Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:External links. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Beacham Theatre

We have another article which contains excessive linking, where I did massive cleanup (over multiple edits) here. User:Johnvr4 reverts me on that without giving any reason for the inclusion of the linkfarmsm. Social media links that do not belong, massive linkfarms, etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bit more explanation:

diff: the links listed here are all indirect, they are of blogs, the regional history center, historic preservation, etc. etc. I agree that all of these sites may have small parts talking about the subject, Beacham Theatre, but that is not what is necessarily linked to. The reader is not directed immediately to the relevant information, they have to figure it out. Moreover, most of the information covered there is likely already in the article, and fails inclusion standards there.
diff: These links should not be inline to the organisations, but wikilinks.
diff: social networking links, embedded through a second box into the infobox. Moreover, these social networking sites are not 'external media' (diff needed a repair)
diff: The social networking sites were in the article twice.

Best. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty silly. This editor has opened this section here but not did not place any notification on my talk page nor did he ever open a section on the articles talk page to discuss this concern.

The issue has never been discussed anywhere except on the editors own talk page as a threat to bring it here.

Last, to make his case this editor is relying solely upon on his edit summaries and the edits he made on another page.

The editor is misinforming about the content of my edit changes and of my edit summaries to both restore the link and address his concerns.

Diffs explaination:

I explained this was not a link farm in my edit summary. Those changes were: "The following organizations retain an offline historical file of Beacham Theatre material:" The original historical files about the Beacham Theater are held in local historical hard-copy files that specific to that theater and one has to visit one of these locations in most cases (but not all) to view the organisation's material. One may contact each entity and schedule a visit to view the Beacham Theatre files or in some case they can be emailed in correspondence. The blogs are of official entities and which is obviously a very clear ELYES.
The ~~inline~~ external links to the orgs are currently for their abbreviations in the infobox. Wikilinks are preferred but none of the abbreviated entities to date yet have a page to wikilink to and would not not make any sense to a reader. WP:RF
The social media sites are about this subject and officially link to it (or its alternative names) and contain newer external images unavailable elsewhere. Clearly this editor does not grasp that aspect of policy. I also moved a Wikimedia hosted logo image from the external images box per that observation.
The social media sites appear once each for The Beacham itself and it alternate name Aahz which has a separate officially linked social media account of newer copyrighted Beacham Theatre images and permitted by policy.

Johnvr4 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the links.

One official link is fine and has been retained. I see no reason to make an exception to provide others.

Links to other organizations generally don't belong.

Maybe it would help to identify one single link that you feel should be restored and explain how it fits with WP:EL's "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz Again, this should be taking place on the talk page of the entry and I should have been notified this section was opened. Each link should be considered on its merits. Which link removal are you agreeing with as there were several and the conversation apparently is taking place elsewhere. (User_talk:Beetstra#Edit_war_at_Beacham_Theater) Could you please wait to edit the links until the discussion about them is finished?

This is an unique situation where the subject of the entry has an alternate name and each name has its own unique relevance and officially operated social media accounts. They are all official and entirely separate. Each links to its own unique newer and (mostly) professionally taken copyrighted images about this subject that are unavailable elsewhere or unsuitable for wikipedia. However, the subject images are on officially operated social media and since it is officially operated can also be be viewed as a reliable source about itself.

Each of the removed orgs external links has a specific section, folder, file, area or hard-copy original collection (or two) in one place devoted to the Beacham Theatre. It's not like an item is here or there or only somewhat related to this subject. These org's (both the collections and members themselves) are a unique resource. These entities have a specific Beacham Theatre historical collection that is unique to that organization where only a very small fraction has ever been digitized or put online and must be visited IRL to view it. If there is an online presence and items from the collection are online, it is deep-linked however some of the deep-linked items are already cited references in the body. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

While I agree it a bit odd discussing the matter here without more discussion elsewhere first, it's not a problem either.

I asked for a specific link so we could talk specifics. If you don't want to, I don't see how you are going to get consensus for inclusion.

Generally, we don't link to collections of newspaper articles, photos, etc. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Regarding you not being notified, I asked you in an edit summary to discuss or take it here, and then pinged you in the post that I was discussing it here. I will again state, the burden to provide a reason for insertion is on the one who wants to include. I gave plenty of reason why the links do not belong there, and your arguments, as provided on my talkpage, just confirmed those fully.

"..must be visited IRL to view it.. .. that is a statement that gets close to being promotional for Beacham Theatre .. please remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a promotional piece for Beacham Theatre. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen. You did not WP:NOTIFY me and also engaged in an edit war. I'm not promoting anything. Please explain how visiting the historical archives containing material about the specific subject equal promotion of this subject? What are you accusing me of exactly and what does exactly does my alleged comment "prove"? This is getting a lot more silly than I first anticipated. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: And again, I mentioned the noticeboard in an edit summary of an edit you reverted, and I pinged you in the reply where I said that I would bring this here (template:reply to is mentioned in the essay you are pointing to, and that is a common way to bring edits to a person's attention). I just don't prefer to diffuse discussions if we are already discussing in one place. A discussion on the talkpage of the subject does not lead to anything as those discussions a) generally become a diatribe, and/or b) tend to attract only editors who feel strongly about the subject; moreover, this ELN is specifically for 'This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy.' (note, that is wrong, WP:EL is a guideline, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is the policy), and I do feel that this page was such an example.

I am not accusing you of anything, I just notice that you feel strongly about the article and linking to the external sites (per the quote), and that is fine (great even). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your "notification" was insufficient given WP:NOTIFY.

Each link should be considered on its merits. Do that on the talk page of the entry or each link stays. Do not modify a link that was not individually discussed. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Still, that is an essay (though one I agree with). But I think that pinging someone in an ongoing discussion and telling them there that I am bringing the merit of the inclusions to a noticeboard (as a second remark after an edit summary suggesting the same, and pinging you in the start of the discussion) is reasonable notification. However, it is a red herring, we are discussing a linkfarm on an article and the merits for inclusion of the links, we are not discussing your behaviour here (I don't even know whether you were the editor originally including the links, nor do I care - my problem is that those links are there and they should not be).

'Each link should be considered on its merits' - so you think that you can get consensus for the inclusion of every single one of them? The burden is on you to get that consensus for the inclusion, the consensus for not including them is in the guideline (WP:EL - WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:ELNO), and the policy WP:NOT ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a note and since you do this noticeboard a lot, please understand it is etiquette. The point was made and it's moot now.

I did for the record originally post each of the links in the article. The justifications and applicable rules concerning them are discussed on your talk page. The description of a "linkfarm" is disputed as each *modified* link can be justified per WP policy if those discussions were ever to take place. Your chief concern of the external links section was that the links were too general and not specific enough to the subject. I think the modified links to the unique sources are specific enough so that inclusion will be obvious or they can be modified again. I did not link every place with offline material. Orgs with a specific Beacham Theatre offline collection that also put something from it online are linked.

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. WP:Consensus is not simply the number of voters. WP:Poll (essay)

Johnvr4 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Thank you for deciding that your quality of arguments is of much higher quality than mine. I am obviously not worthy. And the same for the arguments of user:Ronz.. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (resign for ping --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC))

I know you are being sarcastic but isn't that exactly what happened in discussion here:user:Beetstra#Edit_war_at_Beacham_Theater?

Ronz also initially questioned why here? He also asked (perhaps to me) which individual link was to be discussed as I had asked you. However his inquiry was prior to my re-editing the links per the policy concerns.

Are there still editor concerns with an individual link in the entry? If so, which individual link are we discussing and what is the concern to rectify? Johnvr4 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are not going to argue for inclusion of any of the links, then they should be removed again. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledge that a discussion with policy-based arguments has taken place outside of this discussion. here: user:Beetstra #Edit war at Beacham Theate

My questions have simply been ignored: Are there still editor concerns with an individual link in the entry? If so, which individual link are we discussing and what is the concern to rectify?

Proper participation in a discussion requires my questions to answered.

Identify which specific link we are discussing and the concern with it.

Only at that point I can make an argument for or against an individual links exclusion/inclusion.

Do not abuse this noticeboard!

Again, please do not modify links until the discussion about each link is complete! Individual discussion is required and multiple links are being removed. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, user:Theroadislong Feel free to join this discussion. The links that were just removed in this diff had been modified since this discussion began and were no longer in dispute. If they were disputed, no one has specified what the new concern with them is. Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm no clear that any concerns have been addressed, for even a single link, let alone them all.

I asked for specifics, and none were offered. To then assume the problems have somehow been addressed is hard to take in good faith.

I'll assume I've overlooked something. Please indicate any specific remaining link and the specific discussion that indicates it might now be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you have overlooked something. That is not how this works! see:Argument & Philosophical burden of proof.

You need to have a concern about an individual link that is already there and then then burden is on me to argue for it's inclusion. All of them just can't just be deleted without a solid policy foundation. I don't have to beg for re-inclusion of a valid policy-allowed link on a page I authored nearly from scratch that was unnecessarily deleted. It was a B-article with the links as they were and I have only improved them since to be more consistent with policy.

It is not any editor's burden to start spewing out justifications for every single external link on WP. That changes when and if an editor expresses their concern about an individual specific link requiring a discussion and policy based decision about that individual link. Then consensus is reached. However, consensus is not a vote. The status quo needs to remain until completion of discussion.

The main argument at this point is that almost every external link in the diffs above has been modified since a concern about them was raised and all have been discussed

here:User talk:Beetstra #edit war at Beacham Theatre.
here:wp:ELN #Beacham Theatre
and now here:Talk:Beacham Theatre #In line external links

What links are alleged to be problematic and what is a specific concern with a specific link?

The purpose of the external links is for further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. These links go to the online presence of Unique resources which archive specific Beacham Theater collections. Both the collections and members themselves are unique Resources.

External links section:

diff

The Beacham (official website of The Beacham Theatre)
Beacham Theatre article collection archive of The Orlando Sentinel

The following organizations retain an offline historical archive of Beacham Theatre material:

Archives of the Beacham Theatre. Archive includes newspaper clippings, programs, photographs, etc. of the Beacham Theatre at Orange County Regional History Center
~~Central Florida Memory Project~~
City of Orlando Historic Preservation
~~Orlando Remembered~~
Regional Initiative for Collecting the History of Central Florida (RICHES) (at University of Central Florida)
~~The Historical Society of Central Florida via OCRHC~~ (duplicate)
Orlando Memory (blog of the Orange County Library System)
~~Beacham Theatre Movie Line Up in September 1933 at Orlando Retro (blog)~~ (used as reference)
Frank Burns' standee marketing displays at the the Beacham Theatre from Lantern, an open access co-production of the Media History Digital Library and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Communication Arts.
Theatre Historical Society of America file for the Beacham Theatre. Files may include newspaper clippings, programs, photographs, etc.
Beacham clippings and advertisements of the Paul S. Moore Collection

Arbitrary break (specific link discussions)

I'll pick one to see if it will help:

Blacklight art by Rollo
Those are images. I'd guess you want the link to highlight the artist's work, but I don't see why it belongs in Beacham Theatre. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How is this even related to Beacham Theater?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It is ONE photo. The Rollo Artwork link is there because of this sentence in the body of the article entry: "The late nights at the Beacham featured DJs, beat matching, rare and obscure dance music on vinyl records, intelligent lighting, and themed decor that at times included original paintings by local artist Rollo."

Did you not even read it? WP:RF A reader would ask who is Rollo and what kind of art decorated the Beacham Theatre- hence the link. These are not the paintings used in the beacham but they are of a similar style (and significant to subculture Late night at the Beacham ushered in).

As I previously explained, for relevance, I was going to move the Rollo link into the section and infobox with Acid Rock.. There is associated text and a caption: Blacklight Art by Rollo. The associated text includes it's cultural relevance: "Explore the roots of Orlando's thriving EDM culture by reading our cover story Dance dance revolution, an oral history of all-night raves, legendary DJs and other important ways that Orlando's '90s dance culture majorly influenced EDM as we know it today." Dance Dance Revolution is a cited reference in the article and discusses the subject at length. Is there a legitimate concern with that link? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think that people, while reading the article, consider to find out who is Rollo from the external links then I am sorry to disappoint you. Either Rollo should link to their Wikipage, or people will Google him. What you describe is not what external links are for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is not about Rollo, and promoting him and his work is WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand, the new position and new argument for deletion of the Rollo link, it is now: that this particular link from a cited article in a newspaper about the cultural impact of the article subject is promoting this artist from the 1990s. Further: that a reader of the Beacham article will question who Rollo is or what his art in the Beacham looked like and then go to google to learn more about it. As I have expanded above and on your talk page, That argument fails WP:RF (to the extent that one can fail guidance from an essay). You even questioned whether Rollo needs his own page or not (I don't care).

"Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers. For an encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, this clearly means providing reliable and accurate information. But it goes beyond this. It means providing that reliable and accurate information in a way that the reader will understand and find interesting. This encourages readers to stay, to follow links to more information, maybe even to contribute to Wikipedia themselves. If information is reliable and accurate, but presented in a way that is difficult for the reader to understand, or in a style the reader does not like, then the reader will go to one of the many other online encyclopaedias or other sources of information."

No, the original argument is still there and valid, it is indirect and it does not add anything to the document. Additionally, it is just promotionally for Rollo. Remember, you asked us to analyze links. We dig deeper now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll pick another one! Lets see if that helps:

Orlando remembered
Search results (WP:ELNO #9), mainly to a timeline (information that is already in the article; this is likely correcct, but unlikely a reliable source for that information), a sideways mention in one article (you can catch a movie there - well, we knew that, that is in the article already), and a photo series about the adjacent hotel (one photo pre-Beacham theater, stating that the Beacham theater is going to be build there in later times), one picture from 1923 featuring the Beacham and the hotel ... guess what, that picture is already in the document. (further there are some interesting meeting minutes there, though nothing that makes you understand the subject better ...). Conclusion: that link adds absolutely, utterly, completely nothing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Orlando Remembered website is apparently still under construction and is not complete with any relevant Beacham stuff such as a walking tour, feature, plaque, or information kiosk. It will. However what you've described as the current content is not sufficient to keep it and the article can live with out it. The addition of this link is/was premature and I'm striking it out for now. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am glad that you can reassure us that it will contain more in the future. I hope that it will be much more than what is already here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

For future discussion of this link I did some OR with a phone call. I'm still not sure of the exact relationship but The City of Orlando has a walking tour of their historic district(s). Orlando Remembered owns some historic artifacts and the Orange County regional history museum also owns a collection of artifacts. There are Orlando Remembered-owned displays at each walking tour location that are operated by the history center in conjunction with the city. For at least the last year Orlando Remembered has been compiling Beacham material (the Beacham Theatre Wikipedia entry was even mentioned!) for a digital display at the Beacham Theatre to be installed "in the future." Johnvr4 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If you wish we can go on, but as I explained, you have a massive article with 85 references, that is pretty thorough. The official link of the subject is there, and one can discuss about 'the social' (which I think needs a separate article where the link is direct, the social is not that prominent in the (again, large) article that that warrants an external link), and from then practically all the other links in the linkfarm follow above pattern. They do not add anything over the contents of the article. Maybe, maybe, in the end there is one left over, but many already fail on the problem that they do not add anything that is not already in the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to please continue because now we finally getting somewhere. As I explained, I already nixed the Social link and The Beacham's social media because it is already linked on the Beacham website. You cannot just generalize every link if you admittedly do not understand relevance to the subject. Each individual link has not been reviewed and there are more blanket statements such as, "They do not add anything over the contents of the article." Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: But it is your task to show that an external link passes the merit. We did 2 random ones, and both fail. Tell me, which on do you think passes? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rollo link will pass as is apparent above. The fact you've stated that you don't understand the connection to the subject renders your position that the link fails moot. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated additions of links like the Rollo one result in blocks. It's not acceptable. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@user:Ronz If you want to comment on the Rollo link, please do it above. You've presented a vague WP:SOAP concern and offered zero support for it- the concern does not hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

the concern does not hold water I'm not seeing anyone agreeing with you, nor have you offered any evidence to support your position. If you don't understand WP:SOAP, or would like clarification, please ask.--Ronz (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't need any clarification on wp:soap as I'm not promoting or doing anything related to SOAP. Each of you have asserted and re-asserted that the purpose of this particular link is to Promote Rollo which is simply laughable. It's a link to a newspaper article on the subject of the entry. Therefore the argument fails every single time and there was no reason for the initial deletion. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Rollo link does not pass, the subject of the page is Beacham Theatre, not Rollo. It is indirect. It tells you something about Rollo, but nothing about Beacham theater. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The link clarifies for the reader what Rollo artwork is. Says nothing about who Rollo is nor does it promote him in any way. I opened a WP:COIN noticeboard request for comment on whether adding this link is a clarification (and a false accusation) or a "promotion." Johnvr4 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then call it "AAHZ slideshow" via Orlando Weekly! Johnvr4 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That is why Rollo should be on an own page (if they is notable enough). It is a short part of the page, and the external link is indirect. The mention should be properly referenced, and Wikipedia does not have to cover everything. The link does not pass. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is "Why rollo should be on their own page" That link [1] does not even point to rollo. Your argument fails entirely. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we got confused here, you wanted to start a discussion on a new link, I was still replying to the Rollo link discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Some misunderstanding was my assumption. The new link version was an alternative to rollo. The intended suggestion was to use either (or any other proposal) but not both links... Johnvr4 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, another one:

City of Orlando Historic Preservation

All that is written there is already in the document. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The link that was deleted is this one [2] It was later changed to this one [3] after you originally complained that links were too general or not specific enough. "most are indirect, or way too general." The original link added the Orlando Downtown Historic District. The Beacham was a part of the historical district since its inception. Landmark status was granted in 1987 which required the creation of an archive file of material about the building. The office, run by The City of Orlando has an offline historical archive of material dedicated to the Beacham Theatre with a plethora of further research that an interested party could reference to improve a WP article or conduct further research. It is a unique resource. This organization ensures that historic architecture of the Beacham theater is preserved/restored. There's more link choices. [4] [5]

This image came from that archive and is a clear improvement to the entry. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: wonderful, a lot of choice, but [6] or [7] both have nothing to tell about the theatre, let alone that they add anything that is not in the article.

Can you please now select a link that you think does add something. We did now 3 that don't add anything. I've said initially that none pass and all should go, you said I was wrong but we yet have to find something that adds. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree that This image added something new and relevant to the entry?

Do you assert that the image was the only item in that archive file that would improve this entry?

Do you feel another editor could add something relevant from that archive in the future?

Last, do you acknowledge that the link will be relevant and acceptable once the Beacham is added to the walking tour? Johnvr4 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

you incorporated the info in Wikipedia, so there is no need for the external link. Links can be added if the information is not already incorporated and would be too much detail. This link does not add anything over the content, it is utterly superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: It's bad form to change your comments after someone has responded, and you shouldn't expect anyone to notice. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then You should have noticed the links changed during all of those reversions! Then, you should have expressed a concern with That particular link instead of deleting all the versions of every link. I've modified some links not yet discussed but I agree that is normally bad form. They could be changed after discussion if that ever happens in order to try to find consensus. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Before we get to the merits of the next link, Do you acknowledge that the Beacham Theatre is notable for more than one thing? Johnvr4 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see how further discussion is going to change consensus at this point. If you have new links that you want others' opinions on, clearly identify them in a new comment. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz You were not the editor that asked for the next link. I suggesting answering the important question posed and waiting until all links have been discussed since that is how consensus is reached. Your statement carries no weight whatsoever. If you can't type the words yes or no as the next step then please disengage entirely.Johnvr4 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that the Beacham Theatre is notable for more than one thing?

Do you acknowledge the Beacham has alternate names? Johnvr4 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. See WP:CHOICE. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"...Those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theater presided over by Collins and Dave Cannalte, and nurtured by Beacham promoter StaceBass... From then on the crowds would refer to the Beacham as "Aahz" no matter what the owners called it." [8] Johnvr4 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4, we already suggested to split off The social. There the link is direct. The two articles will significantly link to each other but they are two different subjects. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@user:Beetstra WP:listen I am tired of the I can't here you attitude and repeating myself. I am going to assume you've made some mistake in your statements because your arguments at your last edit with this this diff are nonsensical. The Social link is not even in contention anymore! Did you look at it above?! It's STRUCK OUT. I'm unsure what are you even you talking about or arguing or asserting or making a WP:POINT about with the social link or why. Do you require all of the diffs and quotes where removing the Social from contention was explained?-repeatedly??

Your edit also asserted that This link right here: http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1 links to Rollo and is therefore promoting him. This is literally ABSURD. That link does not even point to Rollo.

The above link is not to a Rollo web site (if there even is one) or about rollo. It has one pic of his art directly relating to the subject or the entry. The link is to a slideshow about Aahz and the cultural significance it created. Aahz is the Alternate name and reason for the international notability of the Beacham. The link goes to a feature about subculture that late night at the Beacham theater (AKA Aahz) spawned. The feature explains: "Explore the roots of Orlando's thriving EDM culture by reading our cover story Dance dance revolution, an oral history of all-night raves, legendary DJs and other important ways that Orlando's '90s dance culture majorly influenced EDM as we know it today. The Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture pics simply accompany the source article Dance dance revolution and each pic (there are several Aahz-related images) has a caption with how it relates to the main article which is cited in the current entry. Multiple photos add to the understanding of the reader. For example: what was rollo art? Where did the name "Egypt" or "Unity" for the Beacham come from? etc.

Now we have an editor User:theroadislong here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Johnvr4_and_Beacham_Theatre who puts forth the following unfounded absurd assertions and arguments (all without merit for the weight of each argument discussion): A. forum shopping, B. aggressive C. not assuming good faith, D. single purpose account E. tendentious. oh and the original argument Promoting.

No editor could even remotely explain what I was allegedly "promoting." My opinion which was supported by my argument and in the absence of any counter-argument, is that those concerns- each of them are horse excrement and have absolutely zero effect on the quality of the argument put forth regarding the merit of an individual link.

Please answer the very simple questions that I have repeatedly asked so that we may continue the discussion about the merit of each link.

Any other responses than yes or no plus an argument that supports a no response to those questions) thwarts further discussion which is a as I've pointed repeatedly out to user:Ronz is WP:tendentious.

Do you acknowledge that the Beacham Theatre is notable for more than one thing?

Do you acknowledge the Beacham has alternate names? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know what point you want to make with that. Yes, but it is utterly not to the point. It does not mean that everything notable in the theatre need its own external link, it does not mean that all related things need their own social networking links listed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the link: http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1 - do you want me to discuss why that link should not be there, or do you want to try and make a case why it should be included? This is link #4 to discuss, right? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Progress! Yes we need to discuss the link http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1. That link is a compromise and alternative link to #1-the rollo-direct link Blacklight art by Rollo. We will get to whether each of the two notable things about the subject might require ONE link each to that official web presence in good time. Let us please take one issue at a time. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that link utterly fails. This links to the front picture of a show of 34 pictures (of which 3 complete advertisement, a click-bait set at the bottom, and ending in further click-bait), under a title "Then and now: Orlando's legendary EDM culture', and stating "Explore the roots of Orlando's thriving EDM culture by reading our cover story Dance dance revolution, an oral history of all-night raves, legendary DJs and other improtant ways that Orlando's '90s dance culture majorly influenced EMD as we know it today.' We already know that "The Beacham Theatre was once home to the late-night underground discotheque Aahz that is recognized internationally as a birthplace and critical component of the electronic dance music movement." - those pictures do not add anything over that, they are just illustrating a phase in the life of the theater. The (now cited) text is minimal, one sentence, that invites us to explore. It does not contain anything beyond what we already knew when we read the article.

The link mentioned in the text, http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/dance-dance-revolution/Content?old=2244233, tells more of a story. However, that is not the link you want to link to, you chose the photo collection. Moreover, that link is very suitable to draw information from an to be integrated in the text, which has happened as ref 64.

That means that neither is suitable for inclusion in the external links section.

So now your remark "We will get to whether each of the two notable things about the subject might require ONE link each to that official web presence in good time".. No. External links are not required. We do not need to link to multiple official web presences, we only link to material that is needed to understand the subject, or that provide a wealth of information beyond Wikipedia's goal. We now discussed 4 links, all 4 fail inclusion standards. You refuse to grasp that we only include external link if the inclusion can be justified, and it appears that you utterly do not understand what are those inclusion standards. Moreover, I get more and more convinced that the Social and Aahz should be split off from the original article as they have their separate notability and are rather voluminous (and that is an answer to your bolded, repeated questions, above). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To quote your last edit: "We already know that "The Beacham Theatre was once home to the late-night underground discotheque Aahz"

It's super to acknowledge that again!! But you are ignoring the rest of the source text which I quoted above which says "...'Aahz'-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers"-Two more notable things. This link http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1# is about the underground culture in Orlando that Late night at the Beacham created.

You've utterly misrepresented some facts and your stated opinion that this source doesn't add anything to the entry fails. Your personal test of "worthiness" is still entirely subjective (and is still disputed).

To clarify: One must click on the linked source work to see the 31-34 images. As with many Wikipedia sources especially those with additional media such as images and video, the website contains revenue generating ads. The work itself has ads for Nissan, Walmart, etc. However, Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited... WP:EL#ADV. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link.

Again WP:RF

This link http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1# points to an "AAHZ Slideshow" with the title Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture and cover photo of the work (which is image #12 included in the work) and date of July 3, 2013. I suggested against using the very link that you are describing above right here: "

My opinion and my previous editing (the original link to rollo art) was make the direct link to the rollo art pic as that would in my opinion gave the reader the most (but not all) the info with the least amount of clicks while still retaining all the links to the rest of Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture as compared to this link to the whole piece which you've described. [9]" WP:UCS

The TWO additional articles that accompany the Orlando EDM Then and Now images are already included as sources.

The July 02, 2013 DJ story: Dance dance rev. http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/dance-dance-revolution/Content?old=2244233 and
The Places: The venues and club nights that propelled Orlando's EDM culture in the '90s of July 3, 2013 : http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-places/Content?oid=2244362 (also note the Beacham buildings north-most unit The Beach Club mentioned as a critical part of the story).

The link http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/?slide=1# is a companion piece of the other two and you can verify that as well as the direct relation to this subject by reviewing each articles dates or the text of each article that describe the relationship. You have acknowledged the slideshow link contains text relating it to the subject and is not simply a group or gallery of images.

The Dance dance revolution article ALSO includes the following text: For a longer, more detailed version, visit orlandoweekly.com. As you noted here "The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic." You again noted that "An external link then has to contain a wealth of information beyond the article to then be suitable as an external link that does "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

However that is wrong! The external link must link to a Source of additional reliable information that can't be otherwise incorporated in WP (copyright). It does not have to link directly to the useful information itself (which be be archived offline).

To clarify what can be used internally: Some of the material can be used on WP- but not without restrictions and limitations WP:NFCCEG.

WP:NFCI includes: acceptable use audio etc. and images:

1. (vinyl art) Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. also

2. (Beacham logos) Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.

4. (the poster) Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.

7. (the rollo art image) Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.

9. Images that are themselves subject of commentary.

Alternatively, we use WP:EL.

I'll ignore the off-topic suggestion of splitting Late night at the Beacham from the Beacham except to say that we covered already it and it still is off topic.

Your sudden realization that WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELYES states (or requires) you to include a web presence or an official link that you seem so opposed to is greatly appreciated.

Your observation/suggestion indicates that you also feel these are notable aspects of the Beacham worthy of mention. What can normally be linked Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See § Official links.

But here, you state "That [80+ citations] means that a LOT of information is incorporated in the subject, and that a lot of meaningful 'external links'"

You seem to be implying that because there are so many references used to support the entry, that no external link would add anything else relevant. That is a logic error which fails.

In additional "external links" as citations are exempt from WP:EL and the number of references is irrelevant to whether a link that cant otherwise be used in the article as a valid external link to an additional reliable source about the subject. *Already bold at WP:EL These external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice cherry picking and use of inverted arguments. Your commenting is starting to be tendentious, and your interpretation of policies and guidelines, or your understanding of them is completely wrong - they are no mutually exclusive, they all work together. E.g. showing what can be used internally does not mean that those things that cannot be used internally HAVE TO be linked externally. You do not have consensus for the inclusion, and you have not been able to explain why any single of the links passes. Stop beating the dead equine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The materiel is clearly justified. I've met and exceeded the burden for inclusion.

The fair use explanations are the types of material that add to the article by the very nature of material described by the policy. The justification for what Fair use type material adds is NOT subjective and you simply cannot say that those types of material do not add anything to an article. For the record I said "alternatively" above.

WP:EL is an alternative to fair-use. There is no cherry picking of an argument. Your subjective argument has fallen apart completely.

Your edits and wp:points above have zero resemblance to a quality argument.

Instead you've come back with accusations in lieu of any quality argument.

You're accusing ME being tendentious simply because your filibuster has failed??

BTW I said your failure to discuss was getting tendentious a while ago and I asked you to stop beating the horse already-twice.

Did you have any valid policy based reasoning to put forth in response to my argument regarding the link being discussed?

If not, shall we move onto the next link? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do not add anything over what is already in the article. WP:IDHT. And you still do not have consensus for inclusion. You can try another one, but my answer is likely the same, and as long as we disagree we, by definition, do not have consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

For the moment you might have apparent WP:local consensus. Yet, you do not have a quality counter argument.

Consensus on the value of that source was reached by the merits of the argument...Above. However, which specific sub-page that link will point to was based solely upon opinion and is still up for debate.

I hear you just fine. In fact I'll quote you: "Indeed, we determine consensus on the quality of arguments..."

We use the WP:EL guideline and common sense: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense."

"As long as we disagree by definition we do not have consensus": WP:EDITNINJAS That right there is a filibuster! And typically an abuse of BRD WP:BRDWRONG not to mention an abuse of this noticeboard. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And we are back at that .. who are you to determine that my 'they do not add anything over what is already in the article' is not a quality counter argument. There are here three editors telling you that these links do not belong for that type of reasons, but all you do is dismiss arguments. That is not the way to reach a consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that those type of arguments are subjective and do not have any merit here.

Your last edit included a bit of objectivity in attempting to measure the value of a source's external link with what is already in the article vs. not yet in the article. however: WP:IDONTLIKEIT

"They do not add anything" -Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. You need to say why content is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.

"Does not belong here." -Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "I don't like it, therefore it should not be included". On Wikipedia, inclusion of content is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. It is impossible to please everyone. But it is possible to comply with guidelines, and this will decide what is included and what not. Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content...

Johnvr4 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What part of the "It does not add anything" did you not get. If the linked content is having, e.g. the same image, and everything in the linked text says the same as parts of the Wikipedia article, then it does not add anything. It tells the same story. That is not a point of view, it is a content analysis. It has nothing to do with me not liking it, it is an analysis based on inclusion standards. That type of material does not belong there, it is already in the Wikipedia document. You have not been able on any of these links to explain which substantial information is added by these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not "get" your repeated assertions that any of those images (in the Rollo/Then and now link(s) appear in the article. That is absurd.

The objective fact is that the copyrighted image content from that source does not appear in the article.

I put forth several arguments for inclusion of that source and One example of a justification I put forth about the rollo image was that the linked image adds is "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique"

I do not "get" your repeated assertion that the information in any of the other linked sources we have discussed or have yet to discuss, much of which is not even online and which you have not even reviewed, cannot possibly add anything. The objective fact is that you cannot make that assertion because the value of that source is unknown to you.

A "Substantial information" test is simply subjective and it's not even the purpose of the External links section which is to link to a source of the information rather than to the information itself.

End this filibuster. Accept the linked source. Decide which sub-link to that source provides the reader with the most value in the spirit of WP:EL & common sense and let's move on. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The material is mentioned, explained, it does not add anything new. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those are valid arguments either. "Not valuable" is subjective but more to the point: None of these kind of arguments have merit: WP:USELESS, WP:BELONG, WP:ITSOBVIOUS, and WP:ALREADYSAID. Also: WP:DECORATIVE, WP:DONTNEEDIMAGE, and a bit of WP:UNUSED

I am going to re-assert that I have met the burden for inclusion for an external link to Then and now: Orlando's EDM culture. Consensus for the inclusion is based upon the merit of my argument that the link to that source added several things including:

vinyl art related to Aahz implying the origin the name Unity and Egypt among others, Beacham logos (some already in the article as noted), the aahz promo poster, the rollo art image, and images related to Aahz and Orlando's EDM culture in the 1990s and more recently. The value of linking to this type of copyrighted material is explained at WP:NFCI where each item class adds to the understanding of the subject.

I also referred to WP:Image_use_policy#Content for guidance as to whether linking those images add value or purpose: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.

Please use that instruction and common sense in deciding which link to use in the article and what to call it. My opinion was based on the logic that I described above (most info/ least clicks) was to use option A.

options:

A. Blacklight art by Rollo http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/then-and-now-orlandos-legendary-edm-culture/6-blacklight-art-by-rollo-photo-by-_chicboutique_/

B. Aahz EDM culture in Orlando http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/tag/aahz/

C. Late night at Beacham Theatre's influence on Orlando's EDM culture. http://photos.orlandoweekly.com/then-and-now-orlandos-legendary-edm-culture/

D. another suggestion? Johnvr4 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to find people agreeing with you, until now there is none. These links do not add anything. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If editors don't have a preference or don't want to provide a persuasive argument consistent with the WP policies to counter that which I put forth then I will simply use the logic I described above to select an appropriate link.

Editors have have had multiple opportunities to submit and explain any quality arguments with merit for support or rejection. That time seems to have passed by.

Now is your opportunity, perhaps your only opportunity, to state your preference (if you have one) about how the article will externally link to that source- before we move on to the next link. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no justification for either of the external links [10] or [11] being added to the article. As User:Beetstra has repeatedly said they add nothing to the article which is about Beacham Theatre, we don't need links to obscure galleries of art vaguely connected to the theatre's past activities. Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theroadislong I am going to interpret your last edit (the opinion ruling out options B and C) as a vote for option A.

I've explained the justification to link Then and Now for inclusion ad nauseam. I've also repeatedly explained why I believe each of Beetstra's arguments are without merit and I've explained why this is the case based on WP policy. Not a single valid argument has been put forth to date supporting your position and the addition of your last second "What he said" assertion has even less merit —less than none (see WP:BELONG to start out). The seven(!) assertions about me that you put forth at WP:COIN were all completely bogus as I explained there and above.

Was there any legitimate augment that has some policy-based merit that you would like to add to this discussion before we move on? Johnvr4 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the three links add to our knowledge of the Beecham Theatre, they don't even mention the theatre, perhaps you would be better advised to create an article about the artist Rollo? Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

For this discussion you would be better advised to read the arguments for and against above for those concerns which we have discussed already ***---->Ad nauseam<-----***.

External links go to a source and don't even have to link to "online" "information".

The assertion that "They don't even mention the Beacham" is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts AND we've long ago established that: The Beacham Theatre = Aahz (AKA Late night at the Beacham Theatre)

I'll ignore the alleged advice to go write a Rollo article as another utterly meritless (and debunked) accusation of promotion but it warmed my heart when you said even Rollo (perhaps most notable for his his work displayed in Aahz) is notable enough for its own article!

User:Beetstra has numerous apparently disqualifying comments so I urge you to please careful who you are echoing... "How is this even related to Beacham Theater??" --Dirk Beetstra (04:30, 8 February 2017)...

or in agreement with: "...I think I will just ignore your arguments." --Dirk Beetstra (18:12, 6 February 2017)

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok good luck with your battle. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 (specific link discussions)

Next link. The Beacham Theatre is notable for Frank Burns' elaborate standee decorations for feature films. Several links have copyrighted images (with associated text) of these displays and a link to one or more of them would add to the understanding of the reader beyond what can be understood from simply reading the text in the article. One or more of these could meet the requirements of fair use in the event that was ever proposed:

1. Lantern direct link to info: Frank Burns' displays at Beacham Theatre (archive of Exhibitors Herald and Moving Picture World)

2. Beacham Theatre photographic prints at Orange County Regional History Center

3. Beacham Theatre images at Cinema Treasures (overview, photo, comments on separate tabs) Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

And again, that is already in the article. It is not a reason to add that to the external links. This is not a game/battle to select one of them, it is that for each of them there must be a reason to include them, and all of these just regurgitate the same as what is already noted in the article. The commentary is not telling about the theathre, it tells about the works/exhibition. It does not expand the knowledge on the subject of the article. And do note that we don't link because it is related, and because we cannot use the linked work because of copyright issues. If you want to go in detail, the latter two are old image collections, no explanation, knowing that the history will tell you that there are more images, they however do not enrich my knowledge on the theater further, the first one tells more about Burns than specifically about the theater, and also there the additional data is not enriching my knowledge on the theater further. If you can find editors who agree with you, we can discuss the merit in more detail, otherwise there is no need to prolong this battle. These links fail our inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

All (or nearly all) of the images at the proposed links are of the Beacham Theatre (I didn't personally verify every single image but it probably wouldn't be difficult for any editor to do that).

Was there a particular link or image that you were concerned was not related to the Beacham Theatre subject?

The assertion above which says "That is already in the article" and another that says "the image collection has no explanation" are utterly false statements as not even one of those formerly linked images of the Beacham Theater is currently in the article nor is a link to the images is currently in the article. Further, the objective fact is that those three links obviously have associated text as I clearly stated above.

It is undeniable that images, whether internal or external, add understanding for the reader.

Those links to sources with such images and text were at one point present in the article. You even left them there with only a slight modification that inserted wikilinks. Is is fine to have additional concerns but I'd like to point out that the present "concerns" that you've expressed in your last edits are in no way consistent with the initial concerns that you raised in the second diff example that you had posted at the beginning of this section- and in this edit diff Your initial concern was: "These links should not be inline to the organizations, but wiki links." Please also see: Template:External_media#When_to_use

Those links used an external media template. "If an image, 3D model, audio or video clip: 1. is currently available online, 2. cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under fair-use rules, and 3. readers will expect this type of media in the article, Then it may be appropriate to use to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.The external media template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS. At that time, the link included in this template may be considered for inclusion as a regular WP:External link in the ==External links== section."

I would like to note that your inclusion standards do not seem to be Wikipedia's inclusion standards for inclusion. WP:CONLEVEL Each of your concerns are subjective assertions without any persuasive merit towards reaching consensus and seem to be simply a collection of arguments to avoid. see: WP:PPOV or other such arguments.

"already in the article" WP:DONTNEEDIMAGE

"not a reason" WP:IDONTLIKEIT

"not a game/battle" WP:NOTBATTLE

"not telling" WP:USELESS

"does not expand the knowledge of the subject" WP:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Subjects_are_connected

"old image collections, WP:BELONG

"no explanation" seems to be a falsehood. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I deny that those images add any further understanding to the subject. Lets take this one, clearly nothing to do with the theater (which is exactly the reason we do not link to search results in the first place). Or this one .. a food drive at the theater, what does that make me understand. Or this one, which is again not of the theater. Or this one, which makes me understand that the beacham (in the background, is on Orange Avenue, information that is already in the article. Or this one, which has a sign reading "WILL / ROGERS / in / A Connecticut / Yankee / Beacham Theatre Saturday" - that makes me really understand a lot about Saturdays at the Beacham. Or this one, which is already in the article. Or this one, just another view of the same theater, that really makes me understand. This one shows the poor condition of the front .. which is with a very similar picture described in the document. Now, you could try and argue that this, this, this or this (or a good many others) show what Burns did for the theater, as well as through many of the articles like this, this or this (featuring the same image as here), but also that is already explained in the article. All in all, it does not add anything new, it does not give further understanding. They fail our inclusion standards. Now, can you show me even one search result out of the many that makes me understand anything that is not already explained in the text. Again, don't hesitate to ask anyone that agrees with you to help explain it to us. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have explained repeatedly that it is apparent that your method of determining what level understanding is added by images and additional text content is subjective and meritless (the arguments to avoid).

You seem to be concerned that these examples are WP:Out of scope but if if we break each of those concerns down it is clear that each one adds to the understanding of subject and is equally clear that each is within the scope of this article as indicated by the article section in which that aspect of this subject is discussed.

"this one" History center:

image of Norma Beacham singing at Beacham (AKA Norma K. Hughes) Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
image of food drive and movie ads the food drive is not mentioned in the article but movie advertising and the theater as a critical part of community is in the lead section of Beacham Theatre and Beacham_Theatre#Live_Entertainment_era
image of Roberta Branch Beacham, wife of Braxton Beacham Jr. and organist and owner of theatre Beacham_Theatre#Construction, Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era, Beacham_Theatre#Live_Entertainment_era
image of Parade in front of the Beacham see: Lead of Beacham Theatre and Beacham_Theatre#Live_Entertainment_era important contributing structure, critical part of community /Downtown historic district and Beacham Theatre placement in it.
Mobile billboard / Mobile outdoor advertisement image of promo for Beacham film by Frank Burns Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era

"this one" from Cinema treasures:

a pre-copyright image that already appears in the article. Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era You are "denying" that the image ~~does not~~ adds anything to this article...! Huh?
Two recent copyrighted images of the facade images show condition and that it was like that for years Beacham_Theatre#Recent_Changes
"Frank H. Burns creates a great front of the Beacham in 1923." Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
"Frank H. Burns gets credit for this wonderful front in 1926 for the Beacham." Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
"Frank H. Burns creates an textbook example of a masked front with his Beacham in 1923, this time for 'Ashes of Vengeance.'" Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
"Frank H. Burns creates another great front of the Beacham in 1923, this time for 'Enemies of Women.'" Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era

"this one" from Lantern:

"Burns lobbies get Crowds" Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
"Made season record with Flaming youth" article and photo image of Beacham lobby: "How frank burns told them all about Flaming youth" Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era
Image and caption of Beacham for La Boheme Beacham_Theatre#Vaudeville_and_Silent_film_era

You point out that the argument can be made that the Burns images add understanding. It is a fact that there are not any Frank Burns images currently in nor linked in the article.

The "already explained in the article" concerns you have expressed do not seem not legitimate. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is rather brilliant that for each image you show that it is already in the article. That does clearly show that it does not add anything if you add it again as an external link. You are still free to find someone that agrees with you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to restate your "concern" so that it can be fully understood:

1. "Because there is one non-copyright photo that aided understanding already in the article, nothing else from that domain (including all the copyrighted material) can possibly add anything else to the article and the entry should not have a link to it."

2. "We also need to throw out linking the two other domains (including all the copyrighted material) that don't have the image because they don't have any potential to add anything to the article either." Johnvr4 (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, those are not my concerns, you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying. Can you please find someone who agrees with your reading, you obviously do not understand the concerns expressed by User:Ronz, User:Theroadislong and me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Then can you please restate your policy-based concern as it was not understood (at all). Johnvr4 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The external links do not add anything that is not already in the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The "concerns" that you continue to repeat are meritless. Can you show me the section where you believe all of these linked images already are in the article?

"Links Do not add anything" see: WP:ATADP#It.27s useful and WP:ATADP#It.27s_valuable

..."already in the article" see: WP:DONTNEEDIMAGE

In the absence of any legitimate concern with those links, we should move on. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What part of the sentence do you not understand? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand that your stated (and re-stated) arguments are meritless per WP policy.

Since you today pinged two other somewhat involved editors let's see if they submit a comment or concern about these particular links before we move on. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines say ...

“Minimize the number of links” as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL which states "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says."
“The fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article.”
“Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.”
“the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article.” I don't think the article would be improved by the addition of your suggested links. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@User:Theroadislong, We are talking about the three numbered links at the top of the in the Arbitrary break 2 section.

Can you at least base your concern on the links currently being discussed?

The three links are not WP:OFFICIAL (nor WP:ELMINOFFICIAL) and do not link to the subjects web presence. They are not social media links (we will get to those).

The External media infobox is not a directory and does not place one single shred of undue emphasis on anything and especially not anything that the subject itself says because those three links are not controlled by the subject.

I've provided policy based arguments with justifications for each of the links.

I'm afraid all you have expressed is simply an opinion: "I don't think it improves..." see: WP:ATADP#It.27s useful and WP:ATADP#It.27s_valuable.

Is there any policy or guideline prohibition on those three links as you stated in your edit summary? If so, which ones?

You said in your edit summary here: that all the links were "in line links" and "against all policies" but in your last edit above you cite a rule that says, "The fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline..."

Is there a guideline violation alleged or is there an unmentioned prohibition you are bringing forth as a concern?

Do you have any policy-based argument about the three links being discussed right now? Johnvr4 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not talking about violations, we are talking about common sense. These three links do not add anythinng beyond what is already in the article. And you have still not explained to me what you do not understand of that, you just keep on dismissing this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, until you understand why we are minimizing external links, and understand what Theroadislong and I are saying, further discussion is useless. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

First, the arguments for inclusion include the same arguments that allow fair use. I have explained that these items and those type of material add understanding to the reader in WP articles.

Perhaps you could state your interpretation of why we minimize external links to compare it with WP policy. The WP:EL guideline does not really provide a reason to minimize the number of links per se.

The indication of a reason for minimization from WP:EL is that we keep external links minimal simply to avoid clutter. An extra link or two in the external links section at the very end of an article is simply not going to create clutter. However, "Clutter" pertains to Official links.

At least one editor thinks we are minimizing the number of links because it is apparent that they mistakenly believe these are official links. The other editor is not responding.

As you have pointed out, Minimizing the number of links WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is part of WP:OFFICIAL.

Other instruction to minimize links in in the Nutshell and Points sections:

WP:EL: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.

WP:EL#Points:Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.

External_links#Links_to_be_considered Long lists should be avoided.

External_links#What_to_link As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter

I've stated the understanding of external link minimization so please help me understand why you think we minimize links if that is your requirement to continue. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there are no policy violations, and the fair use-like material improves the article, and the interpretation of link minimization on which other editors are acting may be faulty, let's move on to the social media links. Social media is the only web presence of the highly notable the Aahz portion of the subject. One of these official links should suffice if we skip fan sites. WP:OFFICIAL WP:ELOFFICIAL The three choices seem to be either twitter, Instagram or Facebook. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017#Embedded links in lieu of inline citations

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017#Embedded links in lieu of inline citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Choice of social network as official site.

On Marnie Simpson I am challenged that "Facebook isn't classed as an official website for anything .." by User:Davey2010. To me, it is a website controlled by the subject, and hence is an official website as defined under WP:ELOFFICIAL, as are twitter, google+, instagram etc. Hence, in case of multiple official websites, we choose one of them, and only one. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know if an official website isn't listed then we should list all of their social medias, I personally don't see the harm in listing their Facebook, Twitter and Youtube channel, obviously things like Instagram, snapchat etc shouldn't be included because they're not relevant to the article but things like their FB & Twitter are, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We generally discourage links to social networking per WP:ELNO #10, but if there is no official website (as in <subject>.com), we should link to all social networking sites, except for the ones that you do not deem relevant? Disclaimer, Barring some exceptions where the subject is particularly known for certain social network activity, I don't think that any are encyclopedically relevant (see also WP:ELNO), and generally only leave one if there is not a more relevant personal outlet of the subject available (as in the subject's homepage, or a personal blog). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Marnie Simpson does not mention Twitter as having any significance to the subject so there is no reason (per WP:EL) to include a link. There is no logic in the claim that all social media sites should be listed if no official website is available. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm or a substitute for Google. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's no one <subject>.com, one criterion might be that we try to pick the social media site with the most links to the subject's other social media sites. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to pick the social media site that best meets the ELOFFICIAL purpose: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself". I'd go with the Facebook link in this case. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That rationale makes sense too. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is still something that I have difficulty with when we get to the 'less informative' social networking sites: which one to choose. If we have 'subject.com'-type, then all go. If that one is not there, but we have a blog, then the blog is the second one. If there is also no blog, then generally go for Facebook. Then the problem starts: when we have an instagram and a snapchat (or similar combinations). Randomly take one? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to looking for which site best presents the subject, I look for aspects of notability as well. For example, a performer might be best able to present him/herself through video (via a YouTube channel) rather than through Facebook. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I do make that choice, and when it comes to official .com's, official blogs, facebook or youtube, a choice is often easy (and for artists that have e.g. sprung to live significantly because of youtube, I would even leave the youtube next to an official .com). The problem starts with pages which have none of those first 4 listed, and we have only twitters, snapchats, instagrams, flickrs, ... the social networking sites that are mere pictures of things they see around them, or things that spring to their mind at a random moment. It is a bit what I hope to put in order in the below section, and maybe we can add a 'note' to ELNO 10 & 11 / ELMINOFFICIAL what all encompasses a 'official website of a subject', and which one generally to choose (unless there is a compelling reason to ignore that order - I could see reasons when a person has a rather informative facebook and a less informative twitter feed, but is a twitter personality because of whatever reason). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wealdstone F.C.

On Wealdstone F.C., user:Craigw87 insists that the twitter, facebook and youtube channel belong next to the official page, as does a link to a supporters' club (fanclub). Craigw87 has been repeatedly pointed WP:ELMINOFFICIAL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:EL#EL11 and WP:ELNO, but I presume they have an argument why these links belong. I am awaiting the answer here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no need for links to the team's social media accounts per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, especially now that I've replaced the link to the official website with a link to an inner page where links to the each of them are prominently displayed; therefore, I have removed them again. I'm not sure about fan club link since item 4 of WP:ELMAYBE does say that sometimes such links may be acceptable.

FWIW, Craigw87 is an WP:SPA who probably just does not know about things such as ELMINOFFICIAL. Hopefully, he will see the posts left on his user talk page and decide to engage in disucssion here. However, if he continues to re-add the links without any attempt at discussion, then there may be no other option than WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking more to the editor. The editor just chose to ignore my pointers repeatedly. Engagements on talkpages are then generally not fruitful either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the fan site, which is linked from the official site and is specifically excluded per ELNO#11. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bitterne Park School Exposed

There is a slow, but tedious, edit war at the Bitterne Park School article concerning the inclusion of a link to http://bitterneparkschoolexposed.info/. The website details the suicide of a pupil at the school from the parents' point of view and makes various claims concerning the school's actions concerning that particular incident, and the culture at the school more generally. It could be argued that the website is malicious and possibly defamatory and should therefore be removed; it could equally be argued the site adds an important additional perspective on the subject of the article. WP:EXT doesn't seem particularly clear in this case. Waggers TALK 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be remove all but official link and hope that editors would focus on article content.

The "Bitterne Park School Exposed" link is simply off topic. The Wikipedia article is about the school. The "Exposed" site is about Amber Jackson. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dont think it is relevant to the school article as it is really an attack page by grieving parents trying to look for answers, not our place to right wrongs or provide an platform for negative comments on living persons albeit not the subject of the article. Suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both, your input is much appreciated. Seems we have a consensus! Waggers TALK 21:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Extensive list of 'personal website' hosts

Do we have somewhere an extensive list of anything that is considered 'personal' as per WP:ELOFFICIAL? In cleaning up, there are some that are unclear whether they are totally maintained by the subject:

<subject>.tld (e.g. bbc.com for BBC), or sometimes <organisation>.tld/subject (e.g. bbc.com/<program>, where BBC is the producer of <program> and is maintaining that as the main website for the subject
blogs - blogger/blogspot (spora.jp?)
facebook
weibo
twitter
snapchat
instagram

Are there any more I missed (SoundCloud?)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't get what you're asking. As far as I know either internal clues ("This is the official website of X") or external sources ("blahblah.com is the official website of X") are main starting points for figuring out whether a site is official. I don't suppose the Town of Ocean View, Iowa (or whatever) would maintain official records on Snapchat or Instragram or whatever, but I guess they could, so I'm not sure if we need a list of sites which we can never consider anything hosted on them to be official, if that's what you are asking. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: No, what I am asking are on which domains subjects can have an 'official website' of themselves. That is their own official website, their own official blog, their own official facebook, their own official weibo, their own official twitter (&c.). Those can all be an official website of a subject, they are in principle all controlled by the subject alone (barring hacking attempts and influence from agents etc., I presume that what Donald Trump posts on his twitter is what he types on his device himself). Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, we only list one (and then generally the one that the subject uses as their main personal outlet / which one is most informative about them). IMDB or Wikipedia, as examples, is not controlled by the subject - they may be editing the pages, but everyone in the world has access to change it to something else.

What I am trying to establish are a 'complete' list of the social networking sites out there, which lists should be 'reduced to one' (barring exceptions like Donald Trump). Are SoundClouds totally controlled by the subject? Are Bandcamps totally controlled by the subject, .... I am then targetting to put that list into WP:ELPEREN to explain the WP:ELMINOFFICIAL requirements (and avoid having to go through these discussions over and over), and get a rough 'order of information content regarding the subject' on all of them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Herostratus (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links at Günther Lütjens

I would appreciate third party opinion on the matter of external links.

Article:Günther Lütjens (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Links in question:

"Günther Lütjens". Bismarck: Portrait of the Men Involved. Retrieved 9 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
"Günther Lütjens". Battleship Bismarck. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
"Günther Lütjens". kbismarck.com. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
"Günther Lütjens". Maritime Quest. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
John Asmussen. "Operation Berlin". Scharnhorst Class. Retrieved 19 January 2015.

These are personal web sites of unknown accuracy. For example, one of them (http://www.battleshipbismarck.info/about.htm states: "This website was created by Aziz Evliyaoglu in 2000. Later it changed ownership on the 7th of November, 2005. Calcio Network © Copyright 2000 - 2007". Another one is http://www.maritimequest.com/ "© 2005-2017 Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com". I don't see linking to these sites being of service to the readers.

The opinion by the reverting editor was: "Links supported by inline citations and requires no further comment". I believe that the editor is misinterpreting the relevant guidelines, WP:EXT or WP:NOCONSENSUS.

The relevant Talk page discussion is at: Talk:Günther_Lütjens#External_links.

I would appreciate feedback on the matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

on a page of this size, and with 113 references (bibliography of 20 references), how much detail do these links add to the page. Note that reliability of external links is not an as hard criterion as with sources, unless they are just demonstratably wrong on a majority of material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Archibald Prize winners#Embedded external links

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Archibald Prize winners#Embedded external links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Gaana

gaana.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I noticed someone, User:Ankitrana28, adding several external links to gaana.com (e.g. here or here, putting aside the sometimes problematic location of the link for the time being). It looks to be a music site that claims to be "India's #1 music app" or something along those lines. I've no idea as to the legality/integrity of it. In some of the cases it's clearly not appropriate per WP:EL, but it's possible that for some music-related articles a legal music site could have something to offer. Anyone familiar with it? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

'official' YouTube videos hacked into infoboxes (or generally, on song pages)

@124.106.206.103, Luke Stark 96, and Ss112:

'Song pages' contain links to the 'official' YouTube video upload of the song. On many pages they are however 'hacked' into the infobox:

by using a 'misc' field. That to me shows that there is no (local) consensus to having the YouTube video's in the infobox (otherwise there would be a dedicated field for holding the link). Do we consider linking to the official music song in this way according to policy/guideline? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care that much to argue about it. I just don't think there's been a consensus to remove official licensed uploads of YouTube links on pages either, has there? There's no "consensus" on either side, but most music editors I know (experienced, with good and featured articles to their names) include links to the official record label or artist's Vevo YouTube upload. Using Template:External music video is also not what I would consider "hacked" into the infobox. Also, there is no need to continually tag me; I watchlist talk pages I post on. Ss 112 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The general point with external links is that the burden of showing that something should be included is on the editor who wishes to include it. I know that it seems to be 'general practice' but my main question here is whether linking to the (official) music video is in line with our inclusion standards. Our general practice is to minimize external links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

One link to the official licensed upload of the video on YouTube hardly contributes to a plethora of external links. I don't even see that it encourages other external links. There is no consensus to remove them all at the moment; it's just a decision, as it is also a decision to include them. I haven't added YouTube links—that's not something I'm particularly interested in doing, hence why I said I really don't care enough. I have only reverted (on one page) an IP editor who has linked to an opinion/interpretation for removing the link. We need others' opinions, then we may reach a consensus on what is the best way to deal with links to official YouTube uploads. I'm for inclusion if it's an official upload. That's all I really have to contribute. Ss 112 12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that an official copy of the music video falls completely within WP:ELOFFICIAL. I would not want these "hacked into an infobox", however (and we should work to remove external links from infoboxes, but that's a separate concern). --Izno (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider it an analogue to an "official website" link. After all it's an official upload and it gives readers the opportunity to hear the song in its official version.
By the way, VEVO now uploads "audio-only" videos for old songs, here's an example: [12]. What would you prefer to listen to, a user-reencoded excerpt or this? (And who knows what sources and what software people use when they make excerpts for Wikipedia, some are awful quality.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think Wikipedia readers will profit from removing YouTube links? We need to give them an opportunity to hear the actual song and to watch the video.
By the way, there is another template like this, {{Extra music sample}}. It, too, is put into the infobox. What do you think is more useful, a 30-second excerpt of doubtful quality (re-encoded by a random Wikipedia user) or a link to an official-quality upload on YouTube? --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just my 2c but FWIW I used to add YT vids to Infoboxes if there was no album info however if there was album info then I wouldn't (I'd only done this for about 6 within the space of 4 years), We have links at the bottom of the article so I to a point don't see it necessary to add them to infoboxes however the easiest way of resolving this is to start an RFC on VP. –Davey2010^Talk 13:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The practice described seems OK to me. This is not the Army where everything not mandatory is forbidden, so if people want to do, it's OK I guess. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can cogently explain either why it degrades the user's experience or why it puts a burden on our internal processes here.

I don't like linking to YouTube in general, since -- unlike a few years ago -- it doesn't take you to the video we want, but rather to an ad, which the reader is required to see some of and sometimes all of. Which is a lot more intrusive than linking to site that just has ads on the page or whatever. It's possible that we should reconsider our stance on YouTube generally. But that's a different and much bigger question. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

reply to quite some people here:

This is not 'an official site' of the subject. This is a representation of the subject, uploaded to YouTube. The official site is likely on the website of the artist or their agent (but that may not exist).
The video is not the official site of the subject (2), it is the accompanying music video of the subject.
It is very dependent on each individual cases whether readers will benefit from being able to see the video. Some of the pages have a plethora of information describing the subject, what they meant with the lyrics, who made a cover of the song, etc. etc. The Wikipedia article is inclusive, it contains all that information. The official link then does not give much extra information. Do the readers profit more from seeing the video than from hearing an excerpt .. maybe they profit more from the video than from the excerpt, but the question is whether either is necessary for the understanding of the subject.
As mentioned at the bottom: in most cases when you go to YouTube you first get through an advertisement (that at best you can skip after 5 minutes).

So that is why I asked my initial question: do we consider linking to this material in line with our policies and guidelines? I, for one, am not convinced. Try to convince me that seeing Miley Cyrus sitting naked on a wrecking ball singing about the deterioration of a relationship is making me better understand the subject than the article telling me that '"Wrecking Ball" is a pop ballad which lyrically discusses the deterioration of a relationship...with footage of a nude Cyrus swinging on a wrecking ball.' And that is what external links are for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For individual songs, an official website which is not a music video or lyrics video is unlikely to exist. So your objection on this point seems to be pedantic.
This is certainly being pedantic. The official website of Example is example.com, but that is really just the accompanying description of Example at example.com, not Example itself.
Providing a link to the music video is marginally more useful to the end reader than to an audio file of the music video. Then they have the choice either to listen, or to listen and watch, which is a choice we should leave to them. The "extra information" is information we cannot host due to our copyright limitations, but which another organization may be able to do so (through some licensing scheme or because they themselves carry the copyright). That the Wikipedia article does not contain this information is the reason these are linked. (Wikipedia fundamentally cannot except in excerpted form, and even that requires a non-free use rationale in almost all cases.) I would certainly suggest that access to the media (whether book, music, video, or otherwise) certainly increases understanding of that media.
Forbes has interstitial advertisements that last at-minimum 5 seconds these days. Other websites as well. These are not objectionable--and accordingly, I do not find a 5-15 second video advertisement to be "objectionable", which is the required barrier under ELNO #5, even if we don't consider these videos to be official.

In other words, in the absence of an external link to a page maintained by the organization producing the media about that specific media item (a song, in this specific case--not the album(s) on which that song appears), I see 0 reason why we should not link to the YouTube music video (or lyric video, if one rather than the other exists). --Izno (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The example of the Wrecking ball above was specifically chosen. Our article is Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) (my bolding). The article is about the song, not about the video. I stand with my point that the video that is uploaded on YouTube is hence not an official website of the song, it is an upload of the video that is there to accompany the song.
Now we are certainly pedantic: "the official website of example is example.com". Exactly my point. The official website of the Miley Cyrus song is .. the, and I quote, 'accompanying music video' that is made available on YouTube. That is rather different, isn't it? Notwithstanding the fact that there are at least two versions available on YouTube .. which is the 'official one'? Maybe in this case there is no official website for the subject.
I still insist that a lot of this information is failing WP:ELNO #1. The encyclopedic information on the song is included in the Wikipedia page. Again, what extra information do I get that is not already there (actually, I get more information from the Wikipedia page, however entertaining the music video is). The only thing that I would consider to be exempt from that rule is the official website of the subject ..
That is a 'what about X' argument. I find the advertising that YouTube is currently putting before video's (and at regular intervals within some video's) rather annoying.

I do agree that a page maintained by the artist/their agent (the 'organization producing the media about that specific media item') would qualify. But a YouTube upload of the official music video that is made to accompany the song that is the subject of the page does not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)#Music video. The article is about the song and the music video.
And you have said above that "the Wikipedia article is inclusive". Do you really honestly think that the actual song and the actual video don't add anything to the Wikipedia article? Like, if a person has read the article, it is as if he has heard the song and has seen the video? (Do you think that the Wikipedia article contains all the visual, musical and lyrical information?) Cause for me it is obvious that the article is useless without actually hearing the song and watching the video. And it's obvious that the textual information the Wikipedia article contains is nothing compared to the sound recording and the video clip. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That means that we will never understand the Testarossa unless we actually drive it, or Mars without actually going there. Those articles are actually useless. You do not need to hear the song or read the lyrics to understand the song, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your examples are impossible (as of now; I would like to have a button to go to Mars and back and I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation would have opted for such an option themselves), while adding sound and visual clips is possible. And it is done on Wikipedia already (La Paloma, Abraham Lincoln (1930 film), Polar orbit). And according to your logic, we should remove images too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

−

GetItRight is equally useless. No, your argument was that, to you, it "is obvious that the article is useless without actually hearing the song and watching the video". The article is useful without images, references, and text, it becomes more useful with references, some images, and incorporated media, and external links can make it more useful. However, there are limits to that. There are points where more references become useless (the point is made), where more images become useless (every frame of a video can be captured, uploaded to commons, and incorporated if the material is out of copyright), pieces of media can be incorporated (the whole song if it is out of copyright, or a couple of illustrative pieces), external links to external media. But we limit that, and that limit is one of our pillars. Although I can see that providing links to videos of certain material can be providing insight, in many cases, like here, the external link does not provide a significant amount of information beyond the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I am the "instigator" of this thread, let me share my piece. Do you guys think that I want to have them removed? I actually started out in favor of adding YouTube Links, but a Bot reverted my fisrt edit relating to it in 2017. As pointed out by User:Beetstra, links in general are not allowed. I'm just trying to adhere to them, that's why I'm very touchy about this topic. I would like to add them, but if I understand the rules right, one of them are to not add external links (they stand as their own). I just find it hypocritical that this site says one thing, then adheres to another. - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So, did you do this [13] simply because you had been reverted earlier? By whom, by a bot? XLinkBot automatically reverts unregistered editors who add links to YouTube. It is because there's a very high risk of copyright infringement. So basically, while unlogged you can't add a YouTube link. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I guess I'm going to sit this one out and leave it up to you guys, because apparently unlogged users have no say in this matter, and I'm not going to sign-up now because I've been disrespected in the past by other wiki users in other wiki sub-sites as a logged-in user who was only trying to look after their respective pages and I can only handle so much backlash due to my condition (sickness). - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, YouTube is not on the revertlist only because there are copyright problems, it is on our revertlist because it often fails our inclusion standards. We do not link to YouTube videos just because they are on-topic, we do not link to YouTube Channels because they are another official website of the subject .. We are not writing a linkfarm. External links, and that goes for YouTube as well, should only be included if their inclusion is justifiable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're arguing with me on this one, because I'm the one removing YouTube Links based on your own arguments. It's users like User:Luke Stark 96, User:Ss112 and apparently User:Moscow Connection who are at odds with you. Off topic, please respond to my last message to you on your talk page. - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unclear, it was basically a remark to User:Moscow Connection (this threading does not always make that clear, I should have pinged). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cool, Dirk. Whatever you guys end up with regarding this issue, I believe that the rules and regulations need to be a lot more clear on paper and updated if needed (which it does, to prevent issues like this moving forward, i.e. Allowing/Prohibiting External Links like YouTube). - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@124.106.206.103: This is not about allowing/prohibiting, the area is grey. Every article needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and whereas I argue that most will fail, there will be cases where this link does add significant information that cannot be conveyed in words .. this is not going to result in a blanket ban or blanket allowance. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: If the area is "grey", then again, where is the line drawn? Either way, I clearly have no say in this whatsoever. - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no line, we have the consensus that is established in our policies and guidelines, and we have consensus that can be established on talkpages. We are not a court of law, we are not a bureaucracy. Wikipedia has only few bright red lines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, everything regarding this still isn't clear to me. To save everyone some trouble, I'll stay away from this hot topic for now, but I'm glad that I brought this up. To those who are adamant on retaining YouTube Links, don't worry, I won't be removing any more out of respect to this discussion until you end up coming up with something. Good luck figuring this out amongst yourselves. - 124.106.206.103 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@124.106.206.103: "Adamant" on retaining YouTube links? I reverted you on one article. Please stop tagging me in your replies. Ss 112 07:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

www.springsteenlyrics.com

springsteenlyrics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I noticed a link to the entire lyrics of the Bruce Springsteen song "Jungleland" were added to that article and so I reverted per WP:ELNEVER as a site that hosts copyright violations. @Eddy wehbe: has recently added similar links to a large number of Bruce Springsteen song articles. Before making mass reverts, I am checking to see if others believe that this site does indeed violate WP:ELNEVER or if my evaluation is incorrect. I see no indication from that site that it is granted permission from the artist or ASCAP to host complete song lyrics. The use of complete lyrics is a violation of fair use, as I understand it. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This site appears to be unambiguously hosting copyright violations. --Izno (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Defer to Local blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I'm assuming this means that all the EL's identified should be reverted, correct? Does that have to be manually done? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oi, yes. I've reverted two spamming sprees, but I see now there are more left (first added, now updated). I would suggest to try to revert, there are cases like this diff, where other (possibly legit) links got lost. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like individual manual review on all of this user's recent edits may be needed. I'll address it later today, probably. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed 23 instance of links which leaves 25 left. These are actual references to other information about the songs in question, such as performances or release editions. They should probably also be removed, but I do not have time to find replacement refs for the same information at other sites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: that is why I suggested to revert the original. The refs may have been hijacked, or refspammed (finding citation needed statements). If they are copyvio refs they should go, better replaced with a citation needed tag. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into those more deeply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Have worked through refs. Remainder are 2 user pages and 3 image source links. If anyone wants to check my work, feel free. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Promotion of an application

rayeman.me: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hi, a user tried to advertise an application on Wikipedia:

–Pahlevun (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:, I added a link summary template above so you can search for other instances of this. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Links in List of Archibald Prize winners

Editor has imbedded image links into references in an attempt to keep them. Here is one example being removed.

The article originally contained a column of image links [14].

Note that some of the other "Notes" seem to be more like external links rather than references, the very first note for example.

I'm for removing the image links and any other links that are not acting as verifying references. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I agree that assessment and appreciate you taking the time to help sort things out. In most of the cases, there were basically three or more links pages showing the same painitng; for example, a citation to a reliable source which showed the painting, an embedded external link to just a jpeg of the painting, an internal link to a Commons file of the painting so it could be seen by the reader (sometimes the same file was displayed twice in the article), and then an standard external link to a page showing the painting. It seemed from the article's talk page the other editor agreed this type of excessive linking was contrary to relevant guidelines, removed them, and then re-added some of them for some reason, leaving an edit sum which seemed more passive aggressive and snarky, then an attempt tp explain how the links were an improvement and in accordance with the MOS and EL guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Marconi Prize

marconisociety.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Not only are this editor's edits flagrantly violating ELPOINTS, their editing pattern as well as other evidence indicates a conflict of interest. Would appreciate some help reverting the massive amounts of edits they've made so far. James (^talk/_contribs) 10:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've rolled them back, and issued a final warning in the hope the editor will now stop adding these links. this is a prime example of the edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over promotional external links related to Simien Mountains National Park

There has been a dispute over the external links on the pages: Simien Mountains National Park and Semien Mountains. Much of the discussion took place on my talk page. I tried my best to help with the case, but I dont think I can do anything more. To me, the only external link that I see fit for the page now is http://www.simienmountains.org/ but before making any changes, I thought I'd take the opinion of people who are more experienced in this than me. Any input is much appreciated. (Also, I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to post this since this is the first time a case like this has come to my hands.) Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 08:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added the link mentioned on both the pages based on my judgement (I've given a little description of that judgement on my talk page for closure of this dispute). I might've jumped the gun posting this and for that, I do apologize. If anyone looking into this matter finds an error on my part, feel free to mention it on my talk page. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Links to YouTube channel "Cow Missing"

About a year ago I came across some external links to a YouTube channel run by someone named "Cow Missing" being added to various articles by Davidcrown. Most of the links I find seemed to violate WP:YOUTUBE, WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER, so I removed them. I then posted a notice at User talk:Davidcrown#Linking to copyrighted material explaining my concerns and how adding such links might violate various Wikipedia policies. No response was received and I sort of just moved on to other things. However, Davidcrown seems to have continued to add links to "Cow Missing" video to quite a large number of articles since last year, including links which are actual footage from newtwork talk shows such as The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon with edits like this. I'm not sure if there's a connection between Davidcrown and "Cow Missing" and if adding these links is some sort of WP:LINKSPAM, but almost of the content that I've seen on the "Cow Missing" channel appears to be stuff taken from other sources and not original content of the channel itself. I'm not sure whether uploading these videos is allowed by YouTube, but linking to such things does seem to not be allowed by Wikipedia. Anyway, I am interested in getting feedback from others about this. If it's OK to link to these things, then fine; however, if it's not, then there's going to be a lot of cleanup that needs to be done and Davidcrown should be advised to stop adding such links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the status, this fails our inclusion standards per WP:NOT and WP:EL, we are not writing a linkfarm, and I fail for most to see what they add. If there is even copyvio etc., then for sure. I am issuing a final warning. Let them first get consensus at the talkpage. There may still be links to clean up. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Beetstra. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do about Iplayer links

In checking something, I found that the BBC Iplayer, will soon need users to register for an account, (in addition to needing a TV license for watching TV shows on it.)

There are approx 1500 links: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fiplayer&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

That will need to be changed over to "Progamme" page links rather than direct links to Iplayer.

Linking directly to Iplayer shows is also bad because they typically get removed after 7-30 days making the links dead, whereas the programme pages tend to be somewhat more persistent. I will also note that there is already a {{BBC programme}} template for external links to the programme pages.

Unless there were objections, it was planned to suggest removing direct i-Player links in the next few weeks.

Feedback is however sought prior to doing this as it would need some technical assistance to remove over 1500 links from Wikipedia in a clean manner. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 8:39 pm, Today (UTC+1) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Several dozen links from Old Time Radio pages to an external 'hobby' website

otrplotspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Please help me with...

I run a non-commercial, advertising-free website devoted to Old Time Radio. I publish a mixture of my own work and work submitted to me by fans. These include: plotlines, reviews, CD cover art, a comprehensive listing of radio adaptations of famous authors' work, top-10 lists, recommendations, and links to other websites. The site hosts over 2,100 plotlines and 1,300 reviews from 70 different radio series. The 'Famous Authors on Radio' page cross-references 2,800 stories from over 900 different authors. Since this is an ever-expanding work-in-progress, some of the pages are more complete and higher in quality than others. The website has been online for 17 years.

Several dozen of the Old Time Radio web pages at Wikipedia provide external links back to the corresponding pages at my website because my website provides copyrighted material that some people have found useful.

I did not create these links. But I do maintain them. (Actually, I did not create any of the original links -- many of which date to 2004 -- but, as my website has grown I have added links to new web pages.)

Lately, those links have been systematically deleted by one (or perhaps several) individuals. The reason given is 'Low Quality URL'.

I have read the Wikipedia section on External links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked It seems like the links to my website might fall in a grey area.

I am writing to ask if there is a community consensus on whether these links can remain? Or if, in the interest of improving Wikipedia, they should be removed? In other words, I can't tell if the links were justifiably deleted or whether they were the result of vandalism. (And if they were the result of vandalism, how I should proceed.)

Any help about how I should proceed to resolve this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

My home page: http://www.otrplotspot.com

An example Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Plus

The corresponding page that Wikipedia linked to: http://www.otrplotspot.com/2000Plus.html

The user who originally removed the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.41.9.94

Another example Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000X

The corresponding page that Wikipedia linked to: http://www.otrplotspot.com/2000x.html

The user who originally removed the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/197.41.157.234

ZootMutant (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

LinkSearch and https

I thought Special:LinkSearch had been fixed to show http and https links, but I must be thinking of something else because I just removed some WP:REFSPAM to webhostinggeeks.com and first tried checking if it was used in more articles. However LinkSearch found only two old http links and completely ignored the several https links which I then removed. Does anyone know if this issue is being addressed somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I believe the task is phab:T14810, open since 2008... --Izno (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

phab:T35030 might also be interesting. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are aware of it, but just in case you are not (or others may not know): Linksearch is a nice tool by MER-C, that avoids this problem, and also allows to restrict the search to mainspace. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links to study guides

As I noted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Cliffsnotes.2C_Sparknotes_and_study_guides_in_general (where I include links to external link search) we have thousands of links to study guides and seemingly no word on whether they are reliable or even allowed. Interested editors may want to comment there on reliability, and here on whether we should add some advice to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Sorry, but I don't have time to handle Media Object Server which I noticed when reverting some spam (see LinkSearch). It's one of those articles where a bunch of me-too external links have been added as "examples". I have added it to my watchlist but don't have the energy for battle atm. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The links were already removed, I have wiped the 'such as' list in the lede. That does not belong there, it could be in a separate section if it is notable enough (though I doubt that here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism#External links

Talk:Libertarian socialism#External links cleanup

This section has been listed for cleanup for two years and contains dozens of links. I frankly don't see a single directory or overview that provides a necessary resource outside what the references would contain if the article were to be cleaned up. Many links are dead, unrecoverable, and from unreliable sources anyway. Others are primary source documents that don't add any bearing to an overview article. The talk page discussion has page watchers who like having links but haven't weighed them against the content guideline. I'd appreciate extra feedback at the discussion. czar 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: the burden of showing links being worthy of inclusion is on those wishing to include. My suggestion is to remove all/most in need of discussion, and get to consensus before reinclusion. That tends to be more effective than the other way around, people often have half baked arguments to keep things in, but no arguments to include. –Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) (ping @Czar: –Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

@Beetstra, I did and was reverted, and the resulting talk page discussion decided that they liked the dozens as they were. I've just removed the links again with an appropriate edit summary but could use extra eyes from additional editors familiar with the guidelines. czar 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It was reverted as discussion on the talk page suggested a consensus for inclusion not removal. Although not many editors participated, the second wholesale removal seems to go against consensus.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You have there a massive article with 347 references and a 31 item bibliography. There is a wealth of information in the article. I do believe that each link should be evaluated separately as I suggest above, but I find it very difficult to believe that many of the links in the massive external links list adds anything over what is already being told in the article. That is, they are useful and relevant, but useful suggests that they can be used as further references, and relevant is not an inclusion criterion. I indeed think the correct course of action is to have the list on the talkpage, and define one-by-one whether it merits inclusion per WP:EL (and whether it merits that over the previously chosen links). We are not writing a linkfarm here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: <- reping. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Povetkin / "highlights" clips from YouTube

At Alexander Povetkin, is this acceptable use of external media? That's two YouTube-hosted fan-made highlights of his knockout wins. Ehh.. looks like clearcut cruft/spam to me, but I don't want to jump the gun because the user adding them continues to make running edits and updates to the article almost every hour, with nary an edit summary in sight. 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I hardly ever agree with that type of use. There are, limited, cases where the external media are of interest but generally no. Especially if they are fan made and not professional then they should go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Which specific policy acronym should I quote if removing them? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

They fail WP:EL, they are indirect (not about the subject, about a match of the subject), fan-made (so not a professional representation, not necessarily representative for the whole), do not serve to give information that expands the knowledge on the subject (only if you are looking for it, and then it is OR on their fighting style). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, WP:ELNO. If the videos are fan created from footage that they don't own, then WP:COPYVIOEL may also apply. I agree that the videos are basically spam.- Mr X 17:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good to know—that helped. I just hope the user understands. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Using RationalWiki.org as an external link

rationalwiki.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

[COIN: RW editor, RW boardmember, author of linked article]

Hi. User:PCHS-NJROTC created a RFC on using RationalWiki (RW) in external links. Consensus was unclear. In addition, PCHS-NJROTC was very responsive despite intense personal dislike of RW. PCHS-NJROTC suggested that discussion move here. I agree that this is best and hope PCHS-NJROTC allows organic discussion.

The question: Are external links to RationalWiki ([15]) acceptable? In opposition, PCHS-NJROTC has linked WP:ELNO and states that they see "no policy-based grounds to include a link to Rational-Wiki". Arguments in favor focus on the idea that external links should "provide a route to additional information about the topic covered in the article that is covered elsewhere but not in the article" (User:Thryduulf) and argue that RW does so.

Thank you for your time. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To be clear I believe the link to the RationalWiki article on Vaginal steaming is a useful external link from our Vaginal steaming article (the location of the RfC, which was my first and only involvement in the article). I do not wish to imply that links to RationalWiki are always good (or always bad) as the quality of content there varies as much as the difference between a stub and a featured article on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate FCP's civility in this matter, though I do believe that he has more or less created unneeded drama in our wiki by pushing hard for the inclusion of a link to his site. This seems to be pretty blatantly a matter of WP:ELNO (failing 1, 11, and 12), WP:ADV (the link was added by an RMF board member), WP:ELPOV, and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA (specifically mentions "scientific"). Rational-Wiki is an open wiki that is far from having a substantial history of stability as evidenced by numerous content disputes and instances of "headless chicken mode," and some of the WP:USEFUL arguments are that it provides information for skeptics, basically making it a fansite for a specific group of people. In contrast, Rational-Wiki fails WP:ELYES because it is admittedly not neutral or encyclopedic. I have been scrubbing links to Rational-Wiki from articles for many years since someone from Rational-Wiki (I cannot remember who) was discussing the use of Rational-Wiki links on Wikipedia in a private email, and not only have I not had problems, but I am often "thanked" for removing them. The discussion at the RfC has blatantly been bludgeoned by both sides, so there needs to not be any undue weight given to that accusation. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Break down of consensus by User:PCHS-NJROTC, copied from the Vaginal steaming RfC

There are four users who are admittedly editors or frequent readers of Rational-Wiki
- Three of these users are in favor of the link WP:USEFUL
- One of these users is against the link, per chiefly WP:ELNO and other policies and one supports the link but concedes that the comparison of Rational-Wiki to Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica is a great argument

This is deceptive: the thing that made the argument "great" is that it's a fun argument to respond to. Not that it's convincing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There are three uninvolved Wikipedians
- Two oppose the link, one flat out opposing it because it is a joke site, and the other defacto opposing it by offering an argument against the link but refusing to take a hard position, both basing their opposition in WP:ELNO.
- One supports the link per WP:USEFUL
I think that one is intended to be me, though categorization under WP:USEFUL is an interpretation, not what I said. The governing policy, as I see it, is WP:ELNO#12 which recommends against Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. So what is under discussion is whether RW qualifies under that exception. That devolved into a comparison of RW's worst failings vs WP's own worst failings. I still say that we need to trust the judgment of our editors; that if, in their judgment and consensus, a particular RW article represents stable, reliable-enough information, that a external link should be allowed and not forbidden through some blanket policy. In no way am I suggesting that we declare RW to be considered WP:RS. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not you, I included you as a reader because you stated that you are fond of a particular part of R-W. Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the analysis, it makes things more difficult for people to evaluate the situation. (Also, Rational-Wiki has described itself as a small wiki, so it fails the other half of the exception criteria too). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC has been going on for a few days, and while there are numerous opinion-based WP:USEFUL arguments for the link, there are numerous policy-based arguments against it, including by supporters of the link. I was going to propose closing this as consensus against the link today, but in light of the most recent comment that came in today, I don't think it's that simple. I don't see further consensus coming from this medium because both sides have strong opinions on the matter, so I propose taking this issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard where those who frequent are more familiar with the external linking policy, to reach a clearer consensus. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 21:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as Wikipedia should not be used to promote external websites, Wikipedia should also not be used to beat dead horses. Please give it a rest. FuzzyCatPotato's edits do not need your intense scrutiny. If you want to see some issues that actually challenge Wikipedia's integrity, have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paid editing sockfarms proliferating (permalink). By the way, what does "Have a blessed day" in your signature mean? Is that using Wikipedia to push a certain view? Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There's the definition. You tell me what part of #3 (which is the context of the word's usage here) pushes a point of view, and furthermore, explain how a signature has anything to do with pushing a POV in Wikipedia content anyway. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do not think this is a useful link, since the value of this Wiki is...eh, slim (it's geeky for the lulz, as far as I'm concerned), and including it here is little more than linkspamming. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any encyclopedic value, and if some has tried to give it, I'd appreciate a diff. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz: Discussion of encyclopedic value took a back seat in the lengthy RFC. If interested, try these diffs: [16][17][18][19] FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Remove the link per NOT. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The comment by Thrydulf has value--but that the Rational article has so many links--yeah, including Entertainment Tonight on Paltrow, the website for an "integrative healing center", the website for a holistic physical therapist, a website for physical therapists in athletics, the website of a really alternative doctor, one for a holistic sex therapist (?), a blog post, and the blogger's blog. Surely this lowers its value some. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Would you dismiss a news article for linking to primary sources of the alternative-health claims? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don’t think that we should dismiss a news source for linking to sources, we however should dismiss even a news source if their sources are all sources that we ourselves would determine to be not reliable ... yet another tick on the ELNO list I guess. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  - I think you misunderstand. If one hopes to debunk an unreliable source, one must first cite said unreliable source. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    - Please practice what you preach. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
      - Observant users will note my responses are brief, follow a comment of my own, and welcome additional discussion. Please stop concern trolling & allow @Drmies: or @Beestra: to respond. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
        Speaking of trolling, I don't know what website you thought you were posting that on, but I don't think too many wikis would find that appropriate (and there's no corresponding edit on Rational-Wiki, so don't go there). If a Wikipedian involved in this discussion was the target, it is unacceptable regardless of what site you intended to post it on. I think your actions are disruptive, and unless you have a really good explanation for that talk page comment other than "sorry, wrong site," (and lets face it, you knew I would see your comments because of the "new message" notice generated whenever someone edits a user talk page) I think your behavior is block worthy PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Remove that link, see WP:ELNO, and the intro of WP:EL. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

I see that some of the people commenting are part of WP:WikiProject Spam. Is there anyway we can get Rational-Wiki added to the spam blacklist so this doesn't happen again (and WP:TROUT FuzzyCatPotato for creating wikidrama)? Links and references to that site are a recurring problem introduced by both Rational-Wikians and less experienced editors who just aren't familiar with WP:EL and WP:RS, and there's little reason to link to it other than in its own article; I'm editing from my phone right now, but I can get diffs when I'm on a PC if needed. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

For what I see the linking is mainly related to the existence of rationalwiki (there are a couple more places than only the parent article). That can all be handled through whitelisting of the 'main page' and the 'about page', and maybe one or two other meta-pages on the site. I am not going to work this out further here (need to look further into the situation), but I am worried that I see an earlier encountered paid editing ring also involved in this. I don't seem to have many records for rationalwiki.org. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

See this, this (link questioned by someone else at [20]), this, this (received thanks for the edit), this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this (this is a good argument for TROUTing or even blocking FuzzyCatPotato; linking had just been discussed when he decided to add a link the Vaginal steaming, which is why I left him the level three warning that upset him so much)... if you want an idea of how long I have been working with this problem with general support from the community, see this and this One of their people was community banned for admitted deliberate disruption, and although now inactive at Rational-Wiki, he continues to disrupt. Since we're on the topic of possible paid editing, it's worth pointing out that Rational-Wiki's founder states openly on his user page that he hopes his project will "some day be complimentary," which I interpret to mean links to his wiki to push his point of view has been a goal since day one, although with all of my years at Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and Rational-Wiki, I would have never guessed that they would stoop so low as to pay someone to promote them (assuming that they have indeed done so). I have been dutifully removing links to their website for several years now after an off-wiki discussion with another person who tried to say that Rational-Wiki is more respected than Conservapedia because Wikipedia links to it, and I pointed out that those links are there because anyone can edit Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses them or that the links even belong there. To me, this is all about trying to legitimize their site, and that's not what we're here for. If it can be confirmed that they are working with a paid editing farm to promote their wiki, I think there will be community support at WP:ANI for sanctions restricting major contributors at their site (their own current voting requirements would probably be a good tool of measurement) from editing anything related to their site, and regardless, I think the wiki needs to be blacklisted with a whitelist for the links that do need to be here. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Time series database

This is one of the articles that I had for long on my watchlist, trying to keep the list relevant and reliable. It has recently been upgraded from a list of external links to a full table, but that has not really helped the situation. Material keeps being added in, and I have now arrived at an edit war regarding a handful of externally linked, primary sourced items.

Relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY, WP:CSC. I'd like to have some independent guidance on this WP:SPAMHOLE. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm similarly involved on this article. I also would like to keep the list relevant and reliable. Thus far I have seen very little spam on this article, and the aforementioned company guidelines are seemingly unrelated to this debate, as no companies are being added to this list. Instead the list is compromised of high-profile TSDB products that directly relate to the content of the article. Lists have a different criteria than articles, and notability is a lesser issue.

With regard to the nature of the content: TSDBs is a relatively new type of database. The field is rapidly evolving, and frequently the only way to find out about new TSDB development is through gated technical journals such as ACM. It is unlikely we will have high quality references for niche technology development as is being discussed here, though there are many reasonable references out there, which is where the bar currently lies. For whatever reason the above user has taken it upon himself to police this article rather than to contribute and edit it towards the greater good. Intervention is appreciated to help resolve the dispute such that we have better direction.

--Kamelkev ^{T C} 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kamelkev: "Thus far I have seen very little spam on this article". In the discussions on the talkpage it is made clear that someone is there with a likely conflict of interest. this shows where we end up (and see many other reverts and removals throughout the history of the article).

"aforementioned company guidelines are seemingly unrelated" - at least two of them are stated to be commercial, they are products of companies or entities (as opposed to being persons).

"It is unlikely we will have high quality references for niche technology development as is being discussed here" - but that is what we need. If that is not available, then Wikipedia should not be talking about them.

I have not taken it upon me, there are several editors who do this type of edits. These are typical spamholes, we start with high-profile material in the lists, and then the development projects come in (one of the three I keep removing is a version 0.2 ..). There is no greater good here, many of these do not (yet) belong in this list on Wikipedia, and that is what I am trying to do.

Moreover, we keep material out, until its inclusion is justifiable. That is a consensus that needs to be established on a talkpage. Repeatedly trying to push it in is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra:"It is unlikely we will have high quality references for niche technology development as is being discussed here - but that is what we need"

No, we don't need such high quality references for a list, you're thinking of a page. The guidelines for a list are much less strict than a page, a point that was repeatedly made during debates on the associated talk page. Those same debates reached a consensus: we are going to add TSDBs to this list such that this article is informative regarding the current state of affairs for this technology. For whatever reason that entire history is being ignored and we're seemingly right back at square one, arguing over criteria which has previously been well stated and argued.

I've also seen the repeated argument that this page is somehow a spamhole. I've reviewed your list. A majority of those entries are legitimate well-known TSDB, or they are hybrid models which are not "just" a TSDB, but also include other features. I would not consider any "spam". Such debatable entries can and should be discussed for inclusion, but that is not what this specific discussion is about.

Finally, regarding lists and page criteria - there is a very good rationale for why lists criteria is less strict than a page: we didn't want people trying to create pages for content just so it could appear in a relevant list. That is effectively what your criteria for this list has become: if the TSDB has it's own page, it may be included. Otherwise it may not. That's utterly stifling and has prevented this article from growing in breadth and depth as one would have expected for such a timely group of products.

--Kamelkev ^{T C} 03:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kamelkev: - no, that is where you are wrong, all material that is challenged needs the high quality references. The inclusion of items has been challenged for a long time. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Standard inclusion criteria for such lists are either: each entry is notable, or each entry is supported by reliable and independent sources. While there are exceptions, if editors cannot find consensus for a policy-backed inclusion criteria, it's best to just fall back on one of the two standard solutions. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz and Kamelkev: those sources have been requested, and some of those items have been added to the article for a long time now. They are not notable by themselves, and do not have independent reliable sources supporting their inclusion (the only sources are primary; one has as a source their own blog - anything can be written there to support somewhere an inclusion into Wikipedia and have some free advertising). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of dwarfism organisations

Resolved

– Someone has boldly edited to remove these links Lineslarge (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I get some policy advice please? List of dwarfism organisations has a lot of external links within the main article. Is this appropriate?

If so, does that mean that this reversion was inappropriate?

Otherwise, what would be best to do with all of the links? Lineslarge (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The links don't belong. It would probably be best to focus on finding independent, reliable sources to prevent the article from being substantially reduced or deleted. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I have no involvement in that page but wouldn't feel comfortable just culling all of the links. Would it be allowed to record the link addresses on the talk page for others to pick up later? Lineslarge (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hobby site in Bach cantata articles

Entrance to website listed under "Personal" at https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/
The owner of this website is a professional computer scientist not listing any Bach-related publication in his list of publications
Per the above, linking to this scientist's "J. S. Bach" pages from Wikipedia's Bach-related articles fails WP:ELNO#EL11 ("personal web pages ... except those written by a recognized authority")
Instances:
- "BWV 10 Meine Seel erhebt den Herren". University of Alberta. Retrieved 18 April 2017. (which I recently removed from the BWV 10 article – see also somewhat related earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Cited elsewhere)
- Bischof, Walter F. (2010). "BWV 14 Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit". University of Alberta. Retrieved 28 January 2017. (external links section of the BWV 14 article – current discussion at Talk:Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, BWV 14#References and external links)

(note that for both instances above "University of Alberta" is linked as "publisher" which should probably be avoided for personal webpages, which by definition are self-published sources, even if they are hosted on a university webserver)

General (apart from the aspect of being personal webpages by an author writing outside of his stated field of expertise):

The pages are exclusively in German (apart from instrumentation indications in Italian), containing expressions such as "Entstehungszeit". As such they seem to have little added value to the content & other links in the Wikipedia article:
- The full German-language lyrics (libretto) of the cantata are usually linked from the Bibliography or Sources section, for example in the BWV 10 article thus: "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren BWV 10; BC A 175: Chorale cantata (The Visitation of Mary, 2 July)". Bach Digital. 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2017. (BDW 12, with links to libretto and manuscript descriptions) {{cite web}}: External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
- Instrumentation is detailed by movement in a smart overview in the Wikipedia article, and given in references and other external links: no need to go to a non-English webpage for that.
- Etc...
There are are a lot of Bach-related sites, hobby as well as professional: I'm a bit wary to let an EL section grow out of control in number of links. I'd limit them to English-language pages anyhow: if a link to a German-language page is "needed" it can only mean that it is needed as a source, and should thus normally not appear in the EL section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Typical WP:SPAMHOLE problem. Include thé authority, then the second and third follow, following by everything in a 'this one too' fashion. You already have to think about the very first one - what does that one add over the article content itself. With the second one, what does it add over the article content combined what is in the second. You will see a rapidly declining amount of additional information there, which generally stops at 2 links at most (the third one adds another 0.5-1% .. is that significant? E.g. Meine_Seel_erhebt_den_Herren,_BWV_10, 95 references out of a 37 items bibliography. Do we even need external links on that article - is there really anything in those 8 external links that is not available from the 35 item bibliography? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)