Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 11

Proposed External Link

Hello, I received no response when I previously posted this question so I am hoping this time to receive some feedback please. I have a conflict of interest in placing an external link on a Wikipage because I am the webmaster for the website. The subject Wikipage is dementia I write articles and give advise on behalf of dementia care workers and associates on the subject of dementia. Many of the articles are written by dementia care workers and then put onto the site by myself. We have very good knowledge of dementia with hands on experience from people who have worked with sufferers of dementia and other related disease for many years. I believe that we can add great value to Wiki with the website that we want to provide the link to because it gives information that is not provided on this wiki. The domain name is I believe that we can provide information on the subject of dementia as good as, if not better than some of the other websites that have been given an external link on the dementia page. I have raised the issue on the dementia talk page but have been asked to raise the subject here. I need an editor to put the domain into the links section if they agree that it will a valuable addition to the dementia Wiki page which I believe it will be. Thankyou for reading John cordingly (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a nice website with some well written and interesting, but ultimately lightweight articles. It is a well meaning site, but it is far from being an encyclopaedic resource and it fails in my opinion to add value to Wikipedia over and above what it would be if dementia and its related articles were at FA class. I don't think it belongs here. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for replying. I must strongly disagree, Most, if not all the articles are written by real people with a real insight into caring for people with dementia. The information gives a true account of what its like to care for and look after somebody with dementia. A good example of how the site provides great information that is not provided on the wikipage would be on This is for communication skills needed when talking to somebody with dementia. Are you telling me that that is not real information on dementia that is not beneficial to the wikipage. There are links on the dementia page that add little value and are listed. One such one is the one that takes you to website, surely the site I have provided is giving better information than this link. The subject matter is dementia and the link/website provides as much if not more relevant information on dementia than most of the links that are already listed. They are well researched and very factual. Please look again. Thankyou.John cordingly (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links on the dementia page. From what you say there are some that are of low value and should therefore be reviewed. I will take a look when I have a moment. That other stuff exists though isn't a good argument on Wikipedia. Forget about what is there already. It really does come down to whether a website meets the criteria at WP:ELYES / WP:ELNO. I don't believe your website meets those criteria. Others here may differ in their opinion. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello And thanks again for reviewing, I am having dificulty though with your reasoning for not including the site, you say that the website does not meet the criteria at WP:ELYES / WP:ELNO. I cannot see why it does not. Wikipedia is about information that is for everybody, written by anybody who has a good understanding of the subject. I have information on the website that has great use to many people wanting to know more about dementia that is not provided here on wikipedia but is related to dementia and after all, that's the subject, dementia. Please give me a reason why the information on the site is not of sufficient quality. I'm puzzled. Im not trying to trick anybody, I just want to provide a helpful resource and further information on demenia. I would be greatful also if you could take a look at the dementia page and the links. Thankyou once again. John cordingly (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, John, part of the problem is that you didn't propose a link to ; you added a link to the main page of your website, which contains links to other pages (some proportion of which are presumably informative), but which does not itself contain much detailed information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying WhatamIdoing (talk) I agree with your point that you make about linking to the home page. Could I suggest that if we are able to have a link placed on a wikipage would it be better placed on the wikipage titled caregiving and dementia, filed under "Further reading". I think that it could link to the care category page on the dementia website This page shows lots of links to relevant and useful information that will help somebody care for person with dementia. An example would be These are very helpful information pages that somebody new to looking after somebody with dementia will find extremely useful. Thankyou again for your response John cordingly (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Link added twice today at Genealogy

Does anyone see [1] as an acceptable link? Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, especially as related to the Genealogy article. It contains a lot of mishmosh, but little genealogy. (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That's my take also. Looking deeper, the section "Automobile Resources and Other Vehicles" is full of links to our articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
And it's become pretty clear there is a COI issue with the IP. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a fringe article with the attendant problems. Recently it's had at least two SPAs with accounts and two IPs. Links have changed from time to time but there has been an attempt to add several links to related websites which I've tried to remove, but they keep being replaced.[2] - I'd like other views on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned the EL section and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This [3] was just removed as a personal website. I note that there have very recent (this year) lawsuits against the site which seem to have failed. Normally I'd agree that this shouldn't be an EL, but this is a fringe article and there are no links to any critical sites. We can of course link the church statements that are linked within this site, but that would add a number of links (not sure how many) rather than just the one. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw the change and restored both external links as the stated reasons for removal did not appear conclusive: a letter from a Vatican representative is a pretty good external link, and I could not see anything like defamation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Essay being repeatedly added as EL

User:Paul Race continues to add an essay of his,, to multiple articles. I informed him yesterday on his talk page, talk:Paul Race, and on the first article that he was attaching it to, Talk:Contemporary Christian music#Not impressed by the generic explanation when you removed my link twice., that since he is not a recognized authority on the subject he can't add his link. He seemed to be OK with that. Today he added it to several other articles: [4] [5] [6] [7]. I have have removed those as well, however I would like someone else to discuss this with the editor. Would it be possible to have that URL blacklisted? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (note I moved this from Talk:EL). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Paul Race is too focused on adding a particular external link to Wikipedia (articles Contemporary Christian music, Contemporary worship music, Contemporary worship, Hillsong Church, Larry Norman). Walter Görlitz has correctly explained the WP:EL guideline, and given the COI involved, naturally the link should not be repeatedly added until a wider discussion deems it to be warranted. Paul Race may care to pick a WP:WikiProject and ask at its talk page for opinions on one article (just one please—adding the same link to multiple articles is a sure sign of promotional editing). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has added links to to many pages as seen here. I have never heard of this site and was going to start reverting these additions I would call spam.... However looking at the Hitlers map I see it is correct and informative. Looking for a second opinion on this - does it meet the ELO policy or is it just spam?Moxy (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that links that provide unique features that can't be added to the article (e.g., most maps) and are correct and informative sound exactly like what we want. If, in your opinion, a link is an improvement to any given article, then you shouldn't remove it, especially not simply because of what the editor did or didn't do at some other article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Something odd

Please check the article - Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I think something's wrong. Almost anywhere you click in the article, it redirects to an external site. Reigen (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky template vandalism by a spammer. User blocked, revision deleted. We'll just have to wait until the cache gets updated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Spamming versus honest knowledge sharing

Dear Mr. Dutta, Thank you for responding. First of all, let me congratulate you on your tremendous contribution to Wikipedia. 1500 articles and going. That is definitely an acchievement. Second, I should mention that this is not my first contribution to Wikipedia. I have contributed ocassionally before but without registering as an editor. It is only recently that I decided to register. Third, to answer your question, is my website. I have written, designed, and created all the content on that website. It is a continuing project, I continue to create more content for it every day and add to the website in a big way going forward. The first phase, recently published, took me over 6 months of intensive work (no more than 3-hours of sleep a night) to create. I started out wanting to write about Hindustani classical music, pondered whether I should just write into Wikipedia, and decided that I could make a better contribution by creating an organic website with its own layout and organization since music is one of those things where you must provide examples and demonstrations at every step. I should mention that my website was created in exactly in the same spirit as wikipedia - a spirit of wanting to share knowledge objectively, for the sake of sharing knowledge, with no intention of turning it into a commercial venture (you will notice that my website is free of advertisements and I plan to keep it that way. I do not plan to make a single dollar out of it.) Nor is it a vanity thing. You will notice that my name is Usha Jayaraman, but I call myself Sadhana on my website. For me it is simply about sharing the knowledge and not about fame/credit for myself. So, when I finished creating the site, I decided that since I began with the idea of contributing to wikipedia's body of knowledge anyway, why not make that contribution in the form of external links? You ask me why I have not made any other contributions? Well, I have in the past, and I will again in the future. Also, right now, I am busy making further content for my website, which will be accessible to Wikipedia readers through those external links to my website. I feel that my content is best presented in an appropriate context, which I can only do on my website. I do also plan to make other contributions to Wikipedia directly, whenever the opportunity presents itself. You say that I have linked the same content to four or five articles. That is not true. I have linked to exactly three articles. And I have linked three different pages in my website to these different articles. I linked my page on ragas to the the Wikipedia article on Ragas, I linked my page on rhythm (tala) to the Wikipedia article on Tala (music), and I linked my homepage to the Wikipedia article on Hindustani Classical Music. My links are nothing if they are not relevant. When I got the automated message warning me that I appear to be a spammer, I could have just kept shut and let it be. But the reason I deliberately brought this to the attention of the editor community is because I want to link the other relevant pages on my website to the relevant wikipedia articles for all the reasons stated above - in a spirit of sharing a database of knowledge created objectively and carefully (without commercial motives) with those seeking knowledge. If you have any objections as to the quality of knowledge offered on my website, such as that it is substandard, unobjective, or unworthy of being linked to on Wikipedia, I will remove my links. However, if your reason for objecting is that I am the moderator of the website that I have provided external links to, I would really like to ask you to reconsider. Hoping to hear back from you soon, and in a positive way! Here's to our common goal of sharing knowledge freely.

ushajayaraman 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 Redirected From: Ushajayaraman posted this here first Their Report: they posted link of their website in 4-5 article's external links section and later got an automated warning. That is the summary so far. It is their Contribution Page

Ushajayaraman 1) I feel you do not need to copy paste everything, you can link directly. I suggest you to edit your post little bit. Your post has become too long and complex. 2) Also sign talk pages with --~~~~. You can see wp:signature. 3) I was almost missing your post. You did not mention anywhere that you are going to post here, and this page was not in my watch list. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the technical glitches. I edited my post as suggested. unfortunately, despite using the four tildes to sign off, my signature does not display as a link like the others. I wonder why that is? ushajayaraman 05:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to change your signature in preference, I can help, but, since that is not the discussion, you can post in my talk page. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Combat18 links

In the article Combat18 we have 2 official links to different websites, each claiming to be the official one. How do we handle this? There are also links to two European websites for Combat18 but I'm not sure they belong.Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Site inclusion for reference

Hi, I was advised by User:JHunterJ to post here some of the links I've posted for review. I've added the links as references for the info and/or sections I've added to the articles. Unfortunately JhunterJ has removed not only the links but the content as well ([8] and [9]), calling all of my edits spam. He even removed a new section of mine ([10]). I don't have much experience about Wikipedia (and haven't had the chance to dig into all the rules out there), but is it standard practice to completely revert any IP editor's edits, regardless of the content? I mean removing the links alone would've sounded MUCH more reasonable to me. And besides, why do you have editing enabled for unregistered users if they're looked down upon anyway? Is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" slogan just for show?
Anyway the links: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] If the links alone aren't good enough, couldn't I just look for some additional references and include them as well? (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear WP:REFSPAM and WP:LINKSPAM violation. The site is highly promotional in nature and includes a heavy use of additional advertising.
Some of the information that was included with the link might be restored if suitably sourced. would probably be an acceptable source. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed external link.

I would like to add an external link on the Foster and Partners wikipedia page ( That external link will be from the Foster and Partners personal profile on the Archello web site. ( An architectural platform for the built environment).

This will be the external link to add on the page:

I realize that is a minor change and I can added directly by my own, attaching a summary on it. However I'm not sure if that is enough, that's why I write this request to ask advise and avoid future requests.

Thanks for understanding.


Archello1 (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel that that is not enough? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
comment Add it if the link gives extra content than what is in the artcle. If the link has the same info as the article then don't bother. SD (talk contribs) 00:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor adding his YouTube videos to multiple sites

Archaeomoonwalker (talk · contribs) is adding his YouTube videos to various articles - they are of course the equivalent of a personal website. Perhaps someone here could have a word with him? I've reverted one but don't want to discourage him from editing, just from doing this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the spamming and left a note for him to review WP:COI. At this point, he may simply be unaware of his talk page and the messages there. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is copied directly from user talk:Nickiberotto, being moved here to make for a more open discussion where a larger portion of the community can weigh in on the merits of the link.

Article involved:

Link involved:

Copied discussion that started following my removal of a link they had added:

Hello Barek! Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia intact and free of vandalism - I know it's a tough job and I am glad that there are people out there like yourself who take it seriously. Having said that, I would like to ask you whether you would be able to explain why you believe that this link does not comply with the guidelines. I am a writer and I work with several online properties, but have not linked to any of them on Wikipedia because I think I have a pretty good understanding of what's acceptable and what's not. This one, in my opinion, adds a lot of value to the Beauty Salon wiki page and that is why I believe that it should be included. As stated in the description, it's a comprehensive directory of beauty salons in the US (as per the guidelines of links that are accepted; "a well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations"), and furthermore, the site allows for visitors to add salons and owners to update their salon information (which is in line with the whole wiki concept). There are also a lot of people working on it to ensure that everything is accurate. With over 60,000 salons currently on the site, a number that grows on a daily basis, I really do believe that the link adds to the wiki page. Let me know if you think otherwise!
Nickiberotto (talkcontribs) - 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that external links should be to material that adds to the encyclopedic understanding of the article subject, while this link is a commercial directory - simply a business directory of commercial websites. More specifically, the link fails WP:ELNO criterias #1, #4, #5, #13, and #14. If you disagree and still feel that the link should be added, please bring the link up for discussion at the external link noticeboard. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I tried to edit the page you suggested, but I was not sure how to start a new section and didn't want to mess up the structure, so I decided to reply to you here. I know that it may be too much to ask, but maybe you can copy this whole talk into the external link noticeboard so that others can pitch in as well - I wish I knew how to do that. In regards to the criterias that you mentioned:
  1. 1 - "unique resource beyond what the article would contain" - I strongly believe that it does. The same way that a DMOZ link would, by being a directory of further resources on the very topic of the article. In this case, the topic is beauty salons, so it would be reasonable to include a directory of beauty salons. Don't you think?
  2. 4 - "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - That could be argued for pretty much every external link on Wikipedia. All those links are essentially promoting sites whether that was the initial intent or not. Having said that, the ones that are actual spam as explained in the respective Wikipedia page are obvious.
  3. 5 - Same as the above. A user tried to replace the link that I added with a spam link and I reverted the change as soon as I saw that. The same user tried to do the same in several other pages and fortunately he/she was caught and those links were removed. Affiliate links, links to videos promoting products or links to pages with excessive advertisements, definitely do not have a place here! These are clearly made for the sole purpose of promotion. Furthermore, if an individual salon were to add their site as an external link, then again, that would not be acceptable. But the purpose of the link that I added is to expand upon the information in the article/page.
  4. 13 - "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" - I don't see how the site is indirectly related to the article's subject. They are both about beauty salons - the relation is truly direct.
  5. 14 - "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." - There was no list of links. I just added 1 link to a salon directory.
And again, I really appreciate you taking the time to go through this with me. I know that it's not your "job" to reply to any of my messages, but I thought that since you were the only respectable person to revert my addition, I should try to talk about it with you. Based on the above, and if you agree, I would like to re-add the link on the page.
Let me know what you think.
Nickiberotto (talkcontribs) - 29 February 2012 (UTC)
To me, the link is simply a business directory - or a directory of spam links, making the directory link itself spam in nature. Obviously, there's a difference of interpretation of both the value of the link, as well as a difference in the interpretation of WP:EL, so I suggested bringing the discussion here for input by additional members of the community. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It boils down to the fact that all it is, is a listing of businesses. Even if your other arguments are true, it absolutely DOES apply to #14. The only point of going to the site is to find a business. There's also no "encyclopedic understanding" to be had here. Someone else could explain it in better words, but it's pretty clearly against the EL guidelines. (unlike the above poster I would disagree that it is in fact spam, however) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

-- Thank you for pitching in Melodia. And yes, I agree with what you are saying. It is a business directory, so in turn, it is listing businesses. However, I think that #14 refers to spam directories that actually contain long lists of links (links being the keyword here) to businesses. For example, adding a link to the page of a tradeshow listing links to their sponsors would definitely not be acceptable. However, there are no links (or lists of links) involved here. The reason I strongly believe that this link is not against the EL guidelines is the fact that DMOZ links are widely accepted and usually listed as as external links. A great example is Fashion. Notice the Open Directory link under External Links. If anything, that would be a more questionable link due to the fact that it actually is a list of links which is not true for the link in this case. Don't you agree? Nickiberotto (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I should clarify further - there are absolutely no links to businesses in the directory. There are addresses and phone numbers. Nickiberotto (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact they are addresses and phone numbers rather than links it pretty irrelevant. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Addresses and phone numbers simply aren't encyclopedic information. They're telephone directory information. A person who wants to know more about the idea or concept of a beauty salon isn't going to be further educated by a list of addresses and phone numbers for beauty salons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from Melodia and WhatamIdoing. But the issue here goes beyond that. The link was taken down due to the fact that it was considered a "spam" link, and I firmly stand by the fact that it's anything but that. Wikipedia is not a simple encyclopedia - I am sure you will agree with that. It is a collective effort to provide up to date and accurate information about anything, whether that's a concept, a person, or a business. And sometimes, directories can help add to that information. As it's specifically stated within the External Links and Point #3 of "What To Link To" WP:ELMAYBE - "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations" - Isn't that exactly what the link in question is? That is the question. I believe it is and that is why I would like to add it again. If I thought that it wasn't, I wouldn't have added it in the first place because I really respect the work that's being done here. Nickiberotto (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Correction, it was removed as I considered it "advert linkspam", not "spam", there is a subtle difference.
As to the link, the fundamental fact is that the site is a business directory - an on-line yellow-pages. The site is simply not a "well chosen" link, due to the ELNO issues and lack of encyclopedic content. No content of that site would ever meet inclusion criteria on their own, unloading it to a secondary site to bypass the inclusion criteria is likewise not appropriate. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Barek. Can you please also compare the link to the one from DMOZ listed in Fashion? In my opinion, the one in Fashion is definitely of less value, don't you agree? So, if that (and many other comparable links) is acceptable, then wouldn't it make sense for Ingo Beauty Salons to be as well? Furthermore, the link was originally added in December. Since then, several editors have revised the page, including some that deleted actual spam links that had been added to the page, yet none of them removed that link. The bots also removed spam links but did not change this one. I guess that what I am trying to say is that a few people, obviously including myself, believe that the link actually adds value to the page. A small note here - the person who repeatedly deleted the link was a spammer whose first intention was to replace it with a spam link which I removed promptly. Since then, he/she simply decided to start a "game" where they would remove the link and I would add it back on. That "game" stopped when you stepped in and I realized that you weren't simply the same spammer under a different nickname. I really believe that the link should be on the page, but I definitely don't want to be childish and try to revert it back all the time. That's why I am trying to explain my reasoning here. Nickiberotto (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear " Nicki Berotto, VP of Marketing of Ingo"[16] you have a conflict of interest. As was explained above, is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Additionaly, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. Thank you for your understanding.--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Hu12. I will begin by saying that as you can read at the very beginning of this conversation, I never withheld the fact that I work with Ingo. I am only specifying that because your reply seemed a little bit sarcastic, and wanted to clear the air - feel free to disregard it if that was not your intention. Having said that, while there are rules in regards to conflict of interest, and rightfully so, that does not mean that any editor who is related to an individual/company/group has no right to edit an article that is also related to it. What the rules specifically state is that such editors should not do so if the goal is to promote or advance that individual/company/group and not the cause of Wikipedia. What I am trying to explain here is that I do strongly believe that this link would add to Wikipedia, so there is no real COI. In regards to the Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines, again, I have to bring up the example from my previous reply about the links to Open Directory/DMOZ. I am sure that there are many other, more questionable links to talk about, but this one is so similar in many ways and it is specifically listed as one of those links that would be acceptable. So, can you clarify how linking to a page from DMOZ is any different (or better) than linking to Ingo? I can definitely list many reasons why the opposite is true, but maybe I am not understanding something. Nickiberotto (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's pillars is neutrality. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia under Nickiberotto and IP, in order to promote Infact, even in this discussion you continue to promote the inclusion of You don't see yourself as having an Conflict of interest; You perceive your biases as neutral. I hope you can see the problem here;

"What I am trying to explain here is that I do strongly believe that this link would add to Wikipedia, so there is no real COI."

— Nickiberotto VP of Marketing of Ingo 10:01, 3 March 2012
Furthermore, about those links to Open Directory/DMOZ; The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that DMOZ's links exist in articles doesn't prove that should also exist. As was explained above, fails a multitude of Wikipedias inclusion criteria. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than wikipedia.
--Hu12 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The general point behind the DMOZ (and similar) links is that we'd rather have one DMOZ link at an article like Cancer than to have dozens or hundreds of external links in our own article. We would accept many of these links at the article, except that we don't really want to have dozens or hundreds of external links in any article. And how to do you choose between dozens of equally good links to, say, national cancer charities? Whatever you pick will be suboptimal from someone's perspective: the American Cancer Society page isn't as useful to someone in Africa as an African group might be. So we chose a directory listing of lots of links, far more than we could accept here.
By contrast, we would never accept dozens or hundreds of external links to local beauty salons. Consequently, a directory listing of local beauty salons is not going to be acceptable. It provides only information that we would never want to have in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's limited to the United States. It's explicitly commercial and designed to promote, for a price, specific beauty salons. It advertises. But the greatest objection to it is that there's absolutely nothing encyclopedic about it. The only thing someone could learn from this page is where to find a beauty salon in the US, not useful information about beauty salons in general with world-wide merit. Absolutely inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion regarding some links

I added an external link from a copyright website to different articles, basically they were from the same website, but totally in context with the articles, but a senior Wikipedian removed them. I don't say that he is wrong but I am a bit confused. He guided me to the Wikipedia:External links page and I read it. I have noticed a point, following which I can add the links under the external links heading in all the articles. I just wanted any senior editor to help me out in this regard and guide me. Just wanted a neutral opinion of some one who is an expert.
The point that I am referring to is Point # 3What can normally be linked. They are a lot of articles (May be 10 I guess) so I am going to mention a few of them.

Thanks --Inlandmamba (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this looks like a misunderstanding of how to address copyrighted images. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the external links were added to address the concerns that images were under copyright.
Misunderstanding aside, most of the links were unrelated to the article topic itself. The links added to biographical articles of individuals were to profiles on the companies associated with the individuals, rather than articles on the individuals themselves. The links added to articles about corporations should be evaluated against WP:RS criteria, and if acceptable, added to the article talk pages as potential sources for verification or expansion. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If this is the case then the links should have been only deleted from the pages of the individuals and not from the companies.--Inlandmamba (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. So you seem to be adding links like to articles like Marathon Asset Management, along with images like File:Bruce Richards, Marathon Asset Management.jpg. Wikipedia needs the URL—but it needs it only on the File page, not in the article, and never under the ==External links== heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but it is not for any advertisement and I have placed a copyrighted source. I agree with User:Ronz that caricatures don't belong in an encyclopedia, but can't these links be used as references? And as far as the external links heading is concerned The point that I am referring to is Point # 3What can normally be linked. Isn't it supporting what I am saying. You can correct me if I am wrong in understanding the meaning. I'll really appreciate that.
Thanks--Inlandmamba (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's not try to justify bad links after the fact. We've established they were added in an attempt to address copyright problems with images. Such links simply don't belong.
If someone wants to use some of the links as sources, it would be best to check at WP:RSN. I'd say don't use them since the letters might be confused as secondary sources rather than primary and self-published. (From a brief skim, it looks like the site collects and republishes letters from hedge fund organizations, and includes their own profile of each organization.) --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Inlandmamba, ELYES #3 simply doesn't apply. There are two reasons for this:
  1. Nothing in the entire guideline applies to material that has been added to the article—say, an image placed in the article.
  2. ELYES #3 specifically says it applies to "material that...cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". You can add these image into the Wikipedia article—you arranged permission—so ELYES doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
So User:WhatamIdoing, that means that I can add the images to the articles but not the links? Because I have taken permission from the copyright holder and the OTRS volunteer has allowed me to use them. And if I want to add the links I would have to send a permission to Wikipedia?
--Inlandmamba (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
More precisely, the Wikipedia:External links guideline does not prohibit you from adding either the images or the links as part of the article content (that is, not as part of the ==External links== list). Of course, the EL guideline never prohibits any image or link or other type of article content. It only prohibits (or allows) things that belong under the ==External links== heading.
Whether you can add the images and/or the links as part of the regular article content (not part of the ==External links==) is a question for another page. Material added to the regular article content must comply with all of the sourcing and content policies, as well as having general support ("WP:Consensus") from the editors at that particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A painting at Daphne

 – (at least as an external link issue)

On March 5 an IP ( added an external link to Daphne for a Kansas City-based artist's interpretation of the myth of Apollo and Daphne. (It should probably be noted that the IP is in KC, both where the artist lives and where the painting is in a private collection; this IP has not added any other links to the artist's work.) I immediately reverted with the none-too-friendly edit summary "Spam". The IP kindly asked my rationale instead of just re-adding the link, to which I replied: "I deleted the link because the painting by Mr. Goodrich does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic itself and is not (by Wikipedia standards) notable enough to warrant inclusion based upon the [sic] its own, or the painter's, notability." Since the IP is clearly editing in good faith, I bring the discussion here, just in case I'm way out of bounds. — cardiff | chestnut — 02:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I think I agree with you: Your first WP:edit summary was not especially friendly and probably inaccurate. However, the link really doesn't belong on that particular page, since it doesn't really tell the reader anything encyclopedic (e.g., useful, informative, factual, etc.) about Daphne. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The page has three other paintings of the myth, the most recent more than a quarter millennium old. My intention in including Goodrich's treatment of the subject was (and is) to show that the subject matter is still being painted. Would it be acceptable to get a CC release for Goodrich's image, upload that to the commons, and include it as a fourth illustration, showing the continuing trends in painters' treatments of this myth? Because right now it looks like an old myth that nobody has bothered to do anything with since the reign of George II and that is erroneous. (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The general threshold for works of art and links thereof is (in my opinion) the notability of the artist. Otherwise everyone with a website and scanner can link to any example even tangentially related to the page. To avoid being a soapbox for everyone who can post something online, we must maintain fairly rigid standards for what can be included as an EL.
If there is evidence that Goodrich is a notable artist, that s/he has received sufficient interest and acclaim to merit a wikipedia page, I would suggest creating that page, uploading that image an then discussing whether to include it on Daphne. Only if the painting itself has been particularly lauded is it worth using an external link. This is how we distinguish between "society still expresses interest in the subject matter" and "one artist still finds the subject interesting". Putting in an external link to a non-notable artist's webpage is indistinguishable from spam, irrespective the intent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this thread might now be considered closed as it is no longer an external link issue. The IP has pursued its proposed solution at Talk:Daphne: having uploaded the image to Commons, it now asks for opinions about the inclusion of the image. — cardiff | chestnut — 01:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This site has been added to (and then removed from) a large number of articles, e.g. [17]. Although the IP editor doing the removal is suspected to be a banned user, I think his point is essentially correct. This is a self-published source unsuitable in most Wikipedia articles. Is it possible to configure the edit filer or a similar tool to reject or warn about adding links to this site? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes: you can see about having it WP:BLACKLISTed, or if it's just being added by anons, then XLinkBot (talk · contribs) is a possibility.
But if that diff is at all typical, you're in the wrong place: ELN only deals with stuff that is (or should be) underneath the ==External links== header, and the EL guideline directly permits links to non-RS websites. Web pages being used to support article content are definitely out of scope for ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Barry Minkow Beneath the Iceberg"[18] is a multipage website exposé written by Len Clements and hosted at his website Is this appropriate to be listed as an external link (or under heading "Further reading") in the article about Barry Minkow, perpetrator of a famous case of investment fraud? Since Minkow is a living person, this question appears to raise issues under WP:BLPEL and WP:BLPSPS. User:Mwave, who states that xe is the author of the work in question, and I have been discussing this on the talk page, and additional perspectives would be helpful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've gotten any responses on the article talk page. The other editor hasn't been on wiki during the last week. Do you still need help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Link from "panspermia" to

The Wikipedia page on "panspermia" formerly had an External Link link to It is the number one Internet resource for the topic. This link was approved after a lengthy discussion a year or two ago. Now one of your pseudonymed editors has removed it. Can it be restored?

<A href="">Cosmic Ancestry</a>

Yes, it was removed per consensus because it doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources, and because of the obvious WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All of that was already discussed and the link was approved. If you say it is unreliable, you should say where it is unreliable, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigKlyce (talkcontribs) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC) How do I sign? I'm logged in with my real name. Brig Klyce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigKlyce (talkcontribs) 16:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The issues with reliability were already covered in the ANI discussion I linked to. I don't see anywhere in that discussion that the link was given consensus approval. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The link was kept following that discussion of c. Feb 2011. It was only removed by a new party in Oct 2011, if I am understanding the edits log correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigKlyce (talkcontribs) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a link to a diff showing where this "approval" was, I'm going to chalk this up to a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The External Link to was actually not the topic of the year-ago discussion. The link sat there known to all, while another link, to a specific page that had content not otherwise available, was ruled out. I am a leading expert on the subject of panspermia. The Wictionary definition of panspermia, linked from your panspermia page, is the one I wrote. Your page lacks a link to the oldest (older than Wikipedia), best-maintained and most complete Internet resource on the subject. If you disagree, please say why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigKlyce (talkcontribs) 19:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jamie, the WP:External links guideline explicitly permits the inclusion of links to non-reliable sources at WP:ELMAYBE #4. Spam's a problem, and self-promotion is undesirable, but "it doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources" is irrelevant.
In fact, Headbomb removed it a few months ago not for being "unreliable", but for being "self-published", which is kind of a silly excuse, because nearly all websites are self-published: anything that is written and published by the same entity is self-published. For example, is written and published by Coca-Cola, Inc., and thus the official website for that company is self-published. If we had to exclude all self-published sources, then we'd have to remove all websites that weren't run by traditional publishers (like Random House and newspaper websites).
Brig, you should not take my bureaucratic comments here as implying the least bit of support for including your website(s). I support WP:ELBURDEN (all disputed websites are always removed), and I have no reason to believe that these websites are desirable for Wikipedia. But I'd like to have the archives reflect the guideline and the reasons for the URL's removal accurately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
BrigKlyce, the link was NOT approved. You are (at best) mistaken, but given some of your other behavior and your declaration that you were leaving the site, I'm inclined to think you know what really happened. The archived discussion may be found here.
WP:ELNO excludes:
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. -- That site is not the source of the panspermia theory, it is just one believer's collected opinions.
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority -- That site is BrigKlyce's own blog, nothing else. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your censorship deprives Wikipedia's clients of the full story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigKlyce (talkcontribs) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology


Could I ask for some input on the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology as an EL at sexology? It appears to have some useful material in a wide range of languages.

Recently an EL to was added, apparently by its President. I commented on the article's talk page, asking for other's thoughts, but was leaning toward removing it eventually. Another editor responded by removing all of the ELs except for (and adding DMOZ). Granted, many of the other ELs were long dead or non-English, but the one page I questioned is the only one still there. This seems strange. Should be kept and removed? BitterGrey (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2012‎ (UTC)

The DMOZ link has a link to the MH archive [19]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say MH is much more widely known that Not sure it is of much use for a casual reader though. -- Richiez (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this resolved, or do you need more help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussions are explicitly closed at AN/I, but I wasn't aware that was the practice here at EL/N. I thought they simply were archived after a while. WhatamIdoing, might I ask why you asked? Since you have joined the conversation, please feel free to share your thoughts on the ELs being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The general goal at ELN is for everyone to get the help they need. It's not always obvious from comments here whether that's happened, especially when the disputants have a long and fractious history.
I haven't looked at the links and therefore have no opinion. If Richiez's comments are sufficient to resolve the dispute, then I see no need for me to form an opinion on the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
"long and fractious history"? I'm curious about why you write that, WhatamIdoing. Sure, I've had past disagreements with the editor who most recently re-added the EL to Magnus Hirschfeld Archive[20], but it seems hard to imagine a more suitable EL. Another particular editor has included the EL as an RS source[21] in another article. Are you suggesting the EL's removal might not have been about the EL?
Frankly, I'm feeling singled out, and am concerned by the number of comments in this discussion that aren't about the ELs. I accept Richiez's comment, but was hoping for something more explicit. BitterGrey (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If you've a serious disagreement with me or James Cantor, bring it up at a user request for comment or some other noticeboard dedicated to behavioural issues. The MH link is still included as a link via DMOZ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(This is where WLU declared the discussion closed[22].)BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted here seeking input on some external links; 'edits not editors' and all that. (Although at least based on that past edit, Cantor and I seem to agree about the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive.) WLU, please be aware that the harder you and WhatamIdoing try to end this discussion, the more it will look like there is something you don't wish to discuss. BitterGrey (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You haven't raised any points that justify linking to the archive despite it already being a link in the DMOZ page. You have brought up the contributions of James Cantor (talk · contribs) from 2009, and my changes to a completely different page - both of which seem completely irrelevant given why I removed it. If you think it's worth re-including it on the page despite being included in the DMOZ, I would suggest justifying it's inclusion per WP:EL. isn't included in the DMOZ, and is a world-wide agency, I think it qualifies under WP:ELYES point 3. The DMOZ is mentioned specifically in WP:ELMAYBE point 3. If you have a question for the noticeboard, you need to formulate it more clearly because I have yet to see anything requiring a clear comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I hadn't appreciated that Dr. Chakravarthy was both the founder and current president of[23] as well as the media coordinator[24]. (In addition to, as noted originally, probably also the editor who added the EL[25][26].) By what measure is it international?
While it might be a worthwhile EL among many, I don't think it should be the only non-DMOZ EL. Additionally, I don't recall inclusion in DMOZ being an WP:ELNO. Were it so, that would be a reason not to get on DMOZ. I think should go and Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology should be restored, but posted here seeking other opinions.
If you'll check, WLU, you'll find that it was WhatamIdoing that brought up some "long and fractious history." She has yet to explain what she meant. I would still welcome an explanation for that, in addition to an explanation about why my request is being handled in a unique fashion. WLU, you were first to mention Cantor, although I added a diff to him reinserting the EL that I think should be reinserted again. Of course, WhatamIdoing and all others are more than welcome to comment on the ELs.
Unless, of course, this was never about the ELs... BitterGrey (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If this is not about ELs, take it elsewhere. If you're just concerned about the EL, stop bringing up motivations like you do in your closing line, which is an obvious accusation of bad faith. An EL stands or falls on its own merits, not on who adds it. I think inclusion in a DMOZ makes a duplicate link on the main page unnecessary, but that's a question that can be answered at ELN - you may have to start a new section.
Looking into the IASM further, you are correct in that it does seem to be a pretty limited to really just India. The International Society for Sexual Medicine seems a better choice - it is an umbrella organization for four other international organizations (Europe, Asia, South and North America) and sponsors a large number of international conferences [27]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(This is where WLU might actually have checked the ELs being discussed. He had edited to make IASM/ the only non-DMOZ EL eight days before. BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

Actually, WLU, I think you've just demonstrated that your side of this conflict was never about the ELs. You repeatedly asserted that was "the international page"[28] and "a world-wide agency"[29]. Then, you might actually have checked the EL, and found it was not international, exactly as I stated in the original post on the article discussion page. Did you stop to ask why WAID was pushing for closure instead of supporting you on the ELs?
Sadly, this follows the regular pattern of WLU's year-long wikihounding of me. Last time, he stated his intention to cite an article he hadn't read[30], and only conceded after the edit war that I was right[31]. Like this time, he thoughtlessly reacted to my talk page comment by doing the exact opposite, arguing a lot, and wasting a lot of our time. An absurd example of his argument-for-arguments-sake is WLUs fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM[32][33], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[34][35][36][37], (and hijacking a 3O[38]), then zero pages[39],[40][41][42], and then finally one page [43] at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[44][45]. He'll claim AGF for himself, but has stated the conclusion that I should be driven off Wikipedia[46][47].
And now, WLU and WAID have hijacked my request here.BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, since you asked, let me direct you to the meaning of the relevant words:

  • wikt:disputants, which you'll notice is in the plural and therefore could not be singling out you;
  • wikt:long, in this case meaning that you and WLU have been picking at each other for well over a year;
  • wikt:fractious, indicating that you two rarely manage to communicate without having an argument.

Additionally, I have no interest in "try[ing] to end this discussion," as you'd have realized if you thought it through: My question about status delayed the bot from archiving this section.

Finally, your request is not being "handled in a unique fashion", which you would know if you looked through the archives to see that I fairly often ping users about the status of their requests, e.g., here. I also leave similar notes at article talk pages and user talk pages. This is all normal practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WAID, please feel free to point us to any other EL/N discussions that were tagged "resolved" not once but twice[48][49]. My hunch is that this handling is rare if not unique. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, RS/N archives after ten days, so the thread had a week left before your once-a-year (August 2011 isn't "fairly often") comment. Of course, input was unlikely once you made vague references to some "long and fractious history" and WLU declared the discussion resolved, twice. Have you still not looked at the ELs? BitterGrey (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, "e.g." means "for example", not "this is the sole instance". You will find multiple examples of similar messages from me if you actually read the archives and other related pages. You will also find multiple instances of threads being tagged as {{resolved}} (it is actually recommended in the directions; click [show] next to "How to help out" in the header for this page, and read the first question) or otherwise being declared to be resolved. To give just one example, have a look at the thread immediately after this one: the last comment says that the question should be considered resolved (as far as ELN is concerned). None of this is unusual behavior.
What is unusual is someone asking for a specific outcome, getting exactly what he asked for, and then still begging for more views on what to do. Do you not understand the risk here? You've "won". There are only two possible outcomes from further analysis: either (1) anyone who comments further agrees with you, in which case we have wasted multiple editors' time to produce exactly the same result in the article as you have now, or (2) anyone who comments further disagrees with you, and you end up "losing". I recommend that you stop while you're ahead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to give even one example of another EL/N discussion like this one (two resolved tags, and still active a thousand words later). Please be aware that Wikipedia is not about winning. BitterGrey (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if we've had editors edit warring specifically over that template before. It has been added and then removed (and such actions aren't visible in the archives). We have also had editors bickering about whether or not an item was resolved/consensus has been reached, including threads that you participated in (and more that had nothing to do with you). I believe, though, that you're the first user to ever get exactly what he asked for in the article, and then still keep asking for additional editors to comment on whether or not he should have gotten what he asked for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Question - why does an example of a previous similar discussion matter? Isn't it about resolving the issues originally raised? In this case the issues were whether the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology was included as a link (it is now, despite being a link in the DMOZ that is also on the page) and removal of the link (which was removed several days ago). That suggests that the issues raised are indeed resolved. What else needs commentary? And it's never about winning, it's about tiger blood. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
So clearly my request here was handled in a unique fashion. Re WAID: Please note that both "resolved" tags were added before WLU reversed his position. Re WLU: Was the reference to the last conflict that I was involved in on Wikipedia that you didn't involve yourself with or react to intentional? (Charlie Sheen, April 2011). Needless to write, having a career Wikipedian hounding me whereever I'm involved has reduced the breadth of my involvements. BitterGrey (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
So again, this is about you raising behavioural issues on an external links noticeboard? That certainly cuts your chances of external input markedly. I suggest a RFC/U or AN posting instead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to un-hijack this discussion

Might I be able get some more input about the external links? Please check the ELs BEFORE commenting. I continue to believe the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology is a worthwhile link, with a broad range of resources in multiple languages. It should not be penalized for the absence of the word "International" in the title, or its presence in DMOZ. I didn't add the EL originally, but believe it should be re-added. (I'm open to input about as well, but now that even WLU has actually checked it and supports my original position, there doesn't seem to be much point to discussing that EL further.) BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've unhidden and reopened this discussion (reverting WLU's edit to hide[50] and add yet another resolved tag - the second of two[51]) in case others would like to comment. Getting input from a range of other editors was my initial intent for opening this discussion. Please note that the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology EL has been restored and removed. However, since WLU's position is not the only one that matters, he should stop trying to close it merely because he has now abandoned his position. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want others to comment, I would suggest leaving out posts like the one above where you claim it's personal. If you are genuinely interested in further comment from other editors, I suggest deleting or hiding it because leaving it up there pretty much guarantees you're not going to get any of the "range of other editors" you claim you want input from. Conflict drives away uninterested parties.
Since I was under the impression the issues were whether the Magnus Hirschfeld archive and articles should be included on the page, I assumed that by pointing out the MH archive was in the DMOZ (and later adding it to the page in spite of this) and removing, the issues were resolved. You haven't actually brought up any new issues relevant to external links, just a bunch of editorial commentary irrelevant to the purpose of this board, I thought things were resolved.
Could you restate the issues relevant to this noticeboard you are seeking input on? Otherwise everyone else might get the impression that the issues are the failure to include the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive and the inappropriate inclusion of the link. Just a note to any other editors, both of Bittergrey's suggestions have been implemented. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Second (or more) opinion sought

I recently removed an external link to from Doula because it seems to go against WP:ELNO #5. Another editor has queried my action. As I'm fairly inexperienced in this area (EL) I'd appreciate other opinions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A discussion should probably be started on the article talk page. From what I can find, none of the organizations listed have demonstrated that they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG, so an argument could be made that the section is nothing more than an internet directory of related businesses of questionable notability. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The easy part is to say that the external link is not appropriate as it does not add information that assists the reader to understand the topic. However, the article is a minor disaster as it is mainly a collection of anecdotes collected from various websites. There must be some other article on child birth and care for mothers—perhaps this article could be merged somewhere? The article is actually ancient, having been created with content "A doula is a non-medical assistant in childbirth. A doula is typically not the father and provides assistance complementary to the father." in 2003, permalink. I see others are helping and I will watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Midwife perhaps? I also agree with Barek about notability. All the ELs on the list are being cited as if they were RS's, which either means they are being improperly cited, or this is an issue for RS/N.BitterGrey (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A midwife is a medical professional. A doula is more like a grandmother-for-rent, i.e., a non-medical person whose primary task is to encourage and comfort the birthing mother. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see that for once, some good has come of WLU's and WAID's impulsive response to oppose me (even though I was just agreeing with Johnuniq). I'll leave it to WAID and Docimastic to duke it out over various "low blows." BitterGrey (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What would be nice to see would be a section where you don't make inappropriate commentary about other editors' behaviour and focused instead on page content. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've followed the other links in that list and removed others I think go against WP:ELNO #5. I've left links to professional associations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed, the only WP:ELYES criteria it could meet would be #3 but it's not encyclopedic, it's (as you say) promoting a single website. An analogy would be linking to the University of Cambridge's admissions page on higher education - perhaps in the right ballpark but a terrible idea overall. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Rewrote pretty much the entire page in case anyone is interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
<cough>Barnstarn</cough> WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please bear with me.. I am not sure how to even correctly post a response! First, I have to say that it is probably best (and certainly cannot violate EL policies to remove ALL of the external links to any of the various doula training entities. I think that has been done already. BUT... 1) I have to disagree with Johnuniq's comment about "Excellent work" as the recent edit is outdated in that ALACE has long ceased to exist; it "transmorgified" (LOL) into toLabor. 2) It is inappropriate (IMHO) to list some doula training organizations and exclude others. For instance, as presently edited, the section now reads, in part, "...CAPPA and DONA, the Association of Labor Assistants & Childbirth Educators (ALACE), International Childbirth Education Association (ICEA) and Lamaze International also provide doula training and certification. ALACE states it has trained approximately 4,500 doulas." So what? Also, I did a site search within asnd can find nothing indicating that they do doula training. While I fully understand (and agree, at least to some extent) with Barek's insightful comment that " argument could be made that the section is nothing more than an internet directory of related businesses of questionable notability" I question why it seems to be OK to list some organizations, and not others. If "an internet directory of related businesses of questionable notability" is unacceptable, does that mean that "a partial internet directory of related businesses of questionable notability" is OK? I doubt it. 3) Either let's not have any organizations listed, or let's list all. What's sauce for the goose.... Maybe the entire "organizations" section should be deleted? The present article correctly states that "There is a lack of standardization and oversight of doulas, with multiple organizations providing different courses with varying requirements. There is no formal or universally recognized certification process or training requirements, and anyone can refer to themselves as a doula. No academic credentials such as a college or university diploma, or high school equivalency are required." As there is no standard, what makes DONA ok to list? They are bigger than anyone else, but that does not necessarily make them the best. DONA is the most blatantly commercial organization that trains doulas. Can you say "expensive" and "hidden / extra / ongoing fees?" and...DONA International? Many businesses now are international, as most businesses have a web presence. Would "Doula Certification Intergalactic" make the editors cut? Also, in response to the comment that the previously linked sites are promoting their training courses, one might (should?) ask if the organizations (or any organization or company) exists to make / sell a product, or just to make a profit. They likely HAVE to make a profit to provide the product or service/ training, yes? 3) The doula page should NOT be merged with a midwife page, etc. A certified midwife goes to school for years, receives a degree (now a Master's is required) and is medically trained. A doula is NOT a "grandmother for rent" (that was an uncalled for low blow) although (s)he is not medically trained, and are trained to always represent him or herself to the mother as NOT being a medical professional. Doula's are essentially an extension of the midwife, ARNP, PA, or MD/ DO... they assist the mother, and in doing so, assist the medical professional. Their value has been documents; see, e.g. and see also articles / newsletter in, e.g. .

The feeling I get is that some people are making edits that while perhaps well qualified in "the way of the Wiki" know little or nothing (or at least, not enough) about the subject about which they are writing/ editing. Having said that, I think most, but definitely not all, of the edits on the doula page have been made in good faith. Thanks to all of the latter efforts.... --Docimastic (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC) --Docimastic (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please pick the most important point that you feel should be made, then add a new section at Talk:Doula with a brief overview of the problem. If you have a recommendation, please include it. There is no longer any suggestion that the article should be merged (that was a quick-and-dirty idea to overcome the non-encyclopedic approach in the old version, before WLU's edits). Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This link was recently added to Sarah Cullen (an article I created about a recently deceased journalist) by an anonymous user. I've not come across the organisation before, and am not convinced it's an appropriate, particularly as the subject herself is only mentioned once in the report and not in the context of the added information (see this diff). Can anyone advise? Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked further into this. Their main page screams WE EXPOSE THE TRUTH BEHIND MEDIA MIND-CONTROL And How Your Brain Sucks It In... which suggests they're engaging in what one might term renegade journalism, so not suitable for Wikipedia. Any thoughts on this still welcome though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this more a question for the WP:RSN than ELN? Irrespective, I would say it's certainly not an appropriate EL for nearly anything except the SAFF itself (assuming they're notable). Also, I would argue against it being a reliable source seeing as it appears to be promoting the idea that satanic ritual abuse was anything but a moral panic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Oops, it looks like they're criticizing the media's treatment of satanic ritual abuse (i.e. they are proponents of the mainstream idea that SRA was a moral panic, which puts them squarely on the mainstream side of the debate). Doesn't make them reliable though, it looks very much like an amateur website and searches of both google and google books turns up a very limited number of references which seem to be using the site for quotations (i.e. [52]) and nothing on google news. I would say it may list factually correct items, but wikipedia is much better off using more reliable sources to verify these items. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, I've reverted to an earlier version that doesn't contain it. I could only find one mention of her and it seemed to be a general criticism of press coverage of the issue rather than about Cullen herself, and it didn't back the information that had been added. There are actually other edits made from the same IP range which have added other dubious information regarding her health, and one or two other things, but I guess that's an issue for the part of BLP that covers recently deceased people. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If the IP re-inserts the link, then you could consider a trip to WP:RFPP to request WP:Semi-protection for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I definitely will if it becomes a problem. Must confess I didn't see it as an issue to begin with as (although unreferenced) the edits seemed to be fairly neutral, and I thought it might be somebody who knew her. But then the most recent additions started to be skewed towards a particular viewpoint. I've taken everything out now so hopefully it should be ok. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Loss Prevention Foundation

Moved to here from Wikipedia talk:Spam; will notify user. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about this article, Loss Prevention Foundation, the two main editors of the page both belong to the organisation according to their user pages, one even has 'forLPF' at the end of his user name, all the refs seem to be to the organisations' own website. But it claims to be a not-for-profit, does this make a difference to whether it should be considered an advertising/spam article by the criteria of this policy?Number36 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess we are talking about the one external link currently in the article ([53]). That appears to be an "official link", and is permitted by WP:ELOFFICIAL. The article has too much puffery, and should not have lists of staff. I am now watching it and may get a chance to help later.
Oh—the above is my response to what I thought you wanted (people sometimes post at the spam talk page when they are concerned about external links). But I see you actually are suggesting that the article might not satisfy WP:N and perhaps should be considered for deletion. Or, at least that the article should be pruned and any editors with a COI notified about WP:COI. Sorry, but I don't have time to think about that now (my quick guess is that an attempt to delete the article would not be successful). The first step is to search for sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) and judge whether WP:N is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
On the first point, I also meant all the links in the references section which link directly to their site here, I notice now a couple are to 'Loss Prevention Magazine' I'm assuming that's independent of the organisation, the external links were a large part of my concern so you were right there, but yes, I did wonder if the other things you mentioned might be the case as well. I wasn't suggesting deleting the article or anything so hasty but wondered if those issues should be raised for improvement perhaps.Number36 (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My personal practice in situations like this is to figure out if it passes WP:CORP or WP:N, then worry about links. You appear to be concerned about the reliability of the footnotes? The links internal to the organization are obviously adequately reliable for stating what the organization says, but they do not help establish reliability. Whether the information they verify is worth keeping is another discussion. Someone needs to edit the article to include independent reliable sources and trim back a lot of the vanispamcruftisement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a case of the English Wikipedia being an unusually complicated place. URLs in the references section are not WP:External links; they are all (supposed to be) WP:Reliable sources. This particular noticeboard only deals with the stuff that is (or should be) listed underneath the ==External links== section heading. If you have questions about the sources, try the article's talk page or the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (The rules are the same for all articles. We don't have special rules for non-profits.) Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I was unaware that the external links in the reference section weren't defined as WP:External links, but I didn't place this thread here, I don't have a problem with the actual External Link being to their site, that seems natural. It was more the aspect that WLU mentioned above of wondering if it had an issue with vanispamcruftisement (a term I wasn't previously aware of), or if this wouldn't apply to a not-for-profit organisation, which is why I raised the question at the Spam talk page, but it was more all of those things, reliance on self-published-refs/editors with possible COI/notability/reliable sources, etc, taken together.Number36 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding to IPv4 address exhaustion here. Is it acceptable? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on it on the article's [ Talk ] Tenretnieht (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are actually two related discussions there, but the issue is whether the site offers good EL content or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The link appears to provide an up-to-date status report on the number of unassigned IPv4 addresses remaining in the world. Given an article subject of how few are left, and the impossibility of updating the article with current numbers every time that answer changes, I think that this link would constitute "meaningful, relevant content" that "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to...other reasons." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to wedding product


This link is an external link intended for Sam and Diane article. Is it acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No. See WP:ELNO#EL5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion began here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#adding_links_to_philipkdickfans_site. I am not really sure how this notice board works, but this appears troubling to me. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

particularly Special:Contributions/Lucy8297. I will notify the user. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As stated there, I would like to state here as well that quoting a website and all its subpages may not be a good idea at any one place. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
If the issue is number of links being added by the user, then I don't believe an appropriate response is to delete the link to the site's homepage on along with deleting the Festival link. Remove the links that are causing the issue on the other pages? from what I understand here. Stella46064 (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I fixed broken links going to and added some where the information provided additional insight into the articles I was looking at. Some are very small and I thought the content I linked to was inappropriate to add to Wikipedia. I have also worked in other sections, thought not as much, than Philip K. Dick like Charles Bukowski. I am willing to remove the links that are causing an issue but I'm not clear on the situation. Lucy8297 (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC) - The Playwrights' Database

As the owner of I have had a constructive dialogue with Danmuz at to why he considers external links to should not be allowed.

This will mean that all links will be removed including long-standing ones such as the one on which links to doollee's information on nineteen of Ableman's plays (rather than the three shown on Wiki.

Obviously I shall be happy to respond to any comments/queries and hope to get Danmuz to reconsider his position. JulianJulianoddy (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As you have discovered, it's an unfortunately complicated place, so congratulations on figuring out this much. Let me suggest that you read WP:External links, which lists typical reasons for both accepting and rejecting links, and then tell us how you think the links to compare to the criteria there. If it's easier, then you can pick one article as an example, rather than talking in generalities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To give one example gives no information on plays. A link to would be helpful and informative.Julianoddy (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the Wikipedia article Matt Charman give information on plays (if the article were really well-developed)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Linked images in Pink slime#External links

The article uses the Template:External_media to link to various pdf files. The first link is A popular image of pink slime. This is a deep link; it does not give credit for the image or tell how it was created. I think it is from the page the Takepart web site. Although the wikipedia link says "A popular image," I think it misleads the reader into thinking that it is an actual image of "Pink slime." I do not think this web site qualifies as a valid secondary source.

I attempted provide a different point of view by adding a link to a rebuttal by the meat industry, "Photo Clarification for Lean Finely Textured Beef." Another editor removed my link with the comment, "that is not an external image and thus cannot be linked".

I thought of solving this problem by providing a deep link to the images in the meat industry page, such as NOT LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF! and Lean Finely Textured Beef After Grinding and Freezing.

Apparently the meat industry thinks the photo on Takepart is fair use, because they have copied it to their web server, which leads me to wonder if a low resolution screenshot of part of the meat industry page would also be fair use. There is "no free equivalent," because the screenshot would be to illustrate a position taken by the meat industry. It would not be used in a manner that is likely to replace the market role of the original. Furthermore, I doubt the copyright owner would object to their point of view being presented to wikipedia readers. My goal to to make the article NPOV. I have limited knowledge of the subject matter, or the rules of wikipedia.

I have several questions:

  1. Is the Template:External_media limited to links to pdf files only? Why wasn't my link acceptable?
  2. Do the present deep links follow wikipedia policy?
  3. Can I use deep links to the meat industry photos?
  4. Could a low resolution image of part of their page considered be fair use?
  5. Do you have any other suggestions about how to present a NPOV?

Thank you. Wikfr (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. That template is almost never used for pdf files; its purpose is image, audio, and video files.
  2. Deep links are permitted (whether these are desirable is a separate question).
  3. Deep links are permitted.
  4. This is the wrong page for that question.
  5. This is the wrong page for that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi

  • (Short version of longer version with diffs on article talk page.) This is a simple case of a content dispute going forum shopping. The links that Widefox is demanding to be immediately removed have been in the article since 1 December 2011. Since then there have been 533 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users, none of whom felt a need to remove them, even while we discussed and removed several other external links. Instead of giving us time to digest his objections and possibly reach a new consensus, in rapid succession Widefox deleted the links twice, demanded (here and on the article talk page) that we delete them immediately rather than discussing it, added a dubious {{external links}} tag to the article, and placed "You have new messages at Talk:Raspberry_Pi" notices on the talk pages of everyone involved rather than waiting for a response. Why the rush? Why all of a sudden is this is an emergency that cannot wait until we finish seeking consensus on the article talk page? This should be closed and Widefox instructed to first attempt to resolve content disputes through discussion and consensus rather than through noticeboards. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW,, the "this is undisputed" claim above is factually incorrect.[54] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • clarify, "this is undisputed" refers to nobody is claiming that is controlled by Raspberry Pi Foundation (as per diff above, the claim is "endorsed" not "controlled"). It is undisputed, is it not? As such, it is factually incorrect to list it as an official site as per WP:ELOFFICIAL. I do not have an answer to this simple question, and distractions such as accusing WP:FORUMSHOP is irrelevant (one correct noticeboard does not shopping make). Widefox (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you please confine your dispute over article content to one place? Like, I don't know, the article talk page?
You can keep saying "undisputed" all you want, but that does not make it true. Two long-term editors of the page have (me and Mahjongg) have already disputed your assertion. is controlled by Raspberry Pi Foundation says "Big thanks to and their groups for the wiki space" (who do you think is thanking Themselves?) says "that's up to the foundation. They are getting server space I believe so hopefully things will evolve" (who exactly is giving server space to who? Is giving server space to This is no different than sourceforge. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
With respect, you have missed the central point - "content ownership" as per WP:ELOFFICIAL (not rack ownership). 1. It is explicitly written at "the Raspberry Pi Foundation is not responsible for content on these pages." 2. it is UGC - either one by definition means not WP:ELOFFICIAL. Do you agree? (I clarified my English above) Widefox (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Um, so? Every page on Wikipedia links to the disclaimers, which say things like "no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate". But would still be an official link for the articles about Wikipedia. I encourage you not to worry too much about boilerplate disclaimers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I hardly think anyone would attempt to remove those links before the 1 December date when they were first put in the article. The archived discussion you linked to simply shows a IP editor making the same mistake you are making and the community of editors who are working on the article showing an overwhelming consensus that the IP editor is wrong and that those links belong in the article. Which, by the way, we are doing again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Guy, I'm attempting to establish facts - the point being to correctly portray that the link has been contended, not as you asserted above "none of whom felt a need to remove them", can we agree? This is ok, and its equally ok for me to question links (per guideline) and expect replies to my concerns, and not simply be told that editors that share a different view are "wrong"? Widefox (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
By your standard (one IP editor makes a change which nobodyy agrees with and is quickly reverted) 90% of Wikipedia is "contended". Yes, I missed the brief edit by the IP when I wrote "none of whom felt a need to remove them." So its 533 intermediate revisions over a period of over 4 months by more than 100 users, one of whom whom felt a need to remove the link. A minor error that does not change the overwhelming consensus -- a consensus that you are ignoring.
I am tired of hearing you make the same arguments in two places. The next time you attempt to dispute the content of the Raspberry Pi article anywhere other than on the Raspberry Pi article talk page I will ignore you. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we can agree: two editors have objected. I do feel that you withdrawing from here just when we're close to agreeing on both points is not very constructive (although I agree just discussing in one place is better). So...should I assume/(or not) you agree above that it should not be listed as official? then maybe we can continue on the talk page? Does that sound agreeable to you? Widefox (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

TV Tropes

Hi folks,

A while back I created {{tvtropes}} in an attempt to keep track of articles linking to TV Tropes (an external wiki which is flagrantly not a reliable source, revelling in its opposition to any inclusion guidelines relative to Wikipedia). It's currently got 62 transclusions, but there are 384 articles including such links. Thought this might be the best place to raise this for further work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this a valid external link?

Someone keeps trying to add this external link to various history pages. I've criticised that it is a hobby site. Serendipodous 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-stock non-English product from

This product is out of stock and one of the reissues of the Chinese album dan dan you qing: I am intending to include this link in the External Link section because English translations may vary, such as Light Motion, which is the translation in YesAsia. While a shopping website, I am certain this must be used for encyclopedic purposes, especially for readers of English Wikipedia. May I include it now? --George Ho (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User The ut tick has been adding to the external links section of several members of the US House and Senate. It doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source, although from a cursory glance it doesn't seem to be pushing a particular POV. Thoughts? Arbor8 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this.
Within each page for a representative, there are links under the external pages section that go to the pages for those representatives at sites like and and a number of others. I added links under the external links section for the political guide page on each representative because I thought that it would add more information. I think that the total number of links that I placed was under 20 over the last few years.
Here is the link to the political guide page on Sherrod Brown. I think it has more info than the wiki page and has no particular POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ut tick (talkcontribs) 15:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that The Political Guide doesn't seem to be pushing a particular agenda. What I'm concerned about is reliability. Who writes it? How is it edited? What are the editorial standards? Etc. Arbor8 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The website is definitely a POV site. I noticed this when checking the link added(1,2) by "The ut tick" on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. The "Summary" seems to be reworded now, since the last time I looked before I made my initial complaint on the Dispute resolution board, but it is still obviously a Birther POV summary. As for the Sherrod Brown link, I think Senator Brown would take issue with some of the claims(1,2) made by that website. For a real, balanced take on the Ohioan Senators' views, just state the facts. These "Summary" style descriptors seem to always be biased towards one side of the issues. I do believe the person posting these links is affiliated with both the website and a current Republican representative in the US House, though I would bet my house on the former, I wouldn't on the latter. I will also add that one of The ut tick's edits was recently oversighted as a copyright violation, which seems to indicate that the website he is linking to copy and pastes at least some of the information on it's website from other, copyrighted websites. The website does not seem to list any journalistic credentials, nor does there seem to be any editorial oversight. It's not a reliable source and shouldn't be linked to on Wikipeida by an editor who seems to be spamming to promote the website. Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Good comments Dave. In considering a site as a valid one for linking to it on the external sites lists, the wikipedia page states that the site should add information for the user and not have an obvious point of view (paraphrasing of course). On the Sherrod Brown page, there are links to, opensecrets, opencongress, sourcewatch, project vote smart, and others. - good site. no one will challenge this addition

opensecrets - again no one would challenge this site's worth - states in the link that Sherrod Brown is left of center. It also lists representatives that "influence" Brown, something that he may oppose. The abortion article you cited from the political guide merely notes that Brown is pro-choice, a statement that I don't think Brown would oppose. Also, I don't see any new information that the govtrack source adds to a readers knowledge on Sherrod Brown. - source watch is a wikipedia mimic site that merely copies the wiki content - at least the page cited here.

opencongress - again, what value does the page linked to provide to the reader. It is merely another link to promote that page.

So that's three pages already linked to on the page that provide no additional content and one which lists a point of view and makes claims as to the influences on Senator Brown.

I don't see a birther point of view on the Obama page. However, if you do, why not simply challenge that specific link and not the addition of the entire site to wikipedia? It seems like you are attempting to punish a site because you disagree with a perceived point of view.

I agree that the site has some wording that is point of viewish. However, sites like Politifact exist to provide points of view and express those points of view in ratings ranging from "pants on fire" to "mostly true" to "true" and I have yet to see anyone challenge that site. In fact, it is quite the opposite as Politifact is often cited repeatedly as proof on wikipedia.

Regarding the claim of copyright infringement. It looks like the actual complaint was spamming. There was something removed due to copyright infringement, but I cannot see what that was and the text merely states that it was something on the candidates about page. I don't know what possible copyright info there can be on a page that basically states that the candidate grew up in town X, got a degree from college Y, and worked at company z. If that is the case, then every wikipedia article about a person is in violation.

What I'm trying to get at is transparency and reliability. There's no indication anywhere of who writes, edits or maintains the site, or of any editorial standards. For all we know, it could just be someone's personal blog. See WP:SPS. Arbor8 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
So? Nearly all of these websites are self-published. itself is self-published. There is no prohibition on self-published websites under the ==External links== heading. WP:SPS only applies to ==References==. WP:ELMAYBE explicitly accepts unreliable sources as external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:ELMAYBE states that "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" (emphasis mine). How can we determine whether the site contains information from knowledgeable sources when there isn't the slightest indication of what those sources ARE? Additionally, WP:ELMAYBE contains criteria for external links which may be considered, not for those that are normally linked. Considering that external links on BLPs are judged by a higher standard than for other articles, I think caution is certainly merited here. Arbor8 (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Caution is definitely merited. Looking at Sherrod Browns positions again, specifically the writeup on trade policy. I noticed that the content of the page is a summary followed by links to press statements, embedded video of floor statements, a voting record, and a list of bills related to trade that Brown co-sponsored. Only the summary is left uncited, which seems to mean that the remainder of the article is indeed the information on which the summary was based. The other position statements for Brown follow the same format. I guess what I am getting at is that we do know what the sources for this information are as they are given in full within the pages themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ut tick (talkcontribs) 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's just not correct. The "Summary" basically is calling Sherrod Brown a liar. It states "Senator Brown supports amnesty for illegal aliens. On his official website, Senator Brown states that he opposes amnesty". This is definitely not a website that is going to pass any RS or EL criteria. Not only with the BLP issues, but the editorial and POV issues(as noted here and the Birther note I listed above). The "Summary" on the Abortion issue from that site is anything BUT neutral. This should be closed and if the website spams Wikipedia again, the site should be blacklisted. Dave Dial (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Dave, I'm inclined to agree with you. If the sources ThePoliticalGuide relies on are reliable, then we should just use them directly, rather than linking to TPG's questionable synthesis.
Just to be clear, UT Tick, are you affiliated with this site in any way? Arbor8 (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel like we've hit a wall here. Maybe we should take this to WP:RFC? Arbor8 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


I've only just begun focussing on external links, so please forgive this being an obvious question, but is dmoz an acceptable external link, as at Beaminster? I'm inclined to think not, as what's listed there is largely irrelevant to the article, as well as listing various businesses, but I thought I'd check here before deleting it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Dmoz is oftentimes an appropriate external link and it is preferable to link there than to host a linkfarm in our articles; but if none of the links on a dmoz page are relevant to our goals we shouldn't link to it. ThemFromSpace 04:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


There are two external links in the body of the Hosta article:

The American Hosta Society and the British Hosta and Hemerocallis Society support Hosta Display Gardens, often within botanical gardens.

To me, this doesn't seem to fit with normal wiki-style and I was thinking of moving them to the External Links section. However, this would remove the detail that such things as Hosta Display Gardens exist from the body of the article. What do others think would be the best course of action?

Lineslarge (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just use an appropriate page as a ref and leave the sentence as it is, minus the external links (which can be moved to the External Links section). The AHS has this page which can be used as a ref for their support for Hosta Display Gardens. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

local clubs and societies

At the Congleton talk page I've questioned the need for including links to 2 local societies. The links I removed were the Congleton fly tying club and the Congleton Choral Society as I believe the main purpose in including them is to promote both societies, both of which charge for their activities. In general what is the consensus regarding such local societies? Valenciano (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

They should not be included as the primary purpose of linking them on Wikipedia is to drive traffic to the site and promote the organizations. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 04:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be unfairly deciding what an editor's (or more likely editors') motivation has been for adding those links. I have not added them, but if I had I would simply want to illustrate where such activities/ amenities exist. I can't help it if the choral society has organised a concert that costs "18 quid a ticket". I have no wish to "drive traffic" anywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say WP:ELNO#EL19, except that it seems nobody yet thinks them important enough to even mention in passing in the article. There are several inappropriate links in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If one wished to add into the text that amateur flying and choral singing organisations exist in the town, with which links would one support such claims? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As always, with secondary sources, not primary ones. If secondary sources haven't found the presence of those in the town to be notable, then they shouldn't be included. Personally I'm very doubtful that the average person who reads the Congleton article in an international encyclopedia is all that bothered about the existence of a fly tying club there. Valenciano (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Would it shock you if people in Congleton used wikipedia to find out more about their town? Or is that not what an international encyclopedia is for? Here's an example of a secondary source for the Choral Society: [57] and here's one for the Fly Tying Club [58]. I would have thought that a fly tying club was quite unusual and possibly worthy of mention in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If they used it to find out more about their town, no. If they used it to find out if there was a fly tying club in their town, definitely yes. Google would be the natural first stop for people searching for that I'd expect. I don't see either of those two links that you provide above as being reliable secondary sources. Valenciano (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I think Google would be the first stop in the search for a plumber, or a fishing tackle shop. But I think many would expect to find the clubs and scocieties of a small town mentioned in Wikipedia. Perhaps that's an unreasonable expectation. Yes, the second link looks a little unreliable, perhaps more of a blog. I haven't really searched for the best. But why do you think the first site is not a reliable source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
But then where do you draw the line? If we include the fly tying club and choral society then why not the rugby club, the chess club, the bridge club, the hockey club, the karate club or the cricket club? Since we'd then be in the business of linking all the various leisure pursuits we'd also have to link any bingo halls, pubs and clubs in the town, since who are we to judge that spending your time in a choir is somehow more worthwhile than having a drink with your mates? The various restaurants and cafes would have to go in too to be fair. Also since we'd have those businesses, why not the various doctors, dentists, hospitals etc and there, voila, we have a massive link farm which violates WP:NOTDIR. Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you are exagerrating just a tiny bit there. I'm not really sure why. I'm not really demanding that this article should become a mini-Thompson's directory for Congleton. I was suggesting that two links - one for the Choral Society and one for the Fly Tying Club - should be kept. And I don't even play the viola. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Why those and not the others? If you include those how can you justify excluding the rest? Valenciano (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia should advertise dentists. I don't see that local businesses can be seen as hobbies. I don't think a bridge club would be notable. I agree it's far easier to allow none. But it's not necessarily better. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(deindent) Personally I'd be more interested in a bridge club than a fly tying one but that's precisely my point. It seems inconsistent to insist that one is included but not the other. Therefore both should be excluded. Valenciano (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Which others would you say are inappropriate? Valenciano (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Nearly all of them are not really appropriate I think the only one to keep would be the council website most of the others are just acting as a web directory and are not really adding content to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
On the question of how to source information about activities in the town: The article asserts the existence of several local newspapers. I'd say that any of them would make a fine source, and that any club that could get a full article written about it in one of those (not just a "Ladies' club meets Thursdays in the church hall" routine notice or a description solely about a performance, fundraiser, or activity by the club) could be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
There is always dmoz - info about local groups etc can go in there (if dmoz editors approve), and dmoz can be linked from Wikipedia (if appropriate). I asked about this in a thread above, and though I'm not sure if such a link (from Wikipedia to dmoz) is necessarily a good thing, it must surely be preferable to a large link farm at the bottom of the article. Actually you surprise me Martin - I'd always had you down as a viola player.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That's very fair and sensible advice, thanks Whatwereyouthinking, although the online versions of the Congleton Chronicle and The Sentinel don't immediately seem to have anything on flies or choirs. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a huge tidal wave of support for my position here. So I propose that this discussion stays open a few more days. After that, if there is no major change in consensus, I'm quite happy with whatever deletion is deemed appropriate. Is that fair? But while we're here - there are a few other points that I'm still unsure of. How does the size of a town or village affect things? If a small village has a cricket club with its own website does that make it any more notable than one in a sizable town? Indeed are cricket clubs always deemed acceptable - there are an awful lot of cricket clubs and football clubs in the External Links for UK articles all across Wikipedia. If a club holds a fund-raising event should any link immediately be deleted, because it's now "commercial spam"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no rush to close this and I'd also like further clarification on this. Valenciano (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Although theoretically we're neutral on that point (as well as whether something is "commercial": both commercial and non-commercial spam is forbidden), size matters in the end, because we try to limit EL sections to six or eight (sometimes ten) links total. There are naturally more potential links for a very large city than for a small village. So a very tiny place might only have a couple of potential links, in which case you might (or might not) decide that it's reasonable to include all of them. But a very large city would have hundreds or perhaps thousands of potential links, and you could not possibly include all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see the sense in limiting article size. And if a club or society is really notable it should be in the text. Althogh I suspect there will be plenty of discussion about what constitutes "local notability". I see at Congleton that someone has already assumed that this discussion has closed. I'm not arguing, but I guess I was just expecting to see some kind of conclusion drawn here first. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No the discussion is still open, but with a week and a half having passed, it's clear that consensus is to remove those links. The only question now is what to do with the others. Valenciano (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
And you also said above that you'd like "further clarification" on this. And I think I would too. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Criterion Collection

A new editor has been adding external links to a lot of articles pointing to The Criterion Collection website. Another editor noticed it (as I did) and posted a message on the new editor's Talk page. As you can see, the new editor seems well-intentioned, so I just asked him to stop adding the links until after the results of this discussion. I know nothing about Criterion, although we do have an article on it (The Criterion Collection). My guess is it's okay and that the red flags are a normal reaction to someone new making a lot of changes all at once. Should I tell the new editor it's okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of other editors link to the Criterion film site. I didn't notice anything greatly inappropriate about the content added by the user to each article, so I did not undo it, but it seems strange for one editor to work so hard adding very many links to one site over a short period of time, especially since the editor doesn't seem to make other edits to the articles I am watching. Also the editor is sometimes altering links to a canonical form, which makes it look as if the editor is associated with the company Criterion, otherwise why would the editor know so much about Criterion's link system? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
At first glance this smells like spam, but assuming it is well intended, i still don't quite see why such links would be particularly suited for external links. They seem to carry relatively little information about a film (far less than the IMDB, or various notable film (critic) sites) and are commercial. A few exception aside I don't see how they fulfill the requirement of WP:EL not by longshot.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've removed Criterion Collection links in the past, depending on what was at the end of the link. Sometimes it is promotional puff. I don't think blanket-adding the links like this is very useful, and it is just one user, who seems to have very good knowledge of the Criterion site, and doesn't really add anything else. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Arana-Southern Treaty

The article Arana-Southern Treaty is about a treaty that ended the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, a XIX century conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Although the conflict was not related to the Falkland Islands, some historians think that it may influence it.

The article includes several external links at the end. I removed them because, with the exception of the first one, and the "Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas..." one (which I turned into a footnote) the others are merely generic links to "history of the falklands" pages, which do not contain a single mention of the treaty. I think that such pages go against WP:ELNO item 13 (same as if we include generic pages of Argentine history). However, the author of the article, Nigelpwsmith, insists to restore them. I would appreciate uninvolved opinions. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User Cambalachero insists on claiming that the above Treaty was derogated. He provided a link to a foreign history page provided by the Argentine Government, but he is unable to provide any proof that the Treaty was derogated. The Treaty was added to Wikisource by the British Government and is still in effect. It has been quoted by numerous sources as proof that the Argentine Government acquiesced on British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. I believe that Cambalachero is making alterations without any validation or corroboration to support the Argentine position which is untenable. I have repeatedly asked him to desist from making these alterations and even suggested that if he feels strongly about his points he should alter the Argentine Wikipedia only, but not the English version.
He has included some interesting information which improves the overall article. However, his actions recently have been nothing more than unsupported vandalism to support a political and national point of view which can not be validated or supported by external documents in the UK. In fact, I do have documents in the UK which support the claims I've made. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Title: "False Falklands history at the United Nations: How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 - and still does". Do you really think that's a neutral and unbiased document? With links like those, you merely weaken your own arguments. Yes, there is Argentine nationalism towards the islands, but there is British nationalism as well. Cambalachero (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes the reference does present the facts from the British point of view and the view of the Islanders, but it highlights the deliberate lies put forward from the Argentine side. User Cambalachero is admitting the Argentine nationalism towards the islands and in the documents. The British documents show a different version of the truth. The page was added to Wikipedia the Arana-Southern Treaty, because it shows a glaring omission by not including the history of the treaty and what it says about the legal position with respect to Argentina's claims. However, nothing which Camalachero has provided shows any proof that the treaty was derogated in any way. He makes unsupportable claims that it was when it was not and then tries to say that at least he has external links - when those external links are biased and incomplete, belonging as they do to the Argentine Government (or rather an Argentine educational establishment).Nigelpwsmith (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I re-iterate, there is no proof that this treaty was derogated by the British. I accept that the Treaty was not added to Wikisource by the British Government, but it was added from Volume 37 of the British and foreign state papers - a verifiable source. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept that both sides to this dispute have strong nationalistic claims. However, Cambalachero has to provide proof that the Treaty was derogated by Britain - otherwise his alterations are just unsupportable claims. Even the Argentine Government source does not show that the Treaty was derogated by the British. Merely that diplomats discussed it. Diplomats discuss a lot of things, but it is Governments that make pronouncements on Treaties and this treaty is still in effect. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As neither side is willing to agree on the point of the derogation, I would like to make the following proposal to Wikipedia. Either Cambalachero provides the proof that the British Goverment derogated the treaty, or the paragraph on derogation is removed altogether and the document locked. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that User Cambalachero creates a separate page titled the 'Hotham Mission Saint Georges (August 1852)' and reference that to the Argentine source and remove the Derogation section of the Arana-Southern Treaty. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong place. This page is for discussing the links that are underneath the ==External links== section heading. There should be no "paragraphs" or "Derogation sections" underneath that heading. I suspect that you need to be at a different noticeboard. Try WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:DRN instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's the reason why I came here, because of the links in the "external links" section. Nigelpwsmith mixed all things toguether, and yes, I got carried by him in my second reply, but I agree: the discussion here should be limited to the external links. As I explained, most of them do not contain a single mention of the topic of the article and should be removed, but he disagrees, so I would like some uninvolved opinion. Only on the links, everything else may be discussed at the article talk page Cambalachero (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we're still arguing about what belongs to the External links section and what not... see this for example. Is this the right place to ask? Cheers! --Langus (t) 17:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think certain parties have been somewhat disingenuous with this posting. Some of the links Nigel posted did not make reference to the Arana-Southern treaty but the two main ones do so extensively. Those links that they wish to have removed are because they are, they claim, "biased". One at least was written in rebuttal to an Argentine document, which they wish to include, and both contain details of the background establishing relevance of the treaty and the Falklands dispute. Neither present an exclusively British position but include details of Argentine and Latin American historians who make the same link. We have a relatively new editor here, Nigel, with his first article and two editors trying to wikilawyer content out of the article they appear to dislike; content that just happens to contradct the claims made by Argentina in its modern sovereignty claim. He needs some mentoring as to how wikipedia works, instead he has two established editors chewing at his ankles. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
You're fighting a straw man again: no one said that the problem with the links was neutrality. The problem is that that they're not directly related to the Arana-Southern Treaty: they're about the Falklands dispute. It's pretty basic really. What Cambalachero and myself are trying to do is to keep the article as neutral as possible, as it begun as a coat rack and we're finally getting there.
I'll repeat the explanation given by Cambalachero: "The article Arana-Southern Treaty is about a treaty that ended the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, a XIX century conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Although the conflict was not related to the Falkland Islands, some historians think that it may influence it."
And these are the links currently disputed in the External links section:
They are not directly related to the article's subject. They are even used as references for the section about the relation with the dispute, which is fine, but the External links section is for something else.
Regards. --Langus (t) 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If they have been used as references in the article then they should not appear again in the external links section. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What strawman? Do you really think that's a neutral and unbiased document? the very comment used by your colleague to argue for link removal. No straw man on my part, though you're trying to take the discussion down a rabbit hole.
Those external links are very much directly related, they both discuss at length the implications of the Arana-Southern treaty. Their use is appropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
My initial comment was about the several links that did not make any mention at all about the treaty. That case is now settled, as those links are already gone by now. Accuracy, neutrality, length of explanation of the topic, are more specific discussions, but a very basic requirement for external links is that they at least mention the topic of the article. Very basic common sense... but a user crying "Argentine bias!" each time someone corrects his messes (even his copyright violations) does not help, so instead of replying to him in his terms I opted to simply request someone else's opinion. But again, the original request may be archived, as the links I mentioned are gone and this guy is not currently shouting about an Argentine conspiracy because the links are gone. Cambalachero (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you gotten this sorted?
As a general rule, you should remove any link under Arana-Southern Treaty#External links that is (1) already listed as a proper ==Reference== in the article and/or (2) does not mention the topic of the article (e.g., does not include the words "Arana-Southern Treaty" somewhere on the page). Unless someone has a good reason to deviate from the general rules, then that's what I recommend that you do, if you haven't already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. We have an argument about appropriateness of some external links in the above article. I explained my position at Talk:Victor Schnirelmann. I would appreciate a third party opinion about this issue. Best regards, Grandmaster 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you get this resolved? Do you need help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, help is needed. I would really appreciate a third party opinion, as we have quite a lengthy discussion at talk of the article about the appropriateness of some external links. Grandmaster 05:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant external link

In the article "Townes Van Zandt", the eleventh footnote has an external link which links to something completely irrelevant.

I know what to do about dead links, but what should I do about links like this--not dead, but bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically, that a URL for a source, not an ==External links== question, so you could have asked at WP:RSN. But since you're here, I'll suggest two options: one, you could just remove it. Sometimes people add irrelevant citations, either by accident or as WP:REFSPAM. Two, you could look at the article history and see whether that information used to have a different (and better) citation in the past. If so, then you could restore the old citation. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like a formerly valid link to a page no longer hosted on that domain. By "formerly valid", I mean that it likely was added in good faith and did point to something relevant. Whether it met reliable source guidelines is another question, but Dylan certainly has covered at least one TVZ song. Here's a potential alternative link:,27111/ Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IP edit-warring hatchet job "fansite" into Armageddon (MUD) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears determined that Armageddon (MUD) needs to have the elink from ([59], [60], [61], [62]) in it. This was a clear WP:ELNO just based on the way he described it, as a random "player fansite", but that was actually a lie. The "site", such as it is, is there to host a PR attack on the MUD that's the article's topic, its only real content being a diatribe against the MUD's admins that ends up telling people which of the MUD's competitors they should go play instead. So, yeah. I'm at 3RR on it, so would somebody else be so kind as to take over? Thanks. (Warning: you'll note that I have been entirely less than civil to the IP. Feel free to advise me not to cuss at the trolls.) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Chaos5023 has shown an unusual amount of interest in Armageddon (MUD) over the last two years. Looking at the edit history, Chaos5023 appears to have undone any attempts at editting or formatting others have made to the article. The user admitted he hadn't even looked at the site before removing it from the page ([63]). Furthermore, the user has ignored any content on the webpage beyond the front page. Attempts to discuss the matter with Chaos5023 on the Talk page were met with silence, and he levied threats about how he would like to set someone "on fire" about it on his personal talk page over the entire matter ([64]). His description of being "less than civil" has been an understatement as he's been entirely hostile to anyone making changes to his personal page. I am receptive to compromise regarding any other webpage that shows similar knowledge of the game, such as information about the class skills. (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The normal practice is for disputed external links to be removed unless and until there is a posuitive agreement to include them. Is everyone willing to abide by that standard rule in this case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Chaos5023, at first glance I see no convincing reason for adding this particular website.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The notice on violation of copyright (relates to external links): Beatles.Ru

Club Beatles.Ru was added to the black list at the Russian Wikipedia: (we are sure, that illegally). We can not write the article about our club. Such article was removed by administrator: (including). We do not want to be in Wikipedia after such bad actions (absolutely). We ask do not use our materials (references and external links), which are used in the article The Beatles currently: (Russian section): because was big damage (and now) for the reputation of the club. Thus, this is the notice about the violation copyright in the relation of the club (when our materials continue be used at Wikipedia). We never gave the permission to use the such materials via license of Creative Commons (in the space of the club not exist even trail of such licenses). As result: please do not use our materials (because this is violation of copyright). Nobody will to send any special forms (lose time), because the violation of copyright is obvious fact in our case (we do not use the licenses of the CC and any other licenses, we do not give the permission). At us other legislation (the more). Thank you for attention! - (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Editors at English Wikipedia have no control over the content of Russian Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Usage of such explanation creates precedent: Russian and other sections will use forbidden in USA materials (when the such materials is legal in them jurisdictions). This is dangerous precedent (for copyright policy of Wikipedia): because courts of the US will act against Wikimedia Foundation (not against of sub-units). Useful advice: do not need create such trouble for Founder. (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
But you are not talking to the Wikimedia Foundation. We are not the Wikimedia Foundation. We are the English Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation operates hundreds of websites, and this is the wrong one. None of the volunteers on this website are responsible for what happens on another website, even if both sites are owned by the same organization. If you're trying to get in touch with the foundation, this is not the place to do it. Follow the contact links instead. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
For reference, the same URL is also blacklisted on EN as a result of prior repeated abuse on this project. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the apparent double standards here.

Silk Road, which sells narcotics, is linked to, but it's apparently been decided that the Hidden Wiki and other content containing child pornography should not be, because it's illegal. [[65]] That makes a deal of sense, but apparently it doesn't apply to The Silk Road, because er, well, we don't want people buying drugs to get scammed, and that trumps legality concerns? Hmm. [[66]]

Suara Gondang (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading a website that offers to sell narcotics is legal. Reading a website that displays child porn is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how true that is, but as I understand it the Hidden Wiki doesn't display child porn (but does link to it), whereas the Silk Road does sell narcotics. Suara Gondang (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to digital archives at

Can others please review the links added by RU123 (talk · contribs)

These are all links to Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advancedCOIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: • Live link:

The site in general has been discussed at user talk:RU123, although my concern is with a specific subset of the links.

Some of the links, such as those to archives of publications, appear appropriate and useful digital archives of past issues of the various publications to which the links are added. My only issue with some of these links is that, in a handful of cases that I've reviewed, the digital archives were redundant to the archives already existing on the official sites, so the links were not needed in those cases.

My main concern is with links for the "authors". Here are a random sample of these links for reference:

I removed these per WP:ELNO #9, but this has been disputed on my talk page. I believe there's no clear consensus at user talk:RU123, so wanted to get a discussion started on a centralized discussion noticeboard. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: A link to this discussion has been provided to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography to gain input from a potentially interested Wikiproject. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: A link to this discussion has been provided to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to gain input from a potentially interested Wikiproject. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
the links are appropriate and very valuable to users. They link to books and especially to magazine & journal articles for which UNZ has secured copyright permission--these sources are available nowhere else outside the periodical collections of large libraries. The WP:ELYES rules explictly allow this sort of deep linking. (a) Sites that can be linked include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ... or other reasons." (b) in ELPOINTS: "In the "External links" section...try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." that is exactly the case. Barek relied entirely on a too-narrow reading of ELNO#9, which says "normally" avoid "Links to any search results pages". We do not have a google search on UNZ, we have UNZ's "appropriate linking page within the site" which is explicitly allowed. UNZ set up the page being linked to and we do NOT have a typical page of search results as per google/bing/yahoo. ELNO#9 is not a hard rule in the first place (it says "normally" and gives examples it warns against: search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. Bottom line: we have an unusually valuable and unique resource that readers will not likely find without the link. To be specific this is the sort of link that Barek rejects: John Kenneth Galbraith. Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You rely heavily on the ELYES (which, incidentally, is also labelled "normally"). That link specifically addesses material that is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", but the links do not provide insights to understanding the subject - although they are digital archive search results providing directories of publications by the author and videos in which they appear.
Some of those documents may be useful as sources themselves, to use to cite content. But the results pages are not appropriate for the EL section. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if these are "appropriate and very valuable" when it gets to this stage of abuse nor does it confer a license to Mass spam Wikipedia even if they are. Spam this case is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individual adding the links. Adding over 200 links in just a few days, to the same site, is WP:LINKSPAM. Wikipedia is Not a repository of Links and Not a Linkfarm. WP:NOT is a community agreed upon standard that all wikipedian should follow, particularly when accounts demonstrate eggregiously, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines. see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption (Persistent spamming)--Hu12 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Barek keeps changing his mind. First he claims spam--that is obviously false (no two links are the same and all are tailored to the article; one link per article and all different--that is not spam nor a farm), then he complains about a mystery search engine (which does not exist), and now he simply says "But the results pages are not appropriate". He did not ask Wiki editors on any of the multiple talk pages; instead he decided "appropriate" all by himself. That is odd for he has no experience with the topics involved and erased each one in a matter of a few seconds (he worked on seven different articles in one minute at 03:01, 27 May 2012), proving he did not explore the value of the materials. Do the links "provide insights" by showing the publication record of the subject of the article? Yes indeed, that is one of the main goals of biographies of scholars, to provide links to their books & articles. Barek is a reverter--a valuable but limited role that leaves him quite unfamiliar with the world of Wikipedia biography. In my opinion we should start with the interests of the Wiki readers, and Barek has made no mention whatever of their needs. As for Hu12's arguments, not that this started when Barek erased MY link, and I am not a spammer. Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My comments are completely consistent, my mind has not changed. The only link of yours of which I'm aware of removing was in this one - where you restored an obviously disputed link without first gaining consensus. I suggest staying on-topic to the links, and not attacking other parties in the discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 06:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Its WP:LINKSPAM in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. Ron Unz, Chairman = RU123 (talk · contribs). The External Links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states explicitly; "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." and is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Additionaly Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising and by spamming their own website violates one Wikipedia's main pillars, which is neutrality (NPOV). Lastly, since this user has no other contributions other than spamming links to their own website for several days straight, the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption could also be applied here;
There's a multitude of policy and guideline violations involved in this case, all of which justify removing these links--Hu12 (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this probably needs to go to ANI now. I'm also concerned about the number of links being made here. It looks like a useful site for some purposes, but the behavior of this editor in adding their own site is questionable to say the least. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, my apologies for any confusion on my part with regard to Wikipedia's rules, though there does seem to be at least a little disagreement.
It may or may not be relevent, but none of the links I added were involved any "search results" as was claimed above, but instead were to regular website pages. In fact, as I was putting them in, I noticed that a few of the pre-existing links actually *were* to search results on various websites, and these sometimes included books or other items by unrelated authors of similar names.
In any event, I would think that the published writings included in those links would generally be a useful resource for those visiting those particular Wikipedia pages, and except in the case of the most recent articles, these writings are usually available nowhere else on the Internet, at least in any convenient form.RU123 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that everybody here has some valid points. The behavior of RU123 indeed seems to be that of a spammer. On the other hand, there is no obvious commercial gain here (yes, I know, non-commercial entities sometimes also spam) ans the links he added are not written in an overtly promotional way (like "this wonderful website will give you xyz"). This edit removed one of his links to the archive of a journal that is not available, not even to subscribers, on its own website (all they list are article titles). I find this link useful. There is one more aspect that nobody here has commented upon. Please have a look at RU123's talk page. Now if you were a newbie editor, would you feel that you have just joined a warm and welcoming community? Perhaps what he's doing is wrong, but it could have been explained to him (in better and more friendly ways than posting templates). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As discussed earlier, the links I added a couple of days ago were removed on the grounds that they violated the Wikipedia rule against linking to "search results," a prohibition of which I'd frankly been ignorant. But as it happens, none of my removed links actually fell into that category.
Browsing around a bit, I noticed something else a little confusing. The Wikipedia page for McClure's a prominent magazine of about a century ago, currently includes four external links to various Internet archives providing access to the publication. The Gutenberg link contains seemingly thousands of items, basically everything authored by someone whose last name begins with "V", with a few issues of McClure's listed under the author "Various;" this may or may not be considered a "search result." The Internet Archive link seems explicitly to be a "search result," containing a text-query string, and the Google Books result also seems like it might be considered a "search result." Meanwhile, my deleted link was most certainly NOT a search result. Since I only started using Wikipedia about a week ago, perhaps some of the experienced editors can clarify my confusion on this matter.
On a more practical level, it seems to me that none of the four existing external archive links provide any convenient means of browsing or exploring the thousands of articles from that magazine, while the page I had linked does this quite well, arguably making it much more useful to Wikipedia users. I would be grateful if some of the editors in this discussion would investigate the four existing links and my deleted one and then decide for themselves whether or not my claim seems reasonable.RU123 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Crappy quality DMOZ pages

I see there have been some discussions in the past about the poor quality and bias in many DMOZ pages. We're having a discussion about this right now on the Gulf War syndrome page. If you look at the dmoz page for this subject, you'll see there are some really poor quality links, and the doesn't appear anywhere.

In many cases it may be better for us to just curate our own list of links instead of relying on dmoz. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I agree. Dmoz may often be useful, but it's not written in stone that dmoz is always perfect, or (conversely) that we have to use a dmoz page if it appears to be flawed/biased/incomplete/whatever. I think it's best to take it - with a pinch of salt - on a case-by-case basis. bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration

Those interested in external links may want to review Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Authority Control Integration where there is a proposal to add authority control information, with at least one external link, to a lot of articles. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anon user persistently adding copyright-infriging link to MET-Art

Hello. Here's user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is persistently re-adding an external link to the MET-Art page, most recently today. The link leads to a blog which contains images infriging MET-Art's copyrights. The user has been previously warned and then blocked for this link-adding back in February-March, but since then he has returned to this activity, recently engaging in a week-long revert war with me. I doubt any discussion with the user has any point - after all he was already banned for the same offense once. Please consider appropriate actions. --Krótki (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to something clear that shows it is a copyvio? I can see that it probably is, but since there is clearly an ongoing problem something conclusive would help. If there is clear proof, the procedure is straightforward: report IP at WP:AIV (but it's only vandalism if it is a copyvio), or report page at WP:RFPP (but they won't want to protect the article for very long). Don't revert the user again. Someone here will do it if further info is available (sorry I'm not going to take the time to figure it out myself). Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's only my assumption. I don't have a proof.--Krótki (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean proof as in a court case. You must have some examples in mind of what appear to be copyvios? I can take a couple of minutes to offer my opinion here, but I'm not motivated to examine the particular article or external link in sufficient detail to find what you mean by copyvios, so some examples would be good. Of course the issue of whether the link satisfies WP:EL in general should also be considered, but it's a lot simpler if it involves a copyvio. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It certainly looks obvious enough to me to take action on, and even if it wasn't copyvio it would still be blockable linkspam. Blocked the IP (seems to be stative) and semiprotected the page (little or no constructive IP editing aside from the linkspammer). Fut.Perf. 09:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. And, to answer Johnuniq: each entry on the blog "subpage" contains a full photo-session of full-resolution images which are available on the MET-Art website only to paid customers - those are the photos that, I assume, are hosted there illegally. --Krótki (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:BLACKLIST and consider reporting the blog for blacklisting if the problem resurfaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Coriolanus: an idea map

Old Moonraker, MarnetteD and one other editor have all deleted this map At least one of the above is identified on wikipedia as a page stalker. I'd like to express that as a woman, I take particular exception to MarnetteD. The further away he stays from me on wikipedia and anywhere else he lurks, the more likely I'll be to continue to occasionally contribute....

The claim is that the map is spam or just a collection of links. It's not spam - nothing is being sold here - and I added it to related wikis - to Coriolanus the film, Ralph Fiennes, and lead people in the cast like Vanessa Redgrave. It's also been deleted from Gerard Butler's wiki.

1. All the links in the map are clearly attributed to verifiable sources that are reputable: the BBC, the NYT, etc. 2. Nothing is being sold. 3. No specific point of view is being promoted. 4. It's been deliberately designed for people to browse as they wish and draw their own conclusions. 5. Wikipedia is all about citations and ensuring attribution. So why does MarnetteD for instance, object to the maker of the map putting their own name on it?

It's original to put something together like this with video, images, links to books, audio clips etc. with all these citations and do it on a map. Other than that, basically it's an exploration of the play and the film the character, Coriolanus.

I've read the guidelines for external links, it appears to meet the standard. I'd be grateful if someone would help me understand why this is being repeatedly deleted. If there's to be some type of mediation on this, I welcome it.

Otherwise, I'll let the boys take usual......

Thanks, --AshokaPurr 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokapurr (talkcontribs)

This link has been posted on a dozen or so pages; it is WP:LINKSPAM. It is WP:NOR (which of course includes original synthesis in its scope). As the OP notes: "It's original to put something together…and do it on a map". It contravenes WP:ELNO #11 and #13.
As a side point to the issue here, but one which the OP raised: User:MarnetteD is an editor in good standing with a particular knowledge of movies, theatre and actors; making an accusation of stalking for editing in these related pages is, at best, tendentious. The intimation that MarnetteD is unsympathetic to female editors is particularly nonsensical: the contributor has particular concern for proper representation of gender on Wikipedia. Example (one of many) here.
It is a requirement to warn editors named on this page. This has not been done; I found this by chance, while checking the OP's contributions for more spamlinks.
--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
User talk:MarnetteD now updated.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
As one of three editors that have tried to explain to this editor the problems with their adding to their own work as an EL to various articles I will simply provide links this discussion Talk:Ian McKellen#inclusion of Coriolanus: an idea map and this one User talk:Ashokapurr#June 2012 2. We have given very specific links to the relevant policies regarding the problems with the links to their material.
The violations of WP:CIVIL in the accusations regarding stalking and gender bias are unfortunate and are not relevant to the problem. But I will address them quickly by stating that if they are referring to my status as a Wikipedia:Talk page stalker then they might want to read the disclaimer at the top of that article which states "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." If there is some other spot on WikiP that I am identified as a stalker then please provide a link to that so that I may address the situation. I have no gender bias and I respect editors anonymity as much as anyone. Indeed, I had no idea what this editors gender was until this thread was opened. If you note my post on their talk page I have given them encouragement in their pursuits off wiki so I think that it is unfortunate that they have ended their post here by playing the "victim card" before receiving any responses. I am also open to input from other editors, especially if I am misinterpreting any of the Wikipedia policies that I have highlighted. MarnetteD | Talk 11:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am the third editor who has removed these external links. As Marnette states, the reasoning (which is well set forth by Old Moonraker) has been fully explained to Ashokapurr, and she simply doesn't get it. I've also explained, as the link to her Talk page reflects, that if she doesn't voluntarily remove these links from the other articles (if any still remain), additional action may be required. Finally, Ashokapurr's digressions into stalking and gender bias are wrong, misguided, distracting, and irrelevant to the issues, which is the only thing we should be focusing on. I'm willing to make allowances for new editors not understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not willing to make allowances for annoying and unsubstantiated attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fascinating that all these editors have removed a link to a map made by a woman that finds a new way to include all sorts of information, fully referenced. I don't know what the structure of wikipedia is, but I would like to hear from someone, some people, a senior editor? someone who has not participated in all these deletions and is not good friends with those who have. How is it fair for editors involved in controversies to arbitrate on the controversy they're involved in? (which is what is happening here)

I won't be linking to the map again, but I very much would like to hear from independent arbitration, if there is such a thing on wikipedia. I keep hearing about how wikipedia wants women editors. I'm a woman. I linked to something unusual in its presentation, but fully referenced, and it's been summarily deleted repeatedly. The map is made by an individual, but when I and other editors add information to wikipedia, does it matter who we are? When we're writing wikis or adding to them, aren't we basically doing what this mapmaker did: sharing our interest and research into something and providing citations? The only difference here is that the mapmaker made the map alone, just like many of the people who produce material referenced on wikis every day. What kind of material? Articles, books, TV interviews, radio interviews, etc.

Why is this map any different? All the links go to the original sources.

I'm pondering my future on wikipedia after this experience. I would be grateful for some INDEPENDENT thought and assessment on this situation. Thank you.

--AshokaPurr 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - the reasons to add the link to several wikis and why:

Coriolanus - obvious

Coriolanus (film) - obvious

Coriolan overture - this piece of music was written for Coriolnaus, the man, who is central to the exploration the map undertakes

Ralph Fiennes - obvious

Ilan Eshkeri - he wrote the soundtrack to the film, and is in some ways Beethoven's heir. It's been lauded fairly revolutionary because it's so minimalist. Eshkeri's particular innovation was his choice to pickup military themes by using solo trumpet. It's really really different to what Beethoven did, which was all about the Big Hero. That's why I put it on his wiki.

Corioli - Part of the map explores where this place was and where it might be today. Fascinating stuff, and again, many of the references are not in the wiki.

Vanessa Redgrave - I think I covered my thoughts on this on Vanessa Redgrave's talk page. None of you seem to think her work on this film mattered very much to her or her career. I disagree. Why is that a problem for you?

Gerard Butler: His performance is amazing, and this was his first leading film role in a Shakespeare film. He himself talks about this and what it meant to him to be working with people like Redgrave and Cox. Aufidius and the homoeroticism between him and Coriolanus is central theme in the play - again Butler talks about it in the map, so does Fiennes - as does Ian Mckellen. The fact that it all ends in such incredible violence and Coriolanus betrayal and death AND Gerard Butler is like one of the world's biggest action heros is also relevant.

Toby Stephens - several tabs in the map look at how his stage performance affected the evolution of how the role has been played since, especially the use of blood. At the time it was literally done to help ticket sales - again, all this is attributed on the map. Also, there's some great interviews with him - also on the map - where he talks about playing Coriolanus and what it was like and how he found the character.

Brian Cox - as Menenius, he plays Coriolanus' political advisor. He does a phenomenal job of capturing that role of trying to back the right horse - politician - but being in the unenviable position of having to speak the truth to power...and realizing he can't. Several people - including him! - have commented on the play's relevance to contemporary politics. He talks about the crowd in the map, and he also talks about what it was like working with Fiennes and Redgrave.

Vanessa Redgrave - I've written about that on her wiki's talk page.

Thanks, --AshokaPurr 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR is a guide to dispute resolution at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is part of the Dispute Resolution process.
The general rule is that if there's any question about an external link, then it is removed. (See WP:ELBURDEN.) Personally, I don't see much value in this particular map, although it's kind of interesting.
A "talk page stalker" is just wiki-slang for someone else replying on other person's user talk page. For example, if you ask a question on my talk page, and someone else sees it before I do and knows the answer, then they might answer it, so you don't have to wait until I can answer it myself. But to make sure you notice that someone else is answering it, the other person might label their comment as being from a "talk page stalker".
If you are interested in women's issues, then you might want to join WP:WikiProject Women's history, a group of people interested in improving articles about women's history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a link to a TED talk on YouTube acceptable?

I added a link to the biographical subject giving a TED talk about her experiences. TED is a famous series of talks for the general public. The TED talk is posted on YouTube. The link was stripped out. Is this link to a TED talk not an appropriate link to bring the availability of the talk to the attention of readers? DRPeterJDavies (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The link was removed by an automated bot. If you think it made a mistake, you can simply revert it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this book an acceptable external link?

Arana-Southern Treaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's being argued that this book doesn't fit for an external link in the Arana-Southern Treaty because it doesn't mention the the topic at all. However, pages 101 to 161 contain official documents from the Government of Buenos Aires in relation to the Arana-Southern treaty, to which the documents calls "the Convention of Peace" for obvious reasons (it still lacks the historical perspective). They include a series of letters related to the arrival of Henry Southern to Argentina, the acceptance of him as HBM's representative, and the diplomatic interchange that followed.

So the question is, would it fit as an external link? Would you recommend it? --Langus (t) 17:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Books are rarely listed as external links. It's far more common to list them as WP:FURTHERREADING. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it makes sense. I'll look into it. Thank you! --Langus (t) 23:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed an external link to Overtown: Inside/Out from Overtown (Miami), and the user who first added it has added it again, with a comment on my talk page. I think the user is acting in good faith, but I feel that the site is, at best, marginal under ELNO. I am looking for third opinions on this, and will go along with whatever results from this notice. -- Donald Albury 00:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a personal web page—it includes the owner's personal blog—and therefore contravenes WP:ELNO #11 --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Million-Day Calendar

I approach this matter with an adverse initial impression of Wikipedia's processes. Perhaps this attempt will correct that impression. I mention it as background, for any who review the remarks so far.

The adverse initial impression is that, along with a number of positive, content-oriented editors, Wikipedia has somehow picked up a large number of editors -- lawyers, perhaps, or wannabe lawyers -- who fixate upon technical rules at the expense of substantive content. It has been frustrating, on multiple occasions, to discover that such individuals appear to have made Wikipedia hostile to relevant knowledge. I do agree that rules can tame a chaotic mess. Unlike these individuals, however, I also appreciate that suppression and silencing are especially conducive to orderliness.

In the present instance, it appears that valid, defensible content is being rejected by people who do not actually know, or care, about the subject to which I attempted to contribute. The rationale for deleting the proposed external link is not that it is irrelevant, for example, or obviously wrong. The rationale is based, rather, on a set of rules that, in the first place, can appear byzantine to the uninitiated. Wikipedia appears to have adopted the tacit principle that one cannot add content (or must accept that such content will be removed) unless one has first mastered a bewildering collection of guidelines and procedures. Whatever their merit, this is an obvious barrier to entry. People who care about their subject, but not about jurisprudential trivia, are apt to be somewhat deterred from contributing. Such deterrence could be demonstrated easily enough. To do so, Wikipedia need only provide an honest warning of the risks of contributing: that doing so may lead to the sort of time-wasting distraction in which I find myself presently engaged, for instance.

I say "time-wasting" because, in my impression thus far, Wikipedia is largely immune to substance-oriented reasoning. I have already presented, to the editors involved in the present instance, an objection to Wikipedia's prioritization of procedural arcana. The editors were not merely unmoved; one proceeded to offer gratuitous ridicule. In other words, I assume these two editors understand Wikipedia's procedures well enough to feel confident that other Wikipedia insiders who read these words will generally share their views. Basically, y'all do not seem to care much about providing useful information to users, not if there is some rule that will give you an excuse to reject it. Wikipedia's content appears to exist despite, not because of, your efforts. This impression seems to be confirmed by the faultfinding labels you have attached at the start of many Wikipedia articles.

The situation is very simple. In my present impression, Wikipedia is presently built upon an approach that gives power to editors focused on superficial style and internal procedure rather than upon substantive content and service to the public. Wikipedia would be a better place if the busybodies who devote themselves to this trivia would instead roll up their sleeves and contribute to the product. For instance, if they believe that an external link should instead be in the Reference section, why don't they just move it themselves? Other than their personal gratification, who or what is served by the brainless deletion of useful content?

Again, I recognize that I am probably talking to a wall. If Wikipedia's people understood this sort of thing, it would not be necessary to say it here; it would be obvious throughout interactions like those that I have had with Wikipedia editors. I will post this on my blog, for the benefit of others who share my frustration, and will perhaps have some intelligent exchanges of views there.

Having expressed those substantial reservations based on prior experience, I proceed nonetheless to give it one more try. The gist of the foregoing paragraphs is that Wikipedia errs in assuming that ordinary users should, or will, fight their way through the bureaucratese in order to contribute helpful information. In the real world, people will, and they do, post it elsewhere instead. I understand, from another page, that I was supposed to express this frustration here. I have now done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raywood (talkcontribs) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Julian calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Any recommendations regarding an addition to the article should be at Talk:Julian calendar. Nothing posted above is helpful to establish that yet another external link should be added to an article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
For reference, the links that are being referenced above by Raywood (talk · contribs) are:
The first link (to their personal blog) was added June 5th; the second link, which contains substantially the same text mirrored from their blog, pus a download file, was added July 3rd.
In both cases, the material being linked is his self-published blog[67] discussing how he build a cross-reference table. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Passionately arguing that external links falling far short of our requirements should be on an article anyway is not valid justification. No offense, but everybody who creates a personal website believes it's the best thing since buttered toast. DreamGuy (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, external links are not "content". Content is characterized by sentences and paragraphs and images directly in the article. Links to leave the encyclopedia are not encyclopedia content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


See also - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikimapia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been commenting links to Wikimapia because of concerns about their status as a reliable source (and I've already asked for feedback about that on the appropriate noticeboard)

As well as being used in places as a questionable form of citation, Links to the Wikimapia site also appear in the External Links sections.

I feel that in a number of situations use of these links might fall with the criteria for Links to be avoided.

(On Criteria 1). Wikimapia provides potted summaries and geo-location data - Both of these can be provided directly in a Wikipedia article of FA grade, the {{Coord}} template allowing for linkage to a number of mapping/imagery providers as opposed to a single propriatery system.

(On Criteria 2 &3). Wikimapia being a wiki, is user contributed, thus it has the same limitations as Wikipedia on the accuracy of it contents. Whilst there is now a clear process for removal of 'bad-data', the accuracy of Wikimapia remains untested.

(On Criteria 12). Wikimapia is a wiki-based site, although it needs user to register to modify it's dataset. The concern here would be how robust Wikimapia policy is in respect of removing obvious vandalism, and data stability.

(On Criteria 15). Wikimapia is already listed within the GeoHack tool (alongside other providers).

In addition to the above criteria, concerns have been expressed over portions of the dataset being 'derived' in part from a Base Layer, which is provided by Google. An attempt to determine what the licensing relationship between Google (the provider of the Base Layer) and Wikimapia (user generated content) has not been satisfactorily resolved.

On this basis I feel justified in commenting Wikimapia links or asking for additional citations. What do other contributors think? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Any one of these issues would bar Wikimapia as an EL, or as a source for that matter. The catalog of ineligibilities listed above puts it beyond doubt: WP:ELNO. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, but I was wanting a consensus :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I regularly delete such links when I notice them, citing ELNO criterion 15 (assuming that the articles are properly geotagged; if they aren't, I geotag them). I also agree that Wikimapia isn't a reliable source. Deor (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I've certainly used Wikimapia for co-ordinates for a destination when using my GPS, and I've always found the location to be there when I arrive. So, in what way is Wikimapia not a reliable source? Are you suggesting that a co-ordinate shown on Wikimapia is inaccurate and/or misleading? If so, experience shows that such suggestion is invalid. JohnArmagh (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
For reference the usages are here -* Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't use Wikimapia what DO you use for map references? OpenStreetMap? It has no location specific URL you can link to and NO satellite map function so just how would you go about referring to things that aren't on a street, eg a scuba diving site? I have spent many hours adding and correcting Wikimapia so the links I use are as accurate as the Wikipedia entries that refer to them. Should we stop linking to other Wikipedia articles which, as you point out, "is user contributed, thus it has the same limitations ... on the accuracy of it contents"? --Ahalin (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You use 'reliable sources' and cite the maps concerned directly. Maps published by 'diving associations' are probably your best bet for these. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I cite Wikimapia? The diving association maps for Timor-Leste are basically stylised drawings, so not reliable or accurate other than in a general sense, and they are the proprietrary property of the commercial dive operators. The Wikimapia links in Dive Sites of Timor-Leste are based on "ground truth", that is I and many other divers have been to and confirmed these places, seen them with our own eyes, measured their distance from known points (eg the capital), taken GPS fixes and dived on the underwater features that can be seen in Wikimapia (courtesy of Google) satellite images. Can't get more accurate than ground truth and a satellite image because topography doesn't move! --Ahalin (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
PS, I notice Wikimedia contains links to Google Maps and Google Earth!!

--Ahalin (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Can I cite Wikimapia?" No. The reliable sources noticeboard gave a pretty clear answer to that. The reason you can't is that Wikimapia is a self-published source, it is a source that lacks sufficient editorial control to meet the reliable sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, it sounds as though you want to cite Wikimapia because you've added your own original research there. That's no different from adding it directly in Wikipedia and is a good example of the reason why it's not an acceptable source here. Deor (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Wikimapia's licsneing, I'm not sure where on Wikipedia to raise that, but it does need to be considered..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about WikiMapia as an external link or reference, but why are you removing so many internal links to the article, Sfan00 IMG? What's the problem with having a link to the article in List of wikis or List of online map services? It looks as if you're trying to orphan the article. - Eureka Lott 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, you have essentially orphaned the article, as there are currently a total of two mainspace links pointing to the page. You even nominated some redirects for deletion. What's going on here? - Eureka Lott 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is no concern about internal links, I've got no objection to reinstatement of those, and I've reinstated

some I've found in my contributions, history. If you want to challange any more of them, please list them below.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." - wikimapia provides a stable link zoomed in to the object, and appears to be confirmed by the satelite view across multiple platforms;
"4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." are you saying that wikimapia is not a knowledgable source? what evidence do you have to support that claim? do you have any evidence to support your "concerns"?
"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." would you agree that the wikimapia information is neutral and accurate? do you have any evidence it is not?
i'm concerned about your mass deletion of links without consensus. have you registered your semi-automated deletions? will you now delete the gps coords since they are unreferenced? what gps reference would you accept, since wikimapia and open street map appears to be the only ones? if you're concerned about google base layer, why are you deleting open street map and leaving google maps link. Slowking4 †@1₭ 02:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll review the links people mention, given concerns about over-zealous removal. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
@Slowking , you raise valid points, please re-read the start of this thread.
On Point 12 - Wikimapia uses Google's Base layer.. Google Maps is already linked through GeoHack, Additonaly

as pointed out in my inital comments here, the potted summaries at Wikimapia contain material which should be subject to appropriate sourcing be in articles here, although I do concede your view on Point 3. ON Point 4, Wikimapia is user contributed, Can you show that the summaries at Wikimapia are supported by reliable sources other than user contributions?.

In relation to GPS data, Acceptable sources are : Those published by the entities concerned, Those published by 'authoratative sources' such as Government maps or datasets. I've not removed the coordinates (not least because certain contributors would get even angrier about that), because it was intended that by tagging the pages as {{Coord unsourced}} other Wikipedians would be able to source the co-ordinates to credible 'multiple' sources. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think that after all my work, spending months on end updating the details of over one thousand entries in the lists of monastic houses in England, Wales and Scotland, including giving the geographical coordinates for the sites of each, only to have to go back over it all and put inline citations showing whether I got them from PastScape or whatever then you are seriously on the way to being certifiable. By all means put your label onto every such article or list, but this particular editor does not intend to address the issue. Get some other damned donkey to do it. Life's too short. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: what other beaurocratic inanity is next in the pipeline? Will you be expecting citations that a photograph in an article is actually a photograph of what it purports to be? Where does it end? JohnArmagh (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Another point - Until 1600 yesterday, I wasn't fully removing the links, merely commenting them out. At that time, the consensus seemed to be moving in the direction of removal, hence the change to link removal. If you like I can start re-instating links as comments from that point onward. I would however STRONGLY suggest that someone other than me reviews every single Wikimapia link. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Two points on Sfan00's views on Wikimapia links, if I may:

1. A satellite image is completely reliable (or as reliable as any digital picture can be): mountains, rivers and oceans do NOT move, unlike artist impressions of land and streets (eg Openstreetmap). The information people overlay on it could lack credibility (eg your comment "anyone can put a place in Russia in the middle of the ocean") but that is what collaboration overcomes: Users/admins see the errors and correct them, like Wikipedia.
2. One person supported your views on links to Wikimapia. That is not consensus.

Agree concerns about GPS data (a US Govt proprietary system?) and a lat/long (how do you cite a lat/long from an "authoritative source"??) - neither are much good unless overlaid on a credible map, that users are allowed to link to. A satellite image, a compass and someone who knows how to navigate actually "walking the ground" (ie, being there) are a reliable start point.

Wikimapia satellite images are a good resource, better than any artist's impression. Let's just cite it/Google when linking, just like Wikimedia's links to Google Maps and Google Earth.

--Ahalin (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Although this is not a vote, it's a misrepresentation so say that there is only one editor supporting Sfan00's position. For those actually following the thread three, not one, seems to be the number. One point is that, as the site exists as a platform for user-generated content (and I have an account there), it cannot be used as an external link because of WP:ELNO #12. Another refers to #15, that only allows links through coordinates. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Yes, I support the position that neither Wikimapia nor any other single mapping service should be linked to in external-links sections. Sfan00, however, is now going so far as to remove coordinates from geotagged articles. I do not support that course of action at all. Deor (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely that would need fixing at Template talk:GeoTemplate, if anywhere. The coordinates support many functions besides Wikimapia, and they need to remain. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The disscussion on the "other noticeboard" came to a conclusion that WikiMapia wasn't a reliable source, which was why

the coordinates were being removed. I also note the following [68].

Basicly the OSM Community position is that capturing GeoCodes from Google (and by extension WikiMapia) isn't permitted unless Google says so. I've not found anything in the Google's Terms to say they allow GeoCode capture from their imaging (and by extension WikiMapia).

US and UK rules on factual database rights differ (In the US simple fact isn't copyrightable), However, the use of Google(or Wikimapia) derived coordinates would in my view create potential problems for some downstream users (because of Google's ToU), which although the coordinates in the relevant articles have been added in Good faith, is not in my view consistent with the aims of 'free' content project. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(Note) A previous disscusion on using coordinates from copyright sources was here - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Owing to certain comments in threads elsewhere, it appears that no consensus exists. I'm therfore reverting most of my attempted cleanup efforts, If other people feel WikiMapia links are not sutiable, please convince the rest of WikiPedia first.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This Wikimapia thing has spread across several threads. Can someone provide a list of them, please. I might consider an RfC. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is what I know of so-far on this Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

About ELNO #12, "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", above: the "stability" here isn't about the URL working. It's about whether vandalism gets reverted and edit wars stopped. In other words, if someone goes to the page, we want a good chance that they'll be looking at the same page (or an improved version) that our editors approved when they linked it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)