reason I got involved in the wiki in the first place - to help make this material, the facts and figures, more accessible and hopefully to generate interest. I have functioned as the site's main admin for 3 or 4 years now and I check recent changes on a daily basis (unless in exceptional circumstances), and make any corrections necessary. Of the top of my head, I can think of a prolonged attack of spam vandalism aimed at the site in the early months of this year, which was repaired on a daily basis, and also an unusual spate of vandalism over the last few days which, again, has been noticed and repaired quickly. I have gone to great effort to ensure that the site is as accurate and as unbiased as it can be, and I believe it now serves a useful purpose in presenting reliable facts on the subject. The alternative link which has been recently added to the Wikipedia article is to the excellent timeline book by Rich Handley - it may be significant that Rich himself is a named editor on the Sacred Scrolls (though under a pseudonym) and has praised the accuracy of the wiki on his blog and in print many times. He also invited me to serve as a proof-reader and fact-checker on his follow-up Planet of the Apes encyclopedia, because of my involvement with the wiki site. Consequently, I understand only too well the need for Wikipedia to refer only to safe and dependable sources. All I can add is that I believe the Sacred Scroll's content to be reliable, but having written much of it myself it's probably better if I leave that for others to decide. I'll answer any further questions anyone might have about the administration of the site, but I have no wish to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion about the definition of the guidelines. If you feel it doesn't meet the standards for a link from Wikipedia then so be it. - MagicManky (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for giving this background on the The Sacred Scrolls site, and for your work on it. This thread will be archived sooner or later, and I believe your input should be seen at the novel's Talk page, so hopefully you won't mind me posting a copy of it there: Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#The Sacred Scrolls background. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC now posted

Others can comment at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#RfC: The Sacred Scrolls external link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Christadelphians

We have an editor who insists on adding the following to the article:

"Go to YouTube and search 'Christadelphian Bible Prophecy Channel'on-line collection of Christadelphian HD Video's,Suitable for Preaching or Ecclesial use, Inc Bible Class Studies, Gospel Address, Thought For the Day,Spotlight on Bible Prophecy,Prophecy Day Events recorded 'Live',Slide Presentations and Exhortation"

I've reverted twice as has Xlinkbot and I've warned the editor, who has an obvious COI with anything Christadelphian. I don't want to get to 3RR myself. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Warned user for EW, watching. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm also checking to see if anyone thinks this is a suitable link. Not that it's a link anymore. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Church Committee#Sections of the Church Committee report

Looking for a second opinion in the above section in that a bunch of ELs within it come back with "Reported Attack Page!" warnings. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to list and link to every chapter of the report, so I've removed the entire section. Location (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Germar Rudolf is the author of a Holocaust denying report. We have a link to his website which links to his report. An IP is trying to push another link to the same report which is on vho.org - Holocaust denying hate site. I've removed it - it's been discussed before on the talk page and there's no reason to link to a hate site when we already have a link. Does anyone think that there is a reason to include this link? Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a hate site (despite its despicable content), rather it is the commercial book publisher started by Rudolf to sell his and other people's books from a country (the UK) where they are not illegal. There are two reasons why we shouldn't have the link - firstly it is plain and simple spam, just there to promote the sales of books; and secondly it is already linked from the front page of Rudolf's on website, which is linked from the Wikipedia article. Bottom line, it doesn't belong. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 28 links to vho.org in articles:

Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The personal webpage linked does more to promote books. The argument that other pages on a site promote books so we can't link to a relevant page is fallacious. The link to the page containing the text of the report is more relevant than the personal webpage. Where is the link to the report on the personal webpage, I do not see it. Why can we not have both links? This smacks of censorship borne of personal dislike. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I've told you and others have to now - his official website has a link to the paper. That's all we need. And you now have several editors disagreeing with you and no one agreeing with you. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And this is another reason: the link at Jhenaidah Cadet College is to Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky - the entire text is illegally copied there. We should not link to sites that have copyvio links. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Why not link straight to the paper. It's the crux of the issue. Are you personally uncomfortable with that paper? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partially because it's against our guideline. I've told you and others have to now - his official website has a link to the paper. That's all we need. And you now have several editors disagreeing with you and no one agreeing with you. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What guideline? Some of my points remain unaddressed. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, to begin. And per WP:ELBURDEN, people objecting to an external link don't have to address any of your points at all; they only have to express their opposition. Instead, you have to convince all of them to quit objecting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
And this is another reason: the link at Jhenaidah Cadet College is to Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky - the entire text is illegally copied there. We should not link to sites that have copyvio links. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

VHO is not actually Rudolf's site, although he seems to be largely responsible for it. It's a Belgian extremist right wing site. There are 28 links to vho.org in articles:

So we have maybe 13 copyvio links, and that isn't an attempt to count the number of copyvio links on the website. And I'd still call it a hate site, especially as it's the site for Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the site exists to literally sell a discredited antisemitic conspiracy theory, and there's no reason to link to it. Frizzmaz (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not actually our place to designate theories discredited, merely to report those theories, along with other sources that may dispute them. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We should not be using sites on historical things as references where the contents aren't written by accredited experts or peer reviewed in any way. There are enough good sites and sources. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"It's not actually our place to designate theories discredited" - unless the theories are all but universally recognized as discredited, as is clearly the case with Holocaust denial, an ideology which is fascist-right in origin and which is embraced only by those comfortable with its requisite antisemitism. You might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE. Frizzmaz (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Well said. Rivertorch (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DMOZ on Amateur radio

Please take a look at recent edits at Amateur radio. I've reverted several attempts to add direct Exlinks in spite of the article already using DMOZ, which it has done for a considerable time, it's not a recent change. I'm already at two reverts with one of the editors concerned so I don't want to break 3RR. Please help the editors understand the point of using DMOZ, if every national amateur radio society was linked directly (in addition to all the other "deserving" websites) the article would be drowned in links as there are hundreds such organisations. Thanks (I'm going to bed now and will be away from my computer all day tomorrow so I will be unable to participate in or respond to any questions about this matter before about 07:00 UTC on Monday, 22 April). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have settled down, with only DMOZ and one other link. I've updated the {{No more links}} notice to be more specific to the situation, which may help in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Statistical association football predictions

An editor keeps adding an external link to scibet.com to this article, but I can see no valid reason for it. I've attempted to discuss the issue at Talk:Statistical association football predictions#External links but the editor's insistence on reinstating the link before any consensus has been reached has exhausted my patience, so I can't deal with the situation with my usual tact and diplomacy. Could we please have some more eyes on this? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that the link is inappropriate because it essentially makes predictions developed by proprietary methodology. An appropriate link would be a site about such predictions, not one making the predictions themselves. It also does seem spammy, since it's singling out one site from a field that presumably includes others. That said, you are both appear to be over WP:3RR. If I were you, I'd self-revert before a trigger-happy admin happens along. Rivertorch (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's keep the main thread of the discussion on the substantive issue of whether this link should be included. I edit in the interest of building a reliable, neutral encyclopedia, not of avoiding breaching silly rules that don't distinguish between spammers and those protecting the encyclopedia from spam, so, quite frankly, I don't give a toss about trigger-happy admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would be perfectly fine with removing the link, if you replaced its added value with something valuable. For example, you could have expanded the article with information concentrated on the Publications section, or you could take on yourself the task of market research and created something like that List of hedge funds. Instead that, you choose the easy way to "fix" things, and then award yourself with the badge of "wikipedia's spam protector". I never asked you, but do you actually know something about statistical predictions? Or just happened to find a link that looked spammy? Averio (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I certainly don't award myself any such badge, as very little of my editing is concerned with spam, although when I see such blatant spam links I tend to remove them. And it's irrelevant whether I know anything about statistical predictions, but as it happens I know plenty. I've recently been on a trip to Las Vegas from the UK with six other family members that was paid for by a small part of the proceeds of my son's statistically based betting. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Averio, the link's "value" in the abstract may be considerable, but anyone who would consider it so can find it through other means than a link from a Wikipedia article. Its value in encyclopedic terms is what's in question here. We don't cherry-pick links to include just because some readers may find them valuable. Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch, I understand the doubts. Yet I for one don't view the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, IMHO part of its success is due to the fact that it serves much broader purposes. I personally own a start up company, and Wikipedia was an excellent tool when it came to the market research and the search after investors. Sports betting is a hobby, but I tried to include everything I thought to be important, including a section that reflected the market research I have done (I have actually contacted major websites that deal with sports predictions). In the light of the above, its not the link that bothers me, its the removal of section that took a few weeks of my life. Yes that section should be moved to a more appropriate page, which actually deals with market research. However, for some reason I don't see Phil doing that any time soon, and sadly I dont see myself doing that anytime soon. Especially after these conversations, which lets face it, are quite demotivating. Averio (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:ELBURDEN, any disputed link should be removed unless and until there is a positive consensus to include it. So let's not have any more edit warring over this: the link to http://www.scibet.com/ has been removed, and it should stay removed during the discussion.
As for my opinion on the link itself, I doubt that I would include it. It self-labels itself as betting tips, which is more than just an example of the stats work being applied. A preferable link of this sort would be either a purely disinterested one (e.g., a grad student or professor creating such a page for the purpose of showing how it's done, possibly using fictional teams) or a link to a directory of many such pages. The best link, though, would be one that shows how to do the calculations, rather than just giving the answers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Inspire (magazine)

A recent email to OTRS questioned whether the external links are appropriate. I took the view that they were not per WP:EL and removed them. My edit was reverted, so I am seeking further comment. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:ELNO #3 might be a concern. I'm still searching around, but possession of that magazine appears to be illegal in Great Britain at least. I don't know if that is also the case in the State of Florida, or how that discrepancy would be handled, but I think it's a good idea to remove the links until the concerns with the links are resolved, per WP:ELBURDEN. - SudoGhost 18:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
God bless Great Britain and freedom of inquiry. My concerns center on WP:ELNO #s 2, 11, and 19. More specifically, It may not be feasible to determine who is controlling a WordPress blog. If there were an official web site, that would be something else again, but that's not the case here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it being illegal is a good thing, or that Great Britain's laws concerning information is the same as Florida's, but I undid the edit to err on the side of caution. I agree that the WordPress blog part isn't much of a reliable source (and I don't know if that's a copyright violation or not). - SudoGhost 21:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I think you were correct in removing the links. Rivertorch (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of the links, for the reasons stated.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of links. (1) WP:CENSOR. (2) These links are important for classic free speech reasons. They give us a way of understanding the minds of people who are called "terrorists." Without direct information about them, we are just speculating and accepting the allegations of supposed "experts," who are frequently wrong. How do you know they're so wrong and evil if you haven't read their own words? (3) No one has offered any evidence that possessing these documents is illegal in Florida or anywhere else in the U.S. It's not. The First Amendment protections in the U.S. are very strong. Making these documents illegal would be prior restraint. A lot of Wikipedia content is illegal elsewhere in the world, and we don't remove it. For example, German laws protect the privacy of convicted criminals. British copyright laws protect historical paintings. (4) There are many cases in U.S. law allowing people to publish instructions on harming people. Online U.S. military manuals give much more detailed bomb-making instruction than this. Palladin Press publishes bomb-making instructions. The Anarchist's Cookbook was sold in bookstores. The Progressive published atom bomb plans. --Nbauman (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The primary difference is that the articles of your other examples do not have links to copies of those works in the external links section when they would be a copyright violation. Nobody argued that the links should be removed because they are objectionable, so I don't see WP:CENSOR as being a rebuttal to that. However, the next section below that is relevant: Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, so if the links are "important for classic free speech reasons", that doesn't warrant including them merely on that basis. - SudoGhost 22:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"Nobody argued that the links should be removed because they are objectionable,"
That's not true:
(cur | prev) 04:27, 17 April 2013‎ 89.69.131.15 (talk)‎ . . (34,787 bytes) (-4,398)‎ . . (→‎External links: it shows how to kill people constructing bomb!) (undo)
In the history, people go through many different reasons for deleting it, none of them supported under WP guidelines. Now they've come to copyright violation.
I don't believe that it is copyright. Wired called it "open source jihad". Inspire was distributed by being circulated through web sites. As a publishing lawyer once told me, it's not a copyright violation to use a document in the way it was intended.
BTW, what's the source of the section labeled "Contents" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_%28magazine%29#Contents ? It seems to be the same source as the original issues. If you can't link to the original issues, then you can't link to the Contents, and if you can't find a WP:RS, the Contents section must be removed. --Nbauman (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about in this discussion, not what an IP address did on an article a week ago. Unless there's actual documentation showing that it's released under some sort of copyleft license or something like that, then it is under copyright. Wikipedia is an "open source encyclopedia", and the contributions are specifically released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Wikipedia articles about magazines do not have external links to infringing copies of the magazine; that this one happens to be potentially offensive does not give it special consideration just because of WP:NOTCENSORED. - SudoGhost 04:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I just checked Inspire issue No. 2. On page 3, they say, "Open Source Jihad." They're explicitly saying that it's open source. That's clear documentation that it's issued under something like a copyleft license. So it's not infringing to copy it and post it on a web site, and it's not infringing to link to a web site that copies it. That should satisfy your objections. --Nbauman (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not clear documentation of any such thing; unless by "open source" they mean that the source code is available for public use (which they don't) then the use of "open source" is a buzzword, that's all. There are plenty of "open source" things that have nothing to do with a copyleft license, and plenty of open source software that still retain certain things under copyright, so using the words "open source" doesn't mean anything. Unless it specifically says what type of license it is released under, or that it is released into the public domain, then it is under copyright. - SudoGhost 04:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's as clear a statement as you can reasonably expect to get from a magazine that's written in such poor English. What do you expect them to do, contact the EFF for legal advice on releasing their copyright? Did you read the magazine? --Nbauman (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It would need to be completely, unambiguously clear that the work is not under copyright in order for Wikipedia to provide an external link to blogs and other sites reproducing the content. Using the words "Open Source Jihad" is a clear statement that they wanted to use a buzzword for their content, that's all. If it's such poor English, that wouldn't suggest using the words "open source" is a clear statement, if you're suggesting the authors have a poor grasp of English that would do even less to convey some sort of relinquishing of copyright. - SudoGhost 13:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Copyright law (and interpreting ambiguous legal situations) is based on thousands of cases, and requires a lot of legal judgment that lawyers get over years of practice. You're not a lawyer. You haven't consulted any lawyers. You're just giving your non-lawyer's opinion that it would be a copyright violation to even link to this site. You don't have any of that legal experience. It just seems that way to you. It seems obvious to you. Right? --Nbauman (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think you do understand it correctly. You're suggesting that a claim to copyright can be ignored solely because the work contains the words "open source"; not a CC-BY-SA notice, not a declaration that the work is public domain, just those two words. Are you suggesting that because copyright law has "thousands of cases" and "a lot of legal judgement" that this is somehow nullified on Wikipedia? I don't see how you working on the assumption that I'm not a lawyer would somehow grant any merit to this external link being any more appropriate than it otherwise would have been. - SudoGhost 17:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
In order to confidently know what copyright law says, you have to be a lawyer. You are making claims about copyright law, and you have removed content from Wikipedia based on those claims. I'm asking you whether you know as much about copyright law as a lawyer knows. The answer is no. Everything you say about copyright law is a layman's speculation. Right? --Nbauman (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
...are you asking me if it is a layman opinion that a claim to copyright is not nullified merely because the magazine contains the words "open source jihad"? Yes, I am confident beyond any doubt that using the words "open source" in an article does not relinquish an owner's copyright. There is no speculation on that in any capacity; unless the owner voluntarily gives up his rights, he retains them, and there is no evidence that anything like that occurred; that is certainly not demonstrated by using the words "open source jihad" in an article. - SudoGhost 18:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that external links are an optional component of articles—a convenience but hardly essential, since our readers can easily use search engines to find a given site. If that's the case, it probably would be better to err on the side of caution and not link to something that may be a copyright violation. Personally, I'm not a zealot about copyright, but in a borderline case where other valid concerns about the external link have been raised (as they have here) . . . well, it just seems safer to avoid including such links. Rivertorch (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, Sudo, in your non-lawyer's opinion, this is a copyright violation.
What would you say about linking to the MEMRI web site? In a similar way, on their web site they reproduce works in translation without permission of the copyright owners. Many of the authors and copyright owners have complained that MEMRI's translations distort what they actually said. It seems to me that using the same logic, you should agree that we should not link to the MEMRI site, since they commit massive copyright violations. Correct? --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch, according to WP:EL: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."
These links are directly relevant to the article. Muslims are being demonized, al-Qaeda is being demonized, and it's not only helpful but important for people to know whether the accusations against them in the media (and Wikipedia) are true. In Wikipedia, everything has to be verifiable. People should be able to go to the original sources and see whether they're being quoted accurately. So it's more than a convenience. It's essential to getting the facts.
I read a couple of the issues, and while I don't sympathize or support their goals, I understand them much better. They do have reasonable complaints about US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, for example. When you read the issues, you find out that they're not insane zealots (which is what you usually find out when you get both sides of an argument).
As for the search engines -- The original site is down. I used Google to find other sites with those issues, and I couldn't find one. Supposedly some sites have those PDFs with malware embedded, so it's significantly safer to lead readers to a safe site. --Nbauman (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
While I deplore the demonization of Muslims, I really couldn't care less whether al-Qaeda or any other acknowledged terrorist organization is demonized, no matter how reasonable their complaints may be. But neither my RL opinions nor yours matter here. It is not up to Wikipedia to counteract the demonization of anyone; our remit is to present verifiable content as neutrally as we know how, using what the community has decided to be reliable sources—including, sad to say, some that engage in demonization (FOX News, anyone?). If we could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the links in question lead to content that is controlled by the entity in question, then, everything else being equal (i.e., no copyvio or other issues), I would support their inclusion. But afaik we have no way of verifying that that's the case. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
"Open source jihad" could mean that they're hoping to crowdsource the struggle, not that they are releasing their writing under a free license. A motto is not a legally binding license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
So, those of you who believe we shouldn't link to that site because we can't demonstrate that the site had permission to post those articles -- do you also believe that we shouldn't link to the MEMRI site, because they also can't demonstrate that they have permission to post their translations of articles? --Nbauman (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any instances of that site being linked outside of its capacity as an official link, and at any rate that would be a subject for a different discussion. It may be inappropriate even as an official link, I really don't know anything about MEMRI but it doesn't matter for this subject; just because an unrelated external link may or may not be appropriate has no bearing on whether these links are appropriate. If you feel that MEMRI is being used inappropriately on Wikipedia in a way that might make Wikipedia liable for contributory infringement then that should certainly be addressed in another section devoted to that topic specifically, but even if that is the case then it doesn't give license to add to that problem. - SudoGhost 03:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument for external links. There's always spam and garbage somewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sudo, I'd like to know whether you are using a consistent standard of copyright violation or whether you are applying one standard to that Inspire link and a different standard to MEMRI. That Inspire link is doing the same thing that MEMRI is doing -- they are copying material for purposes of criticism and academic or other study. People do that all the time. It's not a copyright violation. But you think it's a copyright violation for Inspire. Your argument leads you to absurd conclusions -- that we can't link to original sources for purposes of criticism and study.
Beacon Press published an unauthorized translation of Mein Kampf when Hitler was in power, so that people could read his actual words and decide for themselves. This is like Beacon Press publishing Mein Kampf.
Do you think MEMRI is or is not engaged in copyright violation? --Nbauman (talk)
Nbauman, at the risk of repeating what Sudo and WhatamIdoing have already said, the situation at MEMRI has no bearing on the situation at Inspire (magazine). None whatsoever. Regarding the latter article (the topic of this thread), multiple reasons have been given why the links may be inappropriate, of which copyright concerns are only one. After more than a week of discussion, consensus favors omitting the links. You could run this by a broader segment of the community by opening an RfC on the article's talk page, but I don't recommend it. Can we can consider the matter resolved as far as this noticeboard is concerned? Rivertorch (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the links to MEMRI have a direct bearing on the links to Inspire. MEMRI translates and posts copyrighted material without permission. The Inspire link has also copied material without permission. Even if you assume that Inspire is copyrighted, and that even though they call themselves "open source" they are not open source, then MEMRI is doing the same thing that you accuse the Inspire link of doing: copying material without permission and violating a copyright. If we shouldn't use the Inspire link, then by the same logic we shouldn't link to the MEMRI site.
You say that the situation at MEMRI has no bearing on the situation at Inspire. But you give no reason. Wikipedia decisions are driven by logic and arguments. They're not driven by unsupported assertions. So your unsupported assertion has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
Multiple reasons have been given. But none of them hold up, and they all violate WP:CENSOR. For example, some people from the UK have speculated that it may violate UK law. Wikipedia is not governed by UK law, we are governed by the laws of Florida and the US. Wikipedia has pages that violate the laws of Saudi Arabia, China and Germany. We don't delete them.
I think that, for the real reason for deleting the link, we should look at the reasons people gave in the Inspire (magazine) History and Talk: They are offended by the ideas. That's WP:CENSOR. The other arguments didn't hold up, so they claim it's a copyright violation. That's a sham argument, and the proof is that they don't apply the same standards to MEMRI.
If you want to resolve this discussion, fine. Here's the resolution: No consensus. Many people object to the links, but they don't give valid reasons, under WP guidlines, to support their objections, and the reasons they give violate other guidelines, like WP:CENSOR. You can't override a WP guideline like WP:CENSOR by majority vote (or even by consensus, if you had it). --Nbauman (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you neatly avoided addressing my objections to including the links and you apparently missed the point about problems with one article not excusing problems in another. Anyway, I think you're misreading the situation. All policies and guidelines are based on consensus as determined by discussions within the community. Even major policies (of which WP:CENSOR—not a guideline, btw—forms a part) are subject to interpretation and even to modification based on such discussions. While you're free to interpret a given policy as you prefer and to deem other contributors' objections invalid, that doesn't negate the presence of consensus. And the consensus here is actually fairly clear, even if it is based on several disparate arguments with which you disagree: the links shouldn't be included. If you want to involve a larger cross-section of editors than have commented here, you can open an RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nbauman seems to be alone in promiting these external links. Wikipedia is not to be used to promote content for external causes, especially illegal content, content that induces, incites or instructs people how to commit crimes. We need to engage our brains and use editorial discretion to decide what links are appropriate. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, the copyright status of the Inspire miror sites is questionable at best. These sites should not be linked to. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

dramafever.com

The only edits by these two new users have been to add the sentence "The show is legally licensed in the United States, Canada, Central America and South America by DramaFever to stream on demand for free" and an external link to the DramaFever site, to multiple articles about various movies and TV shows. I've reverted some of these as spam, but before continuing with mass reversions, I wanted to check in here to make sure I'm not alone in thinking these edits are revert-worthy. Thoughts? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey, looks like we've got a third new user with the exact same edits:
This is blatant spam, right? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks pretty blatant to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
...and they're all blocked, for spamming and sockpuppetry. Issue resolved! Yay! Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I cleared out most of the links. MER-C 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Society of Architectural Historians

Before I report this to the spam board, I'll get feedback here. The Society of Architectural Historians is a professional association which is building Archipedia, an online database of historic structures in the United States. The site provides free access to the first 100 buildings in a state, but after that it's a pay-site. None of the Archipedia entries is lengthy (yet), and none provide information that couldn't be incorporated into a Wikipedia feature article. User:68.21.18.17 has added hundreds of Archipedia links to Wikipedia. (SAH may have other unregistered accounts working on Wikipedia, but I do not know.) I argue these Archipedia links violate WP:ELNO (guideline #1). Furthermore, once Archipedia becomes a pay-site, the links will be spam (essentially advertising use of the pay-site), as there is no guarantee that what's available for free today will stay that way. User:68.21.18.17 is been notified. The views of others is much appreciated! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get the idea that after 100 in a state, this is a pay site??? I see at SAH's "About" page that they so far have attempted to make available about 100 articles per state. Which is a reasonable way to start, they are making a point to start with that about that much substantial coverage in every state. Where on earth is any evidence that future access will cost anything? --doncram 15:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I'm amazed nobody saw fit to revert the edits earlier, block the spammer, and blacklist the domain. You are right in thinking this is pure and simple spamming, and per WP:ELNO it simply doesn't belong here. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed Biker removing one such link (to this Sitka Alaska post office SAH article, and I reverted biker's edit, restoring the link. (And I posted to Biker's Talk page, before noticing this conversation.) I am a Wikiproject NRHP (wp:NRHP) member and noticed SAH being mentioned positively there recently, and I have a positive impression of its articles that I have come across so far. I have probably added some links to it. So I am not immediately on-board about removing links to it now, nor is wp:NRHP as a whole. I will grant that I am not fully familiar with spam policy and external links policy, and that the non-logged-in editor adding links seems a bit spam-like. Perhaps we could have notice to wt:NRHP and get some more eyes on this.... Perhaps it is possible to contact SAH directly and negotiate something other than their proceeding to switch it to a pay-site as is suggested above, which is the first i heard of that. And getting whoever there to agree to contribute as a logged-in editor, and not act in a spammer-like mode. I am still in mode of assuming good faith about that site and their intentions to increase internet information about architectural / historical sites. --doncram 14:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I previously reverted several of these links in articles on NRHP sites in Alaska. The reason for this is that the text was taken verbatim from Alison K. Hoagland's Buildings of Alaska. While the Jet Lowe photos found in that book are in the public domain, I've found nothing to indicate that Hoagland's text is likewise in the public domain. Unless I'm wrong on that point, how many other instances of copyvio are contained in these links? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Alaska SAH entries, like this one for the Sitka one, explicitly cite Hoagland. SAH is the publisher of the Hoagland book or otherwise has arranged explicitly to be able to reproduce from the Hoagland book, and others. I agree with some comments here that the SAH articles could themselves be better, but I see no indication that there is any copyvio on their part going on. To the contrary, you're pointing out that the material is good, worth linking to, being drawn from a source (Hoagland) that you respect.... --doncram 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I have posted notice of this discussion at wt:NRHP now. The SAH is not a simple cut-and-dried commercial site. It is part of, or associated with the University of Virginia somehow and, by its main page, appears to be grant funded. This seems to be a nonprofit project that could be worked with, not fought against. --doncram 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a positive impression of SAH, too. But that's not the point. The point is that WP:ELNO says that external links should be avoided when they do not contribute information that could otherwise be incorporated into a feature article. (In other words, don't be lazy and link to Archipedia for more information. Improve the article.) I perceive SAH advertising their site; they are not making contributions to articles by adding facts with a link to Archipedia as the source, nor are they taking existing but uncited facts in articles and adding Archipedia as a citation. (Frankly, the Archipedia entries are quite poor quality: Uncited or relying on a single citation; quoting without attribution; no original research; very short; etc.) By the way, SAH adds these external links thusly: "SAH Archipedia Building Entry". They don't even say "SAH Archipedia Building Entry for Watergate Complex" or "SAH Archipedia Building Entry for Empire State Building". It's lazy, and seems dangerously close to corporate vanity. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, points taken. But offhand it seems to me that an external link to a site that adds info is good, unless and until the info is covered in the article and the external link is no longer helpful. I am not sure how the external links policy is supposed to be enforced, would not think that simply removing links is the way to go. --doncram 14:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Heh, improve the article? The vast majority of NRHP site articles on my watchlist follow the same pattern: a bunch of templates, an obligatory photo or two, and an obligatory "fact" thrown in to the article body, often without regard for significance or even context. It appears that the main reason these articles exist is that users are taking advantage of the presumed notability of NRHP sites to mass create articles of dubious quality, so they can brag on their user page about how many articles they've created. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
This is off-topic. But, RadioKAOS, if your crack is about Sitka United States Post Office and Court House, a stub article that I created, I resent that! It is a stub, yes, but it provides some good info, including a link to the NRHP nomination document which could be used to further improve the article. It serves the need of any possible local historian, librarian, photographer, or other person who could be informed now in their photographing the site or adding text material. It's a good start, IMHO. :) Wikipedia works by different people contributing what they can, including making a framework that supports additional contributions.... --doncram 15:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in here. Obviously while they continue to a) spam their site here and b) continue on course to put the content behind a paywall, the site has no place on Wikipedia. If they can be persuaded otherwise that would be a great result. Perhaps removing every instance of their site off Wikipedia would give some leverage to the decision? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Nonprofits can run for-profit sites. SAH seems Archipedia as a way of making money, in time. And universities make lots of profit, too. So just because Archipedia is grant-funded, associated with UVA, or nonprofit is, to my way of thinking, not very relevant. But more people need to weigh in on this. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, let's not rush here. I just tried calling SAH's designated contact Jason Coleman, "Rotunda Marketing Manager", at phone number found in their "subscribe" page that answers "University of Virginia Press". Jason's email is within virginia.edu domain. "Subscribing" may amount simply to opening a free account, like a Wikipedia account is free. I didn't get through just now but am willing to try to reach a real person there.
About the additions that have been done by the one IP and any others, could those be listed somewhere (perhaps at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/SAH?) while we consider this and try to get more info. I don't think there is a crisis of bad info that requires immediate removal. Doing less for a while is better, i think, to avoid churning and controversy. --doncram 14:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And, I don't currently see any indication that SAH intends to be a paysite, at all. I won't edit war, but this reversion of my edit, with edit summary asserting that the EL addition "is pure promotional and COI spamming", seems wrong. I don't buy that assertion. There is no COI apparent. There is nothing commercial apparent, at least not to me, so far. This could, instead, be the start of a good collaboration like there exists between Wikipedia and the American Chemists society with a bunch of good chemistry articles. I can't comment further now, will return later. --doncram 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's a paysite. WP:ELCOI applies to for-profits and non-profits alike, and is applied regardless of any possibility of making money. For EL purposes, there is a COI when the user adding the link is associated with the website that is being linked, e.g., when 68.21.18.17 (talk · contribs), at an IP publicly registered to the Society of Architectural Historians, is adding links like this one to the Society of Architectural Historians' website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if the site is adding external links to itself, that's a COI. I myself am unclear about why we need to be worried about SAH's response to wholesale deletion of their links. Are they suddenly going to ban Wikipedia from linking to them or using them as a source? Are they going to be so upset that we've removed their links that they will never allow WP to cite their journal articles, or allow a Wikipedian to join their society, or something? No. I'll be repetitive: SAH articles do not currently contain information that cannot easily and quickly be added to all the articles in question. In some cases (e.g., Watergate complex) the Wikipedia article is far, far superior and the SAH article link (aside from being pitiful) adds nothing to the reader's understanding. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, reviewing our wp:ELCOI policy i agree that it seems a representative of SAH adding multiple links to SAH articles seems to be in violation of that policy. This is far different from finding that SAH is a paysite (since there has been no response once that was questioned, the assertion of it being a paysite seems to have been completely wrong in the original assertions, IMO) and there is no cause to "blacklist the domain" which was called for in the second post in this thread.
It seems fine for others-than-SAH-persons to add links to SAH articles. I just myself chose to re-add a SAH link to the Mayflower Hotel wikipedia article in this edit by me. It's marginal, but I think it does add, specifically providing two pictures not available in the Wikipedia article (which i mention with the EL). I believe I have previously added one or a few SAH links where i was writing a wikipedia article and found the SAH corresponding article to be helpful, and that is fine.
I guess what's not okay is for a SAH person editing as an IP editor to be adding the links, but then how deal with that? Is it possible to contact the IP editor nicely, has that been tried? Have they been given proper guidance? I think i saw the ip page had received notice of this discussion, but the person had not been welcomed to wikipedia and advised how to participate. Maybe that is not feasible if they don't have a proper account? But has constructive contact been tried? I for one would welcome an SAH person providing a list to me or to WikiProject NRHP of their articles for possible linkage, particularly if they can share perspective about where their articles have photos or info not included in ours. --doncram 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish to Add URL of my website www.whatisarobot.co.uk

I want permsission to Add URL of my website www.whatisarobot.co.uk to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denwise5 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you've put a lot of work into your site. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet our guidelines for external links, so it's unlikely that the Wikipedia community would give you that permission. Thanks for asking first, btw, and good luck promoting your site elsewhere. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

webstuff.gotdns.com

User:Cutajarc has created http://webstuff.gotdns.com/demand, which he added to many articles, so many so that it was discussed at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Appropriateness of an external link. After the remaining links to this site were removed, I suffered from some harassment by a mysterious IP on my talk page.[41] I've only just discovered that around the same time another IP was restoring the links.[42] (I've previously opend an SPI discussion about Cutajarc's use of mutiple IPs) While it seems obvious to me, and those who discussed it at WP:AWNB, that Cutajarc's website is not appropriate as an external link, I'd still like to get some outside opinions as to its suitability, or lack thereof. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Some articles such as the National Electricity Market page are suitable to have this link added. as such did some users mention the link was a good resource. You have been stalking me and reverting EVERY edit ive made no matter if its against Wikipedias policy or not. Leave me alone. And NO, those IP address are not me, you have no proof so stop basing your assumption on coincidence. Thanks

Cutajarc (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If the link is not suitable as an external link, it's not suitable on any page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking to Crackle video site for full movies.

Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on new library search tool for Wikipedia

We have a new tool, Forward to Libraries, which helps readers find books at their local library related to the articles they are reading. The tool is run on Wikimedia Labs but links to external library searches. There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) to determine how this tool should be used on Wikipedia. Interested users may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Two templates for ELs to Dr Who fan sites

I've started two Templates for Deletion discussions for templates used in the External Links sections of a large number of articles pertaining to Doctor Who: see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_15#Template:Doctor_Who_RG and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_15#Template:OG_review. It seems to me that these are always in violation of WP:ELNO, ergo the simplest way of clearing them up is to delete the templates. However, others might disagree! Also, my thinking on the matter has evolved: that is, I still think they should be deleted, but for more nuanced reasons than when I started the TfDs. My current thinking is laid out in later comments in the 2 TfDs.

In retrospect, I think I should probably have started gathering views here first. So, apologies for going about this backwards, but if EL/N regulars would like to take a look at the two TfDs or comment here, that would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We used to encourage providing external links to reviews more strongly (now, we prefer that reviews are used to build the article, although links to reviews are still permitted), and these templates date back to that time. I don't have an opinion about their fate, so I'll leave that to others, but I thought that the history might be interesting to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Folks, we have received an e-mail at OTRS about the format of some of the links to NASA pages:

Any pages that fell under http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/ now come under http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/ so the links should be updated accordingly. I just fixed one but there may be others. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Using Special:LinkSearch it's showing that there are 11 other uses of that external link on Wikipedia as of writing this. I just want to clarify before I try to move all those links and end up doing it wrong, but is it just a matter of replacing "eosweb" with "science-edu"? - SudoGhost 19:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's it.--ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the four that were actually in an article. I'm assuming the others shouldn't be changed since they were part of someone's talk page comment. However, other than the EDDOCS subdirectory I don't know what to do with the other links; aside from the actual eosweb landing page, none of the other external links that use that URL seem to be working, but changing eosweb to science-edu didn't seem to work for links that didn't fall under the EDDOCS subdirectory. I don't know what was discussed at OTRS but do you know how those might be fixed as well? - SudoGhost 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Changing the links used as references was the urgency. Agree that we shouldn't change tp comments. The e-mail was specifically about "eosweb" to "science-edu". Thanks for the help!--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well there are still some others that are being used as references, but show 404 errors, like the URLs that have HPDOCS and PRODOCS as their subdirectory. Those are give 404 errors and changing those to science-edu doesn't work. I'll try to see if I can find out how to fix those, but all of the references that use the EDDOCS subdirectory are corrected. - SudoGhost 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm really grateful that they alerted us to this. I wish every site were as conscious of our problem with sites getting rearranged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.columnkaar.com/

Hi. I found http://www.columnkaar.com/ being added to the Hamid Mir article [43]. I have deleted it because it appears to be hosting copyrighted material from several Pakistani Urdu papers without permission from the copyright holders. I do not think it is OK to provide links to sites which may be doing extensive copyright infringements. I brought this up here to suggest/see if the website needs to be blocked from Wikipedia. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We should not link to any websites hosting copyrighted content without permission, "without exception" as per WP:ELNEVER. You were right to remove the link under these grounds. ThemFromSpace 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see very few links to this blogspot site. This seems to be contradicting Guideline # 11 at Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. As I started cleaning them up, I saw user:Rzombie1988 reverting few of them. e.g., 1, 2, 3 and 4. I would like to know if such links should be allowed on wikipedia. --Anshuk (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between a regular website and blogspot? There are none. My site is as legit as any other site. I just use blogspot since it is free. Blogspot is just a website to host information. It could be called Citespot and then it wouldn't be seen as a "blog" but would still be the exact same thing. This argument could be WP:ELPOV, over the differences between a blog and a website. There is no difference between Blogspot and any other website out there. Any information that I have posted on wikipedia can be backed up with either pictures or text, proving the legitimacy of it. My site has been previously cited by Súper Luchas and Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which are both credible publications. I have no control over who cites my website or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you are the owner of the blogspot site, this also comes dangerously close to WP:ADV--Anshuk (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Every link that anyone posts is an advertisement, whether intentional or unintentional WP:ADV. It leads users to websites, and every website used benefits from it.
On the topic of citing my own site, one thing to keep in mind is that this is wrestling that I edit. Wrestling has no laws and whatever the wrestling company decides, becomes the truth. Wrestling companies regularly distort the truth or do not provide substantial information for things they say. WWE claims weekly that Curtis Axel is a different person than Joe Hennig and Michael McGillicutty, when this is obviously not true WP:EL#ADV. Wrestling companies do not admit this type of information and do not admit to information that they do not provide themselves. Therefore, for example, the information I posted in the Audrey Marie article is information that is unlikely to ever be admitted by the WWE as legit information, despite being proven as legitimate information and has to be provided by an outside sourceWP:EL#ADV.
We don't just go by what the promotion says here. That'd be foolish. We use many independent and reputable journalistic sources, too. Your site may be independent, but how long have you been around? Who do you know "in the business"? Have you ever been called an expert in a major publication? Won any awards? Is there anything on your site that you don't just gather from bigger dirtsheets? If not, Wikipedia can use the same sources you do. If you're adding your own spin on things, your opinion is just as good as mine or anyone else's with Internet access and something to say. If we let you in, where do we draw the line? I hope you do become a recognized expert one day, but you're not there yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to keep throwing policies at you but now you are talking about WP:NOR. I know that your heart is the right place but you do understand why we can't let owners cite their websites as references and why we don't let editors do primary research on wikipedia --Anshuk (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Having looked the website has no place on Wikipedia and it very clearly fails WP:ELNO --Biker Biker (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide sufficient reasoning as to why my site has no place on Wikipedia. My site belongs here as much as any other. I provide information not available elsewhere. I am an authority on wrestling, albeit a small one. I have already proven that my site is reliable as a source, especially compared with WWE. Also, my site was linked by someone else about Danny Burch, therefore making it totally acceptable if we want to go the "you can't self source" route. That one would have no reason to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 19:04 UTC, 4 June 2013‎
If the COI and advertising isn't enough, another reason why it doesn't belong is WP:ELNEVER. The website features a huge amount of copyright violating content - screenshots, animated gif video clips, etc. This is way above what could be claimed to be fair use. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no info in the four reversions up top that can't be sourced to any site with event results, without all the copyright and blog issues. It's not that the info is bad, just that your niche on Wikipedia is already filled by admittedly "bigger" authorities. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just bullying at this point, so I'm out. I'm not going to feed you more to get your appetite wet with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not bullying, but avoiding copyright violations that could land Wikipedia's owners and editors in trouble. Do whatever you want on your website, but please don't soil ours with it. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to be rude. The problem isn't the information or the hosting site. It's just that you haven't proven that you are a recognized expert in the subject area. Aside from a self-published website, do you have publication credits to attest to your expertise? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Differences between a website and a blog

My article edits were deleted by Anshuk due to my website being called a "blog" instead of a "website". I would like to know how it is determined whether a webpage is a "blog" or a "website".

To be honest it doesn't matter one way or the other, a self-published source - be it something that uses blogger.com, blogspot.com, your own domain, a CMS like Joomla or Wordpress - is still a self-published source and according to both WP:ELNO and WP:RS adds no value as an external link in an article and is not useable as a reference. If the owner of a site tries to argue that their site is the best things since sliced bread and absolutely definitely belongs on Wikipedia, then many editors (myself included) are more likely to remove any and all trace of it citing WP:ADV and WP:COI. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Danny Burch article was not posted by me and is free to use under your terms and description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 19:30 UTC, 4 June 2013‎

Regarding The Tejeros Convention in the Philippine Revolution

Gentlemen,

This is the link regarding my great grandfather Jose del Rosario being from Tanza, Cavite and being eventually elected the director of interior as noted in our government website. 

- #REDIRECT [[44]].

Sincerely,

Rolando Lupisan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPLupisan (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you left this message. What should be done with this link? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

John Henderson (director)

Check all links - where it directs (e.g. Hyperdrive - direct not to the Sci-fi comedy). Make links to other works in article. This article needs an image of the person it talks (google "John Henderson director" in pictures). ' series The Borrowers, the 1999 Comic Relief Doctor Who' - needs links on works directed by this person, not to article about the entire series (links to general articles is useful too, but it needs links on works of current director, because this person not a creator of this TITLES or SERIES) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattch (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding John Henderson (director). When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Little Tough Guys

On the page for Little Tough Guys, User talk:Senex04 has added the site http://deadendkids.org {The Bowery Boys Page} to the external links. The page is a personal "fansite" and was created by an individual to provide an overview of the Dead End Kids through Bowery Boys series of films. Short synopsis of the films are included...providing no more information than is already available on Wikipedia's pages, but my main concern is the end section where "Bowery Boys For Sale" is listed with links to buy films/books/etc through Amazon's site. This looks to be a way to provide traffic to this fansite, with the hopes of people buying items through the provided links. I have reverted the link, but the other user continues to re add it. I would like for others to weigh in to decide if this site is worthy of inclusion or if it should be disallowed per the links guidelines regarding fansites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam. It fails WP:EL. It's clearly a personal site, its author provides no credentials and claims no expertise, it carries a disclaimer that calls into doubt its accuracy, and the information it provides is negligible. Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

wall of death

At the bottom of the Popular Culture section of Wall of death (carnival sideshow) there is a link http://www.americanwallofdeath.com/ with no context or justification. It appears to be a link to a specific performer of this sideshow and would therefore be spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by R12ski (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed as spam. Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Methodism

Please see Methodism#External_links [45]. Valid list or linkfarm? --NeilN talk to me 11:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it's excessive. It can easily be replaced with an external link containing the same list, i.e. [46]. -- Hazhk Talk to me 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NHL players need more complete profiles

We are seeking to make pro hockey players' profiles more complete on Wikipedia. In the 'External Links' section, we have included a link to a few players' Shnarped Profile. See Shawn Thornton's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Thornton

The problem is that we have been warned of spamming. We don't believe we are spamming at all. The Shnarped profile is significantly different from other hockey profiles out there. It includes the most recent game-by-game stats, links to the box scores, and is overall more detailed. This is essential stuff for avid hockey fans.

Would you be able to grant us permission to add a link to all of the NHL player's Wiki pages? This makes Wikipedia a better hub of information for hockey fans.

Please let us know if you can help!

Kyle Hagel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.65.205 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiislam

I had an argument with Amatulic about that wiki. (http://www.wikiislam.net)

The guideline for external link says that we should avoid link to others wiki but on the subject of criticism of islam, that site is a very rich and reliable source.

It is stable, only refers to reliable sources and each edit is reviewed.

So I really think that that wiki should be listed as a pertinent external link on the subject.

So I'm here to collect opinions about that website.

Thank you for your advices.--Sertimini54 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting from their FAQ]:

WikiIslam's primary focus is on the criticism of Islam while Wikipedia is a compendium of general knowledge. These differing goals have lead to different policies and guidelines.As a knowledge base for both Muslims and non-Muslims interested in the criticism of Islam, articles at WikiIslam are naturally not required to be NPOV ("Neutral Point of View").

This means they are obviously useless as an external link. They're an advocacy site, devoted to pushing a specific point of view. Furthermore, it's not a widely used, well-established Wiki--they get less than 100 edits a day. They also don't have a wide user base--in the last 5 days, I see less than 10 distinct editors, and 90% of the editing seems to be done by 2 people. The only page on which their site could possibly be used as a link would be on WikiIslam, which, of course, does not exist as notability has not been established for the site. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
For anyone interested, Sertimini54's posted his argument with me on my talk page here: User talk:Amatulic#Wikiislam.net. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page edits rejected: Seems like a bug

I don't know where to bring this up, so I'll leave it here in the hopes that the right person sees it. Wikipedia seems to have started rejecting links to YouTube in talk pages (not sure when, I don't link to YouTube very often). It's really a pain for edits like this one to the talk page for the Ackermann function where I was trying to use a couple of YouTube videos in a list of popular science and math examples of comparisons between related mathematical functions and physical quantities (such as the size of the observable universe). I feel I'm hobbling other editors by requiring that, in order to verify what I'm saying, they need to go do a specific search on YouTube and find links that match what I'm describing, rather than directly linking to the videos in question. -Miskaton (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Moved from the talk pageThemFromSpace 03:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Links to www.­peacefulwarrior.­com are not working.

That's an issue for the webmaster in charge of that site. If a site remains down for an extended period, it is reasonable to remove the link from the External links section of an article, while instances of its use as an inline citation may be tagged with the "dead link" template. From a cached version of the site's home page, it looks of questionable value as either an external link or a reference, but it's hard to be sure without some context. Rivertorch (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

Previously discussed at RSN (most recent here) where consensus seems to be that this is not a reliable source. I therefore feel it should not be included as an in-line cite or an external link, and was advised here to bring to ELN. Basically this is a website which anybody can edit, and sufficient questions/concerns have been raised across numerous RSN discussions for me to conclude that it serves no purpose as an external link. To quote thumperward (talk · contribs) at the TFD already linked, "I'm inclined to believe that we're not so short of football databases that we should feel obliged to link to ones that have repeatedly been shown to contain dud or outright hoax information, no matter what oversight is theoretically in place [...] we allow for external links which provide a 'unique resource' if that content can't be provided here. Another statistics dump is not a unique resource." GiantSnowman 08:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast

Hello, I was told here [47] that this is a good place for this. I will copy from original RFC: Concern over whether links like [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] (these examples are only a small amount of total links like this), where the user who added the links is the owner of Punkcast (site that is linked to, also wikipedia article created by him, history of COI) but was not clear about it always, are a violation of WP:LINKFARM WP:NOTCATALOG WP:ADV WP:LINKSPAM WP:SELFPROMOTION. I don't know but it is suggested maybe it is a copyright violation too for some videos. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Is something with wrong with how I did this? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
No one has a comment? or I did something wrong? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Some one tell me what I did wrong? MarioNovi (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
First, it looks like there isn't much activity on this board. Secondly, you provided an awful lot of links for people to look at...it's a little overwhelming. Maybe start small with one question. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Official websites

I just noticed that {{Official websites}} is used on 37 articles. I rather thought that one official website was standard. Perhaps there is a reason for car articles to have multiple links? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. it's true that a product may have multiple official websites in different regions, but on the English Wikipedia we rarely require to link to anything but the English site. In practical terms, this usually means only one case where multiple links might be appropriate: where there are multiple official English sites (typically US and UK). I don't really think we need a template specifically for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
One official website is standard, but there are always exceptions to the rules. Looking over the Toyota articles, it doesn't seem that the additional language ELs help any, or provide any extra "official" data, so they are probably not needed. But some other articles might benefit from the template. ThemFromSpace 03:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)\
I indeed would consider one enough, we hardly ever need to list multiple ones. I could here see that a company has an official-official site in a non-English language, but also an English variety, we could there consider to link those two (but I think it is already a bit excessive). Linking to the Spanish, Greek and Russian official site (omitting the English) is certainly not necessary. And I certainly don't think that we need a separate template for that, two times '{{official website}} with an extra not is good enough. This invites linkfarming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

HTML5 Diagramming Tool Appropriate EL?

There is a tool that is becoming pretty popular for making diagrams. It is fully free for students and teachers and has a free version. Many pages that are searching about diagrams seem like they would have a better experience with a link to a tool that helps them build the diagrams that they are looking at. For example the page about floor plans you could link them to https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/examples/floor-plans. Same thing for more technical diagrams like P&ID diagrams, circuit diagrams. In my opinion, most people looking for those are also working on making a diagram which I had historically had to draw with paper and pencil. Also I would add probably most are students so completely free. While all diagramming tools that I have found have free versions, this is the best because this also gives full version for free to students. Would like to know others thoughts on this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanks (talk • contribs)

No, linking to commercial sites such as yours is not appropriate. Please stop spamming this site. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
No. At most we would link neutral lists of tools. Specially if they have comparisons, lists of features, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Google Earth Hacks"

A number of editors have been adding links to specific gearthhacks.com pages as external links, e.g. [63] [64]. The site seems to fall between open wiki / map source and blog. Do not think these are appropriate. Babakathy (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate. The first paragraph of the article linked appears to be copied (without attribution) from our Zambezi article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved the above from Wikipedia talk:External links

To me this is one of many user-input projects out there, and it does not make sense to have a link to all of them. Babakathy (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of this, we have a toolserver linky-thingy for this that does the necessary part of it, the rest of the hack is just extra information that is not necessary (just as an amazon.com link on a book with an ISBN is not necessary at all). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Babakathy (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

IMDB

Are IMDB links okay to be used inside an article proper? WP:EL seems to clearly say "no". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean as a source? No, because it is user generated like Wikipedia. See WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not so much as a source, but rather in place of wiki-links for non-notable actors. The article in question is The Haunted Hathaways. Another user seems to think they're perfectly fine, as they're "interwiki links". IMDB is not a sister-project of the WMF. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a specific policy or guideline against it but I don't think it's a good idea. A reader not familiar with Wikipedia may then be under the misguided notion that IMDB is affiliated to Wikipedia in some way if we treat it like a wikilink. An external link should always clearly identify the site to the reader, otherwise you could end up with a scenario where a reader is taken to a profile of a Playboy centerfold on the Playboy site on a work computer etc. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
IMDb is defined as a link that is often fine as an external link in an external link section, however, WP:EL does strongly discourage to use external links inline in the text. I often remove them without prejudice. Those should all be wikilinks to their own article, or no link (or remain a redlink) if the subject is really not notable enough for Wikipedia - still they might need a proper reference to a reliable source to make the statement in itself verifiable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The other editor has self-reverted so this issue has hopefully been settled. Thank you both. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this discussion so would like to explain more what I am trying to accomplish.
Links in the form [[imdbname:number|display]] are defined in the m:interwiki map and should be treated as interwiki links to a peer wiki (IMDb could be considered that), not external links covered by the external link guidelines.
WP:REDNOT discourages redlinking personal names as a name does not uniquely identify a person and also related, a name in an article also does not identify a person.
The interwiki link to IMDb is used soley to identify the person named. I believe that improves the article. A WP:VIAF link would be better but not likely to have one for these people.
WP:Soft redirects would meet all the requirements of identification and would replace the inline interwiki links but so far soft redirects I add for that purpose get deleted. See this set of speedy messages.
If I could get support for using soft redirects this use of interwiki links would be moot. So far the interwiki links to IMDb look to be the only solution that somewhat works. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I still think that then a non-linked name, and finishing the sentence with an appropriate reference is a better option. Moreover, the redlinked name would not go to the 'unique' person, but likely to a disambig in the end (in some cases, it would link accidentally to 'the wrong person'). I would regard those interwikis here similar as an external link, and discourage that practice for non-mediawiki-wikis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballotpedia

The site Ballotpedia is included in the {{CongLinks}} template for members of the U.S. Congress, which means it appears as an external link in hundreds of existing articles. Given that the site is an amateur wiki, does it belong here? —Designate (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You might question their political bias, which seems to be getting much stronger recently, but in point of fact that wiki is almost totally written and reviewed by paid staff. Flatterworld (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
as a source of information the ballotpedia is much more up to date than wikipeida, I have been working on making sure the links work just as a source of info. We need to be pragmatic, for locate state legislators in kansas the ballotpedia is much more accurate, the wikipedia is way out of date. James Michael DuPont (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast

This again?

[65], where the user who added the links is the owner of Punkcast (site that is linked to, also wikipedia article created by him, history of COI) but was not clear about it always, are a violation of WP:LINKFARM WP:NOTCATALOG WP:ADV WP:LINKSPAM WP:SELFPROMOTION. I don't know but it is suggested maybe it is a copyright violation too for some videos. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

First. MarioNovi did not notify me as per "If you mention specific editors, you must notify them." instruction above. However since this editor has harassed me for months, I keep a fair eye on his/her contribs, so it's not a big deal. Second: MarioNovi has been warned about WP:OUTING before. Third. Punkcast was a collaborative effort to video document the NYC music scene in the early 2000s. In the case of the Moldy Peaches this band broke up in 2004. In 2008 I did some clean up on the article and delved into the Punkcast archive for a still image for commons and put EL's to video clips from 2001-2002, since Punkcast's agreement with the band did not include posting the clips under an open licence. These links have since been removed by other editors. So now, since the original clips are in realvideo format, it is more likely that people will go to YouTube where they are indeed to be found easily via google. These are uploaded by other people who have previously downloaded from Punkcast and thus, unlike the originals, are indeed copyvio, not that anyone's too concerned. If there is a question of permission on the original videos on Punkcast I can have the band contact OTRS. I am not sure what MarioNovi is trying to achieve here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Wwwwhatsup, this is not appropriate place for this response. I was warned for OUTING and someone filed and it was decided I did nothing inappropriate. If you have a problem please take it to the appropriate place or stop the false accusations and stalking of my edits you just admit to. You have posted many links to your own website, which is a violation, and others have said you may not have copyright clearance for all the clips, so they suggested I come here, it was not my idea. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
1) If "the user who added the links is the owner of Punkcast" is not outing, I don't know what is. For the past, I suggest a review of the incident archive, it was inappropriate and it was deleted. The incident wasn't further pursued partly at my suggestion that it was due to ignorance rather than malice.[66]. 2) "others have said you may not have copyright clearance" - please, who, what, where? 3) "violation" - not necessarily. For instance, in your eyes uploading an image to Wikipedia Commons and mentioning its source is prohibited, when pretty much the reverse is true, 4) "they suggested I come here, it was not my idea" - this is a disingenuous excuse for the ongoing forum shopping that started with your very first edit over 7 months ago[67]. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
1) User had no right to warn me, and other user admitted I did not do outing here. Other user tried to report my OUTING but it was decided you are up front about your identity so it is not OUTING.[68] You are wiki lawyering. . Was also discussed on ANI[69]. Do not discuss it further, follow correct procedures thank you. 2) [70] user tells me to go to this board. 3) Don't understand. I listed policies you violate. 4) [71] again. You are not assuming good faith. Please take your complains about me to the appropriate place and stop cluttering this board in attempt to make people not look at the links. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, on the topic of ELs. What exactly is wrong with Moldy Peaches? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. That's one down! The Boxtops is a pretty good EL in my opinion. Playing their most notable song under the Twin Towers just 40 days before 9/11, and one of Alex Chilton's last shows with the band. The sole video EL. It was added on Christmas Eve 2007 and has stood the test of time. The history of this clip is that the band asked Punkcast for it to be taken down for a period immediately after 9/11, but then eventually agreed for it to be re-instated a while later. In 2009 it was posted to YouTube [72] in better quality - the EL could perhaps be updated. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What a waste of time. MarioNovi, I dare say this was ignored the first time (despite your regular bumping to keep it at the top) because one quick look at your contribution history and talk page would reveal to any regular/experienced WP editor that both of these posts are simply the last desparate attempt at continuing your 6-month campaign of forum-shopping harassment against Wwwhatsup. For what must be about the 384th time... drop the damn stick. Your fair share of good faith expired months ago. Stalwart111 11:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't close it - I hatted that part of it which was a repeat of your previous harassment. As detailed on my talk page, you have now tried to shop this allegation around to 8 forums/noticeboards, some multiple times. Go and find a different hobby. Stalwart111 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hennapage - free site closely affiliated with a commercial site

This is a free, informational site that has several 'order now' type links that funnel into mehandi.com, who is apparently paying hennapage.com's hosting bills. These seems to me like a 'Individual web page that primarily exist to sell products or services', to paraphrase the external links guideline. When I removed it, an infrequent editor restored it with a summary of 'Restoring permitted link (see talk page)' - on the talk page I found an old, messy discussion with a bunch of accusations of spam and at least one of the supporting editors indicating a conflict of interest, so I thought I would bring this here for more eyes: Is this link 'permitted'? - MrOllie (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we permit links to IMDB on film articles which is owned by Amazon, and which in turn promote Amazon so this is no different really. That Henna site is some resource, and while the commercial tie-ins are unfortunate I think the sheer wealth of information that is offered qualifies its inclusion. The webmaster seems to be doing a phd on henna, so I think this is probably good, informative content. I guess it has to be paid for somehow, and in this case the sheer wealth of information outweighs the promotional concerns IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the Talk page under "External Link Cleanup" you'll see a series of exchanges beginning in late 2006 between users 1hennaphd, who owns Hennapage.com and users Calltech and Sfacets. 1hennaphd was initially accused of spamming until the other editors understood that the problem was that 1hennaphd didn't fully understand the editing rules and procedures. Users Calltech and Sfactets agreed to include the link to the site after reviewing the content. 49oxen (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the index page statement at the bottom:

"The Henna Page information is provided free to you by TapDancing Lizard LLC site group and Mehandi.com" and there is no direct "buy now" statement. I hope this is acceptable, and yes, the bills do have to be paid, though there is absolutely nothing for sale on hennapage.com. Yes, I AM doing my PhD on henna, and have done 12 years of graduate research now on henna. I am nearly finsished with writing the dissertation." I plan add several volumes of scholarship to hennapage.com when the PhD is completed, and would like to do some editing on the wikipedia article again. 1hennaphd (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I still count six supplier, 'buy now' or 'order desk' links on the landing page alone. It's also worth noting that I was confused earlier - mehandi.com doesn't just pay the bills, they are run by the same person / LLC. - MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks very much like the sort of link I remove all the time. (And just to be clear, I often like the pages I de-link and bookmark them and refer to them for my own personal use. I'd do that with this one if I had any interest in henna.) Suggestion to 1hennaphd: when you've "[added] several volumes of scholarship" to your site, either make those volumes available on pages free of links to purchasing options or, better still, get those volumes hosted (or mirrored) on an .edu-based site that doesn't advertise to pay the bills. As it stands now, however, the link to your home page looks distinctly spammish, and you do have a conflict of interest. Rivertorch (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal websites of disaffected members of religious groups

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § External Links

Is it appropriate for a website that is self published by an individual to present his/her personal point of view to be included in the External Links section? Rev107 (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The key thing is to be satisfied that the website is indeed by the individual in question rather than someone else posting under their name - in other words, it needs to be an official website. It's reasonably common and acceptable to include such links on articles about individuals. However if you're thinking of adding a random individual's blog about a subject to an article on that subject, then please don't. For more information please take a look at WP:EXTLINK. WaggersTALK 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The sites to which I am referring are the self published personal websites of disaffected members of religious groups. Their purpose is to try to discredit the religious group or leader and claim to be reliable sources of research. Rev107 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@Rev107: I think that would come under item 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. WaggersTALK 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I would think these are inappropriate except within their author's bios. If they are notable opponents, then they'll have articles; if not, then a link to their opinions is unjustifiable. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the specifics of this issue need to be disclosed and discussed. Specifically, the article on William M. Branham uses self-published sources to make exceptional claims regarding the founder of Branhamism. There are a number of websites that have done credible research - see for example, Searching For Vindication which posts relevant reference materials taken from historical archives to examine some of the claims of Branham. It appears that wikilawyering has been used to remove websites that question that veracity of Branham's supernatural claims while leaving all of the self-published references to websites maintained by churches and organizations in the Branhamism movement. The article should not be an apologetic for Branhamism. It should adhere to NPOV guidelines. In particular, it should avoid exceptional, self-serving claims.
Presumably, if the references to all of the websites, such as Searching For Vindication, which question Branham's exceptional claims are removed from the External Links section, then all of the references to pro-Branhamism websites, such as | Voice of God Recordings should also be removed. Otherwise, how do you avoid becoming non-NPOV? Why would you remove an external link reference to a well researched website simply because a follower of Branhamism disagrees with it? Taxee (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
According to advice I have seen elsewhere on WP a neutral tone is maintained by using qualifying expressions such as "He claimed ..." or "They believe ...". The article in question adheres to that guideline.
One of the problems I see with self published original "research", especially that by disaffected members of religious groups, is that it is rarely neutral but selectively chooses "facts" to present a POV.Rev107 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a neutral tone is required but a neutral tone in respect of biased information is still biased. If sites advocating a particular [New religious movement|NRM] are acceptable, then why would one exclude sites that question the statements of the particular NRM? Rev107 in the past has deleted all of the external links to websites that were not supportive of his particular NRM. What is required, one would assume, is actual balance of information and not simply a neutral tone. Taxee (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It sounds as though this is a sourcing and not an external links issue. If the person in question were taken by other sources as a reliable authority, then I would say that using their website material for cited material would be acceptable. Otherwise the potential for bias and the lack of notability would weigh against use. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
None of the self published anti-Branham sites are recognized as a reliable authority beyond the small clique of disaffected members. I agree with Mangoe that the potential for bias and lack of notability weigh against their use. For example, the site 'Searching for Vindication' is anonymously published by someone identified only as "S4V" who contributes to at least two anti-Branham forums (Kennah & Collins). Rev107 (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
But by the same argument, shouldn't self-published sites supportive of Branhamism also be excluded as reliable sources? How can you exclude references of one view and not exclude the opposing view? Does that make any sense? And what if the reason for some of these websites being published anonymously is that there have been threats of violence against people that have publicly stood against Branhamism? The websiste that Rev107 is seeking to malign contains very good research, with everything backed up by historical archives - see Searching for Vindication. The foundation of Rev107's complaint is that these websites are not pro-Branham.
There appears no valid reason for excluding websites as valid external links simply because they present a view not espoused by Branhamism. This is why it is important that they should be included as external links - if someone is doing research on the subject of William Branham, they significantly add to the overall understanding of the subject. Taxee (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a matter of whether SFV is good research (as you think) or shoddy research (as I think). This is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is that self published sources are acceptable as sources of information about themselves. Mangoe has pointed out that self published sources by individuals are likely to contain bias and lack notability (the anonymous "S4V" is a good example). Pro-Branham sites that are used in the article are recognized groups or spokespersons within the Branham movement, and are quoted by published authors, and are therefore qualified to provide information about themselves. Rev107 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not talking about listing them as references, we are referring to whether they should be listed as external links. Could you please provide a page reference where Branham.org is quoted by either Harrell or Weaver? Also could you please explain how Voice of God Recordings, the publisher of Branham.org could be considered a reliable source when one of their websites states - Did you know that:
1. The earth is square?
2. In the mid-twentieth century, eighty-seven percent of all alcoholic beverages consumed in the U.S. came from Louisville, KY?
3. The people that built the pyramids had nuclear power?
4. If you could travel at the speed of light, it would take billions of years to get from Earth to Mars? Taxee (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


1. It seems you do not understand the meaning of the word "reliable" in the context of WP policy. The only question to be asked is whether these sites are reliable sources of information about what WB's followers believe, no matter how weird or wonderful those beliefs might be. And by linking to Young Foundations you have just demonstrated you accept that site as a reliable source for what WB said and what his followers believe.
2. The VGR/WBEA site is controlled by Billy-Paul & Joseph Branham who Weaver & Harrell identify as sources of information about WB and his followers, along with Pearry Green, Gordon Lindsay, Fred Bosworth, Lee Vayle, and others. A simple flick through their references will confirm this (for a specific reference to Joseph Branham and VGR see Weaver, p163)
3. According to WP policy, and comments by Waggers & Mangoe in this discussion and TFD here, there should be no links to self published websites except for those that provide information about themselves, that is, about their own beliefs and about their own churches' activities.
Mangoe expressed it very clearly when he said that sites such as the anti-Branham sites you are promoting are not only open to bias, they also lack notability, so their use is not recommended.
TFD said here: "A researcher may use their reports [BTS & SYTT] along with other sources in order to develop an analysis which is then published by a reliable book publisher. We may then quote that book. However we cannot do the research ourselves and cannot mention these sources."
Keatinge said here re SYTT: "This may be accurately reporting the beliefs of the source, Collins, and it might be appropriate in an article on Collins, but it cannot form any part of a good article here."
4. Four editors (5 including me) have refused to endorse the inclusion of the self published sites you are promoting. On the basis of the consensus of opinion of the 4 above mentioned editors I have removed the self published websites that do not accord with WP policy. Before any attempt to restore them is made you need to garner support from other editors for your pov. Rev107 (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I just found out that this and a lot of other issues have been dealt with authoritatively in the manual of style put together by the NRM Workgroup. This means that it is appropriate to remove the links to websites of disaffected members of religious groups but it is also appropriate to remove the links to websites of supporters of the particular NRM. Taxee (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The article in question is biography, not a NRM. Rev107 (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that you read the manual of style as it specifically includes "Articles on movement founders". Taxee (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GoogleScholar template

HI, I was wondering whether Template:GoogleScholar and some similar templates (like Template:Scopus) do not contravene WP:ELNO#9? --Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any published data on Linkrot on WP since 2011? I see this Webcitebot graph from early 2011, but nothing since then; for en:wp or any other wiki. – SJ + 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

TV Tropes (again)

An editor recently added tvtropes.org to NCIS: Los Angeles.[73] It was removed but has been restored by the same editor.[74] The link that was added, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/NCISLosAngeles NCIS: Los Angeles is an open wiki which says on its main page "We are not a stuffy encyclopedic wiki. We're a buttload more informal. We encourage breezy language and original thought. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed". Use of this as an external link would seem to contravene WP:ELNO as it's user generated, but the editor who added the link obviously disagrees. It was previously discussed here, but no real consensus seems to have emerged. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

TVTropes seems to fit stable-site notability to me. It is certainly referenced in Internet research and meme analysis. It shouldn't trump a more traditional source where both are available, but is certainly appropriate as a 'See also' external link. – SJ + 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It may be a wiki format but it's essentially a fansite; it consists entirely of original research by fans of television. I don't think it qualifies. —Designate (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology

There is a discussion Talk:Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology#external_reference_violates_ELNO.3F about whether this pseudoscience website link [75] by a western astrologer criticising vedic astrology is reliable for being included at Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology. Thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

weaponplace.ru

This site plagiarizes articles from other Russian sources. So, it should probably not be cited per WP:LINKVIO. It can be a bit of work to find out where the original material was published. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

topwar.ru

The same observation goes for these guys. For example, this article contains a 100% copy of the text from Kalashnikov magazine 2012/4 of the text about Nikonov's machine gun, and practically all the images from that article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarliza (talk · contribs) has added a bunch of links to many articles - all of these links are to search results at the Hagley archives. I don't think any of them are appropriate. Other views requested please. (User has been informed of this report).--ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

These links are not to random search results at Hagley, they aren't even to search results at all- they are direct links to finding aids for archival collections (a.k.a. primary source material) created by the person, family, or company in the wikipedia article. These collections will assist scholars interested in the subject on the wikipedia page with their research, which is one of the uses for external links, according to wikipedia's external link policy. Also- many of these wikipedia pages have links to other archival finding aids, and you have not flagged them- why is there only a problem with my external links?---Sarliza (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reddit

An anon editor 50.9.192.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding links to reddit to two articles, Flow-based programming and Dataflow programming, but they fall foul of the criteria, especially #10. I've tried engaging with them on their talk page but with no luck, nor are they explaining their edits and reversions in edit summaries. I'm up against 3RR and can't think of anything else to try so can someone else have a look at this? Thanks.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible linkspam violation

I'm concerned about a certain article possessing all the hallmarks of a vanity page. Can someone comment on the state of the article, and specifically the links here that have been removed by me but another user has reinserted. Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed them, and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

thetankmaster.com

The few links I found to this site seemed a bit spammy because they were often not what the description says. Examples [76] [77]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

vgmaps

The article vgmaps has a link to the vgmaps website which is full of copyright infringing material. Think that violates the rules about including links to sites that violate copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaMessedUp (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Help is needed to quell edit war at Brattleboro, Vermont

Additional input is needed at Brattleboro, Vermont and its talk page, where entrenched positions have formed over the inclusion of external links to two online news sites, the town's chamber of commerce, and the local public library. A related issue is User:Beyond My Ken's pronouncement that WP:EL and other guidelines are "guides to editing" that don't need to be followed. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Orlady misstates my position somewhat. Guidelines provide the collective wisdom of Wikipedia's editors through the years as to best practices, but they are not policies they are guidelines which we are not required to follow religiously and without consideration for what's best for our readers in any particular circumstance. In other words, they are not, and cannot be mandatory, because if they were, they would be policies and not guideelines. Ultra-strict interpretation of editing guidelines erases the distinction between them and mandatory, most-follow policies. Anyone who wishes a particular guideline to be followed without deviation ought to put it through the policy-approval process, beginning with a thread on WP:VPP, they cannot be made mandatory in any other way.

In any case, in the instance Orlady points out, even though it's quite clear that the ELs he wishes to remove (from the city's newspaper, the city's historical society and the city's chamber of commerce) all clearly fulfill the requirements of WP:EL, I have taken the article off my watchlist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TLJWiki

There is currently a disagreement over the inclusion of a link to the wiki dedicated to The Longest Journey video game series in that game's article. The argumentation against revolves around the lack of a "substantial number of editors" (per WP:ELNO) on that wiki, while the argumentation for the inclusion revolves around the usefulness of the external wiki resource and the endorsement of it by the original creator of the series. We are kind of in a stalemate there, even after the third opinion. My criticism of the "substantial number of editors" argument in this particular case is outlined in the discussion linked above. --Koveras ☭ 16:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who offered the third opinion, I'll just say that I approve of Koversas raising the question here. I'm not sure how the term "substantial" is supposed to be construed in this case, nor am I sure whether or not a game's developer using a wiki as a reference in any way influences whether it passes the standard EL tests. Thanks for any opinions! DonIago (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A particular user has been adding links to a specific website to various page (see 1, 2, and 3). The user's name suggests that they are editing on behalf of that website. However, it's not a clear cut promotional name or anything. I wanted to know if this was considered link spam, just an EL violation, or not a violation at all. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it and blocked the account for spamming. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Travels With Charley: In Search of America

Please review this series of edits over the past ten days. I've started this thread on the talk page, and put this request on the editor's talk page. I could use some help. David in DC (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ELs to sites requiring registration

First, I'd like to preface this with the following: Montanabw (talk · contribs) does amazing and indispensable work on Wikipedia, particularly as it relates to horses, a subject I know little to nothing about. I'm simply here to seek guidance for myself (and possibly him/her) regarding the appropriates of a particular site as an EL on an article we both happened to have edited recently.

I recently removed 2 ELs linking to the thehorse.com domain from Budweiser Clydesdales, summarizing as follows: "rm 2 links per WP:ELNO: 'avoid providing external links to: 6. Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article'..." Montanabw has since offered to integrate the subject matter addressed by the ELs into the article.

However, looking through a bunch of horse-related articles (eg. stallion, limbs of the horse, etc.), I noticed a lot of these articles feature ELs to thehorse.com, all of which require user registration to view the linked articles. Please understand: I think that thehorse.com is a completely reliable source and that these ELs were added in a purely good-faith effort to educate readers about the relevant subjects. However, I just can't shake WP:ELNO#6 & WP:ELREG, as it has always bothered me to click a link looking for information, only to be asked to enter some amount of personal info in order to view it, and Wikipedia policy seems to agree. How does Wikipedia regard this situation?

Note: I have no intention of Wikihounding Montanabw by pulling every thehorse.com EL, nor is it my intention that anyone else do so in this regard. I'm simply seeking guidance about this policy and will happily invite have happily invited Montanabw to offer additional comments about this issue. Thank you for any and all help.    DKqwerty    01:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


OK, we are keeping this friendly, so here's the deal:

  1. Per WP:ELNO, the operative word is "normally." So see WP:IAR. Further, the item in question reads, "or the link is a convenience link to a citation..." which, I hope it will be.
  2. Further, the footnote in ELNO also clearly says, "or the link is a convenience link to a citation." Which, again, I hope it will be. Eventually...
  3. When I find a good article that is an RS about something, but I have no time to add it to the article on wiki, I often copy and paste the link into the refs or EL section of the article so that I - or another editor - can easily find it again if needed.
  4. The Horse is the flagship public magazine for the American Association of Equine Practitioners (horse veterinarians), is published by Blood-Horse Publications and is an invaluable resource across WikiProject Equine (WPEQ), referenced in at least dozens of articles, including multiple GAs and FAs of WPEQ. So indeed, I hope we aren't going to have wikidrama about that - it's a free login, for one thing, and has passed muster as an RS repeatedly.
  5. In the past, I have "parked" some of these, "are refs and will eventually be footnotes" into the references section of the article, but quite often someone comes along and moves them into the external links section.
  6. So I cannot win, apparently.
  7. The article in question is currently about C class, the links I put in the EL section are good links to an RS and should wind up being sources for the article, eventually.
  8. I have something like 3500 articles on my watchlist, have worked on three FAs this year so far, helped with several other GA runs and have two or three GA/FA projects in the hooper right now. BUT this article is not one of them, though it would be nice to get it to a solid B-Class eventually. When I (or someone else) can get around to it, I'd like the research not to have to be redone...
  9. Sometimes I put research on the talk page where there is a GA or FA, where meticulous formatting matters, but talk pages can become cumbersome to navigate when there is a lot of chatter. Plus, someone unfamiliar with the article may not even know research has been posted at talk. It's easier and more helpful to have them in the article space, ready to go.
  10. Why people just remove things instead of ADDING CONTENT is beyond me. I get real tired of drive-by tagging

I really don't need a lot of wikidrama right now, so let's not make a lot of drama out of this. The issue is having a place to "park" good, solid research so anyone can use it to improve articles, and so it isn't buried somewhere it will never be found. Montanabw(talk) 02:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion here .. there are different types of external links possible in an article. Although I basically treat 'Further reading' and 'External links' sections equally (both being external links), I would for a 'Further reading' section be more inclined to think of them of 'references-to-be', whereas that is not necessarily true for 'External links' link (the official website of a subject will always be in the external links section, though it may also be duplicated as a reference). Making such a distinction might help both the reader ánd the editor.
I should add, that it is my experience in probably almost a decade of spam-fighting (I do NOT believe that thehorse.com is spam or was spammed!), that I have run into spammers who were pushing their (good!) links to external links sections (sometimes really with a spammy intention) and used 'but it contains good info to expand the article, but I don't know myself how nor do I have time to do that' as an excuse. However, some of these links are still external links after decades (just checked a case from the beginning of 2007 .. on one article we are ~400 edits and 6 1/2 years further and the links are still external links ..). In a way, of course it is unfinished business on all of these articles, but the other part of the experience is that external links attract more external links. Having one or two external links to notable journal articles may quickly result in other less notable journals (or personal sites) to be added in the same way, functioning as spam magnets resulting in linkfarms.
In case that latter happens (complete linkfarms) .. 'cleaners' (often without real knowledge of the subject of the article) will generally just prune the list excluding everything that simply fails WP:ELNO, which will likely remove the thehorse.com links per ELNO#6, at best moving everything to the talkpage. That could hence be my second suggestion - make a 'static' section on the talkpage (one that does not get archived) containing those links that can be used to expand the article. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
EL lists can become spammy, and that's an ongoing issue everywhere, not necessarily enough to chop a whole EL section over, but I do agree that's a concern. For this situation, I'll put them in a "further reading" section for now, though I have also had those sections get tossed or merged in other articles. DKqwerty, you OK with that? As far as talk page parking of refs goes, I hate to do this to stuff that could languish, as not all talk pages are archived, some just grow and grow... and don't draw the new editors (seriously, who reads old talk on obscure articles before editing?? ), I think it more useful a tool on articles being actively edited. Montanabw(talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I must confess that I generally chop liberally .. if there are 10 papers (or similar) in that list, and already 2 or 3 good general sites, then I don't see it as my task to keep those 10 or figure out which ones can still be used. Especially on already significant articles the additional info is often marginal (but it depends). I also agree that for the same reason I might prune out a whole Further reading section.
I see the problem with talk-page parking, though as for having new links on the talkpage, I wonder how many new editors would take a link from the external links section and incorporate it. Seeing that some of those are still there (albeit for another site/subject) after 6 1/2 years and ~400 edits (better example: diff - we are now 5 1/2 years further and 43 editors / 105 edits further (diff .. the link is still there).. the chances of those links being used, whether on the talkpage or in the external links sections by any editor (old or new) is .. probably not very high (and may be down to a couple of regulars who use that technique ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Heh. As for the Western Pleasure article, I put them there and I'm probably the only one who has ever done any actual serious work on the article. I got the book, I'll get around to it eventually, or at least will hand-hold anyone else who wants to do serious work on it! We currently have over 3000 articles tagged for Wikiproject Equine and only about three or four hardcore editors for the project. You do the math! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well .. a hundred edits later .. and it does seem reasonably altered in that time. Anyways, maybe that was mainly you ;-)
We have over 4 million articles .. all of them unfinished. The parking of external links is not only true for equine articles .. it is a much wider 'problem' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm of mixed feelings. I agree about the spamlink problem. But on an article with few references, a parked list gives me a place to start. I've also had links I put in a "references" section but not used as footnotes moved into a "further reading" or "external links" section, even when, in fact, they ARE references, just not footnoted. (We could get away with this in 2006 when I started here...) so, no matter what you do, they eventually get tossed. Talk pages seem to be the only place they stay, but one does not really look there for sources. Montanabw(talk) 16:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


While the dialogue so far was somewhat illuminating, it does not answer the question. Are external links to websites that will not show you their content without you first handing over your email, telephone number, uploaded photo of your social security card, and/or notarized copy of your entire family's medical records acceptable... or are they not? Does the answer change, depending on the onerous-ness (is that even grammatical) of the registration requirements? Does the answer change if there are ten other no-registration-required links to the exact same info already given in the article? Does the answer change if there is *no* other website in the known universe which provides the info? Disclaimer: I have no interest in equine articles, except for one in particular. But I would like the question answered, for my own sake, and for DKqwerty's who originally asked it. Where do we draw the line here, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Currently (after quite some edits regarding the external links, including by XLinkBot), the external links section of Uncyclopedia contains the following 4 external links (as it did before):

The second one here, uncyclopedia.wikia.com, is, the official site. The third one, is a redirect to the second one. The fourth one is a babel-project, aiming at translations. The first one is an independently hosted version (but not the official one). All (but the redirect) are actively edited, and the existence and history of all of these (plus even more sites ..) is explained thoroughly in the text.

I think here, that all but uncyclopedia.wikia.com does violate WP:ELOFFICIAL - the other are not official links or even redirects, and should be removed. As I think that a talkpage-discussion will not see the input required by independent editors, I am posting this remark here, will put a remark there to point here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I help run the "independent site") I think it's unfair to state that the independent site is any less official than the Wikia hosted site (I would argue it the other way around), most of the community members moved over to the independent one. If you visit #uncyclopedia, the independent site is the "official" one. Legoktm (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
And I help run the Wikia-hosted one, but agree that the other one is real, distinct, and notable and that it would inject gratuitous controversy to name either one "official." Members of the other site engage in plentiful gamesmanship, including wrestling over control of #uncyclopedia, to try to portray that site as more "official" than the original one; my opinion is that Wikia Inc. owns the brand name, though it has certainly done nothing to defend it. Edits to the Wikipedia article earlier in the year resulted in a neutral portrayal of the two websites which has served us well. Spike-from-NH (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A search on http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm draws a blank. No one legally owns the word "Uncyclopedia" stateside and it's too late to claim it as too many unrelated or separately-owned items are already named "Uncyclopedia". No one version is 'official'. As far as I know, User:Beetstra's involvement is to defend a series of false-positive reverts by User:XLinkBot. That script was reverting links to uncyclopedia.org, uncyclopedia.info and uncyclopedia.wikia.com from our article on Uncyclopedia, which is inappropriate. I'd already raised an issue (on the bot's talk page) where Afton Station Packard Museum was reverted across multiple revisions to a year-old version with factual errors because XLinkBot hates Blogspot and the museum owners maintain a page there. Making Uncyclopedia or other affected articles into noticeboard incidents is a poor substitute for addressing the underlying questions - why is XLinkBot biting new users with false positives and why is it reverting multiple edits from the same contributors which are good faith or valid just to attack the one mention of a subject's blog or other free site. A bot that reverts links to Uncyclopedia in a page about Uncyclopedia needs to go back to the drawing board. K7L (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I still need to see whether XLinkBot is more bitey than others, including non-bots .. I have been accused for not being able to bring statistics (at least I came with numbers) and now trying to hide underlying questions, so show me. As I said, XLinkBot is made to be as friendly and careful as possible (with help of the WMF itself), apologizing for its mistakes and offering all possibilities and suggestions, ánd I am responsive generally on the talkpage of the bot (and even checking up after the bot) .. maybe I don't like blogspot (hmm .. another strange and unfounded conclusion, but well; heh, guess I added some myself). Our guideline is clear, and the link on Afton Station Packard Museum simply did not belong there according to our guideline, so we now have, maybe, one example, Uncyclopedia. Nice statistics (and that for a bot where we knew that it would, as any bot, have false positives, and where we did all attempts to minimize that, and to enable others to check up after the bot so things could be repaired). But in the meantime, we are totally off-topic here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, WP's deployment of mw:extension:AbuseFilter has a page specifically to report false positives, monitored by someone other than a 'bot maintainer (ie: someone who is free to admit that an incident is a false positive instead of blindly defending the script). It does not arbitrarily take out multiple valid edits to an article just because they're from the same user. It does not expect the user to understand talk-page "warnings" which are either so vague as to be meaningless or expect the new user to understand regex to figure out why the 'bot just ripped out multiple revisions of work. It's also fairly narrowly targetted so that it is attacking vandalism (section blanking, replacement of text with expletives) and not just "I hate Blogspot" (at least on Wikipedia... Wikitravel's abuse of the extension to blacklist all mention of Wikivoyage is another matter, not our problem). Talkpage warnings are normally prerequisite before a WP:AN/I attempt to block a user, so are WP:BITEy - especially if the user cannot make head or tail over why this obnoxious 'bot is leaving them. K7L (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are many who monitor that page, not only the bot maintainers. For the rest, the abusefilter is expecting the same, it asks the user to understand that his edit is blocked, can take out all edits to a certain page by an editor, and those remarks can be just as meaningless to someone not familiar with Wikipedia. And the editor also does not need to understand regex, the bot clearly lists which links, the regex is not visible in the text (only in the code). And it does not hate blogspot, it leaves more of them than it reverts (the blogspot that you says it hates was indeed not a suitable link, please read the policies and guidelines, they do seem to have a long standing consensus regarding blogs and official links).
As I said, the remarks (the first one is not even a warning) were constructed with employees of the WMF, factored to be as friendly as possible and to actually retain editors - their statistics showed that the remarks were working positively, as are the remarks that XLinkBot sometimes receives from new editors.
If you can show me that it is making a lot of errors on blogspot, I'll happily remove the rule (but you're of to a bad start, the first one was indeed not a blogspot that should be linked).
You're still to show that the bot is actually more bitey than a human editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the first two links as I don't see any reason why one site would be more official than the other. As said in the introduction: "Both sites are regularly viewed and actively edited". I don't see the point of keeping the third one as it is just a redirect to the first one. --TheMillionRabbit 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand. Uncyclopedia was originally hosted by itself on uncyclopedia.org. The ownership of the domain, and the contents were moved to wikia, and now at uncyclopedia.wikia.org (the original site is a redirect, linking to the wikia).

The link en.uncyclopedia.org is a fork of the original. However, the subject of the article is the original site, not the fork. In other words, uncyclopedia.wikia.org is the official site (and should be linked per WP:ELOFFICIAL). The redirect is superfluous, and should be deleted, and en.uncyclopedia.org is, in WP:EL-terms, indirectly linked to the subject of the site - it is not the site which is the subject of the article, hence not a WP:ELOFFICIAL for the subject. Neither is the babel-site, which is also indirect. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The subject of the article is a group of wikis in multiple languages. It is not one single wiki. This "uncyclopedia.wikia.org" is not even a valid wiki (it just redirects to Wikia's, not Uncyclopedia's, main page as a defensive registration). Your 'bot put that erroneous link back into the article after a user validly made a correction. Furthermore, "en.uncyclopedia.org" is not a fork and Wikia's version is no more "official" than anyone else's. If you are walking in here to promote one wiki in the set or dismiss another, you have violated WP:NPOV and a very delicate WP:CONSENSUS. This is disruptive. I'd suggest the following:
  1. Abide by the existing WP:CONSENSUS on Uncyclopedia unless and until some other consensus is reached on that article's talk page.
  2. Acknowledge that some, but not all, of the edits from User:XLinkBot are not constructive or are actually doing harm. The bot changing "uncyclopedia.wikia.com" back to "uncyclopedia.wikia.org" is an error if there is no "uncyclopedia.wikia.org", for instance.
  3. Acknowledge that any robot script of this type will occasionally revert to something that's worse than what the n00b wrote. Instead of pretending the bot is infallible, can be made infallible, or that its "more harm than good" edits can be ignored as collateral damage, provide a direct appeal to an uninvolved human editor who does not have a 'bot to defend.
  4. The handling for unconstructive or just plain wrong edits to articles by User:XLinkBot needs to be changed to employ the same false-positive reporting system which exists for the AbuseFilter. This should operate as a help desk so that experienced users can reinstate any valid information which the 'bot has removed. It should also serve as an audit trail to detect rules which are resulting in inordinate numbers of false positives.
  5. Advising users to attempt to reinstate edits (or valid portions of edits) themselves is not helpful. Too many are seeing the resulting edits as an edit war between a n00b and a 'bot and making knee-jerk reverts which escalate the problem. To some of these users, an IP is in the wrong in any dispute just for being an IP or new user, WP:AGF be damned. Send the new user to the same help desk as the AbuseFilter false positives so that respected, established human editors can deal with it neutrally and responsibly before more damage is done.
  6. The text being currently dumped on user talk pages looks exactly like the various warnings used to justify a request to ban a user. That's not good. Remember: the objective is to get rid of one external link - not the other, valid info the user has added... and not to get rid of the users themselves. Deny biting to your hearts content, but if I can't see how this message isn't an adversarial accusation that the user is violating policies and damaging the encyclopaedia in some horribly ban-worthy manner after all my time here, this supposed distinction is going to be utterly lost on a n00b.
  7. The "rollback" privilege needs to be revoked. There is a distinction between "undo" (which reverts one edit) and "rollback" (which reverts every consecutive edit from the same user). The latter is normally used by WP:ADMINs to roll back WP:VANDALism. It's use to remove valid content just because a user mentioned Blogspot (or Uncyclopedia in an article on Uncyclopedia) is overkill. The target is the external link, not the user, remember? K7L (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that the subject of the page is a group of wikis. The article describes en.uncyclopedia.org as a fork, so it is a fork. You call NPOV on me, I think that calling en.uncyclopedia.org as official is UNDUE weight.
Regarding the points:
1) Consensus can change. I am not sure if the consensus is still there.
2) That has already been acknowledged a long, long time ago, and the bot even apologises for that all the time.
3) False positives can simply be reverted, undone, whatever. And one can complain, as is being done all the time, on the talkpage of the bot (or if people want, somewhere else, we can make this a community page where that can be done, matter of changing the settings). Anyway, anyone can comment there, or bring it anywhere else.
4) They are sent to the talkpage of the bot, that is the helpdesk. For me, it can be everywhere, I don't mind.
5) The bot gets reverted often enough, and reverting a bot is not even getting close to an edit war (in principle it is even 3RR exempt). And that an IP is wrong in the eye of some users is not the problem of a bot .. (thanks for the implication of your remarks, though).
6) They are freely editable. How do you want them to look like?
7) What rollback? It is not using rollback - as I said, it is returning to the last stable version (it is even an option in its settings), any other option is way more often resulting in damage to Wikipedia than the occasional case where it removes too much (it has been tried, years ago). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
And you are still to show that the bot is more biting than a human editor who is repairing (or reverting) an edit and leaves a remark to an editor (or even, doesn't) .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If an article cites "www.bogspot.com" and a human user reverts a good-faith n00b change which corrected that to www.blogspot.com, the human editor would normally change just the link (or flag it {{cn}} or {{unreliable source}}) instead of ripping out all of the n00b's edits to make a WP:POINT, dumping a confusing heap of links to policy to user talk. A human editor would provide a coherent explanation of what exactly triggered the revert ("Of course Bogspot is the more reliable source and should be cited! I read their magazine on the loo every day!") and be specific. If Blogspot isn't a reliable source, say so, but don't attack all of the user's edits as questionable without evidence.
Using User talk:XLinkBot instead of a proper help desk makes no sense. You intend that your newly bitten user attempt to carry on a rational debate with an inanimate machine? All they're going to get on that page is you attempting to unconditionally defend whatever edit the bots make - whether valid, invalid or just plain harmful. I've seen enough of it. At least AbuseFilter (which has its own false positives, occasionally) runs with a help desk overseen by uninvolved editors who are willing to intervene as needed.
The question of why the editors making the knee-jerk reverts want to assume good faith from 'bots while biting new and anon-IP users is irrelevant. That it happens is all that matters. One can invoke endless policy that requires bot operators to establish their creations are not harming the encyclopaedia, while extending the nominal benefit of the doubt to users in good faith, but that's not the situation on the ground. As long as editors are reverting to put questionable 'bot edits back into articles, a mechanism must exist to deal with this. Hence a help desk.
The distinction between 'undo' and 'rollback' is that undo goes back one edit, rollback goes back as many versions as needed to find one from some other users. I suspect that you know this. There's a reason why every n00b has 'undo' while 'rollback' is assigned to one narrow user group (and to all admins) - the latter tends to be a bit of a sledgehammer approach, used mostly to rollback WP:VANDAL edits quickly. The loophole that a script (be it WP:TWINKLE or XLinkBot) can circumvent the requirement for the special:listusers/rollback privilege is beside the point... it's the result that matters, and the result is the same - overkill.
I see no evidence that the WP:CONSENSUS has changed on the Uncyclopedia article. All of this is still fresh and recent (the dates closely match another project in which I am involved - founder of the project sells the domain name in a 2006 backroom deal for an undisclosed sum, community vociferously objects, individual language communities slowly go elsewhere and by 2012 enough hits the fan that a newly-forked version of the English-language wiki officially launches in 2013 - it all sounds really familiar). You may be WP:COI as an operator of a 'bot that removes links to Uncyclopedia if you start editing the Uncyclopedia article while ignoring consensus. I doubt that I or anyone else who has spoken up is purely WP:NEUTRAL but everyone else involved is abiding by whatever awkward consensus was reached. If you want to reopen this consensus to link both/all versions, take it to the talk page. Your edits to that page so far are merely pointless and disruptive. K7L (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It is more and more clear that you have not much of an idea of the inner workings of the bot, the choices that have been made etc. Yet, you critisize a lot while you can not provider examples of it, nor show me that the bot is infact more bitey. I know now at le astenere you are coming from.
for the issue why I started this thread, I'll await input from other regulars here ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The claim as I read it is that this bot does more than undo ill-advised edits, but rolls back possibly unrelated edits of the same author and posts excessively harsh messages to the author's talk page. If that is the case, the fact that someone has "not much of an idea of the inner workings of the bot" is not relevant. But examples of the bot's misbehavior should be easy to provide.
Now, speaking of excessively harsh, K7L's statement that Beetstra is being "disruptive" for going against consensus, and may have his reputation damaged, is manipulative. I may be part of a "fragile consensus" by stating (as above) that goings-on at the other fork are as notable as goings-on at my fork. But Beetstra seems to believe it is not notable that a group of people have taken a legal copy of a wiki, paid server fees, and set up shop separately; any more than weekly fantasy football parties at his house warrant mention in an article on the NFL. This is a legitimate opinion, and K7L should write to convince, not to intimidate, as was tried on me in a previous round. Spike-from-NH (talk)
I have no opinion on the uncyclopedia situation, sorry... outside my area of knowledge. But I will state that KL7 and Dirk have been fighting over the bitey nature of xLinkBot, on the xLinkBot talkpage, for some time -- and the example of xLinkBot making reverts on the uncyclopedia page is just one of a series that they have clashed over. KL7 is getting annoyed at Dirk, and vice versa; they also seem to have a legitimate disagreement about uncyclopedia, but that is made excessively harsh only because they were already in a long-running conflict over the behavior of xLinkBot on other pages. If any folks reading this argument-about-a-bot's-behavior-disguised-as-an-argument-about-certain-links-on-a-certain-article would care to help, please head on over to the xLinkBot talkpage, which is where Dirk defends the current implementation of the bot, and KL7 posts examples of it doing the wrong thing. There are also at least two examples where editors understood what xLinkBot was doing, myself and Dommusicinc... but those are rare. We have no *overall* statistics at all on how xLinkBot is doing in the wild; Dirk is relying on his original testing, and the blessing of the script from Unspecified Powerful Authority Figures At Wikimedia Foundation that he says fully approve of xLinkBot's every line of code. It would be useful to have some objective independent editors over there, to help damp the flaming, and increase the signal to noise ratio. User_talk:XLinkBot Sorry for this nominally-off-topic post. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=1144427233"