Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Onion linking guidelines

Hi everyone, I've prepared a draft document to guide how onion sites should be linked.

User:Nanite/Onion_linking_guidelines_draft

In light of the above discussion perhaps we should change the section on "Rotten onions" (discusses illegal sites). However I hope the rest of the document is clear. Please go ahead and edit anything that's obviously wrong.

Likely interested people: Masem Beetstra Emir of Wikipedia Rhododendrites Anarcho-authoritarian dsprc zzuuzz Wnt. (sorry for the spam if you're not interested!) --Nanite (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nanite: Where shall we discuss the document? Here or on the talkpage? I think that the rotten onions section will probably have to be changed as a result of the above discussion. Other than that it look pretty good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
My preferred guideline would simply be:
  • No .onion links other than a single official link when the website is the subject of an article.
  • No .onion links to sites that are primarily notable for illegal content.
  • No .onion links without a citation to a reliable source to verify the accuracy of the URL.
It should be pointed out that while .onion links are blacklisted by default, it's much more common for them to be presented as blacktext, rendering the blacklist moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Right --- the blacklist is a technical measure, however we should also have rules on even presenting onion links in blacktext. Like, I don't really want to see the onion address for Lolita City even in blacktext (now that I think about it, there is probably no reliable source that can be found for it).
Maybe a better name for the guideline is "Onion address guidelines" or something, since it's not just about hyperlinking. It also concerns blacktext defunct links for example. --Nanite (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As I state above, this is absolutely unnecessary. Complete instruction creep, and too likely to be abused in the nuances of whitelisting to get around WP:EL. Our current guidelines are more than enough to handle this. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Oh dear, I may have completely misinterpreted you. When you said "I am not writing it down" I interpreted it as "someone else should write it down in place of me". --Nanite (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nanite: I noted already that the relevant guidelines already exist. This is going to be instruction creep, since there is more use for guidelines for youtube, facebook, etc. etc.
@Rhododendrites: the prime protection is that readers don't click on phishing .onions. That they violate laws by intentionally typing, or copy-pasting the address and going to the site is beyond what Wikipedia should protect them from. The main problem with the non-linked display of .onions is that they might still be incorrect, phishing, malware etc., and hence readers may still take the address to have a look. Hence, I agree that we should NOT display them UNLESS the address is verifiable for the subject, and in that case the link should be whitelisted IF we should link to it in the first place. IF we should not link to it in the first place, we should still NOT display them. (this would sufficiently shorten Nanite's guideline ... do NOT link nor display unless you can get it successfully whitelisted (full stop). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is anything other than WP:EL needed? What is the problem that the proposed essay is intended to solve? I see no reason to think WP:EL is inadequate, and guidelines/policies rarely have detail such as that in the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the point for new policy -- the main issue here is that we need to end the blacklisting of .onion sites, especially now that it has become clear that the few companies in charge of the DNS racket will use it to banish whatever they don't agree with to such locations. It is not impossible for an ordinary DNS link to lead to an illegal or worm-infiltrated site, and I don't have the impression that there are hordes of scammers out there trying to lead us to hazardous .onion links. So long as you have to go ask Mommy and Daddy for each new .onion link you want to post, there really is no sense having guidelines anyway -- anyone with the authority to impose them has the authority to ignore them and just decide, like DNS companies, what sites they like and don't like.
I find the suggestion above by User:Beetstra of censoring even the plaintext of articles, subject to explicit prior constraint by People Who Are Better Than Us, to be particularly abhorrent, and in absolute contradiction to Wikipedia's founding values. Wnt (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, the censoring argument again .. Wnt, this has nothing to do with censoring in any form. This is protecting the readers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: I just want to reinforce what Beetstra is saying here: the huge concern with .onion sites is that sneaky IP editors tend to come in and change the onion links/blacktexts to something that looks similar, but is actually a phishing site. The document I wrote isn't intended as policy, it's just highlighting the special issues of .onion links/blacktexts that would not be at all obvious. For example the special phishing concern (which was not obvious to me when I started looking at onion articles); the convention to always cite the onion name; the reasons for the blacklist which were not explained anywhere; etc. --Nanite (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it. Sneaky editors could change any link. And there are other options available, like flagging edits that add new .onion links for examination without suppressing them. Wikipedia could even have an entirely back-end process where links that persist unchallenged a long time get a green check mark beside them to let editors know they are 'longstanding links', which of course doesn't mean safe, but at least is a reassurance of sorts. I mean, yes, I recognize that the admins actually did the right thing with the Stormer ... but if the big DNS companies got together and banned TorrentFreak, do you really think we'd get its .onion link whitelisted, or would we have a bunch of crowned talking heads going on about how they encourage piracy and it's too risky to let readers know what their address is? Wnt (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
An understandable position, though we don't know yet whether the number of legitimate onion sites worth linking will ever increase beyond a handful. If it really does come to pass that many notable sites get darkwebbed, perhaps the natural thing would be move the onion blacklist over to User:XLinkBot. But now is not the time to do that. --Nanite (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: You don't like it .. that is fine. Problem is, if editors are sneakily change a link to something else (bad, like to a phishing or malware site), we will blacklist that link. With .onion we got a massive amount of that, links were changed on a regular basis from the correct links. We are not here to play whack-a-mole, we are here to protect Wikipedia (and especially their readers) against incorrect information, especially if that information is harmful.
As I say above, I am whitelisting official links (or their about-pages) as long as it is suitable for linking. If someone writes a non-linked .onion in a page, and that is not the correct link, but a malware link, then that puts the reader at possible harm. Therefore: .onion addresses should not be displayed unless they have been vetted (and that is true for any link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nanite: by the way, it was on XLinkBot ... but this is real spam, do you think that a phisher gets his link removed that they then say ‘OK .. if you don’t want it, I’ll go somewhere else’? No. They revert the bot. I am sorry,but that idea is naive and utterly unrealistic. You have problems with .onion being blacklisted? Go after the spammers and keep Wikipedia clean. I am not here to play whack-a-mole. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a few articles about notable websites whose sole purpose is the illegal collection and distribution of copyrighted materials:

In each case there is an official website link, typically once in the infobox, and once in the External Links section, sometimes more. Does this violate WP:ELNEVER as suggested on Talk:Sci-Hub#Non-EL_in_EL_section?

It seems to violate ELNEVER (don't help people find their way to pirated works), but not the idea of WP:COPYLINK (don't link to pirated materials). If we aren't linking to specific copyrighted materials, but just the website's mainpage, is it okay? --Nanite (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dsprc: you might be interested in this one. If the ELNEVER doesn't apply, I've an idea to get scihub22266oqcxt.onion whitelisted and put onto the scihub page. :D --Nanite (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure about the laws of every country but I am pretty sure about the ruling of one case if I remember correctly. In that case it was determined that sites such as YouTube which merely host copyrighted materials illegally are not illegal themselves as the website UI is not designed for the primary purpose of copyright infringement, but that some streaming and downloading sites were were illegally even though the content was hosted on other websites as the sites were designed for illegal distribution. My view is that a similar ruling should apply here, but however the the first two you have mentioned are abandonware which is more complicated as described in Abandonware#Law. Furthermore the issue on Sci-hub seems to be a bit technical and is regarding whether the dot onion link is internal or external. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nanite, Dsprc, and Emir of Wikipedia: We tend to whitelist a neutral landing page (typically an about page), or alternatively the top level page only for those sites. There are only very rare cases nothing gets listed (no neutral landing page). The cases you describe here would all qualify. Note that sometimes blacklisting is blanketted, in which case we are more liberal at whitelisting. The whitelist has a /Common requests documen that explains more. —Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: OK I see. Just to repeat you and make sure I get your point: all of the four piracy sites mentioned above have a neutral landing page and would qualify for linking (n.b. we also link The Pirate Bay, after epic-length discussions). Likewise you're saying that even the blacklistsed sites mentioned on /Common have exceptions, hence why we link Scribd's landing page on their article, and why (heaven forbid) if someone made an article about whale.to, we would link that landing page as well. --Nanite (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Scribd is on the the blacklist but in my view it is more similar to YouTube in that the copyright infringement is unintentional rather than being a site dedicated to copyright infringement. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess since I'm reducing trying to reduce the domain of WP:ELNEVER, I'll offer an expansion in spirit: even when we don't explicitly hyperlink to a piece of copyrighted material, we should not even suggest its existence.
For example, it would be bad if on the article of (hypothetical nonexistent game) "Bob & Jeffs's Ski Simulator" we provided any hint that one could go to Abandonia and find a copy of the game there. Even if the Abandonia article lacked a url, this could arguably count as contributory copyright infringement. Even the suggestion on the talk page of "one can find various abandonware websites with a copy of he game" could, arguably, be seen as contributory.
The reason that (for example) sci-hub.cc can be linked on its article is that we never single out a piece of copyrighted material (unless perhaps it is specifically mentioned as noteworthy in some source). We never say "that paper of Smith et al. can be found on scihub". --Nanite (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's take this to a logical extreme: Lolita City. It's defunct now, so nobody can go verify/test the example, but it's a child pornography website. Would we really link to the landing page if it did not itself contain child pornography? I know you can bring some other policies in on this one, but let's try to keep it to WP:EL. Let's take it one more step removed -- The Hidden Wiki. I think I read that they removed the worst parts, but it was at one point (while we linked to it) known for being a gateway to all parts of the dark web, including child pornography. Then there are other Tor hidden services like black markets like Silk Road (website), Evolution (marketplace), etc. The other problem that I've raised many times about these sites in particular is that not only is the content problematic, but because there's no central registrar/authority for these services (like there is for the regular web), and because of the nature of their content/desire for anonymity, it can be harder to tell which URL is authentic, which is a phishing site, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A possible test. Assuming the landing page is neutral, then if one can easily find that landing page by Google or equivalent search engine by simply searching on the name, then there's practically no difference for us to do the same - either way. Google does scrub sites out that are known problematic ones, so if these aren't readily found by Google, then we absolutely should not be doing the same. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Google doesn't search the dark web, so wouldn't include any of those I linked above. You'd need to be connected to Tor before being able to access them. I don't think there's an effective search tool for Tor, and imagine most of these sites wouldn't want to be indexed, so it's not really something you can stumble upon on your own. Regardless, I don't think that's a great test. There's way too much accessible through Google, and I don't think it's a good bar that if Google has managed to crawl a site, it's not problematic for Wikipedia (in terms of content). I'm not about to test search for any of the above through Google, but based on what comes up for totally unrelated searches, I suspect there's a whole lot that gets through. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Generally speaking, about pages are rather neutral. We use that on most pornographic sites (most of which are continuously heavily abused, though hardly spammed). Those pornographic about pages may still be NSFW but better than the front page. There are (rare) cases where even about pages are not suitable, in which case nothing would get whitelisted.
IF our subject is notable, and has a proper Wikipedia page, there is generally no reason to link to a neutral page on the site (and to use some neutral pages as primary references). As Masem is saying, Google will have the site in their search results - people will be able to find it anyway (though we are not a replacement for Google ..). On-wiki abuse is only a reason to make sure that we do not link to a frontpage that is not suitable, or to on-site copyvios. The .onion sites were blanket blacklisted because for silkroad et al. the url was changed often to point to other .onions which tried to phish etc. (per Rhododendrites; for .onion sites it is not always clear from the url where they point). The blanket-blacklist, specific whitelisting there allows for more control (we need some evidence that the whitelisted URL is really the one for the website, and at least somewhat stable).
What regards WP:ELNEVER, the spam blacklist is only systematically used to enforce WP:ELNEVER for redirect sites (we blacklist even if the redirect site was not abused (yet), and we do that globally). We do not blacklist because a document on an external server is copyvio, unreliable, etc. We blacklist because documents/sites get abused (and if the site is hosting mainly copyvio material or mainly useless material, then that makes our decision easier). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: is there any guideline at the moment on how to use .onion links, and if not, would you be happy if I wrote up a draft? I think I mostly understand the current situation. If there are any relevant Talk page precedents that you have in mind, let me know. The only thing that's not 100% clear for me is, for blacklisted sites, does that mean non-clickable plaintext like facebookcorewwwi.onion is subject to the rest of the ELOFFICIAL rules? Or does it not count as an EL at all? --Nanite (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nanite: No, there is no guideline (though it may already be covered in the /common requests page on the whitelist), and I am not writing it down. The relevant guidelines are related to spam blacklisting and spam whitelisting, and each .onion case will be evaluated on itself. De-listing will be summarily denied, whitelisting has to pass the bar on each case, and criteria will be different for each case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that editors are trying to use this discussion to change the long-standing consensus to link only one official website for Pirate Bay. I don't understand how anyone could think it's a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ronz No worries, indeed I think that the best argument for not adding a second link to TPB: WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Also aside from official links one should ponder WP:ELNO7.
Rhododendrites, regarding the Lolita City example indeed I was looking at that page and thinking "uhhh do I really want to look for a reliable source for a defunct onion address"? For my feels, I decided against. Thinking about it a little bit more, what is the distinction between linking a piracy website and linking a child pornography website, given that both are 'illegal'? In many jurisdictions it is illegal just to look at CP (others require knowing possession [1]), although apparently saying you're just doing "research" can get you out of it. If as Masem suggests, when the landing page is safe & neutral and a user has to take additional actions to break the law, does that make it OK to link as official? --Nanite (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, as long as we know that the site's purpose is absolutely illegal (in comparison to a site that may host copyright material inappropriately but that's not their goal and actively remove copyrighted materials when notified, ala YouTube), then we should not link it. A reader can always do the Google search themselves, and by us having an article in the first place we "enable" this, but this is far different from providing a direct link to a even a "safe" landing page, which has at some points in the past been considered enabling copyright vios.
We should develop a template to notify readers (and editors) that due to the nature of the site, we are not offering an external link to them. Any savvy reader that really needs to find that site will know where to go next. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This thought seems to be be good, and matches the legal ruling that I seem to remember. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If this happens I like the idea of a notifier template. Still I think for an official link (not deep link) there is no concern, see Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Especially if there isn't any encouragement. --Nanite (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include all links. There is no reason not to, and what some above are describing is mindless censorship. Interlibrary loan sites like Sci-Hub are certainly not illegal, or else how are they still online??? You don't even really think they're illegal for you to know about, or for any number of reliable sources to describe (and they do). You just want to not let the audience know because you don't like them. Resorting to child pornography as a comparison is a particularly low tactic since Sci-Hub exists in part to grant patients access to the publicly funded research that helps them understand the medical conditions that threaten their lives, as opposed to mere prurient interests. It is the standard off-the-shelf tip of the wedge that every censor uses. Nonetheless, let's be clear - our article on 8chan gives its URL and explains it is blocked by Google for child abuse content. You do not change the world by censoring things you don't like out of your encyclopedia. We should be proud to do the right thing, and the right thing is to make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone on the planet. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Except that copyrights are a real thing, enforced by law, and with the WMF in the US, enforced relatively strictly. I'd think most of us on WP would love for information to be free as in speech, but we can't change the law or act against it. Sci-Hub is not a "interlibrary loan" because you're making a copy of the material, not temporarily giving the copy away, which is a fundamental distinction in copyright law. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: I have had several "interlibrary loans" in the U.S. that resulted in someone handing me photocopied pages. It is one of the possible outcomes. I see no reason to assume that Russia cannot do this in its own way. And as for the inevitable bogus legal claim, I direct those interested to this New York Times article that directly links to Sci-Hub.io That's a clickable link they made, not just a text mention. You think the New York Times doesn't know the law? Wnt (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the NYtimes likely knows the potential risk and published that. I've seen similar articles well in the past where major newspapers have linked directly to sites with infringing copyright material. What they chose to do is there busienss, but we have to help protect the WMF from problems. And there is a difference between getting one photocopy of one research article - which likely won't trip any fair use issues, and offering the entire work for free to anyone. I know there is a growing trend in academia to eschew the typical publisher model to make their research free for all, but until all journals go with an open-source-type like license, Sci-Hub should be treated as an copyright infringing site for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That said, I would think it might be reasonable to approach the WMF to suggest that per the interest of those that support the goal of Sci-Hub, to say that they accept that as a legal site for research papers, in the same manner they stood up again the National Portrait Gallery National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute at which point Sci-Hub being a valid EL becomes sanctioned by the WMF. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm beyond hoping the Wizards of Oz will give us the answer to life the universe and everything. I'd prefer to stick to not having any sort of interference by this guideline in the decision of editors to commit the shocking deed of telling the reader what site an article is about. I've never heard of anybody trying to ban links that say where a site is at all rather than, at least, linking/encouraging the distribution of a particular work over which a particular entity is claiming ownership. Even if some entity (who??? why???) attempted such an astounding lawsuit, that is a risk taken by individual editors and not a reason to deny them their right to discount legal intimidation -- it's not your problem, and it's not WMF's problem unless they choose to make it their problem (which I would hope they might through expert legal aid but don't have tremendous confidence about). Wnt (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I was just reading Andrew Anglin's blog on WordPress (apparently he is not yet banned from the internet as an individual, though the day is young), and he was pointing out there that GoDaddy, which banned the Daily Stormer (see discussion below), still serves requests for Celeb Jihad. I looked and there is actually a lot of news indexed about Celeb Jihad, going back years, so I made a stub about it. Many of the sources point to the URL, which uninventively enough, is celebjihad.com. That said, Celeb Jihad has been accused of some incidents of piracy with hacked video considerably more serious than an interlibrary loan; it also hosts some very lovely pictures. It is and remains my position that it would be ridiculous, unproductive, and excessively creepy to try to hide where Celeb Jihad is. That's not what responsible media does, and it's not what the leading DNS agency does, even though they are taking money with the specific intent of allowing people to reach the site rather than just to keep track of it for encyclopedic purposes. If the goons with the guns decide to go and censor the site with more than just one court order at a time (as they've been doing since 2009), that's what they get paid big bucks for. It's not something I get paid for, and not something I see fit to do. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: again, this has nothing to do with censoring. I WILL whitelist official sites on .onion. What I keep out are the unofficial ones which turn out to be phishing and malware, to protect you and other readers. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thank you for this reassurance! I still worry though. But my response in this instance was continuing in response to Masem's comments about Sci-Hub just above it, which differ from your position. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: Also that has nothing to do with censoring. Also for CelebJihad - we have mechanisms in place to link to the official homepage (or their about page) of the subject. That still does not mean that we should be able to link it everywhere, enabling spam/POV pushers/abusers to do that. Pornhub is HEAVILY abused (3 blacklist hits in less than two days, and then I did not count redtube ), yet it is notable and has their own subject page. That is not censoring, it is controlling the additions. If the abuse outweighs (or the misuse heavily outweighs) genuine use we will blacklist to save the time of our valuable volunteers. And there is simply NEVER a reason to link to a copy - you should link to the original in the first place. And I agree that the rest is important convenience, but convenience should then be measured against the level of abuse/misuse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Blacklisting a page to stop "POV pushers" sounds dangerously like you're suggesting that the decision about the article's POV (or all articles' POV) should be left to those who control the blacklist. I recognize we get some COI editors who spam links to their favorite site, but I don't see any relation to the original topic heading here "Okay to link official URL for notable piracy websites?", nor to CelebJihad or .onion links. I don't understand the part about the copy at all. We link to archives all the time -- indeed, now that the Stormer page is stable I should go back and use archive.is on some onion.link pages for convenient reference. Of course, there are some copies (if we get back to Sci-Hub) whose permissibility under WP:EL can be challenged on previously existing grounds. That said, often Sci-Hub will return a preprint from what appears to be the author's server that is presumably legally distributable, so I wouldn't want to make any blanket statements on that point. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
"POV pushers" is qualifying them who add the links, not the POV of the site. Your qualification 'some' (for the COI editors) is an understatement, and spammers don't have to have a COI, spammers (under Wikipedia definitions) can also just have a POV, they can even just be schoolkids (it is generally schoolkids who are the reason for blacklisting porn websites, not COI editors).
This all has relation to the subject 'link official URL for notable piracy websites' - we DO link to the official sites of subjects of pages, they get regularly whitelisted (generally as neutral landing pages). Whether we should link to those sites elsewhere outside of the subject pages is something different. If Sci-Hub was abused/misused to a level that it is better handle the few good additions through whitelisting over keeping reverting hundreds and hundreds of misused links, then blacklisting with controlled whitelisting is an option. And that can be very well due to 'POV pushers', 'COI editors', schoolkids or whoever .. it is the amount of inappropriate additions with respect to the good ones which result in sites being blacklisted. There is good material on these sites, but this is about how editors are using it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Excessive embedded external links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Butterfly curve (transcendental)

I have been removing links from Butterfly curve (transcendental) on a regular basis, arguing that they do not add over what is in the article, and not a unique resource for that information (own software, one can even emulate that in regular calculation software, external devices etc. etc. I am bringing it here now. Latest diff: here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support having the link if it came preloaded with the butterfly curve as an inline URL parameter or the like, so that it instantly plotted the curve and then you could mess with it. Even if the contributor had a COI I don't think I would mind it - a person with a useful enough resource can get his way on Wikipedia; that's what GLAM is about. But those links, at least in the last edit, just seem to pitch me into an unfamiliar graphing calculator that I'm supposed to program, and that's not very useful.
That said, as I describe at the talk page, I think the whole article technically is vulnerable under speedy deletion guidelines involving "no assertion of significance", though I should add that I don't like the way they are interpreted to do that. Wnt (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: then I presume that you also do not like the way WP:EL is being interpreted .. with a predefined butterfly graph it does not add anything over the image that is already in the article, or that is not available from other resources. A failure of WP:ELNO #1 at the least. Moreover, it is a failure to adhere to our pillar WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Inclusionism is about imagination. If they had an EL that conveniently plotted the graph with the equation and parameters pre-set, then the reader is free (much more easily) to twiddle with it. What if I replace the 12 by a 13? What if I multiply by an extra cosine theta to stretch it out, or add some numbers? (I'm kind of fumbling here because I still don't know what makes this article significant at all - is it supposed to "look like a butterfly"? Surely then you can make it look a bit more like a butterfly with a little effort, give it some legs at least, maybe make it a swallowtail? Wnt (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: but that is not what external links are for. We are not creating a WP:SPAMHOLE for butterfly-curve-drawing-software (as happens on the more common calculators, where external links to online calculators and (freely) downloadable calculators are commonplace.
I agree with the assessment on notability .. maybe this editor who does seem to know about the subject could give more significance to the article itself by introducing information why butterfly curves have real-life importance over just being beautiful. They could also include some animations to show the effect of increasing 12 to 13, the effect of extra cosine thetas or the addition of 1 to the whole (and why thát has real life significance) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not practical. I just said some random ideas, but putting any of those in the article would be a bold-faced WP:OR violation, no question about it. That's why I stand by the idea that it is good to have useful external links that allow the reader to do his own original research. In general, giving extra capability to the reader to do research is what external links are for.
We have an exactly parallel instance in the coordinate links -- which are in fact external links, even if they are specially located in the upper right corner. The reader wants to be able to pan around the area and see what's there, but nobody is going to be able to put pictures of random neighboring buildings into the article. We do in fact "SPAMHOLE" a bunch of different commercial map/satellite image services in the Geohack thing. In that case, we do the respectable thing and try to give them equal billing rather than having unseemly edit wars between followers of the various services. But in an article like this we're lucky to have one link to a useful site like that, and until an argument gets started there's no reason to have a fight over it. (I should emphasize that here as before I am supposing we had a link with a URL parameter that allows the site to be preloaded with the butterfly equation; without that headstart for readers I still don't support the link) Wnt (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. If there is a good definition of a butterfly curve then there is also a 'standard' (parameters set to '1'). There is nothing wrong with depicting that in the article (there is a picture of 'the butterfly curve' (my bolding), you can then also add an animated version of that).
The GeoHack is about linking to the subject, pinpointing the subject. It is not about being able to look around it. Moreover, that link is more like a directory service, a rather complete list of links about the subject - not one cherry picked example. I agree, it gives that extra functionality, but by that extension a link to one car manufacturer should have links to all the others as well, so that our readers can easily compare. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Castleford Tigers

Can I please have a second opinion on the continued reinsertion of an unofficial forum and a fansite here. As far as I understand, such links fail our inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Abbey Rangers F.C.

Abbey Rangers F.C. has an official homepage listed that does not (obviously) link to their official twitter. I have been reverted on the removal of that twitter by User:Number 57 stating that because it is not listed on their homepage we should include it on Wikipedia. I'd like to have a second opinion on such cases. My reasoning is that that is not an inclusion criterion, and that if the club does not think their Twitter to be of so much interest that they have it listed from their frontpage, then we do not have much reason to include it either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This makes the rather silly and unfounded assumption that the club have not linked the Twitter account because they don't deem it important. I'd say it's more likely that the club (which is run by volunteers) aren't familiar with the workings of the Pitchero website format and don't know how to link it to their Twitter account, or simply don't see the need. This doesn't mean that their Twitter account is not "of so much interest" – they've tweeted over 4,000 times in three years and their number of followers is more than 10 times their average attendance. Number 57 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
That is all fine, but that still does not fall under the inclusion standards for multiple 'official websites' of a subject. We only link to one, except under very few limited circumstances. Your argument has now gone from 'it is not linked from their homepage, therefore it is pertinent that we link to it' to 'they likely do not know how to link from their homepage, therefore it is pertinent that we link to it.' --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I have not changed the basic point of my argument, I was simply pointing out the fallacy in what you wrote above. I am quite happy to stand by what I said to you in the first place: WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that more than one official link can be provided "when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". The club's Twitter account (a) provides unique content that is not on the website – e.g. news and live match commentary and (b) as you've finally admitted, is not prominently linked from the club's website. Number 57 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
'very few limited circumstances' .. we are not a news service, Wikipedia is not there to find live match commentary, that is not 'signficant unique content'.
Anyway, we are not getting anywhere, let's wait for independent opinions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You're correct that we aren't a news service, but we're not providing news. We're providing a link to an official source of information about the club that readers would otherwise miss out on unless they googled the club. But as you said, neither of us is convincing each other, so I'll await other input. Number 57 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and we are not a replacement for Google either (WP:NOTYELLOW). We are here to provide encyclopedic information. A twitter feed is not providing that. Unless you want to argue that the twitter is providing more info than their official website .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about Abbey Rangers, but there are certainly many clubs where they have far more on their Twitter account than on their website (and that isn't the point here – WP:ELMINOFFICIAL refers to unique content, which their Twitter account is certainly providing). This brings up my second concern, namely that you are blindly removing Twitter links at a rapid rate without bothering to check the websites. As well as the case here, there have been examples I've seen where you've removed regularly updated Twitter accounts and left a link to a club website that hasn't been updated for years (e.g. here). It would be interesting to know others' thoughts on this behaviour, as it's rather concerning for me. Number 57 16:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You are bringing up the point that I am making here. I fully agree that sometimes what is deemed 'the official homepage' is hardly maintained, dead or not providing any information. That is still not a reason to list both of them (or, in some cases, linkfarms of 5, 6 links). If you are now making the case that one page is actually providing way less than the twitter, then maybe the twitter should stay and the other should go. But that is exactly the provision that WP:EL is giving - the burden is on you provide the justification - I leave one, if you think another is better then you replace them - but still, the burden is on those who want to include a link, we don't leave linkfarms and discuss the removals of links. Maybe I should go that far - in case there are more than one official link listed, move ALL of them to the talkpage and have them discussed there to come to a conclusion of which ONE should be included. I agree that I do not make an informed decision in my removals, but there has been no informed decision in the inclusions either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason to list both of them is if (a) the Twitter isn't linked from the main website and (b) they're providing different information. However, this can still apply even when a club website is moribund – it will still contain info that doesn't get regularly updated like the club's history, location etc, but the Twitter account will be the place to look for info about the team. Anyway, we seem to be going round in ever decreasing circles here, so I will stop responding and let others comment. Number 57 17:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The first one is, again, not an inclusion reason, we are not a replacement for google. The second is true for every subject’s official page (except for Abbey’s facebook, perhaps): all official sites of a subject are providing different content. So that would mean that we should include ALL official sites of a subject. That is however also not the inclusion standard, and actually a pillar violation. Every next added e ternal link site has to provide unique encylopedic information, it should add significantly to the understanding over what is on the page. Live updates are not eithin the scope of that. So I still don’t know what the Twitter is providing in encyclopedic info over the webste over the official website (or vice versa, your argument starts to call for the removal of the other link in favour of Twitter), and I still don’t see any policy based argument why this is one of the very few limited exceptions. —Dirk Beetstra T C 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove per ELMINOFFICIAL. If the material on the Twitter feed is unique in any manner that's important for inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the subject, please give some examples. Please keep in mind that exceptions to have more than one official link are usually for fundamentally different content (eg targeted to a different audience with different content). In the context of a football club, I don't see how this can possibly apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As an example, the club tweeted about the appointment of new coaches,[2][3] something they don't seem to have mentioned on their website. ELIMOFFICIAL does not seem to say anything about it needing to being targeted to a different audience. Number 57 18:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That example is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps ELMINOFFICIAL's Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing should be expanded slightly to make it clearer what is and is not encyclopedic where external links are concerned. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant here as we're not discussing article content. I also have no idea how the club's twitter page being linked on its article constitutes corporate communication or marketing – you do realise this is a semi-professional football club we're talking about? Number 57 21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to sway anyone with such arguments. I think we're well into WP:DTS at this point. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not even close to getting to WP:DTS territory – you cited WP:NOTNEWS as an argument against inclusion, but WP:NOTNEWS isn't relevant to external links. Rather than address this, you've then just tried to shut down the debate without actually responding to the point made. The attitude on display here and the spurious arguments to back up what appear to be personal preferences for guideline interpretation is troubling. Number 57 07:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Number 57: Your only reason to include the link is because they give club news through that outlet. News is not encyclopedic information per WP:NOTNEWS, and hence it is also not suitable information to link to, it is not encyclopedic material that cannot be included. We are also not a web directory to link to sites that may be of interest to a subset of readers. The only moment that a twitter link is added besides another official link is because that twitter feed is of interest to a large majority of readers, not a small subset of it - i.e. that the subject of the page had their tweets being discussed in worldwide media, or where a subject is known because of their tweets. That are the 'very few limited circumstances' that are in the guideline. That a club is mainly updating their followers through Twitter is not a reason to link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
'The attitude on display here ... is troubling' .. may I again remind you that until now you are the only person who thinks that link should be there? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me where a guideline states that WP:NOTNEWS is relevant for external links. Number 57 11:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please tell me where in WP:EL we should link to non-encyclopedic information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll do you that honour after you answer my question. Number 57 11:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)'
What can be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject ...". News is not providing an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. However, what is to avoid are "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." (my bolding). That is further strengthened by "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself", "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances." (not my bolding), "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content ..." (my bolding), and "Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time." Now show me how this Twitter feed (any Twitter feed) is helping me in an encyclopedic understanding / significant unique content of the subject at hand if it is just providing news - data that one cannot independently verify. This Twitter feed .. any twitter feed ... is not a suitable external link with very limited exceptions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
So, basically an admission that WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant here then. Regarding the above copy & paste from the "Links normally to be avoided" section, you've conveniently omitted the first bit, which is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to". As the Twitter here is an official link, the rest doesn't seem be relevant. We're then back to the question of whether it provides significant unique content, which it clearly does (and I've given an example above). You just seem to be repeating yourself over and over in the hope of WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Number 57 11:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
No, because now you are ignoring WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, or to quote you 'Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject', not 'Except for the links to all official sites of the subject'. We do not list all official sites, only one. That is what we are saying here. And no, the Twitter feed does not provide encyclopedic information, that is why we generally avoid linking to them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"A" is clearly being used at the top of WP:ELNO to denote that official websites are a class of websites to which the following list does not apply. The link in the preamble clause goes to a definition of official websites at WP:ELOFFICIAL, not to the provision that for most cases Wikipedia only requires one external link at WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If that clause was intended to apply to additional official websites, then it should've pointed to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and it should have clearly resolved the ambiguity. Since neither of those was done, it's only proper to read is as exempting all official websites from the ELNO provisions. I agree with Number 57 that the link provides unique, encyclopedically relevant content, and should be included. I also share their concerns that you're removing these Twitter links without consideration for their relevance, utility, and subject matter in respect to the official website, as I noted at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Twitter and Talk:Chrystia Freeland. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Patar knight: In fact, it is linking to WP:ELOFFICIAL, of which WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is a part. Yes, I am removing them per our guidelines, because, contrary to your beliefs, social networking, except under very few circumstances, do not add any encyclopedic information, again per our guidelines. And it is still up to you to provide a proper reasonto include the link, I have seen nothing yet. Of the hundreds I have removed, a few have been rightfully changed back in/reverted, but that is way less than the number of thanks I got for cleaning up the mess that is there. Now, if you want to argue that Twitter is more useful than is expressed in the guideline, go change our guideline. Until then, ‘’’only one’’’ official link is sufficient, except under a few, very limited circumstances (and that are about 5 in the 1000s of pages I’ve seen). —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly my argument as well. We do not add links to keep those interested up to date, we are not providing a news service. We are also not the yellow pages to make sure people can find the links to be up to date, and we are not a personal website either to have your social media linked because they don’t know how to link it from their official website. All codified in policy and guideline, hence that link fails our inclusion standards. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki link on the William Lane Craig article

I wish to include the following link to the William_Lane_Craig article:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

While critical of Dr. Craig's ideas, the article, in my opinion, is well-documented with copious references. Some editors of the William_Lane_Craig article are, however, objecting to the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehannette (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page where editors would expect it. Please click "new section" at the top for a new topic. Also, see WP:TP for information about signing comments with four tildes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jehannette: Our article, William_Lane_Craig, is rather big, it has 106 references. Most external links fail on such articles per WP:EL#EL1. In general, external links are supposed to add something that is not included / cannot be included in the article and I think that here that is not the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's critical of Dr. Craig's work and ideas, something that one will not find in the main article on him, and, it's full of copious references.Jehannette (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Jehannette
Again, per WP:EL#1, that is not an inclusion standard. See also the rest of the document. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Chuck-a-luck

Over at least the past nine years, this page has repeatedly had added to it links with the base URL www.anthonythomas01.com or earlier variants such as the GeoCities version of the site. This appears to be in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:FANSITE (section 4), and in some iterations of WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, since some of the links added refer to variants with 3-sided and 9-sided "dice", and as far as I could determine from a web search, neither of these variants have any existence other than on this site.

To prevent further abuse, perhaps this site could be added to the blacklist? — 90.217.74.237 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Renamed "External links" section.

The criteria for inclusion in an "External links" section is well established but I ran across Jenna Jameson, a B-class article, and found external links under the section heading "Notes". This seems to be a way around having too many links in the external links section especially since AVN, Biography.com, and playboy.com are listed many times as "External links". Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved them and removed the tag. I take on opinion on whether they constitute excessive links. --Izno (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

List of biological databases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_databases has been a very valuable resource to the scientific community, but recently a huge number of the links were de-activated. It appears this was because of the external link policy of Wikipedia. I am hoping this particular page falls into one of your exception categories because the names of the databases are often not enough to make them easily discoverable. Can the links please be re-instated and granted a waiver of some kind so the site editors don't do this again?

You can convert the links into references. (The links are available in the article history.)
becomes
though a more complete reference with title and publisher would be better. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ BioGraph
@StarryGrandma: I believe that you are talking about this old version of the document, before the edits that cleaned it up. That is indeed not in line with our policies and guidelines. Lists of external links are in direct conflict with the pillar 'What Wikipedia is not' - 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files' (point 1) and 'What Wikipedia is not' - 'Wikipedia is not a directory'. There are other solutions, as you say the 'reference', or a table where there is also a direct link to the database.
Note, not-wikilinked items should actually have an independent reliable source per WP:LISTCOMPANY (see also Wikipedia:Spam event horizon - spam is a continuous problem in practically any list). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Beetstra, this is not a list of companies but of databases as in List of biodiversity databases. The links are not to companies since most of these are provided by groups of researchers. References are needed to show that an entry meets the requirements of the list, but it is standard in software articles that a link to the software web page is sufficient. Whether these lists and their methods of referencing are good or not is another question, but whoever removed the links did not challenge the list, only the external links within the article text. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: No, it is standard in violation with our pillars, see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, Not being a for-profit organisation does automatically not spam. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

American Mathematical Society

I cleanup all additional deep links on the official website’s domain, as all that information is readily accessible through the top domain link. On American Mathematical Society I now was twice reverted, despite WP:ELBURDEN. The history is already clearly laid out in the prose, even if the article is on another server I would argue that all that is there is not pertinent, and, as I said, it is already available in this case through the official link (if it is not of interest for our article prose, then there is also no reason to link).

What is our interpretation of these cases? If a top level link is there, should deeper links be removed (barring a very few exceptions)? —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's my interpretation. Additionally, I don't see why the others can't be used as sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Carleton Knights football

RFC closed, no clear consensus attained, has been archived with no comment since November 2017. fish&karate 11:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carleton Knights football. I would like to include two external links that other editors have removed. I think the same rationale exists with both sources, but I'm happy split the discussion and decision whether to include into separate threads.

  • "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.

This links to a Carleton College archives page that includes a 14-minute video on the 1992 season, Carleton's last conference championship team. The video contains a wealth of information that would be very valuable to anyone with an interest in the article. Even if there was no narration, the game footage alone would be of great interest. I argue that this link satisfies WP:ELYES #3. It contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and cannot be included in the article due to copyright issues and the information is too detailed. I also think it does not violate WP:ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The video is obviously unique. And it contains lots of information that would never be included in the text of a featured article on the program as a whole, specifically quotes from coaches and individual game details that should not be included in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

*"Carleton College Football Record Book" (PDF). Carleton College. March 30, 2017. This is a permanent link to a PDF of Carleton Knights football team records. The argument is similar to that above. It satisfies ELYES #3, although more from the "too detailed" prong of the argument than the copyright issues. ELNO #1 does not apply because it a unique resource that contains lots of information that should never be included in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, thanks for opening this discussion. I oppose the inclusion of both links. The first link is focused too much on one specific element (just the 1992 season) of the article's topic (the 100+ year history of Carleton football) to be relevant as a general external link. The second link is a subpage of the team's official website, which is already included in the external links section, as is done by standard. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no more specific articles of the subject, so there is nowhere else to put it. This "standard" is not an iron-clad rule, of course nothing is, and can't be used to argue against this particular example. In addition, a slippery-slope argument about too many external links being added in the future is also invalid.- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's "nowhere else to put" these links, perhaps that's because they don't belong anywhere as an external link on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Come on. There's nowhere else to put the video - besides the article where I want it included. So that's where it should go. The video has obvious value, fits inclusion #3, doesn't fit exclusion #1, so the only arguement you've got is "it's not the standard". So what? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: RE: record book – per WP:ELPOINTS #4, " try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." The official website does exactly this and the visitors can find the book easily on the website. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree the record book is a weaker case, but still think you're being too strict. Your argument against is we should "try to avoid" it, a weak suggestion, without any mention of the benefits. Sure it's only a bit of menu surfing, but what's the harm? And what do you think about the video? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
What's so notable about the 1992 season other than it is the last conference championship? If you can give a well thought-out explanation (other then what's above) as to why it's notable, I might consider it. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 07:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
If that can be done, it can be written into an own section in the article and independently referenced. The primary, official records are probably also reasonable references for that. When they have been used as references, they certainly do not need to be used as external links.
I note that the documents mentioned above are on the same server as the official site of the subject. There is no need to deeplink there. For the 1992 season video, that page is indirect to the subject of the page. Regarding the full records, that is a great primary source and can be used as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll give up on the records link. For the video, there's no notablility standard for including an external link. But yes, a MIAC conference championship is notable for this program. The entire argument against inclusion is "try to avoid" a second link to the official website. If the video is only a reference, no one is going to see it. Readers who are interested in Knights football also have an interest in seeing the video. The point of an encyclopedia is to share information. The article better informs people with an obvious link to a valuable resource. Does anyone dispute that? Can anyone dispute that the video fits ELYES #3 and not fit ELNO #1? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So how do we get this resolved and/or closed? Do we need an admin? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC) `

@Mnnlaxer: You have two editors (including me) asking/remarking about the 1992 season video 'What's so notable about the 1992 season other than it is the last conference championship?', and 'For the 1992 season video, that page is indirect to the subject of the page.' I still stand by that remark, and I still believe it does not belong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Those aren't legit reasons to deny an external link. Why has every editor who wants to prevent its inclusion failed to address whether the link fits ELYES #3 and ELNO #1. It would be nice to have a debate about actual policy. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Actual policy: "External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." which points to WP:EL, which says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" .. User:Corkythehornetfan asks what is so notable about the 1992 championship that it needs to be singled out in a YouTube movie in the external links, and I have problems with calling that link directly linked to the subject of the page. I mean there, that I do not think that this link is on-topic.
Consensus does not mean that you can just summarily ignore all comments that you do not think to be suitable arguments. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There are not excessive links on the page. There is only the link to the official page. Are you arguing that a particular season is not on topic to the team? It seems you are requiring the link and the topic to cover the exact same scope. That is ridiculous. There is no notability standard for content within an article. It is not a Youtube, but a professionally done video that is part of the college's archive. I also ask that WP:COMMON be applied. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
And that is exactly what I think that Corkythehornetfan did. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The common sense questions are "Does the inclusion of the link make the article better?" or "Would readers find the information useful?" Are you saying no? But if we disagree on common sense, could you please directly address the points I made? I am going to ask for an admin to close the discussion and I will abide by that decision. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think there isn't a high bar of notability for external links to be included, but for the sake of argument, here is an explanation of the significance of the 1992 season. Even without knowing anything about the background, it is easy to see that the college thinks the season is very significant. Otherwise it would not spend the time and resources to produce the video and include it in its archives. There aren't any other produced videos of any other athletic seasons that I can find at Carleton and I bet this type of project is rare at DIII schools across the country.

The reason it is significant athletically, is that it will likely be the only MIAC championship Carleton wins for the forseeable future. Carleton rejoined the MIAC in 1983, which has St. John's and St. Thomas, two programs that are often ranked in the top 10 nationally. (Interesting sidebar, their game this year was at Target Field and drew over 37,000 fans) Since 1992, those two programs have won 19 of 25 conference championships. Carleton is a highly selective national college and smaller than most MIAC schools. It is very hard to get the athletes to compete for a conference championship. A similar school, Macalester, took their football team out of the conference in 2002.

Finally, the issue is not whether you think the season is significant (and how do you define significant or notable in this case?) but whether an average reader would think so. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Great story .. way more than what is in the article, there it is just one sentence without references. I guess there is a section to write in the article, and I guess that the youtube video makes a great reference there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. However, the goal of this crusade is to get it into external links. No one looks at references. So, are you convinced yet? If not, please respond to my points above. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: No, I am not, actually even less so. 'The goal of this crusade is to get it into external links' .. it does not belong there, so to rephrase 'The goal of this crusade is to ignore our content policies and guidelines' .. our goals are NOT to send people off-wiki to see things that you want them to see (that is the goal of other websites). We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Typical, I should have known. It was a joke. You know what else is a joke? That you call adding one historical link a link farm and a soapbox. As to your serious claim, what content policies and guidelines does posting this link ignore? Here's some actual policy for you. WP:ELYES #3 says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues." That entire sentence applies to this link. And you have still not addressed any of my points. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you've said that, and I am not disputing that. What I am disputing it the directness of the link. Your whole point is "If the video is only a reference, no one is going to see it. Readers who are interested in Knights football also have an interest in seeing the video." .. And that is the whole point: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." You vehemently insist to have it in the external links section, but "no page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense." Your only justification is that it is informative to the reader, and if it is a reference no-one will read it .. but that is not our purpose, it is not a justification to have the external link. If the 1992 season is so interesting, then the article should write about it, with reliable sources referencing that it is that interesting (and if it is really interesting, it warrants an own article). That is not in the document, it is a mere sentence without references. If it is not that interesting to write out a full part in the document, then it is apparently not of interest to the readers of the document, and hence your whole point whether the average reader would find it interesting can only be gauged to the point whether there is something significant in the article writing that. For all I know, maybe readers find it more interesting to see where and how the club's outfit is being manufactured. To me, that is just as interesting as the 1992 season. For policies: please review our pillar WP:NOT in detail. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
What does "directness of the link" mean? Are you still claiming the 1992 season is not on topic to the team? My whole point is that the link can be included via ELYES #3. It is justifiable to that guideline and you have failed to even try to show it isn't. Come on about the club's outfit. Give me a break. On NOT, please quote the text that you think prevents the inclusion of the link. Because I read "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article." Your obvious disagreement with that policy is clear, what isn't clear is what policy you are using to justify its exclusion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is about the football team. The link is specific to one season, so I'd agree that it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is about the 1992 season, no reason to single that out. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I missed acknowledging that you agree the link meets ELYES #3. Thanks. Now, please tell me what "directness of the link" means. And where it says an external link has to coincide with the entire article topic. Finally, what ELNO applies to the link. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. .... Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject (my bolding): specific subject = the 1992 season; general subject = the club. Anyway, I still don't see how this is relevant enough for an external link, while it is only in passing mentioned (without references) in the article itself).
Just to note, that something passes WP:ELYES does not mean that we have to link to it either. The point is there in the 'relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject'. If it is so important, then it needs a proper, significant, mention in the article (which, by the way, still does not excuse the external link). After all, that part is then apparently relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. If it is really important, then the whole 1992 season may warrant an own article, and there it is a suitable external link, as there the general subject = specific subject = the 1992 season (and there, the official website of the club is indirect). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The general vs. specific point you make in this case is pedantry. There is no general/specific subject dichotomy here, not like chemistry is specific and natural science is general. 1992 is just a point in time of the program. The subject is both cases is a certain college team playing football games. "that something passes WP:ELYES does not mean that we have to link to it either" No, of course not. You'll always find a way of denying a link that meets a YES anyway. It is relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of Carleton football. That's obvious. The importance/significance issue is just a Catch-22 you exploit. If the link isn't important, then it doesn't belong in EL. If it is important, then it belongs in the article text. So you can argue against it regardless of the situation. The 1992 season is not notable enough on its own to warrant an article. You just don't like external links. "External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia." Do you have something against the off-wiki internet? And have you heard of the back button? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not a catch 22. It has only a fleeting mention in the article, it is hardly deemed important enough there, and now you argue that it is important enough for an external link. If there is significant mention in the article, then it may actually qualify as an external link if it contains more data than the article can represent (it might even qualify if it is already used as a reference if that extra information is really significant, but that is not often the case). But as it stands now, you say it is relevant without the article showing that it is relevant. If the 1992 season is so relevant, there is independent coverage and hence can be properly referenced, if that is not there, it is not relevant.
So if you think that this is pedantry, why did you even ask here? There are now three editors who don't see the relevancy to a better understanding of the subject. It starts to be clear that you simply disagree with our external links guide and probably with 'what Wikipedia is not'.
Your argument basically means that there is no limit to making external links - anything that is related has to and should be linked, because editors have a back button anyway. We can just replace the whole article about Donald Trump by a link to his official site and his Twitter, and that is it, because people will get the information they need there and then can use the back button. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I will work on some draft text for the article on the talk page to see what exactly you think would thread the needle between coverage in the article and inclusion in EL (but there are always caveats, right?) "if that is not there, it is not relevant" There are boatloads of relevant text that are not currently in articles. To say something is relevant to a subect if and only if it appears in the text is ludicrous.
Your general/specific argument is pendantry. Where has anyone said that watching the video doesn't increase understanding of the subject? Is that even possible? I disagree with your interpretation of EL and NOT, I fully accept what is there. And your surmise that arguing for one external link - that has justifications for being included - means there is no limit to making external links is exactly where you are wrong. It is a non sequitur. The example of Donald Trump's twitter is dishonest and ridiculous. Would still love to see an example of a good external link, if they do in fact exist in your mind. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: Great idea: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources."
This is not my interpretation, Mnnlaxer, how many editors in this thread do you see agreeing with you that the material belongs in the article? Maybe this is how the general public is interpreting the policy and the guideline, and how it is meant to be interpreted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs) There have been too many spurious arguments; that is arguments not based on policy or arguments using highly idiosyncratic policy interpretations to deny this link. It is very clear that the link is pertinent to the article. There is no requirement that links be notable (only articles need to be of notable subject matter). The advice to convert it to a reference is very poor, as any reference will almost certainly be deleted as 'refspam' or 'embedded external links'. Similarly, the advice to turn the link into an article on its own, is misguided. Who will write that article? How long will it take before it is accepted for mainspace? What should users do to learn more in the interim? The comments about being too specific represent a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and are unjustified. The comment that links should not be used to drive users away from Wikipedia is not part of policy - it is however one of Beestra's guiding principles as stated on his user page. The policy states that well-chosen links are a 'standard' feature of wikipedia articles. The link in question is not promotional, it is not persuasive, it is clearly not spam. It should be allowed to stand. Well-chosen links should direct users to places where they can learn more about the subject, or learn about specific facets of the topic in greater detail. Well-chosen links provide a service to users. I see nothing wrong with the link in question. When the people who have taken control of this Noticeboard are losing the policy argument, they resort to this "nobody agrees with you" line. And, if you don't accept their decision, there is worse to come. To date, I have not seen any convincing arguments to remove the link; all I see is a small group of editors who are wasting time. In my view, this matter should be taken to third party resolution or admin as such action might raise serious questions about what has been going on over here at WPELN. BronHiggs (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
BronHiggs, it is not anarticle write instruction, it is not an instruction to write a paragraph. As it stands now, User:Jweiss11’ comment says it all: “If there's "nowhere else to put" these links, perhaps that's because they don't belong anywhere as an external link on Wikipedia.” There is material that just does not belong as it does not fit our purpose.
And now you are just as spurious, “the reference will be deleted as refspam” And that it is not spam is not a reason to include either. Mnnlaxer is not a spammer, his additions are not spam, noone accused him of spam.
Per below, go ahead. Ask for another opinion. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, before this request, there was the same dispute on the article itself (going back in time):

During the discussion (after self-close by User:Mnnlaxer - "Marked by original poster. There is a benefit to posting the link to the 1992 season video, the cost is very low, it fits WP:ELYES #3 and does not fit WP:ELNO #1. The best argument below is that we should "try to avoid" two external links to the same site. The video link is a part of Carleton's archives and is hard to find without this direct link. So I'm posting it again."):

And that that issue was not discussed on the talkpage first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra, I hate putting stuff like that together. Although I think the main dispute here is resolving the policy difference on EL, not edit warring. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No, then you would have been at WT:EL. You have several editors removing the link, and you persisting. That is more a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, and now a case of WP:OTHERPARENT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Looking forward to your response at the dispute page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Thanks, @BronHiggs:, for the wet trout slap. I'm too stupid and stubborn to figure out your solution on my own. There isn't admin closure on this noticeboard, just a weird "mark resolved" instruction. So I filed an admin closure request, but that will take forever, if it happens at all. @Beetstra:, which would you prefer, a third party or the dispute resolution noticeboard? I think the latter would be better. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead with whatever you like. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I filed the dispute resolution. [4] I also put one more line in the text and posted a draft space on Talk:Carleton Knights football#1992 season text. I can't find any other good sources to use. I also don't know where and how I should expand the text to satisfy those who think it needs expansion for the external link to be allowed. I don't want to simply pad out the paragraph with game scores. In the scope of the article, I think the season has the appropriate amount of text. So I don't agree with the view this subject needs more text, althought I am open to others' suggestions and contributions to satisfy their requests. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Good. I'll post there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, what I thought was the best place to have someone outside of this discussion step in and make a judgment closed the request. Since there is nowhere else to go, I'm through with it. I still think this is a ridiculous interpretation of policy, and the the other side's arguments I listed at the dispute page are very weak, but that and $5 will get me a cup of coffee. I still would like Beetstra to show me one example of a good external link that isn't a template, but they don't seem able to find one. Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution discussion now archived here, I think this thread can now be closed, or we wait until it gets archived. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I accidentally saw your version of this article and the fact that it contained link to commercial website in text. I deleted it, but my edit was reverted by article's author, @Scriptned: [5]. I really didn't know if this is the right place to report it, but it seems that you don't have "report a problem in an article" subpage or similar. IMHO advertising like this should be deleted. Wostr (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wostr: I've killed it again, and some peacock language. That indeed does not belong, we are not writing a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: thanks. Wostr (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

musictoday.com

and especially there:

I see a lot of links the <bandname>.shop.musictoday.com/.../<album>, which are obviously not the official website of the subject, but the official website of a show that sells the album (where it may be maintained by the subject). My suggestion is to scrap these completely as inappropriate for inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." An album is not an entity that can say anything about itself. Such webpages/websites are blatant WP:SOAP violations. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This question came up during a recent discussion about MetroLyrics. The site, which provides both "official" and user generated lyrics, has changed the manner in which the two are identified. Previously, only those lyrics identified with a LyricFind "LF" logo were licensed and deemed acceptable to link. Now, it is not readily apparent which are official and which are not; one must click on "edit lyrics" on the lyrics page and see if "Locked: X Lyrics The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate, and are subsequently locked"[6] or "Edit: X Lyrics ... Submit Corrections"[7] is displayed.

Also, some songs which previously had an LF logo now either show "Unfortunately, we aren't authorized to display these lyrics" or are not "locked" (able to be edited by users). MetroLyrics links were added to thousands of song articles by a bot and now with its change in practices, a large number of articles could be affected.

—Ojorojo (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove links to lyrics sites – The changes at MetroLyrics show that the status of the links is not stable: what one day are "official" lyrics can be replaced with user generated content. The links were added by a bot to many articles that have no or little recent activity. Therefore, they must be monitored by editors-at-large as another maintenance chore. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep links to lyrics sites. According to the External links guideline, the issue is to avoid dead links (WP:ELDEAD) rather than supply links to sites where the content rarely changes. All websites have content that is a constant state of flux, as content is added, updated, removed, tweaked and amended. Even WP articles are constantly being modified as editors improve the content. WP editors are not expected to monitor website content as this would be an impossible task. However, a link to a song's lyrics is quite stable, even if the actual words in the lyrics are amended from time to time. Any user following the link will be provided with the most recent version of the lyrics. BronHiggs (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be desirable to evaluate some samples before a discussion on hypothetical links. LinkSearch shows http links. I tried a couple of examples and got only junk (e.g. 1 + 2) and that suggests remove although someone who edits in the area may know of useful examples. I also saw that the site is listed as a mirror of Wikipedia (MetroLyrics) because they apparently have a scamy system to copy a Wikipedia article into the comment field of one of their pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just the Beginning (Grace VanderWaal album)

Dispute over what external links, if any, belong in the article about VanderWaal's album. - Ronz (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of listed links from 3 to 7: I originally listed the three from the "External links" section at the time. I'm adding all that have ever been used or mentioned for completeness, given the section in the article has been subsequently changed. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion
Related discussion
Links in External links section of the current version
  1. VanderWaal's official website
    Official website for VanderWaal, very minimal in content.
  2. Album trailer
    A one minute video for the album. The video content is promotional in nature, providing very little information about the album.
    This webpage prominently links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning , which contains samples of each song from the album
  3. VanderWaal at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, October 7, 2017, where she introduced several songs from the album
    A 55 second video for her appearance at Austin City Limits. Like the "album trailer" video, it also prominently links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning .
  4. Grace Vanderwaal Official Store
    The main webpage for her store at musictoday.com, linked from "STORE" on VanderWaal's official website. This was proposed and rejected in the article talk page discussion.
  5. Grace Vanderwaal Just The Beginning (CD or Digital)
    Product purchase page from the store for the album. Mentioned below 23:08, 12 December 2017. Added to the article as a replacement for VanderWaal's official website 18:26, 13 December 2017
  6. Official video of "Moonlight"
    Video for Moonlight (Grace VanderWaal song) from the album. This is included in the song's article as an external link. Added to the album article and subsequently removed [8] [9]
  7. Official video of "Sick of Being Told" (once it is published)
    As with the Moonlight video link, as proposed below 23:14, 12 December 2017

Survey

1. Official website
Adding to my comments: See my comments below about number 5. We don't want 1, 4 and 5, just one of them (I suggested #5, but if people prefer #1, that is OK too). -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe that it is the exclusive authorized website (#5 below), but if it is not, then we should have #1 in the EL section, instead of #4 and #5. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove The artist's Wikipedia article is linked. Users who explore the artist will find this link at the bottom of her article. Additionally, this article is not about the artist, so this link is not the official website of the subject of the article. Stesmo (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove, this is not the official website of the subject of the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
2. "Album trailer" video
3. "Austin City Limits" video
4. Grace Vanderwaal Official Store
5. Grace Vanderwaal Just The Beginning (CD or Digital)
  • Remove Links to product purchase pages fail WP:SOAP and WP:POV outright. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Soapboxing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that we don't need all three of these: 1, 4 and 5 -- just 5. This has been my position all along. But Ronz wants to delete all of them and has muddied the waters by listing them all, above, to give the false impression that we are trying to put all three into the EL section, when, of course, we have only been trying to get in one of them (#5, or #1 if people prefer that one). -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
6. Official video of "Moonlight"
7. Official video of "Sick of Being Told" (once it is published)
Current article as at 13 December 2017
  • The current article has three external links: album, trailer, festival. I support keeping each of them and closing the above discussion about other links. The extraordinary time and energy invested in pursuit of this topic is totally out of balance with regard to any actual problem (just from my talk: here concerning March 2011 + November 2016 (← see "Wikipedia is all about getting an outcome that helps the encyclopedia") + January 2017 + March 2017). Re the issue: WP:EL is a guideline; any link can be debated but these are fine; good content builders with an understanding of the subject consider them appropriate; berating good editors over what is essentially trivia is a bad strategy and diverts attention from actual spam. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Subsurvey: which of the 7

Per what User:Ssilvers is mentioning - there is now a !vote where a closer could agree on every single one of them, resulting in linkfarming if all 7 are to be kept, or no links if we vote them all out. Hence:

  • Keep either the official album subpage on Grace's official website (which currently apparently does not exist), and lacking that, keep only 5 as the link in the external link section, removing all others. (if there is an album description becoming available on Grace's official website, then that one should replace option 5). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep 1 (or 5), 2, 3, 6 and 7. That's a total of 5 that I recommend keeping. The most important three are 1 (or 5), 2 and 3. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep 1,2,3, 6 and 7 (i.e. a total of 5). I do not consider 7 links to be excessive or linkfarming. At issue is wether they are relevant to the content, useful to users and generally satisfy other guidelines. Link number 4 is overtly commercial/promotional and should be removed. I have some reservations about 5 as it appears to be a link to a different album. For each of the other links, there is good reason for retaining them as has been outlined in the original vote and discussion. BronHiggs (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Note: previous related RfC on External links for this performer - Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is forum shopping of the first order. This editor has not had things go his way on the article talk page, where the discussion has gone against him, and now he seeks an audience to try and overcome the existing consensus. His description of the sites is misleading, and his lack of comprehension of ELNO is shown. These are useful links to a reader, do not fail ELNO in any respect, and deserve to remain in the page to help readers gain further information onthe subject. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC is just another attempt by Ronz to get their own way whenever he/she is editing against consensus. It is perfectly reasonable, under the EL rules, for this album's article to include a few ELs about the album. Obviously, an album is a commercial product, and it is not surprising that the links are intended to promote the album. In addition to the 3 ELs currently listed, I would also include in the ELs the official music videos that were made of two singles from the album, because anyone interested in this album would be interested to see them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • 'It is perfectly reasonable ... to include a few ELs about the album': yes, but the official website of the subject is not the official website of the album, a short clip of one song is not about the album (at best, it is about that one song), and the concert video is not about the album (at best, it is about the concert). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised by the vitriol involved with this discussion over an album article. I'm not sure how bringing a discussion about External Links here is Forum Shopping, as the natural progression when at an impasse on an article's Talk page would be to bring the discussion to the appropriate Noticeboard (see WP:SEEKHELP). This is the Noticeboard for External Links.This is the right place and the correct next step. That said, Wikipedia is not a link farm for adding all possible links to an article, nor is Wikipedia a promotional avenue to be used to sell albums or other commercial (or non-commercial) products via external links. The artist's Wikipedia bio is linked and contains an Official Website link. I see no real benefit to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject by keeping these particular external links in the article. Stesmo (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding forum shopping - any consensus on the talkpage, which is a local consensus mostly by people interested in the subject, does not trump our policies and guidelines. It is a good thing that Ronz brought this here early on. To all editors !voting 'keep', have a good thought about why the link is to be included. Being on-topic is not an inclusion standard, and a plain statement of 'it is useful' should explain what that usefulness is. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are very few policies that govern activities related to EL. There are only guidelines, which are flexible and not set in stone. Common sense is an incredibly useful thing, despite the fact it seems to be in short supply with those who obsess on minor points that need not be obsessed on. It is useful to have a link to an artistes website on an album article (of course it is, it requires a singular lack of imagination not to appreciate that), and I see absolutely no logic in removing the links to in order to be so unhelpful to readers (remember them - the thing we should give a toss about, rather than flexible guidelines that do not need to be adhered to). - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Common sense .. "These are useful links to a reader, do not fail ELNO in any respect, and deserve to remain in the page to help readers gain further information onthe subject." - you still fail to explain why they are useful. I do not gain any more information about the subject with the homepage of the singer, which is already wikilinked. And usefulness is not an inclusion standard - a link to itunes for songs of the album are equally 'useful', and we can go on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I read that near personal attack. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
No, this 6 person thread is better, I agree. And then that discussion in a way has a seventh person stating the same as 3 of the editors of the first thread. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The policies are WP:NOT and WP:POV, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK. WP:EL is how we manage external links so as not to violate those policies. We're all experienced editors here, so we know what a massive problem spamming is across Wikipedia, and how it's a canary in the coal mine for SOAP, POV, FCOI, etc problems. Because of this, EL places the burden on those wishing to include links. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those policies are relevant to adding an artistes official page to an article on that artiste's album. This isn't spamming at all, it has nothing to do with POV at all. This is three links on a page we're talking about - it's not about three of several more, just three, and they're all useful for readers. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was spamming. I'm saying that spamming is why this guideline is rather strictly enforced, and places the burden on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are just that, guidelines - and are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links). They are NOT "policies" as one editor in this thread describes them. Guidelines do not need to be strictly enforced. There is considerable room for flexibility on a case by case basis. External links have been a standard feature of WP since its inception. A common sense approach suggests that most of the links being debated are useful and provide content that in different ways enhances the article. The links to songs on the album should be permitted with regard to the following guidelines that permit:
(a) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work
and;
(b) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&action=edit&section=4) BronHiggs (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Point a is indeed a form of WP:ELOFFICIAL - however, that may only be the store-link that suits this ... 'a legally distributed copy of the work' is the 'legally distributed copy of the album', not the songs, not the artist.
Point b - "that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding " - we are talking about the album here, not about the songs, not about the artist. And I do note "... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.". --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Point a is from WP:ELYES, with ", so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." removed. By not ignoring the removed portion, we see that ELYES applies if ELNO criteria does not.
The problem is that ELNO criteria applies, especially ELNO 1, 4, 5 and 13
As for point b, "neutral" excludes NOT and POV violations, as does "encyclopedic understanding". Further, "useful", "helpful", "of interest" do not convey any relevance to encyclopedic understanding without details.
"Obviously, an album is a commercial product, and it is not surprising that the links are intended to promote the album" [10]. I agree, and that's why they are NOT and POV violations. We're not here to promote, nor provide a venue for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New York Times' "Times Topics" as ELs

So the NYT has a thing they call "Times Topics". An editor wants to add the one for Culinary Institute of America to that article as an EL. In my view this is a search, which per WP:ELNO #9, we don't use. The other editor, User:Ɱ, of course disagrees. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just freaking remove it. I've argued this before and had much more valid reasoning, but I can't find our past discussion about this anymore. Stop bugging me and forum shopping here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If anyone cares about doing the right thing anymore, read my rationale here: link. I'm tired of dealing with this rudely uncivil editor. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
We discussed at the article talk page, here, and it already is removed. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like ELNO#9 to me as well, and ELNO#1. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Face Book

Want to use in Non-Living, Notable Person, Biography, facebook as an 'external link", or cite, no link to facebook is on official web site.

WP:FACEBOOK

As a reliable source,and can be authenticated as belonging to the subject with no login to view.

WP:ELOFFICIAL

The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization) of the Wikipedia article.
The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

And yes i know that it can not be done by an IP.,the question is will the community allow it without attack (revert). 162.217.133.123 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Which article? --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@162.217.133.123: Without context this will not get an answer. And please read WP:EL in full, not cherry picked sentences. In general, facebooks have rarely value in ELs of non-living people, and are rarely the ‘official website’ of a non-living person. And because of their nature, they simply fail often. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
? what about a media facebook page controlled by the Legacy and is not open to posts, and only has content of the person life that made them a notable person. 162.217.133.121 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@162.217.133.121: 'controlled by the Legacy', not: 'controlled by the subject'. Anyway, without examples we can not give any blanket answer. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
If that means "controlled by family or a company", then ELOFFICIAL will likely not apply. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

websites and IP for Sci-Hub

would folks please have a look at the infobox of Sci-Hub and then respond at the talk page, at Talk:Sci-Hub#Websites_and_IPs_in_inbox? thx Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Biografer#Shogi articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Biografer#Shogi articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Chapo Trap House

I have removed three links from this page, with the following reasoning:

  • itunes - commercial site, only exists to sell material, the list of episodes is already included in Wikipedia (the list is the same as on our List_of_Chapo_Trap_House_episodes. Fails WP:ELNO #5. Moreover it does not contain information that cannot be included (WP:ELNO #1; actually, it does not contain any further content than a list). (note:this was not removed in my first removal)
  • SoundCloud - commercial site, material can be included (again, the list is the same as on List_of_Chapo_Trap_House_episodes; there is no further info on this page). Would only list this if it is the only official site of a subject, otherwise also fails WP:ELNO #4
  • the twitter - fails WP:ELNO #11 (see also Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Twitter, and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - the official site is listed. Last number of tweets by the subject are about a sour dough lobster, a tweet linking to the last itunes/soundcloud episode, 2 tweets about events, and one pointing to their official website where content was added.

I am however continuously challenged that all three are pertinent to the page, but I fail to see how a sour dough lobster is pertinent/meaningful, relevant content. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As Beetstra noted on my talk page, I have the WP:ELBURDEN of justifying the inclusion of each link. So I will do so for each one. There's a subsection below for each policy Beetstra cites, which I've hidden to make more manageable.
The subject of the article is a podcast. Chapo Trap House, like most other podcasts, has episodes available to stream for free. (Not that it particularly makes a difference, but Chapo's audio doesn't even include commercial advertising, which many others do.) At some other articles about podcasts, for example Serial (podcast), the link to the official homepage suffices to direct readers to where they can stream the audio; in fact, you can stream Serial directly from their site, so there isn't even a need for them to direct readers elsewhere, they just directly provide the audio onsite.
In the case of Chapo, it doesn't suffice to link to the homepage. Currently, the official Chapo Trap House homepage only minimal information. It lists the dates of their current tour, and that's it. The design is completely stripped down, with no links to their audio or Twitter page. A link to the podcast is perfectly germane for an article about a podcast, and in this case, the homepage doesn't get the job done at all. This is my broad justification for linking to the podcast, which I will delve into with more specificity below.
WP:Twitter-EL
Beetstra cites WP:Twitter-EL, which states:
"[Twitter in external links:] Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence; or is known for their Twitter activity."
Whatever Beetstra personally thinks about their Twitter feed, Chapo Trap House is known for its Twitter activity. The hosts of Chapo Trap House became famous through Twitter—that is, they were not famous outside of Twitter or independently of Twitter. They met each other through Twitter and are well-known on the platform (within the Leftist/politics/"Weird Twitter" circles that they occupy.) They aren't just famous people who happen to have Twitter accounts, like Katy Perry or Stephen King; their Twitter presence was critical to the existence of the podcast itself. The podcast often refers to tweets, e.g. bad "hot takes" by pundits. Point being: Chapo is, in the parlance, "Extremely Online," and the podcast is strongly associated with Twitter.
WP:ELMINOFFICIAL
Beetstra has argued that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL justifies the removal of these links, hanging his hat on the opening sentence: "Normally, only one official link is included." This is a perfectly reasonable default policy position! But it's not the full story. There are circumstances which can justify something other than the default starting position, which is not an absolute. The policy goes on:
"If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. ... More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. ... In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information."
These excerpts essentially say that specific circumstances can justify the inclusion of multiple links. To list the factors that can justify inclusion of more than one official link:
  • The webpages should "provide the reader with significant unique content"
  • The webpages "are not prominently linked from other official websites". Note that the policy explicitly provides that a Twitter account is an example of an appropriate link to include when it is not linked from an official homepage.
  • The additional webpages serve distinct contextual functions (not stated outright, but gleaned from the analogy "when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information.")
  • Overall, "the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information."
I've addressed all of these factors above. There is one I want to address in more detail, which is that the minimum number of links are being included. Why two links to the podcast? Because the podcast is only available via two platforms: iTunes and SoundCloud. How is this "the minimum number"? Because to choose one over the other is an WP:POV preference for one platform over the other. In Beetstra's first edit to the page, he only removed the SoundCloud link, leaving the iTunes link up. I objected on the basis that it shows an unjustifiable preference for one platform over the other, and presupposes that any reader trying to access the podcast are able to use the iTunes platform. He then removed both, but again, linking to a podcast from a podcast article is germane. I would get it if there were 10 links to various platforms that the podcast was hosted on, that would be excessive and in that situation there would probably be a sensible way to minimize the links. But there are two, which is one more than one; one would be the minimum, but it would also be a POV problem, so the minimum is two. I don't see this as an unpardonable violation of policy.
WP:ELNO #5
Beetstra argues that links to the podcast at iTunes and SoundCloud fail WP:ELNO #5, which states:
Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
This policy doesn't apply here. The pages I've linked to do not sell products or services, and in fact don't sell anything, they only link to the podcast's freely streamable audio (which is, after all, the direct subject of the article). These webpages don't contain any advertising, let alone an objectionable amount of advertising. They don't promote, advertise, or sell content; they are the content. This policy would apply if a user tried to include a link to Chapo's merchandise, like linking to a webpage that sells a Chapo t-shirt or a link to preorder the forthcoming book. I would absolutely remove any links like that, because those would fail WP:ELNO #5.
WP:ELNO #1
Beetstra argues, via WP:ELNO #1, that the links to the podcast are redundant to the list of episodes on Wikipedia. From WP:ELNO #1:
"In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article."
There is no repetition between the podcast links and our list. A link to the podcast itself is not a list of episodes of the podcast. It is the podcast. The audio of Chapo Trap House is not freely licensed, so Wikipedia will never be perfectly redundant to the podcast itself. Again, a link to a podcast makes sense from the article about the same.
WP:ELNO #4
Beetstra cites WP:ELNO #4, directed in particular at the SoundCloud link for a reason I can't discern:
"[G]enerally avoid providing external links to ... [l]inks mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming."
None of these links are spam, or a petition, or anything else mentioned at WP:LINKSPAM, which ELNO #4 refers to. I don't even see how this one even arguably applies.
WP:ELNO #11
Finally, for the Twitter, Beetstra cites WP:ELNO #11:
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Again, this doesn't apply. I would not link to a Twitter page called @ChapoTrapHouseFans. ELNO #11 is about amateur secondary resources like fan pages about the article subject, not an article subject's primary or official webpages.
I know this is a lot, but I am doing the work of unpacking and actually tethering my argument to the language of policies, rather than spraying WP:SOMETHING links and telling other users to just read the rules. —BLZ · talk 21:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
One other thing: I've looked through Beetstra's recent contributions and he has literally hundreds of edits just today with the same description: "remove excessive social networking, fansites, blogs and indirect sites per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:ELNO #10/11/13 (and EL related cleanup) (via WP:JWB)". Most of these edits are quite good; for example, at Lead (band), Beetstra removed a ton of unnecessary links, including multiple links to record labels, multiple blogs for tangential things like a cafe owned by a producer of the band (!!), and Twitter and Instagram links for each member. It looks like Beetstra is on a mission to systematically remove excess and junk links, probably by combing through transclusions of Template:Twitter and/or Template:Instagram. In all sincerity, I tip my hat to that. Beetstra, I don't doubt that you mean well, and the work you're doing to curb the level of crap in external links is really important, needed, and often thankless. That said, I also worry that you're using a hammer so everything seems like a nail. Blasting through a ton of pages can be the only way to clear out excess links at scale, but it's also very possible to miss important context. I'm not linking to every host's Twitter page in the External links, just their official one, and only because the article subject is notably associated with Twitter; I'm not linking to any advertising material; I'm linking to the minimum number of access points for the podcast itself. Again, I'm sure you're overwhelmingly doing good work in this area. In the spirit of WP:GOODFAITH and close reading of the policies you linked, I assure you that I intend to act within the bounds of these policies. —BLZ · talk 00:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brandt Luke Zorn: You state 'Chapo Trap House is known for its Twitter activity. The hosts of Chapo Trap House became famous through Twitter' - a lot of people are known for their twitter activity, but the podcast is not famous because of the twitter. You say that the hosts are known because of the twitter, that is something on the hosts of the podcast, not on the podcast itself. Moreover, I used the last 5 tweets by the twitter account as example - none give any extra information, the exact problem that WP:EL shows. If there is importance in the twitter, then it is discussed in the article (it is), if the twitter gives rather consistently information then it is an external link twitter. The argument is being held over Donald Trump .. and I am here concerned whether the Twitter, or social media in general, is of so much importance for the subject, and the tweets certainly do not raise to the level of Donald Trump's individual tweets.

Your argument for linking to SoundCloud and iTunes is the same as linking to the YouTube channel of a subject - so we can hear what they do. That is not Wikipedia's purpose. We link to more information that cannot be included, we do not link to make it easier for people to be ablo to listen to the individual podcasts. Moreover, the podcasts are already in their own article, and as is not uncommon in lists, the links to the individual podcasts could be included in such lists. That article is about the list of podcasts, not about the podcast itself, and the soundcloud and itunes are there more direct than here. I now see that the Patreon link is of similar nature.

You have omitted WP:ELNO #10, which I also cite regarding the Twitter. #11 is here not that applicable.

Thank you for your remarks on the further removals. That is something I have been doing for a long, long time now (and I am certainly not the only one, though maybe the one who is more actively searching for them. I have removed thousands and thousands of them, with very little resistance. Despite what people think, social networking sites and commercial sites are of very little utility to understanding the topic, and are very often indirect. I have brought discussions consistently here (and people have been bringing my removals here, and to higher level noticeboards) with the consistent conclusion that these links do not belong. Twitters, Facebooks, SoundClouds, MySpaces do not provide information that is expanding the article. Often even the official websites do fail the spirit of WP:EL/WP:NOT, we only include them to know what a subject is saying about themselves. We are not running a service to find everything applicable to the subject (we are not an internet directory, nor a replacement for google), and we are not running a service to find material because the subject is not doing that themselves. To go back to the subject at hand: there are now 5 links controlled by the subject. I am sorry, that their official homepage is insufficient is plainly not our problem. What needs to be included is in the article, the other 4 links (and actually, all 5 links - but we list only one) are not pertinent to this subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm feeling a little annoyed with what's beginning to feel like shadowboxing. You say "You have omitted WP:ELNO #10, which I also cite regarding the Twitter. #11 is here not that applicable." OK, fine... So why did you cite #11 above when you opened this conversation, but not #10? I can only respond meaningfully to the policies that are actually cited, and you've cited a different policy or slew of policies at nearly every turn (the first edit, the revert, my talk page, this discussion, your response in this discussion), reviving an argument based on any given policy as convenient.
I see "external links" sections as a general way to access an article subject's primary, non-incidental online channels. If the subject matter of an article is an online personality—NOT someone or something who is independently famous who incidentally has social media, but a person, group, piece of media, or something that is legitimately hosted online, and known THROUGH its online presence—I expect to see those in external links. If I look at Kony 2012, I expect the link to the film there. If I go to PewDiePie, I expect to see a link to his YouTube—and hey! his Twitter is useful there, too, because he is extremely popular on there too. Heck, I think some celebrities reach a level where they have independent significance on Twitter such that it could be linked—I would lump Chrissy Teigen in this category, if someone took the time to write about her Twitter fame on her article, which could certainly be done. I would absolutely make the case that Donald Trump's Twitter account should be in his external links—there is no one more famous for their Twitter usage in the world! He makes official proclamations of the United States government, as the president, through his "personal" social media account, but that's neither here nor there. I agree with you that social media is often trivial or incidental, but I think you also make the mistake of underestimating the utility of social media in a very social media-centric social environment. Either way, I agree it should not be excessive. This is not excessive. They are strongly associated with Twitter, and you haven't rebutted or meaningfully responded to that, just retreated into a more-general argument about your views about social media which are neither here nor there.
OK, so this is my view about how external links should generally be, and how this particular section should be. But: I rooted my viewpoint in the language of the policies, which you have not done. You just conclusively cite to the WP:ELNO rules by number, as if that makes the argument. I'm reading the language of the guidelines, applied these guidelines (not even rules!) as rules to a fact-specific context, and arriving at conclusions based on reason AND the language of the policies. What's frustrating is the way you conclusively cite the guidelines as rules, derive one key idea out of them (no social media!!), and apply it absolutely without respect to context or subject matter—even though the rules say that they are only what "normally" should be applied.
You say: "Your argument for linking to SoundCloud and iTunes is the same as linking to the YouTube channel of a subject - so we can hear what they do." No, not so "we can hear what they do." Because it is a link to what the page is about.
You say: "I am sorry, that their official homepage is insufficient is plainly not our problem." But in fact it is relevant, very relevant. The policies themselves say that a factor to consider is whether a single official homepage includes links to other resources. I've discussed this above. It is a completely relevant factor! It's in the policies!! Yet you wave it away. Why? Because despite your condescending recommendation for me to "re-read" the rules, you haven't read them very closely, at least not in terms of what balancing or mitigating factors should be considered. How can you say it's "plainly not our problem"? Because at that moment, you want to use the "insufficiency" of their homepage against them, when in fact that's literally a factor when considering when it's appropriate to include additional links.
This is what I mean by shadowboxing: you're not actually using or applying the text of the rules, you just point to them as absolutes, and then slip away to another when one fails you. In your hands the policies transform into absolute, simplified rules, which they are not. They become the "no social media" rule, the "no promotional links" rule. This is not how they work!
You're now essentially taking the position that all 5 links could be omitted, because there is some case you could make by gesturing vaguely in the direction of some of those rules to remove it. Fine. Abolish external links sections altogether then. We'll completely ignore the fact that none of these policies absolutely forbid the inclusion of this content, we'll forget that they actually include factors to consider when it can be appropriate to include any of the types of webpages it cautions against. You don't think the links are useful. Great. But that's your personal view and it has nothing to do with policy, as far as I'm concerned, and you haven't shown me otherwise. —BLZ · talk 04:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Regarding the #10, it was cited in my initial removal, and of relevance to the twitter. My edit summary is a bit generic there, I cleanup a lot of related material, basically per WP:EL

I see where our disagreement comes from, which is in the interpretation of the guidelines / policies. We may now stray to a discussion which is more about what the community interpretation of that guideline is, then about the specific case. No, my reading is not singular, my reading starts from the very start. The ELNO rules exclude, within reason/IAR, what should not be linked, and the rest of the guideline explains why. We only link to material that is relevant, we do not duplicate what is already in the article, we do not duplicate information that is already in other external links. We minimize external links, and do that rather strictly (and that is per policy). We do not link to everything a page is about (it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic, we link to material that helps us in a further understanding of the subject. Official websites often fail that (they often fail multiple instances of what we should not link to in the first place), therefore we list only one (and not 5).

Yes, the guideline uses the factor whether the official homepage is linking to that material, but that is after that we link to only one official homepage of the subject with very limited exceptions. This argument is being brought up over and over in previous discussions, and no, that argument is not 'because the official website is not linking to the social media, I can include all of them'. I will make it more complex. We have, per guideline, the choice of one official website, we can use the twitter as the official website. That link to the official website (the .com), and to the soundcloud and the itunes, and it links to their newsletter. Per your admission above, the twitter seems to be important, and seeing the content, it indeed seems to be more important than their .com.

Brandt Luke Zorn, no, I am not abandoning all external links, and that is not a personal view. I believe that in the many discussions about this, and related material at WT:EL it is shown that that is our community consensus.

I'll leave the floor to others, that is why I brought it to a wider forum in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Zenodo

I saw this edit [11] which adds a mirror of a document at zenodo.org. Is that cromulent? It seems like an aggregator to me, according to its About page everything there is open access so should be available at the original publisher. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

mydramalist

Blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's currently over 300 external links to website "[https://mydramalist.com/ mydramalist]" on wikipedia, majority of the links added by user CherryPie94. The website "mydramalist" has all user generated content and doesn't have any unique information. Last year, CherryPie94 also created a wikipedia page for MyDramaList (but that got deleted) and several external linking templates for use on wikipedia like Template:MyDramaList title. CherryPie94 further categorized these external links by Category:MyDramaList title ID same as Wikidata / Category:MyDramaList title ID not in Wikidata / Category:MyDramaList name ID not in Wikidata. As a completely user-generated content website and not offering any unique resources, I don't believe "mydramalist" qualifies for use as an external source. I noticed this website because every new Korean drama series page I read on wikipedia now has an external link to "mydramalist." Nicemagnet (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, the template leads to a website that does it fact provide unique resources such as, variety show appearances not included in Wiki due to excessive info/credits, trailers that can't be on wiki due to copyrights, content ratings for for TV shows and movies, airing dates and summaries for episodes. (WP:ELNO: What can normally be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons). Moreover, it is also different from the other mosty used template which is HanCinema because the template I made provide info for other countries (China and Japan for example), not just Korean content. In addition, Hancinema doesn't provide info about variety shows.
As for the user-genrated aspect, it is not against WP:ELNO. You know that almost the entire Asian IMDb section is user-generated (I edited mostly all of the IMDb Misty page since I'm a fan of the show) but it is still linked to Wiki. So how is IMDb allowed to be linked if it is user-generated content? Moreover, isn't Wiki a user-generated website. I have replied in length here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#spamlinks to mydramalist from same user CherryPie94. However, if it is against rules please delete it. Also, can there be a discussion about Hancinema, Daum, and Naver templates too? Are they acceptable or not? I made the daum and naver one to help users that were adding the link manually, however, now I noticed that they are in Korean and don't usually offer any info that are different from HanCinema and MyDramaList. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: The 'how is IMDb allowed to be linked ..' is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS type of defense. There are extensive discussions about IMDb and general thoughts about that.
I can see that the site expands beyond what can be included in Wikipedia (though some info could be incorporated, or more primary linked (trailers will often be on/linked from official websites, or uploaded to YouTube by official channels)). Where I have concerns whether all of these should be in the external links. WP:NOT#LINKFARM is one of the concerns - we do not have to link to everything that is related and provides information. If (as an example) MyDramaList covers more information than IMDb then MyDramaList may be appropriate, whereas the IMDb becomes excessive (noting however, point is that IMDb is way 'more established'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thanks for informing me about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I never read that page, so thanks. I talked about IMDb just to prove that it is user-generated too and nowhere in WP:ELNO does it state that such websites can't be added. Truth is, I sometimes think that there are a lot of external links. Official website (already in the infobox), production company website (already in the infobox), IMDb, HanCinema, Daum, Naver, and MyDramaList. Maybe people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture or here should discuss which is more appropriate and what is excessive website to add in the External links section. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: I noticed that as well - and I don't think that the production company website should be there, that one is indirect to the subject (and often already wikilinked). The rest seems sometimes a bit of a linkfarm indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: The reasons cited for linking to "mydramalist" are extremely weak and seem to be listed just to have a reason.
  1. "unique resources such as, variety show appearances" <-- How is this relevant to the majority of your links that are included on hundreds of drama series and movie pages? The times that it might be applicable, links to official sources like the official variety show website or talent agency profile page of performers are appropriate, rather than user-generated sourced content that is usually copy and pasted from primary sources. Your reasoning is equivalent to saying "Bob's Cricket List" website keeps track of cricket games, therefore "Bob's Cricket List" external links can be added on all Major League Baseball articles.
  2. "trailers that can't be on wiki due to copyrights" <-- links to official movie/drama series websites that have the trailers or licensed third party websites like official channels on YouTube should be linked, rather than an unlicensed third party website. Correct me if I'm wrong if mydramalist is licensed.
  3. "content ratings for for TV shows and movies" <--- this is a cringe worthy weak argument. Seriously? Because website A has javascript code to allow random people to click a rating number, that website should be cited as an authority on the subject?
  4. "airing dates" <-- this is not a unique resource beyond what the wikipedia article would contain if it became a featured article.
  5. "summaries for episodes" <-- Exactly how does this apply to all the external links from wikipedia movie, actor and singer pages which do not have episodes? For drama series pages this would be more like fancruft and not pertinent to the wikipedia article.
In aggregate, linking hundreds of wikipedia pages to mydramalist in various niche topics like drama series/movies/actors/singers, creating the wikipedia page to "MyDramaList," creating external linking templates for "mydramalist," and being questioned last year for having "conflicts of interest" with "mydramalist" really shows that CherryPie94 has a strong bias towards "mydramalist." Even if you ignore all of the potential bias, "mydramalist" simply does not qualify to link on drama series, movies, actors or singer pages. Especially not because it lists "variety show appearances," "has trailers," "has user ratings," "lists air dates" or "summaries for episodes (movies, actors, singers do not have episodes)." "Mydramalist" allows anyone to go to a page and hit "edit," so it is like an open wiki. Lastly, I can't stand going to read about the newest Korean drama series pages on Wikipedia and seeing the "MyDramaList" link at the bottom of every freakin article. I'm now seeing it on Wikipedia Korean/Japanese movie pages and Wikipedia Kpop pages. Nicemagnet (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicemagnet: You update to the page made what I was writing disappear, it's okay. You gave good counter-argument. However, for the variety show appearances, you wouldn't be adding all variety show websites on an actors page to show that they made an appearance there. Moreover, usually, the agency website would not have such info, as in the case Jung Yong-hwa agency website, that is where the MyDramaList template is appropriate. For drama, movies and variety shows, the website contains the profiles for actors and entertainers that do not have pages on Wiki due to them not being notable enough. Also, it could work for non-Korean countries that usually don't have databases to provide further info.
As I said before, and you decide to ignore and keep bring up conflict of interest which I proved was false, I made the template after seeing users adding the links manually (years before I made the template), such as in this case Line Romance and SOTUS: The Series. If I'm biased toward the website I would not have adding other template such as Naver and Daum. However, I have no issue with it being removed if it goes against the rules or if it is redundant. Personally, I don't know why you are very angry and it still gives me a big suspicion that you are one of AsianWiki sock puppets that were determined on removing mydramalist links from pages and were banned by admins. Link to the other IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.252.92.90/Archive. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: You are talking about actors, while I am talking about drama series and movies (read carefully above "How is this relevant to the majority of your links that are included on hundreds of drama series and movie pages?") To elaborate, your category Category:MyDramaList title ID same as Wikidata shows 201 external links from Wikipedia to Mydramalist that has matching titles. Out of those 201 external links, none of the external links are about variety shows. Out of those 201 external links, none of the drama series or movie titles have any direct relationship to variety shows. Out of the off chance, that a particular drama series or movie is related to a variety show, then in that instance I stated a link to the official variety show is more appropriate. Not blanket linking to mydramalist from every wikipedia movie and drama series page because it has actor pages with variety show appearances. The same applies to "having trailers," "having user ratings," "airing dates" or "episode summaries." Also, as I told you on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture thread, I am not affiliated with any group, but rather seriously annoyed about seeing external links to mydramalist on every Korean drama series, movie, actor, singer page I visit. Because of seeing so many links, I looked into the history tab on popular drama series/movie pages and noticed you were active in monitoring the external links. I then looked into your archived talk page to try to understand why there were so many links to mydramalist and found out that you authored the wikipedia MyDramaList page, created the external link templates for mydramalist and were questioned about having conflicts of interests with mydramalist. All of this under an earlier username. After seeing that I decided to post it first on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture and now here. Nicemagnet (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: Also, I just noticed you made the mydramalist templates around April, 2017 and then were asked about having conflict of interests with mydramalist around that time as well as getting a speedy deletion for the MyDramaList Wikipedia page you created. After a username change, you then made templates for Korean language website Daum around September, 2017 and Korean language portal Naver February, 2018. Good way to refute any future conflict of interest questions. Nicemagnet (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicemagnet: Again, please read what I wrote "For drama, movies and variety shows, the website contains the profiles for actors and entertainers that do not have pages on Wiki due to them not being notable enough. Also, it could work for non-Korean countries that usually don't have databases to provide further info." Moreover, as for "active in monitoring the external links", I occasionally add them when I see more info on the other website, however, I'm by no means monitoring them except if they show up on my watch list. Moreover, it is not solely me that is editing and improving external links, I could give you examples of pages that were by other users and they added the link. MyDramaList page was first approved because of the it is notable in term of alexa rating of the website, however, it was later deleted due to the lack of secondary source, which I did not object to.
I'm sorry, but I'm still suspicious since it seems weird that the day the IPs were banned, your account showed up and was angry and blame me specifically for making the template without any prior edits to the Asian articles on Wikipedia.
Since, I stated my point, I see no further use is discussing this since this is not turning into a polite discussion. If @Beetstra: thinks it should be deleted I would 100% agree.~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: It's kind of ironic reading that you don't monitor external links, because on the other thread I linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, you posted a question with the title "Should Viu be allowed to post their link on pages?" That post asks: I noticed recently that there has been a lot of articles that link to Viu streaming pages. Is that allowed? Other external links such as Hancinema, Daum, Naver, and MyDramaList don't stream, they are just databases which provide more info. That question kind of indicates you do monitor external links. Also up this thread you listed having trailers as one of the reasons why you link to mydramalist, but your question about Viu states mydramalist doesn't stream, it's just a database. So why did you list having trailers as one of the factors you link to mydramalist again? Nicemagnet (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicemagnet: I asked that cause I remember reading in the WP:ELNO that it was not allowed and it showed up in my watchlist when someone added it to a page I made. As I said, if you really think it should be delete it, please do report it. I stated my point about why I made it and why I think it is good in some cases, but if it such a rule breaker, then it should be deleted. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the external links. The external link templates of mydramalist created by CherryPie94, leads to these category pages all made by CherryPie94. How do these category pages better articles on Wikipedia (They don't)? For keeping track of the quantity of external links to mydramalist and making sure there as many external links as possible, this system seems quite useful. Or put in another way. I know for myself I don't have any concern whether the title of a drama series on Wikipedia matches that on mydramalist. This seems important to CherryPie94 as he made these category pages.

  1. MyDramaList title ID same as Wikidata
  2. MyDramaList title ID not in Wikidata
  3. MyDramaList title ID different from Wikidata
  4. MyDramaList name ID same as Wikidata
  5. MyDramaList name ID not in Wikidata
  6. MyDramaList name ID different from Wikidata

Nicemagnet (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nicemagnet: IMDb and HanCinema all use the same categories. It is not something special just used on the template I made. For some reason, the discussion switched from talking about the external link (was being added way before the template. Moreover, this is an external link discussion, not the template discussion) to criticizing me. That is not how a dispute discussion is conducted. Please state your opinion about the link, if you said all you can and gave your full opinion, just wait for other editors to read this and give their opinion. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: In regards to IMDb and HanCinema you are again resorting to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But if you want to go there, did the same person that created the IMDb wikipedia page, also create IMDb external link template and IMDb external link category list pages? No? Did the same person that created the HanCinema Wikipedia page, also create the HanCinema external link template and also the HanCinema external link category list pages? No? But you created all of this for mydramalist. Furthermore you go way beyond the two tracking categories that exist for IMDb (IMDb template with invalid id set and IMDb template with no id set‎) and the four that exits HanCinema (HanCinema drama template with no id set‎ and 3 category tracking pages for person ID's). Lastly mydramalist is an open wiki that allows anyone to edit anonymously on any page. IMDb does not allow anonymous editing and HanCinema is not user-generated content to my knowledge. Nicemagnet (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicemagnet: I meant that I used both IMDb and Hancinema templates to create the other ones since I was pretty new to making template I thought it was necessary. "Lastly mydramalist is an open wiki that allows anyone to edit anonymously on any page." I went there to check and no, it keeps asking me to create an account to edit, so it is not anonymously just like IMDb. I noticed that you have edited your previous post to include "I know for myself I don't have any concern whether the title of a drama series on Wikipedia matches that on mydramalist." Looks like you don't know what those categories are for. Those are for wikidata, not to compare the titles of pages to MyDramaList. As I said previously, if you really think it should be deleted, please do request for it, don't know why this discussion keeps going any longer when you are convinced that it is against the rules. I'm not objecting to it being removed if it goes against the rules, don't know why I have to repeat the somethings over and over. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: I stand corrected on mydramalist allowing anonymous edits. It seeems you need to make an account and then anyone can edit away. I only found out about mydramalist through the wikipedia external links and was not familiar with the website at all before. What I did find a little humorous and unbelievable is your assertion that "I went there to check and no, it keeps asking me to create an account to edit, so it is not anonymously..." You who listed really obscure details about mydramalist to try to justify the external links and having authored the wikipedia page for mydramalist and having created the mydramalist external link templates and the mydramalist category pages, is not familiar with that website's most basic function and had to go there to find out? :D Sure. I think that comment is a great example of how insincere you might be about your relationship to mydramalist. Nicemagnet (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nicemagnet: I went to check and see if what you claim is true or not, which was false. Both MyDramaList and IMDb (I edit on IMDb frequently) use the same system. Anyone can create an account of both platforms and edit. Moreover, we have already established that user-generated content is not against the rules, but looks like you have no further argument. As I said before, this page is to discuss external links (added by me or other users), it is not to discuss my past edits or the templates I made, there are other pages for that. Here you discuss if the addition of mydramalist link are allowed or not. Moreover, disputes are not resolved in a day, so allow some time for other editors to engage in the discussion. We heard your opinion and they have heard mine, so let's wait and see what the others think. How much further should I prove I'm not related? I don't object to it deleted and just stated why I added it. I have been on Wiki years before I created the template. You are just trying very hard to attack me with no further argument to make. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: Also, in regards to your comment "I meant that I used both IMDb and Hancinema templates to create the other ones since I was pretty new to making template I thought it was necessary." Why did you think it was necessary to make templates to mydramalist? Why did you feel inclined to create a Wikipedia page for mydramalist? Why is it important to you to have mydramalist titles in sync with wikidata titles? Also, please don't say you created templates for two other websites, because those two other templates were made after you were previously questioned about having conflict of interests with mydramalist and they are of two foreign language websites not likely to be relevant to English language readers.
@Nicemagnet: Saying this for the last times, I made it after seeing people add the link manually, same case for all templates I made. Moreover, I submit a request for it be added and the admins approved the template and add it, so go question the admins for approving it. Again, this page is not for questioning me, don't know why you think you are in charge of that when you have never even contributed to Wiki at all. You posted in this page and did know what the use of this page. Here you discuss if the addition of mydramalist links are allowed or not, not the template. And as I said, I don't mind it being deleted, all of the links and template, if it goes against the rules, what more you want me to say? I gladly would proposed the deletion, if a consensus is reached. Your anger and attacks are starting to really show you are part of those Ips/AsianWiki who were also posting angry messages and removing the same links you want to be removed. After the Ips were banned and you got frustrated that other users reverted your edits, you created this account on the same day, wanting the links to be removed. A huge coincidence, right? You are not here to address the issue, you are here to attack anyone who has a different view from you to gain what you want. I think I have said enough and would not reply anymore to you. Whether it is removed or not would be all up to other editors and admins, so wait and see, they might agree with you on removing it. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@CherryPie94: Why did you feel inclined to create a Wikipedia page for mydramalist? Why is it important to you to have mydramalist titles in sync with wikidata titles?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, I just noticed a link to Memory Alpha in our The Price (Star Trek: The Next Generation) article, and wasn't sure what to make of it. If it were formatted like this I would have removed it without a second thought, but it has just made me aware that links like this one can be produced for sites other than Wikipedia's sister projects. (Wikia sites aren't sister projects, are they?) So now I don't know what to think about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that was sneaky. My knee-jerk reaction is heck no! I'm ok with MA as EL, but not like that. Kill it with fire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to disallow them, although I can't think of a good example of where one is actually helpful. If we don't have an article or relevant content on the subject and we shouldn't (in that it's too niche, etc.) then under normal circumstances either we don't need the link or we need to see if the article is made more comprehensible with better phrasing that removes the mention in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't being sent off-WP by something that looks like a wikilink reason to disallow it? Granted, disaster is unlikely to occur as result. Anyway, a wikilink says "this is us". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In the ten years I've been active here I can't recall seeing even one unequivocally useful/positive/good/valid/correct inline external link. If a link goes outside the "WMF family" it belongs in the list at the bottom of the article. I'm yet to be shown any valid exception. In general Wikia pages are actually not allowed even in the exlinks list per the prohibition against "fansite" links (see WP:ELNO item #11). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I removed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Actor Databases

I see a trend to add more and more "standard" external links to actor and related articles for example:

Can these all really add to the article or is adding for the sake of it and going against wp is not a directory. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is getting out of hand. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne and JzG: I have for long had an aversion against the blanket addition of IMDb - yes, there are many cases where it adds information that cannot be included in the article, but not by blanket. Moreover, here FindaGrave is maybe separated from the others, but the other 5 (!) are all movie databases/review sites, and I cannot imagine that there is not a massive overlap between the 5, and that at some point one does not add anymore over any other ones. And I am sure that there are articles where the amount of added data is minimal even on the first of the 5. I would be a fan of rekindling a discussion regarding the use of multiple of these, an RfC perhaps? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An RFC seems reasonable to try a gauge the feeling for these "templated" external links, first glance they dont meet the requirements of an external link and some have been questioned as reliable sources in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. TCM in particular is problematic, favouring as it does one specific media company. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Peanuts wiki at Peanuts

Can I get some feedback on how good Peanuts Wiki, an external wiki is as a resource for Peanuts? Please {{ping}} if you have a direct question to me. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Just as unsuitable as the blog and the fanpage that I just removed. This plainly fails WP:ELNO. The article contains a lot of information, at that level external links quickly do not provide sufficiently more information that is needed for the understanding of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mywikibiz EL

At The Super Fight, IP 107.77.89.30 has added an External Link:

mywikibiz.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

  • mywikibiz.com/2356

I think this fails WP:EL as a purely personal and promotional (wiki) webpage. DonFB (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure why mywikibiz isn't on the blacklist given its history. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@DonFB: (edit conflict) Not sure, either spammy or vandalism, already reverted by User:Fram. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a globally banned editor (known locally as "BoxingWear" or "The George Reeves Guy" who has been harassing us and adding links to junk pages of his own creation for about 13 years now. I'm going to shut down his IP ranges again; they evidently just came unblocked last night. His links don't even come close to meeting WP:EL. Antandrus (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I had forgotten that idiot. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Now blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_20&oldid=1138374420"