Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. 1. It doesn't appear to meet the requirements of a reliable source, however sincere the writer may be. 2. Note the disclaimer on how short the turnover rate is for Scientology members, including that a majority leave 2 years after initiation. Also note that that particular entry has not been updated since 2008. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Open Source Heroes of Might and Magic Engine

Is it appropriate to link to open source implementations of Heroes of Might and Magic engines in the External links section of the article? My addition to Heroes of Might and Magic III was reverted without explanation.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It was probably reverted per WP:ELNO #10: "Links to ... discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)". I suspect that many editors revert links that appear to be chat rooms on sight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking internally to other wikipedia sites

What's the best way to do this. On several tennis charts here on English wikipedia when a player's name is listed of course it is also linked back to the particular player's main article. No problem. However many players, especially Spanish and French players, have no English wikipedia page to link back to. They do however have their own articles in the respective Spanish and French wikipedias. I've been linking those names to their foreign language articles. Some have even been linked through google translation first so we can read it here on this English encyclopedia. Is there a better way to lnik these names? I feel the links are important and certainly if someone ever creates a proper English wikipedia article for that person it would be switched to an internal link. An example would be at the article World Covered Court Championships where someone like Irene Bowder Peacock has a perfectly good french wiki article from which to use information. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Interlanguage links#Inline_interlanguage_links, red links are preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I just read it and that's not quite what it says. It says "if the subject is a good target for a future article here, then in most cases that topic should be red-linked." I'm not so sure these candidates are good targets for articles here. Sort of borderline. But it does have good suggestions that I might try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The standards for athletes aren't very high, so I think we could eventually end up with articles—but you should use your best judgment. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code there is a dispute about inclusion of links to open source code implementations of the algorithm. A minority faction argues that these links technically don't meet WP:EL requirements, the majority faction believes it is common for Wikipedia technical articles and articles on computer algorithms specifically to have a good selection of such links, which indicates there is general Wikipedia consensus in favor. --Kvng (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this edit re-adds the links which are in question (the next edit removed these). I see both sides and understand these reasons to remove the edit: the subsection headings (Implementations, Other Media) are dubious since they draw undue attention to the section, and invite violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; a general reader does not find helpful information on the topic at the links. On the other hand, a reader who is actually interested in the topic (as opposed to someone who only wants a quick feeling for what the jargon might mean) would need links like these as the next step after reading the article. In programming, only a certain amount of background reading is helpful before one needs to engage with a working program, and a link containing "further research that is accurate and on-topic" (quote from WP:EL) is necessarily going to be precisely like the links in question. I know that if I had time to develop an interest in Particle swarm optimization, as a reader I would want the links. It's likely that Google finds the links (and more) quite readily (so they should be removed), yet it can be very useful to include the most helpful links in the article. My only conclusive feeling is that this article does not warrant a dispute over links (i.e. any WP:EL violation is minor). Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We shouldn't link to specific examples in an article about a broader topic (ELNO point 13). I don't see how any of these specific implementations give a reader an encyclopedic understanding of the more general topic of the article. If any of these implementations have an article of their own the links should be in there, but we don't need them in Particle swarm optimization. A directory page containing a bunch of these together would be an acceptable alternative as an EL. ThemFromSpace 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Zea.asf

Zea.asf (talk · contribs)

Please have a look through this user's contributions. I picked up that he/she is adding the same external link (of questionable relevance) to "World Inter-faith Harmony Week" to a few Islam-related articles (. Unfortunately I cannot access his/her user or contribution pages (our filters at work think they are streaming video files because of the .asf in the user's name). I reverted one obvious case (the link was added to a radio station article of all things) but I'd welcome some further eyes on the other cases and possible reverts if necessary. Regards. Zunaid 09:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

truthtree.com

This website has been added as an external link to several articles (see these contributions). The website is a collection of reader contribution essays and discussion forums and I have removed it from articles on the basis of failing WP:ELNO#10. As the original contributor has reversed my edit and accused me of being on a 'mission' to remove these links (see diff1 and diff2), I would appreciate some independent opinions on when this link would be appropriate and when it would not. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely correct here, Fae--that's a self-published site, seems to be a combination of a forum and a blog host. The only place I can see that link being acceptable would be if we had an article on the website itself. Your notes on your talk page also help point out the real problem--that it appears that one of the site principals is the one doing the adding, meaning that xe continues to do so, it could be considered external link spamming and thus blockable. A simpler alternative might be for us to just add the EL to the blacklist, since it seems unlikely that it could ever be a valid EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't be using that one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add links to species page and bibliography pages of AVIS-IBIS Portal (http://avis.indianbiodiversity.org) to the articles on Birds on Wikipedia for species found in Indian Region.

AVIS-IBIS is an interactive web-based database and information system on Indian biodiversity. A fundamental prerequisite in the conservation of biological diversity is the availability of adequate and reliable information, which aids in developing conservation strategies. However, much of this data and literature is archived in books and not easily accessible. FES has built upon IBIS so as to enable more people to access and build such information. To start with, all available data on birds of India have been collated and digitised to develop the first phase of the IBIS Portal titled ‘Avian Information System (AVIS)’. In the coming year, IBIS will expand to build similar portals on mammals, reptiles, amphibians and flora involving interested individuals, organisations, researchers and scholars across India. Besides all archival information available at single place, the IBIS is an “open beta version” enabling it to obtain feedback from users, add features and build upon the existing database. The interactive portal uses open-source software and helps the users to contribute data to the portal that would be periodically reviewed by experts. IBIS follows the creative commons licensing policy enabling appropriate attribution to the data provider and collaborators.

Links:

1. Species Profile Pages
2. Species Bibliography Pages
3. Book Excerpts for Individual Species from different books ( These books are in public domain and digitized and hosted on AVIS-IBIS Portal which are linked to latest taxonomy revisions.)
Arpit Deomurari 06:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deomurari (talk • contribs) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you need to add two external links to each article when the biblography one duplicates one of the tabs on the first link. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Bibliography tab on species page is limited to latest 100 citations only....full bibliography is located in other page. This is for considering better user experience and download speed.
Arpit Deomurari (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • One link is probably okay. Wikipedia's guidelines for external links support a general principle of non-duplication, so multiple links to the same website are almost never okay. We assume that our readers are smart enough to click on your link to the full bibliography page if that's what they want to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok...So Should I start putting one link to the article.....
Arpit Deomurari (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd say these links are okay if the Wikipedia article is merely a stub and the AVIS-IBIS article has more informatino. But if our article has more information than the AVIS-IBIS page, then it's not really useful to include the website as a link. MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Arpit Deomurari (Deomurari (talk · contribs)), is an affiliate of that website and staff of the AVIS Team. He has spammed over 400 external links in about 250 different bird related articles since december 22. Clearly his contributions are in violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. In addition, Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links"--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This was additionally discussed at WT:BIRDS#Indian_Biodiversity_links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

StatSheet Network Websites

TaylorMitchell21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding many links from StatSheet Network websites to athlete articles. See this edit which added a link to bearball.com. Bearball.com is powered by statsheet.com, which states on its homepage that "The StatSheet Network is a collection of 345 fan-centric sports sites covering every Division I college basketball team in the country." Does this conflict with WP:EL and should these edits be reverted? Cunard (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I felt that these sites would be a good addition for Wikipedia ... just doing top college basketball players in the country and then I was going to be done ... The StatSheet pages offer many statistics that all these other external links do not and I find it very useful. If this is causing a problem I will stop ... I see now that these should be references and include information in the page content as well as links ... Just seems to me that a lot of these player profiles needed updating ... and many do not have the current up to date statistics ... I will find a different way to help wikipedia. Thanks!

TaylorMitchell21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorMitchell21 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #11 includes:

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, 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 always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.

I do not know whether the StatSheet Network links violates the guideline Wikipedia:External links, so have brought this issue to the external links noticeboard to get more opinions about this website. I ask that you stop adding the external links for now, but if the consensus here is that the StatSheet is acceptable, please continue adding those external links to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Statsheet is a very reliable source for college basketball stats back to 1996. At least as reliable as basketball-reference.com, which is used extensively for NBA articles. I don't see the value in changing the links to the team-specific pages that statsheet offers (I have been using their base product as an external link for awhile now), which this user has been doing, but I don't necessarily see a problem with that either. It's the same source, just displayed differently. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to see how adding external links that bring so much to an athletes page can be considered spamming. These player's bio pages on statsheet are loaded with stats and content I can't find anywhere else. The stats on these players current pages are weak and behind, or missing completely ... It is a clear improvement by adding these links. My focus will move past just external links, however, and more towards adding content and references to the articles. Still, I don't think its spamming and the only reason it was brought up is because I did many at one time. User:TaylorMitchell21 —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
I was wary of StatSheet because its website states that it is a collection of "fan-centric sports sites". Since Rikster, who knows more about this website than I states that it is reliable, please continuing adding external links to the StatSheet websites. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Statsheet's use of the term "fan-centric" is meaningless. The articles there are computer-generated based on the statistics and game facts. It's a reliable source for statistics, but probably not for analysis or other information. They don't and aren't able to mention non-statistic factors, such as game delays/disruption, notable single plays, reasons for expulsions, etc. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
In other words, Statsheet (and associated sites) should be treated as a reasonably reliable but not infallible database. cmadler (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Image collection

An anon added http://softword.tumblr.com/tagged/Breast_cancer to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The link takes the reader to a collection of very nice images related to NBCAM. I'm worried about the copyright status, and I've also done so much work on these articles during the last two months (Breast cancer awareness is now up for DYK!) that I'm not sure I should be the person removing it, since it might seem a little WP:OWNish at this point.

Besides, if it's actually okay, despite the boilerplate disclaimer, then a link to images that we don't want to put into the article is a "unique resource" and might be good for the article. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that page, which is nothing more than 7 images of which at least two are already in the article, would meet wp:ELNO#1. Linking to the commons category on breast cancer awareness gives you a lot more images, as would linking directly to google search (which is not allowed). Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob Couteau

I have posted this at both the COI and BLP message board but there are also EL conceerns so as I am a bit short of time I posting it here too. Today I came upon this user Robcouteau (talk · contribs) who is adding external links to his reviews of various authors and books. As I checked the edit history [1] for the article for Mr Couteau it seems to have been created by user Figlipped (talk · contribs) whose only wikipedia edits are to create the RC article. I know that Fig started editing after RC but it looks like the RC article was created solely to have a page to connect his name to the external links that were being added to wikipedia's pages. If you all deem that ththe links being added are okay then that is fine with me but I thought that it needed more eyes than mine to determine their suitability. Thanks for your time in this manner. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also Jackbruce2010 (talk · contribs). Looks like spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List of radio stations in the Philippines

The List of radio stations in the Philippines#Internet Stations section of this article seems to be out of control to me. It looks like a magnet for people to add links to their own radio station, regardless of how notable it is. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue in this article comes down more to whether the radio stations belong on the list rather than whether their external links do. I removed one non-existent station from the list.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:LSC. Lists may include entries for non-notable entities, so long as the fact that they belong in the list can be verified (e.g., the radio station does exist, and is available in the Philippines).
Whether to permit non-notable entries is entirely up to the editors at the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

wisegeek.com

Just a quick sanity check: Is wisegeek.com an appropriate external link? I just noticed that the site is linked a couple of hundred times, and to me it looks like obvious spam. Am I missing something here, or should I start removing the links? --Conti|✉ 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed a link to wisegeek today because the page had simplstic, facile content surrounded by ads (as much advertisement as content). It looks exactly like spam to me. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked and saw the same page, full of ads. Looks like they've changed it now. Will they be changing it back? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever else, it fails wp:ELNO#1 Yoenit (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At Tor (anonymity network), there has been contention for quite some while over including the link to something called the HiddenWiki in the external links section. This is the link: http://kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (Tor is required).

This is a bad link and my inclination is to ask that it be blacklisted and let's be done with it. Problems with the HiddenWiki link are:

  1. Not accessible to the typical user. It appears as a deadlink unless you have some special software (Tor) installed, which most users (including me) aren't willing to do. Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #7, "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser".
  2. It is a wiki, at least according to its name (I can't be sure, since I can't access it, but we have to assume that the name accurately reflects its structure). We are not supposed to link to wikis since they have little or no editorial control and can completely change anytime and can contain anything, including material we are not supposed to link to: copyright vio, malware, incorrect info, etc.
  3. According to more than one editor, it contains fairly sketchy material, including: child pornography; advice to child predators on the best methods for kidnapping a child and disposing of the body when finished; instructions on making infernal devices of mass destruction; and so forth. (I can't verify if this is true because I can't access it, but it has been claimed, and no one has refuted or even denied this.) For various reason, this is not the kind of material we should be linking to.

In addition to the above, the link is a consistent long-term plaything for trolls. For instance right now I am in a back-and-forth with User:72.85.200.205, whose contributions to the Wikipedia consists of six edits - all of which are re-inserting this link after I deleted it. Other WP:SPA anon accounts have done the same. Obviously these people are here to embarrass the Wikipedia rather than building it, and why should we give them a free toy with which to do this. (This is not to say that all of the people inserting this link or advocating its presence are trolls - some are free-information absolutists or whatever, but again we're supposed to be making an encyclopedia not pushing an extremist POV about the absolute accessibility of all information, and anyway WP:FLEAS.)

Really, any one of the three reasons listed (four, if you include the trolling) are enough to get rid of the link; all piled to together its a slam dunk to get rid of this link for good and all, in my view.

If there was some claim that the link contained material that was centrally important to understanding the content of the article - rather than just being "interesting" or "useful" or "popular" - and that couldn't for some reason just be placed in the article, then there would at least be a case for including the link (not nearly enough to overcome the objections listed above, but at least a case). But no one has advanced this argument, and there's no reason to believe that it's true.

There is discussion here: Talk:Tor (anonymity network)#I am removing the links to the hidden wiki for now, and various other places - here, I guess, and other places, and going back into the archives and going futher back into the archives, and... well, this has been going on for some time now, and the only argument for keeping the link is some variation of "we like it". I understand that some of the people who are inclined to work on the Tor (anonymity network) article would also be inclined to want this link, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything, really. Time to bye-bye this bad link.

If anyone has any thoughts about the blacklisting of this link, here's your chance to speak up.Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist it, your arguments seem more than sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Herostratus, it looks like the directions for requesting blacklisting are at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Let us know if you need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
in regards to point number 1, what differentiates this from any other link in that section, all of which require Tor to use? the main point that i see for it is that it is an amazing resource once tor is configured for various things such as setting up tor for irc and ssh among many other things. all the other discussions never came back to "we like it," but rather that it is entirely relevant to the article itself, in its content and that it is a link using the protocol that the article is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.200.205 (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This basically sums the reason why others wanted to keep it. I suggested a middle-ground solution on the talk page about keeping the other links that are less disputed (but less useful), so users can still reach information about tor and tor hidden services while still not listing the disputed link. This was not commented on by Herostratus or anyone else. Anyway, here is some additional comments on whats is being claimed (in same order as above).
  1. Wikipedia:External links#Rich Media allows for links that requires additional software, so this isn't something new and without precedence. One should "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software" but, Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given".
  2. Wiki's (not specific pages inside a wiki), has specific requirements, and is a very common external link if one look at any article about a game released in the last 5 years. One could argue over if this wiki fall into the line of "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", but given the relative size of the tor hidden service community I think it pass that.
  3. "According to more than one editor, it contains fairly sketchy material, including: child pornography; advice to child predators on the best methods for kidnapping a child and disposing of the body when finished; instructions on making infernal devices of mass destruction; and so forth". Was has been claimed is that the wiki links to information like that, which leaves Wikipedia as the 3th in the line to the content. This is actually the strongest argument for removal of the link (in my opinion), which is why I suggested the middle-ground solution in the first place.

So I would like to see a more clear and complete view on all the links on the external link list in the article. Not just one 1day quick decision during the holiday season, not giving any time for people to comment Belorn (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to your points:
  1. TOR =/= rich media files. The relevant guideline point is wp:ELNO#EL7, which says "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.". By the way, rich media files are also strongly discouraged per wp:ELNO#EL8.
  2. wp:ELNO#12 strongly discourages wikis, unless they have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". It is irrelevant that you claim wikis are common external links on other pages per wp:OTHERSTUFF, although I strongly doubt that anyway.
  3. This is the most important point by far. I have visited the page and can you tell it serves as an index for websites with material that is illegal in practically every country in the world and gives you advice how to get away with it. Yes the page itself does not host the material, but neither do torrent sites and they are obviously considered illegal, so wp:ELNEVER comes into play.
I originally removed all external links because they violate point 3 and 4 of wp:ELPOINTS: external links should be kept to a minimum and should not link to pages on the same website. I have done so selectively again, providing a link to the relevant guideline for the removal of each link in the edit summary. If you disagree with some of them, feel free to revert with a good rationale, but please don't massrevert. Yoenit (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with the edits made (keeping the introductory point link), I would still like to comment through. Tor does not require a specific browser, but rather additional technology to access the content. This is indistinguishable from how rich media files works, in that those too dont require specific browsers but rather additional software. I didnt not intend to make a claim that Tor was included in the Media richness theory, but rather that the policy Wikipedia:External links#Rich Media closer cover the situation than the wp:ELNO#EL7. In regards to wikis, wp:OTHERSTUFF should be followed but so should WP:COMMON. By trying repeatedly, I can not find a article about a technology product produced in the last 5 years that do not have a external link to a wiki or forum. This does not invalidate wp:ELNO#EL10, wp:ELNO#EL12 or makes an argument prohibited by wp:OTHERSTUFF, but simply means that WP:COMMON need to be strongly considered. Last, as for my knowledge goes, I know of no policy which handles links to sites which themselves only links to material covered by wp:ELNEVER. I can find plenty of discussions on torrent sites, and going through the category of BitTorrent websites, I only found 3 that did not have a link to its website. To sum up, I strongly believe that tor links are not inherently prohibited by the WP policies, and that the only question here is if this particular site is suited to be listed on the tor article. Belorn (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
ELNO #7 includes any type of link that requires any type of software (not just "browsers") that most users do not have installed/cannot be expected to install. We want links to work when our readers click on them. If the average user, while using a typical computer setup, can't access the content at the link, then ELNO #7 says you shouldn't have provided the link.
The two examples in that rule are meant to be examples, not a statement that there are exactly two, strictly delimited kinds of "inaccessible" that the guideline cares about.
If people are going to wikilawyer over this, we can change the "such as..." language to say "including, but definitely not limited to..." I hope, however, that such measures won't actually be necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You are perfectly right that browsers are only an example, and Im sorry if my post can be seen as promoting wikilawyering. I only mentioned that tor dont require a specific browser because the above comment put such an empathize on the browser example as if the example itself was the important part of ELNO #7. It is as you say, if a substantial number of users cant access the information, then the link should be avoided. This point is also driven forward by the Rich media policy, in that links to Rich media means that a substantial number of users cant access the information, and that those should be avoided. This translates for me that tor links can and should be used in the same way we treat links to Rich media files, in that we include them sparsely, and only until a suitable replacement can be found. Belorn (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Hidden Wiki can be viewed with no additional software at all with tor2web, but that's routing it through a non-trusted third party. This shouldn't matter though, as the link is a wiki and a link directory (full of links that won't work for most people without modifying the URL to use tor2web), it's full of child porn links, and I don't see how it's appropriate to link to a popular web site in the article. We don't say tell people to go and visit reddit in the World Wide Web article just because it's a popular site. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All the objections are rather weak tea, in my opinion. I haven't seen any good refutation of my contention that this link is poison, and consequently have requested that it be blacklisted. The request is here. Herostratus (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See the latest conversation about this at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Centrifugal_force_.28rotating_reference_frame.29.

This has been going on for a long time! To summarise: Some people wanted a link to an xkcd comic in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame), but were unable to provide an argument that established consensus for its inclusion. The link was removed, but added back in over time and protected by the article's main editors. When the link is removed following such edits the same editors put it back and claim that it should stay because of consensus (which was clearly not established), before punishing the opposing editors by issuing spiteful template warnings. Allowing this sort of behaviour means that the destiny of the article is fixed until that pattern is broken.

The argument has now shifted to them saying that I'm flogging a dead horse, which I could accept if the link was ever a stable element of the article and that its inclusion wasn't based on one-sided editing (i.e. these editors had no complaints about WP:DEADHORSE when the link was added back in after a six month period). This sort of behaviour also makes a mockery of the process and debate on the article's talk page.

It seems to me that link should be removed and a HTML comment notice added telling people not to add it back in. WP:DEADHORSE is all well and good, but surely common sense applies here and it's obvious that it's a simple per-policy removal, and that you've pretty much waived your rights to the dead horse argument when you only apply such arguments in one direction. I've no doubt that there's a WP: link about one-sided interpretations of policies and long-term edit warring that I could tediously counter-quote, but after mentioning "common sense" I'd be doing everybody a disservice.

I can't handle this situation, which is why I'm bringing it up here. My attempts to approach it have just made me edit war and given the pro-link side an excuse to air their shtick again over at Editor Assistance/Requests. Thanks. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I removed the link per WP:ELBURDEN. I think WP:SNOW applies here as well. The amount of effort going into this dispute is absurd. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of bringing it up on the noticeboard was to get some better discussion, I think, not to invite more otherwise uninvolved editors to join the edit war. You're wrong about WP:SNOW, since many serious editors of the article believe the link is perfectly acceptable and justified. Let's talk about why you think not. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC. You might want to start with WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to start with WP:CONSENSUS.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's absurd. Let's put this perfectly in context: Wenttomowameadow and another editor from Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) came to WP:EAR to continue an enormous argument in yet a different location. As far as we can see, there has been no official RfC, and, after examining the talk pages of all concerned and the article talk page, the arguments are six-to-one-and-half-a-dozen-to-the-other, with gaps of months, not very cordial on either side, and no one prepared to drop the stick. This argument appears to have been played out all over Wikipedia, and it's hardly surprising if finally, some of the help desks decline to participate. He has been told that forum shopping is not the solution. If Wenttomowameadow thinks he has a clear cut case of being bullied by a cabal, then WP:ANI is the place to go, but he knows that. --Kudpung (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you like a big wooden spoon to help stir up this situation with, or are you doing just fine with your hand? I don't know what has possessed you to provide an accusatory commentary here, but I do know that it's probably not a good idea now that wrongs have been righted and the situation can finally be laid to rest. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone interested in this might want to check the archives, e.g., Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Elinks_dispute_at_Talk:Centrifugal_force and Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 3#xkcd_link_on_Centrifugal_force_.28rotating_reference_frame.29, plus the article's archives. It might be appropriate for someone to create an infobox at the top of the article's talk page that links to every single discussion.
On balance, I personally lean ever so slightly towards dumping the link per WP:ELNO #1, but I also think that it's not nearly important enough to waste this much energy on.
I do not believe that this dispute can be solved by this noticeboard. I believe that permanent resolution will require a ruling "from on high", plus a promise to block anyone and everyone who fusses about whatever the ruling is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If this really was WP:SNOW it would have already snowed. In fact the snow goes the other way; there was actually a poll on this on the relevant page, and the consensus was against deleting it. You can point to minor guidelines all you want, we'll just point to the major policies. You also might want to consider the Streisand effect. Making a fuss about this might actually encourage xkcd links. Right now I see no signs of that happening, but xkcd is popular, and I don't think WP:ELBURDEN carries that much weight, that guideline would probably get swept away if you carry on like this, since it violates major policies. I think the more you draw attention to this discrepancy, the more chance there is of this being picked up. What I'm saying is, you might like to leave this link alone now.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. The poll you refer to resulted in 7 users in support of keeping the link and 8 in support of removing it. How you can come to the conclusion that this means its result was a consensus against the removal is anyone's guess.
  2. Wikipedia:Consensus states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Similarly, users at one talk page can't just override a guideline because they feel like it.
  3. Seriously, Streisand Effect? Threats to the effect of "You better leave this alone, or else.."? What the fuck? It's just a damn xkcd comic strip. --Conti|✉ 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion is that people will start flooding xkcd links... as an act of revenge? I wouldn't worry about it, inappropriate xkcd links are removed all the time, and hissy fits won't help validate them. Actively encouraging people to add xkcd to every article that the comic mentions is only going to result in the links being pruned dutifully. What are the "major" policies you talk of? Are they ranked now? Is it WP:CONSENSUS, of which there is none? It's very important to quote the policies you're relying on, because the biggest hole in the pro-link argument is complete lack of policy-based rationale. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, coming from the standpoint of a reader entirely uneducated on this topic, I find the link to the strip to be completely ridiculous. I do not understand it, there is no information on the link page to explain it, and I would assume that it was linked to either as spam or as a prank of some sort. If I weren't so knowledgeable about how much people fight over the stupid link, I'd probably even try to remove it to keep the article formal in tone. I have no vested interest in this, but I don't think it should be included. --132 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on the content: as I told Yoenit on the article talk page when he asked for an explanation to help him understand: "In your removal edit summary, you said the cartoon contains much less information than the article; that's true, yet it serves as a valuable palpable illustration of an ongoing confusion and discussion about how a "fictitious" force can seem so real to a person in a rotating reference frame. It refers to the controversy and to the confusion itself, and provides a realistic way to help people think about it. It is so on-point that to not link it seems to me to be a sign of some kind of wiki-arrogance on the part of people who would rather stick to narrow rules than appreciate its value. I'm usually more of a deletionist; don't think I'm usually easy on ELs." Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice Bond's adversary mentioning anything about the bone crushing centrifugal force being fictitious. At any rate, the comic strip is very good, and it actually contains much more information than the article itself. But that is no excuse for actually putting it into the article. I would not expect to find a comic strip in an Encyclopaedia Britannica article as a means of making a point which has not actually been made in the article itself. For those who are so keen to have this comic strip in the article, why not take the arguments for the two opposing points of view, which have been highlighted in the comic strip, and write them directly into the article in a professional encyclopaedic fashion? David Tombe (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mobile phone editions of websites

A user questioned whether one should add separate ELs for mobile phone editions of websites along with the "regular" versions of those websites (such as http://www.foxnews.mobi and http://www.foxnews.com , or http://m.cnn.com and http://cnn.com .

The reason why I decided to link to mobile phone websites from external links sections was:

  • While users of mobile phones, iPhones, etc. usually get redirected to the mobile phone website, this doesn't always happen. A user on a U.S. iPhone who goes to airfrance.com goes to the regular site. But http://airfrance.fr will redirect the iPhone user to the iPhone site. But a user who simply types http://airfrance.com without thinking to type in airfrance.fr will probably believe that Air France doesn't have a mobile site. It is useful to tell people "this is the mobile phone URL" in case they do not automatically get redirected.
  • For users of regular computers, mobile phone websites are almost always inaccessible from the main site. You would have to figure out the URL oneself and/or have a mobile phone on hand in order to find the mobile phone sites.
  • Users of Dialup internet connections (56K, 28K) would greatly benefit from being linked to these sites. Most mobile phone sites can be accessed from a regular PC and do not try to redirect you to the "main" site. Mobile phone editions of sites take much shorter time to load, tend to not use programs like Flash, and are overall more accessible to users of older computers. The English Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, and in many countries people have limited access to high speed internet. The posting of mobile phone sites allows these users to easily access content related to the subjects they are studying.
  • As an added bonus, having the mobile phone site URL on Wikipedia or on the talk pages means that web.archive.org will pick up the pages from the site and archive them, so Wikipedians can still use those versions as sources several years down the line.

If anyone wants to disagree with my points and/or add further insight, please do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic but I'm still struggling to see how this isn't a clear "violation" of WP:NOTDIR. On the one hand, I'm not entirely certain it's our job to look out for mobile users and direct them to the right website. On the other hand, I could see cutting out an exception for this or deciding that it's the same as the official website which we allow. But I'd like to hear what others think. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If it helps readers and conforms to the growing mobile information age, I don't see a problem having mobile links within the external links. I don't think there should be a task force to add mobile links but it should be allowed. To remove clutter, a suggested format: FoxNews.com Mobile official site --NortyNort (Holla) 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I like that format :) - I'm fine with that
BTW the English Wikipedia has a mobile edition at http://en.m.wikipedia.org - Other language Wikipedias have their versions too. There are efforts to make mobile editions of other Wikimedia projects.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding that format: You might have a tussle with the folks who like Template:official; I've seen it being added to more articles over time. Or you might be able to get them to add a mobile= parameter which might be kind of cool for those who like the template. (I'm not a fan of the template; seems to unnecessarily complicate an already daunting markup language, likely dissuading new editors.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Lemme post something on the talk page and see if they like the idea of adding a mobile parameter. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That's even better and it can be included within infoboxes too.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is Template_talk:Official_website#Parameter_for_linking_mobile_phone_editions_of_websites WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I noticed that when a friend with a blackberry who went to "southwest.com," he wasn't redirected to mobile.southwest.com - instead he got the main site, and found it really difficult to navigate. Based on that, it's even more important now to link to the mobile sites. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Mobile_phone_websites WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

fanpop.com

This is a user-generated site, spammed as external links and unreliable references all over Wikipedia. I've removed several fanpop external links and replaced references, but I don't have the energy to do anymore today. The site is a bit of a problem, and given that it's actively spammed and will never be a reliable source or appropriate external link I am proposing that it is to be blacklisted. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To make that proposal, please follow the directions at WP:Spam blacklist. Alternatively, if most of the problems are caused by new editors and anonymous IPs, then leaving a short note at User talk:XLinkBot is quicker, simpler, and often very effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds like a good plan. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave and Imbd

What is needed is clarification of whether these websites are appropriate to use. There is a discussion again at the talk page of Mae West. If you would please look at the difs under arbitrary break, you will see that this discussion has happened many times and for years. I thought maybe coming here to get responses about it would help finally find closure to the issue. The problems I have with these sites is the information added to those sites are without any vetting process and has editors that volunteer like we have at this site, to give the information. With that kind of process there is no way of knowing if the information is correct or not. At least at this site we have to provide reliable sources, something these two sites do not require, at least that is my understanding. Personally I think they should be blacklisted for use in articles, including EL, but I will wait for discussions here with the hopes that a consensus can finally be reached about all of this. It's been my understanding for a long time that both of these sites were not acceptable for use. Now it is said that they cannot be used as sources in an article but that they can be used in the external link sections even though I think it fails to meet ELNO #1 and probably other policies. I hope I'm at the right board about this. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Find a Grave is the worst spammed site here on wiki...not only are they unreliable they also generaly have less info the our articles...plus many of there articles are just mirrors of Wikipidia. Dont know how people think its a good site. It seem to break so many of our polocies that its unbelievable its still here.Moxy (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
We have a firm consensus that Find A Grave and IMDB are not reliable sources and that Find-A-Grave also do not meet our requirements for external links. We've had this strong consensus every single last time these questions have come up on any policy related discussion. The only time people question this are on individual article talk pages by people unfamiliar with our policies or when the Find-A-Grave spammers get involved. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I happen to agree that both sites are bad. Maybe this needs to go to get them blacklisted so they stop being used? DreamGuy, could you give me the dif for the consenses? I'd really appreciate it. I've never asked for anything to be banned for use at this site but I really believe these two need it to be done. I am willing to figure out how to do it if no one else is going to. I have a question, hopefully it's not a stupid question, but what is a spider? I was just looking at the Find a Grave site, I believe I was at the bulletin board when I saw the list of who was on site at the time. It named some of the members, said some guests were there but then also said some spiders were also at the site. What is this and is it dangerous to users? For disclosure, I linked this thread to the Mae West talk page where the discussion was occurring. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a spider. I would also like to see these diffs as I have yet to see a good clear consensus but would like to. Usually, they have ended with no consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of spamming it to articles. Please take note of my edit there to remove about a dozen uses of Find a Grave. To Berean Hunter, thank you for letting me know what a spider is. I guess it's not dangerous but why would they be at this site? Just a generic answer will do because obviously you won't know for sure. I found this article on DreamGuy's talk page under a dif about consensus or not about Find a Grave. There are more difs at the link I provide at the talk page of Mae West but I am still interested is the difs that DreamGuy talks about since I am just starting to look into this issue. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree fully with Moxy above. As I stated on the article talk page, most all FindAGrave links do not meet our external link guidelines, particularly ELNO point 1 because they do not expand on the scope of coverage that our articles already have. I don't see this as being a borderline case either, except in circumstances where the photos are of a better quality than any presented in the article in question. I don't really think the community has ever come up with a broad consensus on the issue (other than the consensus represented in the external links guidelines), but I do agree that everytime I've seen the links discussed the broad opinion seems to discourage their use. on a side note, although not a reliable source, IMDB is generally considered a viable external link in articles about film people and films themselves ThemFromSpace 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The last major discussion that I know about which did not have a clear consensus. (@ Crohnie) - the spider bots are simply indexing the pages for search engines. They're not harmful to you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Berean Hunter. I checked out the link you supplied and other links and the common thing I am seeing is circular discussions. Also, a lot of the editors who are supporting this link is also a member of Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people, at least it looks like it to me from the talk page discussions. That brings me to another comment, at the top of the talk page is a supposed email from the owner of Find a Grave (who if memory services me was banned or blocked from this site). Now obviously I can't prove it's an email sent or not but assuming good faith I say it is. Reading the talk page it looks like they are trying to get find a grave in a certain amount of articles, at least again that is my read of things. I'm sorry but over 10,000 time this site is put into the project is wrong in so many ways. It's not a case of 'I don't like it' or any of the other claims made in the different difs I've read. I think it is wrong because it's a major breach in a bunch of policies and guidelines. When asking those who are for the site to stay in they claim the editor(s) for the most part just don't like it and retort with WP:IAR. Well this time I don't think IAR can cover it. 10K+, now think about that. That is spamming in a big way. Now if editors want this site, even though the site itself said it may not be accurate, read it's disclaimers, than I want policies that support using these sites and IAR will not be acceptable to me. I would appreciate any hints, ideas and so on at my talk page how I would go about getting these two sites, esp. the Find a Grave one blacklisted or even white listed. I'd appreciate help with this if you are interested but take it to my talk page as it doesn't belong here, at least not yet. I'm leaving my computer now so please be patient. Feel free to email me if necessary. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that this has come up so often should be a BIG hint to those that like the site that its not reliable nor an asset to Wikipedia and its readers. Using this sites as a references is simply laziness on the part of are editors or there ignorance of its reliability. So much time is wasted having to defend the removal of this links when in reality it should be the other way around. That is the links should have to prove there value and not spammed at will. Great example is at Leslie Nielsen were the FAG template was placed just after his death findagrave.com/Leslie Nielson page- as you can see it does not have more info nor info on what the site is intended for that is grave location. Moxy (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Find-a-Grave nor IMDb should not be used as references for any biographical content because some of the content is user submitted, but I don't believe either should be excluded as an external link. The fact that the Find-a-Grave issue supposedly keeps coming up really proves nothing except for the fact that seemingly the same people don't like the link and claimed it has been spammed throughout the project (which I believe was actually the result of the Find-a-Grave Wikiproject) and want it removed. There have been numerous discussions about the Find-a-Grave link but I've yet to see a clear consensus saying that it should be omitted. What I do see is the same folks saying there's a consensus but failing to provide at least one diff for it. While I agree that in some cases the link serves very little purpose (ie when a subject first dies and has yet to even be buried so no grave information is even available), I find the link more useful in cases where the subjects are lesser known (ie silent film stars, b-movie actors, etc.) and at least include a photo of the subject that we might not have. As for the point that Find-a-Grave doesn't conform to policy because the content isn't vetted, neither are other websites we link to that are still around. Case in point, TV.com, and IMDb of course. I have personally found numerous mistakes on both websites and the content there is supposedly vetted by staff members. If we're going to follow policy by the letter, I think we need to do away with all these websites along with links to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and fansites of all varieties as well. We shouldn't be picking and choosing what crap sites are linked here. Either we do away with all of them or take them on a case by case basis once and for all. Pinkadelica♣ 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that all of those websites should be grouped together and handled similarly. Their inclusion as an WP:EL in articles appears to me to be sloppy enforcement of the external link guidelines. The bar for inclusion of any external link is accuracy. "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article ...relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." If we aren't confident that the information found at the link is accurate it should be excluded. Eudemis (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, this is my first time questioning the use of these sources. Next, if you see errors in a site that is supposed to be vetted than don't use it for that article. As for Facebook, Twitter and Fansites those should not be used unless they are the official site of the person in the article. Than Facebook and Twitter I believe are allowed but to be honest I'll have to check that out. Fansites should be deleted immediately along with youtube.com. I have found that EL's haven't been cleaned up like they used to be. I don't know why but it is time to start cleaning them up. I have started recently when finding fansites and other links that either don't qualify for EL or they should be used or have been used in the article. We are all good a common sense here which is what is needed now. How would everyone like to procede from here? An RFC, blacklisting, white listing, what? I really do think this needs to finally be addressed and some kind of conclusion is needed. The editors here are for the most part agreeing that these two are not reliable sources. I think we probably need more editors to claim consensus but I have to say reading some of the difs provided at the Mae West talk page, I felt that the discussions there were also at consensus or close to it for keeping these out of the project. If it gets decided to delete them it will be a big project to do with over 10K mentions of just Find a Grave. I don't know how this got ignored so long, never mind a project being set up to put in a constant flow of this site. Please, lets do something, lets please do the right thing for the project. Thanks for listening to me again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing Crohnie, there's a pick and choose with these websites and I think it's high time we ALL get on the same page about them and remove all the crap or just let it all slide. This "case by case" basis is hardly ever enforced which is why I find these discussions a bit moot. Certain people bitch about Find-a-Grave every few months but personally, I find sites like Twitter, MySpace (which are hardly ever verified as being official) and Facebook more harmful than something like IMDb or Find-a-Grave. At least with the latter, you get some kind of decent information from them. I can't say the same for most social networking and fansites. I can guarantee that if we do say "hey, let's start removing everything but official sites!", all kinds of people will pop up and claim X's fansite and X's Twitter should be included for whatever reason, and the community will let it slide. That's why I don't see the big deal about Find-a-Grave. It's not any more harmful or any more of a violation of policy than IMDb, TV.com or any other user-drive site yet it is brought up every few months by selected editors. Until we start enforcing WP:EL by the letter on all links included in articles, I don't see the point in certain editors trying to enforce their opinion on articles when there's clearly no enforcement of the policy throughout the project. Get a clear community consensus such as date de-linking and then I'll be more than happy to enforce WP:EL to the letter. Pinkadelica♣ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Facebook, myspace, twitter, and find-a-grave are all not acceptible as external links, unless they represent "official links" in cases where we can't find any better links to replace them. That they are allowed on so many articles is just poor enforcement of our external links guidelines. I nearly always remove these links from articles as they nearly always fail our external links guidelines. I would say that they are equally not appropriate, barring exceptional circumstances (as I laid out for find-a-grave elsewhere in this conversation). ThemFromSpace 15:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the problem our editors see this links everywhere so they think its acceptable and/or the norm on every page. We have the guidelines that are very clear but there not being implemented by our editors. Other stuff exists is not a very good reason to use substandard links that all sides seem to agree are not all that reliable. We as a community should be trying to enforce our current policies and guidelines not setting them aside because the task seem overwhelming our because others are not aware of them. We are advertising for this sites basically - Would love to see some stats on the percentage of hits to find a grave and the other sites mentioned that are generated via Wikipedia links, bet its very high. Moxy (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the intent really to continue to submit these until the someone says get rid of them. Find a grave has been brought up repeatedly every couple months and every time a weeks ling discussion ensues, at the end of which there is either no concensus or the determination is to keep it. We need to stop beating a dead horse. I recommend this discussion be closed. --Kumioko (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't think the link is acceptable because I see it everywhere. I think it's acceptable in certain cases because I don't believe it fails WP:ELNO and I see no consensus to leave it out. All I see is the same few editors bringing up how they don't like because it is a user-driven site and was spammed throughout the site eons ago. That's really not enough reason for me to agree with its removal. The reason I cited other websites such as IMDb as examples to not include the link is because IMDb was brought also to the table. If you don't want a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument brought to the table, don't have people participate in a discussion entitled "Find a Grave and Imbd". I mean, honestly, what's the difference between one crappy user driven website or the other? Because you think it's morbid or tacky? If you're going to follow policy, follow policy - that's the point you're seemingly missing here. I think Kumioko makes a great point, this discussion is brought up every few months and consensus is never reached and I highly doubt that's going to happen now as it appears only a handful of people actually care about this matter and it's basically the same people who don't like the link. As far as wanting to see stats about the amount of hits the links get, I'm sure there's a tool for that somewhere. I don't see how that's actually valid point in this case but whatever floats your boat. Pinkadelica♣ 06:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Intent? ...its someone new every time that first brings it up. So your suggesting we never talk about it again and ignore new post on the matter? How are we ever going to get consensus either way if we dont talk. Better we follow policy like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and not an essay Wikipedia:Dead horse. This talk is civil and well presented by both sides. Moxy (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
To Pinkadelica, I think you know me and know I don't pick arguements just for the sake to argue. I really do find this to be a disturbing problem. If it didn't I wouldn't have brought it here to persue it further. I think if you look at elno 1 & 12 you will see what I mean. To Kumioko: Are you active at the wp:project find a grave? I think disclosure of this is important to this discussion. May I suggest that everyone remove the different links that violate elno? Ignoing policy violations shouldn't be an option like some are suggesting. So how does everyone feel about removing the problem sites? To Moxy: If you figure out where to take this problem please ping me on my talk page so I can add to where ever you bring it. It's time ladies and gentlemen to stop putting out heads in the sand and ingoring this. The problems will only go away with actions, thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No I'm not active in that project although I have done some work in the past to clean up some of them. Although it shouldn't matter anyway even if I was. I just don't share the belief that its such a bad link. I admit that it isn't great and that we shouldn't use it if there is a better one. As I have brought up the last 5 or 6 times this got submitted there just isn't, in many cases, a better place for the grave/Birth/Death information. So if you go eliminating all these links then you are also going to have to eliminate the birth/death and burial info because now it will either be unsourced or there will be no link on the article from which to get it. I suggest you go back and read some of the previously submitted discussions on the issue. You should be able to find them by searching the archives here and at the village pump. Also, I since most of these links are in External links they really aren't harming anything. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Just like last time, you are (intentionally or not) mixing up external links with inline citations. Dates for birth and death dates are usually pretty easy to obtain, and most articles don't contain any burial information (even when a find a grave link is included!). Not to mention that "It's doing no harm" is one of the weakest arguments you can use here on Wikipedia. The most amusing of my removals of a find a grave link has been Atilla, by the way, where neither the exact birth date, death date, nor burial information is known. --Conti|✉ 14:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not mixing them up. I understand clearly what they both are and both using at as a reference as an inline citation and/or using it as an external link are both affected. I am not going to keep arguing about whether or not to keep this because a few users are forum shopping for the result they want. Now the bottom line is that this has been brought up time and time again and the Community has decided every time to keep it either because there was no consensus to eliminate it or because consensus was met that it should be kept. So to continue to bring it up again and again and again is just pushing POV and wasting editors time. With that said, as I said in the last 5 times or so (in the last year) this came up if consensus is that this link isn't wanted then I will go through and delete them all myself so we are rid of this once and for all. Then I will go back through and remove the information it referenced because for about 2000 articles (of about 12000 with the an FAG link) I spent hours going through in the past to either clean up or in prior discussion, this is the only place where the information is available. there is no website, book, magazine, newspaper obit, nothing. So unless someone can come up with a better site or method for getting this information, we loosen the restrictions on original research, the links need to stay. --Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Then let's remove the link from the 10.000 articles where it's not needed, and keep it on the 2000 articles where it can be properly used as an inline citation. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Kumioko, I agree that it looks like you are mixing up references with external links. External links do not reference any material in the article. If a find-a-grave link is being used as a reference it should not be in the external links section, it should be in the references section. This discussion is specifically focused on find-a-grave links in external links sections; ones that are not used as references. If you feel these are appropriate as external links, can you explain how they meet WP:ELNO point 1, especially in response to objections above that it doesn't? ThemFromSpace 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Conti, Even if the link isn't appropriate in many of the articles it is currently in doesn't mean we should remove it en masse. There are times when I feel this link is valid (such as on articles to graveyards, extremely short articles, or articles without photos (where we could link to find-a-grave's photo section). Removing the link without examining its usefulness isn't the way to do it. I think the best consensus we can get is that they should be discouraged and that their prevalence is no reason to retain them if they can be shown on an individual basis to not meet our guidelines. ThemFromSpace 15:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I do look at every link when I remove them, it's just that I have not found a single instance of the link being appropriately used as an external link yet. Extremely short articles where their biography is larger than ours might be a reason to temporarily keep the link, but that's about it. Their photo gallery is actually yet another reason why we should remove the links, because the site doesn't seem to care one damn about copyright. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Conti, If you are looking for some good examples were the link cannot be easily duplicated take a look at some of the early Medal of Honor recipients. Themfromspace, I could argue it but I have done that time and time again and every couple months someone just resubmits it again. I am at the point were I am getting tired of fighting for it. If knowone is going to say enough is enough and allow it to keep getting resubmitted every month then whats the point of consensus and its just wasting my time when I could be doing other things. Like deleting all the content that this link either references or validates as an external link. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

{{od} Since theh discussion thus far has been predominantly about the Find a grave site I think we need to separate the 2 out from the orginal submission and deal with one first and then move to the second. Future discussions may become confusing if we start referring to the sites interchangeably. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose deleting them as EL, since I find the convenience of linking out worthwhile. As for reliability, I only wonder if an IMDB cite for the existence of a film will be made a fail if the site is banned. Sometimes there's little more than that available. I suspect the same may be true of Findagrave. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to the Village pump

Rather than wait a week I submitted this to the village pump (policy) so folks don't have to read a weeks worth of discussions and catch up. --Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Final word from me...I agree its the same people that comemnt on both sides all the time. But i see even the "lets keep" side saying it not reliable. The argument that is made to keep the links is it might -perhaps -may - could have - a picture and or for grave info. While the removal side points (links) to policy after policy of what is wrong with these sites and y they should not be linked. Wiki is not a democracy and its not about votes but the best thing we can do for our readers and to follow policies set-forth by the community. That said I dont think 100 percent consensus will ever happen, but the side with the most valid argument should be the side we implement. If 80 percent of people posting to this talk say its should go y are we not doing it? Links of this nature make Wikipedia look unreliable as all know that no academic institution would ever use this links as references or suggest them for further knowledge on topics. We need to set standers and clearly Find a Grave and Imbd would be at top of the list of links that should go.Moxy (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to CrohnieGal's posting a section above. Yes, the e-mail is indeed from the owner of Find-a-grave. He actually was asked by Wikipedia editors to give the database information to Wikipedia, he was reluctant at first. You can read about it in the WikiEN-l archives. I think your memory does indeed fails you. I don't think the owner was ever banned or blocked or even edited on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the discussion be listed at WP:CENT? That would probably bring in some different people to comment. LadyofShalott 15:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is wide-ranging or important enough to be put on WP:CENT, which I feel should be used for key policy changes, etc. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I think putting it up at the Village pump, which splits up the conversations going on here, was a bad idea. Anyways I commented there too, basically saying what I said here with one major thing added. The additions of EL's are very inconsistant. A newly set up page now shows this too here. Now apparently even Twitter and Facebook are allowed ocassionally. I think if we follow this page and ocassionally allow these different sites we will bring the value of the articles down. I think Moxy nails it on the head about all of this. I will continue to try to get our articles with information but the information will be of reliable sources even in the EL sections. Some EL sections have over a half a dozen links that say the same thing and they aren't reliable to use as sources in the article. I am aware that EL's do not need to be reliable sources but maybe they should be to better the articles. Think about it... --CrohnieGalTalk 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot

Anyone opposing the idea of adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot's list? If we want to restrict or discourage the usage of the site (as has been suggested above), this would be a good start. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thats appropriate at this time since the there is NO consensus on not using the site yet. Especially since its arguably not spam...A bad reference perhaps but not spam. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
We would have to see how these links get added. XLinkBot is only good for links such as Facebook that primarily get added by new or unregistered users. I have a suspicion that the majority of find-a-grave links are added by more experienced users not familiar with our external links guidelines who add them because theyve seen them on other articles. In such cases I don't think XLinkBot would do much good (although it certainly couldn't hurt). Perhaps we can get a new COIBot log going of how this link is being added. There is currently a COIBot record of this link, but it hasn't been updated lately.
Also, Kumioko, I think there is an emerging consensus above to discourage linking externally to this site, no matter how dedicated you are to spreading the link around. ThemFromSpace 15:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Any way that we can stop this site from being used as a link is fine with me. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
First I am not spreading the link around. All I did was clean it up if you bothered to look before blaming me for it. There is no emerging consensus. Its the same people resubmitting a proposal that's been rejected repeatedly by consensus but if knowone is willing to see that or do anything about that then thats too bad and maybe the term "consensus" is really useless since it will prove if we don't like something just keep resubmitting it until we get the vote we want. I am tired of seeing it constantly getting resubmitted. But since knowone cares here are a couple things that might help.
  1. There are 12500+ articles that link to {{Find a Grave}}
  2. There are 31,697 linked here.
To me this is more an issue of consensus shopping than of the link itself so here is what I will do in support of this if its passed. If the consensus is that this link should be deleted then I will willingly follow its direction and go and delete it myself. I should be able to do this in less than a week and we can all move on. I will start by eliminating the ones under external links first. Then I will go through and eliminate the ones used as references as well as the information it sources (since it will no longer be sourced). With that said, When they stat disappearing because of this New consensus watch how many people start popping up complaining about it and everyone will see what the consensus really is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you please stop saying it the same editors submitting this request about this? This is the first time I have brought this up so please lets stop saying this "Its the same people resubmitting a proposal that's been rejected repeatedly" (partical quote). Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have it wrong ..its not being resubmitted until we get the vote we want. its being mentioned every few months by new people and should be a big hint that most think its unreliable or not appropriate for wiki. Moxy (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine I am going to stop being the voice fighting for it. IF consensus determines that it isn't to be used then I will volunteer to implement that change. I do think its going to end up causing more problems though. --Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kumioko that Wikipedia's silent majority will become vocal after any consensus is met here. Confusing signals such as having a WP Project for F-A-G, having a template to simplify its addition, and the longstanding establishment (acceptance?) within articles, EL or Refs, is after all de facto. Twenty or Thirty editors here won't be able to form a consensus for the project.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the WikiProject has much to do here, since 1. Wikiprojects are subject to community-wide guidelines and consensus and 2. the project largely appears dead. Whatever we decide with regards to community guidelines should be followed by the WikiProject (which would involve rewriting the project page which encourage improperly linking to this site as an EL). Let's be thankful that the project isn't more active than it is. ThemFromSpace 17:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Having COIBot check for the site again sounds like a really good first step. --Conti|✉ 16:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than continue to debate and drag this out further and in the spirit of getting this moving to what ever conclusion is coming can I suggest 2 things: First I think we need to get a straw poll going and second I think we need to post a notice of this discussion on some of the related projects, such as WPMILHIST and WP biography. --Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Why WPMILHIST? Generally speaking, though, getting more (and uninvolved) opinions on this is always a good idea. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
We already have a discussion here and a mention at the village pump so its not like this is going on unnoticed. I think this is enough advertising for now, unless a serious change is being debated (such as to mass-remove the links). Having a discussion about whether one website meets the external link guidelines isn't all that big of a to-do in the scheme of things. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a comment to WPUS, WPBiography, WPMILHIST and the Findagrave project page even if for no better reason than to keep track of the discussions every other month. --Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think this is a good idea to add these two links to User:XLinkBot. With reading all of this, I find that sending this conversation off to so many diferent places is good and my read of things says the most editors agree that these links should not be continued to be added to articles like they have been. Just for the record I would like to again state that this is my first time bringing up this discussion. So please, in my hunble opinion I think that both Find a Grave and Imdb should be added to the bots work. Thanks to all for a good discussion. If someone feels an iVote is needed to see a clear consensus please don't hesitate. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on findagrave first. I don't think there's a consensus that IMDB links are inappropriate, and they are standard practice in film articles. I very rarely remove any IMDB links when cleaning up EL sections, they most often add some material which is beyond the scope of the article. ThemFromSpace 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel much the same way about the Find a grave site. --Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Imdb isn't a reliable source in an article so why should it be used in an external link section? That just doesn't make sense to me. Either it's a reliable source or it isn't. We know it isn't so it should not be in the EL's either. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Because EL's don't HAVE to be a 'reliable source'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that but the question still stands. Why would we allow an EL that is not considered a reliable source but allow it to be in our EL sections. What I am saying is this, imdb.com isn't a reliables source for our articles because it's like an open wiki and has a lot of errors it it. At leaset this is the reasons I keep seeing for it to be excluded. If that is [part] the case then why would we find it acceptable as an EL if there are errors in it or other problems with it? I've been looking real closely lately since editor Pinkadelia made the comments that we need to be consistant, and she's right. There are multiple articles with imdb.com that also have allmovie.com and so on. We need to get consistant about all of this. I don't care about previous discussions anymore since all consensuses can and do change. So, do like I've been doing, go to multiple artile esp. ones with long EL's and check them out. Then go through the articles references and see what has been added and what source is used. I really was surprised when I did this so maybe you will be too. It doesn't take long to do, that is unless your computer locks up which mine did a lot unfortuntately. I think if you take a close look at some of our articles you will be surprised and maybe even disappointed at the lack of quality. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:ELMAYBE permits editors to use their discretion because this sometimes helps the article. There are two major reasons:
  1. Logic: Reliability can only be determined in the context of a specific statement. As external links support no specific statements, it is impossible to determine whether they are reliable. No source is reliable for every single purpose, and nearly all sources are reliable for some purpose. For example: a garbage-y fansite put together by a kid is "not a reliable source"—except that it is a perfectly reliable (first-party, primary) source for the fact that the fansite exists. Contrasting example: A popular university maths textbook is an excellent "reliable source"—for information about mathematics. It's a completely unreliable source for information about movies, or current stock prices, or political scandals, or any number of other subjects.
    In the absence of a specific statement, you cannot actually figure out whether the webpage is "reliable". The "reliability" of 100% of external links is "unknown", by the very definition of an external link.
  2. Appropriateness: We don't want to unreasonably exclude websites that readers have a legitimate expectation of finding. WP:ELOFFICIAL is defined very strictly, so there are websites that are both "unreliable" (meaning the class of source you would normally avoid because they have no editorial oversight, e.g., a personal website) and "not official" that readers might reasonably expect to find. For example: An article about a dead person might reasonably link to the website of a private charitable foundation created by that person, or the business s/he was famous for starting, or perhaps a snapshot of the person's artwork on someone else's blog (if the image isn't available elsewhere). These aren't generally "reliable" sources, in the tradition of the third-party WP:Independent sources that we rely on, but they may be appropriate. Another example: The link might be "unreliable", and also on WP:ELYES. (IMDb falls into that category, by the way.)
Editors need to use their discretion, and that means both boldly adding links they believe improve the article, and bold removing links that they think are substandard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Of the 31,697 mentioned above (16:21, 25 December 2010), all those in articlespace should be removed other than the two official site links in Find a Grave. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I misinterpreted the search. There are roughly 100 links to the main page of findagrave.com in articlespace. They should all be removed, other than the two in Find a Grave. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify please? Are you saying that there are about 100 links to find a grave on articles that have been on the Main Page? If so does this include DYK's and the Wikinews links? --Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. There are roughly 100 links to the main page of findagrave, usually "...at Findagrave.com" (eg William J. Bulow) but some just to the main page as in James_M._Gates,_Jr.. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDB.com IS a reliable source

I've had four (actually seven or eight by now...) edit conflicts trying to get my two bits in here, and now can't find the right section, so since most of the above is about Find-A-Grave, I'm starting this section re IMDB only. I'm speaking in support of IMDB as a valid source. I'm in the film industry (I'm an actor) and actually have my own listing there; and I can attest that their data standards are very high, and that items such as cast listings and crew and locations and such are all thoroughly checked and verified. They're something of an icon in the industry, a "central site", not like other resume-oriented sites or film listings; it is regarded, and used, as an authority. IMDB is an "industry standard" and both highly regarded as a credible source and respected for its fact-checking procedures. It really doesn't belong in the same discussion as Find-A-Grave, and glad to see it's not in the vote, it belongs to stay. I really don't know where you get the idea, stated above in various places, that it's not a reliable source.....the industry it serves certainly thinks of it that way, Unlike Wikipedia, nothing goes public on that site until it has been fact-checked with production company, person in question, agents, union credits etc. I can attest to their process, having to have worked at getting a few episode-credits added to my own page there.Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In general, open wikis (e.g., Wikipedia itself) are not considered reliable sources. IMDb has an "edit page" button, and even though they require (free) registration and they've implemented a sort of WP:Pending changes process, that doesn't change the fact that it's still an open wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
" nothing goes public on that site until it has been fact-checked with production company, person in question, agents, union credits etc." This is not true, see for example [2]. Yoenit (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for helping make the point that it is not a reliable source. I'm sorry Skookum1 but we don't go by personal experiences or POV. This site, like the Find a Grave site should have no place in this project. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The fanblog anecdote was an interesting read, thank you for linking it. Alas, even The New York Times can be unreliable, see [3]! Different things of course. These previous discussion comments may allow interested people to see other factors brought up by community members. Kind regards, Whitehorse1 00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)~
Even books themself can be unreliable, but with IMDb, we have no information about where any user at all is getting their source from their topics. This is why we do not add information form it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to provide use IMDB as an external link in an article about someone or something related to the movie industry. With many books, even ones from major publishers, there is also no indication of where the author got his information. I have seen some books on the history if invention, an area I am interested in, which echo back things that were first printed in Wikipedia. I have seen many other statements in books we could consider "reliable sources" which are demonstrably wrong. Providing a link is not a vouching that every detail there is absolutely correct. It is as sensible as our practice of providing a link to Wikipedia articles on the subject in other languages. Edison (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem including an external link to an IMDb page in appropriate articles, but I would not ever use them as a reliable source. It's very appropriate as an external link, however. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree with Nihonjoe. IMDb is a good site, like Wikipedia, and the two are complementary. Neither should be sourced from the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have generally found IMDb has solid information on past events/shows while its information on the future is at times dodgy at best. I would never dream of using it as a source in an article, but it doesn't seem wholly inappropriate that it could show up as an external link. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Awright

Guys, I'm tired of this. We're getting this particular set of questions every couple of months. Please go to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and fill in the blanks until we have got something that more or less accurately describes the situation.

So I expect that you've all heard the following joke: The prisoners have gathered, and someone says "29!" The crowd snickers, and the new guy looks bemused. Another person says "48", and the group laughs out loud. This goes on for a while, and the new guy asks someone what's happening. "Oh, we've been here so long, and we're always telling the same jokes, so we just numbered them. Now you just have to say the number, rather than telling the whole thing."

IMO that's what we need to do: We need to get the standard arguments listed. Whenever this comes up, people say the same things over and over and over again. The goal is to write down what people usually say, so that when someone asks, they can get a simple, concise summary rather than getting stuck in another week-long, five-thousand-word discussion.

Please feel free to add other websites that come up frequently: There's plenty of room on the page for Facebook, MySpace, and whatever else is on your mind (and has been on this noticeboard). Whenever possible, please quote and link the exact line in WP:EL that supports a given argument (both "pro" and "anti").

(If you're not familiar with WP:PEREN, you might like to look over that first.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, although I'm not looking forward to the inevitable edit wars happening on that page. --Conti|✉ 01:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither am I, but we have several experienced editors in this conversation, so I'm hoping that at least one of us will remember how to work collaboratively without edit warring.  ;) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is going along fine, why not join in. It's time to try to actually resolve the problems rather than just ignore them isn't it? I know I would appreciate you joining and commenting above. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the next step?Moxy (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make sense

Hello all, I would like to throw a penny (maybe several so bear with me) into the well. Please WP:AGF as I am fairly new and have just run into this discussion/problem. I have no agenda so my opinions will be impartial but are also just my opinions. I have specific concerns being reliability of resourses, references, and links. I am somewhat perplexed and a little upset at what I have read.

I am perplexed because I realize some information on the sites might be important (grave location) and see this is listed under EL's only, but seems important concerning source and references, and read things like:

  • 1)- the joke about the numbering; Possibly true in this case and might mean there is progress if there is a numbered amount of issues.
  • 2)- an editor involved in the discussion (in support) that has edited the questioned site; I am glad the editor admitted this and as I assume good faith see there are good arguments as to involvement. Getting past this I read his comment, "...arguably not spam...A bad reference perhaps...", and all arguments aside this editor is against the site as a reference ("a bad reference perhaps"--did I read this right?), just seems unsure as to a solution considering the number of reported WP links or references that use the site. I am perplexed, considering the statement, why not seek work towards a solution, that seems paramount, instead of seeking closure.
  • 3)- editors preferring the concerns not be brought up again;
  • 4)- statements that a site does not have or has little regard for WP:Copy; This is serious and needs to be examined very closely.

I am upset because:

  • I edit WP for the knowledge gained, to produce good articles, and to be involved in something that is good for others. None of this is possible if I use a reference or source that is questionable, "might" have copyright infringements, or is in any way not reliable. This means that if the subject has to come up once a month until consensus and conclusion, for the betterment of WP and the protection of my using reliable sources, then guess what? I also think this reoccurring issue means it is important and should not just be "closed" because it "will" resurface right?
I looked over "WP:PEREN" and a word jumped out; WP:community issue, that led to; WP:Areas for Reform, and I do not see as issues concerning discussions but issues that "must" be entertained to find a solution.
  • A couple of entries; A great question, What is the next step?, is the best question so far. An almost great statement, ...we have several experienced editors in this conversation, so I'm hoping that at least one of us will remember how to work collaboratively without edit warring., would have been great but used the word "one" instead of "we" or "some of us".
"Find a grave" seems to garnered most of the discussion and one editor "rarely" has to remove Imbd links. I am not sure but it seems that "Find a grave" needs serious discussion. I have not (that I know of and will have to see) used this site. I don't know about Imbd, but have viewed the site as recently as today with Claus Schenk Graf von Graffenberg, and the information there (some I considered using) looked credible. I did see information I have not seen so can not confirm, "...von Stauffenberg saw a dead body being carried out of the building and thought it was Hitler...", See here, and doubt this statement, which is to me supposition thus original research, since the man and any witness with him for corroboration was executed. I could be wrong but can't use information on this page without further investigation. The problem is that many editors may new(er), not that familiar with the subject or over look questionable entries about the subject, or may assume the site as credible. However! questions I read about copyright infringement from "Find a Grave" is far more serious and warrants special discussion.
I am fairly new and not that experienced in many aspects of WP but it seems there would be a policy page, some sort of "Not a reliable source" essay page or some place where this could be discussed, or a list of questionable sites could be listed, to help editors ensure resources, links, or references are accurate. Accuracy needs to be paramount to us all.
  • I would think there would be a policy concerning using any site that can be edited as a primary source or where the information can not be verified by another source. Imdb requests information of errors to be submitted for review by database managers for possible future updates which would appear to more controlled but since I do not know these managers I can not tell.
  • Under "WP:Peren" I noticed that "Define reliable sources" was rejected but saw there was WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also it appears to me that:

WP:Identifying reliable sources does cover the issue with, "articles should be based on reliable, published sources", and this is further described as, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.". To me Find a Grave fails because of the publication process and the fact that it can be freely edited so the authors (editors) authoritativeness can not be ascertained. I have not decided on Imbd yet. User:XLinkBot was suggested and not shot down. I do not yet know what this is but if it helps then more discussion is needed right? I noticed that Kumioko submitted this to Village pump. What is this for or what will it resolve here?

  • Conclusion:I think that continued work could result in some policy or guidlines per WP:Policies and guidelines#Proposals and would be good for WP. I think a place can be found where work can be done without fear of "closing" the unresolved issues, I still think that "What is the next step?", short of closing, is a great question. I hope I have helped some and applaud those that endeavor to improve WP. Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you once again for a detailed and well thought out comment. You have several questions so I will try and address each:
  1. The village pump is like a noticeboard that a lot of folks in the community watch that deals with a variety of things including policy changes, technical changes or recurring issues like this one. Whenever I am engaged in a discussion that would lead to a policy change affecting thousands (in this case tens of thousands) of articles I try and post a notice there to garner input from a larger audience.
  2. You make a good argument for issues regarding reliable sources, and I have admitted all along that much of the information (including images) from the Find a grave site should not be used. we should only use it as an external link or IMO as a reference only for Birth/death/burial info, that's it.
  3. a link or site need not be reliable to be an external link
  4. The Find a gave site for good or bad, represents the only source of birth/death/burial info for thousands of articles (some that don't have the link yet even or articles that have yet to be created like hundreds of Medal of Honor recipients). If we stop using this as a source when no other source is known, then we have to remove the information from the article as well and then, in the case of at least a couple hundred articles at least, we would probably need to delete the article itself because there would be almost nothing left worth having an article for. I would be a stub about a person who did a thing, with no birth, death or burial info.
  5. With regard to Original research! if we stop using the find a grave site then the only way to get some of the Birth/death burial info is by Original research which we cannot use. So we are left with a hard choice. Do we accept a source that is known to be limited in trustworthyness or do we start deleting articles because a critical source of the info was deleted? Since the Find a grave site doesn't have an original research clause and the people are free to gather the information (again I'm only talking birth/death/burial info here) its not original research anymore than its original research getting it from a book written by an author who found the information.
  6. Know I cant speak for every article but I can tell you for a fact that in the case of many of the early Medal of Honor recipients we are going to have an extremely hard time duplicating the information in this reference. The data in a number of cases was derived from reviewing death records at the cemetery where the individual was buried or from the headstone. There is no book with the info, there is no New York times obituary, many of them died and were buried in a time when the Medal of Honor wasn't held in as high of regard as it is today so there simply is no documentation.
  7. In regards to the Imdb site again thats one that has information that is going to be hard to duplicate in many instances. If we get rid of it as a source or an External link we may as well delete the article its on as well.
  8. I also want to clarify that the reason I use reference and External link somewhat interchangeably here is because many many users, for right or wrong, use the external links as a holding pool for references to be used in the future or they put references there because its an "external link" linking to a site external to WP.
  9. Although I do not support eliminating these from being used I do think we need to add some wording to the policy to clarify how and for what these 2 links can be used. For example, "the Find a Grave site should only be placed in the external links section or as may be used as a reference for Birth/death and burial info only and only when a better source is not available."...or something to that effect.
I hope this helps to clear things up a little. --Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Very well said Otr500 .... So what do we do next with this site that all believe is not as a whole reliable. Were is the place for us to turn for a conclusion to this and action on the conclusions. Moxy (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well since the conversation has already gone on this long here I say we keep it going here. Either that or the Village pump (policy) page. Any suggestions for what to suggest. Are we recommending to kill the link or refine the policy to clarify when and how it should be used? --Kumioko (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Otr500, I think you're missing a lot of context:

I'm tired of this discussion because it keeps happening, not because there's anything wrong with this particular iteration of the discussion. The Wikipedia community discusses Find A Grave several times a year, including occasional rounds of knock-down, drag-out fights. ChronieGal doubtless had no idea that this website was discussed here, here, here, here, and here, just to name the conversations from 2010 that I'm aware of; if she'd known this was a perennial question, she wouldn't have asked it. She would have read the archives and saved herself a lot of time.

The reason these question keep appearing is (I believe) simply because nobody writes down the results on (as you put it) "some sort of "Not a reliable source" essay page or some place where this could be discussed, or a list of questionable sites could be listed".

Instead of letting this lengthy conversation end up in the archives, let's go write down the results at WP:External links/Perennial websites. You are invited to help finish writing it. Does it say what you think needs to be said? Does it include a brief summary of all the major points? If not, then add them!

In the future, when someone comes around here to ask what's up with the website, we'll just tell them "You could save yourself a lot of time by reading WP:ELPEREN," rather than wasting another week on a long discussion that nobody (except me) will remember a month later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone created an essay with several of the commonly mentioned sites including find a grave here in the last couple days and added it at the top of this noticeboard regarding the use of Find a grave, Facebook, Myspace and a few others. This Essay calls out specificially that find a grave should almost never be used. I think we really need to get concensus on this matter before we start drafting essays and policy that says we shouldn't use it. All we are doing is adding, without concensus, more policy against the use of the site for those that don't like it. It seems very much like a casual way of circumventing concensus by inventing new rules that ensures that it doesn't meet policy. Now we have gone round and round here and obviously we have some differing views. So, here is what I suggest:
  1. We need to determine concensus about the use of the site before we start drafting more policy stating that this site shouldn't be used.
  2. Lets get a vote going to determine concensus...again.
Here are some pros and cons about the use of the site for consideration. Feel free to add to them:
Pro
  1. Contains Birth/Death and burial information not available anywere else
  2. Easily accessible website
  3. Is geing updated constantly with new information
  4. Is in a database format so linking to an entry is easy
  5. We already have a template created for it
Con
  1. May not have accurate information
  2. May contain copyright information
  3. Contains some useless and arbitrary information (such as the ability to leave flowers and messages for dead)
  4. I supdated by volunteers like Wikipedia
  5. Has no requirement to add references to the grave entry or details about how the information was gathered.
  6. Deleting the site will leave hundreds or thousands of articles with no links or references. Even more if IMDb is deleted as well
  7. This is going to cause a lot of anger among some users who have been actively using it and some may stop editing completely
Comments
  1. We know how many articles the site links too so it will be fairly easy to delete them once we determine if the site is to be kept
  2. We need to identify the hundreds of articles that have this as the only link or reference and probably mark them for deletion once the link is eliminated. This inludes a number of Actors/Actresses, military personnel and athletes (particularly baseball). Add several hundred more to that if we also eliminate the IMDb site.
  3. If the site is eliminated well need to add it to the appropriate bots so as the site is re-added to articles it could be deleted
  4. If it is eliminated we will need to delete the Find a Grave project and applicable templates
  5. Same goes for IMDb if applicable.
  6. Just in the English Wikipedia there are 12500+ articles that link to {{Find a Grave}} and 31,697 linked here. Its hard to tell at this point how many actually use it as a reference but my guess is it will be several hundred. There are thousands more if you include the other Wikis. Since it seems inevitable at this point (because it will undoubtedly continue to get resubmitted until its voted out) once the determination is made to delete them I can do it in a matter of days.
  7. Again in English Wikipedia only there are over 200, 000 articles with this link so eliminating it will be a massive undertaking. Here is a breakdown.
    1. {{IMDb title}} links to 72773 articles
    2. {{IMDb company}} links to 700
    3. {{IMDb episode}} links to 2023
    4. {{IMDb name}} links to 68856
    5. {{IMDb character}} links to 647
    6. Thousands more are linked Here. I stopped at 20, 000
I wholeheartedly think that if these 2 sites are eliminated we are making a horrible mistake that will take years to undo. If the determination is made to get rid of them though I can do it in a matter of days for find a grave and a couple weeks for IMDb. I also feel compelled to mention that if we go through with this there will be severe backlash and anger from the community so prepare for that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your "Pro" points for find-a-grave:
  1. Not true in the vast majority of cases, birth and death dates are usually widely available, same for burial information. In the few cases where only find a grave provides such information, we might consider using it as a source, not as an external link.
  2. Um... so?
  3. ...by volunteers, see Con #4
  4. Again: so? How on earth is that a reason to link to the site?
  5. "We have a template for it, so we might as well use it" is horrible reasoning. We used to have a template that told you the current century, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea to use it in our articles. :)
All in all, I really don't see any reasons to use the site in the first place, apart from some few cases where it might be used as a reference, and not as an external link. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Only one person seems to like the sites. The main problem here i think is a misunderstanding of what is a good source - the site is or is not reliable (cant have it both ways) - we cant pick out what we think is reliable from nonreliable source. They are either good or bad. Do you realy believe that grave location is so important that we are willing to let this site (we all agree is not reliable) spammed all over the place at will. Moxy (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
For one I am not the only one (I assume you are referring to me) I am just the only one commenting this time because, if I had to make a guess, everyone else is tired of talking about it every month. And there is no misunderstanding, I admit that the site has limited usefulness but in lieu of a better reference should be allowed. If the site is not appropriate as an external link then it cannot be appropriate as a reference. One of the reasons fro having an External links section is to allow for links that are not appropriate as a reference (such as a corporate website or in certain cases a facebook site). I might be inclined to agree with the argument of not using it as a reference but I don't agree with the argument...at all..that its not appropriate as an external link. And either we can use it or we can't. We can't pick and choose when we want to use it and when we don't. As I said before. Lets get another vote going so we can see where concensus is and either we can get to deleting it or we can wait a couple months for the next time its submitted and hash this out again. It shouldnt take longer than march for it to pop back up again. At this point I am done fighting for it and discussing it until someone brings out a vote. You are right that I am, so far this time around, the only one that seems to care about keeping these so lets put the vote out, see what people think and go from there. If I am truly the only one that sees this as a problem (which I am positive is not the case) then so be it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Kumioko, I think you are seriously misunderstanding the External links section.
For example, you say "If the site is not appropriate as an external link then it cannot be appropriate as a reference." There are many sources that make perfectly fine reliable sources, and make really lousy external links. There's the whole group of reliable sources known as "books printed on paper", for example. There are reliable sources that briefly support some tangential detail, and are thus inappropriate external links. There are reliable sources that provide less information than the Wikipedia article, and thus fail WP:ELNO#EL1. In short, your statement is completely wrong.
Furthermore, you say that "either we can use it or we can't. We can't pick and choose when we want to use it and when we don't." This is wrong. You are absolutely required to "pick and choose". The guideline directly prohibits you from including every single link that isn't banned: see "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" (emphasis added). You are required to use editorial judgment—see the link to WP:COMMONSENSE in the guideline's lead—and if you can't use good judgment when choosing links, then please stop editing altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The whole point of this is discussion is whether Find a grave is appropriate to be used (for all the reasons above) as an external link. Your right there are cases were something can be suitable for an external link and usually books arent appropriate for external links (should go in the Further reading section IMO) For the same reasons pointed out above if the Find a grave link isn't appropriate as an external link then that same justification some users are using for eliminating it would also force the same result when using it as a reference. With some references that may not be the case but it would with this one. If we are banning the use of this site as an EL because its unreliable, may contain copywritten info, may contain circular references to WP, etc then there is no way it could be used as a reference undeer the same justification. In regards to the picking and choosing comment I was referring to the statements indicating that we can use it for some and not for others. Just to calrify all I am asking for is that this reference be allowed only as an EL or as a reference for the Birth/death and burial info and only if there aren't better sources available. So I guess thats picking and choosing I admit but its a lot clearer than saying use your best judgement and hope for best (because some editors judgement is better than others lets admit) and its better than an all out ban. I also agree that if we have evidence that the entry contains copywritten info then we shouldn't use it. I just don't agree with an all out ban which is what is being proposed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
The following - inappropriate votepushing/consensus-dodging/ad hominems (WP:DE)
is archived. Please do not modify it.
Poll for "find a grave"
  • Remove as per editors consider it a type of fansite that is not written by a recognized expert (ELNO #11). Some pages may contain copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK). If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. Find-a-Grave does not exercise editorial control. It may silently incorporate material from Wikipedia, which is a circular reference.Moxy (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep with comments - But clarify that the Find a grave link should only be used as an external link or if no other reference is available, as a refernce only for the Birth/Death/Burial info only. Regardless of what some users may believe Birth/death and burial info is important enough to include in the article and in some cases, such as the early Medal of Honor recipients, there are NO published sources of the information available. --Kumioko (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Question does this site this site and this site not contain all the info for Medal of Honor recipients - after looking at Find A grave is see that many articles are just a copy and past from this sites.Moxy (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No they don't. Yes you are correct that the citations are copied however the 3 sites you identified do not contain the death and or burial details (most of the births are covered but not all). I also use several other sites as well such as the USMC Whos who site, the Navy Historical Society, Congressional Medal of Honor society, and others including the new York times. But in the end the Find a grave site still is the only place were this data can be gathered for most of them. For example. I have gone through most of the existing recipients and used the find a grave site as a reference for the burial location. If this goes through I will now have to not only delete the link but also the location data because it will now be unreferencable (no other source is likely to have it so theres no reason to keep it) eventhough I think it is very useful to the article to have the burial location. This will also include the removal of categories such as Burials at X cemetery or Bruials in X state and possibly birth and death categories needing to be replaced by Birth/death missing because this info isn't "published" anywhere else. We will also likely need to clear out the dates from teh Persondata template, Infobox and the like because it will, in a number of cases, be unreferenceable. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As one example look at American Civil War recipient Christian Albert. The links you provided have his birth location as Cinncinati Ohio but doesn't provide anything for the date of Birth or death, place of death, or burial location. All this is derived from the Find a grave site and is loosely verified by the image contained on the find a grave site. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep on a per case basis - no blanket removal nor approval of the site - individual inclusions must stand on their merits. Some widescale treatment (tagging?) of existing links to site might be needed to "prepare the field" though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "preparing" the field? --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as an external link only An unreliable source should not be used as last resource source, it should simply not be used at all. If that means we lose a lot birth and death dates, so be it. I don't see a problem which would require mass removal as external links though. I think wp:ELNO 12 might be relevant, as this a wiki-like database "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Yoenit (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thnak you for your vote -i like to see oppnions backup by policy - this would be the first time i see someone on the pro side actualy use a policy to back up there aggument - good job - though i do dissagree with your view of the policy as i see it as a mirror site.Moxy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove - As Moxy says... If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition not worthy of inclusion. Unverifiable and unverified. Using it is close to original research, as in, seeking and searching for a difficult to find fact, - not what we are here to do. We are here to report WP:reliable reports of notable events and personal details of noteworthy people. Not to go down the births and death record office and investigate.Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove, as clearly not conforming to WP:RS. From the evidence I've seen, this can't really be denied, so the arguments for using the site seem to come down to 'there often isn't anything better', and 'we've used it so many times we're stuck with it'. These arguments just don't stand up. Verifiability, and the use of reliable sources, are core Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be compromised for the convenience of editors. Actually though, this 'poll' is probably meaningless because (a) Wikipedia doesn't decide such issues by voting, and (b) even if a consensus was reached here to allow the use of the site, it would still have no binding effect: you can't decide to override general policy for a particular issue 'by consensus'. If you want the use of the site to be permitted, you need to get policy changed - something that I for one would strongly oppose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep- We are talking about use as a WP:EL not as a WP:RS(another discussion perhaps!), so keep and use with caution. Basically the same as IMDb. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove Per elno #1, 2, 4 and 12. This site should not be in this project. I think I've commented enough why it should be removed. I think imdb.com has now been proven unreliable too. --CrohnieGalTalk 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Encourage removal as an EL. The typical links to findagrave from biography articles are inappropriate: they add no additional material that cannot be written into the text of the article and as such should be discouraged per ELNO point 1 and should be removed unless it can be shown that each link individually adds encyclopedic material to the article that cannot be adequately presented within the article itself. This being said, I would be opposed to a directive to remove all of these (I'm never quite ok with adding or removing ELs en masse). As a reliable source, this site isn't one (except on rare occasions the pictures can qualify as primary sources for birth/death dates). There are a few pages that can benefit from having this link; namely pages about cemeteries, since the findagrave site contains an amount of detail on notable personalities buried in the graveyard that would be inappropriate to list on wiki. Also links directly to find a grave photo albums may be appropriate if none of the photos are copyright violations and the photos exceed the scope of the material presented on wikipedia and commons. ThemFromSpace 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
NOT ?

A note about this was just left at Village pump (policy), that came as a surprise. I'd like to give this refresher link to the community Guideline "Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion", whose shortcut is WP:VOTE or WP:POLL. The Policy and guidelines section seems particularly pertinent. Cheers, Whitehorse1 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, but as seen above we have talked long and hard and this poll is to simply to consolidate everyones views on the matter. We are trying to see the merits by boths sides of the argument. At some point in every debate we must tally up the pros and cons given over a long discussion and this method is by far the most common way of doing this. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The section is not tallying up, the section is asking people to vote/polling. –Whitehorse1 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets assume our editors are smart enough to back up there vote with a valid argument (as what has been happening). Do you have a better suggestion on how we should proceed? As you can see by the talks we are at a stand still and are trying to solve this now so we dont have to deal with this ever month or two. This type of polling as you put it also allows new editors to jump-in with a quick to the point argument.Moxy (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly the talks are at a standstill because you are talking about the wrong thing? You seem to be debating whether policy can be overriden (particularly WP:RS) for a particular website. It can't. If you want to argue for a change in policy, you are doing it in the wrong place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100 percent, but yet here we are having to defend the action of removing the links and/or references. We dont need a policy change - we would just like them implemented for this site. Where or how can we get this done? Do we just start removing them all without a talk on the matter and cause conflict? If someone has an idea of how we can solve this speak up. Moxy (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's not insinuate I implied anyone was backward, thanks.
We use the Consensus model here. Your description sounds exactly like it's WP:PEREN territory (fails to gain consensus (to ban Find a grave)). The principles at "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" explain: If Consensus in favor of something was not established within a reasonable period of time, the proposal has Failed. If by 'deal with every month or two' you mean repeatedly call for it to be banned, then that wouldn't be suitable because the Consensus model finds that unsuitable as can be seen described at WP:CON. –Whitehorse1 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The site is violating many of our policies (as metioned every few months and is y we are here again). Are you suggesting that we simply ignor our editors repeated cries about this. As per Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Define reliable sources "Wikipedia should define the reliability of particular types of sources so that no exceptions are possible". Is this not what we are doing now?Moxy (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've already said what participants are doing now, and with links to Policies and Guidelines.
And, again, repeated cries of or calls for something that has repeatedly failed to gain favor violates our policies, norms, and principles. The community Policies and Guidelines I linked weren't things I scribbled together this morning, they're a product of and for the Community including you or me. –Whitehorse1 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok then so this type of thing is unexceptible and we can never get them removed at this point - So basicly your saying the policy protects sites of this nature because we could not reach a consensus back in 2007 the first time around. We are stuck with the site reguarless that we all agree its not reliable or a valid link in most casees.Moxy (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Going by what has been said here it has been discussed repeatedly and recently, not simply one time 3–4 years ago. Likewise, given consensus failed to be established to ban it, clearly the statement "we all all agree its not reliable or a valid link in most cases" isn't accurate. –Whitehorse1 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I do think we are all saying that this time around- some think its not at all reliable and some think its reliable for certain things (no one is claiming its reliable as a whole). Basically were are taking about if a source is somewhat and/or parts of it are reliable should we still include it. Again does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can proceed or will all efforts simply be dismantled because of our policy on this type of talk. We need to solve this either way and so far this talk seems to be doing the opposite now. We cant just do this over and over. Moxy (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? Browsing through the poll started or for that matter the discussion above it, I don't see 'all saying that this time around'. –Whitehorse1 20:50, 29 December 2010 21:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I see some saying its ok sometimes and for certain things if noting else is out there, but no one is saying its a good all around reliable source (even the the site agrees with this point). I am concern your more interested in following one specific policy rather then trying to solve a long standing problem that applies to many of our polices. Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate or are we to just debate the implementation of 1 specific policy or should we talk about the 5 others raised here in this debate.Moxy (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia policy and guidelines are not ratified through a vote. ... polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's outcome tantamount to consensus. ... If consensus for broad community support has not developed after a reasonable time, the proposal is considered failed. If consensus is neutral or unclear... likewise failed. ... Raising the same issue repeatedly is confusing and disruptive" --cited policies&guidelines
It's not clear which long-established "one specific policy" you're talking about among "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" procedural Policy, "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" behavioral Guideline, or Wikipedia:Consensus Policy that forms and presents the foundation of the entire en-Wikipedia project. We're at crossed purposes. When something has failed to gain consensus, regularly & repeatedly raising it along with strawpolling on the lines of 'sooner or later' it'll slip in is not appropriate. For better or worse, within the site/community consensus is what's used here, it isn't up for debate or something to be dispensed with when not convenient on a whim. This stands regardless of whether any person is unable or unwilling to accept it. –Whitehorse1 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice copy and past...ok lets move on ..get the experienced editors talking. Moxy (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you drop the rude remarks please? –Whitehorse1 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Whitehorse1 that this is an inappropriate effort to use voting instead of consensus-driven discussion, and I oppose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me just clarify that this "vote" is just trying to tally up were people stand so we have a clearer picture of what concensus might be for when the case is presented as a policy change or is brought up again later. Perhaps I was wrong in calling it a "vote" but having something like this will allow both sides a better picture to pleasd their case. --Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are discussing findagrave as a source, shouldn't this be on the reliable sources noticeboard?. Yoenit (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes I didn't think about that one thats a good idea. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (e/c) Focus has largely been on it as a link. Your underlying venue selection point's sensible. It's... probably worth mentioning here that something to be avoided is WP:FORUMSHOP/asking the other parent. –Whitehorse1 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone is trying to forum shop I just think they are trying to get the word out to maximize editor participation. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh wasn't accusing, don't worry. It seemed worth mentioning since many noted it'd been raised repeatedly, and raising an issue on another forum in hope of eliciting the preferred outcome or seeking to use successive forums to bolster with or wield in a discussion is something to avoid that's all. It was just a general comment. –Whitehorse1 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Oh no problem I just wanted to clarify. As a note I have seen this come up at the Help desk, the Village pump, here and a couple of other locations I can't think of at the moment. Mostly here and the village pump and in my 4 years hear it comes up at least every 4 months, sometimes less. I might do a little research and see if I can find them all just so we have an up to date record. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

These are all the past ones I could find with substantial discussion (copied from here)

--Ronz (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting away from personal conflicts, and back to the core issue, can I ask why 'consensus' here is being seen as significant in any case? Wikipedia has policies regarding WP:RS, and 'Find a Grave' doesn't meet them, so it can't be used as a source, unless policy is changed. If it can't be used as a source, there is even less justification to give it as an external link. The only question that really matters here is what to do about the existing links/sourcing, in order to conform with policy. If you want policy changed, argue elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The fairly short Adding findagrave.com to User:XLinkBot section a lil' further up has comments from various perspectives on the RS–EL aspect. Worth a look if you/anyone haven't already seen it. –Whitehorse1 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on guys and gals

  • Did I mention that I do not particularly care for politicians or lawyers and there are policies against WP:Wikilawyering and those that use pettifogging that do not serve a purpose and are disruptive to include "...serves to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution." Why do I say this? It only takes someone that is not very experienced with many aspects of Wikipedia, but this is not to say unintelligent, concerning some of the above statements, to see this in action. It is a clear violation of WP:AGF --to me and probably others-- to bring up something like WP:FORUMSHOP for absolutely no good reason, not even as something worth mentioning, again with no good reason, other that what "might" appear as possible disruption. It is especially disruptive when someone has to waste time defending others because this was "worth mentioning". I am fairly new, with slightly more than zero Wikipedia experience compared to others, but I could fill this page with things "worth mentioning", but if there is "absolutely no reason" to do this then what would be the point other than disruption? I feel that a person could have issue with the fact that I am offended by this statement "worth mentioning" and we can look at administrative solutions "or" this can be politely retracted in whatever form chosen. "Oh wasn't accusing, don't worry.", does "not" mean it was not improperly thrown out there. If anyone wishes to break good faith with no grounds, in a discussion I have been a part of, there needs to be a reason. This is why I am politely explaining that I was offended and wish it corrected.
This discussion is here because there "is" an issue that some would like to be resolved. "Many" times the suggestion was made as to where this could take place, as an on-going discussion, without fear of being "closed".
There does seem to me to be an agenda by some to keep the subject closed by referring to the fact that it has been hashed out many times in the past, even though there are still obvious problems, and regardless that WP:CONS gives guidelines that state clearly that there is no problem with seeking solutions be what some may refer to as "rehashing".

Please note

This probably should have been named a survey. "Sometimes it's useful to take a survey of opinions on some issue, as an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding."

Important

  • "If you disagree with the "majority" opinion, simply remember that the straw poll is not binding and continue discussions."

WP:CONLIMITED states that, "Substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page first, and sufficient time should be allowed for thorough discussion before being implemented.", and it has only gotten as far as a group of editors wishing to explore options. There has not been a move to implement any change at this time.

A poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it.
Definition: While a straw poll is not a substitute for discussion it can be a tool for probing opinions especially outside of article content discussions, so that one knows who to talk with to obtain a negotiated consensus." Also,

Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and those people's objections need to be addressed!

I have actually read:
  • WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and while there are warnings and suggestions there is "not" (show me if I am wrong) a policy against using "polling" as simply a tool. Not one person here, that I have seen, has attempted to do anything more than discuss things to find a solution. Asking where (as a poll I have not even weighed in on) or how editors stand on an issue. The one that created the page made edits that others have not even gotten around to discussing yet "because" we are trying to discuss this and reach some idea where we stand.

The question was asked repeatedly "where" we can have this discussion.

  • IF this is not a good place then I think someone with WP knowledge should provide the proper place. If this can only be done by forming a project, aptly named, where a person interested in exploring solutions can join, then that needs to be done.
Polling is not being used to change policy, that I can see, or being used to exclude anyone (as I will be against it) and is "not" against WP policy as used.
  • A group of editors are exploring, "in good faith" options concerning the use of the above mentioned sites and a way to produce any consensus that can be used by Wikipedia and editors. That is it, as for as I can see, in a nut shell. It only takes one editor to bring up an issue to be examined by the community and this right is protected by Wikipedia. There is more than one that seeks to explore options that can be presented to the community in the proper form to try to establish a guideline.
  • If this needs to be moved to the page created as a "project" and those interested can join then I suggest this option. If there is a person or more than one person that is trying to hinder a Wikipedia process or stop the rights of other editors I will have to stop editing and devote my energies to finding a solution.
If the reliability of a site is in question then it is not only right for an editor to question this and seek some solution it is protected by Wikipedia. If there is a reason that a part of a site can be trusted or maybe used with caution, editors need to be able to know this and seeking a solution as to how this can be done is perfectly acceptable. If I thought for a second that Wikipedia policy supported unreliable links I would stop editing but it certainly does not. "If" Find a grave uses "one" picture that violates WP:COPY and very specifically if "one" picture from this site is used on Wikipedia then this site "must" not be used by Wikipedia for pictures. If there are errors with Imbd (and I have found what I think to be one) then this should be questioned. "If" the above is true and someone wishes to argue with this then I would have no choice but to begin to question good faith. "If" there are no other sources to gain birth and death dates (and I feel this is important to an article) then maybe a way can be found to show this as possible unreliable by a hidden comment, "The credibility of some information on this site may be contested" or some other note. This can only be figured out by discussion and consensus.
For the record: Per Mr. Kumioko's discussion I do not support a change that will result in an editor having to edit "many" pages to remove already existing cites or that will result in an untold amount of tags. I imagine it took a long time to get this much information and hate the thought that in a short time all would need to be taken out or replaced. With this opinion I would state that any required consensus not be retroactive but serve to initiate guidelines that it has been found as of (fill in the blank = date) certain sites or sections of certain sites have been found to be unreliable. Help from more knowledgeable editors would be a great instead of an enormous amount of discussions attesting to the known fact that the issue has arisen before and some craftily worded use of policy to make it appear this is wrong.
  • If it is wrong and violates some policy then tell us where you (any editor that feels this way) are reporting the issue and we can, with your assistance by proxy, find a solution.
If there are those that wish this to go away please understand that I for one support looking at options and the problem has not "gone away". It simply is "not" a valid argument that a discussion has occurred before, or many times before, so let's get over this non-issue and see if there is a way to come to a conclusion and consensus that will help Wikipedia and deal with the issue of using EL's that are not allowed by policy and how to come to a conclusion as to the best way. Otr500 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We were in the middle of consolidating the arguments from both sides - in the normal way - and were stopped in our tracks by a non-admin. Should we simply continue and ignore the fact a portion of are talk has been closed. I guess we should restart that process by calling it a "survey" of what has been presented. We asked for help by posting this in many places and what do we get a closed discussion, not any guidance. I am sure we all agree what has taken place was not constructive in any way. Moxy (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see below. Thank you. --Whitehorse1 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that closing arguments like what was done is against WP policy. The "poll", right, wrong, or indifferent, could have been closed by admin for reasons but an editor that wishes to disrupt the WP process can be reported because of such actions. I was going to suggest if this should be taken to the page WP:External links/Perennial websites that was created to explore this issue. I am not crazy with the name applied nor has there been a consensus as to if it covers concerns but I do not want to go there if there is only going to be more unnecessary drama and wasted time. I am trying to be nice but I feel I have every right to report the above incident as well as the one at village pump. I will just as soon not have to be bothered with all the extra junk that involves if I do not see that happen again. I commented on the page but didn't get a response and the same editor took the liberty to set up the whole page. I am just upset that some people can not discuss things without someone going astral. The effect, sought or not, intentional or not, brought about disruption. I am straining a little at this time to continue to assume good faith so I will address this later. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe its just a lack of experience here at Wiki that led to Whitehorse1 closing the argument. I have received no less then 7 emails about this. Basically all believe the action was very very disruptive with a few suggesting as you have a report of the incident. Dont realy see the need to report (i am assuming this was done in good faith). After looking at his edit history i dont believe there was any malice intent just a misguided action. Would be best if we just moved on with the debate its self. Moxy (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have not been disruptive by accident or design. I would say to my mind your comments misrepresent the matter. There's not much that can be done re unverifiable claims of off-wiki support. It would be uncollegial and discourteous to not respond to Otr500 here after I'd said I would do today, and any claims require evidence in the form of diffs; it's reasonable to be allowed the opportunity to do that? --Whitehorse1 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Really - here were are still dealing with your actions and not proceeding with the task at hand. I would say this is very disruptive regardless if you see it or not. Basically you have taken control of the talks and led them in the wrong direction. Moxy (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked to see much of what I've just read. In what has been said there's a great deal I feel has been overlooked, and the above is not an accurate picture accordingly. Otr500, I've just come online after a short amount of rest to see this. I will reply and as best I can. I hope you can appreciate that'll take a while to go through, and I do intend to reply here today. Thank you. --Whitehorse1 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Otr500. I believe at least some of your comment refers to me. You're right that I did link the wp:forumshop section at one point. It was in response to an editor's question asking if we were looking at a site as a source then would another noticeboard be better. However, I didn't bring it up without believing there was very a good reason. It details that raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages is confusing and disrupts--i.e. splinters discussion. Best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion. As the conversation here was in the main all about external links, I said here is good; saying splintering discussion is a pitfall that can hamper any collaborative discussion, by way of the link seemed fair and worthwhile. As well, many both here, including Moxy, and in the villagepump link noted it'd been raised repeatedly like every couple've months, all around rather than in one place together.

I understand and share the sentiment of the importance of being able to engage freely with one another in a spirit of mutual cooperation. The collapsed content was a sea of unevidenced accusations directed at specific editors, ad hominems, strawmanning and other problematic stuff. I do feel there's a great deal been overlooked. Statements like that require evidence--given here as diffs.

I'd no prior involvement nor to the best of my knowledge ever removed or added any f-a-grave links, or have any firm view on it. Having made a brief comment, almost straightaway the unfounded accusations began. First the editor implies [4] I've suggested other editors are backward. Completely untrue. Next, he brought up something from the list of perenially rejected (that Wikipedia should X) in such a way as to misrepresent and give the opposite of what the page says. [5]

There was continuous strawmanning accusing in the form of pulling things out've nowhere then stating 'so you're saying this'. Having said only about half an hour earlier that it been under conversation, regularly & recently, within a few months, the user switches to alleging I was saying a conversation 3yrs ago didn't reach a consensus to do something. [6] Although that hadn't happened. Re-repeating assertions there was unanimous agreement, when participant comments reflected otherwise, [7] as well as instances of [8] branding people unconstructive when responses aren't as they might like.
The idea is discussion driven by consensus not by exhaustion.

The user was repeatedly told what was inappropriate; their response, was to type "lol" in an editsummary with a derisory further 'lets have experienced editors talking' jab. [9]

But it didn't stop there. Next, after I thanked [10] another editor for taking time and effort to search through multiple archives and link helpful material, he accused me of mocking that editor. [11] Completely unfounded. After that, a baseless accusation I must have a conflict of interest. [12] Over an hour later [13] changing it (long enough that the target got the hint). wp:gametype+npa. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence violate our personal attacks policy.

There were points I could have removed not collapsed, under wp:npa, yet I opted for the gentler path of retaining. The editor blanked his late attack, [14] readded with reply in an edit conflict. I assumed good faith, responding by removing it with my response [15]/[16]/[17] since it seemed clear that was their wish. Unfortunately it didn't stop even then. Despite doing my utmost to accomodate him and respecting his--as I took to be genuine at the time--wish to withdraw his allegations and move forward with any discussion collegially he, once my gesture and act was extended, switched to following me to my talkpage to continue, repeating the supposedly-withdrawn with "lol 'lets have experienced editors talking'" jab for good measure asking hey ever see this policy page, that I'd linked & discussed (prev. diff): "I see your not that experienced here have you ever seen [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change]]. Moxy" It's difficult to imagine in what circumstances that would ever be appropriate toward an useraccount of 6yrs, thousands of manual sitewide contribs of all types, or anyone. It's simply baiting.

The assume good faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. There is a Limit to how many unevidenced accusations couched variously in direct, question or implied form, or implying another's position to be something which bears no relation to anything they said, or similar, can go on for.

No editor has the right to attack, belittle, taunt another. I've ignored, as well as asked him to please stop [18] making unfounded personal remarks. It's disappointing to see these've continued here today, too, along with the "I've substantial off-wiki support for my position" plus more allegation.[19] Today included playing the victim - giving the impression of having done nothing more than asking for help. [20] The evidence gives a different picture.

You'll notice in fact I did not "close" down discussion. I commented specifically to agree that discussion, without all the inappropriateness, continue. Additionally, [21] I placed a link to the discussions another contributor gave earlier alongside Ronz's for easy access. Actions that wouldn't have been the case if there were desire to stop discussion. Shortly after I gave feedback to another [22] on their points. Later more [23][24][25] community members contributed, all of which is encouraging and I am all for it. –Whitehorse1 03:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Just reopen the discussion. it wasn't disruptive at all, we hold straw polls all the time. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It's more what went on, Off2riorob. --Whitehorse1 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So your saying you closed the talk because you did not like what was said?Moxy (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are these two sources assoiated?

It seems to me that to treat these two sources alike is questionable. IMDB is a very reliable source, constantly checked by people in the industry since they all wnat to ensure that their tiniest walk-on gets credit. I support retention of IMDB. Find-a-grave is far more questionable and I oppose retention of F-a-G. --Red King (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had a little bit of experience with IMDB and quite a bit more with Find-a-Grave. Both are dependent on user input, hence both are questionable as sources in general. However, IMDB seems to get it right most of the time on basic info such as cast-and-crew lists. Find-a-Grave is an excellent source for cemeteries and individual interments, and for pictures of same. It's incomplete, but so is wikipedia. Rather than a blanket ban, there should be some rules about what parts of their data are considered sufficiently reliable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I'm happy to have separate discussions, IMDB has come up a number of times at WP:RSN and there is no consensus that it is a reliable source, whether or not it is mostly right. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought that consensus was that it was considered usable for basic info, as I said above, but not for trivia, which is highly subjective and often questionable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
IMBD is wikpedia reliable unless disputed for simple non personal details, not for any personal life details like DOB and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I agree that these 2 discussion need to be seperate but my opinions on the use of both sites is the same. It just makes me shudder to think about mass deleting these 2 links from 250, 000+ articles, then remove the unrefernced information (because both of these have been used as references on many articles) then in some cases submit the article for deletion because we have eliminated the only reference available on the topic. --Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebooting the discussion

We're now having discussions about discussions about discussions instead of talking about the actual issue, so let's just get back to that. So, is findagrave.com a valid external link? In my opinion, the answer is clearly "no":

  1. WP:ELNEVER: While findagrave.com prohibits the uploading of copyrighted material, the site admins don't seem to be very thorough when it comes to removing such material. Most entries for famous people have a copyrighted pictures of them. (Dana Plato, Danny Kaye, Dennis Hopper, just to name a few.)
  2. WP:ELNO#EL1: In nearly all cases the site does not contain any additional information to our articles. The only thing we usually don't include is a picture of the burial site, and that's it. And there's no real reason to link just because of that one picture, that's not what external links are for.
  3. WP:ELNO#EL12: findagrave.com is maintained by its users, and as such should generally not be linked to. I'm honestly not sure about the "substantial history of stability" part, but I'd argue that they don't have such stability when copyrighted pictures remain on the site practically everywhere (see above).

It has been argued that the above reasons aren't always true for every single entry at findagrave.com, and that might as well be true. How those few instances legitimate thousands and thousands of links has not been explained, however. It's also been said that there should be no mass-removal because of those few (possibly) legitimate links. That might be reasonable, but then we should talk about how we can stop people to add the site to the external link sections of articles, or this problem is not going away. In my view, there's simply no real reason - generally speaking - to use the site as an external link, and even those that disagree with the mass-removal of it have not argued against that point (feel free to correct me here, of course). Whether findagrave.com is a reliable source to be used in otherwise unreferenced articles is an entirely different issue. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I have a poor attitude here but are we really going to keep this disucussion going indefinately. It should be obvious to most readers at this point that we are not going to get a concensus on wether this site should or should not be used. There are valid arguments on both sides of the topic and the discussions are getting more heated as they go on. At what point do we finally admit that were not going to get a clear black and white response!? --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't turn this into another meta-discussion. We're never, ever going to find a consensus when all we talk about is whether we will ever find a consensus. :) Instead, focus on whether findagrave.com is a valid external link or not. --Conti|✉ 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I see very strong consensus from those editors that refer to policies and guidelines with their viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you read the whole discussion the folks who are against the find a grave and IMDb sites are pretty much equal to teh number that want it to stay. Thats what we were trying to determine when the straw poll was closed. --Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
What Ronz wrote was "consensus from those editors that refer to policies and guidelines". The ignore policy group seems to be in favour of using the site. You can't use it, it violates policy. Consensus here is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately a lot of editors who commented mistake this discussion for one about its use as a source and point to guidelines like wp:RS, which are irrelevant. If you want to go anywhere with this discussion, I suggest we focus purely on cases where it is only added as an external link and not used to source anything. For those circumstances Conti's explanation of why it fails WP:ELNO#EL1 seems a good reason not to link this website. Claiming it should not be added for for copyright reasons is copyright paranoia and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. That part of the policy was intended to prevent people linking to torrent sites and such, not to provide a global block to all websites which have some photos with unclear copyright status (which include half the web at the moment). Still, based on WP:ELNO#EL1, I would agree that this link is inappropriate in most instances and should be removed. (yes, I changed my mind) Yoenit (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You might be right about WP:ELNEVER. My point is that this is an additional problem with the site. A user-run site containing copyright violations is.. not an ideal place to link to. --Conti|✉ 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think at anytime will the community agree to the mass removal of the "Find a Grave" links. The policy is there is just not interpreted and implemented the same by all. What i was thinking is that perhaps we could write a Wikipedia essay about the merits and disadvantages of the sites value and reliability as a reference and a link - pointing to our policies on the matter (as shown above). I believe this would solve some of the conflicts that arise on the talkpages about the value of the link. The essay would allow editors to link to a page (that is not a guideline nor a policy) that summarizes the problems. I have absolutely no experience with Wikipedia:ESSAYS but it sounds like the only way to proceed. Moxy (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean something like Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites? --Conti|✉ 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry i was unclear - I mean one just for "Find a Grave" and so on if need be (and if possible) with the intention of getting it in main space like Wikipedia:BLP problem.Moxy (talk)
uhm, that is not mainspace. I just redirected Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE to link to the appropriate section on the perrenial websites page. Is that what you mean? Yoenit (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can tell i have no clue about essays- what i mean is that is not just on a user page. But what you have done looks good to can we expand that at will? Moxy (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please! Anyone who wants to should feel free to have a go at improving the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I like the fact theres Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE so an editor when removing the link can point to it so others can see Y they may be removing it (hope this will help the conflicts over the link a bit on talk pages, thus here). This is what i meant in the begin that it has its own link "could write a Wikipedia essay". Was not aware that a redirect like that was allowed but all good. As for mass removal dont think we can get there but if talks continue i will add my two cents. I guess i will see about expanding that section a bit (will post to that talk page first before any changes). PS happy new years guys!! Moxy (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So just to clarify my perception of what I am seeing here...since we could not get consensus on whether the Find a gave link is acceptable we have added an "essay" in the guise of policy stating that the find a grave site should not be used so that if an editor starts deleting these links we can point to it and say look it says don't use them? This seems like a pretty shameless way of bypassing the issue of consensus. I would also caution to anyone who thinks they'll be able to delete more than a few of these links that it will not be long, before finding themselves involved in heated discussions with the rest of the community who opted not to partake in this discussion.
With that said, Based on the numerous articles I have gotten to GA class or better and that knowledge gained from those submissions that an article will never get past B class using the Find a grave site as a reference I was a little curious so I did a little research and I as far as I can tell zero articles above A class (I looked at FA, FL, A and GA) use the find a grave site as a reference (I included the Http link and the Findagrave template) although a couple hundred (including 66 FA's) do have it as an external link. I admit that I didn't visually check every one so there is a margin of error. Now since the policy on external links is clear that an external link need not be "reliable" and based on the fact that the huge majority of articles that contain this link are in the Stub and start class this to me really is an argument over low class articles. Excuse the metaphore here but this is like having a fire in the serveants quarters, no matter how long or hot the fire burns, its unlikely to reach the palace! The palace being our articles rating above GA class (and in the case of GA they were probably added after the article passed). The reviewers of the articles for these higher ratings simply won't pass the article with a link like Find a grave anywhere but in the External links section, if its on the article at all. --Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the essay is a good comprise as essays are ="contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" I agree the links should not be removed Willy-nilly and a proper evaluation should take place. Personal i think things went your way at this point - no mass removal just an essay so we dont have to say all this again. Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE seems to consolidate what the majority here are saying. Moxy (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I still think its going to be used as a rule by some but we'll see. This just sets the stage for the next discussion in a few months when someone will say hay look at this essay! I also don't like how its worded, it gives the impression that the site should never be used and I am stunned that it has been judged that it should be used on lesser occassion than Facebook and Myspace with no mention of Angelfire at all which is another site along with Facebook and MySpace that should be unhesitatingly abolished. --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
wp:SOFIXIT. The page is currently only a rough draft and needs improvement. Yoenit (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kumioko, this isn't only about consensus, it's also about the strength of arguments. You haven't yet used a single policy or guideline-based argument. The links can be removed (not mass-removed, but on a case-by-case basis) regardless of the existence of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, that page simply serves to summarize why findagrave.com makes for a bad external link. That doesn't mean it needs to be removed everywhere. I, personally wouldn't remove the site from a stub article, for instance, but those 66 FA's that you mention (or anything looking like a half-decent article)? Those links should definitely go. Do you have the list of FA's, by the way? I'm almost certain the links were added after the articles became FA's. --Conti|✉ 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unenthused about ukase against Findagrave. Hate spam. Sorry to learn it could be a part of that. Real sorry to learn it could be cyclic! Sometimes useful where other info not available, but clearly shouldn't be used when contested. Unenthused about IMDB but often only detailed forum around. Again, shouldn't be used if contested. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The whole point can be summed up by, "...Sorry to learn...". This is the point of the reoccurring issue. From the beginning of a point in archived history, when reliability became an issue, there should have been a willing community consensus concerning evidence of unreliability. That would not have been hard and if the site(s) in question were found to contain unreliable information, and I have already found such evidence in Imbd, then the only Consensus needed should have been if the site or sites should be banned, limited, or otherwise restricted. This was obviously not done leading to a wealth of weak, improper, or otherwise unacceptable sources, references, and external links. This practice continued, all the while with members of the community periodically but continually bringing up the reliability issues. I became involved in this issue and in a short time became aware of how the water can be muddied by WP:Wikilawyering. Pages and pages of side tracking useless comments and a group of editors, that for whatever reasons, defend keeping these sites, even though I have read comments from some of them admitting to unreliability. Now we have editors that defend the use of the sites because there is a multitude of articles that depend on them, some as an only or primary sources. Disallowing the sites will leave all these articles objects of needed source or reference tags and many would be subjected to AFD's. I think I read where there might be 12,000 such articles which is a large number. Although this should actually never be a reason or excuse to use any site with "dubious" information a somewhat weak patch, in the guise of a compromise or solution was offered. An essay project page named "WP:FINDAGRAVE" was created and redirected to WP:External links/Perennial websites. The WP article Find a Grave has a section Criticism and I added Credibility.
As an editor I personally think that many WP policies mandate a permanent solution, regardless of adverse consequences and then the solution carried out. Maybe a group could form a "project" designed to work on this, with Wikipedia interests in mind, and find proper references to replace those used from the sites in question. Not a venue for arguing or debates but to resolve issues and problems. This could include a list of articles using the sites as references, sources, and external links that could be purged as progress is made. I do not have a solution just suggestions and would hope there was enough community interest to study on this for the good of Wikipedia. I hope so because while others may think it acceptable to use even questionable references, for possibly great reasons, I find it offensive but then that is just my opinion and what do I know? Otr500 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the fact that this has been resubmitted so many times and it seems clear to me at this point that it will continue to be until someone does something about it. I have tried to be the voice of reason in this arguing that the project is better with it than without it since it affects tens of thousands of articles and data that would otherwise not be available. With this in mind I am going to start removing the links from the external links section citing Credibility, Copyright, Original research and external links. Once I am done with this I will go back and start removing the link if its used as a reference and at the same time remove the information it is sourcing. Since its clear that the majority here feel that it isn't appropriate and they have provided strong reasons and references why I see no need to continue with the debate. Also, there is clearly no need for a consensus based on the violations that this site brings to the project. Clearly there is more evidence against than for its use. Its unfortunate that so many articles will be left unreferenced and likely will be deleted (including a number of Medal of Honor recipients, Actors and actresses and sports figures) because they will lack references but perhaps Wikipedia will be better not being the source of such valuable information as long as the information comes from a source that functions like Wikipedia. We simply can't have our cake and eat it too. Either the site is allowed to be used or it is not. If it is not allowed, which clearly seems is already the case but its not being enforced, then there is no reason to keep it. period. We can't say that the site cannot be used but then say, but we don't want to delete the links. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
After further consideration I have decided that I took a wrong approach in my previous statement. Since I do not believe that removing these links from the external links section is a good idea I am not going to start removing them. I did delete a few and I will leave those in place but I am not going to delete any more at this time. --Kumioko (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Things brought to light

In light of all the above I have just ran across WP:Find-A-Grave famous people that appears to be a sub-project of a project WP:WikiProject Missing articles. This "sub-project" that actively encourages the use of Find a Grave; From the page:

This is part of WikiProject Missing articles, an effort to use outside sources to determine what articles are missing from Wikipedia.

This list includes famous people from Find a Grave. Although each name was separately approved by the staff of Find-A-Grave, putting this list into a form that Wikipedia can use has broken some of the names. Please use the Find-A-Grave link next to each name to help fix corrupted names.

  • Suggested edit summary: Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles
  • For any articles you create, add the entry's Find-A-Grave link to the External links sections of the article. This helps others verify the information and find out more. Copy the format below, and insert the URL after the left bracket. Replace "NAME_OF_PERSON" with the name of the person.
  • "External links"
  • [Find-A-Grave profile for NAME_OF_PERSON]
  • You can also use the template <F-A-G id> External links/Noticeboard/Archive 6 at Find a Grave, if you like templates. Copy the ID from the Find-A-Grave URL. Further instructions for using the template can be found at: Template:Find a Grave. Below is an example of the template using all available parameters:
Under the section titles "Suggestions" there is information;
  • "Find-A-Grave dates may be wrong by a year or two."

WOW! Now I realize that I have been editing on a site that proclaims a policy of WP:Verifiability, "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source", and all the time there is a direct conflict of interest and a group, unwittingly or not, with improper and clear WP violations of policy, continuing to operate. Now I begin to see some reasoning. I can understand an error but dates may be wrong by a year or two blows my mind. I hope some uninvolved interested parties can look at this and I would like someone to be able to explain this to me. Otr500 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Having dabbled in Find-a-Grave some, I would say the only really reliable data there is the core of the site, namely the locations of graves. Everything there is dependent on user input, and because photos are typically provided of the graves or tombs, that info seems reliable. The rest of it is often lifted from sites like wikipedia, so the text is not reliable under wikipedia standards. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"If" there was information on a person, concerning the name, birth and death date, and backed up by a picture of this persons grave monument, and provided there was no copyright infringement, then this is credible proof. I do not think pictures used on the site have the same criteria as Wikipedia concerning copyrights. To state that these dates "may" be off by a year or two is far to vague and inaccurate and this information is on a Wikipedia page.
I have to research to see why there is this long standing issue and right in front of things is a Wikipedia page giving directions as to how to deal with bogus information. This should infuriate all editors in good faith but I have no doubt that there will be some, for an unknown reason, that will still defend a site that can "not" be used as reliable, per several Wikipedia policies that have been listed many times, and will state defending reasons to keep allowing the use.
I have now taken the position that if the founder of Wikipedia defended "Find a Grave" he would be in error. Either this site is wanting to remain reliable or not. Either those that contribute here do so in the belief that the policies are meant to provide reliable information or some of us are wasting our time. I became concerned because I found questionable information. I found this page and contributed in good faith while assuming good faith. I now have enough information that leads me to believe that if there are any supporting involvement with "Find a Grave on Wikipedia, I will have to examine the whole good faith thing. I am almost persuaded to be less concerned with the many articles using information from the site than I am about the reputation of Wikipedia and my involvement.
I would like to know how anyone could defend, "Find-A-Grave dates may be wrong by a year or two"? I have only looked at one Imbd and one Find a Grave article and found errors in both and also the same with the WP article, WP:Find-A-Grave famous people. Otr500 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
OTR, its true that there is some error in the Find a Grave site, as with any, but they are fairly rare. I do agree that if the error is known or there is known copyright infringment on the Find a grave article is should not be used but I don't think we need to let Copyright paranoia stop us from using the site. I'm not sure where the "year or two" comment came from but I don't think we can say that the Find a grave site is in error if the head stone itself and or death records have the wrong info (which does happen occassionally). Could I ask what article you looked at in comparison? --Kumioko (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just seen this discussion and I was going to mention WP:FINDAGRAVE straight away. The site is used as a starting point to fill in missing biographies and, of course, to cite death & burial details. Linking to IMDB has been discussed several times at WP:FILM, and has been agreed to be OK in the external links, but not as a primary source. I'll log this discussion at WP:CENT and the film project for more input. Concerned that no-one has bothered to inform the film project, before plowing into a headlong debate... Lugnuts (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sites such as findagrave, that are only miniature encyclopedic articles in their own, shouldn't be used as external links. (ELNO point 1). IMDB is a different story as it oftentimes adds content that cannot be written into the body of the article, but findagrave is clearly unacceptable. ThemFromSpace 17:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think there are two completly different sites here, that are being given the same treatment. IMDB is a "jumping off point" - a link for the casual reader to goto to find more info (trivia, goofs, etc), that just don't sit on the film article. 200,000+ WP articles linking to IMDB can't be a bad thing! Lugnuts (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:FINDAGRAVE is simply saying the same as Template:Find a Grave but in a more precise and direct manner (as Template:Find a Grave seems not to be implemented by our editors correctly).Moxy (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As a note I used to convert the http links relating to Find a grave into {{Find a Grave}} and I modified the logic to include more fields like accessdate, author, etc but I stopped converting them because there is such hysteria about the use of find a grave I didnt want to convert them and then find out I wasted my time because the site was banned. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What are we trying to accomplish?

This discussion is way too long. What is the goal? I'm sure we have a consensus that neither IMDB nor Find a Grave should be used as sources at this time until there is consensus on their reliability, But this discussion is on ELs, so do we want a blanket rule:

  • IMDB is OK as an external link
  • Find-a-Grave is not OK as an external link

or are we looking for

  • Unless it provides directly relevant information to the reader of the article, do not include Find-a-Grave as an external link, to avoid mass link-spamming to potentially unreliable websites

Personally I find IMDB fine for external linking because it is used widely in the industry but my experiences with Find a Grave and the discussions above make me think it is not really useful mostly because it has much more potential for error.

I know polls are evil but I'm having a hard time following the discussion and what is trying to be accomplished; could we just start indicating preferences and why? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is we can't even get a clear concensus on the Find a grave link being used as external links. IMO if it can't be used as an external link then it certainly can't be used as a reference. Not to rehash several weeks worth of conversation the Findagrave debate gets continually resubmitted and at this point IMO constitutes Forumshoping and Copyright paranoia. As I stated before.
  1. IF there is a better link or reference use that instead of Find a grave. There is no harm in having it as an external link to verify the information though and in fact, in many cases it provides additional perspective such as images of the grave and occasionally links to the grave articles of other related family members or the cemetery they are buried in.
  2. If the find a grave link has known Copyviolations, is a circular reference to Wikipedia, or is known to contain incorrect information don't use find a grave.
  3. Do not use the images on find a grave unless they have been marked as Freely distributable. For example some of the uploaders of the Images to Find a grave state explicitly that their images can be used freely and by Wikipedia.
  4. Only use the find a grave site for verification of Date of birth, place of birth, Date of death, place of death and burial location and images if they are marked as freely distributable. It could also be used IMO for verification of Cemetery and memorial location data. Especially if there is an image of the gravestone with the inforation clearly visible.
All the links that have been provided to "Wikipedia policy" are subjective at best and in some cases are misinterpreted to fit the needs of those arguing that the site not be used. In every case I have seen so far there where a Wikipedia policy is cited there is no clear policy against using this site. --Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please be more specific if you are going to claim that there is no clear policy/guideline against using the site? What about WP:ELNO#EL1 and WP:ELNO#EL12? You didn't bother to respond to those two points above, so maybe you could do so now. --Conti|✉ 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. External links are not for verification of information by other sources. If you use multiple sources to back up a statement just add both references inline. If a specific page on site adds enough to satisfy WP:ELNO#EL1 it should be kept in as an external link, but I don't think a picture of a gravestone is enough to do that.
  2. I agree with this one
  3. Wrong for several reasons: Pictures need to be marked public domain or a compatible creative commons license, not just marked "wikipedia may use this". We also need evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of the picture. It may be an option to contact some of the active photocontributors to that site and see if they are willing to release their images under CC-SA-BY 3.0, as we can assume good faith that the gravestone images are selfmade.
  4. No, just don't use it at all. It is not a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is discussion on the subject's grave in the article, what's the use of linking to f-a-g? It's not an RS, it doesn't seem to give much extra useful or just correct info, and the images if appropriate may be uploaded to Commons.
So if the issue is coming to consensus, why not avoid trying to get a blanket resolution and say "deal with on a case-by-case basis"? We have BRD; if someone removes a link from an article we discuss it, not make a guideline saying "never have this" or "it's required". In other words, I'm still not sure what the goal is—just one "rule" for linking to f-a-g? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You are aware the website is linked from over 31.750 pages and that we have a wikiproject dedicated to spamming it? Case by case basis decision just means nothing happens and we are gonna have this discussion again in a few months. Yoenit (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are my comments to ELNO1 and 12 plus some.

  1. In regards to ELNO1, if the information used is limited to the information I suggested (IE. Birth, Death, Burial info and Cemetery/Memorial location) then there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed as a source provided that there is sufficient evidence to prove the information (IE a picture of the grave stone) and that information has not been deemed to violate copyright or other policies. With that said, in order for an article to get above GA class there are usually sufficient references available that there is no need to use the find a grave information for anything except verification or as an External link. In fact the Find a grave site could be considered a third party source in many cases. For the case of articles below GA class, the information probably isn't available in any other location and therefore allows the author/editor of the article the ability to provide a source that would otherwise not be available. It was argued that if its not in a better source then its not important enough but I would argue that Birth/Death and burial information is important in all cases and the notion that it is not is just nonsense. And again there is no need for an External link to be a trustworthy source or cannot contain copywrtten info (as long as that info isn't put into the article and as long as we haven't verified that its infringing copyright). In fact the first paragraph of the External links page states: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." To me this could include the Images of the graves or images of the individual but we cannot use because we don't know where it came from, the contents of the Find a grave entry that describes who the person is and what they did, etc.
  2. Regarding ELNO12 this doesn't apply because its not a wiki. It is edited by users true, but its not a wiki, it doesn't function like a wiki or have wikilike structure so ELNO12 cannot apply.
  3. Regarding the pictures in Find a grave, some are and some are not public domain. I agree though that the ones that are not cannot be brought into WP. For the others though having a link in EL provides the user to a link to those images.
  4. Regarding not using them because its not reliable. Again, being reliable isn't a requirement to be an External link and as I have stated before the links are for the most part only on lower rated articles anyway. I will concede that the link is on more articles than it should be but if its in the EL section its not hurting anything. Banning the site or removing it from the lower rated Stub, Start and even B class articles is only going to hurt those articles. In the csaes were its being used as a reference, the reason its being used in most cases is because without it the information cannot be sourced and anyone who doesn't think that we should source Birth, death and burial information or think that information is not important enough to display is again just wrong. The only thing IMO more important than the birth and death information is the name and without the name there is no article. In regards to the argument that will undoubtedly be mentioned about if we can't use the reference in an article above GA then don't use it. Without the Birth and death information the article will never even make it past start class. So either way, without the Find a grave link on many of the articles the article and our readers are the losers here. Not Wikipedia's perception of how good or bad the reference/link is. And yes I know the difference between a reference and an External link. --Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for further clarification the WikiProject wsa not "dedicated to spamming", if what they were doing can even be called spamming which I also think is also subjective. The project was created along with several others about that time, to make sure that Wikipedia had articles for people and things that were in other Encyclopedias. Find a grave was included in that because it also has a Famous people section. So although it could be argued that not all the links are to famous people if they meet Wikipedias notbility requiremtents then it shouldn't matter if they are "Famous". Also in addition to the 31000+ mentioned by Yoenit there are another 12000+ that link to {{Find a Grave}} --Kumioko (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You keep saying that you know the difference between a reference and an external link, yet you use those two terms interchangeably. ("no reason why it shouldn't be allowed as a source"; "no need for an External link to be a trustworthy source"; "use the reference in an article"; "being reliable isn't a requirement to be an External link".) Basically, you're arguing that we can a) use the site as a link because links don't have to be reliable sources and b) use the link as a source because.. hey, it's already there! And since it's a link and not a reference, it doesn't even have to be reliable. It's mind-boggling.
I'll try one more time: If it is in the "external links" section, it is not used as a reference for the article. A link to findagrave.com on an unreferenced article is not used as as source for that article. It can theoretically be used as a source, but then it would have to be properly formatted as a reference (with <ref> tags and all that). But we cannot use the site as a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Therefore, the article will be unreferenced regardless of the existence (in whatever way) of a link to findagrave.com. If we remove the site from all articles, nothing will change in terms of references. Nothing. At. All. We won't have to suddenly delete articles or remove birth dates, not one iota more than we have to do the same right now. I honestly do not know how I can make this even more clear than this. --Conti|✉ 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok just to clarify it is being used both ways in articles so I tried to address both scenarios in my discussion. IF it is an "external link" and not used as a reference then it does not need to be reliable and credible. If it is used as a "reference" then it a) should not be in the external links section, b) should not be used as a reference on an article above B class or where there is a better reference available, c) should not be used to source anything other than birth, death, burial info or location info for a Memorial or cemetery. And yes something will happen, it will be unsourced. Whether it is a good source (like the NYT or Washington Post for example) or a questionable one like find a grave were some are good and some aren't, its still a "source". If you remove this as a possible source then you will end up with thousands of articles that either have information that cannot be verified in any way, will open up the article to have key information remain without a source (credible or otherwise and I would argue that the information is credible if supported by an image of the headstone), and will open up the articles for deletion submission because either the key information will have been removed as unsourced or the information will be unsourcable. So if we are going to ban the site then a)it should be removed. Not the site is banned but we can still leave the remaining links. Thats not how it works. If the site is banned that means its banned and all the helpful little links need to be deleted. period. Additionally, if the article has information that Cannot be sourced then why keep it. If the only way to verify the information is through original research (which is against policy) or a site, that says the information and then displays an image of the grave stone with the information literally written in stone for verification but isn't "reliable". We may as well delete the unsourced information and in many cases the article. Also, again we have to ask ourselves is it better to have a stub or start class article with a source that may or may not be 100% (remember even the New York Times and Washington Post has had errors or has contributed to Circular references to Wikipedia before) or are we going to WP:Assume good faith on the part of the find a grave site and allow it for low class article that in all reality and in many many cases will never get beyond Start class anyway. That is as long as it doesn't contain Copywritten information, circular refernces to Wikipedia, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it would be best to separate the discussions to avoid this kind of confusion. "Is findagrave.com a good external link?" is a totally separate question from "Is findagrave.com a good reference?", and should be treated as such. This (gigantic) thread is about the former question, and for the purpose of this discussion I personally don't care about the latter. As such, when talking about removing findagrave.com as an external link, the instances where findagrave.com is used as a reference are not touched at all. So if all findagrave.com external links were to be removed now, the references to that site (whether they should be there or not) would stay. So no information is actually lost, since no references will be removed, only external links. And, personally, I'd be fine with using the site as a source for stubs or other articles in early development. A weak source is better than none for uncontroversial facts. But, again, that's not what this discussion is about. It's solely about what appears in the "external links" section, and nothing else. --Conti|✉ 22:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that it would be best to separate them just as we have more or less separated the Find a grave issues from the IMDB debate. Part of the problem though as I see it is this. If the site lacks the substance or reliability to be an external link and is banished from the section then how can we justify using it as a reference. The external link section is specifically for links like Find a grave, IMDB, corporate websites (going on a limb here) Facebook under some circumstances, etc. which lack reliability, contain POV, are fansites, etc. The rules for inline references are much more stringent so many of these would be inappropriate as references. I am concerned if we ban this site from external links then it won't be a big stretch in justifying the complete elimination of it from the site completely. --Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You're basically correct, findagrave.com is not a proper reference (that's why there are no Featured Articles that use it). But that's true regardless of the external links issue. Even if we decide to keep them all, it will still not be a proper reference and, if we're really strict about our rules, should be removed whenever found. As I said, I personally don't see any harm done in sourcing uncontroversial facts like birth dates on articles that are stubs and barely developing, but, strictly speaking, we should not use it even then. But, again, that's not what this discussion is about, and this discussion has no bearing at all on whether findagrave.com should be used as a reference or not. --Conti|✉ 13:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would rather

  • Unless they provides directly relevant information to the reader of the article, do not include user editable sites as external links.

It's really that simple. These sites should very rarely be used as references (i.e. when we can find nothing better, when we are talking of the sites themselves) , and as external links as often as they are useful. External links are not references. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

I dont see y we need to separate the distinction between a reference or an external link - If the site is so bad and we dont think it even meets external links miminual criteria how in the hell would it ever meet the more stringent criteria as a reference.Moxy (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The criteria are not "more stringent". They are different.
For example: Find-a-Grave frequently fails ELNO #1 because it contains less information than the article. A website can easily fail ELNO #1 and still be perfectly usable as a reliable source to support some specific detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say don't use Find-a-grave as a reference (use it as a starting point to search for a better reference). And only use as an external link if it provides something to the reader that our article does not. This tends to be mainly grave location (which is sometimes difficult to find in reliable sources, which don't always record this sort of thing) and pictures of the grave (or memorial or monument). The other information (as others have said) tends to be unreliable. I disagree with one of the comments a long way above: "there's no real reason to link just because of that one picture, that's not what external links are for". If the picture is a good one, and one that a reader of our article would appreciate being pointed towards, I think that is a good example of a useful external link (within reason). Though ideally the solution would be to get a freely licensed photo and upload it to Commons and have a Commons link in the article (if there is no room to include the picture itself). I would also support restriction of mass additions of find-a-grave external links - let those working on an article decide whether it is suitable or not, and add it along with other information, rather than have a project dedicated just to this task. A better project would be one to add reliable sources for grave locations. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't even know if the picture wasn't taken by a google image search instead of by the user who uploaded it, so I would argue that it the vast majority of cases, it's not a good picture. Sure, a picture of a grave would be a nice-to-have, but is it worth an external link? We don't even link to images of people (when we don't have a free picture ourselves), so why should we link to their graves? --Conti|✉ 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The usage guidance - Template:Find a Grave/doc - gives the consensus view on how the website should be used as both a reference and as an external link. If the guidance is followed appropriately then it will be seen that there is a potential low key use of the site as an initial indicator of death and birth dates, location of grave, and what the gravestone says. As sources improve, then the link to the find a grave website will be removed and updated with something superior. As people encounter links to Find a Grave, they should apply the usage guidance, and remove the link if appropriate. SilkTork *YES! 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the discrepancy between reality and your sensible approach. This site regularly gets added to various featured articles and other articles that most definitely do not need such a link, and the reason is pretty simple: There are tens of thousands links to findagrave.com already, and most people will simply assume that it is therefore okay to add it a few more times. We need to reduce the number of links to an acceptable level. --Conti|✉ 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason we have so many of these links is simple. There are a lot of dead people, a lot of cemeteries and a lot of memorials and monuments that are mentioned on Find a grave and because we have 3.5 million articles (more if you count the other language Wikis) on Wikipedia. If we reduce the number of articles we would also reduce the number of links but that doesn't really make sense either. IMO as long as this is in the external links section and or it is used in a sensible way (that is not as a reference for dubious information, information that is copywritten, contains circular references to wikipedia and is not used on articles above GA then I would be fine if every applicable biography/cemetery/monument had a link to it. I would even be ok with it being on an FA, but only under exceptional circumstances. But I would say that virtually no articles (more than a couple I would say) should need or have the link to Find a grave. Before we delete it though I think it needs to be reviewed. If its in the External links section and shows a bunch of images of the subject, and adds some additional info then fine but if it just has some words and deeds and a couple dates that are verified by some better source then delete it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Have we established this guideline as policy?

I noticed that links to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites have ben added to a couple of Find a grave related sites. I don't think we have gotten enough of a consensus to start pushing this "guideline" as though its a policy. I mean we put facebook and twitter as being more useful and reliable to use than find a grave which I find to be completely absurd. If Find a grave shouldn't be there then Facebook and twitter definately shouldn't be. At least Find a grave has some usable info in it and Twitter and Facebook at best are going to be POV and self promoting. I really think the POV pushing for the banning of the Find a grave site needs to stop until we can work out what we are doing with it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites is neither a guideline nor a policy, it simply summarizes what WP:EL (which is a guideline) is already saying. --Conti|✉ 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So far we have Moxy linking the guidelines to other locations like this as though its the gospel and now we have Conti's initiative in removing this plague on mass using AWB such as here, here and the huge list here. --Kumioko (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Yes your right i linked the new essay shortcut Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE on the template - - its a new shortcut and i linked it as was done vice-versa. Whats the problem?Moxy (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have is that we are still hashing it out. Its one thinking putting it undeer this discussion board as we discuss it and refine it but then to link it to other locations before its even finished is inappropriate. --Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Again your right it neededs to be expanded - so lets link it up so people can refine it - this wont happen if noone knows the page is there will it.Moxy (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The huge list are 100 edits (out of 13000 or more links to findagrave.com). I manually check every page before I remove the link from the article, and in 99% of all cases there simply was no reason to keep it. Heck, a lot of times there's a link to findagrave.com on our articles where our article contains a large, complete biography (including burial information), a picture of the person a picture of the person's grave. I'm removing those, and other links where the findagrave.com site simply does not add any significant value (one picture of unknown origin doesn't count, in my eyes) to the article. --Conti|✉ 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't say that all of the removals were invalid but certainly the link provided in Joseph Smith, Jr. here that provides a couple more images and links to the grave articles of a dozen or more family members with details about the family members and their birth/death/grave and information would at least qualify as being of interest to some readers. --Kumioko (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
We have way more pics then find a grave-->commons:Category:Joseph Smith, Jr.. You seem to think that a link to grave location is essential to our articles - Y is this? - Do you think people come to Wikipedia to find grave locations or to learn about the people in question overall. If they want to find the grave they can go to the Find a Grave site.Moxy (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
True but it makes it a lot easier to go to the site if there is a link for it and the images was only one part of the comment. What about the links to the Find a grave articles to the Parents, kids and the ten or so wives he had. You don't suppose the fact that he had ten wives would be of interenst to a few folks do you? Personally, when I noticed that when I clicked on the Find a grave link I felt compelled to glance at a couple. My point is this is exactly the kind of link that external links is designed to have. --Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The fact that he got about thirty (not ten) wives can be found in the article itself, there's no need for a link because of that. --Conti|✉ 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Our readers can find all the info at
See also: List of descendants of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith; List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.; and Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.
. As for the link to find a grave its actually a prime example of the kind of link that we do not want - As it may violate WP:ELNO#1 - WP:ELNO#4 - WP:ELNO#11 WP:ELNEVER - WP:COPYLINK - Wikipedia:CIRCULAR. A good further reading or external link would look like this book or this a web page. Both this links contain more info and meets copyright laws - thus we can link to them.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Conti. Yes your correct that the article says that but you can't deny that the link provides an avenue for the reader to see more details about the individuals than this article presents, or should present.
Reply to Moxy. ELNO1 sort of applies but this is arguably true of most non book references. ELNO's 4 and 11 don't even apply to this argument and neither does Copylink or Circular in this case. Circular and copyedit could apply potentially but there is no reason to invoke Copyedit or Circular paranoia and automatically assume that its there. Even the New York Times and other respected media could have and have had references to Wikipedia information or copywritten information.
Reply to both. I understand that you don't like this site and don't agree that its useful and that's fine. But don't try and snow the other readers of this discussion by throwing links to policies that don't even apply. Or creating guidelines that say the site shouldn't be used, then link it to all the related policies because the discussion isn't going your way, paving the way so that next time the issue is raised, you can point and say look this guideline says it shouldn't be used. Your manufacturing policy to fit your way of thinking. I agree with you that not every article needs it but you shouldn't put this link and the external links section, on such a pedestal that no link would qualify for placement. The way you are trying to define the section is so restrictive that the links would be suitable as references and if they are then they may as well be references and we could eliminate the need of the External links section altogether. --Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Our guidelines for external links are very restrictive. They always have been. People keep ignoring it because most simply want their favorite site linked from Wikipedia, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of sites we link to we should not link to in the first place. findagrave.com certainly isn't the only one, but with thousands of links it's certainly one that needs looking at. No policy has been created to support this view, it has always been there. Even by your personal standards the majority of the links should be removed. --Conti|✉ 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reworded some of the things in the guideline. I am sure that there will be disagreement but I felt that I needed to clarify some misconseptions and factual inaccuracies with the way it was written. --Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

section moved to Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites] (ce) Now that i think about I should be talking over on the pages talk page dammit sorry ....Moxy (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't agree I am not going to get into an edit war over something like this. Although I would say that the major edit comment is not valid since that guidebook was just created on December 26th and is IMO invalid since we are still in the midst of discussions. Also the comment about the project is completely valid since they have uploaded a number of files to Youtube and linked them to articles because of the file size limit on commons. The 10, 000, 000+ personnel that work for the military, government or Contractors of the US are far from being a small group as you put it. At best I would say its between 10 and 15% (probably more) relating the the articles that would contain content related to Wikileaks information. But since you are likely to revert any edit that I make there is no reason to waste my time on it. --Kumioko (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how your dealings with others have been like --but i dont edit war in fact i post to talk pages after a big/major revert so others can see and thus talk about the major edit and the reversal. Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#I made a revert - Pls join and make your views heard. As for military, government or Contractors not are fault they have censorship on there end- Your suggesting to our editors since one portion of readers cant see something that no one else should either. Moxy (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

C'mon guys, there's a perfectly good talk page at WT:External links/Perennial websites. This section alone is now over 182 kilobytes, and that means that the whole noticeboard (now well over 200 kb) has acquired WP:SIZE problems that will prevent some editors from using it.

Please: Stop posting here about this website. Please go to the page dedicated to that discussion and post your thoughts there. Let this page get back to its main purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_6&oldid=1138435214"