Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lots of F-a-G dicussion but going nowhere...

Ok, we have discussed Find a Grave to death saying pretty much the same thing over and over. May I suggest that we ask or invite Moonriddengirl to give an opinion about this? She is considered the best on site for copyright knowledge so maybe it's time to ask her opinion about this site. Personally, I don't understand why we haven't found a location to try again for a consensus about this site but I truly believe we should give it a try and announce it so a lot of the community know about it. But the least we should do is check with her and get her valued opinion about the site. What do others think about this option? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is we have had a consensus or at least a consensus that not all of us think the site is worthless and should be banned. But knowone wants to listen and just opens up another string of lets kill find a grave. No. Ok lets start an essay about it, No wait lets add it to a bot block list. Oh wait that didn't work lets try something else until we get what we want. If you want to invite her thats fine but this is nothing more than WP:forum shopping, WP:Canvassing and WP:vote stacking at this point. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be suprised if MRG is willing to weigh in, given copyright is not and has never been the main point of this debate (not copywrite either, that is something else entirely). Yoenit (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have one editor saying that getting Moonriddengirl involved by asking her about F-a-G being a problem with copyright is forum shopping, canvassing, or vote stacking. Another making a comment that I feel is rude because of a typo, thanks. MRG is considered one of the best in copyright knowledge. I'd even go as far as saying she is an expert in this, but yet we can't ask her about the site and copyright because it would breach a bunch of policies. As for Yoenit saying the site complaints isn't because of copyright issues as the main point, may I suggest you reread this page please. Copyright issues are one major reason why editors don't like F-a-G used along with it being a site that allows anyone to edit. Thanks for your input, I was just trying to see if we could get an opinion about some of the problems from someone who knows real well the policies about this issue I bring up. I think this is enough for me to bow out of this discussion for awhile. It seems there is no way to bring about a resolve for anything with responses like this. Thanks and good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Crohnie, Kumioko, thanks for misinterpreting and misrepresenting others' comments, and adding general insults to it as well. You are disappointing me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You asked for an opinion and I gave it. My apologies if you considered my reply rude, that was never my intention. I have done some previous work in copyright and to me this just seems the latest angle in an ongoing crusade against the site, rather than a sincere concern. Youtube hosts millions of copyrighted videos illegally, yet why are all of you not proposing banning youtube from wikipedia? Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yoenit, you are misinterpreting comments, as above. No-one is banning find-a-grave more than we ban YouTube. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to ask her to weigh in its fine with mebut when the same three or 4 editors repeatedly resubmit the same requests over and over and over, whether in the same forum or a different one with the attitude that I didnt hear that; or I choose not to hear that; or I don't believe that; or I don't agree with that; then its just a waste of everyones time to keep rehasing the some discussions without end. I would think though that MRG would probably say something to the effect of "banning the site itself isn't her concern but that we should not be linking to individual entries if they contain a copyright violation". Of course I can't and wouldn't presume to speak for her but thats a guess. As far as being disappointed in me well that's ok but I am not going to stand on the sidelines and let three or four editors ramrod a change I don't agree with. I have done that too many times in the past and watched as things got forced into acceptance because knowone took the time to voice their opinions until after the fact. My statements were not meant as an inult though and should not be taken as such but since it is the same 4 editors that have kept these discussions going since about September 2010 with almost constant resubmissions I think the point is valid.--Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And actually, Kumioko, that is just what we want to ask new editors and IPs (of which most are also new editors) to check. We do expect that experienced editors do use the site according to our policies and guidelines, and that they are aware of such concerns with certain websites. Forget banning, no-one is banning here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko,

I've seen this several times in discussions with you, and I doubt that you're aware of it. So let me tell you what that last exchange looks like from my chair:

Dirk: I think maybe we should make IPs and brand-new accounts think twice about adding links to this website, exactly like we do with YouTube.

Kumioko: ZOMG!! How could you claim there's a consensus to WP:BLACKLIST the site so that nobody at all is ever allowed to use this link anywhere on Wikipedia!!

Do you see the mismatch? You're arguing against something that is not proposed. For example: you say (@14:42 above) that there's no consensus to completely ban the site. You know what? You're right—but that observation is utterly irrelevant, because nobody is proposing a ban. The alleged proposal for a ban is something you've just made up.

In formal terms, you're arguing against a straw man: a made-up or misrepresented version of the actual proposal. It sometimes works for politicians ("My opponent wants to take away everything you earn in taxes, leaving you homeless and hungry!"), but it's poor form. Please make a particular effort to respond to the actual suggestions on this page, rather than seriously false exaggerations of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well your about half right. Currently there is the discussion is about how to limit its use, but that stemmed from an inability to eliminate the site in multiple prior discussions. An essay was written that states that the site should never or almost never be used and then some inividuals siting that or other refs began mass delinking the site from hundreds or more articles. So you are correct, at current the discussion is not on a ban, but if you create an essay about it (then maybe that essay becaomes a guideline) then you add a policy here or tweak a rule there, add the link to a bot, eliminate as many links as you can find, drown editors in unending discussion about the same thing over and over but worded in different ways and approached from different directions and before long voila you have a ban! Which is what this is leading to in a very cunning and sneaky way. If the requests would have started out as we have too many of these links and we need to look at reducing them I would believe that was the intent, but when I have watched over the past 6 months at least 5 different conversations asking for the immediate ban to the site I see the devil in the fine print hiding between the lines. BTW I have agreed multiple times that the site is not needed on a lot of articles, that if there is copyvio we shouldn't use it and that there should be a limit to when and how its used but knowone wants to hear that. All they want to hear is yeah go ahead and ban it and until that happens they are going to keep calling me the bad guy (its another political tactic of discrediting your opposition). So if someone wants to actually discuss when and how the site should be used then I'd be glad to talk and listen but that is not what most of the editors in these discussions want. --Kumioko (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All these discussions were about finding a consensus on how and when to use the site, and subsequently acting on that consensus. There's one version right here at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, too. You are stonewalling this process by claiming that even the tiniest restriction (like nicely asking newbies to think before linking to the site) will lead to a complete ban of the site, and therefore there shouldn't be any at all (with the exception of blatantly, blatantly obvious copyvios, I guess). At the same time you keep agreeing that "a lot of articles" shouldn't have the link in the first place, confusingly enough. You're right, they shouldn't. That's why the links are being removed from a lot of articles. --Conti|✉ 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that everyone has the same idea you do about the site. If the edit summery said something like "Link doesn't add anything to the article" or "Copy violation" or something like that, fine. But what most of them say is "Per Perennial websites", "Fails ELNO whataver" or some other summery that clearly indicates how they feel about the site. Now to clear any confusion you are right that its on articles that don't need it. Albert Einsteins life has been documented in great detail from the time of conception to long after his death so the Find a Grave article provides almost nothing except perhaps a couple images that aren't really needed anyway. On the other hand when I see someone remove it from an article and it is the only "link" (there are no other links or references of any kind) then thats a problem. And I have seen this several times although admitedly not for at least a month. So when you say I am stonewalling perhaps thats true to a point but there are also extremists on the other end that would gladly ban this site, eliminate every link to it and submit the articles they reside on for deletion as non notible if there are no other links. So perhaps we need to find some middle ground but I am not the bad guy here. --Kumioko (talk)

Well, you might not be "the bad guy", but when you falsely claim that other people are planning to blacklist the site when they have said nothing of the sort, you sure don't look like "the good guy" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, who are these editors that you are assuming bad faith about their intentions? I really would love to know who you think they are at this point since most of us, no matter what side of the debate they are on, are using policies and guidelines quite regularly in all of the debates that are going on. What policy or guideline are you using to keep up your debate stating the F-a-G site should stay? Also you admit, or as you say to a point, that you are stonewalling the discussions, why? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything the edits and the summaries are evidence of that although I admit that some are more aggressive than others. I also don't really think I am stonewalling the discussions but when I state my objections and others do as well and I am not willing to just give up in frustration at repeatedly submitting the same arguments and attempts over and over and certain editors choose not to hear it then I guess some could call that stonewalling.

As for the policies its a lot easier to find a policy that says you can't do something that finding ones that say you can but here goes:

1. Theres always WP:IAR but some editors would call that a weak policy.
2. How about Wikipedia:Editing policy particularly the section titled Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Again, it could be argued.
3. Wikipedia:External links reading the first three paragraphs of the policy seems to indicate acceptance
   1. Wikipedia:External links #4 under Links to be considered
   2. I would also say that the section titled Linking to user-submitted video sites applies here. Its not a video site but it is a user submitted site that contains imagery
   3. Contrary to popular belief most of the points under Links to be avoided do not apply. 1 and 11 could
4. In the cases of the Find a grave entries that show an image of the headstone with the information visible. Normally a cemetery is open to the public and the gravestones are clearly accessible and visible to anyone. {{Cite sign}} would seem to indicate that citing the gravestone (its a sign after all and assuming it has the information being cited) is allowed as a "sign" and would indicate that doing so would even be allowed as a reference. I would argue that if we do so then the Find a Grave entry should be there as an external link so that the image of the grave information can be viewed as verification. I left a question on the talk page a few days ago asking for clarification on citing graves but knowone answered yet so I will leave a note on the village pump to solicit wider comments.

I think that's enough for now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

NO were is there an exception to link and/or use a ref if it violates even just one of our policies let alone many at a time is some cases. The fact its breaks just one policy should be enough to the average Joe to figure out that a Nice pic of a gravestone does not override our policy. This our the policies set forth. I just dont see the logic in trying to fight for a site that obviously has so many problems. At some point you must see the lack of logic in the pro arguments - because at this point i dont see anyone saying F@G is good at all. I see section after section talking about policy violation and just one person advocating its use as a ref. If a page violates even one policy we should not link to it. As i said before if there is simply no other place to find the dates/and or grave location and you have such a need to link it up (even though all we have to do is cite it not link it ) - just link directly to the gravestone image and name the location in the refMoxy (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the best solution, Moxy. And even applicable when the page of the person contains other images which are in violation of copyright (I mean, if there are two images on a person's, one of them an image which is in violation of copyright, and one of the headstone which is not a violation of copyright - then linking to the image of the headstone itself would not be a problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent solution. I would suggest that for cases, where no headstone picture is available and birth and death dates can't be found elsewhere, we place a request on f-a-g and perhaps a note on the wikipage as well. Something like born xx-xx-xxxx, died yy-yy-yyyy^{[needs confirmation, see talkpage]}, where the situation would be explained on the talkpage and the reader asked to take an image of the headstone for verification. This way we 1) preserve birth and death dates were no other source can be found. 2) provide the users with information about the supposed source of the dates (I assume all those dates on f-a-g are supposed to come from gravestones originally. Yoenit (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, do all image-locations on findagrave start with 'image#.' ??

Yoenit .. true, but that would be a thin wire .. is the person really dead if there is no reliable source for their death .. and if they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then I would presume that there is somewhere an official obituary or it is even mentioned in the news (for Elizabeth Tayler, findagrave.com is totally superfluous where there are so many sources which are better than that, even if the findagrave.com entry is, obviously, a correct source there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about Elizabeth Taylor, but somebody like Freeman Gill. Good luck finding his death date outside of f-a-g. Yoenit (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck finding his death date online outside of f-a-g. True. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you are gonna need luck if you plan on finding his obituary (if it even exists) in newspaper archives from that time. I wouldn't even know in which archive to start, except that the NYT does not have it. On a positive note, I just stumbled upon [1], which contains a wealth of information as well as public domain portraits(!) of a lot of MoH winners. Kumioko is probably interested in that.Yoenit (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need findagrave.com to check his tombstone, do I? So if the ref says "tombstone, lot ####, name of funeral site, place, state, country", I can check the data without consulting any other site than Wikipedia. That is what verifiability is about. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to find another website with his date of death (e.g., [2]), but if you wanted to do it for real, I'd start by contacting The Edward Independent (the small-town newspaper in the city where he was buried) and asking for a copy of the obituary. I see no issue number on their most recent issue, so they were probably not in business in 1905, but even if they weren't, they will probably know the name of their predecessor(s) and where the old newspapers are archived. The Everett Public Library is another option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That would also arguably fall under original research. If someone adds the info to the Find a Grave site, similarly as would be the case if they added it to a book, its not quite original reseach anymore and thus somewhat more of a gray area. With Cite sign it could be argued that its in a public place and therefore its not original research but it depends. In this case you may be able to find a paper source but in the cases of many others its unlikely and the farther back you go in time the less likely that becomes. Finding an obit for someone who died in 1990, 1980 or even 1960 is fairly easy here in DC but beyond about 1940 even with access to the library of Congress and the National archives it becomes tricky. Especially factoring original research rules.--Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What is Original Research?.Moxy (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be at all original research. If your reference is "I asked the newspaper guy and he told me", then yes, that is original research. But if your reference is the actual newspaper with the obituary in it, then no, that's not at all original research, even if the newspaper guy told you which newspaper issue you have to look for. --Conti|✉ 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at the tombstone might be original research. But asking either for the records from the townhall/council/whatever, or from the church, and looking at that would not be. I know, that that info is not always public, but that, and only that is the reliable source you need. If there are obituaries available, then that is another reliable source. But findagrave.com, even with a picture of the tombstone, is not a reliable source, actually, you would still need to personally check that fact - something that is not necessary with an official obituary or official records from church/council/whatever. I am happy that we get to this point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What?! Finding, reading, and citing a fact out of a newspaper article does not violate Wikipedia's WP:No original research policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Two things, that online source you mentioned (House of heroes or something) hosts pictures of gravestones for MoH recipients, so that brings us back to the gravestone as the source. Secondly, are you aware that paid obituaries are not considered reliable sources? As selfpublished sources they can be used for date of birth/deaths and practically nothing else. As such there is no real advantage to go look in the newspaper archives compared to requesting his Death certificate or looking at the gravestone. None of that would be original research in my opinion. Yoenit (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Grave markers & obituaries are reliable sources to historians and genealogists. There as good as any other. I find mistakes on all forms of records including death certificates, birth certs, etc. No weight is given in preference over another but rather discretion is used to cull the facts out...and yes, there is substantially more gleaned from an obit than a death cert which leads towards other fact-finding for substantiation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yoenit, I'm going to assume that you've never lived in a small town and have no connection whatsoever to journalism. To make my comment more easily understood, I've underlined two words in it that you will want to consider.

Obits are still typically free, nearly automatic, and written by professional journalists in small-town newspapers. A century ago, paid "memorial advertisements" (what you're thinking of) were rare, and paid death notices (more common) tended to include only the necessary-for-business facts ("Robert Smith, Sr. of Middleville died January 1, 1901. The estate will be probated through Centerville courthouse"), usually in a set format as a classified ad whose purpose seems to have been primarily to inform debtors, creditors, and potential heirs of the legally significant facts, rather than to gush about how Bob loved golf or Alice was such a terrific mother. Both the death and the funeral might have been considered legitimate public-interest news in a small town, not merely an opportunity to soak the family for extra death-related expenses. The death of a recently decorated war hero in such a place would not have been overlooked in 1905. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, if the entry doesn't violate a copywrite policy then we should be able to use it as an external link. THAT DOES NOT VIOLATE A POLICY. I understand that if a site violates policy it shouldn't be used but every single site could be argued as violating a policy. Most sites including CNN generate a profit, many require a feww to be used, most books must be purchased and are copyritten so we can't use those I guess because they violate a policy of free use. We can't use government sites for biographies because they are almost always POV. Many more could be considered fan sites so we can't use those. Its already been proven multiple times that the Naval Historical Center and the Library of Congress have mislabelled anad misrepresented information so I guess we can't use those because they have been proven to be unreliable. I say again that it could be argued that every single site violates a policy. So where do we draw the line? No the images do not always start with Image but most do! BTW your statements exactly prove that the whole point of these discussions is to eliminate the Find a grave site from use. When you all are serious about discussing this without a complete ban on the site let me know but until then I am going to argue against eliminating it. I may lose the fight by consensus since the only ones who arent' tired of arguing about it are the ones that want to eliminate it and I am certain that even if we got a consensus to keep the site that someone would submit it again next week and restart the discussion again for the next 2 months but I am going to continue. Should it be limited? Yes but not eliminated. --Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are realy not listing to what people are saying here at all - your making comparisons that are not compatible - Copyvios is just the start of the problem here with Find a Grave - I would like to see just one other person (educated in our policies) saying Find a grave is a good site (not phantom emails that are claiming support). I do have a question i wish to ask but shouldn't - i would love to know the ages of all involed in this talk. Moxy (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to say who sent me the EMAIL (there are 4 different people) but there are at least 4 on this page that have voiced some support of the site, theres me, Alvestrand, S Rich and OE. Everytime they do though someone clubs them down so why would they want to participate in the discussions if the opposing side won't listen to what they are saying. Why would editors continue to participate knowing that as soon as the discussion closes it will open back up within a couple weeks again and then rehash the same arguments again for another 2 months. The support is out there they are just tired of telling you (you being the various parties that want to eliminate the site not you specifically) over and over and over that keeping the site is a benefit and not the plague its made out to be. Why do you think that people keep readding the link over and over when its deleted or revert the change. Its easier to do that then to spend hours or days talking about something when knowone is listening. --Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Add my support for keeping F-A-G. I believe that experienced editors should be allowed to use their discretion. Wholesale removal -- no way. Thanks, but I'll reserve my discretion as my own right. If I see something wrong with using it then I won't.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)NONONO, Kumioko, you clearly are not listening to what we are saying, and/or do not understand what we are talking about. Pages on CNN are not copyright violations (will you please finally get the terms right, a 'copywrite violation' is not an existing term, 'copywrite' is one thing, a 'copyright' is another one, and a 'copyright violation' is yet another one). Linking to a page on CNN is not a copyright violation. Linking to a page on findagrave is NOT a copyright violation, unless that page contains data in violation of copyright. Yes, CNN generates a profit, that is NOT a reason not to link to it, findagrave generates a profit, that is ALSO not a reason not to link to it. CNN has copyright over everything they publish, or they publish information with the consent of the copyright holder, that is not a problem, findagrave.com has images for which they have the copyright, and images for which it has a consent to publish them, but for which the copyright are with other people. Also that is NOT a problem. But findagrave has, and that has been shown over and over here, images which violate copyright. And we are, by policy, not allowed to link to pages which violate copyright. CNN does not have pages which violate copyright (and if they have, that will be one in a million, and the chances that we link to it is minimal, and CNN will do its utter best to keep that number as low as possible), but for findagrave such examples are easily found, it happens on that site too often. For both sites goes, violating a copyright is a criminal offense. But the nature of findagrave.com is that they, for every upload, have to check, which is for a succesful site (similar to Wikipedia) quite a job.

That still does not mean that we can not link to other parts of findagrave, pages where there are no violations of copyright.

Sure, on all other occasions you managed with your misinterpretations, which I already told earlier that you do (and I do think, really, that you don't do that on purpose!) that others went away. But no, you are wrong, there are pages on findagrave.com that are copyright violations (examples have been shown, they are easy to find), there are hardly, if any, pages on CNN that violate copyright. Both sites do contain copyrighted information, but that is not a problem, both sites generate a profit, but that is also not a problem. And also, NONE of us have tried to eliminate findagrave.com, but we just point to the fact, that we have to be careful with linking to findagrave.com. Just as careful as we have to be with youtube.com. Both sites contain a significant number of copyright violations, and knowingly or unknowingly, editors are adding those links to Wikipedia .. which should NOT be done, people should take care when they use these sites. However, again, links to pages where there are no copyright violations on the same site are fine (except maybe sometimes superfluous or not useful for other reasons, but that is not a huge problem), as are direct links to images which are not a copyright violation. So there is no need to eliminate findagrave.com, and we (or at least I, but I do get the feeling that you group me with the others above) do not want to eliminate findagrave.com, I want that we are careful with it, and XLinkBot can help us with that, by notifying new editors. And I do hope, that experienced editors, like you and me, do know that we should not link to a copyright violation, and that we do not add such links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets be clear (from WP:COPYRIGHT):

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content.

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. ...

CNN and findagrave are both external Web sites; CNN and findagrave both contain data which is copyrighted, and such information is mentioned in the first paragraph in this quote. However, findagrave, as has been shown by quite some examples which are (too!) easy to find, does contain works in violations of the creator's copyright, and we should NOT link to 'that copy of the work'.

That is why we advocate that findagrave.com should be used with care, that new users should be notified, and that the existing findagrave.com links should be checked for said violations, and those that do, should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You can continue to try and insult me and discredit me by implying that I don't understand what the rules say but I do understand them well enough to know that there are many ways to interpret a lot of them and you are choosing to interpret them on the extreme end of the scale. I'm not misrepresenting anything my point was that someone could make an argument that every site in use on Wikipedia violates at least some of the external links rules. CNN clearly makes a profit and charges for use which violates one of the External link rules. You have given some specific examples of violations and I have agreed that there are more. Ok fine I agree we shouldn't use those. But there are thousands of others that we could potentially use. For example heres one for a Medal of Honor recipient George Brush Whats wrong with this one? Heres another one for another Medal of Honor recipient that seems ok to me. So although you can undoubtedly find quite a few that violate the policy I can find more that don't. My point is, we should be able to use the ones that do not violate it. And banning the site is exactly what Moxy and some of the others are asking for. Its almost useless to link to a picture and it would only be a matter of time till someone says why are we doing this, lets just finish killing this site off. I have been in Wikipedia long enough to have seen this happen several times. This site is useful and provides useful information for many articles and we should allow it to be used. You are also assuming that by not linking to find a grave people will stop using images from there on Wikipedia. That may be true of some but the Find a Grave is very well known, is fairly well respected in its niche and has a lot of images and information. They are still going to add the images and just removing the link from the article will not stop that. --Kumioko (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's look at your two examples: The find-a-grave link at George W. Brush doesn't add anything valuable to the article with the exception of the pictures of the grave. His death date can be found, for instance, at this source. Find-a-grave is used as a source and not as an external link at William H. Barringer, which might be in itself a problem, depending on what exactly was referenced. Personally I'm fine with the reference here if it's used to cite the birth and death dates. --Conti|✉ 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First I disagree that the Link for George W. Brush doesn't add anything. It provides links and a sort of verificiation of his parents and a couple family members and although we cannot use this as a reference for the article itself I beleive it does provide some info that is useful. I am also not sure that the link you provided is any more credible than the Find a Grave link would be as a source. In the case of the second one I agree and have always agreed that Find a Grave should never be used as a source for anything other than Birth/death dates and location and maybe burial location. Thats it. Even then I would prefer it had a picture of the headstone with the information visible. I would even say that they should use the Cite sign template for the headstone rather than one of the other cites. I only recently learned about this Cite though and I think it was here from Whatamidoing but I can't remember. Again though I would highly recommend if we do use the cite sign we should include a link to the entry or if they entry itself contains a copyviolation to the specific grave image itself. --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think there's any need for any kind of "verification" on those facts. Sure, it's nice to know, but think about it this way: In nearly all cases where find-a-grave could be linked, we could just as well link to dozens or more of other sites that provide equally interesting content. Sure, that's not the case in your examples, but in nearly all other cases that is the case. And if we'd allow that one link, we'd have to allow dozens more, too. That's not good.

As for your second point, using any kind of reference template (I don't have any preference on which to use) to cite specific facts would be a great idea, yes. --Conti|✉ 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Existing links to Find A Grave should be automatically removed as even if there is no copyright violation on a page there today there is no way to make the link go away automatically if a violation is added tomorrow AND because they add nothing valuable that our own articles couldn't have if we improved them. We explicitly avoid outside wikis for unstable content, not doing anything that we couldn't do better ourselves AND rampant copyright problems. There is almost no reason to ever link to that site. We have a strong consensus on that point. The fact that a tiny minority disagrees isn't particularly important, as there will never be any decision made that won't have a tiny minority upset. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again my point is proven about this being a movement to eliminate the site. --Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also BTW, regardless of what 4 or 5 editors decide here eliminating this site from thousands and thousands of articles is a very big change to policy that needs to be vetted to a larger audience than the 10 people that watch this page. This needs to be discussed somewhere like the Village pump (policy). --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Its clear you dont understand what the problem is - As seen here no one is trying to "BAN" the site (realy need to get things right at some point). Again can you get those that you say email you saying the site is respected to come here and provide reasoning. Tell them to grow some balls and come here if they realy excite. Also pls see CNN'S REPRINT AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION from CNN perhaps this will help in understanding what the differences is (as CNN attributes copyright material unlike Find a grave). On a side note its very embarrassing to have our Medal of Honor Recipients linked to this site - much more respect should be giving. Moxy (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 2)No, Kumioko, your comparison with CNN goes wrong, in that CNN sometimes violates WP:EL, but that is something that you can overrule with, if you want, WP:IAR - if Wikipedia gets better from linking to a CNN page, if it adds to the page, there is enough. Yes, CNN regularly fails part of WP:ELNO. That is all fine. I do remove CNN external links as well when I do think that they do not add anything, we are not a linkfarm for everything related.

But findagrave.com fails on some pages WP:ELNEVER .. and that is a part that can not be overruled with WP:IAR, there are no exceptions to that. It is based on WP:COPYRIGHT - do not link to works in violation of copyright. There is no interpretation in that, do not link to copyright violations.

You have my vote if you say that findagrave.com should not be banned, you have my vote that it is sometimes giving information which is useful - and I do not believe that I (as regular on the blacklist) would honour a blacklist request for the whole side, nor would many others. That is similar to YouTube.com, specific links may be, and are, blacklisted, but the whole site will never make it there, it is too useful for that. And if I note that someone is pushing a specific link to a copyright violation on findagrave.com, then I will blacklist that specific link, as I will block editors who are continuously adding links to copyright violations on findagrave.com (after they have been warned not to). I have done similar for YouTube 'spammers'.

However, as for YouTube.com, new users, not aware of some parts of our policies and guidelines which can NOT be ignored, to which WP:IAR can NOT be applied, should for YouTube, and IMHO also for findagrave.com, be notified that the use of this site needs due care. But that also goes indeed for the links that are already there, it may, when it gets added, not be in violation of copyright, if someone changes the page on findagrave.com, and turns it into a copyright violation, then it is also wrong. We would need constant checking of these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of that actually. I also agree that its possible that someone could add an image at some point but even the copyright rules in WP say that we shouldn't get into a mode of "copyright paranoia". If it happens and we catch it well of course be deleted without hesitation or remourse. But the Find a Grave site also removes them as they find them or are notified of them as do we so its also possible that even if someone does add it they will remove it in a short time. --Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN

This is something of a side show, so I'm putting it in a separate section. Kumioko has asserted repeatedly that links to CNN.com violate policies. The list of objections so far includes:

1. That if we can't link to Find A Grave's unfortunately frequent copyright VIOLATIONS, then we can't link to anything copyrighted, including CNN or books (@ 03:15, 23 March 2011)
2. That we can't link to CNN because it generates a profit (@ 13:17, 31 March 2011 and @ 14:41, 31 March 2011)
3. That we can't link to CNN because it 'charges for use' (@ 14:41, 31 March 2011)

Now I have been inclined to write all of this off as more of the hyperbole that characterizes one side of the discussion, but let's talk about this:

Does anyone know of any policy or guideline that prohibits these things? For example, WP:LINKVIO seems to permit links to NON-copyright-violating websites like CNN. So far as I can tell, zero of our policies or guidelines require our sources or external links to be open source. And WP:PAYWALL pretty directly contradicts the third complaint (although such a source should be used as a source, not an external link).

Also, is anyone sure that the last claim is true? Specifically, CNN.com has never charged me for any use: Are other people paying for what I get for free? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly you are taking what I said a bit out of context. My point was that every site including CNN could be argued to violate a policy of somekind. Several of the people that have tried to eliminate the Find a Grave site have staked some claim that Find a Grave has violated nearly every rule under external links to some degree. Especially OTR500. Basically someone could argue that it violates various rules in External links Links normally to be avoided. This could include #4 (they clearly promote themselves all over the site), #5 (they obviously sell products and attempt to generate revenue), #6 (for certain content and historical articles), #8 (many videos require plugins for flash or Java and some of the historical documents requires PDF), It has certainly had some cases where it printed things that weren't true and had to retract them, they have posted some images which weren't theirs, etc. My point though was just because a websites violates 1 or 2 rules sporadically or that can be tailored to our argument doesn't mean that the site should be banned. This goes for CNN, Find a Grave, or a number of other sites. --Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. You made specific allegations about specific sources. Your allegations seem to be false on their face. The fact that somebody could argue that the Moon is made of green cheese, doesn't excuse you from trumping up false allegations like these. CNN generally does not mislead and does not violate copyrights, and your other arguments simply indicate that you don't understand the actual metes and bounds of the ELNO items.

You also seem unable to admit, or perhaps to understand, the difference in scale. CNN has probably had the occasional problem with copyright violations (although I'm personally aware of none). By contrast, every single image of a person that I found on Find a Grave the other day was a blatant copyright violation. Do you understand the difference between "tiny fraction, quickly corrected" and "absolutely every single one"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand how the rules are but trying to discredit me because you don't agree with what I am saying is not appropriate. Several users have stated repteadly that Find a Grave violates multiple rules of use for External links and you were perfectly fine with that because its what you want. But because I present the same arguments about a website that you like and regardless of credibility does show signs of failing several of the External link criteria being used to discredit Find a Grave you think that I don't understand the rules. The problem is that the rules are subjective and written in such a way that they can be tailored to any argument based on the result an editor wants. Thats my point. And clearly you are not familiar with Find a Grave to say that Absolutely every single one is a problem. Specific cases have been brought up. Specific, very high profile cases of people who's lives are well documented and the link isn't needed anyway. One of which by the way has had the image in question removed since this conversation has been going on. So rather than playing test each others understanding of the rules why don't we focus our attention back to the topic at hand and get rid of this distracting subsection you created in an attempt to discredit me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm accurately reporting my data. I don't say that the entire website suffers from the problems that my sample set did, but I am telling you that I looked through listings for people I knew or knew of, and absolutely every single one that had an image of the people who died (most of the entries didn't have anything except a name and an image of the grave marker) had a really blatant copyvio problem. "Really blatant", as in "I wonder how anybody with half a brain could possibly think that a studio portrait that's stamped with the studio name in gold foil in the corner could possibly be anything other than a professionally produced, copyrighted studio portrait". Other sample sets—say, pages of famous people—may get different results, but I'm telling you what my results actually were, not what somebody else's results might be.

You don't seem to be responding to people's issues. You seem to be responding to your fears of how someone might take things to an extreme, far beyond anything that the editor in question has proposed.

For example: Dirk Beetstra puts it on XLinkBot, and you start raving about him trying to blacklist the site. It seems widely agreed that there has been a pattern of editors promoting Find A Grave on-wiki, and you go off about how CNN.com displays their logo and links to their website at CNN.com (rather than on the English Wikipedia) and that it charges for use (despite my inability to find any way to pay CNN.com for anything, whereas Find A Grave's links for donations and sponsorships are prominent—acceptable under ELNO, but not at all hard to find).

If you've got good arguments for changing the advice, please feel free to advance them. But right now, you're shooting yourself in the foot with all of these absurd comparisons and overreactions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have presented good arguments and so have others but if you are choosing not to hear them then there is nothing I can do about that. I still stand by my comment earlier though that a consensus on this little known of or watched page that was created by the very ones who are trying to get the site banned doesn't mean squat and if you want to change policy it needs to go to the community on the village pump. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko has made any number of ridiculous arguments in an effort to try to ignore clear policies and clear consensus. There's nothing to talk about here, as the arguments he makes would essentially prohibit all links anywhere, which we clearly do not do. Taking such comments as if they were serious or worthy of discussion just encourages more such tactics. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That s happening on both sides. Not just by me and the reason you are discussing this here in secret on a little watched page is because it has repeatedly failed to meet consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

ANY site can violate parts of WP:EL, they even almost always do. Let me explain:

• It should, in the beginning, be adding to the page. If it does not add anything that is not already there, or can be included, then basically it violates WP:EL (or actually, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#LINKFARM - note, that if an article does not have any external links, that thát is NOT a reason to add it. Even CNN can then be on topic, have a nice story, but if that info is already there, then that link should go.
• If there are some external links, sites can quickly become superfluous, other sites linked already cover the info. One could then argue, lets put 'site1' instead of 'site2' because site1 tells more, even if that 'more' is already covered in the article, but both are in that regard the same. Having both there would be linkfarming, even if 'site2' is the only external link that is currently there.

And we can go on for that for EVERY site that one could possibly add as external links to a page.

These are all things that depend on what is actually in the article (and the 'but this contains info that is not yet in the article, but others can use this to expand the article later and thén remove it', is, at least for me, a good reason to have a link there - even though I would suggest that the link should then be on the talkpage of the page, and when the article becomes more of a linkfarm then having one or two links-for-expansion there, the whole lot can be moved to the talkpage, or is likely to be pruned. I do note here, that very, very often, I encounter (good faith) 'spammers' who use that argument (or hear the argument as a defense by wikipedia regulars!) .. but in the end the link is plainly an external link, and the gross majority of these links just stay there and are never used to expand, they end up only there to linkfarm, on the way to WP:SEH.

Now, most sites are commercial. That is something that needs to be evaluated, if the site offers good information, but has as a prime objective to make money, then that is not a problem. If a site would first banner you with 'pay, give money' and hardly offer any info .. then that becomes a good criterium. If the site is strongly commercial, and the information is too often unreliable, then it often is unsuitable .. but now we are looking at sites which do offer info which enhances our article, even if it is commercial. Practically all sites fail this one .. and it is something to keep in mind. And if this is the only thing the site fails .. it is a ELNO, not an ELNEVER .. WP:IAR can be applied at will here, using judgement whether the informational benefit outweighs the commercial problem. For CNN it often does, for findagrave.com it also does regularly (though less regularly)

Now, sites like all links to wikis, all youtube links, all links to blogspots, twitters, and this includes findagrave.com ALWAYS fail certain parts of WP:ELNO (ánd the 'commercial intention' one!). Purely, only, totally, always by the pure nature of the site. They are hitting on more of the rules (commercial + others) on ALL occasions. They need bandwidth (we do not all have a glass fibre internet connection stuck into the back of our computer), need software installed (plugins, which may not even be universally available), are unstable (very volatile), etc. etc. But now, if that article we want to link to contains really info that expands our knowledge or understanding of the subject .. then why not (WP:IAR again). If the blogspot is written by a known specialist, and the blogspot can be tied to that person in a proper way (it is really the blogspot of the specialist), and the person is not just blogging his trips to far-far-away, then specific posts can be good external links. Unfortunately, we do see all too often that blogspot.com (to name a blog) gets added in disregard of that .. editors find some N00b's post on blogspot about a subject, and the link gets added.

That also goes for findagrave.com .. if the findagrave.com entry really expands the knowledge on the subject .. why not. Though often with these sites, a lot of it is incorporable, or is merely 'more info' (i.e., info that would not be necessary when the article would be a featured article - I can see that an article on a deceased super sports here can become a featured article some day, but if their parents are not worthy of being mentioned in the article, but they are the only added info on the findagrave.com article linked in the external links article, then I am sorry, even if it is of interest to some, and may even be interesting to know their names and/or to be able to find them, it is not an external link which is needed in the article, it is just not encyclopeadic - note, that if people want to know, and they can't find it on Wikipedia, there is always Google). So some of these sites do tick multiple issues in WP:ELNO .. the bar already becomes higher. It has to add, it is commercial, it is freely editable/requires software .. We are getting more careful. Still, if it really adds then it is still WP:IAR - does the informational benefit outweigh all the other problems with the site.

Now, Youtube.com, findagrave.com, even blogspot.com and the like - they contain sometimes, but too often for comfort, works in violation of copyright. For YouTube.com, there are A LOT of works which are not in violation of copyright, but those are generally, less interesting to link to (no, really, we do not need a video of your grannies birthday on our Birthday article, I know it is on-topic, I know it is not a violation of copyright, it is a video you made yourself and uploaded yourself .. but). They also contain a good amount of works which are, plainly, perfect for linking, and which are not a violation of copyright either (some news agencies upload their own work on YouTube) .. perfect: reliable information without it being a copyright violation. Unfortunately, they also contain good information, copied from broadcasts by news agencies, but not uploaded by the news agency themselves. Similar, we often see that people record songs of artists, even make video's during concerts, upload those to YouTube. Those are, plainly, violations of copyright. And those video's, even if they give reliable information, are about the subject, even tell more about the subject, etc. etc., what, some are even perfectly reliable sources - they are still violations of copyrights. And they should NEVER be linked to. And many of these 'free sites' have that problem (as I said, I do sometimes see blogspot-links, which turn out to be a plain copyright violation - people just copy news-posts from a subscription online newspaper into blogspot).

So either they so much violate WP:ELNO (blogspot is violating more often our WP:ELNO rules than that it does not .. it is too often useless - the copyvio problem exists, but is very minor) that we decide to revertlist (not blacklist, there is still good reason to link to certain cases of blogspot!). YouTube as well, with the added 'bonus' of it also quite often violating WP:ELNEVER since they link to violations of copyright .. actually, I would argue that YouTube violates WP:ELNO less grave than blogspot, most of the time the links to YouTube do add more than the general addition of blogspot .., but the copyright violations push the bar the other way significantly). And the more popular the subject, the more violating YouTubes you see (e.g. linking to copyvio video's of video clips of bands .. I can see how and what it adds .. but sorry, copyvio). And we see that it happens with findagrave.com as well. The site does not add so much (I am sorry), much of it can be incorporated, and there are some copyright violations.

Now I see already coming, but it is sometimes the only (online) source for the date that someone died (I got that thrown at me in the previous thread .. will get there later). And if there is a picture, then it is, literally, written in stone. How can that not be reliable... You know? IT IS NOT! findagrave.com is NOT a reliable source, even if they supply you with the image of a gravestone. The only reliable source (for quite some time, at least) are the actual records in town halls and in churches (those are not online, some are not even freely accessible). Still, that is a valid source, even if it is only on paper! And some of those dates can never be reliably sourced. We simply can't. Same goes for 'but it states the names of the parents of the subject. Sorry, but that is NOT reliable. findagrave.com is a freely editable site, with no editorial overview. It is for some things the best we got, but it is not good enough. That still makes it sometimes suitable as an external link, it can be used to expand some info in the article (but all of that needs to be independently verified and checked - if the findagrave.com article contains information about family and Wikipedia does not, then findagrave.com is a good external link to expand the Wikipedia article, until the information gets incorporated and independently verified, after that, the external link to findagrave.com is superfluous and should go!). But for the rest, no, it is unsuitable, it should go. Check if and what it really adds, and if it is just the name of the parents, or even only a 'source' for the date of death. Well .. sorry, it does not mean anything.

Is that reason to blacklist findagrave.com. No. It does not get (intentionally) abused, it is still useful, here and there. But more often not than that it is. It fails too much of WP:ELNO, I argue that it does not add too much (that can not be incorporated), and it even every now and then fails WP:ELNEVER. And that is all very, very unlike to CNN (which are sometimes superfluous, which are also commercial). And that is good reason to restrict findagrave.com more than CNN. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

More on Find a Grave

Kumioko commented; "In the cases of the Find a grave entries that show an image of the headstone with the information visible. Normally a cemetery is open to the public and the gravestones are clearly accessible and visible to anyone. {{Cite sign}} would seem to indicate that citing the gravestone (its a sign after all and assuming it has the information being cited) is allowed as a "sign" and would indicate that doing so would even be allowed as a reference. I would argue that if we do so then the Find a Grave entry should be there as an external link so that the image of the grave information can be viewed as verification. I left a question on the talk page a few days ago asking for clarification on citing graves but knowone answered yet so I will leave a note on the village pump to solicit wider comments."

Kumioko, Your comments, "but this is nothing more than WP:forum shopping, WP:Canvassing and WP:vote stacking at this point.", are a form of WP:Wikilawyering, and misleading to any editor (especially new ones) that may not be familiar with such policies and guidelines. It is not improper for an editor to make a suggestion to seek an opinion from those involved in a discussion concerning a problem. Vote stacking, are you serious? You stated you were seeking an opinion from "Village pump", yet you stated to an editor that suggested (in advance) asking an opinion of one editor, who's knowledge was not questioned, that this violated three different policies.

Your statement, "That s happening on both sides. Not just by me and the reason you are discussing this here in secret on a little watched page is because it has repeatedly failed to meet consensus." , causes me to now caution you. This is a blatantly false statement that offends me and it should offend other editors in good faith seeking to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing secret about this essay. You in fact brought it before an MFD which, unless you now consider an MFD a secret which would involve you as a conspirator of the secret, means your comment is false. To even make a statement that this essay is a secret is astounding.

I have ignored other totally false statements like, "some claim that Find a Grave has violated nearly every rule under external links to some degree. Especially OTR500" . I do have issues with some of the external links policy violations, but removing violations of Find a Grave as a source or reference, of which use violates several policies, is the torch I chose to bear, yet you included me in accusations of which I have left to others some time ago. Please do not continue in this direction that will result in actions to seek reprieve. Also please stop circular discussions that are disruptive to me and comments suggest to others. If youtube or CNN is an issue you wish to debate place it under such a section on self merit and not to sidetrack on-going discussions.

You and possibly two other editors seem to be of an opinion that WP:COPYVIO is not a real problem and that Find a Grave has some copyright violations but it is not serious. Copyright issues are one of the WP:Five pillars and the potential for possible violations should be avoided. The fact that Find a Grave has copyright violations are of no concern to Wikipedia or editors until such time that such information from the site is used as a source or reference on Wikipedia. The entire discussion concerning headstones and your comment, "...indicate that citing the gravestone..." is a problem. 1)- information that is cited has a source. Pointing to an external link to avoid copyright violations but citing information from contents of that link, invokes Secondary liability copyright infringement such as Contributory liability and vicarious liability, especially where pictures are concerned. This is a reason Find A Grave can not be used as a source or reference on Wikipedia. Placing a link in an external links section but using it as a source or reference is subversion.

"Clarification on citing graves" has been dealt with many times. It is one of two serious (and related) problems with Find a Grave. You reverted an article, because of a technical issue instead of fixing the issue, back to a version that included clear policy violations listed on the talk page. This is actually vandalism and I could revert it as such.

If the picture you are wishing to cite information from is properly released then include that picture or seek a proper release and do so. You apparently do not wish to do this as I have informed you that a major contributor of Find a Grave "Medal of Honor" pictures is willing to cooperate and help out. This would possibly give Find a Grave (and Wikipedia) access to 3000 plus pictures. On 27 March 2011 I replied to you concerning this and you either ignored me or just chose not to reply. The comment;

• If a picture was not considered a reliable source it could not be used in the body of an article as well as information from that picture. Original research would take place if additional comments were offered that was not supported by the picture or another reliable source. To state what is in the picture would not be OR.
• Kumioko, I do not have the ease of use of Wikipedia, nor the time, to undertake collecting pictures and all it entails to have them uploaded to commons. If you are interested in this then you can go straight to the horses mouth. If you are only interested in Medal of Honor recipients then possibly there is another editor with Find a Grave interests that is interested.

This would effective solve a problem of which you are concerned, this has been explained to you, and if you choose to leave this alone then please stop making comments concerning using Find a Grave as a source or reference. Looking at a "marker" is not the problem, citing a sign is not a problem, citing copyrighted pictures that are not signs, is a problem.

BTW there are actually enough editors involved in this essay that not only makes it "not a secret", but enough that can advance this to the next step that would solve some of your problems. Otr500 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done arguing about this on this forum. Its pointless because this forum was creating specifically for and is watch almost only by, the ones who want to ban find a grave. If you want to get rid of it then take it to the Village pump for the whole community to vote on and see what "the Community" really thinks. As for the attempt to discredit me in the beginning of your very long comment by saying that calling this forumshopping and such is out of line. Well, you have been a party to these discussions for a while but they have been going on repeatedly since well before you placed an interest. Mostly by the same 3 or 4 editors. So after 2 years of unending submissions in different forums, several of which were in the last 6 months, and repeated failed attempts to ban this site the purpose and intent is clear. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some fresh faces on this discussion would be a good thing, so I invite you to leave a comment at the village pump(s) with a short summary of the issue. --Conti|✉ 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion. That is hilarious though Kumioko. In one statement you admonish an editor for suggesting getting one person to weigh in on a subject citing three policy violations and now you are suggesting again to seek outside help. For me calling this to your attention, the fact that your comments most certainly were not proper, and that it would not be a violation unless an editor is seeking to stack the deck, I am attempting to discredit you. Why is it alright for you to seek outside help but not others? Never mind. I will remind you that Find a Grave has been an issue with different editors since 2005. I read the history and can give you a list if you like. I have only been involved a little over three months, and my concerns centers on Find a Grave as a source or reference. Because Find a Grave has largely went unhindered for so long is not my concern. My concern is the present, that consensus can change, violations that I observe and correct with proper documentation, and the betterment of Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, once again, it is a massive assumption of bad faith to say that 'this forum was creating (sic) specifically for ... the ones who want to ban find a grave', and I do note that there are several editors here that are NOT into banning find-a-grave, and seen that it is on this forum, banning is NOT the question.

Indeed, I'd like to see fresh faces as well .. I'd like to see how many editors think that find-a-grave is universally useful (as opposed to 'having only very, very limited use as it is NOT a reliable source, and generally fails much of our external links guidelines', or, what you seem to think, that most users want it banned) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing the same arguments between the same people on this little known about or watched page. I still think that with the history of this debate it could be considered forum shopping bringing it up to someplace like the village pump yet again after it has failed there and in other places so many times but the fact is the only way to get others engaged in the conversation is to have it somewhere the community is actually going to see it. Not here in the shadows. --Kumioko (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a point of fact, leaving a note at a Village pump is directly defined as an acceptable, non-forum-shopping activity at WP:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that the arguments would change... after all .. Kumioko seems to think we are all here just to ban the site. Let me be clear, I am a regular on the spam blacklists (here ánd on meta). I blacklist sites on a regular basis, sometimes after minimal abuse but when the intentions are wrong.

But I see NO evidence that there is any systematic abuse of findagrave.com, I do not see uncontrollable spamming, I have not seen proof of editors with e.g. a conflict of interest adding this site (just to make money), and, at the contrary, I do see, albeit limited, proper use of findagrave.com, and a lot of good faith additions (<comment not written per WP:BEANS>). I would hence describe unilateral blacklisting of this site as an abuse of administrative privileges, and I would not honour a request to blacklist (I would even oppose the request). But I do think that this site is of only very, very limited use, way less than what and how it is used at the moment, and seen the problems this site has, that it is good that we warn new, good faith, users that they might want to double check on their additions).

And, agreed, if editors suggest here to bring it to a wider forum, how then would such a thing be forum shopping, even for the person who made the original suggestion? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

First let me say that if this has been asked and answered I do apologize for bringing it up again. I would like to know if the editors at Find a Grave have written information about a person than where are they getting that information? If, like these debates have been saying, that the information has to come from F-a-G because no references can be found than how did the information get found to be put on that site? Are we to believe that the info is put there by someone with direct knowledge of that person(s)? Some of the editors over there have a lot of info on a lot of different people, can they have direct knowledge about all of them? I guess what I am asking is this, if the information can be found to be put in F-a-G than why can't we (editors) find the same references to add the sources to our own articles without being so dependent on one site? There has to be an answer to this question somewhere, does anyone here know how the editors there are more knowledgeable about finding sources than the editors at this site? We shouldn't be so dependent on any site like we are this one and imdb.com and a couple of others. I think I find this the most frustrating factor of all of this. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with the site - anyone can edit it and add what they like - the info is general from copy and pasted from other locations - or a self written bio that i guess from info they have seen around - or in the worst cases they are simply OR. FAG for some reason has no need for references And yes all the info at FAG can be obtained else were - just laziness on the part of our editors. Moxy (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's okay for reliable sources to engage in "original research". WP:NOR bans a particular behavior by editors of the English Wikipedia, not by reliable sources.

It's my impression that for many average people, the information is supplied by family members or other people with direct personal contact. I've seen a couple of professionally written obituaries, apparently word-for-word out of the local newspaper. In a couple of instances, a proper citation to a newspaper and a statement of copyright permission were present, but in other cases, it just looked suspiciously like a typical journalistic obit and is probably a copyvio.

In some cases, the information may be based on hard-to-access sources. For example, if you've got a moderately famous Civil War officer somewhere in the family tree, someone in the family might have a copy of a crumbling newspaper from the time in an old shoebox. That's a reliable (primary) source, but it would be difficult to find. They may also be working from unpublished sources, like the genealogical records kept in an old family Bible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In some cases they also visit the graves themselves and access the records of the cemetery or us government sources of information like the VA graves registration. --Kumioko (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Are those records on findagrave.com marked as such, I mean, can I see somewhere if the information on a page has been checked by the site owners? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no flag or anything thats displayed on the site that says that but then again there is nothing in CNN or any other periodical that says that either. We just assume those have been checked by someone prior to release. This is one of the reasons I think that the info we use from the site should be limited to dates of birth and death and locations of birth, death and burial and preferably only when an image of the grave is available for verification. --Kumioko (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Kumioko. CNN is written by specialists and all of it has editorial overview (except for the blog-part of it). Findagrave is freely editable, written by specialists, N00bs, and maybe even vandals. You now say that there is some editorial overview, but when you do not know what is fact-checked and accurate, then it is essentially worthless.

Could you please read our verifyability policy? Mainly "Material must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is appropriate for the claim being made." - CNN has a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy, findagrave.com has not. Which makes CNN a reliable source, and findagrave not. Even dates of birth and dates of death, locations etc. are TOTALLY not reliable (even when supported by a picture which depicts the data literally written in stone). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And note, I am NOT saying that the info on findagrave is not correct, it probably is, but a findagrave reference would still require everyone who wants to verify the info to actually go to the original records, having a findagrave.com reference is, even when factual, worthless. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All good points, but using that same logic a large majority of the Government sources fail verifiability. Census data being a good example right off the top of my head. There is no way to verify that data at all. It only comes from one source and we use it throughout the pedia. Again thats why I have said repeatedly the data we should be using and even then usually only if the image of the grave is visible (obviously the grave doesn't have the burial location so that wouldnt be on the tombstone) as a bit of verifiability. Also, most graves are open to the public so if someone doubts it then they or another Wikipedian could go and visit said grave and visually verify if its true. With that said I understand that sometimes accidents happen and the gravestone doesn't have the correct date on it but 99% of the time the gravestone is going to be accurate. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression we all agreed that a gravestone could be cited directly? Yoenit (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not only the mistakes on the tombstones (which will indeed have a very small error rate - and if cited, it would be verified, verifiable, but still wrong), it is the 'is the tombstone on the picture really the tombstone of the person we are talking about'. Also that will have a very small error rate (on findagrave.com), but since there is no editorial oversight on findagrave one can not be sure if the image is the correct image (did the uploader take a picture of the correct grave) . Now, as I said, I don't think it will be wrong very often, but that is not the point - the problem is that we do not know if the image one is talking about is actually correct.

No clue about the Government data there - if there is proper oversight and fact-checking by the government, it does not have to be a problem that there is only one copy available, and it is also not a problem that one can not reproduce it. If scientists measure certain energies out of a collision in a particle accelerator, and other scientists review the experimental setup, the data obtained and the conclusions drawn, and come to the conclusion that the interpretation and experiment is correct, then that is editorial overview. We can use that as a primary source for the energies and conclusions. That does not mean that you or I have to be able to physically repeat the experiment ourselves .. it means that we have a verifiable (primary) source for the observation. If it is published in a place without editorial oversight (Wikipedia, findagrave.com), one would have to physically repeat the same experiment to double check the information, then the (primary) source stating it is not trustworthy, and hence useless as a source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can't establish whether a gravestone is of the correct person, how could you establish a birth/date record is of the correct person? Yoenit (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that you can not establish whether a gravestone is of the correct person .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source (e.g., published obituary) saying "Robert E. Smith (1905–1984) was buried in Smallville's Woodlawn Cemetery" and a photo on Find A Grave of a stone for "Robert E. Smith" from that cemetery, in that town, with those dates, then I think you can be reasonably confident that you've got the right grave marker, and a trip to physically see the sign for yourself would be superfluous: you could, for example, take more precise dates from the gravestone and be satisfied that you had accurate information.

However, if you've got an article about "Bob Smith" and there are dozens of grave markers with similar names within a reasonable distance of your Bob Smith's hometown, and no way to know which one is his, then that won't work, even if you did go out and physically inspect them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats true but I think it would be something to deal with on a case by case basis. For example I deal a lot with Medal of Honor recipients and most of the older WWI and earlier are very hard to find an obituary for if they even exist at all. Most of the way that these graves ended up in Find a Grave is because 1 or 2 guys did the detective work and walked through the cemeteries looking for them. To find another reference wether better or not is extremely hard without treading into original research. The same is true of many local historical figures, early sports figures, actors, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If your definition of "extremely hard" is "you might have to send a letter on actual paper, with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the subject's local newspaper or historical society to request a photocopy of an old article", then sure.

There are even good sources available online that you're failing to use. For example, you could click here to see a 106-year-old newspaper announcement of the MOH being awarded to Clinton A. Cilley. It looks like there are hundreds of free newspaper articles about MOH recipients available to you there. Those are all properly published, indisputably bona fide reliable sources. This story about Find A Grave being the only possible option is just a fairy tale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I didn't know about that source. Very interesting. Ill have to look at that one more closely later. Your example is a good one of being a hard one but your also assuming that the recipient is in their home town, many are not and in any case that was just an example. The fairy tale comment is also a fairy tale. The fact is that the site is useful wether you decide to believe that or not does not make it less true. With that said I have already added that link you provided to my list of resources and I will look through some of the recipients I know of that I could not find a better ref for than Find a Grave and see if they are there. I have always agreed a better ref/link should be provided "if available". --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Find A Grave may be handy for some purposes, but the fact is that it's not "extremely hard" to find good sources. There are hundreds of similar websites. See Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives for a list of more than 300 free online newspaper archives. It looks like there's a separate list for magazines.

I suggest that you quit repeating the myth that it is "extremely hard" to get old newspaper articles, because it's simply not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I largely agree with WhatamIdoing here, on most people you can be fairly confident that there will be no mistakes with the actual picture of the gravestone. It is depending on the name of the person - I presume that there will be a larger chance of errors on a graveyard with a lot of graves in a huge city on a person with a name like 'John Smith' then there will be on a graveyard with a lot of graves in a huge city on a person with a name like 'Dirk Beetstra'. And I even believe that for most John Smiths under discussion, they will actually be correct. The point is .. as there is no editorial oversight, you never really know. That is why I would NEVER use this, even with a gravestone picture as the only source of information. However, if you have an obituary from a newspaper with the name, the date of birth and date of death of the person, then using that as a reference, and adding as a second reference findagrave (with picture) may strengthen the reference (but if there are already 2 or more other reliable sources stating the data, then findagrave.com also there is useless). Do note, that even in small cities certain names run in families, and relatives (nieces, nephews) may have exactly the same name as both have been named after their grandfather/grandmother, may have dates of birth and of death which are less than 20 years apart, may be buried on the same graveyard, while still having a fairly uncommon name altogether. All I am saying is, findagrave is certainly not useless, I do believe that even in those strange cases they will be >99.5% of the cases correct .. but one can not blindly trust if it is true as there is no editorial oversight and no significant fact-checking. And for that reason, it is not useful as a proper reliable source to verify correctness of the data, it may still be useful to have a good handle to expand a document. Having a findagrave entry does give you a likely correct year of birth, year of death, some family information, from which it is easier to find the reliable source (having a date of death gives you a span of about one to two weeks of issues to search in a reasonable guess of which local newspapers scan, if you don't have it, you'd have to spend a much more time finding the data).

So first it is useful as an external link (when the data is not yet in the article), after that it may be suitable as a second source which shows a correct gravestone. But please, do not use this in any form as a reliable place to get your info. But when all the info that is in the findagrave.com entry is incorporated and reliably sourced in the Wikipedia article, findagrave.com is superfluous; when other external sites which are more reliable than findagrave.com are telling the same, the findagrave.com is superfluous; and when the findagrave.com contains info which is never going to end up in Wikipedia as it is too not-notable and which is almost impossible to verify as well, then also findagrave.com is superfluous.

So in conclusion, yes, findagrave.com is useful, but in a very, very limited way. It hardly ever is useful as a reference (and can often be replaced by other, better sources, of which many/most are available online), and it is not very often a suitable external link either. But as you say, it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, it has to be added with significant common sense and when it is there it has to be evaluated with common sense. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to see on-going civil discussions. I have been working long hours so limited and will address several comments at one time. I am really (to the third power) not trying to be overbearing but until there are changes to current multiple policies that I have listed far too many times to do again, or it has been decided that Wikipedia policies are not important, following policies and guidelines are a prerequisite to building a good encyclopedia. If someone chooses to consider policies and guidelines as not important then start a MFD on Wikipedia policies concerning reliable sources, and see how that works. Adding in that Find a Grave, "hardly ever is useful as a reference", even meant in a nice way, has no current validity. I have covered this under multiple comments and even asked someone to provide exceptions that would allow for this but not one person has chosen to do so. How hard should it be to point out examples of a very limited way" allowed under policies and guidelines. I submit that it will be hard because currently Find a Grave fails more than one. We would need to provide at least four exceptions for every single article where it is desired to use Find a Grave as a source or reference. 1)- Pick any article, gather the best reasoning to include Find a Grave as a source or reference, and submit this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see the reply. 2)- Pick any picture that is not released to be used on Wikipedia and do the same thing.

Kumioko stated;

"This is one of the reasons I think that the info we use from the site should be limited to dates of birth and death and locations of birth, death and burial and preferably only when an image of the grave is available for verification.

• Reply: How do you propose we use the information? Asserting that it be allowed for use just for the date of birth, death, etc.. is still using information from the site. Failing multiple policies, thus not allowable as a reliable source, means using information from the site --period-- is improper. It may or may not be intended but you continually choose to assert this in direct contradiction to (once again) several policies and guidelines. After three months that I have been involved you have not relented. This essay is not the place to even discuss this but should be directed to the appropriate location as the policies have been decided by consensus. Sneaking it in is no longer an option so this leaves seeking policy changes, exemptions, or arbitration.

Kumioko also stated,

Again thats why I have said repeatedly the data we should be using and even then usually only if the image of the grave is visible (obviously the grave doesn't have the burial location so that wouldnt be on the tombstone) as a bit of verifiability. Also, most graves are open to the public so if someone doubts it then they or another Wikipedian could go and visit said grave and visually verify if its true.

• Reply: The graveyard may be public but this does not mean the picture has the proper release to be used. Go visit the grave!! That would be a lot easier and cheaper than addressing an individual interested in releasing pictures (electronically at zero cost) to be used on Wikipedia to solve many problems. Ah! But that would by-pass the need for using Find a Grave. While benefiting Wikipedia this would not benefit the use of Find a Grave on Wikipedia. With all the verbiage I was trying to understand the silence on this one, especially since brought up again.

Dirk Beetstra stated,

So first it is useful as an external link (when the data is not yet in the article), after that it may be suitable as a second source which shows a correct gravestone.

• Reply The use of external links is to point to information that can not otherwise be used as a source or reference on Wikipedia. If information in an external link can be used on Wikipedia it should be used to avoid unnecessary use of external links. If a site is unacceptable as a source or reference pointing to that site by use of an external link, with no other indicators, is an acceptable way to include that there is other information out there. If that is what you mean I agree but using the word second source infers just that; a source. This has been a problem with Find a Grave on Wikipedia. I would not have a problem with suggestions that information be used if a consensus of editors would like to seek policy changes. Even then the use involving pictures (or information from them) would be a separate issue. It would involve at least three and maybe four policies and is an option. In lieu of this, and against repeated cries of banning Find a Grave, these issues need resolution. This reported little known or used essay would not be a problem if there were not valid fears that severe restricting of Find a Grave as a source or reference but relegating it to an external link only, where it should have been from the beginning, were not valid.

Yoenit stated,

I was under the impression we all agreed that a gravestone could be cited directly?

• Reply; A grave stone can be used as there are many pictures properly released and used on Wikipedia. The key words to note are properly released. Citing information from a gravestone would be accomplished how? By citing information from a picture of a gravestone from where? If the picture being reference is on Find a Grave that would be citing information from a site in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the site, not the information that may be correct, is considered unreliable to be used as a source. This again brings up the issue of using information from a picture, that would be a source or reference, that has not been properly released thus bringing into to question valid copyright violation issues.

Dirk Beetstra stated,

I largely agree with WhatamIdoing here, on most people you can be fairly confident that there will be no mistakes with the actual picture of the gravestone.

• Reply; The reliability of what is on a picture does not matter if the location of the picture is questioned and fails Wikipedia policies to be used. Now we are back to the issues of using information from a site that has been considered unreliable and the possible copyright violation concerning pictures. The burden would be to prove a picture is not a copyright violation or assume (correctly) that any picture not properly released has a copyright. Information of public knowledge can not be copyrighted but a picture, not properly released, does have a copyright. This means using information from a copyrighted picture violates copyright laws. This is not really hard to understand and Crohnie suggested asking a third opinion from someone that has community consensus as being informed, but was accused of wanting to violate serious policies in doing so. If copyright issues are not understood, and any other editor has doubts, I second the valid motion of seeking resolution or arbitration, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, concerning using pictures or information from pictures, on Wikipedia.

WhatamIdoing stated,

If your definition of "extremely hard" is "you might have to send a letter on actual paper, with a self-addressed, stamped envelope to the subject's local newspaper or historical society to request a photocopy of an old article", then sure.

• Reply; This would be a solution if someone really wants to find verifiable information. Using a site, that fails policy as a reliable source to provide proof of information, especially hard to find or verify call into question notability. The Find a Grave editor I have been in contact with is a member of an historical society and has expressed interest in providing help. With possibly 3000 pictures, maybe more with other interested editors, I thought this a great idea and cheaper even than a stamp.

I would like to ask any editor not to taint this essay or discussions with assertions of Wikipedia violations when any editor questions any direction being taken, any issues of policies or guidelines (or application of such), and certainly with another editor or edits, by suggesting seeking any form of Wikipedia approved resolutions. There are policies against doing so that are serious so let's not do that any more. Otr500 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Otr500. Replying to the remarks about my comments:

Re/Re: So first it is useful as an external link (when the data is not yet in the article), after that it may be suitable as a second source which shows a correct gravestone.

Re: If there is a stub with hardly anything in it, then linking to a non-copyvio page on findagrave.com (which does carry more info) would not be a problem (if there are not already a good handful of other external links). If it is indeed on a page which is significant in size, then indeed, there is no need to link there. The link is quickly superfluous. And when the data gets incorporated, all of it needs to be properly checked against proper reliable sources. If that can be done, all that would be left is using findagrave.com as a source which corroborates the rest .. but I use the word 'may' .. I do think it is also there superfluous, except for maybe having a picture of the gravestone .. which if it is really depicting the same data as the reliably sourced data then that could be fine. I do not think that copyright here is a problem - If the uploader of the picture actually took the picture then he has the copyright, and grants findagrave the use of the image .. that is not a copyright violation, and hence, we can link to that picture on findagrave - we can not take it and upload it here, as that would be a violation of copyright. We could find someone to go there and take a picture which they than upload to Wikipedia. I agree, Otr500 - the use of findagrave.com as a corroborating source for a other, reliable source is largely, if not completely, superfluous. It does not give extra help to the real reliable source, it does not prove the original data - except that it may give some pictures and online data which can not be provided by the real reliable source (of course all within the possibilities of the non-ignorable policies of this site).

Re/Re: I largely agree with WhatamIdoing here, on most people you can be fairly confident that there will be no mistakes with the actual picture of the gravestone.

Re: Yes, it indeed does not matter. What I mean is, that I think that it is accurate, but it is absolutely not reliable; it is generally correct what findagrave.com states, and that helps in finding proper sourcing for that data, but there are mistakes, and all data needs to be verified (even the correct data) before knowing if what findagrave.com states is true. Example: we have an article on someone here who died a long time ago. Then going to findagrave.com and finding the same person, seeing that his date-of-death is 1/1/1800 in far-far-away-town gives you a handle to go to far-far-away-town, find the records of say 15/12/1799 till 15/1/1800, get the correct date (which likely is 1/1/1800, but may not be!), and use those records as proper sources for the date of death. It means that findagrave.com was in this case correct, but since findagrave.com does not provide sources for this data, findagrave.com is not a reliable source for '1/1/1800'. One can not say 'findagrave.com says 1/1/1800', so that is correct without actually having to check the info - but it did help you in finding the records. Now, in principle, that is what we have talkpages for - the findagrave.com data should be suggested as data for the page on the talkpage of said page (post on talkpage: 'findagrave.com says that he died on the first of Jan, 1800 - can someone check this and incorporate it in the page?' - but fact remains, that is unfortunately something that external links are often (ab)used for - data 'to be incorporated' (I know, people are saying 'no-one is checking the talkpages for data which can be incorporated, but I already said, that many of such links in external links sections also NEVER get used to actually expand the article and that they are often just the beginning of WP:SEH).

So again, I see no reason to ban the site completely - it is not abused massively, it can help Wikipedia in expansion of its data - but its use is, really, very, very limited. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, I do not want the site banned but you are not correct that, "it is not abused massively". The scope of how massive the site is abused I have shown and will list some again. Everyone keeps agreeing, as is policy, that Find a Grave is not acceptable as a reliable source. Some wish to find exemptions that do not exist even on stub articles. There are probably "hundreds" (someone care to count) of articles that in fact use Find a Grave as a source or reference. This is bad enough but is compounded when the Find a Grave project advocates and instructs editors to do so. Please read, here that states.

For any articles you create because of this project, you can add the entry's Find-A-Grave link to the External links sections of the article. This helps others verify the information that you did not source from another source, and find information you have not chosen to include.

and here that states,

Take care when adding information from Find-A-Grave to articles; Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source, since anyone can edit information there. If the information can be sourced from reliable sources, that is best; if the information can be considered at all controversial, seriously consider not adding it.

If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source.

If you don't enter any material, or if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find-A-Grave link.

Since the site is considered unreliable as a source I assume this is the reason there are instructions for editors to put the reference in an external links section which, anyway you look at it, is masking a source or reference. I have stated my concerns and this resulted in a weak edit to the instructions that did not address the problem. There are editors contributing to this essay that continue to assert that it is alright to use information from the site but limit it or other similar wording. Adding information from Find a Grave to an article (or information from a picture on the site) will be using this information as a source or reference and this has consensus as being against several instances of policy. I find it hard to believe, even to ardent supporters of the site, that instructing editors to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not harmful to editors that think they are following proper guidelines and instructions, articles created using these instructions, the WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles of which it is part of , and to Wikipedia. I will be against using Find a Grave as a source or reference until Wikipedia policies are changed to allow this. I will also be against the project practices until the policies are changed, the instructions are changed, or the site is banned. Since five separate instances of policies being changed is not likely to pass consensus, project editors or proponents have been unwilling to even consider that maybe there is a "skunk in the hen house" but is just concerned with keeping Find a Grave. I probably would not even be in this discussion except for an unwillingness to consider errors but just keep circular discussions going and complain that this has been gone over many times and over an extended period and I can see why. Otr500 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned by two errors in Otr500's long message above:

1. An image need not qualify for uploading to Wikipedia to be acceptable as a reliable source. There is no requirement that an image or a sign be "properly released" for use on Wikipedia. It need only exist and be available to the public (in this case, visible to any member of the public who wants to visit the cemetery). Using information from a copyrighted picture does not violate copyright laws. It is perfectly legitimate to look at a copyrighted picture and say "Ah, John Smith died on 20 March 1940." Information (facts) cannot be copyrighted. Only specific expressions of that information (the design of the grave marker) can be copyrighted. You can ask at WP:Copyright questions or a similar noticeboard if you want a third opinion on this point.
2. External links are permitted to include web pages that could have been used as a reliable source. The only restriction there is that they must contain at least a little bit of information that editors don't want to put in the article (ELNO #1). For example: Many medicine-related articles contain one or more external links to patient-oriented information from trusted sources like the NHS. They are reliable sources, but might contain information that Wikipedia doesn't, such as how often to take a medication or when to call your healthcare provider. The ==External links== section is not a ghetto for links to unreliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. You found what you consider to be only two errors. Of all that I wrote (long message), that I could have answered to each instance but felt that replies were needed and placing them all together was better.

1. I should have said possible violations. I think this comment, "There is no requirement that an image or a sign be "properly released" for use on Wikipedia. It need only exist and be available to the public", would mean that any picture of a public building could not have a copyright and this simply is not true at all. I feel it is possible that copyright laws (including the possibility of secondary liability) concerning pictures of a grave marker can be violated by using a picture or information from a picture and not the grave marker. This would still be a consideration of a picture on a site considered reliable. You did add an important fact. "An image need not qualify for uploading to Wikipedia to be acceptable as a reliable source. The problem is not information (especially from a picture) added to an article that may be totally accurate, but the source from which that information is gathered. Providing a relevant external link to a site that contains a picture of information is not a problem. Using information in an article and pointing to a site as a source or reference that is not a reliable source is a problem. Unreliability has been established by prior consensus and any use as a source or reference has been determined not requiring that it be WP:CHALLENGED.
2. You are advocating banning Find a Grave from Wikipedia. I have been trying real hard not to take this position. I can not imagine that you would in any way be agreeable that Find a Grave be acceptable as a reliable source so excluding it, as an external link is in effect banning the site, at least as far as this essay is concerned. There is no doubt that this essay does not carry the weight to actually do that but a consensus of editors with credible reasoning does carry weight.

There is no doubt that the Find a Grave project has serious flaws that probably short of a ban will not be corrected. I state this because of an unwillingness to correct serious problems leads me to believe there are thoughts by some editors that the site is untouchable to be banned. Find a Grave is not a reliable source, backed up by several policies. Some have concerns as to external links issues. ELNO #'s 1, 4, 11, and 12 have been brought up. I have chosen to be more concerned with any site that is improperly used as a source or reference. When I review an article I do not just look at Find a Grave or IMBd. I have used the list reportedly provided by FindaGrave.com since this falls under things of my interest. I initially became involved because of errors in the site being used as a reference. I had no idea that it was widespread or that there was instructions advocating this be done. The Find a Grave project pages list that Find a Grave is not acceptable as a reliable source then why do the instructions advocate using it as such? Why would editors continue to defend such actions in the face of clear Wikipedia policies? A theory is that the project has been pretty much unhindered by complaints and so has just continued with the status quo.

ELNO #12 states, "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". This appears to exempt Find a Grave (any arguments it is not a "Wiki"?) because of a statute of limitation. Over three months of discussions have not produced any evidence of exceptions to the policies, allowing the use of Find a Grave as a reference, not even to support a picture, but in fact has reinforced that it can not be used. Using the site as a source or reference but placed in an external links section does not fix the problem by hiding it. All the explaining as to defend this action that I see (just my opinion) are attempts to circumvent policy.

Wow .. Having WP:Find-A-Grave famous people does not mean that it is abused! However, the people who have written those two pieces you cite, Otr500 (and maybe more there) should meet the cluestick:

1. For any articles you create because of this project, you can add the entry's Find-A-Grave link to the External links sections of the article. This helps others verify the information that you did not source from another source, and find information you have not chosen to include.

2. If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source.

For both: NO, This does not help others to verify the info, and no, it does not allow people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave. It helps you find a reasonable guess for the (probably correct) info - but you do not know that it is correct, you will have to verify it independently - even when there is a picture of a gravestone on the find-a-grave page (if that picture is there it is more likely correct, but still, you need to independently verify that info). And if all the info is incorporated in the Wikipedia article, then Find-A-Grave simply fails the external links guideline (ELNO #1), and it should NOT be added.

The only proper reason why a find-a-grave external link would be fine is when the find-a-grave entry contains significant data, which can be used to expand the article, and which is not available from the other external links on that page, and which is not already incorporated. It would be actually better to just incorporate all that data, find proper sources for it, and then leave the find-a-grave entry away as it is superfluous .. but well, in thát way it is still useful, and I could understand a WP:IAR on WP:EL/WP:ELNO on that ground (but take care with WP:ELNEVER). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Moot discussions

Find a Grave fails the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a reliable source;

• 1)-WP:SOURCES; Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• 2)- WP:NOTRELIABLE; Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.
• 3)- WP:SELFPUBLISH; Find a Grave is user edited and uses anonymous or pseudonymous editors.
• 4)- WP:SPS; This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
• 5)- WP:OR; "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.

Aside from these there is the issues of the above listed ELNO concerns and also, in light of OR would be ELNO#2; "...or unverifiable research...", since being an unreliable source it can not be used for "viewpoints that the site is presenting".

Attempts at using Find a Grave as a source for pictures or information that is "hard to find" is not justification to by-pass policy. A source or reference is just that. It does not matter if it is written or on a picture (or called a sign) so all the discussion on pictures is moot. Want to call a picture a sign? That is alright with me but use a site that qualifies as a reliable source or secure the proper documentation to use the sign.

In my opinion any discussions concerning the use of this site should be (and should have been) limited to the above points that concerns actual policies and guidelines and not personal points of view. Otr500 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me try this again:

1. Using information from a picture does not violate the copyright. If you look at a photograph and see that the person in it has no hair, then you can write "The person has no hair" without violating the copyright—without getting anywhere even remotely close to violating the copyright. Similarly, you can look at a picture of a sign and say "That sign has a picture of a bird on it" or "This store sells shoes" or "John Smith died on 23 March 2009". By law, it is impossible for a person to copyright a date.
   The arrangement of the text on the grave marker, any drawings on it, and any original inscription (so "My dear blue-eyed darling", but not "Rest In Peace") could be copyrighted, but the date cannot be copyrighted. It's perfectly fine to copy the date off the grave marker, or off of a photograph of the grave marker, or off of a stone rubbing of the grave marker. Doing this is okay. It does not violate anyone's copyright.
2. I do not want the website banned. Find A Grave is sometimes acceptable as a reliable source—in particular, it is highly likely that the image of a gravestone will be considered a reliable source for the dates of birth and death. Find A Grave is also sometimes acceptable as an external link.
   As a completely separate issue—and the issue I actually addressed—it is possible for a webpage to meet the standards listed at both WP:Reliable sources and WP:External links. Here is a random example of such a webpage. This webpage could be listed in either place. There is no rule that says a potential ==Reference== may never be used as an ==External link== instead of as a reliable source, or that a potential ==External link== cannot be used as a ==Reference== to support article content. When faced with a webpage that qualifies under both guidelines, editors may choose which way to use it (if they choose to use it at all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to swordfish trying to make a point about a particular website with a generic example that is actually covered under it's own guidelines. Also the site you exampled may very well pass as a reliable source but Find a Grave does not. It is not an example of an article using Find a Grave as a source or reference, and there are literally multiple thousands to be chosen from, where Find a Grave is exempted from the above listed policies and guidelines and used as a reliable source? Please note that Find a Grave project editors and proponents need to know this. The project instructions, list 80 times two times (corrected) that Find a Grave is not a reliable source. That would be eighty times that the instructions advises editors that Find a Grave is not a reliable source and zero times listed that there are occasions, limited or not, to include "sometimes acceptable as a reliable source." . In light of this, and from a few Find a Grave editors or proponents, there are still assertions that there are exceptions. There have been editors using Find a Grave as a source or reference in violation of policies, and the site does give conflicting instructions, but this can be rectified. I am sure that there is just some misunderstanding that I have not figured out. It does surpass mind boggling and is approaching unrealistic that Find a Grave as a source is still being discussed.

Your explanation concerning links is correct providing the word potential refers to links that are relevant and acceptable in the respective intended sections. This does not mean that a reference can be used in an article and listed as an external link instead of a reference or that an external link can be used but actually be a reference. If a link would be acceptable as a reference but not used in the article, but wished to be included, it should be in a "See also" section. A link can only be used in one or the other and not both at the same time.

It has been stated that Find a Grave is not a form of Wiki. It was in fact emphatically stated by one editor that it is not a Wiki. Some editors, along with Ward Cunningham (the creator of Wikiwiki) and co-author Bo Leuf seem to disagree. Cunningham developed Vannevar Bush's ideas by "allowing users to comment on and change one another's text.", "A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site", and "A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Generally, there is no review before modifications are accepted." . These would be criteria that would cause a site to be an unreliable source. Wikipedia is considered to be a Wiki and so apparently is Find a Grave.

I do not have a problem with Find a Grave as an external link. An exception can be found at external links, "relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." . To me this gives an exception to otherwise accurate information found on a site that is considered unreliable. The external links section is not a dumping ground for bad links but a way to point to information that otherwise can not be included. This actually is not a hard concept to grasp and much easier that copyright issues. This is the reason I can still support Find a Grave as an external link only. This will still not matter to me if the project editors refuse to correct what I feel is harmful instructions.

As so aptly stated by another editor, let me try this again: Comments that Find a Grave can sometimes be considered a reliable source maybe because of a picture, that might just include accurate dates of birth and death, goes against the other editors weighing in, the above listed policies, the project instructions (all 80 of them), editors that have commented on the Find a Grave project pages, and consensus on the reliable source noticeboard. I find it hard to believe that all are wrong except a few editors. This is just my opinion again, but it appears to me that the horse is dead and it would be far better to drop the stick and back slowly away from the stinking horse carcass, but that is just my opinion. Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the "project instructions" that say Find A Grave is never a reliable source eighty times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I was tired and made several errors. 1)- I was working on external links and used reliable source. 2)- There are 27 instances when Find a Grave advises to place a link in the external links section. I had viewed about 20 of 78 (plus 2 on the main page) project pages but after the initial 28 (one was completed) the rest are just lists. There are two instances when the project page lists that Find a Grave is not a reliable source. I made correction to reflect this.

You threw in the word never that I am pretty sure I did not use. I do not have to provide proof of the word never because a)- Consensus can change, b)- someone may wish to bring an article before a noticeboard to get an exception. Anything can be slid in if it is not caught or challenged. Find a Grave is not considered a reliable source. This is not debatable as community consensus has decided this a long time ago and it has been confirmed. If you choose to try to find fault in this you (or anyone else) needs to bring the issue to the ones that made the decision or bring it back up to the proper location to get the policies changed. While it is plainly clear that there is a push to continue, against clear policies and for some unknown reason, to maintain that Find a Grave can be used as a reliable source, it simply does not have consensus. Otr500 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Of interest

Was wondering if TV.com may merit mention here as per "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6#Template:Tv.com person.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Google+

I think we need to add Google+ to the social networking sites section. Yworo (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there instance(s) of the site being used on Wikipedia. My point being that we could add lots of sites but the External links content guideline: LINKS TO AVOID #10 and #11, covers this. Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Google+.Moxy (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Essay

How do we remove the essay tag from the top of this guideline? I believe that when the page was nominated for deletion in March 2011 and kept by a resounding margin, that essentially made it a defacto part of WP:EL. Is there a more formal process for making this official? Yworo (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PROPOSAL for the recommended process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd just found it myself, but your response is appreciated. Yworo (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for promotion of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites to a guideline

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

---

I propose promoting Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites from an essay to a guideline. This essay was nominated for deletion in March 2011 with a near unanimous keep outcome. I think this indicates the broad support needed to be so promoted. Yworo (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nah, no. I suggest keeping this as an essay, or as an example page. WP:EL is the guideline, this merely exemplifies how parts of that (and also WP:RS) are generally interpreted. If this is going to be a guideline, then it should have guidance on every website available. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree, it should, and could easily be expanded to include other popular websites based on consensus discussion. Some editors do not find the guidance in WP:EL to be completely clear, ignoring one part while emphasizing a contradictory part. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think it needs to be considered to be expanded to every website; as its title implies, it is about websites where people perennial ask about their use as EL. But that said, I would consider limiting it to the websites that are of the ones that are generally refused as social media and user-contributed content sites which always come up, adding more as we find more perennial examples of these. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree, but when this happens, it think it should be made much more visible than it is now, by having it merged into the main guideline wp:EL. I only learned about this essay's existence today, and that is... well, years overdue — to say the least. This is a high quality essay, deserving to be promoted to a (more official) content guideline. - DVdm (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment about background and Yworo's motivation here. Yesterday, Yworo undid a number of my edits, all with an edit comment of "remove social networking sites per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites". Since then, many of his edits have been reverted by user Memphisto, with edit comments like "revert per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official_links" (and there has been discussion between those two editors on this matter here). It is only in the face of that thoughtful opposition that Yworo has decided to try and strengthen his case with this proposal. GFHandel ♬  20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Immaterial. Please discuss the content, not the contributor. The validity of the proposal is completely unrelated to your complaints. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that the dispute between the two of you, which appears to be about whether it is desirable to include (for example) Twitter or Google+ links as ELOFFICIAL links, be settled at WP:ELN, where I see you've started a discussion. A couple of diffs showing specific examples would probably be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we (Wikipedia) needs to clarify what is an "Official link". Is it just web pages run by the party in question. Does it cover "Official accounts" for web sites run by a third party that may or may not care about copyrights problems. Does the MOS make this distinction clear? I think not. What is Official really - looks like the MOS leaves this a bit open? Is a third part link really official in the true meaning of the words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

Do we need this discussion again, that discussion is done over and over in WT:EL. In short: an official website is a website maintained by the subject. But that is not the only thing, we tend to list only one official website (the most important one), the next one should contain significant independent information before being listed. Moreover, facebook.com/subject, myspace.com/subject, youtu.be/subject and twitter.com/subject etc. are, when interesting enough for the subject, already linked from subject.com (which makes the albeit official social networking sites superfluous). Do note that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not an internet directory for the subject, or a linkfarm. Moreover, the social networking sites generally have overlapping content, content which is not stable, or no additional content at all (my example generally is the Twitter feed of Britney Spears, which was on the page, and when I checked it, contained the feed that she was going to have cake with her father - utterly non-encyclopedic though additional info). That makes most social networking pages utterly useless, except if they are the main official page of the subject, or do have some form of significant additional information to be relevant enough. If you need the twitter feed of someone, use google, that is not within the scope of Wikipedia. It is a proper mix of WP:NOT (interpreted in WP:EL) with a sound amount of WP:IAR. That is what is also the purpose of this page, to give a feeling of how such pages are to be treated, not meant as a complete guideline of every external link and when it is or is not suitable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't understand where your question is coming from. We already define what counts as an official link. It's true that you won't find that definition in the Manual of Style, but you will find it at WP:ELOFFICIAL. Look for the bit that begins "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:" followed by two numbered points. I don't know how much clearer we can make it. Maybe you need the wording to say "An official link is defined as", so that you know that this statement is the sole, exact, official, formal, complete definition of what counts as an official link on Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. WP:ELOFFICIAL defines official as a "link" (not a website) that is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person). In the past people have put forth the argument that a link to a Twitter page is controlled by the subject even though its hosted by a third party. What we should be saying is "The linked website is controlled by the subject not just a link to anything controlled by the subject. Moxy (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the idea here that Twitter links cannot possibly be official, because Twitter controls Twitter.com? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This will likely be valuable at some point as an essay exploring some ELNO examples, and has some merits now, but I found serious problems with its wording when I arrived. It's far too new and edited by too few users to represent {{Guideline}}-level consensus. It also neglects to cover Google+ and other social sites (LIveJournal, social bookmarking systems, etc.) that are relevant, so it appears to be singling out Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn very specifically, which smells of personal bias. Those two sections should be merged into "Social networking sites", using these as popular examples, not an exclusive list. Especially since MySpace is barely used for social networking any longer; it's now principally a system for free, quick-'n'-dirty official band/performer websites. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Long overdo. On top of that, WP:EL should be bumped up to policy. DreamGuy (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This smells too much like a blanket endorsement for the unrestrained censorship of links to certain sites and is also likely to be taken as implicit approval of those which are not listed. WP:EL is strong enough to allow a debate on the merits of external links on a case by case basis, which is how Wikipedia should work. 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think this should neither be a guideline nor an essay. It's not an essay, as it's not just the personal opinion of one user. And it's not a guideline, since that's WP:EL's job. This is more of an appendix to the guideline, explaining a few common examples in detail in accordance with the guideline. Of course, I kind of doubt we have a shiny template for that kind of page. --Conti|✉ 21:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  I don't believe that the page's revision statistics support your claim that it's "just the personal opinion of one user". Fourteen different editors have changed the page more than once, including yourself. Although I started the page, 80% of the edits have been made by other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I said that that I think that this is not just the personal personal opinion of one user. :) I fully agree with you. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  I'd say that I should have my eyes checked, but I just did, and they're fine, so the problem must be the parts behind them.  ;-) I apologize for being inattentive.
  Essays don't have to be single-user opinions; think about how many people have worked on WP:BRD over the years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support with work: I do agree with Conti that this is more appropriately an appendix and I also agree that WP:EL should be a long ignored policy, but where does that leave things? There is probably not an appendix template or a guideline to a guideline template. I don't think there is a minimum number of editors or length of time criteria for such a proposal. A fair and impartial representative would be sufficient. There were 25 editors involved and several in the AFD discussion. That would be more than enough if improvement to Wikipedia was a primary goal. I can't imagine where the "blanket endorsement for the unrestrained censorship" came from. Any part of Wikipedia can be questioned at any time, and there are several venues to address issues, so I am still trying to get a grasp on this line of thought. The use of a specific name would not be a problem if used "as an example". If a consensus agrees that a certain site should be excluded it should not be masked or hidden by a generic mention to appease some non-existent personage. A problem is that this is an important issue that really has a place on Wikipedia and all the negative aspects are just rhetoric as consensus can change and consensus can effect change. Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  You might be looking for the {{supplement}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am looking for as that is exactly what the page does. Without WP:EL being promoted to a policy it would seem out of step to propose to promote this as equal. It seems to me to be a logical choice and alternative proposal. Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If this essay is going to become policy, can we please consider adding Rotten Tomatoes to the list of sites within it's scope. This is a commercial site with a definite agenda which is now included on a huge number of our pages. It's rating system is a very long way from being objective or unbiased and yet there is little constraint on it's usage. I feel extremely uncomfortable with this essay being promoted as policy whilst it includes the likes of IMDB and turns a blind eye to a much more dubious link. Mighty Antar (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you mosey on down to just below the Adding Google+ to the list and place a new suggestion. Then you might hop up one and weigh in on the Google proposal. If you wait too long you will have to wait until after our involuntary voluntary blackout vacation is over. Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Opposse It's a decent essay and it has good points but it is not ready to be incorporated into guidelines and would surely be something like an "examples page". It needs much more input and dicussuion as it is not broad enough in scope. I also note that it seems to go a step further than what I am reading in established guidelines by saying that an official web page can be used only if it can be authenticated. How does that work? Who authenticates it and in what manner will it be done etc? The guideline only says "4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Supplement tag

In the event that this essay is not deemed ready to be promoted, or in in event now if appropriate, I would like to suggest adding;

{{supplement|WP:EL}}

The essay was and is intended to be just that so I feel appropriate and an option. Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Social networking sites change

Copied from the above section --Conti|✉ 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I support your idea to change the Facebook section into a general social network section, but my attempts at doing so have been reverted. So, is there anyone actually opposing this move? --Conti|✉ 22:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the section to start a discussion on changing this essay, but I wouldn't mind seeing some proposed wording before it is inserted into the text. GFHandel ♬  22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you insist. The proposed wording is to change the section header from its current state to "Social networking sites". That is it. Do you agree? --Conti|✉ 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: I do not want to seem ignorant but this is the talk page to the essay, "External links/Perennial websites", and this section is titled, "Social networking sites change", so my questioning would be: If this is not the place to discuss a proposed change to this essay then exactly where would such a proposal be submitted? Otr500 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to seem ignorant either, so please note that Conti moved my request from the section before this one. He should not have: a) deleted it from there, or b) reproduced my request for the appropriate section to be used in this section, but...what are you going to do? Sigh. GFHandel ♬  03:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping my note on top of this section would make that clear, but yes, I moved the discussion. Apologies for the confusion. I'd still like to know if you, GFHandel, have any problems with the suggested change, though. Because if you don't, I'll just go ahead and make the change. --Conti|✉ 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DUH!!! I am hoping I can be convincing that I just missed it. Otr500 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that there is a heading above the proposed heading change called "Social networking websites", so after the proposed change we would have:

==Social networking websites==

===Twitter===

===Social networking sites===

===LinkedIn===

I'm not trying to be obstreperous—I'd just like to ask if that is the best way to categorize things? I'll also note that the original edit to the essay included a change to the text of the section—which the above proposal does not. If the proposal is adopted, I guess there had better be some sort of definition of "social networking"? For example, is any site that allows users to comment a "social networking" site, or does the proposed wording only apply to the big guns (Facebook, etc.)? If the list of applicable sites is not too large, then I'm leaning towards offering concrete advise by explicitly listing the relevant sites (e.g. not providing a generic heading).

GFHandel ♬  20:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm suggesting is to have one "Social networking sites" heading and include all social networking sites there, since they are all basically treated in exactly the same way. What's written in the current section ("Facebook, Myspace") is true for Facebook, for Myspace, for Google+, and for any other Social networking site out there. I really don't see what your objection is here. --Conti|✉ 23:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll try harder to explain. My example above is exactly what you proposed by your edit that I reverted (see the state of the article after that edit). If you are planning to do something else, could you please give an example below of exactly what you are proposing so that the community can evaluate? Thanks. GFHandel ♬  23:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, LinkedIn is a little different, because it requires registration to see anything, whereas some Facebook pages don't. Also, Myspace has their music program, which we haven't explained here, but is generally acceptable to most editors if the geographic restrictions aren't too severe and are labeled. I don't mind having an overall header that the various social networking sites are collected underneath.

As to how long the list will get, this page is supposed to be about the "big guns" simply because less popular websites don't generate the same questions over and over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But there are some very general rules we can write down that are true for all social networking sites. Don't use them as a reference, only use them as an external link if it is official, etc. I don't see why we can't do that. We can always go into greater detail with some big examples, sure, but the basic rules are the same. --Conti|✉ 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other about a general summary, although it's a bit more complicated than that: A social networking site can be a perfectly reliable source if handled properly under WP:SPS rules. I think it is important to provide fairly detailed information for the specific websites that generate the most questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• There was a discussion concerning changing the title and I agreed it was a good idea. A problem is that apparently I was unclear as to the extent of the change and that all aspects would be generalized.

I strongly feel (do care) that the heading was correct and there is a need for some "general summary". However, since there was a point that consensus agreed that Facebook and Myspace was acceptable to have listed, I feel very strongly that they (the sites agreed to by consensus) not be swept into obscurity by total generalization. The purpose of the essay, to explain by consensus more in-depth what is too general in the guidelines, causing Perennial discussions, needs to remain. In that regard a generalized section heading, with each site that is now included, and sites that arise able to be listed, would be ideal.

It would make no sense to generalize the essay to a point that it is useless. A move in that direction would lead to more such edits and then, if allowed, a blank page.

I can say with certainty, and back it up with several policies and guidelines, that social networking sites are not reliable. Yes there are probably exceptions but they would be rare and there are guidelines in place to deal with use. The "big guns" are the ones that cause the majority of perennial problems so a focus here is important. It is just as important to deal with general aspects of social networking sites (give an overview since there is already consensus) to help prevent the next "big guns" from being perennial.

I observed Gabriel Iglesias, a discussion, and a G+ external link with the supposition that it was an "official site". I followed the link and was appalled. There is absolutely nothing of encyclopedic interest, nothing "that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic", nor a need at all for the link. The link does provide "Other profiles" that are blatant advertisements. Maybe a good reason to keep the link is so readers can find where to buy "Real men have stretch marks" tee-shirts along with many other commercial items. Apparently it (G+) is a good way to connect 50,000+ fans and get coverage on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but can we please avoid arguments that extend from an ordinary example to the whole (because that's not AGF regarding use)? It's just as easy to provide the case of Sergey Brin's Google+ account—which does give valid cause for linking from his WP article (and is as close to his official website as we're going to get). Google+ is relatively new, and who's to say that similar pages won't get more popular as official websites?

Secondly, "social networking sites are not reliable" is a generalisation that can be misleading here. What if a site is officially confirmed by the hosting site (which Twitter and Google+ do), and information (biographical, photos, etc.) is provided by the account in question? WP has the right to either link generally to such information, or (more specifically) to provide a citation to such information to support text in an article.

I do agree that it "would make no sense to generalize the essay to a point that it is useless".

GFHandel ♬  10:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is alright to show one example where the site is a plus but not assuming good faith to show where it is a failure?

Your example of "Sergey Brin" is an excellent example. You state. "...as close to his official website as we're going to get...), yet a simple search shows I could contest your assertion with what is titled as, Sergey Brin's Home Page here. I am not sure, as I haven't explored yet, but I would imagine that a Stanford University link would be far more suitable than G+. The subject does list this as his home page, it is about him and relevent to the article, does not have an 814307 circle of friends and a fan page comment section. AND-- if you like Google so much there is a link to that site also. This is why I feel a template is not a good idea no matter how noble the thought. I was not involved in creating the policies and guidelines but "social networking sites are not reliable", "generally" usually being inserted, or "Links normally to be avoided" is community consensus. To go to extra lengths to ensure that a site can pass the mustard to be "an exception" is not considered bad faith but good editing.

There is consideration Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 9 for a template to be discussed, and at this time I disagree with keeping. The reason, among others, is that I was involved in a VERY long and hot debate, that resulted in me even being wrongly trashed, because a template assisted external link was allowed to be inundated into thousands of articles and used as a reliable source, because for whatever reasons over time the "process" that was suppose to prevent this broke down, even though consensus from the beginning was that it was not reliable.

G+ is a social networking site and there are many many ( I can list them if you like) policies and guidelines that will not support use as a reliable source no matter how hard the push. I can not imagine why there would have interest in "supposing" that the site "might" be able to be used at some point, when that is not the case now, and probably not in the foreseeable future.

If someone wants change I feel there are venues to address this such as WP:RSN and it will give a more final solution as to current consensus involving use as a reliable source.

In the template for discussion there is a comment;

• "The new parameter now means that the template can be used in reference citations—where it cuts down on syntax for in-line citations (and of course offers the usual standardization of link URL). Enjoy".".

• This screams warning!!! to me. You will have to forgive the fact that I am concerned about the whole.

An "exception" should always be considered just that until such time that consensus considers otherwise. Any projection other than that will lead to a problems now and in the future.

Please note!: I always assume good faith, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, so please do not throw this wording (because that's not AGF regarding use) around without evidence. It would then be a great idea to seek clarification, to make sure you did not misunderstand, so that you are not guilty of assuming bad faith. I can disagree with you, even vehemently, and not be asserting bad faith.

There are some things we agree upon, and some we do not. That is the process of Wikipedia. I disagree with G+ as an external link (valid exceptions notwithstanding) and at the very least will be a voice of reason in opposition. I totally disagree with a template to aid in using G+ since it is not "generally" an acceptable external link. It most certainly is not an acceptable citation by any stretch of the imagination but I still give allowances for any "exceptions" that could arise. Exceptions, that would be allowed by some consensus (it would have to be pretty iron-clad), would have to have community-wide acceptance, and that will be difficult in this present time. I will be a voice to try to insure that any use would always be an exception.

That is my position, and I have many reasons why. I am open minded, and not so bull headed that I can not be persuaded. If you would want me to accept some template to assist in, or track, Google+ your reasoning will have to be very convincing. I am sure I will see you at the other discussion. Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that you didn't AGF; I said that we have to AGF in other editors' ability to use links to Google+ (and similar) pages. You should be very careful with your desire to find a counterexample because that Sergey Brin homepage is occasionally tossed around in the article (usually by anonymous editors), however it is ridiculous as a representative official site for Brinn (if indeed it was even created by him) because it hasn't been updated in about twelve years and contains personal contact information that cannot possibly be correct.

Yes, you should be concerned about whole, but it is a common logical mistake to argue from one (especially poor) case to the whole.

Please note that Google+ links are being used in citations (that's just a fact of life in some articles), and if localized consensus approves the inclusion of text with support from (say) the biographical page of someone's verified Google+ account, then there's no problem in using a Google+ URL as a reference. If that is deemed okay, then it's just a tiny (non-controversial) step to helping editors to format such links in a standard manner with a template (using much less syntax in articles than a full URL). The use of the template in that case is really not the problem people are making it out to be.

I won't discuss the Google+ template further here because (as you indicate) there is an appropriate place for that discussion. This is the place to discuss a proposed change to the wording of this essay.

GFHandel ♬  20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well to be specific you commented, "Okay, but can we please avoid arguments that extend from an ordinary example to the whole (because that's not AGF regarding use)?",

I am just wondering how far you plan on going with this? Why are you inundating articles with not only 1)- Google+ but you are adding 2)- YouTube, 3)- Facebook, and 4)- Twitter external links and templates into articles, and doing this blanket style. You removed what is plainly stated as an Official Homepage Sergey Brin with the edit summary, "There's no real proof that this is Sergey Brin's official web page? Is there?", and another editor adding that it is 14 years old so shouldn't be here. Now we can remove links by guesses and have a timeline that all links must be updated or replaced after 14 years. Without an official website of course we should use Google+ and the new template.

You have added 39 external links (in templates) to 15 articles that I have checked. 39!! come on. How do you consider this is a benefit to the article or Wikipedia and not be violations of Wikipedia Policies and guidelines?

• J Rice (all 4)
• The Superions (all 4)
• Tony Horton (exercise instructor) (3) Google (official), facebook, and twitter
• Kudassanad (2) Google+ and facebook
• Meme Molly (3) Google+, Tumblr, and Twitter with the addition of Dailybooth and YouTube for 5
• Alexander Noyes (2) Google+ and twitter
• Brian Solis (3) Google+, (Official website), Facebook, and Twitter
• Poisoned Electrick Head (3) Google+, (Official website), Myspace, and Discogs along with Daily Motion
• Au Sable River Canoe Marathon (2) Google+, (Official website), and Facebook.
• Ai Weiwei (2) Google+, Twitter (with official website added) plus Photo Albums on Google+ for a total of 15 external links
• Tom Anderson (2) Google+ and Facebook (total of 6) with 27 references
• Jason DeRusha (3) Google+, Facebook, and Twitter
• Tustin Legacy (2) Google+ and Facebook
• Rusty Egan (2) Google+, and Discogs
• Maria Bartiromo (2) Google+ and Twitter

An editor has deleted and they were restored my Memphisto per Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links). I can understand that BUT!!

on "Maria Bartiromo" Google+ and Twitter were replaced citing Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official links, and this was not the only one. 15 articles and 39 added external links (that I have checked) and you will probably argue that this is alright. Otr500 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with the work I've done on the Sergey Brin article, please raise your concern there (but you will soon realise that I have acted in accordance with local consensus).

You are being disingenuous with your above analysis. I am not adding information to WP; instead, I am translating existing information (URLs) into template equivalents. Once again, if you have specific issues with any of the above pages, please don't hesitate to take up the debate on those pages. We all have jobs that we feel comfortable with on WP, and at the moment, I feel comfortable with translating existing information in articles to be in a syntactically superior format (templates).

Just out of interest, why did you write "...with the addition of Dailybooth and YouTube.." for the Meme Molly article? The links to which you refer were untouched by my edit.

Finally, please be aware that there are hundreds-of-thousands of article on WP (to say the least) that use templates. To apply templates to existing information is a routine job that has been practised by thousands and thousands of editors. As far as I'm aware, there has not been a single piece of negative feed-back from local editors in any of the articles to which I've applied templates.

GFHandel ♬  07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and that was cool to avoid discussing the "assistance you provided involvingspamming you did but I can discuss this as, in case you didn't see it, this is an External links/Perennial websites essay. I will visit the articles so I can go to the next step. I think you are confused that local consensus, or even project consensus, can trump community consensus. 39 external links in 15 articles that you applied templates to is too much. And this "local" thing you keep referring to is non-existent as the last time I checked this is still an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and yes you have had at least one complaint that was overridden. If I get enough community wide editors involved and you still have consensus then we can go that route and even put this essay up for deletion since you don't seem to feel it is of any consequence. Then again, you might be wrong, as others have been before.

I DO HAVE a problem with your "translating existing information" to templates that involve sites that have community consensus and found not acceptable as external links. I certainly have issues with Google+ being used as a citation and I feel there will be a large consensus that agrees.

My position is that you feel "comfortable" assisting in putting templates on spamlinks and I feel comfortable attempting to see this is not accomplished. You may not like this wording but using templates on a vast number of articles that has been considered not generally acceptable as an external link (let alone a reference, without checking to see if there was an exemption or that consensus has changed, is considered spam (spam linking etc.). We can call it peanut buttering but that will not really change it. Maybe Wikipedia likes spam now. Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I feel that we are making progress now because you've come to the realization that I did not add information to the articles. I'm hoping that you can now also realize that there are many editing duties at WP, for example: making and enacting policy, researching and adding content, fixing spelling and grammar, adding and updating templates, removing inappropriate content, copy-editing, etc. Editors who work at WP are unpaid volunteers and accordingly do activities that they feel motivated to achieve at the time. Lately, I've felt motivated to create and implement templates on articles—with the aims of making it easier for editors to format links, and for readers to view the rendered links. I'm hoping that you will also now understand that I did not feel that part of my converting existing information involved looking back through talk pages to check for discussions on inclusion, and/or checking individual "Official websites" to see if existing links were listed there? I'm also hoping that it is obvious now that my actions do no hinder the subsequent activities of editors who feel it is their duty to remove links?

I asked a question above: why did you write "...with the addition of Dailybooth and YouTube.." for the Meme Molly article? Could you please address that question. Thank you.

GFHandel ♬  20:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are too many articles with too many external links (look at Ai Weiwei) that do not benefit Wikipedia.

You have mentioned being unpaid volunteers and I would certainly hope so as Wikipedia does not pay us so if "paid" it would be by someone else. I am also a volunteer and I guess that is a good thing.

The links you added the templates to are in parenthesis. I had not run across Dailybooth before so used that addition as a sort of note about the links and that is all. I still haven't checked it out yet but want to look at it as it is an external link.

I will be deleting some of the links thus your templates. If reverted I will stick with that issue, and I can assure you, as provided by Wikipedia, and not just "local" if warranted, to a resolution. I am bull headed in that regard. I am not a deletionist however, I do feel the need "to place a firm cap upon proliferation of promotional use.".

Google is not an acceptable external link for Wikipedia and so far consensus is in agreement. The links I have looked at (and I hope there are exceptions) provide no encyclopedic value and are mostly just chat sites with a lot of advertisement. I really can't remotely imagine why others would feel it should even be given an exception. Otr500 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Otr500, this is just a friendly reminder that WP:External links do not need to be WP:Reliable sources, as the EL guideline directly says at WP:ELMAYBE #4, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." There is no source more obviously knowledgeable about a person or organization than the person or organization itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Google+ to the list

As noted in comments below adding this link would be duplication so not needed

Google+ needs to be added to the list for coverage. It is generally not acceptable by consensus as an external link. It is being used as an "official website page, and there are exceptions provided for these official websites. Suggested:

• Title: Google+ (Google plus)

See also: Template:Google+

• As an external link: N Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links, when the subject of the article has no other Web presence, but must also comply with Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking .
• As a reliable source: N Generally no. Reliable sources are covered at (Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:VERIFIABILITY); See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Google+ is user generated and is self published (WP:USERGENERATED and Wikipedia:SPS) and therefore can be considered original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Google+ pages can change regularly, even daily, so the information is not reliable (WP:ELOFFICIAL#Minimize the number of links). Some links may be considered spam (Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam).
• Common issues: Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged (ELNO #10). Google+ pages are characterized as fansites (ELNO #11) and are discouraged. Google+ promotes other websites (Wikipedia:PROMOTION) listed as other profiles, that may include links to advertising sites (WP:EL#ADV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

There's really no practical difference between Google+ and Facebook, so I don't see why we can't just add Google+ to the already existing Facebook subsection. --Conti|✉ 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right but some of the relevant policies and guidelines could be added that would actually be important to all. Otr500 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hence my initial suggestion to have a section for social networks in general.. But yes, I generally support having Google+ on this page, in whatever form it may be. --Conti|✉ 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I missed something. There is a heading, Social networking websites, which would be a "general heading" with the particular sites listed within it. If you are meaning to change the current heading to a generic description Social networks (in general) and a nondescript inclusion of all these sites, and suggesting removing specific links by name, I am not for that at all. The purpose of the essay is to explain in more detail consensus concerning policies and guidelines that are considered vague in content and confusing, creating perennial discussions. Rewording the essay to be "general" and nondescript (of no recognized, definite, or particular type or kind), would be to render it as vague as the policies and guidelines to which it pertains, thus of no use. I am sure that is not your intentions, if in fact your suggestion, but would be a result. Otr500 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have a general heading and then list a few examples of social networking sides that cover said heading. I agree that we should continue to mention Facebook and Google+ by name no matter what we do. --Conti|✉ 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that it is too important as nobody has weighed in yet. I guess we will have to wait until our involuntary voluntary protest blackout vacation is over to get more input. Otr500 (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need to add Google+. Again, this list is not supposed to be a full list of all popular sites and for every site have an explanation why it is good as a reference, or good as an external link (or not) - the purpose is to take out some typical examples and explain the reasoning. There is facebook and myspace as examples of such sites, it is not a big leap to then understand that all the other networking sites follow roughly the same reasoning (and otherwise, WP:EL is there to understand what and why, that is the guideline). Although this is not a mainspace article, I also apply WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#MANUAL to all policies and guidelines as well. Are you afraid that editors will read this list of examples literally, and say 'since social networking site xxx.com is not on that list, the reasoning does not apply to social networking site yyy.com, and I can add it as I wish?' .. they should simply both follow WP:EL, and that is enough. Hence, oppose adding any more specific examples except if the type of site is a new one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If the advice for GooglePlus is exactly identical to the advice we are (or should be) giving for Facebook, then we shouldn't have a duplicate section for G+; it'll look idiotic and waste editors' time. Instead, we should just say ===Facebook and GooglePlus=== where we say ===Facebook=== and leave it at that.

Myspace, BTW, needs to be split off sometime so that we can address Myspace Music. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

.. and the Russian vkontakte.com, then there is a Chinese facebook, the Dutch Hyves, etc. etc. I still think that there is no reason to add G+ if it is practically the same as facebook, this page provides examples, it is not meant to be an extensive list of all. Google+ generally fails WP:EL for the same reasons as facebook.com, and generally fails WP:RS for the same reasons as facebook. The editor can make that extrapolation by themselves without having it explicitly mentioned here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I also believe that duplication is not necessary. No it it is not a main space article but it does serve a purpose and editors watch it. Otr500 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it does serve its puropose, but I don't think that adding specifically Google+ to the line of Facebook is going to make a difference in the end. The section 'social networking sites' shows three types of social networking sites, and I believe that the reader can extrapolate themselves that then Google+ shares the same faith as one of the others. The points mentioned for Facebook can be found in WP:EL, and it is very logical that Google+ then follows the same, or very similar, rules.

If you make the lists more 'complete', editors will more say 'but my vkontakte.ru is not in that list, while Facebook and Google+ are, so it does not apply to vkontakteru', if you give one typical example their argument is less strong (not that they would succeed with the argument anyway - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). And if this essay would become a guideline, then for sure you would get those arguments.

I would be in favour of covering more types of sites. Redirect sites (bit.ly and the like, do also note that parts of Google ('google.com/...url?', and the 'I feel lucky'-feature in Google) and the YouTube specific redirect site youtu.be are blocked because of this; a WP:ELNEVER with only a very, very, very few exceptions - maybe also typosquatting sites should be mentioned here), documents on sites which are in violation of copyright (the documents, that is - difficult to find a site as an example, but certain works on YouTube - another WP:ELNEVER), blogs (common problems with blogspot as external link or as a reference), and petition sites (ipetition.com etc.). I think that would be a more important focus to expand upon then getting a more complete list of 'big' social networking sites. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that the all the sites that are common do not need to be individually listed and added a note above under the proposal section heading. I also feel the essay needs expansion to be more effective. I am elated that other editors are weighing in and hope there are valid suggestions or edits implemented to accomplish this. Otr500 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, have you ever seen a question about the Russian site? How about the Chinese one? The Dutch one? I haven't. But if we're getting questions about Google Plus, then we should name it here. The point of this page is to name the sites that we actually get questions about.

WP:EL is about the types of sites that we don't want. WP:EL already has a section on redirection sites; ELNO #4 discourages online petitions, etc. Restating all of that here would be a waste of effort.

WP:ELPEREN, on the other hand, is about specific websites that generate a lot of questions. This page names Facebook because 90% of ELN's archives contain a question about a Facebook link. It names Myspace because 80% of ELN's archives contain a question about a Myspace link.

By contrast, ELN contains zero questions about URL redirection sites. We're not "perennially" getting questions about that, so there's no need to talk about it at ELPEREN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I would like to explain or clarify my position on a couple of points you have made more than once, especially under the above "Social networking sites change". BLP articles are more restrictive than others, copyvios are serious and Wikipedia maintains a strong position on these. Other than those there are exceptions to just about everything else on Wikipedia. Sites that fail the criteria of being an external link, such as facebook, Google+, etc, that are used are exceptions and should be acknowledged and treated as such. If there are exceptions they should be added carefully. "Big guns" start out as "little guns" that will grow without some form of restraint. This is not assuming bad faith (by not assuming good faith) but laying a framework that will provide for the current as well as future enhancement of Wikipedia.

Google plus is the "new kid on the block". As evidenced with the addition of a totally new helpful template and additions where it should not be included. Add the fact that Google and Google+ have a large following, it will not be long, if no checks are in place, that it will be the next "big gun". These are not guesses but facts. Editors can keep working to fix problems that arise or try to effect wording so that there is a basis for restraint and so exceptions will still be exceptions. I am not against facebook as I use it all the time. I am not against almost any site being used that follows policies and guidelines providing relevant and encyclopedic information to Wikipedia. I am not against Google as I use it every day. I can be a fan of both and still want to protect Wikipedia from joining the crowd. To allow a push that Google (facebook etc.) are the new sites "to be" the "official website", especially if they (as I have observed so far) do not provide any encyclopedic information, mainly are just links for promotion, links to spread the joy of connecting millions of people, and links to tie in all the other networking sites, then at a point Wikipedia will just be a "big gun" in the social networking sector. I can see this and I know I am not the only one. That is why, if these sites are to be used, unless consensus decides Wikipedia should join the social networking arena, that they be exceptions to the "rule", if you will.

I find the fact that Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis to be fantastic. While I don't use any of them at this point, and the ones I have observed (probable a small percentage) are contentious at best, I DO NOT want them boxed in to be excluded (or to be made to appear as excluded) as that is far too restrictive.

I do not share your opinion that "A social networking site can be a perfectly reliable source if handled properly under WP:SPS rules.", for more than one reason. 1)- If information is added to a social networking site it most likely is user generated and there are policies and guidelines against that, 2)- If information is used from another site and used on a social networking site then it would be far more preferable to use the source to begin with as more reliable. 3)- Use of some hypothetical information from a networking site, especial self published information (say as used as an official website), would already be covered under exceptions, but it will be an editing aid if this is noted with consensus.

• With your concerns, and the fact that there are and will be obvious exceptions, I feel something should be added to the essay lead to point out this fact of exceptions. As long as it is worded neutrally I can not imagine other editors not being in support as that is a point of the essay. Otr500 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Before we make decisions based on assuming that {{Google+}} is going to join the 80-to-90-percent club, a little note on perspective...

{{Google+}} is eleven days old (yep, eleven days old). There are obviously going to be questions/issues/concerns from regulars here at the beginning of such a template's life—especially based on the attempt to delete it (an attempt that failed due to an inability to reach consensus for its deletion).

I'm not necessarily against inclusion of wording here, however I'm not in favor of a pre-emptive strike. Perhaps it would be a good idea to pause with the desire to change policy and/or essay wording while we all see if the template manages to join the set of "specific websites that generate a lot of questions"? Perhaps we could assess things better when {{Google+}} reaches the grand old age of (say) two or three months?

BTW, WP:EL is not "about the types of sites that we don't want" (a statement that appears far too much like a blanket condemnation for my liking). Instead, it's about the usage we don't want of sites in EL. We 100% want {{Google+}} (and other such sites) to appear in EL—in situations where the desire and policy warrant them being used.

GFHandel ♬  22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we could wait months Are you going to help perform clean-up? You have already commented that is not your concern. I guess you would be for waiting to see if more links get added, and either your template gets used, or you add it, or not.

Do you use wording like, "We 100% want "tl|Google+" (and other such sites) to appear in EL—in situations where the desire and policy warrant them being used.", for a particular purpose. I do not "100 % want" or think there is a critical need for articles to explicitly have an external links section. I would 100% except articles (and you had to throw in-- "templates" for the fun of it,) "if" there is evidence that it is accepted by consensus, and not specifically or just by a "local" consensus as you have mentioned, and conforms to the above reasons to warrant inclusion. I am not about beating a dead horse but he ain't dead yet. I also checked and do not have a mouse in my pocket so do not know who "we" might refer to.

It is not about a preemptive strike, the reasons for not including Google+ by name (as discussions surely show) is because it is already included and specifically naming it (or the many other sites like) it is not necessary. A problem is that you created the template, added it to links, stated that you are comfortable doing this but not necessarily checking to see that the application you add the template to is improper or not, and in fact that is just what happened. Now you want us to wait for some reason but I did note that the suggestion that content be added to the lead of the essay concerning clarity of exceptions" was not mentioned. SO your argument concerning Google+ is moot. Even in my suggestion,

• "With your concerns, and the fact that there are and will be obvious exceptions, I feel something should be added to the essay lead to point out this fact of exceptions. As long as it is worded neutrally I can not imagine other editors not being in support as that is a point of the essay.", I used the word "neutrally" and did not use Google+ by name.

BTW I did not bring the template up for administrators review but could have. That might be a good idea also for clarity since there was not a consensus. However, because there is a template does not automatically mean it gets an exception against consensus for use. Also, you used a link to "Google+" 4 times and once was only necessary as we get the point. Otr500 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing .. WP:PEREN is used by more than only WP:EL/N. And I can't imagine that Google+ already has gotten such a huge number of questions on WP:EL/N that it warrants mentioning here. However, quite a number of the other sites that I mention do get very regularly questions on the other forums which handle external links (blacklists, etc.). I would be very inclined to say 'Google+ is similar to Facebook, see WP:ELPEREN' (as I would say that for all other sites which are alike to Facebook), however, for redirect sites I have to, over and over, re-explain why they are not to be used, or why they are blacklisted (I just had to do it again for youtu.be). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with adding it to the list, although the inclusion of Facebook should suffice. Looking over the links transcluded by the template, hardly any are appropriate ELs. I should get around to cleaning them up shortly. ThemFromSpace 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Social networking sites as reliable sources

Otr500, I don't think that you understand the situation about such sources.

If Coca-Cola, Inc., posts a sentence on their website at coca-cola.com, then that actual webpage is a reliable source for (at the very minimum) the fact that they posted that sentence on their website, isn't it? In fact, despite that page being both a primary source and a self-published source, there is no more authoritative source for the claim that the company posted that sentence.

And if the same employee in the same marketing department at the same company posts a sentence on www.facebook.com/cocacola —apparently the official Facebook page for the product—then how could any rational person decide that the Facebook page is unreliable for a similarly narrow claim?

Neither website would be reliable for an extraordinary claim like "All Americans prefer Coke to Pepsi." Both of them, however, would be perfectly reliable for the kinds of claims that we normally permit WP:SPS sources to make WP:ABOUTSELF, like "In 1993, Coca-cola began a new advertising campaign that featured polar bears". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Twitter vs WP:TWITTER

It appears that WP:Twitter redirects to WP:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter, but WP:TWITTER (differing only in capitalisation) redirects to WP:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Can or should we do something about this? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess that depends. Policy shortcuts , such as "WP:TWITTER" are used with capital letters. "WP:twitter" links to external links but has reference to policy. Maybe a "See also" to WP:TWITTER in the "Social networking websites" section would be a solution? I don't think a redirect would be beneficial since either a person will know they are using all caps to get to the shortcut or did so my mistake right? Otr500 (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was more laziness than mistake. So far as I know, most "wp:xxx" (all lowercase) redirects (via "Xxx") to "WP:XXX" (uppercase) - because most policy shortcuts are all uppercase - so when I'm looking for a policy by name, I don't bother with the shift key or caps lock, and most of the time it works. This time it didn't take me where I expected, and I was surprised. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mitch. Proper names of sites are better linked to Perennial websites if they appear there. WP:FACEBOOK already does it (although Wikipedia:MYSPACE does not). At least these high-profile sites should be directed to the specific guideline/essay we have about them rather than to the generic though related policy. Diego (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn

I am astonished that this page gives less credence to LinkedIn as a RS than it does to Twitter and Facebook. LinkedIn is a serious site for professionals. It should at least be allowed as a self-published primary source under the same terms as Facebook. Although I agree that none of these sites make ideal RS. SpinningSpark 09:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This page deals with external links that are not being used to sources material. I agree that citing basic information from a LinkedIn page would be no different than other self-published sources such as Facebook. ThemFromSpace 16:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I realise this is a subpage of the EL page, but it does give advice on use as an RS for every entry to the same level of detail as ELs. Your comment would imply that all this material should be deleted. SpinningSpark 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that. The wording should probably be removed or revised as it isn't correct. ThemFromSpace 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Many people who I have worked with in the past have both LinkedIn and Facebook pages. I've looked at these, and have noticed that in some cases, the LinkedIn page puffs up the subject, exaggerating the alleged good characteristics whilst completely overlooking the negative points - the purpose is to interest prospective employers. By contrast, the same people on Facebook are more likely to publish photos of their antics in some Mediterranean resort. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That was added here without explanation (in the edit summary, at least), and I think it overstates the case. It should be just as valid as the Facebook page for something like which university the person attended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, LinkedIn is way more likely to have usable, factual, encyclopedic information than Facebook. It's no use as a reliable source for the subject's character, but for the subject's place of employment it must at least be equal to Facebook. SpinningSpark 17:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and updated the page to reflect the attitudes in this discussion. Feel free to revert or amend this change if you feel it is in error. ThemFromSpace 19:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

epguides and TV.com

Perhaps epguides could be added. TBrandley 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have about 1,600 links to this outfit, and 740 uses of {{Epguides}}, including talk pages and such. This is the first time that I've heard of this link. Is this really something that people ask about frequently, or just one that you think would benefit from some weeding? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, same for TV.com. That could also be added, maybe. TBrandley 22:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that "yeah, people ask about this frequently" or is that "yeah, it would benefit from some weeding"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

People ask frequently. I believe it should be there. TBrandley 01:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See TfD of tv.com templates. Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice on deleting imdb refs

In a situation where imdb has been used a reference for items added to a list by genre, is it appropriate to just delete those items. Specifically, the List of zombie films, where we had a large discussion about criteria for additions some years back in which it was concluded that to be added, a reliable third party source had to refer to the film as a zombie film, or the subjects as zombies.

This was particularly necessary given that apparently some people hold strong OR personal views on what is and what isn't a zombie film (28 Days Later/Evil Dead for example) As I pointed out, only the assertions of WP:RS matter on the subject, so all the subjective arguments back and forth on the talk page were inappropriate.

Iirc we said at the time that imdb was not an appropriate source for this as genre/key words, were user edited etc, but unfortunately a large number of the current films on the list are only supported by imdb refs. This isn't just to confirm their existence I'd hasten to point out, but also that they are notable in the context of the list and also that they are specifically 'zombie films'. The list has been tagged since August 2009 for the refs not meeting reliability guidelines, but I've been hesitant to just remove all the films supported by imdb, due to both the shear bulk of them, and the fact that no doubt many should legitimately be on the list.

So I added a note re imdb, to the talk page, to hopefully encourage people to replace the refs with ones that meet the criteria some time ago. Though it would appear there was little interest in this.

Sooooooo anyway. Is there any problem with seeing it as the correct course of action at this point to delete all additions to the list merely supported by imdb?

Also if so, would if it would be appropriate, how would a template or note be added to the article explaining that additions should not only be supported by imdb.Number36 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You should never remove appropriate and verifiable information just because a proper citation hasn't already been supplied. You may remove inappropriate citations, you may tag inappropriate citations (with {{verify credibility}}), and above all, you may WP:BOLDly supply the better citations, but you shouldn't destroy good information just because the citations are currently imperfect. WP:There is no deadline, not even for supplying ideal inline citations to a list of zombie movies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we can call anything "good information" if it's not properly cited by a reliable source. Retaining uncertain, unverified claims just helps misinformation propagate on the 'net. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How uncertain are you about information like "Barack Obama is the President of the United States"? It's not cited here. Is that an "uncertain" claim?

What if it's information that you personally know is correct, due to your own education? If you type a fact into Wikipedia that you know you could easily source, are you "propagating misinformation" just because you didn't immediately add the citation (say, maybe because you don't have the source handy)?

This problem is why our policies actually require information to be capable of being verified, not already cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)