Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

A link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund was recently added to the infobox at Maria Butina and is currently under discussion on the talk page. This seems to be Butina's only official web presence and the editor who added it has argued that it is no different from a link to a political campaign site, however I feel that it's inappropriate to link to a fundraising site which is functionally identical to a GoFundMe page. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the rule on gofundme pages on Wikipedia? If someone becomes notorious, and their only web presence is a gofundme page I don't see why that is not considered their webpage. MariaButinaDefenseFund is the only webpage I found created by Maria Butina or her agents relating to the life of Maria Butina. I really don't understand what Dlthewave is complaining about. Dlthewave should state what xe thinks the criteria for a personal webpage is.Geo8rge (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The rule is to remove GoFundMe links. This falls under WP:ELNO#EL4, which (admittedly) could be clear about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not like I slipped MariaButinaDefensefund.com in under false pretenses calling it something else with a false label to lure people to send money to her trustee's bank account. It is clearly a webpage that enables someone to fund the defense just like political campaign webpages and these days independent journalism websites. I agree her website is 'sparse' but she is likely being restrained by her counsel. It is also possible that unlike the prosecution theory, Maria Butina is not infact noteworthy in anyway and pictures of her with ponies is an accurate description of who she is. But again, the website was created by her or her agents, is her official website and only website and deals directly with her notoriety, namely being named in the lawsuit USA vs Butina, so MariaButinaDefensefund is her website. Geo8rge (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
One curiousity of the Maria Butina Wikipedia page is Maria Butina is not noteworthy and should not have a WP page in her name, the only reason anyone has heard of her is the court case in the US dist. Court DC and the massive publicity it got. To make it clear Maria Butina is noteworthy only because the prosecution alleges she is noteworthy and therefore should have registered as a foreign agent. The defense claims she is not noteworthy and therefore did not need to register as a foreign agent. But why can't the Wikipedia page be named USA vs Butina? That is because if Maria Butina is unworthy of a Wikipedia page on her own merit the supposition behind her prosecution in void, she is not important enough to be a foreign agent, so the prosecution is at best misguided. So why not just leave things the way they are instead of going around in circles. There is no easy way to be unbiased between the prosecution and the defendant. MariaButinaDefensefund is the only website of the Maria Butina defense, not just Maria Butina the person.Geo8rge (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In summation, I am tired of arguing this. I spent time and searched for Maria Butina related material and the only webpage I could find that was created by Maria Butina or her agents was MariaButinaDefensefund. So that is her webpage, because that is the page she seems, on advice of consel, to want to be her web presense. If Dlthewave can find another webpage that could be considered her personal or defense webpage please link to it, I would be interested.Geo8rge (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
No requirement to actually list a webpage in the infobox or as an external link just because it exists, if would be better if it adds to the article to use it as a citation/reference. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Geo8rge: See WP:ELNO #4, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:NOTPROMO and ask "in light of those policies and guidelines, would Wikipedia favor linking to a page intended to raise money for a third party?" Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove it. It doesn't meet the purpose of Official websites, and violates WP:NOT as being solely promotional in nature. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Which specific section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Please cut and paste the sentence(s) you feel explain the violation. Note that the purpose of the infobox and external links area are to segreagate information, mostly weblinks, from the actual article. Geo8rge (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Geo8rge: WP:NOTPROMO:
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
5. Advertising, marketing or public relations.
The entire point is "no, we're not here to raise money for third parties." Please don't try to argue "but just because it's raising awareness (and money) doesn't mean it's not advertising", it's only going to make people wonder what your purpose here might be. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to pile on: From an external links viewpoint, that link does not belong per our external links guideline and our 'What ×Wikipedia is not'policy. Quotes given above.

Note that many subjects do not have an official homepage. Stretching that this the only website that can be considered an official website of the subject is more like looking for excuses than the IAR of WP:ELOFFICIAL was meant to codify. In this case, Wikipedia is better off without the link.

(and lets consider to blacklist it if after this discussion we keep having (new) editors adding it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. How should a Maria Butina webpage be stuctured to meet you criteria? Can it mention her legal troubles in anyway? Can it mention she is in jail? Can it contain a link to her defense fund? In general how should a prisoner who is awaiting trial structure their personal website to meet Wikipedia standars? Which forum should I post that question in?Geo8rge (talk)
Re How should a Maria Butina webpage be stuctured to meet you criteria?: Are you in a position for the answer to result in a new official site? If not, then why are you asking? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

To be unbiased, should the Wikipedia page Maria Butina be renamed United States of America vs Butina?

Question moved. Sorry about that. Geo8rge (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Geo8rge: This is the external links noticeboard. Your question has nothing to do with external links. You want to start a WP:RFC at Talk:Maria Butina, or maybe start a new discussion at WP:NPOVN (following the instructions there). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added a link to FFD discussion because it also includes comments on the use of external links and clarification might be able to be provided by those familiar with WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Elections, again

It is apparently normal to have massive lists of candidates in the external links sections of election pages, e.g. as seen in this diff. I've cleaned a handful, but there are likely more (and these linkfarms get reverted back in, while these links are clearly indirect, and we are not a directory). Can I have some help cleaningthis? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned the ones for the Senate last night, but some have already been reverted back in. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
If it's actually normal to list one official link per candidate in these articles, then why are you blanking them? "Normal" means "there is, in actual practice, a consensus to do this". Policy comes out of the normal practices of established editors, not from a theoretical rulebook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, lets just throw Wp:NOT out .. this is plain linkfarming, we are notthe yellowpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally love these links myself, but if it's actually normal practice, then WP:NOT will accept it.
The most relevant section of NOT says: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
These are not indiscriminate links; they are the most "content-relevant links" for the candidates in the election that the article is about. Although there are a lot of them (because the article covers a lot of territory), NOT accepts "more" than one link, and this list doesn't IMO "dwarf" these articles.
And ultimately, this is a consensus-based project, not a statute-driven one. If experienced editors actually do think this is appropriate – as seen by their actual practice, meaning that they've added this to enough of these articles that it's "normal" – then they should be left alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with having one EL per candidate in cases like this. Number 57 16:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
And I, for one, do. The pages are about the elections, not about the campaigns of the individual candidates. They are content relevant for the candidates, not for the elections. On some ofthe articles the lists are excessive, 10000 bytes of external links is a lot. Moreover, other external links in the same section cover the same functionality. These links are the same as having on auto obile links for all car brands (or even models), and same for bicycles, tvs, computers, hotels, .. etc. All those are similarly content relevant to their subjects. To me, that isjust what our pillar WP:NOT wants to avoid.
The articles tend to be full of tables, to me it is much more appropriate to have them there in those tables.
Now regarding normal practice, that is a consensus indeed, until it gets challenged as being opposed to our policies or guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Or until our policies and guidelines get changed to reflect consensus.
So would you be happy changing the tables from "Party | Candidate | Votes | %" to "Party | Candidate | Website | Votes | %", with the external link listed in the new column? I could live with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any encyclopedic reason to include it.
Also, imagine the maintenance issues when the losing candidates' websites expire. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Good luck changing this consensus, for now it is a local consensus trying to override a global consensus where that has major implications for other subjects where it basically opens a spamhole onother subjects.
No, I have even suggested that. As long as it is not the first column as an external link under the name, and per Walter, it should be properly taken care off, likely the live link should on the election day be replaced with a webarchive link of the state of the website on that day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (@WhatamIdoing: reping --18:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC))
Walter, I think the "encyclopedic reason" is basically WP:ELOFFICIAL. We have, for better or worse, decided that the principals' self-presentation is worth linking.
Dirk, if you're happy with putting it in the column, then I think that would be an excellent compromise. And if you do it yourself, then I'll rest easy knowing that it will be the least intrusive presentation possible. (Your comment about making the website be the first column makes me shudder.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
ELOFFICIAL is for the pages of a subject, not a table of candidates, almost none of whom are notable. It's essentially and external WP:LINKFARM of no encyclopedic value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, these links are NOT official links of the subject on these pages by any stretch. They are actually prime examples of WP:ELNO 13. They would be official links on the pages of the individual candidates, but there they should only be linked if they are the main outlet of a subject (and maybeas an exception as a second outlet while there is an active campaign.
I am still in favour to cut out these lists in the current form, where I would have low resistance if interested editors would add them to the lists (frozen in time if the election has past) in the tables in the articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that they were official links for the election. I said that it was my belief that the rationale for including candidate links on the election page was basically (NB: not exactly, precisely, or absolutely identically) the same as the rationale for including official links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And I think that that is a slippery slope. That reasoning is then exactly the same as linking the official websites of all car brands on Car - they are after all the official websites of the representatives of the subject. I think that the community explicitly suggested against that when writing ELNO#13. Except for those living in the country (well, America, it seems) that list there does not add anything for most outside of said country. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus that's not policy based isn't consensus. These linkfarms are WP:SOAP. We should link to official pages for the election. If they don't have a candidate listing with external links, it's not our place to try to do better. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a consensus that's not compatible with our policies isn't consensus. Also, a policy that isn't consensus-based isn't a real policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
So while all removals havebeen reverted, we don't seem to have consensus. What's next? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Pick an article where it was reverted and work to align the local consensus with the our policies and broader consensus. Is there a Wikiproject for elections that could help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
We do have a consensus that external links to a candidate's platform is a violation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
How are such links not WP:SOAP by definition? The only reason we allow them at all is because of the exceptions that official websites are given. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
They are, and likely other violations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The argument that they are official is a red herring. They are indirectly official, or they are official for another subject.
I think that the first additions were SOAP additions, later the lists were completed to cover all candidates.
Discussing one example is not going to work (the one here is nice and big). You'll get a whole mob of people yelling 'local consensus' to you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd hold off trying to align local consensus with the general consensus at this point in the election cycle anywhere there is push-back. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums would be the place to get the general consensus worked out and communicated. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I would not. General consensus should override local consensus at all times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ronz: .. there is a general consensus, WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
By "worked out" I mean getting the consensus clarified. We all know there are experienced editors that completely ignore EL and NOT when it suits them, and we can expect at least some to do their best to make a mess of things. Given all the coi- and biased editing that we can expect through November, there are bigger problems to address than a linkfarm at the end of an article, and we'll be pressed to handle it all.
I'm saying fix what we can now, get the Wikiproject to include clear instructions on External links sections, and cleanup in November. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
It has already been brought to the Elections and Referendums project I noticed. The only reply there confirms my suspicion: disregard global consensus because we are not a bureaucracy, and noone is following our pillars anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Diff? I looked for such discussions, and only found the briefest of mentions. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about this thread. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have only skimmed that, and it's three editors discussing the issue. We could easily go there and overturn the local consensus to follow EL consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
One announcement and one rant, hardly a discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
We have a global consensus that NOT is a policy. We do not seem to have a "global consensus" about exactly how to apply that policy to this particular, somewhat unusual situation. For example: Should we remove all the official campaign links? Keep all the official campaign links? Rearrange them, so that they're in the table rather than in the ==External links== section? Replace them with a DMOZ-like web directory? Something else? We don't actually know what most editors think would make these specific articles better for their readers.
Also, editors are supposed to "ignore EL and NOT" whenever, in their own best judgment, they believe that not following a strict interpretation of those rules would make individual articles better. "Following our pillars" means Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules when appropriate – including NOT and EL. "Following our pillars" does not mean removing external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
We have a consensus that we should not link to things like this.
Editors are advised to WP:IGNORE all rules only it prevents them from improving or maintaining the project. Editors are not supposed to ignore guidelines when others tell them that their best judgment is not in the interest of the community. In this case it means not adding links to political candidates' Twitter feeds or even their campaign pages. It also that it means removing external links in the case. It also could mean that if one editor consistently argues against the community agreement (consensus) and works to circumvent it on a case-by-case basis, that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and could face a community block. If you want to try to argue against it (as you have here, and lost) go ahead. I'm fairly close to seeking a topic ban though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, when I look at the situation, here's what I see:

And, on this basis, you declare that there is a consensus to exclude these links, and if I don't agree that an evenly divided group, both sides of which are (plausibly, although IMO not with equal strength) citing policies and guidelines as their justification, counts as a consensus for your side, then you propose... to seek a topic ban for the editor who has responded to more questions on this noticeboard than anyone else since its creation? And not only the most active editor at this noticeboard, but also the guideline itself (I believe that I can fairly claim to have written a third of it) and its talk page? Perhaps you would like to think that over again.

Note, in case it's not been clear, that I've not got a strong view about these links myself. Saying that the overall consensus is unclear to me is not the same thing as saying that I agree or disagree with anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

These links are wildly inappropriate. WP:NOT is policy, which means it's basically not our job to provide those links, and to remove them where they show up. WAID, you're basically throwing up whatever objection you can think up instead of meaningfully engaging with both the policy in question and the guideline attached to this noticeboard. I suspect you have many better things to do on Wikipedia than attempt to defend an obvious policy violation (yes, it's obvious). --Izno (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you believe they're wildly inappropriate and an obvious policy violation.
I also understand that at least four editors-who-are-not-me (or you), each of whom have made thousands of edits, and including an admin, believe that these links belong in these articles, are appropriate, and are not policy violations at all. Do you understand that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::IAR and BOLD are all fine, but it is about improving Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with improving, this is turning Wikipedia into a soapbox for election advertising. What those pages display is hardly encyclopedic (and where it is, that should be included and the links used in context). They could be used as a last column in tables of candidates (that also ensures NPOV), but still in a context of their programme (which should then be in another column in said table). But inthis way, they are inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
WAID, do you also see that all your supporters, and you, have not presented any content based or policy based arguments beyond IAR, local consensus and 'other crap', to have these links included. I have earlier wished you good luck to show that these linkfarms present a new consensus that warrants changing WP:NOT and WP:EL. I still don't believe that there is consensus to overthrow the practice, even with a 5:5 strawpoll no policy change would occur. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I see that one of the supporters for these links has cited WP:ELYES. And I'm citing WP:POLICY, which has traditionally held that the source of policy and guidelines is what the mass of experienced editors choose to do in articles, and not whatever "statutes" are written on a page that says "policy" at the top. If editors (i.e., not me or you, but editors who write encyclopedia articles in this subject area) think that these links are a good thing, then you and I need to fix the guideline to accommodate the community's decision, and not the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
the mass of experienced editors The mass of experienced editors, if we hadn't blocked so many along the way, want to use Wikipedia for promotion. Way too many still do. Consensus is not the will of the masses, a vote, or what editors can get away with. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Providing links to a candidate's campaign website is hardly "political advertising" or providing anyone with a soapbox. It's just a link. It's not hurting anyone to put them there, disk space is cheap (I have been explicitly told in the past not to make editing decisions based solely on disk space), and it's not explicitly against policy. Each link relates to one subject, so it's not a "link farm" or list of links on a single subject. There isn't a compelling reason to remove them in my view. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Man soapboxing in Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London
@Nevermore27: How is providing links to a campaign website not providing a platform for campaigning, not providing, literally, a soapbox to the candidates.
Your argument is exactly the same aswhat you could give for car brands, and for all those websites that you receive in your spam folder. Disk space is cheap, lets list them all at the bottom of viagra.
All this is still a IAR/BOLD/OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. What content or policy based argument do you have for overriding other policies and guidelines (and is actually an argument I cannot apply to spam on Viagra). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You are clearly not persuadable on this issue, so I see no merit in getting into it, as it were, with you. I was just providing my two cents. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous argument; businesses have links to their websites in the infobox and the external links section of the page! That is not "advertising". How are links to the campaign websites more advertising? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nevermore27: That is the whole point, apparently there are no content-based or policy based arguments for inclusion, and that is what several editors say here. You are the one who wants to include the links, you should be able to give policy based arguments why to include.
@MAINEiac4434: 'businesses have links to their website in the infobox and the external links section of the page': That is the official link of the subject of the page, per WP:ELOFFICIAL. I don't know how you can translate that to the current case where the subject of the page is the election, and the subject of the links are the campaigns of one of the people who is participating in the election. That is totally indirect. It would be direct, and official on 'Campaign of <campaigner> in the 2015 election for <election>'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The candidates in the election are what make it an election. The actual election (i.e., just a contest) isn't as important as the people contesting the election. Neglecting to include the links to candidates, especially candidates that aren't as well known, (for example Zak Ringelstein in Maine's Senate election, who does not have a Wikipedia page) would be giving undue weight to candidates who are more famous and whose policy positions are more well-known. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
That's the old, "Let's use external links to address supposed POV-problems" gambit. That's simply not what external links are for. Attempts to use external links to address content problems are inappropriate.
Repeating myself, it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to attempt to address supposed problems with voter information. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not what external links are for, in your opinion. External links are used throughout Wikipedia to provide a primary source on the subject of an article, and to provide relevant further information on the article's subject. An election is not the thing people are interested in, it's the candidates in that election. Links to candidates websites is relevant to the article itself.
Further, I would consider it a violation of NPOV to not include them, as providing information for some candidates but not for others (by way of candidates who have separate articles versus those who do not) could be perceived as favoritism towards those candidates. Adding links to candidates websites, where the candidates and their staffs can lay out policy positions, fights that.
For many people, Wikipedia is a news source and a source of information on people who are running to represent them in government. I fail to see how having links (and at this point in election cycle it's only a few links at the bottom of an article) harms Wikipedia and its mission to be an encyclopedia accessible and informative to everyone, lay people and experts. "Wikipedia is not a collection of links." Yeah, but none of these articles are just collections of links.
I think people in your position are taking an overly narrow view at NOT. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
No. External links are not used throughout Wikipedia to provide a primary source, they are used in the external links section to provide a primary source for the subject, when it provides encyclopedic information and is their official website. That's not what is being offered on those election links. Many are just Twitter feeds. If the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines we don't need to provide a link to their race site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@MAINEiac4434: My apologies. I should have been clearer. I believe that there is general consensus against such use of external links.
Wikipedia is a news source While some desire it to be so, it is not per NOTNEWS.
This issue comes up again and again, which is why I called it a gambit. The general situation is this: There's a list of entries, some notable and some not. Editors want to add external links for each entry in the list to "balance" the fact that notable entries may have official websites in their articles. The result of disputes in such situations is exactly what you're getting here: The very broad and discussed-to-death consensus is that such links are inappropriate.
The harm is WP:SOAP, which is enforced by POV, COIN, EL, ArbCom, etc. Yes, there is plenty of push-back to whittle away or ignore WP:SOAP, mostly because of paid editing and the interests behind paid editing.
If you want to argue an exception, questioning the enforcement of NOT isn't the way to go. Meanwhile, please respect WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that we're thinking a bit narrowly here. My interest is in what other editors want in general, but for the specific dispute, we should probably be thinking about alternatives. For example, Dirk – whose anti-spam commitment cannot credibly be disputed by anyone – has suggested that these should be re-worked so that they appear in the tables with the candidates. One advantage of this approach is that it would be far more compact. Our traditional middle ground for these situations was DMOZ, and although that particular web directory has closed, alternatives have always been acceptable, and it's possible that similar web directories could be found at another website, or perhaps at a government webpage. I think it's possible to find a compromise that would be acceptable to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I have not seen a single link to a candidate's twitter feed, and I invite you to find one on any of the US Senate, gubernatorial or House. My interest is only retaining the links to official campaign websites; I believe candidates' personal social media accounts (or campaign social media accounts) should not be included. As a matter of fact, I believe I undid an edit on the Arizona US House of Representatives page that added personal twitters, facebooks, instagrams and youtube accounts of the candidates.
@Ronz: I don't know why you're apologizing, I know where you stand in this discussion and (I believe) I understood your most recent post. I would like to see evidence that there are paid edits providing links to a candidate's website.
I do not see how linking to the website of every candidate in the election is promoting any of them. I could see an argument if we have just the website of one of the candidates in the EL section. But if we link all of them, we're giving all candidates an equal place. I do not believe linking to all candidates with ballot access is a violation of SOAP, because Wikipedia wouldn't be promoting any of them. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I deleted some. Check my edit history and you'll see social media links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MAINEiac4434: No, that is not Ronz' opinion, that is the opinion of several editors here, and as it stands currently, the stand of the community consensus of WP:NOT and WP:EL. And again, these external links are NOT a primary sourceforthe subject ofthe article. They are a primary source for the campaign of the person. And in any case, as we have multiple people on each side of this discussion, we clearly do not have consensus for inclusion, so per WP:ELBURDEN and WP:BRD, remove them until we have found said inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The actual relevant section of NOT is "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Campaign websites are content-relevant to the election (an election isn't anything without the campaign of a candidate) and do not dwarf the articles they are included in. That is not a violation of NOT, and just as there is no consensus to keep the links, certainly none exists to remove them because the links are not in violation of NOT. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@MAINEiac4434: That same contested argument again. ALL car brands are content relevant on car and without car brands we would not have cars, and all viagra spam is relevant on Viagra and without people selling viagra we would not have viagra. No, that is not content relevant, it is indirectly relevant to the subject. And 10000 bytes of external links is certainly dwarving an article that is mere tables for the rest.
And another no: you do not get to cherry pick which parts you want to counter. Again, this is almost literary what the word soapboxing means, so also that section applies (and also all the rest of our policies and guidelines).
In any case, we (including other editors here) do not agree with you (plural) that this is content relevant, that this is not linkfarming and that this is not soapboxing. To me, when several people on each side do not agree means no consensu for including that information and that it gets removed. We can then discus whether and how to reinclude it (see my suggestion above). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Creating a !vote section. Keep the discussion above or create a new section.

  • Remove - external links in tables and other lists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove the long lists in the external links sections per all the reasons I have layed out above. Consider to include them in the tables, locked in time of election date through an internet archive (NOT a direct link after the election). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I have shortly created this for the democratic party primary (did not touch the rest of the page; yes, I know, the endorsements are better collapsed in some form). That does now include the external link with the candidate, and does not repeat the candidates 2-3 times, does not repeat over and over that a candidate is a democratic (which is already shown in the section title). Moreover, it shows (per WP:NPOV) that only one of the candidates (apparently) had a campaign website and it keeps ALL information for one primary close together. Only improvement that would here be left is that this particular primary is already over, and hence the candidate's campaign website may very well have changed already - it should be 'locked' in time at the day of the voting (or for eliminated/withdrawn candidates the date of elimination/withdrawal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove- feel it's not appropriate as they are candidates. In UK elections we always have joke candidates who have no chance of being elected so simplest way is no links/no judgment Lyndaship (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - links to legitimate candidates appear to be appropriate - after all, it is an election for candidates and these links form part of the election's history. In addition, links to candidate's official sites are likely to provide users with a comprehensive listing that can be used to learn more about individual candidates and their policies. BronHiggs (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Move the links into the tables. This should be easier to read and shorten the page length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, but as a compromise, I would not be opposed to Beetstra's solution (and would actively help moving links into that format). MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

discussion regarding !votes

BronHiggs
  • @BronHiggs: 'links to legitimate car brands appear to be appropriate - after all, it is a choice of cars and these links form part of the history of cars. In addition, links to official sites of car brands are likely to provide users with a comprehensive listing that can be used to learn about individual car brands and their features.' That argument is a direct violation of WP:NOT. That is NOT the purpose of wikipedia. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    Can you please explain us what is so different between elections and car brands (or rental companies, mobile phones, painters, butchers or whatever, for that matter). I do not see why this is an inclusion reason here that overrides global policies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    Beetstra As the note in the preamble states - "keep the discussion above". This section is for votes and I have given mine. It's not up for discussion here. ThanksBronHiggs (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    @BronHiggs: OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    Dirk, the difference between United States House of Representatives elections in Arkansas, 2018 and Car is that the elections article lists exactly eight (8) external links to the official websites of the exactly eight (8) candidates that exist, 100% of whom are individually named in the article, whereas Car lists zero external links to the official websites of the many hundreds of car brands that exist (or existed), only a tiny fraction of which are named in the article, and many of which get little more than a namecheck in the article. So "the difference" is that you're comparing apples to oranges. A far more relevant comparison would be why an article that covers a subject with a limited, objective number of people/organizations involved (e.g., an article about a corporate merger or about an athletic event), and that also names and discusses 100% of the involved people/organizations, doesn't necessarily include external links to all of those people/organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Cars and a specific election are simply not comparable. An election is a specific event (intangible) with a finite start and end date while a car is a product (tangible) which has a long and evolving life-cycle and no apparent end date. An article on cars, used generically, is not the same as an article on car brands. Just the same as an article on elections (in general) is not the same as an article, such as the one under review, which is concerned with a specific election in an identified geographic location with a finite and relatively small number of candidates. If there was an article on car brands (in particular), then it would seem reasonable to include lists of brands or marques, but such an article would be of questionable encyclopedic value which is why it probably doesn't exist. However, an article on cars (in general) would not include brands, other than possible mentions of leading brands, as identified in a reliable source such as Interbrand's brand valuations. The question posed by Beestra is so absurd as to barely warrant a reply. The bigger question is why Beestra puts such inane questions to people who vote against his wishes, in contravention of his own directives about refraining from discussion in the vote section, while he fails to challenge those who align with his views? BronHiggs (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think it's an inane question. Dirk is highly experienced in this area and generally thoughtful. For example, you might notice that his comments trend towards a compromise of moving the links into tables rather than removing them entirely.
(Challenging people that agree with you is usually either pointless or pedantic (or both, if you're me ;-).) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@BronHiggs and WhatamIdoing: my point is not the comparison to cars (as I made clear in my text) .. it is the comparison to EVERYTHING else here on Wikipedia. Elections are the only articles that have these lists. For all other pages with in-text tables which name these, we don't add such links, or they are in lists in the text (in tables), not as linkfarms in the external links sections. Elections are the only orange between the apples ... (and it is even worse, it seems to be only an American orange, the other countries are apples as well).
Note, for United States House of Representatives elections in Arkansas, 2018 it is true, not necessarily for others. For the example I gave above, there was only one website for one of the candidates of the primary, not the other. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
note on note, User:WhatamIdoing. It isn't 8 candidates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Bitchmagazine.org

The website link in the infobox of Bitch (magazine) seems to perhaps lead to some sort of phishing scheme when I follow it - but it could just be not loading right on my end. I ran it through a few virus checking tools (that I found through a google search for the like) which did not seem to pick anything up. Does anyone else have any issues when they follow the link? The aforementioned article is one of the DYK on the main page, heightening my concern. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. It seems just a url redirection to the parent company portal in lieu of dedicated web for the magazine. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be on the same server for about 20 years, don't expect any hijacking or anything. Also the Wikipedia page has been linking to this domain for a long time. I may be physically somewhere else, but I see no reason why it would be suspect from the data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ammarpad and Beetstra: Good; just something funky on my end then. Thanks for taking a look. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube Excerpt from Film

I'm not sure if my edit providing the YouTube link for the this relevant excerpt from the film Koyaanisqatsi will be a problem. I am posting here for experts who know the copyright rules and can tell if it might be a problem.

I also don't if there is a preferred way to provide a reference to an external excerpt like that. I have never added a film or sound excerpt before. If there are guidelines for that, please let me know. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a copyvio, which shouldn't be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. Also, external links should not be used in the body of an article per WP:ELPOINTS#2. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: Further discussion here: Talk:Pruitt–Igoe#YouTube_excerpt_of_Koyaanisqatsi --David Tornheim (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

tokyograph

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

I reported this on the spam noticeboard but no action was taken. Probably the wrong venue but reposting it here as something needs to be done. Seems this site was once a useful resource for Japanese topics. It has been used in a lot of references, seemingly both for news and as a more encyclopaedic reference, judging from the ways it’s been used.

The problem is the site has gone. The domain is up for sale. Meanwhile it is being used for malware distribution. All the links on the site lead to a site prompting you to download malware (and I would recommend against clicking on them unless you are confident in your OS and browser’s ability to deal with them). I am not sure what to do as there is no obvious replacement. Even adding an archive link normally leaves the link there, and we should remove them, not only to better protect our readers but to stop helping out the malware hosters with many links to their site.

Note this is not a user problem, as far as I can tell. The links seem to have been added in good faith years ago when the site was active.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: I guess the links need to be aggressively removed (preferably with a clear edit summary) and blacklisted, and then 'reverted back in' to include an archive. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
You can set |deadurl=unfit or |deadurl=usurped in CS1/2 citations. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I had not come across them before, but those both look like the way to deal with dead URLs we no longer want to share with readers. Is this something a bot could take care of? I know we have bots for archiving but can they also take care of marking the dead url as unfit/usurped? As it would be very tedious to do by hand, from my own experience of retrieving even single references from archive.org.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Archiving the site can be requested on User talk:Cyberpower678's talk page but I'm not sure if he can target a certain timeframe for archival or if it just grabs the access date as Best Fit or.... I'm not sure IABot can take care of the 'this is usurped" aspect, so you can request it there also. If it doesn't/can't, you can probably run AWB to add the parameter (you might end up with some duplicate parameters). I would settle whether the website is reliable or not before going to the effort to AWB hough, because the other alternative is simply to remove the site and replace with {{citation needed}} as appropriate (similar levels of effort, you just might save yourself the run). --Izno (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the archive of their about page, I'm not sure they ever were an WP:RS, or at-least I don't see any indication they were, especially for WP:BLPs Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It’s come up on the RS noticeboard a couple of times but no-one has objected to it there or anywhere else that I can see. The links seem quite diverse, a mix of news, information, and individual pages on particular items, so some may be more reliable than others. but it’s not really the best time to consider this now, as links to the site are much harder to review.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Editors have been adding Wikimapia in external link sections of articles. Some examples:

  • Ribarroja Dam - "Riba-roja Dam". Wikimapia. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
  • Royal Dutch Shell - {{wikimapia cat|3072}} (now removed)
  • Digea - inline set of links for showing the location
  • Area 51 - this site wikimapia
  • Toliara - See Tulear on WikiMapia

What is linked are just maps as we already link extensively through a toolserver page by location. Some are (were) plain wrong, when I clicked the link on Royal Dutch Shell I get a map somewhere in the middle of nowhere, 'No objects found ..'.

To me, these links fail our inclusion standards in external links sections. They, generally, do not add anything over what our articles already have (or which could easily be included by using coordinates linked to non-wiki sources). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I spent a while looking at the Spanish dam, and I couldn't even be sure that the Wikimapia map was correct (i.e., that it didn't have the Flix dam labeled as the Ribarroja one). These are essentially WP:ELNO#EL1 problems: a good article for geographical locations should include (and not just link to) a map. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikimapia has categories for objects. For instance, it has a category for "police station". Template:Wikimapia cat was intended to be like Template:IMDb name and such but the template has already been nominated for deletion.--Sa57arc (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Goodreads redux

There was a discussion about Goodreads here back in 2016 that was rather sharply divided. I've nominated the Goodreads templates for deletion (old ELN discussion is linked there): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#Goodreads Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Over at the page that I recently created for the death and legacy of Tom Thomson, an author has tried to have a link to his books website put into the External links. Citing both WP:COI and #11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, I removed the link (twice).

The author started a thread on the talk page taking exception to my removing the link. In particular, he is trying to argue that he is a recognized authority on the subject and so is exempt from rule #11. Here is the #11 cited in full:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Obviously an individual cannot be the judge of whether or not they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like some help in determining whether or not the web-page should be included. The book he wrote is the following: Lehto, Neil J. (2005). Algonquin Elegy Tom Thomson's Last Spring. New York: iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-59536-132-8. It has not been used in my writing of either the Tom Thomson page, nor the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson (apart from a passing mention in the latter's Popular culture section). The essays have not been used either, both because I have better sources available and because I feel they come across as blog-ish.

Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

To say he has better sources is ridiclous. What are they? That has nothing to do with whether a mere external reference is appropiate. The website in question is http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Essays.Nlehto (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What are the objective standards being applied here? He says he has "better" sources? What makes them "better"? To what extent is that even remotely related to whether I might be a notable authority on the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson? I can try to run you off a list but I wonder what the criteria is that might make me notable on such an obscure subject? Unless you know what you are talking about, you can have no idea. He is treating himself as an expert on my notablility without one shred of evidence for doing so, is he not? What objective standard did he apply for doing so? He won't say. First, the many essays on the website discuss many details of the death -- with many references -- that have not reported elsewhere. The essay here http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Chouinard.html cannot be dismissed. It is "better" than the sources he cites. This essay talks about evidence that has not been discussed elsewhere. http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Fraud.html. It is "better" than anything he mentions. Actually, in my view, he wants to scrub away doubts and questions about the artist's death. That is why he moved in into a separate topic. Second, that is probably the source of our disagreement. I would suggest the possibility, based on your talk page here, that I should further edit this topic to add what I know that has not been otherwise mentioned. I offered this approach to him and ended up here. Nlehto (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

“The mystery around Thomson’s death has never attracted a lot of scholarship,” said Dr. Gregory Klages. “It’s attracted a lot of amateur historians and journalists, however. In the absence of interest from professional historians, untrained historians have led the investigation of Thomson's death, from Blodwen Davies in the 1930s, to William Little in the 1950s and 1960s, to Roy MacGregor and Joan Murray in the 1970s and 1980s to Neil Lehto today."

From the Canadian Mysteries website by Dr. Gregory Klages: "After having surveyed the documents and images on this site, you will no doubt be curious what conclusions other contemporary researchers have arrived at. Not only have our team members offered their own perspectives, but we have solicited the views of some prominent Thomson researchers, including a re-assessment of Thomson’s cause of death from Ontario’s Chief Forensic Pathologist. Each of these reports deals with different aspects of the Thomson mystery. Enjoy! Gregory Klages, Research Director for this site, is a historian, art critic, and practicing artist. He is the author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction (Dundurn 2016). Neil Lehto is an American lawyer and author of Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson’s Last Spring (2005) a hybrid fiction/history book, dealing in part with the death of Tom Thomson."


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tom-thomsons-death-is-a-great-canadian-mystery-so-why-solve-it-now/article730787/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/that-six-quart-basket-held-48-million-worth-of-tom-thomsons-art/article736717/

http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/wa/library/algonquinelegy.html


Film credit in West Wind:The Vision of Tom Thomson


Speaking engagements:

Two-Hour performance at the Leith Church in Owen Sound.

Solo, two hour presentation at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound

Member of panel consisting of Angie Littlefield, Roy MacGregor, David Silcox and Tim Bouma in Owen Sound sponsored by the Tom Thomson Gallery

Joint presentation with Dr. Phil Chadwick at the McMichael Collection in Kleinburg

Joint presentation with John Little at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound this past summer.

Numerous references to my writing in Dr. Gregory Klages, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson

Roy MacGregor, Northern Lights: The Enduring Mystery of Tom Thomson and the Women Who Loved Him. He says:

"I thank Neil J. Lehto, a Michigan lawyer who became fascinated with the Tom Thomson mystery and who wrote Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson's Last Spring after spending years studying the story. Neil and I began exchanging emails when he was writing his book and we continued throughout the research and writing of mine. He used his legal training and his natural skepticism to challenge me at every turn. His was a tough, fair court and I appreciate every discussion we had concerning our mutual passion. we both believed, at all times, that truth mattered ar more than than persona preference."Nlehto (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The website link had been part of the Tom Thomson page for years. I don't recall who added it. I was contesting its removal.Nlehto (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It was disputed [3] after being added by an ip [4], who proceeded to revert it back without discussion or commment. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So, it was completely besides the point to question the credentials behind the website essays? The External Link to them can be removed without even the whiff of an explanation? And only I cannot add them back underWP:COI? Also, what other policies and guidelines are you referencing? By the way, I have not traced the full history of the External Link to the website essays. It does appear to me that I was the ip who added it back in 2013. Whoever removed it did not further discuss or comment on the the matter.Nlehto (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nlehto: yes, see WP:ELBURDEN. Make your case for inclusion on the article talkpage. Never re-introduce material that has a relation to you when it is challenged (and already be careful on the first time you consider adding such material). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I did make a case for inclusion on the article talkpage and the other person referred the dispute here. At this point, although I pass the notable authority test, nobody has offered any objective reason why these website essays would not be useful to readers of the article. They all deal with the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson, subject of the article in which the other person seems barely interested in doing any more than scrapping the surface of all the material available. It is poorly done. I would be willing to accept removal of the External Link if anyone would offer an objective explanation aside from a barebones reference to obscure and ambiguous guidelines. Nlehto (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to keep my head out of this and let the more experienced editors share their opinions first, but I think it will be helpful if I shortly reiterate my reasons for removing the link. First I removed the link per #11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID since personal essays and blog entries are not normally permitted (As Ronz mentioned, this is why they were originally removed). The exception for #11 is for recognized authorities who, "as a minimum standard... are individuals [who] always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." From the research and editing I have done, I did not think that he met Wiki's notability criteria per either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I thought it best to seek out help because I am the only dedicated editor of Tom Thomson related pages (and so had no one to consult with on the Talk Pages), and because I am fairly new to editing and not overly experienced in dealing with WP:BLP. Tkbrett (✉) 21:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So, after reviewing what information I provided, do you retain that opinion? If so, you embarrass yourself in front of the Canadian art community as a non-expert. You could not engage in a debate over the death and burial of Tom Thomson or any of the many unmentioned details of the 1956 dig conducted by William Little at the Mowat Cemetery or what has been learned since then. What you know is rather limited and it skews your judgement. Maybe its because I am from Michigan in the United States. I have suffered regional prejudice with my book. So, do you reject me as a notable authority or not? Nlehto (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're digging yourself into a deep hole that you're now unlikely to get your way out of.
Please stop what you've been doing. Review WP:COI, WP:NOT, and WP:EL carefully. Come back with a statement that demonstrates you understand these policies and guidelines, and will try to follow them from this point on. Otherwise you're likely going to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE.
Meanwhile, I don't think the link belongs for the reasons given. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Where does this come from? What am I digging deeper into? I understand these guidelines and will comply. The link is directly to the essays, not the book. (I get the claim that it promotes the book. Don't kid yourself about what that is worth? I earned like a few dollars last year from this book published in 2005.) The essays were a response to the reaction I got from Canadians who knew the story and wanted to know more. I enjoy research and I am very good at it. The External Link is to a "site that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues. . . . " or other reasons.

For what reasons does the link not fully comply? Nobody has said a word. I meet the author criteria fully. Nlehto (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed something that initially escaped me. In the rule that I pointed to as raising my concerns (#11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID) it uses the term "recognized authority", which links to Wikipedia:Verifiability. On that page, under "Sources that are usually not reliable", it discusses self-published sources. The publisher for Algonquin Elegy? iUniverse, a company that is included in Wiki's list of self-publishing companies and that even describes itself in the same way. Here is the relevant passage from WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books... [and] personal websites... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

As far as I can tell, this is the only book you have published in this field so you would not qualify for the exception. Tkbrett (✉) 04:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Anyway, the only place to determine whether this is a good link to include is to wait for independent editors to comment on a thread on the talkpage. If there is no support there, then it should not be included. WP:ELNO is about links to avoid, not links to never add. This one does seem to tick some of the boxes on that list (#11 is cited a couple of times above, #1 is likely an other). If independent editors (i.e. not Nlehto) can make a case that this adds substantial information that cannot be included in the article, then inclusion should be considered.

Nlehto, you had more than your share of WP:BOLD edits to include it, you have now to obey WP:BRD (and you started the discussion and made your case), it is now time to step away from that discussion. Do something else. You can still contribute to the prose of the article or other articles related to this subject, improve them, expand them (just use your knowledge, if you wrote a book on the subject, you are aware of sources outside of your self-published information that you can use to do that - and if you really need your self-published material somewhere else, then again start a thread on the talkpage of the article in question). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all who participated in this lively discussion.Nlehto (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)

To what extent is it a good idea to include external links to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles available on wikisource? The question was previously discussed in 2007, 2010 and 2017. I'm bringing it up because there has been a disagreement between User:PBS and me on whether Punjabi language should have an external links entry for wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Panjabi (some discussion at Talk:Punjabi language#Wikisource). This might be an extreme case: the EB article is outdated entirely, and – being a few sentences long – contains less content that the lede of our wikipedia article. However, PBS has apparently been adding such EB link to a large number of articles, so maybe a general discussion is in order.

In terms of guidelines, we've got WP:ELNO, which states we should generally avoid adding external links to:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.

A strict reading of this would appear to altogether rule out linking to other encyclopedias, full stop. But on the other hand, I think it's OK to use common sense and add links that will be useful to readers, and that will be so if the external encyclopedia's article is much better than wikipedia's (I've sometimes linked in this way to Encyclopedia Iranica – there are topics on which its articles are better and more detailed than ours are likely to be in the foreseeable future). However, this generally isn't the case for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: most of the time, the articles there are much shorter than ours, and given that they were written over a century ago, it's likely that they will often be outdated. Hence, I would expect that links to EB 1911 should generally be avoided unless the article is much better developed than ours and there are solid grounds for believing it is up to date. PBS disagrees and as far as I can tell their opinion is that the guideline here applies to sites, and given that the site in question is wikisource, we should add links to it as it is a sister project. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It should not be used as an EL. I should be used as a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


This is a non-issue.
A "strict reading" of WP:ELNO does no such thing, because the sentence that User:Uanfala mentions is misreading is about a site and not content. I think that User:Uanfala is also making a fundamental mistake with regards to sister projects in not reading the sentence in the context of all the polices and guidelines (as is implied at the start of the three major content policies "These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another"). For example User:Uanfala's interpretation ignores the bullet point that immediately proceeds it (see section Links to be considered point 5: "Links to Wikimedia sister projects with relevant material"). Also, there are other guidelines to be considered and when they are considered in conjunction with the sentence that User:Uanfala has highlighted shows that the strict interpretation that concerns User:Uanfala is a misinterpretation. See for example LAYOUT § Links to sister projects
  • Links to Wikimedia sister projects ... should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also". and More precisely, box-type templates such as {{Commons category}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section)
And also Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers," and the section in that guideline "Where to place links". "Sister project links should generally appear in the "External links" section".
-- PBS (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I am removing sister links when they are NOT useful. Empty commons categories or commons categories that only have images that are already in the article are utterly useless (and anyway often already linked in the toolbox). I will argue that EB articles can be useful, but in by far, far the most cases they do not offer anything more than what we already have.
For external encyclopedic texts, they should only be included when they add to the article. When removed, discussion should lead to consensus first before re-including.
Do note, that this guideline does not only cover external links in =external links= sections, it is for ALL links to sites outside en.wikipedia that appear in the article and are not references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
How do you, Dirk Beetstra, decide if something is "useful" or not? -- PBS (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@PBS: As defined e.g. in the intro of WP:EL/WP:ELNO#1. Similar to links to commons, if the category on commons has one image of the subject, and that image is already incorporated in the page of the subject, then there is (at that time) no need to add it. I recently deleted a commons category link where the commons category had 5 different zoom levels of the same image that was used on the subject page here. What are you getting 'more' out of the commons category in that case? That same image? The same goes for encyclopedia articles, if we have a 88 references article with hundreds and hundreds of lines/sentences of prose, then what extra is being added by a not-referenced, 4 line / 5 sentences piece of text that is over a hundred year outdated.
I am sorry, but that type of information does not add anything to our articles, it distracts, it is plain linkfarming. There will be cases where it does add something (though, from another encyclopedia that can, and should, all be incorporated into our articles), but this example is not one of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
With regards to your comment in the sentence "As defined e.g. in the intro of WP:EL/WP:ELNO#1", see my posting above. Your argument about commons entries makes sense to me and is analogous to not including a entry in external links that is already cited as a reference. On the rest I disagree with you. If the EB1911 article "add[s] something" factual to an article then it will be cited and not placed in "External links". Your argument about "plain linkfarming" is off target, because the same information can be included without a url. The entry contains information (that the topic has been included in English language encyclopaedias for more than a hundred years and Wikisouce has an article on it), which is over and above the content of the EB1911 article at the end of the url. The place do discuss the content of specific urls is on the talk page of the article where theurl is location, or it is proposed that it be located. -- PBS (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@PBS: what, you want to include the link because it is already for a hundred years an encylopedic topic. No, that is not what Wikipedia is for.
No, it does not necessarily have to be a reference. That is a misunderstanding of why we do add external links.
The talkpage? I guess that if something is against guidelines or policy would mean that we discuss it widely, as it has implications everywhere. Not just some local consensus which we try on each page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
To which "it" are you referring? "something is against guidelines or policy" Posting sister links to external links is not against either policy or guidelines (see my initial post to this section for more details). -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right, it is not against policy to add links to commons, even if there is nothing additional there. It is however rather useless. There are also commons categories with a zillion images, where our article has only 2 or 3. In that case, linking to the commons cat is appropriate. That same is true for EB. IF the EB article has significant info that we do not hold on en.wikipedia, then it is worth linking in the external links section (or being incorporated and used as a reference). In other cases, it is not. Both follow the same reasoning as our external links guidelines: if there is something substantial there, we link, otherwise we do not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There are however cases where the EB article has an amount of detail that we would want to link to, and then the external links is the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The "rules" are substantially relaxed when it comes to links to sister sites. I would be happy to include many links to EB1911 at Wikisource, but I am a bit doubtful that this particular link is desirable. The relevant page views scores suggest that readers weren't really interested in it, either (>1,000x the page views here compared to there). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The number of page views are apples and pears. The only way to do such a comparison is to place the link on the relevant Wikipedia page and see what happens over time. If the number of view on Wikisource goes up them it is a useful link. -- PBS (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I am still doubtful that this particular link is desirable. A link to a very short, seriously outdated encyclopedia article does not seem desirable to me. If you wanted a link to Wikisource in that article, it seems to me that a link to https://pa.wikisource.org/ itself would be far more valuable than a link to five sentences in a century-old encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

findarticles.com

We have many links to this site (>5,000). I looked in particular at

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20000119/ai_n9537565

which is dead. I found no useful archive on Internet Archive.

Another link from the same article is also dead.

Maybe we should deprecate this site?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: what is the function of this site? It looks like a search-engine (-result)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think so. Looks like the results expire, probably fairly quickly, making it of limited use.
E.G. http://www.findarticles.com/read/www.zdnet.com?pa=article%2Fis-there-a-shingled-disk-in-your-future%2F&noadc=1&q=Shingled%20recording&pid=904392227698893521&ssq=1 is effectively an abstract of https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-there-a-shingled-disk-in-your-future/ - which would make a better reference.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: we discourage linking to search results ... forcefully replace what canbe replaced, remove the rest andblacklist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Checking a few out, this seems to be a full article, and successfully archived. So it looks like a manual process. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC).

I am working on an article related to 1993/1994 congressional committee hearings across two sessions. If I could point to transcriptions of the hearings, I would use those instead but this was before Congress was digitally enlightened. Fortunately, both sessions were filmed by CSPAN. There are YouTube versions of these recordings by non-CSPAN uploaders. Per CSPAN's terms, its recordings of federal transactions like congressional hearings can be posted online non-commercially as long as they are credited. In other words, these two videos are technically legal uploads. (They don't directly credit CSPAN but CSPAN's logo all over the videos and CSPAN says that's sufficient).

Obviously, these videos are non-free but I would like to include the Youtube links in this article. Are these fair ELs? --Masem (t) 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a guarantee that those uses on YouTube are non-commercial? AIUI the addition of advertisements is a reasonable interpretation of commercial... --Izno (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point. But fortunately I just discovered C-SPAN offers these videos too on their archives, so I'll just use those. --Masem (t) 13:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Greyhound

I refer to the recent history here. The external link does not seem compliant to me. And see talk. Is anyone able to offer a second opinion, either way? Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate, and I've responded on the article talk page.
I also removed the link to the video, as being a video example for coursing, rather than a reference. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. Aoziwe (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Adelines International chorus competitions, 2010–2019

I'm wondering if the embedded links to YouTube videos added to various sections of this article are appropriate. There seem to be some templates being used for the individual competitions which is embedding links to not only videos, but also to pdf files to various sections of the article, which generally is not really something allowed per WP:ELLIST or WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. The use of embedded citations has been deprecated, so the pdf links might be able to be converted to regularly formatted inline citations, but not sure how that will affect the functioning of the templates. Moreover, most of the links to YouTube are to the competition's official channel and it seems that one link to the channel's main page in the "External links" section should be suffiecient per WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the links were included to intentionally flaunt the guidelines. I agree they are not included in the best manner. The summary links could be converted to source citations for the adjacent scores. Similarly, the competition video links could be modified as source citations for a "video availability" table column. The single-link suggestion to the associated YouTube channel page has merit, though with so many different targets, I expect specific links would better serve interested readers. As you indicated, the "Sweet Adelines International Competition year table" template usage complicates modification. —ADavidB 09:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the associated table row template to reformat external links as source citations. Conversion of template calls is underway for the scoring column. —ADavidB 13:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Adavidb for taking a look and then doing all of that cleaning up of the links. I'm assuming that I can apply what you did to Sweet Adelines International Harmony Classic competitions and Sweet Adelines International quartet competitions, 2010–2019 as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Some of the tables in other SAI articles use the same templates, while others do not, but I expect changes can be applied in the same way to all of them. I already had the 2000–2009 chorus competition and 2010–2019 quartet competiton articles on my informal 'to do' list as well, but don't know when I'd get to them. —ADavidB 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Marchjuly and Adavidb. Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier - I appreciate the conscientious effort you've both gone to in thinking about this particular case - and for the time you've taken to discuss, then modify, the tables thus far. If you don't mind, I think this might be a case where IAR might apply given the repetitious and single-source nature of these external links. In short: I'm not sure we are "solving" any particular problem by moving the external links from being 'inline' to 'references' format. Instead I think we might be making it harder on the reader, and making the references section needlessly hard to use.
With regards to the two policies cited above by Marchjuly:
  1. It is my reading that the specific purpose of the policy to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links is written to address the issue of such links being "highly susceptible to linkrot" - as well as for aesthetic reasons.
  2. While, the Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists policy is about ensuring "lists themselves should not be composed of external links". It goes on to state, however, that "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria."
As mentioned there are several articles to which this discussion applies (two "chorus competition" articles, one "quartet competition" article, the "harmony classic" article, and also the overarching article about all the competitions [which has some other tables and transcludes some sections from these aforementioned articles]). But, for the purposes of this discussion let's stick with discussing the The most recent quartet competition table only. Any consensus about it can also serve for the rest.
Whereas before any given cell in the "video" column had the words "Semi-finals - Finals" as blue links to their respective videos. Now it says "Semi-finals[244] - Finals[245]" with references to the bottom of the page, where it then says "244 > Class Ring SemiFinal. Sweet Adelines International - Via Youtube. 245 > Class Ring Final. Sweet Adelines International - Via Youtube." This footnote format doesn't give any extra information to the reader, and is not any more resilient against linkrot, but it does make them click a second time AND it now means that footnotes 130 to 295 on that page are a solid stream of repeated information line after line. This is neither pretty nor useful (in my opinion). Yes it is true that this is more in alignment with the policies cited above (footnotes preferred instead of external links) - but not for the reasons those policies cite: anti-linkrot, aesthetics, avoiding lists-of-links.
By comparison, if we are concerned with the "video" column, we should equally be looking at the "regional:summary" column - which is also a list of external links - in this case to PDF (scoresheets from individual competitions) rather than youtube videos. They too could be converted to references format at the bottom of the page, but I equally don't believe that would help. The website that publishes these scoresheets is not the original publisher and so it has no explicit authority as a source - it is merely hosting them (in fact - it is a more reliable web-host than the official organisation itself who doesn't even host the PDFs of the regional competition scoresheets, only the international competition!)
Thank you for your time in reading this commentary. I'm also going to ping @Pigsonthewing and RexxS: who built the template in the first place for their opinion. Wittylama 17:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The 2010–2019 quartet competition article has thus far not been fully 'converted'. The article's only related changes in appearance – which you described – are due to an update to the table header template; no change has yet been made to the parameters given when calling it. I adjusted the header video column to represent what videos are available, with a source citation, as opposed to direct external links to those videos. While I also updated the associated table row template, a change in parameters would be required for visual differences in the regional score/summary columns. The chorus competition articles do have these changes already applied, likewise using the summaries as source citations for the regional scores. Readership is available at this external link. —ADavidB 19:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A big help in combatting link rot (being able to repair a link that is no longer functional) is to have a title and other information that may still apply to a working link. Also, the Internet Archive regularly archives websites used as source citations on Wikipedia; I don't believe it does this for Wikipedia's direct external links. —ADavidB 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't see any benefit of embedding external links like Report and Stats over using a fully and properly formatted inline citations even though this seems to be commonly done is sports season articles, etc. which are basically long lists of game results (statcruft in my opinion). It would work OK if there was information about the link/source added to the "References" section, but that is almost never done. That seems to be one of the main reasons the use of embedded citations has been deprecated; editors would add a citation like this [5] and then wouldn't add any information about the source to the "References" section. This might have been acceptable back when Wikipedia was still beginning, but these days there are so many different citation templates which can be used and formatted citations can be added by the software itself that there's no reason not to do so when citing a source. If there are concerns that the syntax will be hard to figure out or accidentally damaged by editors if it's included in the body of the article, then the formatted references can all added to the "References" section and WP:REFNAME or a WP:SRF style can used to add the footnote markers to the article body at the desired location. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • These lists are simply not Wikipedia material. They are sourced to Yahoo groups, fan wikis and other unreliable sources. Virtually all the listed groups have no articles, and almost certainly never will. This stuff belongs on the fan wiki, not here. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I wasn't sure, but the articles reminded me of the type of statcruft/fancruft you kinda find in lots of sports season articles. I agree that the individual entries in the lists are almost certainly never going to be considered notable enough for stand-alone articles, but perhaps the individual competitions might be. The lack of reliable sources is, however, a problem as well as the way non-free logos for each incarnation of the competition are being used (my opinion is that they event logos are not WP:NFCCP compliant), but none of those things were really related to the external link use; so, I didn't mention them in my OP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I understand that these three articles listing the historical scores are borderline in terms of third-party reliable sources, because there are only secondary-sources from fan-sites or primary-sources (the scoresheets themselves) which give the detailed information being listed. This is however, not a discussion for the EL noticeboard and more for a discussion of deletion re. notability. While it would be disheartening to me to see this work of mine deleted, objectively I do realise that this is a valid discussion and could be argued both ways. HOWEVER, Marchjuly & JzG, I do resent having my work described merely as "fan/sport/statcruft" and summarily dismissed as "simply not Wikipedia material". As Wikipedia:Fancruft#Usage states: "Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is, nevertheless, in common use there. However, this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." We can have a sensible discussion about inclusion of the information in these pages, but you can clearly see that I have put in many many hours of work to them - and dismissing that effort offhand is very demotivating regardless of what you think about the articles themselves. Please be considerate of this when critiquing the validity of my work. Wittylama 12:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Resent away, it doesn't change things, I'm afraid. I find it very distressing when people go to a lot of work in good faith but the result is simply not compliant, I feel for you, but the fact is that this is lists of trivial information about non-notable groups sourced to websites that fail WP:RS. You really should know that fan wikis, for example, are not reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wittylama: It wasn't my intent to make light of the time and effort you put into the article(s), so I apologize if I came off as if I was. The point about the sources made by Guy, however, is sort of relevant because one of the ways to resolve embedded external links is to convert them to inline citations, and in your first post above you seem to suggest that these links were intended to be seen as citations. A detailed discussion of the reliability/quality of the sources themselves is perhaps probably a discussion better suited for WP:RSN, but a cursory discussion of that here seems fine since there's kind of no point in converting links to citations if the sources aren't RS's. As for the cruft comment, your point is well taken; however, the way the links were/are being embedded and the way templates are being used do remind me of a similar things I've seen used in sports teams individual season article, which tend to be one long table or series of tables (or templates) of competition results with lots of external links being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This part of the discussion seems to be based on the belief that independent sources don't exist, since none are currently cited. However, see, e.g., [6] (page 5), [7], and [8] – and that's just from a quick search for the last chorus mentioned on the page. Now, it might not be possible to find an independent source that directly says "last place loser in 2018", but it does seem to be possible to find newspaper sources that cover at least some aspects of the annual competitions. I think therefore that this board should focus on the question that was brought here: Was the original formatting appropriate? The question of "Should I spend a couple of hours searching regional newspapers for independent sources (or, alternatively, complain that nobody else has already WP:VOLUNTEERed to do that)?" is not appropriate to this noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to :- http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/ seem to be generating 404's, are these internal intranet links? (They should ideally be marked for archival replacement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareFan00 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert Moog

I'm currently doing extensive work on the Robert Moog article, which has a vast External links section. I could familiarise myself with the rights and wrongs of external links but it's the sort of Wikipedia work I find very dull and I'd rather focus on writing, my strong suit. Could anyone take a look and see how much of the section is kosher? Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Popcornduff. I've removed about half of them, and probably another 50% could get cut, too.
On the question of "the rights and wrongs of external links", the rules exist mostly for people who want to add things, rather than people who are trying to weed out things. There's one very simple rule for editors who find huge lists of links: If you don't like it, take it out. External links are meant to be optional niceties, rather than important content. The anti-edit-warring rule is that anyone can remove any link for any reason (including vague reasons, such as "I just don't think it's a desirable link for this article"), and the disputed link stays out unless and until there is evidence of a consensus to include it. So, when you encounter vast External links sections, feel free to remove anything that doesn't seem like a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Great to know. Thanks for the help. Popcornduff (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC pointer

There is an RfC in progress here that may of be interest to editors here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

how to approach ELs for lists

I'm not sure why there are any ELs at List of soccer clubs in the United States as there is no official link for the subject. Any advice would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that was just removed (which is okay). The usual reason is that (according to the editors who place them) these will be interesting or useful to the likely readers of that page. (The external links section isn't exclusively for official links, so it doesn't really matter that there isn't a single official link for all US soccer clubs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruise booking site

Spotting this link on a number of cruise ship articles usually claiming its a link to show the ship location but it looks like its primarily book a cruise through us site. Lyndaship (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at one of these links. Would you be happier with a page such as https://www.cruisemapper.com/?imo=9372456 ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this site is primarily one which seeks to sell you a cruise but I wouldn't see the point in adding it as an external link as the only information it is likely to give beyond what should be in the article sourced from RS is the current location and destinations which I don't think it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The articles on cruise ships suffer hugely from enthusiasts putting on review sites and all sorts of stuff which is of no interest to the general reader Lyndaship (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that destinations are a reasonable thing to include in an encyclopedia article, assuming that they don't change so often that it becomes a maintenance burden. s:en:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Steamship Lines lists many ships and their main destinations.
Current location is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but one of the main points behind the ==External links== section is to provide information that doesn't belong in the article. (If the current location belonged in the article, then WP:ELNO#EL1 would prohibit us from adding a link for its location.) So I think that a link about current location could be accepted (if editors want to add it). The Cleancruising link itself might fall afoul of WP:ELNO#EL5 on grounds of "objectionable amounts of advertising", but any one of several links that doesn't have quite so much advertising is probably acceptable. Links like this are also not required, so if you don't like them, you can remove them, and then see if anyone actually cares enough to start a discussion about whether to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for guidance. Agree areas of operation are encyclopedic but routes and destinations tend to vary with every trip so I feel to try to include them all will result in an incomplete record and it overwhelms the article with detail disinteresting to the general reader. Not something I am trying to clean up though at present Lyndaship (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to 1960s commercial audio recordings at the Internet Archive

I'd be glad of advice on the propriety of the link added here. The recording was made by EMI in the 1960s and I'm not at all sure it's out of copyright. A steer from an editor who knows the rules about copyright and links would be v. gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate, as the copyright is not clear. Internet Archives does not assure material uploaded is appropriately licensed, we need to check that. That's likely an improper upload under their terms but we should assume that the sound recording is still copyrighted (to at the latest 2067). --Masem (t) 19:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that advice. I rather thought it might be so. I'll delete, and explain why on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 20:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter .. again

Again a discussion on twitter, which anyway always go the same way. Is the addition of the twitter, here by User:Pigsonthewing in line with our inclusion standards. The official website of the subject is there, the official website has a link to the twitter, this twitter hence makes the second external link on the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The link has already been removed by another editor, and I agree that it should be allowed per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. There's a clearly visible link to the Twitter page on Smythe's official website; so, I'm not sure how or what policy/guideline would allow it despite the edit sums claiming its OK each time it was re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it looks like it's everyone against you. Have you considered whether this battle is worth your time? I mean, it'd be easy to find a couple of people who will pound on the table about a strict interpretation of the guideline, but WP:IAR is a real policy for good reason. Unless you like this kind of thing, it might be better to think about Wikipedia:How to lose, or at least to turn a blind eye towards that liminal space between pure external links and true inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I just posted the notice to let others know about the ongoing discussion, not to try and win the discussion. If the community consensus is that using the links in such a way is OK per WP:EL, then that's fine with me. WP:IAR doesn't mean ignore established policy just for the sake of ignoring it as explained at WP:NOTIAR. Anyway, I explained why I removed the links and posted that if the community feels otherwise, then [the] links can easily be re-added; however, at least a few of the arguments in response in favor of re-adding the links seem to be more of "I like it" or "it's useful" types of arguments than not. Even so, if you or someone else feels they should be re-added, then you or they can be WP:BOLD and do so; however, since the article is being transcluded into the main article about the 2020 election, there's more than one article affected which might mean that a broader consensus should be sought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: we have had discussions on campaigns in elections now a gazillion times. Every time the way they are implemented is different, and there is no common way to include the links (and on many of the past elections' Wikipages the links are, by definition, outdated). 'Everyone is against you', yes, another brilliant example of a local (micro-)consensus that is contradicting our policies and guidelines. And this local consensus is again completely different from our previous local consensus on another set of election pages (actually, we seemed to have a consensus here on this page, which is bluntly never implemented and ignored). And my comparison with car brands, viagra, banana brands, or whatever still holds. Yes, it is extremely useful to have an external link to the university website and to their athletics department website for each university in List_of_universities_in_Turkey, but the community has decided that that is NOT what we are doing. These are local microconsensuses (of which there are many different ones) all based on WP:IAR and WP:ILIKEIT. Yes, there are good ways of linking, but there is no consensus on how to, and all of these are certainly not the way to do it. IAR is fine, but we do seem to have constant disagreement whether these campaign websites improve Wikipedia or not - whether we follow the rule or IAR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is: the relevant WikiProject(s) should start an RfC and get to a consensus on how to represent the candidates in election pages. My suggestion still is to have tables with the candidates, where one of the rightmost columns is either a link to the Wikipedia page on the campaign (which then has the campaign as an official site), or (not and) a link to the campaign website locked in time through an internet archive at the date of election or date of withdrawal. That is what we do on all Wikipedia lists, and I do not see why these lists should be in any form be an exception to these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's exactly those gazillion past conversations I'm thinking of. Maybe resolving this properly is hopeless right now. The situation might be different later (e.g., after an RFC hosted by a relevant WikiProject, assuming said RFC came to a conclusion, and that the conclusion was specific enough to be helpful and something that editors at the local articles were usually willing to implement – for example, the proposal you outline here, which you have recommended before), but, right now, trying to keep those links out of that list feels like a waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah, never a waste of time. Mass cleaning of social network linkfarms is of a similar nature, just keep going. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case , one of the links claims to be "Official Business Case Template" but leads to this site (http://www.projectinabox.org.uk/registration/) that is just selling some services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.97.186 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's been fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Musixmatch lyrics pages – user generated with minimal oversight?

Musixmatch promotes itself as a website with a "lyrics catalogue [that] is created, synched, and translated by millions of contributors from the Musixmatch community. The final version of the lyrics is edited and validated by a team of international curators."[9] Additionally, it asserts "to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics".[10]. However, after going through 50 or more lyrics pages, a large majority do not actually show that they have been verified. So, if Musixmatch were able to squeak by WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12 (open wiki-type sites), should there be a restriction on linking lyrics that don't indicate "Verified by so-and-so"? (assuming of course that the lyrics are properly licensed). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should avoid those in general, especially for lyrics that are still under copyright/not properly licensed (which is probably most of them, for songs that are less than ~50 years old). I'm not sue that a total ban is needed, but for all of those "not verified" pages, I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to find a better option elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Musixmatch doesn't indicate whether an individual song is licensed and only includes that it "is the largest lyrics platform allowed for worldwide licensing with deals with top Music Publishers as Warner Chappel, Universal Bmg, Emi Publishing, Sony ATV, Bmg Rights, Kobalt Music and much more".[11] Other lyrics sites have used similar language when in fact a significant percentage of their lyrics are actually for unlicensed songs. One option may be to only allow links to lyrics that indicate that they have been verified and hope that the verification process includes a license check. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

http://musicabrasilis.org.br/

Nivia Zumpano (talk · contribs) has been adding this [12] to a number of pages in various places. I've been removing it as spam - these are clearly good faith additions but I don't think they are appropriate. This has been described to me as a cultural project to get Brazilian music known around the world. I'd like other views please. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am the founder of Musica Brasilis [13]. It is a non-profit organization and its main goal is to make available Brazilian music scores. Paper music editions are declining and it is important to let musicians know where to find music scores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzelotte (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Lanzelotte. The English Wikipedia has some strange rules about links. For example, we don't care whether you're a non-profit or for-profit organization.
We do care about things like duplication. One link to music is enough – one link to *any* site with the music, not one link to *your* site. So, to give an example, I wouldn't have recommended adding this link to Ernesto Nazareth, because it already had a link to a different website with all of his music, but I think it was probably helpful at José Antônio Rezende de Almeida Prado (and Doug, maybe you should consider restoring it there).
Also, if you are going to look through the ==External links== section of some more articles, please check the existing links, and remove any that aren't working. You know how websites don't live forever, and a dead link doesn't help readers. I would appreciate it if you would remove any "dead" external link that is in the ==External links== section. (There are other, more complicated rules for links under ==References== and in other parts of the article.) That would be generally helpful, and I think it would be easy to do. When we find a broken website, we usually use an edit summary such as "Removing dead link" to help other editors understand what we're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I've put that one back. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
When Lanzelotte writes, "it is important to let musicians know where to find music scores", it definitely feels like Wikipedia is being used as a way to advertise.
A second question is, do the scores on that site meet our copyright policies? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
In line with Walter, it is not Wikipedia's task to help people find music scores on the internet, that is what Google is for. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Linking to musical scores is in WP:ELYES #2 forever: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work". We should be including links, assuming it's not a copyvio site, just like we include Gutenberg and similar links in articles about books and authors, and we don't really care which website those legal copies are on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
That's all fine, user:WhatamIdoing, but I am VERY uncomfortable with a site owner making that decision, and I would still argue that if of two music score sites one has (way) more info than another that replacement might be sought. And if one of the sites, even if it has more, has copyright problems here and there, I would consider the one with less information (an ELNEVER consideration). And when a COI editor is admitting that they want to have their links to be found, and that it is a 'cultural project' to promote material .. we get in spam teritory. And again, if I have to chose between two links, of which one is spammed .. obviously, as you imply, there will be others. I am sorry, being a GLAM is not a free pass to spam. If as a GLAM you cannot make a decision whether the material adds something to the page, or whether there is better material on the world than your own link, you have no place here. And that material is generally good and ELYES is also not a reason to spam it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that these two editors are both seem to edit in violation of our m:Terms of use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Megan Thee Stallion#External links. Citrivescence (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

adding World's Fair external link to a World's Fair page

Greetings:

This concerns the page, "Century 21 Exposition". I added an external link, i.e., this:

  • 1962 Seattle, a section of Jon Paul Sank's World's Fairs Page. The section has approximately 180 links, including to websites, television, newsreels, documentaries, home movies, lectures, interviews, video playlists, pictures, guides, maps, audio, digital collections, articles, items on exhibits, pavilions, and shows, and an especially large music subsection. Retrieved April 28, 2019.

A couple of weeks later, somebody reverted it, and it sparked the following exchange:

On what basis did you revert my edits to "Century 21 Exposition"? I am most concerned about the "1962 Seattle" one, because it has a lot of links that surely give people a lot more information about the Expo. My World's Fair page has been praised by bona fide World's Fair historians. There's nothing commercial about it. It doesn't seek donations. Its aim is to inform and give visitors a chance to experience the Fairs, purely. I'm serving the public and giving them an opportunity to learn and enjoy more than the Wikipedia article provides. They read the Wikipedia article, and my page is just as deserving as the other external links, because it gives Wikipedia visitors more. On what basis did you kill it? PaulSank (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC) 

   @PaulSank: You must follow the External links policy when adding links to articles. Your website should not be linked by yourself without consensus from Wikipedia editors, like those at the EL noticeboard, and needs to follow the stricter guidelines on Conflict of interest and especially the self-promotion section. You are welcome to maintain your fansite, but it would also fall under links to avoid (specifically section 11). If someone else adds your site, then that's better in our view, but otherwise you must recuse yourself from adding your own links. (signature)

   @(The other guy): This bit about the EL Noticeboard appears to be made up by you, because it doesn't appear in the other links you have provided here. I don't see anything on the links-to-avoid list that applies to mine. I have no conflicts of interest. And the self pub paragraph starts, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason", and my 1962 Seattle is HIGHLY relevant. So AGAIN, I insist on specifics, ON WHAT BASIS?

PaulSank (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC) 

   @(The other guy): You have replied to somebody else (below), but you have not replied to me. Good, because it suggests that I have successfully clarified my position. I will now restore my link, because it's highly relevant and useful, and I derive no benefit whatsoever beyond the pleasure of helping people learn more about and enjoy more of Century 21. PaulSank (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

       @PaulSank: It's not my job to handhold you through the various processes on Wikipedia. I will say this: your attitude so far is more akin to a desperate spammer than someone with the best interest of the project in mind, and I recommend that you try to seek out guidance from the noticeboard or another forum with multiple users who are better versed in COI than I. Your website appears to be a repository of links, which is helpful but not particularly useful, and may also fall under the WP:ELNEVER restrictions on copyright, which is taken very seriously. Please try to understand this site's policies and rules before attempting to re-add your links. (signature)

"Spammer", no way, I have nothing commercial to offer. As for the rest of what you say here, somehow it clarifies the issue better, so yes, I'll now go to the ELN. Thank you.

(end of quote)

What say you? Can I have my rich repository of highly relevant links as an external link, or not? Please make sure you actually look at my section and explore it for at least a few minutes before you judge. I can't even believe I have to have this discussion, because my 1962 Seattle is so highly relevant, offering Wikipedia visitors the opportunity to spend hours and hours in further exploration of the Exposition, and sharing it brings no benefit to me. Thank you.  PaulSank (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #11: avoid "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority". WP:ADV: "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." No, your self-published and self-promotional links are not appropriate here. Seeing that you added links to your website with excessively detailed descriptions that included your own name to about 20 articles and that is the bulk of your edits, I would concur with SounderBruce's calling you a spammer. Also, if you spend a little time on this website you'll see that ELs do not require an access date: see WP:ELCITE. Reywas92Talk 06:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I am shocked, appalled, insulted, and highly OFFENDED at all this name-calling! Regardless of the facts, there are nicer ways of expressing oneself than to insult someone personally, e.g., "calling you a spammer". Because I'm so offended, I want to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. I want nothing more to do with a community that hurls insults at people. PaulSank (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PaulSank,
I'm sorry that you've been having such a hard time over this. Wikipedia can be an overly complicated place. We've got a particular style (for example, no long descriptions in this section), and some – well, you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that the English Wikipedia has to deal with hardcore commercial spammers (not to mention the occasional malware site) every hour of the day, and then we've got all these companies and people that dump promotional "articles" on us, and we do get a little overwhelmed and touchy about it sometimes. That's our fault, not yours.
So, first off, thanks for being a real person with a genuine interest in the World Fairs, who really just wants to share information and resources about it with other people. Second, because of this long history of problems – again, totally not your fault, but it will unfortunately affect you – we sometimes take a pretty strict approach about who can add links and how we handle them. I think this link could be considered under what we call WP:ELMAYBE #3, which is about "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites". (There's not actually any rule that says that directory of websites can't be on a website owned by an individual. It's more common to find links on library websites, non-profit organizations, or DMOZ and its successors, but we do have a few from private individuals.) If you'd like to try again, then I think that you could start a section at Talk:Century 21 Exposition and propose that someone else include the link. Your directory listing includes at least two of the external links on the page now, so it would have the net effect of reducing the length of the list. I believe that User:Jmabel has done some work on that article, and he might be able to evaluate it, if nobody else happens to be watching that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth: yes, it does look to me like a (very) well-chosen collection of links about the topic. I doubt there is a significantly better one. Anyone who called someone a "spammer" for proposing such a high-quality link was totally out of line. - Jmabel | Talk 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Also for what it's worth @PaulSank: in the future, if you want to propose linking something you yourself have worked on, it's best to first propose it on the talk page and try to get a consensus before adding. But if you've never been through this before, there is no reason you should already have known that. - Jmabel | Talk 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Huffingtonpost.co.uk

When I go to huffingtonpost.co.uk[14] on my Mac, I get a popup that says the site needs my consent to access my device! I have no idea what that's about, but I sure as hell don't like it.

Sample article: Sheri Jacobson. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It puts up a box that says:

HuffPost is part of Oath. Oath and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Oath will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products.

Learn more.

Select 'OK' to continue and allow Oath and our partners to use your data, or select 'Manage options' to view your choices."

I don't think I've seen that before. This Reddit thread guesses that it is the equivalent of "You agree to cookies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the disagreement here, does The Unz Review masthead FAQ assertion that, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them," allow us to link to this article from The Reporter from 1966 as the source of an early use of the term "white genocide"? EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: is citing the original alone not enough? Do we really need a copy-source? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel like being able to read the whole article gives a sense of the political climate and conflict history necessary for understanding the use of the term. It's not a huge deal, I just am astonished that everyone isn't willing to take The Unz Review at their word, since they clearly paid a lot to license hundreds of thousands of important historical news publications, and would have been sued to kingdom come decades ago if they weren't offering them on the up-and-up, that's all. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, EllenCT. Generally, entire newspaper articles aren't uploaded to Wikipedia per WP:NFC simply so that someone can read the entire article; so, it seems unlikely such a file could be uploaded and then added as part of the citation; a link to the article, on the other hand, is often considered OK as long as it's not a problem per WP:COPYLINK or WP:ELNEVER. It seems to me that as long as the original source(s) were WP:PUBLISHED and are considered reliable, then it should be able to cite them per WP:SAYWHERE even if they cannot be currenty found anywhere online. If they can be found online uploaded to website other than one controlled by the original source, then perhaps as a WP:Convenience link could work using the parameter |via= like is often done with sites like Google Books, etc. The question then might be whether such a convenience link would be OK; it might for a website like "Newspapers.com", "Google News Archive", "Internet Archive" or "HighBeam Research", but maybe not so much from some kind of personal website hosting the content. Just from looking at Ron Unz#The Unz Review and other activities, I'm not sure how reliable of a website it would be as a source or how credible it would be even for just a convenience link just based upon what Wikipedia has to say about it; however, if do a Wikipedia search of the websites url, you'll find it being cited in quite a number of articles which might mean it's considered reliable for some things, which in turn might mean it's credible as a convenience link. (Note: This was originally asked about at WP:MCQ#Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?, but I suggested asking here at ELN since it seems to be more of an EL question than a file upload question.) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am just saying that I do see the value of convenience links to material and that we should use them where ever we can (especially to make material easier to verify), but that does not mean that we HAVE to have a convenience link to material EVERYWHERE (and the same goes for archived copies). If there are no problems with the convenience link, fine, but I do not believe it is a problem if we cannot (or even try to be on the safe side). If there are serious suspicions about a site, then it is just better not to have the convenience link and only 'link' to an (even paper-only) original. I really don't see a problem with that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this and think SAYWHERE is more than acceptable solution to any link at all. I just mentioned a convenience link as one possibility, but I don't think their usage, especially in this case, should be seen as automatically OK. If there are ELNEVER concerns that cannot be fully resolved, then a convenience link shouldn't be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The dispute is about this edit, which is not in the ==External links== section. This is primarily a question about WP:LINKVIO when Wikipedia:Citing sources. One editor believes that the website has a suitable license, on the grounds that they claim to, and therefore that a link in the citation is acceptable. Another editor believes that the website does not have a suitable license (apparently on the grounds that they are bad people, and so can't be trusted in matters such as copyrights). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at the links on the article Rolls-Royce 20/25. I've twice removed them and they've twice been re-added by another editor. I'm looking at the links and they fail multiple points on WP:ELNO. For the first two links, https://archive.rrec.org.uk/ & http://www.rroc.org/

  1. These links are general collectors club links, not links specific to the Rolls-Royce 20/25 model. Fails WP:ELNO #13
  2. These links require paid subscriptions in order to access them, thus removing their encyclopaedic utility. Fails WP:ELNO #6

The third link, which was updated to be a little more specific, https://www.fiennes.co.uk/The-Cars/Rolls-Royce/20-25/

  1. The link immediately provide no additional info beyond what the article already does. Fails WP:ELNO #1
  2. This link is to a catalogue section of a commercial website and everything on and from that page is solely to sell replacement parts for the cars, not to provide encyclopaedic information. Fails WP:ELNO #5

I've tried to engage the user who keeps re-adding the links, but they're not listening and no longer replying to the points I'm making and are just reverting. Now I don't wish to get into an edit war here, but the user doesn't seem to get why some links may not be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. So I'm bringing this here to get some more eyes and to see if I'm being unreasonable in my removal of these sites. Looking for opinion. Note: These sites are not linked from any other specific Rolls-Royce sites, it seems the one user has a strong attachment to just this single article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mattporta, the first two seem like excellent sites, but charging a fee is a really serious failing – for the "External links" section itself. You can see this in the rules at WP:ELNO#EL6, "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". Now, if you happen to have paid that membership fee yourself, and you want to cite those excellent specific pages in the article as refs (usually done as a type of Wikipedia:Inline citation, and ending up in the ==References== section), then that's totally fine. Just not in the ==External links== section.
Canterbury, I'm less convinced by your description of the problems with the Fiennes link. The landing page isn't a great link, but there is information on that page that isn't in the article and might not belong there. For example, the term Hobson Telegauge appears in the link but not in the article. (Whether it ought to be in the article is outside my expertise.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at dankneen.com, used at Dan Kneen (deceased 2018)? I am unsure if it (now) complies with WP:ELOFFICIAL, particularly numbered points 1 and 2. Seems to be ostensibly 'retail/commercial' with a charity status from late Oct 2018.

Extract from Isle of Man index of charities: "To promote in the Isle of Man and elsewhere the relief of persons injured in motorsport events and the families of deceased competitors in need due to ill health, disability or financial hardship. To pomote (sic) public safety in motorsport and provision of improved safety facilities."

Just done an update on the article and unsure if this is appropriate to be shown. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer, it's not "wrong" but it's probably also not "best". You could replace the link with one to https://web.archive.org/web/20180604073854/http://www.dankneen.com/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Professional certification

Anyone want to join an effort to clean Professional certification? How vigorously should WP:LINKFARM be applied? For example, IACCP appears three times with three external links in each. Should WP:WTAF be enforced by removing IACCP? By the way, IACCP redirects to International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology which is different from the certification IACCP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JJMC89 for doing the cleanup in a mega-edit. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I just pulled the maintenance template from the top.
That type of basic article on a broad subject can be really difficult to write. I'm glad you have decided to take a stab at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't know if it's enough that the link in this edit was removed in this one, which left a mention of the website rather than a link to the specific copyright-breaching page there. Is revdel required, does the mention of the website need removing, or are we good? 16:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.240.227 (talk)

There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to La Griffe du Lion (lagriffedulion.f2s.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § La Griffe du Lion. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti suicide hotline numbers

Not sure if this is the correct forum for this. There is a discussion [the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article. The current discussion relates to a hat note which doesn't link to similar titled articles but to a list of external prevention hotlines with phone numbers for users to call if they happen to be suicidal while reviewing this article. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Shabidoo, this is a question about an internal link, and therefore this is not the correct noticeboard. There is probably no noticeboard that handles questions about hatnotes. I doubt that this particular RFC needs additional attention, but if you choose to, you could consult Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC for ideas. I'd also recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Canvassing very carefully, as advertising an RFC only on pages whose editors are likely to be sympathetic to you is both poor form and fairly often results in a second RFC with a different outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I've certainly taken that into account. My goal is to get as many people to express their opinion as possible and I don't know where else to get people's attention. I've used all the links on the page you suggested a few days ago and I cannot find more than three message boards that are remotely relevant to the discussion. If you could suggest where else to canvass please let me know. Cheers. Shabidoo | Talk 22:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"General references" in Sumner College

Another editor is insisting that external links be included in the "References" section of Sumner College. These links use reference templates but they're not used as references in the article. He or she claims that these are "general references showing the college exists and has been reported in reliable sources." I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; can someone else please help? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I did a little digging at the Internet Archive. Those two general references were to press releases in the Salem News Headlines and Trenton Chronicle. The same press release—exact same text—is the inline reference to Get News that is currently in the article. Accordingly, since they are redundant dead links to press releases, I've removed them. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Al Seckel was active mostly 1990-2010 as a popularizer of optical illusions. I am working on the section of his bio about this part of his career, which is in my opinion the only reason he is notable. Seckel's lawsuits, his book deals, the people who say he owed them money, etc. are topics amply covered in most of the article.

Seckel gave talks at TED (2004) and Davos (2011) about optical illusions.[15][16][17] @Ronz: removed this information from the article twice. Although now there is now a sentence that mentions the talks, Ronz then removed from EL the standard TED template, with comment "lots of problems with such links -- borders on linkspam."[18] Many GA include a TED template among their EL. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"X did Y,. source, video of X doing Y" is always a terrible idea. Do you have reliable independent secondary sources establishing the significance of these talks? Non-PR biographical coverage, for example? Guy (Help!) 09:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative feedback. I had assumed that since Wikipedia has an actual template for linking to TED talks, it was basically an OK thing to put in EL. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what Guy is talking about. This is not about using TED talk video as a source, it's about template {{TED speaker}} in biography which someone removed with misleading edit summary that's it's a spamlink. I have restored it, if they believe it's a spamlink, WP:TFD is the appropriate place to go and ask for its deletion. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's an extremely bad idea to revert against consensus based upon not knowing what others are talking about. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The "X did Y,. source, video of X doing Y" stuff is outside the scope of the Wikipedia:External links guideline and this noticeboard. The only part of the dispute that's in scope for this noticeboard is the part about whether {{TED speaker}} and similar links should be included in the ==External links== section.
Ammarpad and HouseOfChange, there are no rules against adding such links. However, there is a rule against edit-warring to put the links back in after another editor has disputed them. This is a specific rule for external links only, so even a lot of experienced editors are unaware of it. Wikipedia:External links#Handling disputes says that if a link is disputed, it stays out until you have an active consensus in favor of restoring it. The most common way to handle that, therefore, is to start a discussion on the article's talk page about whether to include the TED speaker link (and/or any other dispute links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this conspiracy site meet our guidelines.

This[19] been added to Skull and Bones by User:Nocturnalnow. I removed nn earlier version[20] and it was replaced with this one. It's clearly a conspiracy site: "For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups." S&B is indeed a secret society (note]] that I was never a member and although I must have met students who became or were members I'm certain no one ever told me they were - I thought it was all very silly at best. The Bilderberg Group publishes its attendees, I see no evidence that the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission has a secret membership, the Order of the Garter is very public as are of course recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship. There's ohviously a BLP issue as well. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So who is author Eric Samuelson, J.D.? As far as I can tell, this is just "a website" maintained by "a guy". No idea why it would be used as a link. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Great question. I will get back with details about Samuelson, but just to start, he is a J.D. (Juris Doctor) meaning he has attended and graduated from law school and thus is an Officer of the Court; and I bet just that puts this link ahead of many other external links which we have included in the encyclopedia. But I will provide more details later in the day. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As we all know, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field." Although, it is not clear to me that having a JD, or rather, claiming to have a JD, would put this link ahead of any other external links. We're talking about an article on a secret society - not an article about legal practice. Aside, a lawyer is not necessarily an officer of the court. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller for bringing this up. I do not believe it is within our NPOV mission for any of us to be using the "conspiracy theory" label unless its in reference to an article which uses that label. Who am I or any other editor to decide what is or is not a "conspiracy theory"? For example, someone (not me by the way), might label the Gulf of Tonkin incident as being a well intentioned communication screw up yet, according to our article, "but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005 proved material misrepresentation by the US government to justify a war against Vietnam." which could reasonably fall into the broad, vague and selectively applied term "conspiracy theory", especially before the Pentagon Papers and McNamara's memoirs came out.
In fact, before the Pentagon Papers came out, the theory that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was already being speculated by many as being a CIA project and establishment press called that speculation a "conspiracy theory".
"Conspiracy theory" is simply an over-used term that acts as a shiny object to shut down thinking or discussing any event whatsoever. "That's communism" was a similar shiny object back in the 50s applied against things like Social Security or food stamps..
Now, if you believe that all other external links are to information which is 100% verified, then That's something worth using as an argument against this particular external link, but otherwise, I do not think this particular link should be singled out because of some tangential connection to what someone says is a "conspiracy theory"
So, I'd prefer to have this discussion about the usefulness of the link to our readers and I'd prefer to drop the shiny object term "conspiracy theory" from the discussion as it is much too pejorative a term for an intelligent conversation, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I also say that what Samuelson has written about other clubs or organizations is not particularly relevant because as Doug says, the others all publish their membership lists whereas Skull and Bones do not. However, I do think the word "secret" can apply to almost all organizations, including corporations, when it comes to their inner administrative decisions, and there is nothing wrong with that. To make the word "secret" some sort of pejorative term is a big mistake, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::So we ignore the fact that he thinks there's a conspiracy about Rhodes Scholars or Knights of the Garter? We're going to have to disagree about conspiracy theories, they are real and affect the real world, QAnon being just the latest - the first conspiracy theory to have been called a potential source of domestic terrorist by the FBI. This guy's not in that category of course, nor are the conspiracy theories he's promoting. So, we have:

ELNO 2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."
ELNO 11 "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

"In addition, although the article isn't a biography it falls under our BLP policy. WP:ELBLP says "In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are saying. I just noticed List of Skull and Bones members which is a much better approach in any event. Thank you for your time and discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this site meet our guidelines.

So I am trying to restart this sub-section leaving out the pejorative and non-established description of the site as a "conspiracy" site. If that "conspiracy" description is to be accepted then I feel someone must present evidence to show it to be a "conspiracy" site. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is absolutely not necessary. You've already replied above about the author's J.D., it gets too confusing to have a subsection while there is relevant information above. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not an appropriate link for that page. Per WP:ELBURDEN, it should not be included unless and until there is an actual consensus to include it, where the minimum definition of "actual consensus" for this purpose means "established editors other than Nocturnalnow believe that its inclusion would improve the page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Need to reach a consensus

It has come to my attention that Nikkimaria is removing Find-a-Grave as an EL from some (but not all) articles based on the reasoning that there is already a picture of the grave in the article. While pictures of resting places are a feature of that website there is other information available. Of greater concern to me is the precedence this sets in regard to other external links. For example should the links to IMDb be removed from film articles that have a complete cast and production list or from actor articles that have a complete filmography. I've started this thread to try and reach a consensus about this kind of criteria for excluding a website that otherwise meets the guidelines as an EL. If the consensus is to partially exclude a site then IMO that should be added to the instructions at Wikipedia:External links. Thanks ahead of time for any responses. MarnetteD|Talk 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, links to Find-a-Grave have historically been accepted when they provide unique resources such as images of the graves of the subjects. In cases where there is already an image of the grave in the article, what additional value do you feel this site provides? Keep in mind that the site's textual content is almost entirely user-generated and/or unlicensed copies of newspaper articles, both of which are problematic in terms of the EL guidelines. As to instructions to partially exclude a site, does Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites fit the bill? The description there for both Find-a-Grave and IMDb appear consistent with my understanding of practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All of those things apply to IMDb as well. The reason I started this thread was my concerns over "the site is okay for some articles but not others" situation. Whether the site should be used at all is a different conversation (I think there was one in the past but I could be wrong) and probably should be discussed in a separate thread. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hah you added that link while I was typing the above :-) This one will save anyone reading this a little scrolling Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave. Based on what is there you edits look to be within the guidelines. Though you might wait a day or so to see if other editors feel that there is any reason to discuss "consensus can change" in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I tend to leave Find-a-Grave links only in STUBs, very small articles, etc. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Why would it be a problem for a site to be okay for some articles but not others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semantic Scholar. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Two users are adding the dozens of links on Divya Dwivedi and making wikipedia as linkfarm. I removed the links as per WP:ELMIN, WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM but users are reinstating it and saying that it is in accordance with the external links policy without citing specific paragraph or specific policy. First one editor did it here, then here and now, they made separate section named further reading and added those same links in which non-notable works, her three interviews' youtube links (she gave only three interviews till now, btw) of her are included. This can be found here. Already section Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#On_External_Links was going on and when editor was loosing debate then he created another section named Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" in which he started whataboutism. Now, there is possibility of edit war, thus, I am not removing it but seeking guidance on few questions.

  1. As per WP:ELMIN, only one official site is enough then adding these much site can be allowed?
  2. And what actions can be taken against such editors who are adding these much links without including notable work, her all interviews and her regular newspaper columns which are obviously not notable.

-- Harshil want to talk? 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Harshil169, thank you for the message. But I don't understand why you would have to escalate all edits with this page very aggressively! I am informing some of the other editors here @CASSIOPEIA: Speculative Boting @JGHowes: @Kautilya3: All that you can find in Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" is sufficient to understand the role of "Further reading". You seem to misunderstand my citing numerous instances as "Whataboutery". This is plain wrong. Legality in communities like Wikipedia are not formed by centralised authorities, but conventions. These pages that I have listed here are of reputed philosophers and some of them are highly rated Wikipedia articles. The "Further reading" criteria says "The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size." See an excellent use of "Further reading" in this article Alain Badiou. But what is extremely worrying is the fact that you have filed a non-factual report here! There has been no change in "External links" since you removed all links and added just one. Neither I nor has anyone else reverted the edits you have made to "External links". If this concerns the new section "Further reading" it should have taken place in the talk page dear Harshil169! WWorringer (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@WWorringer: As you’ve said it’s for notable work, nit for random interviews on youtube and her columns which are not famous. You’ve added the same links which were there in External link section which is obviously transferring. Administrator will look at the content and will decide whether not notable books should be here or not. And yes, in my suspection, you and Speculative Boting are associated with each other and I’ve opened WP:SPI for it. It seems only purpose here’s to promote work of Dwivedi as you and speculative boting did at multiple articles. — Harshil want to talk? 05:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Harshil169: As a fellow Wikipedian, I want to give you advise that please don't open Sockpuppet investigations without any reason, as you did in past. It is a wasting of time. It also discourage people. It is OK to add dozens of links in 'External links' and 'Further reading' sections, if they are useful. I have done the same in several articles. Wikipedia has no any strict norms. We can Ignore all rules at one point, when it prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. --Gazal world (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gazal world: This is their editing behaviour. Most of the edits of them are to include work of Divya Dwivedi and Shaj Mohan in different articles, and later adding wikilinks in it. Isn’t this obvious that both are associated with each other? I read WP:SIGNS and here I can see it. Let checkuser check the IPs of them. Harshil want to talk? 10:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (1) All the book reviews can go in the Further Reading section. There is no limit, except common sense. Please include WP:full citations, and make sure that both favourable and unfavourable reviews are included. (2) Any self-sources, i.e, own commentaries, interviews etc. should go in the External Links section. But these should be limited. I would suggest, no more than a couple. Once again, please provide Full citations where possible. (3) Aggregations of the form XYZ's articles at ABC, should be removed. They have no place on Wikipedia. Finally: all the editors need to focus on the content more and stop making comments on each other. Otherwise you are likely to end up at WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:CodeBox

Any thoughts about an interesting new template {{CodeBox}}? See Template talk:CodeBox#External links. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It was deleted at the request of the creator, after a discussion on the talk page and at WP:VPT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Organization hosting a 1927 NYT article about itself

The organization mentioned in this NYT article (or rather a successor org) is hosting a JPEG image PDF on its website that looks to be a reprint of the article in question, retyped. A link to the image can be found on this page. The article is used in a citation on the organization's current wiki article.

Is this a copyright violation? Probably. Can fair use be claimed so I can link to that image as an "archive" of the original in a citation on the organization's article? That's my main question. Thanks! Ignatzmice•talk 13:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in copyright law, but I'm doubtful about this. It would be more appropriate to link (i.e., inside ref tags) to the NYT archive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ignatzmice: just ignore it, relink it to the original on NYT. Even if it is not a copyvio, it is always better to link to the original. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

In the article, EMD F9 along with other articles I have been working on, I am coming across external links to fan sites containing a repository of scanned copyrighted contents, such as factory workshop manuals that are not old enough to be public domain. Additional, I am seeing citations in many articles in train category that cites unauthorized PDF scans of conferences, documents and manuals hosted on fan sites. I could remove them, but that doesn't prevent others from going back to old revisions to use Wikipedia as a directory to access these sources or reverting them back on. What are the proper procedures for handling such things? Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a copyright issue, not an EL issue. We do not allow linking to ELs containing copyright material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I looked at WP:Copyright_problems first, but over there is about text based copyright issues. What are the procedures when one encounters infringing external links? Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete and link to Wikipedia:COPYVIOEL which is here, and I stated that above, but should have linked to it for your convenience. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Graywalls, it looks like {{Copyvio links}} and {{Copyvio link}} are used to tag such pages. I haven't been able to find anything in the policies that says what to do about situations like these, beyond editing the page to remove the links. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, if you thought that was insufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on these edits at Deepfake? Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh god no - terrible, awful, should never be there. As with any article on a phenomenon, no part of that article should be a linkfarm of websites about that subject. If that website has some particularly special significance to the article topic, maybe. If the website is itself notable, maybe, though an internal link to its article would make more sense. If that website is discussed in the article, maybe. But here there is an additional concern which is linking to websites that violate the personality rights of living people. Even if that violation is covered by a fair use exception, Wikipedia does not have to participate in driving traffic their direction, especially when it is this offensive. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue is now at ANI so there probably is no need for action here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Betty Boop Wikia

In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a this link to a wikia article citing WP:ELNO. Considering the above average level of activity on that wiki, wouldn't this link quality as passing the bar set out in ELNO#12? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No. It's still a dross site. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
In addition, the exception for open wikis at ELNO is those with a substantial number of editors - this one has had fewer than 100 who've ever made any edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've never understood that part of ELNO: "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." - why is that exception there? Why would we ever want to link to an open wiki? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: This is the discussion that originated that wording, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    I would personally interpret it as pretty restrictive, and fewer than 100 editors ever is certainly way too low, I might consider it at several thousands of edits by hundreds of different editors per week while substantially adding information over what Wikipedia is likely to ever include ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    That's... a little off given the example Wikia linked in the originating discussion. But I tend to agree, Memory Alpha should be just about the standard for size of wiki. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Memory Alpha had 180 editors during the last month. I agree with Izno that that's probably the right size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Regarding the original question "Why would we ever want to link to an open wiki?", well, many Wikis have a very good fact-checking operation -- much better than many entities that we actually use, not only as external links, but as sources for article material.
The reason being, these wikis are swarmed by eyes of people who have the Four Virtues of individuals used as sources:
1) They have the expertise to get their facts right
2) They have no incentive to get their facts wrong (no reason to spin stuff for ideological reasons etc.)
3) They have incentive to get their facts right (professional reputation, reputation withing their peer group, etc.)
4) They are careful about details, as far as we can tell
For many wikis, the editor corps is obsessive about getting stuff right: "Correcting text: A printing error give Supergirl a green cape in the second panel of page 7 of issue #164, not issue #163". You know what I mean. I mean, Trekkies, you know? Comic Book Guy, etc,
The main problem with a wiki is that it could contain false info or even have been vandalized at the precise moment that our reader is looking at it, even if the bad material is only there for a few minutes. This is why we can't use wikis for sources in articles. For external links, we can accept that some tiny number of views (less than 1%, I figure) will be reading vandalized or wrong information. IMO.
Smaller wikis have few editors to correct errors or vandalism in a short time. Also, some large wikis don't have the Four Virtues, I'm sure... too many editors who aren't sufficiently obsessive about getting details right, or whatever. Case by case, you can figure the wiki's vibe by reading it for a bit. Betty Boop people in particular, I don't know. Boop died a long time time ago, so as a first thought you'd figure that people who are still excited about her enough to write about her might have the Four Virtues. Herostratus (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I personally find that they should be removed unless a compelling case is made on a case-by-case basis per item # 11 of the WP:ELNO, because http://www.trainweb.org/ by nature is like a weebly, freewebs and tripod of anything railroad related. "Since 1996 TrainWeb has been providing free web hosting to rail enthusiasts and organizations that offer railroad related information and photographs for the enjoyment and education of the public." The #11 of External Links guidelines reads:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Most notably, "controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited;".

Another editor disagrees, so I want to have wider consensus. This is the disagreement: Special:Diff/929675056. The specific deep link challenged is: http://www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/sd45.htm . Once, there when you go back and click on "go back to rosters" you get an intro message which reads

" This is a list of various diesel rosters compiled on the Diesel Modeler's Mailing List. I began some of these lists myself; lists begun by others are so identified. If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, email me at [<redacted>]. David Thompson"

As far as I'm concerned, it's some rail fan dude cobbling together things for other rail fan dudes and I am not seeing a compelling case for inclusion. I don't find it useful one bit and I don't believe such sources are useful for the average purpose of a general purpose encyclopedia to include order shipment data of each specific train cars and who first bought them originally and Wikipedia isn't a detailed technical catalog for niche groups. That's what those fan sites and technical related sites are for, not wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello, I'm the other editor. I was not notified of this discussion. This user has been going through North American locomotive articles and aggressively removing long-standing external links without discussion. I'm unfamiliar with this noticeboard. My first question relates to scope: Graywalls has challenged this source as used on EMD SD45. I believe he intends to deprecate Robert Sarberenyi's site globally based on this discussion, but I'm unsure. A similar discussion at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#http://www.thedieselshop.us/ as used in ALCO PA) was ostensibly about the ALCO PA, but the discussion was repeatedly broadened and the user hasn't actually engaged on the question of whether the site proprietor, R. Craig Rutherford, is an expert on ALCO locomotives (he may be, he's published on the subject).
  • Bundled in this request is a claim that locomotive articles should not have rosters in them, separate from the question of linking them. This is based on the false belief that reliable sources haven't covered the topic. This has been refuted in prior discussions so I'm surprised to see it made again in yet another forum. It's wearying.
  • I think it takes WP:ELNO too far to say that you can't be linking out to related information because it's a personal site. I can't count how many outbound links we have to Wikia sites and the like (yes, that's prong #12, but the point stands). This isn't a random personal site. The pages maintained by Robert Sarberenyi are stable and of long standing and high reputation within the railfan community. Linking out to them helps discourage the reproduction of their highly-technical content within Wikipedia itself (we are, after all, a general-interest project). Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're suggesting consensus by silence? I disagree. There is plenty of bag log of housekeeping and just because there are many broken windows and unswept floors doesn't mean that keeping it that way has received a wide consensus. Something I have also come across in rail related articles is a relatively high frequency of edits that involve sock puppets and addition of unverifiable contents. The reliability of source is a part of WP:DUE evaluation IMO. If an individual does original research from his own information gathering, going through manuals, other fanatics websites, etc and publishes it on his/her website, it isn't really "reliably published". "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." from WP:USESPS. Letting this go on creates a precedent where niche/special interest group first publishes things they want to have on Wikipedia, then citing that web source to circumvent no original research policy. Graywalls (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • comment Regarding Alco's FA: Running in the Shadow : an In-depth Look at the Alco-GE/MLW FA Series by R. Craig Rutherford
    • Publisher: Four Ways West Publications, 2005
    • Reading about the publisher: "Four Ways West Publications is owned and operated by Joseph W. Shine. The company was formed in 1986 to self-publish railroad books based on Southern Pacific passenger trains and operations." I have a feeling that book likely won't get him the status as a recognized expert source. It might be better entertained at Reliable Source noticeboard if you want to go further about this specific page. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I suggest you move your comments about Rutherford and ALCOs to the RSN where it belongs; it has literally zero bearing here. I am not suggesting a "consensus by silence." I am suggesting that given that WP:ELNO #12 explicitly allows stable wikis with user-generated content as an external link that you are applying far too high a personal standard for WP:ELNO #11. You're also repeatedly conflating standards for external links and standards for references. It is not, and has never been the case, that an external link must be a reliable source. I'm not opining as to whether Sarberenyi is a reliable source. I'm saying that you're using the wrong standard. WP:USESPS has no relevance for external links. Even if it did (and it does not), reliable sources have published roster information in some detail, so your repeated observation that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" is met: someone did so. @Graywalls: I said so in my first comment. Why are you continually repeating a talking point that is incorrect and (in this context) irrelevant? Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Click on the "Back to the roster page." near the very bottom andit says David Thompson. it seems like Thompson compiling/doing original research using various information he's gathered, but in general anything trainweb.org would appear to be things on Weebly. You might find an exception to things there, but in general, it's a host where anyone can build a page. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Your reply ignores just about everything I've said here. The most central issue appears to be your claim that an external link needs to be "reliably published." In fact, two parts of WP:EL point in the other direction:
  • WP:ELYES #3 calls out Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The details part would seem relevant to this discussion.
  • WP:ELMAYBE #4 calls out Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Leaving aside the question of whether the various individual sites on trainweb are "reliably published", the material under consideration here, the SD45 roster maintained by Robert Sarberenyi, clearly falls into one or more of those buckets. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree to disagree as "knowledgeable source". I am going to weight for other editors to weigh in. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A few points:
    • Graywalls asked about this a month ago at Wikipedia talk:External links#EL NO vs MAYBE. My general view hasn't changed since then.
    • The bits in the above discussion about WP:USESPS and whether the webpages are "reliably published" or "original research" are irrelevant, because we're not talking about sources to support article content. (Also, NOR is a rule that is binding on Wikipedia editors, and never on sources. "Original research" means things made up by a Wikipedia editor, as contrasted with things found in a published source.)
    • "Knowledgeable source" is a broad concept that includes everything from eyewitnesses (which are notoriously unreliable) to dedicated fans to journalists to advocacy groups to academic experts. It sounds like the page under discussion qualifies easily on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing:, it's all good, although in that interpretation that ends up opening doors to a ton of fancruft sites. So when it is viewed together with WP:ELNO's #11, I am seeing contradiction. Perhaps The WP:ELMAYBE is better interpreted to mean "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." but NOT fancruft sites. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • ELNO #11, which is against "most fansites" (not all of them), has not historically been interpreted that way. If it were, then WP:ELNO#EL12 would be pointless, because nearly every open wiki is also a fansite. I think it's important to remember that the goal is to get useful or interesting information into the reader's hands. If you can do that with a link to a fansite on a niche topic, then do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_22&oldid=1045691874"