Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 14

YouTube links for every episode of a series

Could I get a third opinion on the "YouTube Links" column at Comedy Nights with Kapil#Guests on the show? User:GIZMOFY added them, I removed them as "WP:LINKSTOAVOID #7: does not appear accessible in US. Also generally fails for overlinking to specific items when already have main link for topic". GIZMOFY asked me why and I responded (User talk:DMacks#Comedy Nights with Kapil), then he re-added them without further comment. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be the wrong one to respond here .. I never see reason why episodes have to be linked to their YouTube upload, like I don't see why songs, even when published on YouTube by the performing artist have to be linked (discographies with whole lists of linked songs on YouTube). I find that a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Is the song/episode notable, then it has an own article with information about the song / episode, otherwise it is just listed. People are very light with YouTube, but it still needs software to be installed (which most people have), it takes bandwidth (we don't all have high-speed internet), it is (sometimes) inaccessible to a large number of readers (I have because of my location limited access to YouTube, and sometimes no access whatsoever - now, the first part must also be said of Wikipedia ..). And as you say, some material is even 'locationally locked' (only available in one country, where people in US can see something, and those in the UK or India can not). Then there is the issue that text is universal, and one should be able to use text to write everything down. I know, an image, or a linked video, tells more than 100 words, but they are, often, useless for those who have to rely on text-only (blind people, e.g.) - so the text should be sufficient in itself already, sometimes making the additional media superfluous.
Every now and then this issue comes up, people insist in having everything linked just because it is there and available .. but YouTube links are to be avoided (WP:YOUTUBE, which does not include all info), and under strict inclusion standards.
Yes, the youtube links to every episode of the show are non-encyclopedic... and moreover, the section itself is about to become non-encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR. It is not enough that the guest might be Notable i.e. have a wikipedia page, and that the show might be Notable i.e. have a wikipedia page: the individual episode must be Notable for some reason. .... hang on a minute.... yup, ignore what I just said. Actually, when I look at how wikipedia works in practice, it seems like your exhaustive guest-list is just fine, by community standards if not strictly by policy. The youtube links are probably not fine, however, unless the videos are licensed CC:BY:SA, or GFDL, or somesuch. If the youtube videos are copyrighted, in the USA or India or whatever, then linking to them is a big no-no, especially linking to them in bulk. But if I were you, I would take a look at the other comedic talkshows already on wikipedia, and see what they do. Prolly the editors of those other pages can give you some solid practical tips, beyond just the youtube question. (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Young Justice Wiki

Nikkimaria has removed an external link to that wiki per WP:ELNO, but I made a little research and I think that site falls under the exception of #12: "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". That wiki is a must register site, so it's protected against anonymous edits and vandalism and its administrators seem to keep tabs on recent edits 24/7 and it has had 1,632 editors overall since 2010. Also, that wiki has 1,142 pages. So it provides more detailed information about the series that you can't possibly find on Wikipedia. That should qualify as a extremely helpful external link. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to it, MorrowStravis? I don't know what website you're talking about. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC) --MorrowStravis (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that those statistics don't include User and Talk pages, MorrowStravis? Looking at recent activity, I only see about 2 editors doing actual article editing, and the rest seems to be people chatting via user pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you can see here 1,637 users made at least one edit, and 794 made at least 5 or more. The show was cancelled so there isn't anything left to do, besides reverting vandalism. And there are no stubs. --MorrowStravis (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Liz - any input? --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that "since 2010" is not a long time, and 1600 users is not a large number, and 794 is certainly not. For me, the exceptions for providing wikis as external links are very very narrow, and can probably be met by less than half a dozen wikis in the whole world (the only ones I can even think of off the top of my head are Memory Alpha and Memory Beta, the first of which is notable enough to even have it's own Wikipedia article). So, no, I don't believe that this is enough to overcome our generally tendency to keep out as many external links as possible. But, if others disagree (I know that I'm on the strict side), I wouldn't fight about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm torn. I don't think it has a "substantial history" but I use daily and consider it a reliable source for the topics it covers (like TV shows). It wouldn't meet RS for a reference/citation but I think it's acceptable as an external link. So, that is a pretty weak, "It's okay by me". It's based on my opinion of its value, not WP policy. Sorry I can't supply a more convincing argument on your behalf. Liz Read! Talk!
Liz and Qwyrxian, what is "substantial history of stability" and why do you say it doesn't have it? From what I can see, vandalism is immediately reverted and anonymous users can't edit, so that reduces the risk of vandalism a lot. Aren't external links supposed to just direct readers to a place where they can find more information about the topic? That would be that wiki. The current external links are to the official site that only has some games and small biographies, the Worlds Finest that only has images and reviews, the IMDb that only has cast and crew stuff and that only has recaps and everything IMDb has. The wiki has much more than that and adds more to this article that WP policy allows it. I get why so many external links for stub wikis were removed by Nikkimaria but this one I don't. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Support putting the youngjustice link back in. The main prohibitions are to sites that contain malware, flash-only or otherwise not-accessibility-friendly content, paywalls/registrationWalls, affliateLinks/trackingLinks/referralSpam, mapsite/bookstore (use wikipedia sourcing tools instead), advertising/product-sites, manufacturerList/supplierList/customerList, promotion/petition-sites, search result-pages, factually-inaccurate-or-unverifiable info, facebook/twitter/etc, usenet/forums/etc, blogs/homepages/fansites ('except those written by a Notable authority'), wikis ('except those with an incredibly stable community of a gargantuanlly massive number of editors' ... paraphrasing here). In general, to qualify as an exception, the target must be especially notable in some way; a blog by LarryZ99 from Anchorage does not qualify, a blog by Noam Chomsky does qualify. Wikis that are notable enough to have their own dedicated page on wikipedia *might* qualify, maybe. In general, to qualify as an exception, the target must be specifically and directly related to the subject of the wikipedia article (not a bunch of information haphazardly piled together); merely being mentioned in the article is not sufficient. Next, it must be likely to remain that way: if it will soon become a dead link, or a parked domain, then it is not a good candidate. But the key criteria is this: if the wikipedia article were improved to the point where it was a Featured Article, fully fleshed out and polished... would you *still* link to the external site, from that hypothetical super-article? Does the target provide a Unique Resource, beyond what wikipedia-the-repository-of-encyclopedic-content is ever going to contain? If so, and if the target is clearly going to be around for the long term, and is specifically and directly related to the topic of the article in question, put the link back in. You say that the site provides more detailed info than wikipedia -- but that is not enough. It must provide a unique resource, which is to say, info that never *will* be part of some hypothetical *complete* and finished wikipedia. That is a much higher standard. Are there any Notable people (directors/writers/animators/voiceActors/similar) that are editing that wiki? That would help. Anyways, you are probably safe to add the site back... if you think that the current set of editors will stick around for the next five years, keeping out spam and such, and that the domain will not get de-registered. Note that I agree with Qwyrxian that youngjustice.wikia *fails* to qualify as a notable external wiki -- the reason I think it qualifies is because it provides a Unique Resource that will never qualify as encyclopedic content (wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow list of the plotlines of every show in a television series). Of course, I've only read three pages on the target, ever... but if you've thought it over, and decide that the site qualifies as a Unique Resource and/or as a Fansite By Notable People, then go with your best judgement. HTH. (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I put back the link and Nikkimaria took it out again and said "not supported by discussion". Qwyrxian said he is against but won't mind if others disagree. Liz said she thinks the link is acceptable as external link, User talk: supports it and so do I. How is that "not supported by discussion"? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)And Greg Wiseman edits there Doesn't that make it "a notable wiki"? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh, not supported by discussion!  :-)    Sorry about the sarcasm, could not resist. No harm intended, nor any offense. But if I may gently point out, Nikkimaria has not posted here, so quite obviously, no discussion including *them* has supported the controversial reinstatement of the link. In other words, it is not supported by discussion#B, which is not this discussion#A that you and I are having here on this noticeboard page. As for the Greg Wiseman thing, that does not make it a notable wiki, because notability is non-transferrable. If my little brother has their own wikipedia page, that does not make *me* notable. Individual pages of the young justice wiki, which were edited solely by Greg Wiseman, could be used as sources, in support of wikipedia sentences about which Greg Wiseman has expertise. Of course, as I understand it anybody can register and edit the YJW, so in fact only *diffs* of edits made by username-greg-wiseman would be suitable sources for wikipedia articles, and even then, only if nobody challenged the idea that username-greg-wiseman and Notable humanoid Greg Wiseman were in fact one and the same! Short answer: nope, sorry, Wiseman's participation is not relevant, at least, as I grok things. As for the budding edit war over whether the EL belongs or not, I'll try coming over to where NikkiMaria and you are working, and see if I can broker a peace treaty.  :-)   Feel free to ping me on my talkpage if you wish, or if I fail to respond promptly. Thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Didn't understand most of what you said. What is discussion#B? I messaged Nikkimaria when i started this. There's no other discussion about this. And you asked "Are there any Notable people (directors/writers/animators/voiceActors/similar) that are editing that wiki? That would help.". Weisman edits there. --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is still that it doesn't meet the exception for wikis, because I believe that the exception is meant to be read extremely narrowly. But I have no intention of either removing it if added, since I don't care all that much. However, I think that Nikkimaria is correct to remove that link; in the case of a disputed EL, there needs to be a clear, strong consensus to include it; in all other cases (including a split discussion like this) the default must be to keep it out. Since this discussion isn't getting so much traffic, you may want to try an RfC on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I did it now. --MorrowStravis (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry my explanation was faulty. I'll try again here, and I'll try to keep it brief. ((Later update: I lied. But I think this longer explanation is more clear.)) When you were reverted by NikkiMaria with 'not supported by discussion' she was implicitly referring to "discussion#B" which is over here now -- Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)#RfC:_Should_a_link_to_Young_Justice_Wiki_be_included.3F.
in which there is a discourse, on the interaction between someone new to wikipedia, and the legendary WikiKnight, whose exploits are known far and wide, plus the wise local elders of Article
    You went to NikkiMaria's talkpage, and gave her a link to *this* discussion here, which she just ignored! Oh how could she! Well... see WP:REQUIRED. She wasn't being mean... she's just busy. Not very WP:NICE, you might say, but from what I can tell, her main interest is WikiKnight work, protecting wikipedia. She does not have a lot of time, as you can see from her super-full talkpage, and may not be interested in the article at all... but she *is* trying to improve wikipedia, so don't be too hard on her. (Hint: if you want a personal response, then it helps to leave a personal note... your use of the template-reminder was perfectly legit, but it can also be more easily ignored... but of course, per WP:REQUIRED, even personal notes are sometimes ignored, or simply replied to with sorry-too-busy.)
    As an aside, we're short-handed in the WikiKnight department right now, too short for the personal touch, and methinks the reason we don't have enough WikiKnights to go around is *because* of that lack of personal touch, it is quite difficult to become a wikipedian nowadays. *That* is my main interest, WP:RETENTION, helping make it easier to become a wikipedian, and when possible, helping people over their hurdles personally. If she were not so busy, here it what I wish NikkiMaria would have said when she deleted your contribution:

"Hi there MorrowStravis, thanks for improving wikipedia. I'm a busy WikiCop aka WikiKnight, fighting pork and visigoths and such, which clearly is NOT you... but I temporarily deleted your link (OH NOHZ! but don't panic), because as you may not yet be aware, the customary tradition hereabouts is that, before you put in an external link, you have to go to the article-talkpage and justify yourself to the wizened regulars who are interested in the article, like Jack and whoever else shows up. If nobody objects then put your link right back in please ...which is to say, specifically, that *I* NikkiMaria the WikiKnight will not be objecting any further, once you follow the customary traditions and discuss this addition of an external link on the article-talkpage... but please consider that *maybe* somebody who is a regular editor of the article and thus a subject-matter expert *will* have some kind of valid reasonable objection, so better give them a chance to discuss it, please, and reach consensus about what is best for the article, and best for wikipedia herself. I'm off to battle the Bad Guys, have a silver bullet! Call me if you spot eeevviilll anywheres!<exit stage right>"

So, kinda nutty, right? The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is slowly turning into the encyclopedia where anyone can request permission and jump through a bunch of hoops to edit. Sigh. I'm working on it! In the meantime, you now have your very own customary traditional justified-by-policy talkpage-discussion, requesting permission from the locals, for inserting your external link. You also have one-and-a-half 'support' votes already, one from yourself and one-subject-to-consensus from me, with zero 'against' votes ... because NikkiMaria, by ignoring your talkpage message about this discussion#A, has implicitly withdrawn her objection. We are good with the WikiKnights, in other words.
    If anybody *responds* to discussion#B over on the article-talkpage, and says they decline, or says they don't believe it follows policy such-and-such, then discuss the problem with them, and work out something neutral that everybody is happy with. See WP:NPOV which is pillar two. In particular, please DO NOT say, if somebody objects, that you're putting the link in anyways, because one-and-a-half votes in favor beats one vote against, see WP:CONSENSUS, article-content is not decided by voting. On the other hand, hey, if nobody shows up for three days, then go ahead and put the link back in, mentioning in your edit-summary that your addition is "per talkpage consensus and the one-major-fansite exception to WP:LINKFARM policy" which will alert any WikiCops who happen to be passing by that you are following the written and unwritten customs.
    If you do, and somebody deletes you, again, well, no biggie, just leave a personal note on their talkpage, referring them to the article-talkpage, and wait another three days. If all this sounds like it takes forever... sorry, it does. Wikipedia is for the ages. The wheels of WikiJustice grind slow, but they grind fair, and usually they grind fine.
    However, while you are waiting for the discussion#B of your ELNO exception to be finished, feel free to occupy yourself in any way you like. There are plenty of holes in the Young Justice article, that might need help from a subject-expert like yourself. Even me, who knows little about the series, *I* found an obvious bug right off the bat: the wfOnline link in the external link section goes to the main homepage of that site via some redirect, *not* to the young-justice portion where it is supposed to deeplink. But hey, I didn't fix the problem... which is my right per WP:REQUIRED... however which is not my usual technique, but this time, I left it for some budding Wikipedian to fix, and get their username in good with the local elders....  :-) hint hint
    Anyways, MorrowStravis, sorry about my huge walls-of-text, it is a disease. If you don't understand *this* message either, come to my talkpage with your questions, or if you think somebody, ummm, less verbose might be able to give you answers more quickly, you can always use WP:TEAHOUSE, or pick any editor from the list of WP:RETENTION members, or click on the 'Community Portal' button over on the lefthand side, which has links to the Librarians aka refdesk, the Tutors aka helpdesk, and other cool stuff. As I say, though, please feel free to ask me personally, about YoungJustice stuff, or any other concerns. Hope this finds you well, hope your wiki-link will soon be improving the mainspace article, and hope you stick around to become a wikipedian. There are a bunch of rules... but really, there are only five, and I edited wikipedia for *years*, never reading anything except that one page of rules and policies and WikiPolitics... when in doubt, remember pillar five, my friend. Thanks for improving wikipedia. (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm more clarified, but there was no disscussionB when Nikki undid my edit. I only started it after that. The only discussion was discussionA. So why wasn't my edit supported by that discussion? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well... the short answer, is that Nikki was specifically-albeit-implicitly meaning to refer to article-talkpage-discussion-with-the-local-elders, which you and I just started (you on the 28th, me with the first comment today, now we give it 3 days since ELNO is potentially-controversial per our good advice from NikkiMaria). There is 'your' edit, just recently, right? But then, there are the many older content-identical edits! For instance, this one,[1] by one of the local elders Jack, who removed *both* the YoungJusticeWikia and the WorldsFinestOnline links, based on the methinks-misguided idea that *no* fansites should be linked. Somebody named 181 reverted Jack's WP:BOLD edit,[2], and then Jack said to take it to the talkpage... but 181 never did. Hence, just like NikkiMaria says, any similar edit is 'not (yet) supported by (article talkpage) discussion (with Jack and other local elders)'. That was back in 2012, long before you made a similar edit, right? Jack is prolly not correct in removing both, policy says otherwise, and I quoted the relevant one-major-fansite sentence on the article-talkpage. But remember pillar five, WP:IAR, maybe Jack has a good reason for thinking neither one belongs. We ask him... or someone... over on the talkpage. Maybe *both* links belong. WP:IAR, whatever improves wikipedia -- as a reliable neutral encyclopedia -- is not just permitted, it's mandatory.  :-)
Let me know if you'd like shorter answers, rather than novellas. Here is the wikiJargon, and the wikiCycle, as it usually manifests.
    Rather than call them A and B, we can use their wiki-jargon. This discussion here is discussion#A, which is on EL/N, the external links noticeboard. There is also a discussion#B, which we just started on the Young-Justice-TV-series-article-talkpage. Usually, whenever somebody says 'discussion' what they specifically mean is discussion-on-the-talkpage, and that almost always means the article-talkpage. In this case, of course, the Young-Justice-TV-series is the article, but you'll often hear "take it to the talkpage" or something, which means, the article talkpage by default. When somebody is talking about user-talkpages, they'll be grammatically possessive: my talkpage, your talkpage, our talkpages. The article-talkpage is shared territory, see WP:OWN. The EL/N is also shared territory, usually referred to as a noticeboard.
    So, jargon out of the way.... Normally, taking it to the noticeboard is done *much* later in the sequence; but, you are still learning the ropes, no problemo. Taking it here early is common, which is partly why WP:RETENTION folks like Liz and I sometimes hang around the noticeboards. Here is the usual sequence -- WP:BRD -- which says, MorrowStravis adds the link to the article in mainspace, if somebody dislikes it they revert that action, and then the two of them discuss the reasoning on the article-talkpage, or perhaps on one of their personal talkpages... but article-talkpage is vastly preferable, in case other people interested in the article want to chip in their two euros. Now, what happened in your case was that NikkiMaria intervened, and performed the phase-two-revert... but she was not actually doing it because she disagreed with the action, based on her knowledge of the subject... she was doing it on general principles. You were inserting an ELNO, and there was no discussion on the article talkpage first. Naturally, you went to her personal talkpage, which is fine, but she didn't understand your reference to EL/N, an figured somebody else would deal with your query. (Which is happening, so NikkiMaria's assumption proved correct, and the WikiJustice system worked, albeit slower than I'd like. Better if she directly sent you to WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RETENTION in her original edit-summary, which was too terse.)
    Anyhoo, we are in phase-three now, discuss, over on the article-talkpage where we belong. If three days from now, nobody has made any comment, we reset the sequence... and you are once again WP:BOLD and stick the link into the mainspace article under External Links, with an edit-summary that says 'per talkpage consensus' since nobody has yet objected. We *might* get reverted, per phase two of WP:BRD, at that point, and then phase three begins again, back to the article-talkpage to work it out collaboratively. Normally, that's all: WP:BRD, over and over, improving the articles hermeneutically with each cycle. It gets easier and faster, once you learn how to WP:BOLD in a way that does not trigger somebody's revert-reflex. (External links are inherently tricky to get right, however... too many places trying to spam wikipedia. And technically, YoungJusticeWikiaDotCom *is* a kind of spam... because it has adverts, to pay the bills, right? But that is usually not going to torpedo your external link, as long as it is truly some sort of Unique Resource, with content that will never be in wikipedia as non-encyclopedic, so no worries.)
    In rare cases... like if you edit articles about politics, religion, fringe science, or other Touchy Controversial Subjects... you have editors that *cannot* manage to agree, the talkpage consensus cannot be achieved, and folks come to the noticeboards to ask for help/mediation/negotiators/etc. If you get into a squabble with another editor, keep cool, WP:NICE at all times, WP:NPA, use logic and reason, and *before* anybody loses their temper, ask for help at the appropriate noticeboard. Do not edit-war, them reverting you and you reverting them and so on. In this YJW case, the correct noticeboard would be EL/N right here, but I doubt you'll come back here for this one, it seems pretty uncontroversial to me. (If you do get stuck, just ping me again, and I'll see if I can help achieve consensus without need for noticeboard traffic.)
    That said, you should never hesitate to come to a noticeboard if somebody is violating one of the five pillars, and won't listen to reason; always use the noticeboards rather than edit-war, or lose your temper, or hold a grudge, or let anything else happen you (or they!) might regret. Wikipedia is serious, but it's fun, too. When it stops being fun, take a break, then call in some help. Often, you can use WP:TEAHOUSE or in some cases WP:RETENTION (just pick a member off the list there), or the very good DR/N aka the (Content-)Dispute-Resolution-Noticeboard. Asking for a third opinion, can usually break the logjam, and get the article improved, and people moved on to productive editing again. Final piece of related advice, before I step off my Survival Manual soapbox: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. An old saying, very applicable to wikipedia. Rather than get stuck in a rut, fighting to make some particular edit stick... or some particular editor Do The Right Thing which all good right-thinking people in this world know they ought to be doing... give yourself a reality check, and see whether some specific candidate edit is Good Enough to be in mainspace... and if so, alrighty-then. Get the edit into the article, to improve it somewhat, and move on. You can always circle back later, and improve things in a new round of WP:BRD, a week or a month or a year afterwards.

Hope this helps. (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A linkfarm. I had removed them, but they were restored by an editor who should know better. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure the software is not Notable? I agree the article at the moment looks bad... but are you arguing for deletion, or for a rewrite into more encyclopedic prose? Among the top 25 hits for the software, I find five 'official' sites, six websites about Raghava (presumably one of the scientists involved?), and several outside-of-India websites specifically mentioning that particular module of that particular software, including , , , and -- plus a bunch of domain names related to bioinformatics, which may or may not be Notable and/or Reliable Sources (I'm not familiar with the field). Can you give a better explanation of what your desired outcome is, here? Thanks. (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you name some names, please, regarding who you are working with, and who you are working against -- or to put it more delicately, please say whom exactly you believe is currently acting contrary to the goals of wikipedia, perhaps unknowingly? The edit-history of the site is confusing, so I cannot easily grok who is trying to put the "contact me at my website" line back into the body repeatedly. Is it just one person, or more than one? Also, the article talkpage seems to be blank... has this conflict been discussed on userpages? ...or simply not at all? (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Michigan hot dog made of spam

User:Kurttodoroff, presumably Kurt Todoroff, great-grandson of one of the possible inventors and heir to the throne of the world-famous Michigan hot dog, is adding external links to his company's website[3] to the Michigan hot dog article. Straightforward WP:LINKSPAM? Blackguard 18:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Templates linking to external databases

Please see my question at Wikipedia talk:External links#Template:UnitedStatesCode regarding the use of templates that link to external sites. In short, is it appropriate to use such templates in article prose, as opposed to references or infoboxes? Depending on the answer to that question, documentation may need to be updated. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There was an external link to an ever-changing list of current crimes in the named community. An editor removed it. Finding that the link adds immeasurably to the understanding of the neighborhood, I restored it. The above editor took it out again. I would like to put it back. The list in question is constantly being updated and so cannot be incorporated into the article. What should be done?GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with removal. What purpose does it serve? The area, according to the article from a quick skim, does not appear to be high crime. Including it seems to imply that it is. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay

G'day, an editor has raised a question about whether or not this external link is appropriate Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre to be placed on the Battle of Milne Bay article. I would like to invite interested parties to join the discussion on the article's talk page here: Talk:Battle of Milne Bay#Facebook links to reputable organization reverts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Being that "editor" mentioned above I will chime in with my view. Facebook is being used by very reputrable research institutions, museums, libraries (including the Library of Congress for institutional purposes. Since those are generally used as notifications of special events, special exhibits, new findings and change often they should never be used as cites. They are not good references, though many will have links to institutional pages that are. They are excellent follow up or further reading sources for a reader that wants to follow a subject and particularly what is going on in an institution covering such subjects. While an external link to Smithsonian might never be useful as an external link in a particular subject an external link to National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution seems suitable for an article on African Art, or one to Naval History & Heritage Command's Facebook page might be appropriate in some general naval history article as it tends to announce new publications and projects. As AustralianRupert noted on the Talk page: "My understanding of the reasons behind the policy outlined at WP:ELNO is that the concern is that such sites have 'user generated content'. Interestingly, Wikipedia also falls into this category" is pertinent, and qualified, in another way. First, unlike Wikipedia, the pages are monitored, moderated and introductions to sections are written by the professional staff and not random users. Second, if anyone has been following the scandal of a certain U.S. Senator plagiarizing from Wikipedia one will know that for Wikipedia to be "banning" Facebook pages of such as the Library of Congress smacks of pot calling the brass kettle black as most news organizations and politicians make the comment with eyes rolling "Wikipedia, of all things . . ." I also pose this question. Is the intent here to serve those that do read Wikipedia articles, to help them discover more? Or is it really a semi cult of "editors" largely writing for themselves? I have my own doubts about Wikipedia (thus staying largely focused on a narrow and under covered area on the web) but do find it quite useful in one particular respect. Any well done article here contains better links quick to references than many Google searches full of off subject "hits" that must be mined for the gold. Thus I propose Facebook links to recognized institutional pages be acceptable solely for "Further reading" and "External link" sections. Palmeira (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Patriotic Nigras Link

Hello, I wanted to get some opinions on the following matter involving the website I have made the following points as to why this link shouldn't be acceptable to include in a Wikipedia Article:

  • There is content on the website which violates Linden Labs copyrights. For example their Misuse of the name Second Life and directs to software downloads that are created using unauthorized scripts and materials licensed to Linden Labs however PN has used without permission.
    • Question: Doesn't linking this in a Wikipedia article violate the WP:ELNEVER rule?

--Olowe2011 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Context: For more context on this question please see this ongoing RfC and also note that Olowe2011 has been trying to remove this link on and off for about 1 year now. This WP:COPYVIO claim in fact represents Olowe2011's 4th theory of the case (previously he's tried removing the URL under WP:N, WP:V, and WP:ELNO#3) and his 5th venue (discussions have previously taken place at the article talk page, at AfD, at AN/I, and at the above-linked RfC). The current RfC was initially filed based on WP:ELNO#3 (i.e. Olowe2011's personal speculation that the website was being used to hack readers' computers), and when support for his perspective did not emerge he significantly altered the RfC's basis to that of a WP:COPYVIO claim. Now he's again changed forum to come here to EL/N. It is increasingly apparent that these efforts are being made for private/personal reasons, and not due to concern for Linden Labs or Wikipedia's readers. Olowe2011 would do well to review Wikipedia's policy against forum shopping and to drop the stick. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly Linking to Blog on Talk Pages

User:Pokey5945 repeatedly spams the Talk pages of articles related to F. King Alexander with links to the same blog (this one: The current WP:BLP F. King Alexander Talk page Talk:F. King Alexander (not even including the archives) has seven (7) links to the blog posted by User:Pokey5945, and the Talk:Oxford Round Table Oxford Round Table Talk page has two (2) such links to it posted by User:Pokey5945. The link repeatedly posted is to a blog written by a man who sued F. King Alexander named Brian Lane. The blog in question is an endless rant (written in the third person, for some reason, and often veering into writing many paragraphs in ALL CAPS) that attempts to damage the reputations of the entire Alexander family. The Oxford Round Table is just an education conference started by F. King Alexander's father, Kern Alexander. For whatever reasons, perhaps directly related to his being fired from CSU-Long Beach for stealing scholarship funds while F. King Alexander was their university president, Brian Lane is incredibly fixated on F. King Alexander and his entire family. Here are articles related to Brian Lane and his suing Alexander: Here is a link to Brian Lane's Twitter page that is entirely devoted to speaking ill of past and present administrators at California State University-Long Beach, especially those who were present when Lane was fired. The Twitter account also makes hundreds of libelous statements about the Alexander family: The blog is clearly the work of an unhinged person, and by their repeatedly spamming that link, one would assume that User:Pokey5945 is somehow directly involved with that blog. User:Pokey5945 is simultaneously external link spamming and violating WP:BLP policy by (repeatedly) moving that link to F. King Alexander's Talk page. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true. Every time Aragorn8392 deleted my Talk page comment containing the link, I restored it. Aragorn is under the bizarre impression that editors are not permitted to discuss the validity of online sources on a talk page, and has repeatedly deleted my comment containing said link. Had Aragorn not deleted my comments, I would not have needed to repost the link. Aragorn's comments about the author of the linked cite seem extreme, but whether true or not is irrelevant, since I already agreed that the cite does not meet RS. My only concern here is that I do not want my comments deleted by a dedicated POV-warrior. I would note that sock puppets editing these articles from Champaign-Urbana were banned in 2008, and Aragorn would appear to be the latest incarnation of the Urbana POV gang.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, User:Pokey5945 and other outside editors have agreed that the blog does not meet RS guidelines and could thus not be used to improve the article, yet User:Pokey5945 spams the Talk page of a BLP with links to the blog anyway.
Speaking of "POV-warrior", User:Pokey5945 constantly attempts to make sneaky edits that are meant to be insinuating and violate NPOV. For instance, on the Oxford Round Table article, Pokey5945 is adamant about providing an overly exhaustive corporate history of the ORT in order to propagate their pet theory. User:Pokey5945 says on the Talk:Oxford Round Table page: "I would object to this edit on the grounds that ORT's corporate status changes frequently between for-profit and non-profit, popping up and then dissolving in one jurisdiction after another, suggesting an ongoing attempt to evade taxation...Re the tax evasion, that's my working hypothesis." As an editor, they are trying to insinuate that the conference is some vehicle for tax evasion, but there are no corroborating sources to suggest such a thing. The only source that strongly holds this POV is the blog of Brian Alan Lane, which pops up when you google something like 'oxford round table tax.'
If you look at the user page of User:Pokey5945, you will see that they have an extensive history of edit warring and not following WP:BRD. That they would make creepy comments assuming another editor's location and affiliations is an example of how User:Pokey5945 heavily monitors all content related to F. King Alexander, quickly doing reversions and trying to lock other editors out of the process of editing these articles.--Aragorn8392 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I do seem to attract the attention of editors who like to make wild and unsubstantiated accusations. I will voluntarily delete the extra links, but somehow I doubt that will satisfy Aragorn. Anyone want to take that bet?Pokey5945 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The link doesn't belong on the Talk page of a BLP at all. That does not actually relate to my personal level of satisfaction, it's just WP:BLP policy. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bank Accounts

Links have been added repeatedly [4][5][6][7][8] to International Bank Account Number and Sort Code. The links are to different versions of a site that now offers to take local bank details and provide the IBAN that would be used as the destination code for an international transfer of funds to that account. The sites do not claim to be provided by any bank or banking body and the additions are by a site owner - who has discussed it at Talk:International Bank Account Number[9] - so they may fail WP:ELNO and WP:COI. But worse, I see no way to verify the accuracy or bona fides of the sites. Such a site could be used to harvest bank details, but worse it could provide an incorrect IBAN so that funds would not go to the intended account. I and another editor have tried to remove the links at the first article but they have been re-added and updated. I have just now discovered the links at the second article and wonder if there may be more in other articles. I don't know WP policy and practice well enough. Should the editor be persuaded not to add the links? Would a preventative blacklisting of, and be appropriate? NebY (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes why not remove all external links? we buy because of this change to

Why not remove other links? in IBAN page (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards)???

why not remove

"Bank Account Modulus Checking eSortcode from Up to date Bank Sort Codes from Weekly sort code directory updates available from" ???

that also make 100 post of links in wiki like also

I've now examined and removed many other links you mentioned. They are indeed from other vendors and non-notable sites of uncertain purpose and reliability. But please note, finding other breaches of Wikipedia policy doesn't excuse or justify making similar insertions yourself. Quite the opposite; if you're here to improve the encyclopedia, you work to remove them too. WP:OSE goes into further detail about this principle. But most of all, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your services - see WP:NOTADVERTISING. NebY (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


There have been two deletion discussions about the template {{JoeWiki}}. The first one was closed as "keep", and the second one closed as "no consensus". However, editor Nikkimaria, who was the only opposition to keeping the template in the second discussion, has been removing it from all G.I. Joe articles anyway, citing WP:ELNO. I have discussed this with Nikkimaria and the closer of the discussion, but since there was no consensus to delete the template, it feels to me like she is editing Wikipedia to make a point. If the template was chosen to remain, then shouldn't it remain on all the articles that use that template? Is there any precedent for me to re-add the template to those articles? Fortdj33 (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, the mere existence of such a template does not mean that it is appropriate for use on the articles on which it was included. Compare for example the more general template {{wikia}}: it too was kept at a deletion discussion, and yet it is completely appropriate to remove it where the link it produces violates WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty shocking template (promoting an external site), and there would need to be a good reason to use it. Wikipedia is a strange place, and bad things may be kept because they might be useful, but a good case would need to be made for such a use. It would help to post links to a couple of articles where it is proposed that the template be used. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

User:Srich32977 is inserting the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism as a further reading in a lot of articles that are not really related to libertarianism at all, and many of which already have better coverage of the topic than the article in the encyclopedia - for example Human sexuality, Michel Foucault, BArtolome de las Casas, Salamanca school, Social Darwinism. This looks a lot like promotion or spam to me. As far as I know the further reading sections is for works that can provide indformation that is not already included in the article, or which is somehow of general relevance to the topic. I am checking here to see if people agree with me that this is not an appropriate use of the further reading section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like spam to me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is an External links Noticeboard issue. The Further reading items I am adding have a link to basic page for Google books [10], the ISBN, WorldCat number, and Library of Congress catalogue listing. The book is published by SAGE and the Cato Institute and is a good tertiary source. The particular articles are written by respected university professors and authors. Maunus seems to be saying "don't put that reference in because it is too specialized and has stuff that is somehow outside the topic of the article". But this sort of material, especially if it lets readers know more about a topic, that should go into a WP:FURTHER reading section. If there are objections to particular articles, they should be brought up on the individual article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If it is a good tertiary source for a specific topic then use it as a source. IN all the cases I have reviewed our articles contained more information than the corresponding encyclopedia article, which then does not lets the reader know more than they would be merely reading the wikipedia article. The question of the encyclopedias specialization is relevant because articles are focused on describing the relation between the topics and libertarianism - e.g. Bartolome de las Casas or Human Sexuality may be relevant to Libertarianism, but not necessarily the other way round. In any case inserting the same EL or further reading across many articles tends to be deprecated because it easily looks like promotion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't care to discuss the matter here, we can try WP:ANI. Spamming isn't looked upon kindly there either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago I saw WP:WALL mentioned frequently in discussions involving Austrian economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. So I thought I'd try to expand the topic beyond the wall, and provide more links. This particular encyclopedia, it seems to me, helps in that regard. It has well written articles on a variety of subjects. My plan -- I thought I could simply post the reference in a gnomish pattern. And then the intention is to incorporate the material into articles with more relevance and usefulness. (The gnomish entries also helps keep myself busy rather than engaging in some other ongoing disputes.) So I'm getting some grief at this stage. That's fine. I'll stop adding the article references and focus on incorporation. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is specific information in the encyclopedia that is not already in the article, then adding that information using the encyclopedia as a source should be fine. I think that probably the encyclopedia might be able to provide some additional information about the relevance of topic X to libertarianism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If there is something directly relevant then, yes, mention it in the body of the article. As a FR/EL item, it seems often to be tangential in the extreme. Are we going to link to similar compendia concerning other philosophies - utopianism, socialism, ism-ism? Where do we draw the line, given that no topic exists in a vacuum/everything is somehow connected to other things, especially so in the case of overarching theories of thought. Libertarianism's relationship to these subjects is just one of many possibilities and would best be dealt with in articles relating to libertarianism itself. Surely we don't want to spread the battleground that is libertarianism on Wikipedia to what could well be a huge number of vaguely-connected other articles that we host: we're not here to promote that concept or indeed any other. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Playboy Wiki as an external link in Playmate Lists

NOTE: This is a continuation of a discussion at RS/N, since this is a more appropriate noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been adding external links to the Playboy Wiki for the past year and a half, one per Playmate in Wikipedia's Lists of Playboy Playmates. These links have been replacing previous external links to, which are often broken. Updated links to and all other relevant Playboy sites are incorporated in the Playboy Wiki links. Just within the past week, beginning Dec 7, 2013 Nikkimaria has been deleting these links, citing WP:BLPEL. When asked about the deletions, she claimed that the site was not a "recognized authority", stating that while it "might satisfy the ordinary provisions of WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL has more stringent requirements". Another editor then began a thread at RS/N#Playboy_Wiki in order to discuss Playboy Wiki's status as a reliable source. I made what I think is a comprehensive case for Playboy Wiki's "official" standing and reliability, and answered other questions raised there. However, at least two participants including Nikkimaria thought that "Reliable Sources" was the wrong venue for the discussion and suggested this one instead.

Since that discussion began, Nikkimaria has accelerated attempts to find and delete more Playboy Wiki links, denying my objections regarding "due process" by citing WP:BLP and WP:ELBURDEN. I cannot match such command of the ins and outs of Wikipedia, so I can only hope for a fair hearing here in what she cited as a "correct venue".

Here is my case:

(A) The Playboy Wiki external links are on Wikipedia's Lists of Playboy Playmates. The primary "subject" of such lists is, I submit, which Playmates were chosen by Playboy in a given year. It is not exactly a stretch to say that "Playboy" is the subject of the list at least as much and probably more so than the individual Playmates who appear on it. Nikkimaria, however, chooses to interpret each entry on it as "biography of a living person" and so to apply whatever "higher standards" she is trying to apply. Never mind that not all Playmates, unfortunately, are "living persons"—and I might concede to such standards on a page dedicated exclusively to an individual Playmate living or not—although even there I don't believe that a Playboy link would be inappropriate. But to emphasize WP:BLP standards on the List of Playmates page itself is I believe inappropriate, especially if used as a reason to exclude an otherwise appropriate link. WP:ELNO specifically cites an exception in the case of "an official page of the article's subject". Playboy is a subject of articles entitled "List of Playboy Playmates". Playboy is properly entitled to external links regarding Playmates on such a list.

(B) The status of Playboy Wiki as an "official" site of Playboy was then challenged. The main objection was that it is a wiki and so allows users to edit it. Some therefore try to dismiss it as a "fansite" and to disqualify it on that basis alone. They are aided in this by the Playboy Wiki "Organizers" own modest self-description on their home page as "fans". I would note that another regularly accepted external link in the Playmate Lists is IMDb. I think that is proper, even though IMDb too allows user editing. In the case of the Playboy Wiki, I have exhaustively described its relationship to the rest of Playboy at RS/N#Playboy_Wiki, in my first entry, (1) (A) (B) (C) and (2) (A) (B) (C). Let me summarize here by stating that although unpaid volunteers did the work in creating the Playboy Wiki, it was directly authorized and set up by Playboy itself, with the express purpose (and result) of providing a resource that was beyond the ability of paid staff to provide at that time. Its original editors were not members of the general public, nor were they "fanboys" intent on saying how much they liked Playboy. They were longtime members of the Playboy Forums who had proven their competence in the eyes of the administrators of Playboy's Cyber Club and its Forums, and they were entrusted to produce the directories that are now the heart of the Playboy Wiki. It is used as a reference by paid staff at other Playboy sites. Other Playboy sites link to Playboy Wiki. The Playboy Wiki is an integral part of Playboy's online presence, © by, its domain registered and annually renewed by Playboy Enterprises, International, and its Wikispaces account was set up by paid Playboy administrators. Paid administrators of PEI or, subsequently, Playboy Plus Entertainment/ have always been among the "Organizers" of the Playboy Wiki, including its "Organizer and Creator". All this is referenced and documented in RS/N#Playboy_Wiki as cited above. Playboy Wiki is subject directly to Playboy for its authority and accuracy. Playboy's legal department occasionally sends requests of one kind or other. All entries at Playboy Wiki are either written by or at least reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness, by one or more "Organizers". Who is to tell Playboy what resources it can or cannot use to produce something they deem "official"—whether paid staff or competent volunteers? Can a test of "officialness" or "authoritativeness" really be reduced to the question of whether or not Playboy pays all of its Wiki "Organizers" at least a nominal $1 a year?

(C) WP:ELNO #1 suggests that an external link should provide a "unique resource": The subject of the Playmate Lists is "Who did Playboy select as Playmates that year?". That is "who" and "when". A Playboy link, and none more so than the Playboy Wiki, also tells "where" they can be found as Playmates. The relevancy should be self-evident, as is the fact that this is supplemental information not found directly on the Playmate List pages. If it were, it would have to cite Playboy Wiki as a reference, because it is the only Playboy site to detail all the places a Playmate or any other Playboy model can be found among Playboy's other official sites (, Playboy Plus, Playboy TV, the Cyber Club, Playboy Girls Network, and even the old Special Editions Club).

(D) In case anyone agrees with Nikkimaria that WP:BLP standards should apply: Even if considered to be in a section that is a "biography of a living person", which I maintain Playmate Lists are _not_, Playboy Wiki does not attempt to make any biographical claims. Its editors do not report on whom a Playmate is dating or has married or divorced, nor even whether or when certain Playmates have passed on. It reports only on things that are relevant to their status _as Playmates_ and published in Playboy magazine or on its other websites. That is, where and when they appeared in Playboy pictorials or videos. If Playboy Wiki provides links to any other biographical info, it is only in the form of links to content on other Playboy sites. Even Nikkimaria, who leaves links alone, seems to accept them within the scope of WP:BLP standards.

Nikkimaria seems to accept (A) above, as she is not deleting links. She is accepting IMDb as an exception regarding what she would call "fansites" because she is also leaving those links alone. She seems intent only on deleting Playboy Wiki links. But as established in (B) above, Playboy Wiki should be recognized as a perfectly suitable replacement for external links. It should actually be preferred, because the links usually do little more than show a handful of pictures and say "Go join the paysite." Playboy Wiki provides a much more comprehensive overview of each Playmate's online coverage before anyone is required to pay to see more. Wikilister (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor mentioned has been notified User_talk:Nikkimaria#Discussion_about_Playboy_Wiki_at_WP:ELN
I also posted a notice in the RS/N discussion, where others had suggested it belonged here instead. Wikilister (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
(A): all of the links being removed are to articles on individual people (not collectives). While it is true that not all people on these lists may be living, all of the links removed are on living people (or in one case recently deceased), so WP:BLPEL is the appropriate policy to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The statement that removal of links was limited to "articles on individual people (not collectives)" is flatly untrue. Your first deletions were of 2 Playmates on the 1967 List, not their individual pages. I questioned it on your talk page (Dec 7) and Brangifer opened the RS/N discussion Dec 8. On Dec 10 you deleted PB Wiki links for the 2 Playmates who had them on the 1990 list, and for all 12 on the 1993 list. On Dec 12, you posted the denial above ("not collectives"). Trying to sound measured and reasonable? The next day you intensified what you had just denied doing, deleting all the PB Wiki links on 13 "collective" pages—Lists of Playmates. The next day, Dec 14, you deleted 13 more. In answer to me on your talk page, you have asserted a "right" to do so without awaiting the outcome of any discussion, but you falsely denied doing so here. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand: I said to articles, not on articles. The "List of..." pages have links to both PBwiki pages about individuals and the PBwiki's version of "list of"; only the former so far have been removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(B): Playboy Wiki is a fansite, not an official site; ""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (WP:ELOFFICIAL, my emphasis). That there are other links that may need removal is true but not relevant). In particular, I've already explained my reasoning regarding IMDb. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You keep dismissing the PB Wiki as a "fansite", apparently not having read the descriptions provided regarding its origins and purpose, and its actual function within the network of other official Playboy sites. You cite WP:ELOFFICIAL, but you are reading it very selectively in trying to validate your actions. The very first thing it says is:
"An official link is a link to a website or other internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable."
Playboy Wiki meets both of these criteria. (1) It and its content are controlled by Playboy (as I described ad nauseum above and in the RS/N discussion), and Playboy is a subject of any "List of Playboy Playmates" article. (2) The Playboy Wiki's content details _where_ Playboy's Playmates can be found _as Playmates_. But you ignore those 2 criteria and skip down to the wording that you quote above: ""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites…" —and here you choose to stop reading. That places it drastically out of context, because if you finish that line it says— "…because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented." Oh. Well given the abundant proofs that Playboy _does_ control what the Playboy Wiki presents, PB Wiki does not meet the definition of a "fansite" for the purpose of that text which you incompletely cite. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I read your explanation; it's simply incorrect. If you have an article or a link about an individual, the individual is the subject, even if you examine the individual within a particular context, even if the individual is only discussed in one section of a list. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(C) is not relevant - while the site may or may not meet point 1 of ELNO, WP:BLPEL's more stringent standards are not met (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it absolutely _is_ relevant (WP:ELNO #1 suggests that an external link should provide a "unique resource"…) PB Wiki qualifies not only because it is "official" but because it provides a relevant and "unique" resource. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, BLPEL overrides ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(D): Again, biographies in a list are still biographies; again, what other sites may or may not meet our standards is not relevant to the question of whether this one does; and again, "Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs". (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Your emphasis on "BLP" standards is misplaced, since the subject of "Lists of Playboy Playmates" is an organization's selections, and any individual persons are listed only in that context. But PB Wiki does not even fail the "higher standard" of WP:BLPEL. That excludes "Questionable sources". Playboy in general and the PB Wiki in particular do _not_ have "a poor reputation for checking the facts"—most certainly not with respect to the PB Wiki external links' purpose of detailing _where_ the Playmate can be found as a Playmate—nor does PB Wiki "lack meaningful editorial oversight", given its "Organizers" including "Playboy_Official", and there can be no "apparent conflict of interest" in a Playboy site that simply lists where Playmates can be found as Playmates. The other possibly relevant section, though probably not so, is "Self-published sources". It is highly questionable whether this would apply to Playboy sites publishing about who is a Playmate and when and where. After all, what could possibly be the ultimate source of such info other than Playboy and the sites that it has directly established? Nonetheless, the section that follows provides the common sense that should be applied: WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." I presume that includes activities like Playboy publishing Playmates. _Not_ that Playboy or Playboy Wiki can be dismissed as questionable or self-published sources, but even if Nikkimaria wants to say they are, she cannot use that as justification to exclude them when the subject is a "List of Playboy Playmates" Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Your response here is based on your misinterpretation of both the article and the relevant policies. The subjects here are individuals, not the company; BLP applies to living individuals no matter what context they're found in; PBwiki is considered an SPS, just as Wikipedia is considered an SPS even if it draws information from sources that are not self-published. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I count three people (not including me) at the RSN discussion telling you these links do not meet our standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
At the time you wrote that, only you, citing reasons, and one other citing none, were telling me this. Two others asked challenging questions, which were answered, and they have not responded as to whether or not they are satisfied. Two others provisionally supported the links unless certain other tests were failed, and evidence was given to show that those tests were met. They have not responded there either. Anyway, it's quite a different story now that others have had time to evaluate the case and respond. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I commented there noncommittally: I hadn't yet seen examples of the links that are under discussion. I still haven't: the list pages I happen to have tried don't have them. The difficulty, then, in commenting, is that the layout of playboy wiki is also a bit strange and I don't find it easy to sample (from our family living room) what I would get from one of the links that Wikilister wants to make and Nikkimaria wants to remove. Ah well.
Considered as Wikipedia list pages, the format of these is unfamiliar to me: they seem normally to consist of twelve biographies. Is that right? OK, so the consensus must be that these ladies are 1/12 notable enough for a whole Wikipedia biography. Still, since most of them are living, these little biographies are subject to BLP. If playboy wiki is an open wiki, I would definitely avoid making an external link to it on a BLP because anyone might add to it stuff that we shouldn't be linking to. Even if Playboy controls its content (and just happens to use the wiki format as a structure) I would still hesitate, and probably decide against, because as far as the subjects are concerned this is not their official website or controlled by them. That's the most I can say. Don't know if it's any help. Andrew Dalby 10:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Andrew, I don't think a "List of Playboy Playmates" can be construed primarily as "BLP". But regardless of that, BLP has no relevancy to PB Wiki links in those lists because those links do not concern themselves with anything other than where you can find a particular Playmate _as a Playmate_ on Playboy sites. I have never seen anyone on the PB Wiki allowed to add any sort of biographical content. No boyfriends, marriages, kids, divorces, arrests, Presidential medals, Nobel prizes, or anything else not directly related to their being Playmates. If Playboy has mentioned anything like that, for example in a Playmate's introductory article in the magazine, that may also appear on another Playboy site online and the PB Wiki may link to it. But that content does not originate within the PB Wiki. Users there are not allowed to add any such stuff. PB Wiki is primarily a directory to the contents of all the other Playboy sites. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, here is the criteria for the data accessed via the P.W. external link ( in the Wikipedia list

What is listed, what is not listed, and why:

• We list mainly the items that had links on their Playmate File pages. Some of that may not survive the Cyber Club, but the Wiki will still archive it.
• Playmates' names link to their main Wiki pages, which all have complete pictorial, video, and Centerfold links. We don't repeat all those links here.
• Playmates of the Year on this list have their month highlighted. PMOY features are the 1st item on their main Wiki pages, so we don't repeat PMOY links here.
• We list the # of pics in the main pictorial ("Portfolio") from each Playmate File. That is the only variable that we can compare for every Playmate.
• "Exclusives" are labeled here as on the Cyber Club pages themselves: Previews. Those posted late by PB+ are "Exclusives". ( Now replaced by weeklies.)
• Similar features appear in the same columns. E.g., "Previews", "Before they were Playmates", and "Test Shots". Rarely, we have to squeeze in "Pre+Test".
• Besides PM Xtras, we note other major exclusive extra pictorials, like "N is for Neriah". There may be several; we only list the "biggest" one here. See their pages.
• We count only videos that are at least 1 minute long, and in which the listed Playmate is a primary focus.

• Several features are accessed via the link titled "extra" in the Cyber Club's Playmate File pages. They are listed here individually ( the 3 columns on the right ).

I would include the actual data, which is in form of a table, but am unable to copy and paste it in w/ the right formatting. Azx2 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Azx2, as I read it where you found this at PB Wiki, the criteria you quote only describe what is included or not _on that particular page_ of PB Wiki. It may not be irrelevant, but Nikkimaria's concern seems to be focused on the links in the "Lists of Playboy Playmates" that list all the places where you can find each Playmate on Playboy's sites. Those are links to each individual Playmate's page at the PB Wiki. The link you describe is a single page that summarizes the coverage of Playmates and links to their individual pages. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the links in question are completely valid and appropriate for Wikipedia, plus any non-involved user/editor can see that they in many cases provide better options with more comprehensive, complimentary information than the corresponding (often broken) links to and I'm at a total loss to see why Nikkimaria wants to remove them and wonder what's really going on here? These external links are clearly very valuable to the subjects at hand and it's very clear based on the information provided by Wikilister that they are ultimately referring to sources under the official over-arching control of corporate playboy and the search for Wikipedia criteria to apply to justify removing them strikes me as being a bit dubious, as first the complaint was that they violated copyright but now it's that under WP:BLPEL they fail. I do not agree with this claim and strongly oppose the attempt to delete these links and think continuing to do so is inappropriate. Azx2 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

BLPEL was the original reasoning; copyright was cited by another contributor at RSN. I've already explained why I want to remove them: because, regardless of whether they meet ELNO or not, they fail BLPEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to clarify the order in which the objections were raised, Nikkimaria. Are you arguing that the external links in question fail BLPEL because they are "questionable" or because they are "self-published?"
I reviewed one of the lists here, which includes two links to the Playboy Wiki: plus generic link to the main page While the data accessible via the former seems at first pass to be valuable and complementary to what's available on Wikipedia (see below), I question the inclusion of the latter. Why is there a link to the specific year's list of Playmates, but also a second link that points at the main page of the Playboy wiki, Wikilister? Is that the case through all of the lists in question on Wikipedia, that there are double-links to the Playboy Wiki? Thanks. Azx2 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well there aren't many PB Wiki links of any kind left after the blitz against them. You seem to be questioning the form of the links, where there is a general link to the source's homepage and a specific link to the relevant section. I was following what seems to be common practice, as I have seen that formula for links elsewhere in Wikipedia. It seemed useful to me in that it identifies the source (Playboy Wiki) and then zeroes in on the directly relevant section. If the link text just said "Playmates of 2013", it would be citing the relevant section but not identifying the source. If the general ID should not itself be a link, I would like to know. It is not an essential part, and could be disposed of, if the PB Wiki links survive at all.
I gave my response to Nikkimaria's emphasis on "BLPEL" above where she challenged part "(D)" of my opening post in this discussion. Wikilister (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There are still over 100 links to the site, Wikilister. Azx2, mostly self-published, although we could argue about whether questionable applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

These links are completely appropriate. The wiki is authorized and supervised by Playboy and provides content directly relevant to the subject but not available to Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 19:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Linking to a sourceforge project that includes Microsoft binaries?

See WP:EAR#Restrictions on Linking at the PXE page and Talk:Preboot Execution Environment#Restrictions on Linking. An editor (who appears to have a COI and has been blocked twice already for edits to that page) is arguing that the external link to the ERPXE project should be removed because the project offers for download a number of files that (the editor asserts) are copyrighted Microsoft binaries, and that the link should be covered by WP:ELNEVER.

I think the argument is just on this side of meritorious, though I think it's likely they might have a fair use argument, and that we might be okay from that. All that aside, I think the link itself might merit removal simply on WP:ELNO grounds as merely promotional (that WP:SOLUTION language hits that for me in part). But it seems like that argument has been hashed out ad nauseam already at Talk:Preboot Execution Environment/Archive 1. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I removed the link in question because of WP:ELNO. This can probably be archived as moot, unless there's some argument to be made why WP:ELNEVER wouldn't apply in this case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I please get a second opinion on the appropriateness of [ this link] in the External links section of this article? It looks like spam to me but an unregistered editor connected with that website is edit warring and harassing me offline to retain the link. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A new editor who has worked on this site has added it to several articles. I have removed it because it appeared to be too promotional. Have I been too hasty? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it does look rather promotional. Do you think that it could be an "official" site (similar to an official Office of Tourism website)? It's at a address, and I thought those were only for government agencies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) (サトルの古典文庫)

182.249.240.XXX has been adding this website to Takamura Monogatari again and again. It seems to meet WP:ELNO #11 ("Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority") and WP:SPAM to me. I would like to ask for a second opinion. Thanks. (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

<Personal attack/BLP-violation removed>

Okay, I'll stop re-adding the link. I don't really care one way or the other. Cheers. (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Hijiri88)
Although I do wonder where else an online copy of the text will be found in either Japanese or English. The link clearly passes WP:ELYES#3 and WP:ELMAYBE#4. Can you suggest any alternatives? Or is this just something personal? (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (Hj88)
<Personal attack/BLP-violation removed>
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. See WP:ELPOINTS. (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"is standard on all elections pages"

I have now a couple of times removed a linkfarm of official campaign websites on a election page (see e.g. diff). To me, these violate:

  • WP:EL - "... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
  • WP:ELNO #13 - these are the campaign websites, not the election websites, they are indirect. The one for John Doe would be direct on John Doe's Nebraska gubernatorial election campaign, 2014, and indirect on Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2014. They give information over the campaign, not over the election themselves.
  • WP:NOT#LINKFARM - obvious, for larger elections this results in almighty linkfarms
  • WP:NOT#SOAPBOX - lists tend to be adapted in time, not always complete (weaker point; though Nebraska_gubernatorial_election,_2014 has 8 declared candidates, 7 campaign external links - what if one does not have a campaign external link? - extra note, one of the sites is dead, 2 are redirects of which one is to a (personal) facebook page).

Moreover, some of the links are already used as references for specific statements (endorsements). Thoughts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding: about 2 of the 8 declared candidates in the Nebraska_gubernatorial_election,_2014 also carry the link on their 'personal' Wikipedia page, where it is already more direct than on the election page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

the dead link cannot be there per ELNO. are the redirects to facebook campaign sites or to the personal sites? if they are to the personal sites then clearly far too tangential to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the links do not belong and should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about the last point I brought up above, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX - I was considering that in terms of neutrality (instigated by one revert-remark after my removal of the sites - "WP:SOAPBOX doesn't apply, since no apparent discrimination among candidates in list."), but that is not codified in WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, a neutral representation of all sides does not take away the fact that all links are still (self-)promoting single candidates.

I do note, that this seems to be 'standard' throughout - see Category:United States gubernatorial elections, 2014 (and also the other years linked from the top right corner). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with this link?

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask about this, but I keep trying to add this link and it's just not working:

Here's that in markup so you don't have to click Edit to see it:

{{BillboardURLbyName|artist=earthless|chart=Heatseekers Albums}}

What am I doing wrong? LazyBastardGuy 04:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the external link, it has to do with the template, see the documentation for {{BillboardURLbyName}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
That didn't help at all. I still don't understand what is going on and I left a post on that talk page awhile ago, but no one has answered (in fact I'm sure no one even saw it). I didn't know what else to do because I have absolutely no idea what's wrong with the way I'm trying to write this link. I have checked it very thoroughly, and I wrote the artist name exactly as described. It's still not working. LazyBastardGuy 05:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The template has to link to the artist name as on, I have tried ' - but that indeed does not get to the intended page, apparently disagrees with that link. Since that is wrong, the link is automatically broken by the template. The problem is on the side of, which seems highly inconsistent throughout as the documentation of the template describes. I am afraid that you will need to find help from someone on the template side, I am sorry, but this is really not something we can help you with. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. I suppose there is nothing I can do but wait for Billboard to catch up. In any case, I suppose it's the thought that counts, so I will continue using the templated link. LazyBastardGuy 16:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
LazyBastardGuy, I fixed this for you by adding Earthless's Billboard id to {{BillboardID/E}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

new spammy templates

there has been a proliferation of templates for the Indian film industry such as

they seem to me to be just spammy and not valuable - what are others opinions and what would the next steps be? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

TfD? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As we know that on Wikipedia,Box Office India is used as the primary source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films.On 20 January 2014,Box Office India revamped its website completely.There is separate page of actors ,actress,each Bollywood film on Box Office India. Its on the lines of reliable sources Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. For Bollywood films,Box Office India template has to kept for Bollywood films -specific details.--Nehapant19 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have both {{Box Office India}} and {{BoxOfficeIndia}}, and also a redirect via {{Template:Box Office India}}? DMacks (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes three of them are just unnecessary. Remove two, keep one. Looks like they've updated their site now with separate dedicated web pages for each film and actor. Soham 04:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The {{Box Office India}} is totally different from {{BoxOfficeIndia}} . {{Box Office India}} is having description of each Bollywood actor/actress detail with list of all his films and its verdict in their entire career. {{BoxOfficeIndia}} is for separate page for each Bollywood film with its verdict,star cast,story,etc. Both these templates are very necessary and this different pages are much better than {{IMDB]] or Box Office Mojo because these BoxofficeIndia templates are Bollywood films-specific. {{Template:Box Office India}} was created by mistake. so i redirected it to one of the two templates.You can delete only {{Template:Box Office India}} which is unncessary.Other two are very essential.--Nehapant19 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the misnamed one. For the others, it's needlessly confusing to have templates whose content and use are different to differ only by whitespace. For example, if the difference is that one has more details, us the word "detailed" in the name. Note, I am not endorsing keeping both (or even either), but it's important that if we have both, they are clear to others what each is. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought the general thought (if not consensus) is that we do not need templates for these things - they only encourage linkfarming (which already seems to have started) - even IMDB often does not ADD anything new to a page, we do not add external links just because they exist. I still think that a general TFD on these is worth considering. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In that way, you will say the no external links should be put,either IMDB or Box Office Mojo. These two {{Box Office India}} and {{BoxOfficeIndia}} are better than IMDB or Boxofficemojo,becasue:
  1. They give every detail of Bollywood actors and Bollywoof films with a separate page'
  2. Each film is accompanied by its box-office-verdict which is not present in either IMDB ,boxofficemojo or bollywoodhunagama. Important notes are accompained on each film page.
  3. First time,Box Office India is providing a complete repository of Bollywood films from 1940 to 2014(till date).No other site provides that much huge data and relevant information about Bollywood films.

--Nehapant19 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nehapant19  - our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. The number of external links should be minimized indeed, our pillars tell us so.

Why is the verdict not something that Wikipedia could tell, if it is so important that we need to link to it in the external links section - apparently that is the only thing that it is adding that others don't? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

and the "verdict"s being talked about: - "flop" , "megablockbuster" HA! what nonsense. AND they are completely arbitrary. In more than one occasion I have seen BOI rate a film that had a higher net AND gross with the lower "verdict". If the "verdict" is the rationale for the templates, thats worse than useless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, and I thought we were talking 2 pages of detailed discussion. So basically, if Wikipedia would write somewhere in the body 'According to BOI this movie is a flop', with a reference to the site, then we have covered all of the 'extra data' in a proper way (better than as a mere external link). (not that I am convinced that it is notable to mention that verdict in the prose either). Maybe a 'revert and delete' is in order then - we don't need these links in the external links section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not saying verdict is the parameter for a template.But since Box Office India is the most credible source of Bollywood films on wikipedia ,same like Box Office Mojo and IMDB, on the new boxoffice india site, detailed information is given about each actor/film on respective pages. A complete repository of data is now avaialable on the new revamped site--Nehapant19 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Its use can vary depending on different different pages,but these templates acts as shortcuts for getting complete information ,if they are included in any article.--Nehapant19 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what we have talkpages for, not the external links section. The external links section is for pages that add info that can NOT be included.
By the way, you are not connected to the site, are you? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, the templates look like an attempt to promote the sites without regard for our policies and guidelines. There are definitely websites like these that have had actions taken to restrict their use on Wikipedia, though I'm not finding them with quick searches at RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not in any way connnected to . These templates are for BoxofficeIndia,which even Wikipedia considers as the primary and reliable source for Bollywood films. These are much better than Boxofficemojo or bollywoodhungama templates.What I am saying is that add templates in external section ,which comes from reliable source and for Bollywood films, Boxofficeindia is rated above boxofficemojo and bollywoodhungama in wikipedia. --Nehapant19 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The template is for use as an external link, not as a reference. As an external link, they rarely if at all are useful, at least that I can see. It would be helpful for someone to provide the best possible examples of where they might actually be useful so we can get some consensus that they shouldn't be outright removed. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
If any one dont want to use any of these Box Office India templates,in any specific page dont add it under external links, but what is this unnneccary issue of asking for proposal of deletion. Sometimes IMDB and other templates will not give or create specific page for a film (or) actor ,in that case Box office india templates can be used, because in the new revamped site of boxofficeindia,each film snd actor is entered in the database,and specific dedicated pages have been created. --Nehapant19 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A template suggests that the link it contains is somehow officially approved by the community, and once links are in a template, it is much easier for those wanting to use Wikipedia to promote an external website to add promotional links to articles. Hundreds of sites discuss popular films, and it's like that a dozen of them have content that would interest some readers. Yet an article should not be used as a linkfarm—a place where enthusiasts can add their favorite link. How does this template help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've TfD'd the template - there where a link really adds something, a regular external link will suffice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Bollywood Hungama}} is not a spammy template, link takes the celebrities filmography data, See.. And passes in WP:ELYES. This Template:Bollywood Hungama is the shortcut way to using Bollywood celebrities link. :-ChanderForYou 06:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We are not talking about 'spam', we are talking about whether the links are necessary' on pages (whether they follow our external links guidelines), and whether we need templates 'inviting' those links.
Also, links are not WP:ELYES in general, that has to be determined on a page-by-page basis. And whether the content of the site is spam or not is also not always a factor, other sites can be spammed as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Source for which I have a legitimate reason that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on external links

In the external links for Thomas D. Barr, there is a blacklisted link to Computer Business Review. Per the fact that this link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic which might be useful towards expanding this short article, please white-list it. I'll just point out for the benefit of those who might think that a spammer planted this link that this link is in the original edit of this article, so was placed there by its author. Thank you, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You may get a faster response by posting a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I posted here because of the note at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards. The procedure for posting a request here is a bit simpler. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have several whitelist requests open for this source, still waiting. Not getting a fast response there. This shouldn't be archived until it's resolved. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured out what the guidance at Spam-whitelist advising editors with external links that they want to whitelist to come here is driving at. Per the header above:

  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.

Please review Thomas D. Barr and talk:Thomas D. Barr and give your opinions on whether that particular external link is appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. I suppose that if a consensus for appropriateness is reached here, then that might help speed up a whitelisting request over there. Or if consensus is that this is not the place for that, I'll just remove the advice from the whitelist page. Thankyou. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Emmett Till

A new editor has made the folowing edit request to the Emmett Till article Talk:Emmett_Till#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_February_2014. The potential EL in questino is which is obviously unreliably hosted, but does appear to contain interesting WP:PRIMARY interviews with Emmet Till's mother, (allegedly) taken by the editor. Is this a valid EL? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added the history/source/ownership info to the video. I also put in a few pics of the students who made the video and a pic of my brother and I in her home as we made the video. Thank you for taking the time to follow up and let me know what need to happen to be able to link it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsonite (talkcontribs) 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Links at various affiliates of the Constitution Party

I question the addition of these links to articles such as Constitution Party of Arkansas. They all seem there simply to push this party's view. Note for instance that the National Veterans Coalition website says "NVC members are automatically dual-enrolled into the Constitution Party, and at a substantial discount". Cynthia Davis was a COnstitution party candidate. And of course the Castle Report is just a media branch of the party. I've already reported the editor to WP:NPOVN for adding the NPOV material in the articls themselves where he/she has not responded and it seems likely one person removing them will be ineffective.

Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, these are the websites of The Castle Report, the National Veterans Coalition and Cynthia Davis, not of the Constitution Party of Arkansas - as such, they are all indirect and are not suitable as external links on this page (fail WP:ELNO). It is linkfarming anyway. It is somewhat similar as for the above case of the <year> election in <state> discussion above, 'pushing' the campaigns of the candidates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to say thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links

Some editors are objecting to my inclusions of links on the grounds that they a violate the WP:External Links policy. I've been asked to bring the issue here for discussion before adding additional links. In my opinion the links should be allowed since they are high quality and content and very relevant to each one of these rabbi's who's link I am including. The links are all to a 501c3 non-profit website called Most of these audio lectures have been digitized from audio cassette and are not available anywhere else. All the content is freely available to the general public. Having read through the WP:External Links policy, I seem to be in full compliance. Any suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zment (talkcontribs) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, hmmmm. Why are people objecting? Speaking just for myself, I don't have an objection to, and I don't have an objection to the material. In my opinion, writings (or in this cause speakings) by the subject of a biography article can indeed be "meaningful, relevant content" and these probably meet that standard. But...
First of all, copyright. The only explicit copyright notice is "Site Copyright © 2007-2014 The Yehuda Mond Foundation". It doesn't say that the audio is copyrighted, and in fact the copyright may be held by someone else. And the page does say "Distribution and Copying of materials is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED in any form" (explicitly including burning CD's etc.). You could take that as a de facto release under something like Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA or whatever. But "You could take that as..." is not really a road we like to go down with copyright questions. We like to be pretty sure. See WP:COPYLINK.
I know this is pretty unlikely, but: supposing a person downloaded the material. Suppose that they then made a CD titled "The Insane Ramblings of Moronic Rabbi Such-And-Such". Suppose then that the copyright holders decided that they did, after all, want to assert their copyright in order to enjoin distribution of the CD. Suppose during a trial the CD maker said "Well, I got the stuff via a Wikipedia link". Well, it says at WP:COPYLINK "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States", so then we're culpable, maybe. So I dunno. Admittedly this is extremely far-fetched. But still.
But then also, I can't agree with the "high quality" characterization. They seem pretty low-fi, and in fact on my (more or less typical low-end laptop) I couldn't really understand what the rabbi was saying, which may be because... are these even in English? If they're not in English that'd be pretty serious strike against them, since this is the English Wikipedia. Not necessarily a total deal-killer I suppose, and granted if they're in Hebrew a non-trivial number of readers interested in the subject could understand them. But the material's not usefully accessible to most readers, and WP:ELNO #7 enjoins "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users...".
And even if they are in English, I can't really hear them. Now granted someone with a proper MP3 player and decent speakers might be able to hear them fine. But WP:ELNO #7 enjoins "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users...", and we don't like to require or assume fancy equipment to use our links. (Granted, it might be the machinery in here, which is kind of loud. So if someone else wants to listen, maybe they'll refute this point.)
So for my part, on copyright and general usefulness, I'd say we probably don't want to include these links. Herostratus (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

1943 Detroit Race Riots Page adding a link to audio of Mayor & Governors Speeches

I have a audio recording on my website of Mayor Edward Kelly & Governor Harry Kelly speeches they did on 6/21/1943 addressing the Detroit race riots that started 20 hours before.

I have a 78rpm record of the speeches I got from my uncles estate. it appears to be a home recorded.

How do I add that link to the 1943 Detroit Race Riots Page?

Update: I figured it out.

Thanks, Dave Arnold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedetroit (talkcontribs) 00:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Instagram link for Vani Bhojan

What's the policy for Instagram? I can't find a discussion of it in the archives. The specific case involves the biographical article for Vani Bhojan. There's an Instagram page for her here. If I'm interpreting WP:ELPEREN correctly, an official social media page can be okay as an external link for someone who doesn't have an official website, but a fan page can't. The problem I'm having with the Instagram link is that I can't figure out whether it's an official or a fan page.

I'd appreciate it if a more experienced editor could take a look at this, as (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I are on the verge of WP:3RR over this and I really don't want to go there. Thanks. --Alexbook (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ELOFFICIAL for the actual guideline. I think it meets both of the major criteria (controlled by the subject, pertinent to the area for which the subject is notable). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How is it known that it is the official website for the subject? Does it have any useful content? Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  Not sure... I haven't been able to find any reliable link to it, so I suppose it does not meet WP:ELOFFICIAL in that case. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't read WP:ELOFFICIAL before. Thanks for the link. To answer Johnuniq's questions: (a) I don't know, and (b) slightly, IMHO. --Alexbook (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Also note, that if the 'secondary' official sites are (reasonably) prominently linked from the 'primary' official site (either directly on the mainpage of them, or on an obvious 'tab',e.g.), then I find those secondary official sites generally superfluous as well and I would delete them generally - again except if the 'secondary' official site is a major reason in the notability of the person (if a person primarily known for his Tweeting-behaviour has a more official 'primary' official site, then the twitter may be of interest as well, even if it is prominently mentioned on the primary official site - though those cases are rare, but you seem to argue that here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of videos in External Links

I would like permission to external link to videos found on (the non-profit)

"NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG is brought to you by the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation in partnership with Michael Greger M.D. Dr. Greger scours the world of nutrition-related research, as published in scientific journals, and brings that information to you in short, easy to understand video segments. We also provide links to the original journal articles whenever possible so that you can source the information directly, if you so desire."

For example, at the end of Tea:

The material is fairly represented and very well referenced.32cllou (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's provide a bit more context: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] 3RR discussion
Leave it out for same reasons given for removing the TED talk videos from Prostate cancer. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I found no valid "reasons for removing the TED talk video from prostate cancer" in it's Talk or other discussion. I don't think an editor writing wp:eln qualifies as "discussion".
Note the 3RR found no violation.
Ronz might save everyone to just show the four external links (not 5 linked to above) I think would add valuable content to wikipedia:
I would love for someone to direct me to the section of wp:eln that is being violated by the link and video links. I'm Ok leaving the TED video out. In other words, I only would like to get permission to use the videos.32cllou (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Non profit: so what? - "Dietary Brain Wave Alteration. A neurological basis for humanity’s love affair with Camellia sinensis?": what does that have to do with tea in general. It may be of interest on Camellia sinensis or on dietary brain wave alteration, but we are not writing linkfarms here, we are writing an encyclopedia. Does that page linked to contain information that is necessary for the understanding of the subject tea (or Camellia sinensis, for that matter) that can not be included.

These links do not belong in external links sections, they may have a place as a reference (though, being tertiary, better use the original references used in the material). Please remove them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You write "what does that have to do with tea in general"? Well, all tea (from the camellia sinensis plant) contains Teanine, which is the chemical responsible for the brain wave effect. It is probably the primary reason people drink tea, so yes, I think it is necessary for the understanding of the subject tea.
Without the video, it would be hard to legally show that picture showing the effect on brain waves. It won't be included ion wiki.
How about at the end of the Healthy Diet article? Look at the huge Health Topics list (certainly not something that could be reproduced inside the article).32cllou (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
So, you exactly made the point - "Well, all tea (from the camellia sinensis plant) contains Teanine, which is the chemical responsible for the brain wave effect. It is probably the primary reason people drink tea, so yes, I think it is necessary for the understanding of the subject tea." - first of all, I drink tea just because of the taste. Second of all, do you have reliable sources saying that people are drinking tea for the brain wave effect (if so, then this is text that needs to go into the body, and this might be a reference and there is no need to reproduce it as an external link, otherwise it just not encyclopedic), and third, tea->teanine->brain wave effect - you see, it is indirect on tea.
How about at the ned of the Healthy Diet article - that link simply does not belong there, and I see that Ronz, rightfully, removed it. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"Probably the primary reason people drink tea"—you're kidding, right? People drink tea because it quenches their thirst, because they like the flavor, because they want or need the effect of its caffeine, because they believe its antioxidants will be good for them, because tea-drinking is traditional (in some regions ceremonial) and they're just used to drinking it . . . there may well be other reasons (see this abstract, for instance) why people drink tea, but to call the "brain wave effect" the primary reason is to make an extraordinary claim. Wikipedia is trying very hard to improve its coverage of topics related to health and medicine, and we need to be careful not only about our wording and the sources we use to support it but also about what external links we include. By including, we'd be tacitly endorsing its reliability as a resource for our readers, and I don't think that would be appropriate. Rivertorch (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point (a study needs to make that statement).
Note that was me saying "primary", not NutritionFacts (which just proposed the association).
I personally drink two cups of green tea first thing in the morning, and then cool steeped black tea all day. I do the green tea for the mental and physical effects. The sun tea tastes good.
I strongly agree with your last sentence. Looks like I'll be removing external Links now around wiki (I used what I saw around as a guide to what I could do). Thanks for your time. I'll basically stop using External Links.32cllou (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Just rely on the guideline and ask here on the noticeboard if you're in doubt. You'll find most of the Wikipedia community is very skeptical of anything that carries a whiff of alternative medicine, Eastern medicine, trendy diets or fitness programs, new theories about body and mind, etc. That's largely a good thing. Some of these things will ultimately prove legitimate, and then they'll be absorbed into the mainstream (or co-opted) and can receive coverage, but until then we need to hold off. There are too many "experts" saying too many different things, and we're not qualified to vet them. Rivertorch (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That is pretty unfounded accusation that has nothing to do with this, User:Rivertorch - links are appropriate or inappropriate because of a guideline/policy, not because they belong to a certain theme - nor should they be included (everywhere where they remotely seem fit) because of a certain theme. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an accusation, DB—just a statement of the situation as I see it: that the community is quite properly skeptical of content in certain subject areas that is novel, undocumented, or outside the mainstream of current scientific thought. I'm sorry you think that's unfounded and irrelevant. I think it's demonstrably true, I think it has quite a lot to do with this, and I think various guidelines (notably WP:MEDRS) but also WP:EL, which I emphasized was the relevant one when it comes to assessing external links) reflect its reality. As for everything you said after invoking my username, I agree completely and fail to see how it's incompatible with anything I said.   Rivertorch (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, but these links in this form still blatantly fail WP:EL. If you have problems with getting material outside of the current scientific thought on Wikipedia - something that I have not made any remark about - then this is not the right venue, and I would consider that that 'accusation' would need to be pointed to those who remove it. Do remember that we are writing an encyclopedia here, based on reliable sourcing, something that is difficult to find for certain parts of science.
So I still say that this plainly fails WP:EL - and that is here the issue, this link does not belong as an external link on tea, and I doubt even as an external link on any other tea-related subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this site a reliable "external link" for Ward Churchill. AFAUCT, it is a blog specifically, and thus is not likely to be allowable, but if it is not a blog, please tell me. The contributor is listed only as a "student" on the site, after looking through all the "past contributors" lists. Collect (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The link is already used in the article as a ref. It shouldn't be added again as an external link. That said, it looks questionable as a RS ref as well (as a student's contribution on a blog). Capitalismojo (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that it's much more problematic as a ref in the article. Ideally I'd like to see it removed as a ref and included as an EL, which allows for its unreliability if its relevance can be established. Plus, I object to the way Collect phrased the question. It's not that it needs to be "reliable" as an EL, but that it needs to be "appropriate." That's the question we're already discussing at the article talk page, so I don't really see what's supposed to come of this process, but that's true with so many processes...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:EL makes pretty clear that blogs should be avoided. The reasoning is that extended links are intended to be used by readers to get further information -- if the information in them is not reliable enough to meet Wikipedia standards, why should we direct people to them? Collect (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the specific "official website" for Ward Churchill? AFAICT it is the "Ward Churchill Solidarity Network". It states The Ward Churchill Solidarity Network (WCSN) sees the attacks on Ward Churchill not only as retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, but as part of a larger movement to suppress critical thinking, dismantle ethnic and gender studies programs, and eliminate the perspectives of indigenous peoples from mainstream education and scholarship.

The site includes a "contact form" but no indication that any part of the site is actually "official" or under his control, or that the contact form has more standing than a contact form for a fan site (again AFAICT). The site is a godaddy one, with an "address" in AZ and registrant of "Domains by Proxy, LLC." Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a political fan site. I'd be concerned. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"It looks like"? Note that the form in question isn't merely a contact form but a method for booking the guy to speak. In other words, he handles his bookings through this site, which lends some plausibility towards its being "official." Furthermore, since the domain is his name, it's obviously about him, and does not contain a disclaimer that it's not associated with him, if it's not currently under his control he could easily take it away or shut it down through ICANN dispute resolution procedures. That he has not done so also lends plausibility for it being "official."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I would observe that: (1) It is common for third party web sites to book speakers. IIRC, you could also book Churchill through his publisher's website. (2)The contact page self-IDs as "Ward Churchill Solidarity Network", and invites readers to "Contact us". This suggests that the site represents a group, not an individual. I think the salient question here is: If a site is run by a fan or a group of fans with the subject's approval and occasional communication, does that make it "official" or "fan"?Pokey5945 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

They keep adding ELs to the same place in the References sections of articles to do with fine art and sculpture ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. etc.). Not sure how relevant the EL is—the EL is only really being added to art-/sculpture-related articles, so maybe it's not blatant spam. It Is Me Here t / c 12:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External link in Amway

I question whether

should be listed as an external link in Amway. According to the text, this is a self-published "report" by Blakey, who admits to be being an expert hired by a party in opposition to Amway in a court case. Reported in Talk:Amway#External link, but discussion may be calmer here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion may also be nonexistent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what this adds at all, I agree with your point of view on this. Would support removal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Was cleaning up some external links and came across Mendeley[21]. For context this is what was linked to in the external links section of Genetically modified food controversies. I am not sure whether it is a valid EL or not, so someone was hoping someone more familiar with this area could offer advice. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mendeley is a citation database. What was linked to was a series of message board posts at the Mendeley website containing links to citations. It's unclear which of the dozens of links posted there was the target, plus drilling down through the links does not take one to the sources themselves. So, because the EL is to message board posts, and because it leads to ambiguous links and not a source, the EL fails WP:EL. (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That was similar to my gut feeling. AIRcorn (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  Resolved: Offending user blocked, just so everyone else knows. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In a recent edit two videos were added to the external links section of Dave & Buster's. Can someone go and look to see if they are appropriate links? GB fan 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted and will be watching to further revert, and will warn the account about 3rr on their next revert. Why the hell should anyone care about the ceiling fans in the place? It's gotta be some sort of sad joke. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


I would like to put forward a question whether some links to * might be in violation of the external links policy. The external links search indicates that there are 3 pages in the English Wikipedia referring to this domain. I also checked the French WP, as the site in question seems French, and here the links search reports 4 matching pages in the French Wikipedia at the present time.

I have not checked any other Wikipedias, but somebody who is familiar with the right procedure to check this across several wikis might perhaps do so? Fred Johansen (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


User User:Elshrimpbucket has added new citations into many articles which reference digitised out-of-print books held by the Mocavo family-history website. It may be that he is doing nothing wrong. Perhaps someone who knows more about spam rules could check this out. I am talking to him on User_talk:Elshrimpbucket. Here (ref. 1) is an example of a citation via Mocavo. AWhiteC (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Since he admitted that he works at Mocavo, it definitely seems promotional. Most of the books cited are available on other more neutral sites (e.g., Google Books,, so I'll try relinking to digitized versions there. (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest. AWhiteC (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor adding Google maps he/she created using Wikipedia sources

Pragmaticstatistic (talk · contribs) For instance, [22], [23]. Obvious COI issues as well, possibly spam. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I looked at one and reverted it (Republic): it included original research. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ELs on Mindfulness meditation & Mindfulness-based stress reduction

Summary of Dispute, by LeoRomero (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I copied & pasted comments of disputants into this table form for easier analysis, including links to policies involved in the dispute:

Policy/Issue LeoRomero Alexbrn Roxy the dog/Jytdog
Encyclopedic Understanding - Relevant WP policy does not require that a link provide encyclopedic understanding. It requires only that it "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". The MARC@UCLA resources are relevant. The undigested nature of the material means that while it may be "relevant" to the subject, it is not relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding" of it. It seems to me that these links are not appropriately encyclopaedic.
Encyclopedic Understanding - Neutral & Accurate The MARC@UCLA resources are neutral and accurate. Who knows if it's neutral & accurate?
Amount of detail WP policy does not prohibit links simply because the material is "undigested". On the contrary, the link is appropriate precisely because the site's information "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail". It's undigested material; just providing raw information.
Advertising and conflicts of interest WP policy states: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations." Wikipedia itself regularly solicits donations. Following Alexbrn's logic, we wouldn't be able to link to Wikipedia itself. Alexbrn, please cite WP policy that states that links may not be included if they pose a a "risk of spam", or a risk that they "could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings". Roxy the dog, please explain why it "seems ... that these links are overly promotional" for WP. It's from an organization selling courses and soliciting for donations to help it "promote its programs". While links to revenue-generating sites are indeed not "prohibited" there is a risk of spam; by the logic of such links being unproblematic, EL sections could incorporate any site claiming to have a valuable downloadable offerings - and that would not end well. It seems to me that these links are overly promotional for our use. [No response from Roxy the dog to LeoRomero's request for explanation.]
WP:NOTHOWTO Refers to Wikipedia articles, not to links. The link is a page of guided meditations that visitors can download. Something Wikipedia is not - a howto guide. Update: WP:NOTHOWTO applies to all of WP, and EL are very much part of WP; the distinction you are trying to draw between "articles" and "EL" is not relevant.
Value-added In addition to educational information from MARC@UCLA, the link provides free resources to readers who cannot otherwise afford them. Jytdog, please explain how the link "adds nothing to the article". The link to adds nothing to the article. [No response from Jytdog to LeoRomero's request for explanation.]
Clutter Jytdog, please cite WP policy that states that a link may not be included if there is a risk that it will invite a clutter of other links. The link to is one of a zillion that could be provided to specific institutions offering meditation/mindfulness classes and services. It invites the clutter of a zillion others. [No response from Jytdog to LeoRomero's request for explanation.]

Threaded discussion

I agree that the links don't belong per the policies and guidelines already mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Worldbank link spam?

worldbank - - what do others think here? We have an editor User:Siddheshk adding this link to a mass amount of articles as seen here. External link spam or a valuable link that is now basically the default "Trade" link on every "Country" and the sub "Economy of said country article". -- Moxy (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ‎

I don't think it is needed to link to WB in the articles of countries. (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Spam spam spam. If a suitable wikiproject had a significant discussion deciding that all possible articles should have a worldbank link, there might be some technical solution, perhaps involving the infobox. However, it is just spam when one editor decides that their favorite link needs to be in many articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree we got a bot to fix this? -- Moxy (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong in adding link to official source, does it not help users get data. It is not being linked to a commercial site but on relevant information of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddheshk (talkcontribs) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking to Starchild Project in the external links section of Starchild Skull

A lengthy discussion has already taken place at Talk:Starchild skull for which consensus among participants has not emerged.

Two major factors:

(A) The Starchild Project asserts that it is the "official site" of the skull, having been founded by the skull's owner, making a case for ELOFFICIAL, but is it appropriate to have an official link for an object of study, especially considering (B) below?

(B) The Starchild Project is the primary body conducting research on the skull, but because this is a WP:FRINGE subject, that the Project assumes and indeed promotes the scientific legitimacy/significance of the skull, it is not itself a neutral source. Does that make it run afoul of WP:ELNO?

(Pinging those involved: @Ronz: @LuckyLouie: @Adam Cuerden: @HiLo48: @VQuakr: @Dougweller: @GDallimore:).

I hope that's an acceptable summary of where we are. There's much more at the talk page. --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Simple summary of my position: the site does not improve Wikipedia, so don't link to it. Every other argument is irrelevant over the goal of creating an encyclopedia. GDallimore (Talk) 21:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's anybody involved in the discussion who doesn't feel they want what best improves the encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites talk |  04:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Personality test - external links - commercial?

On the personality test article page under the external links header, a dispute is currently active. 2 editors believe an external link should be removed and has no encyclopedic value, and is possibly commercial in nature, and 2 editors wish it to remain for some reason? Seems to me to be commercial in nature, driving traffic to external websites, advertising a small set of personality tests, in their research phase. Could add 100s of different personality tests to the external links section for balance, if this link was to remain. I think the discussion on the Talk:Personality test requires some input from other experienced editors, rather than the dispute leading to a possible and unproductive edit war.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The website is non-commercial, does not sell anything, and has a significant amount of information that could be useful to both research and applied psychologists. The link is not to "a personality test"; rather to a collection of public domain information related to personality tests. If this were a link to a commercial website that tries to sell personality tests, I would agree (and in fact those types of links have been removed without dispute). But the website is not a commercial website. (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason I listed here, is to get some other editor's opinions on this external link you have added rather than continue the discussion here.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that Mrm7171. I'm the one who suggested that you list it here. You repeated your arguments here that you stated on the article's talk page. I have not "continued the discussion here" any more than you have. (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the link: International Personality Item Pool. It does not seem to be authoritative? It clearly advertises several 'selected' personality tests. There are literally thousands of tests out there. Why these? Shall we add masses of other external links for balance? Why drive traffic to private websites with commercial interests? Why advertise someone's consulting services as is adertised through this external link? How does it add value to the topic for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The serious flaws in Mrm7171's argument that there are "thousands of tests out there" are twofold: First, links to tests on commercial websites can be removed without debate; problem solved. Secondly, there are not "thousands of personality tests" that are in the public domain, and the ones that are can be included in the one and only link at issue here because all of the information on the website is public domain; problem solved. And one more comment specifically for Mrm7171: I agree with MrX's comments below that there is no benefit in repeating arguments. So please stop saying the same thing over and over as if that builds consensus; you chastised me for "continuing the discussion here", and yet you have done the exact same thing here, multiple times. (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In all of that, you did not address any of the issues raised above, but just repeated over and over your same single response? That's probably why it appears I am repeating the questions? So: 1/ Let's say, 'hundreds' of tests then. Why just list these tests and just this link and not others? That seems very unbalanced. 2/ Shall we add a bunch of other external links for balance? 3/ Why 'drive traffic' to private websites with commercial interests? 4/ Why advertise some professor's private consulting services, as is advertised through this external link you insist on including for some reason? 5/ How does it add value to the topic for readers? I'd appreciate a direct response to these questions please?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your issues have been answered fully numerous times here and on the article talk page. You simple refuse to get the point, and I will not pander to you by responding every time you ask the same questions or make the same useless comments again and again. So let's see what consensus develops. (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you again avoided each of those clear cut questions? It is you that refuses to get the point as another experienced editor Ronz, has already pointed out to you on the personality test talk page! Also watch your mouth with me 75.177.1766, calling my "comments useless" I won't tolerate your abuse! Hope you understand.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no benefit to repeating arguments. I recommend waiting for other editors to comment, or creating an RFC to gain broader community input. As of now, there is no consensus either way, so the status quo ante version should remain.- MrX 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess there is a larger issue here. There are literally hundreds of personality tests out there. More popping up everyday. Some free like the ones in question, others not. Under the external links section on the personality test article, obviously any, and all of these could and should also be listed for balance and representation, rather than these ones in isolation. Or none. But will leave it here for comments. You are right. There is no need repeating it.Mrm7171 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I was dubious but then found sources such as "The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures"[24] so I'd say yes, it can be included. See also [25] Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that link meets the guideline at all. I'd say remove. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the link be moved to the body of the article, given there is a reliable source for it as Dougweller found. I will go ahead and move it into the article, as an example of a personality test instead? That seems the most sensible solution here as it clearly does not fit the guidelines as a number of editors have pointed out. Is this solution okay with other editors?Mrm7171 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Despite your repeatedly calling the website "a personality test", it is not a test. It is a website. (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you okay with the proposed solution? If not, please explain. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That depends on how it is done. I prefer that someone who is not involved in this discussion make the change to minimize the possibility of glaring errors or gross misrepresentations of the website. Otherwise we substitute one set of arguments for another. (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarize: Ronz, Elizium23, MrX, Thargor Orlando and myself all agree on deleting this link. Seems like strong support and best solution all round. Can we go ahead?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the link. As to moving it to the article text as a citation, I could accept that if Mrm7171 or Ronz (and for that matter, me or Iss246) do not make the change. I express a strong objection to any of these editors making the change. (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's probably an unhelpful comment Anyway there appears to be 5 editors now, who believe the best solution is to simply delete the darn external link. Isn't that consensus? It really is not that big a deal either. I had actually deleted a number of other commercial websites from the personality test article during a clean up. I really don't see why this is such a big deal? Can we just delete & move on please?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
My comment is as helpful as any that you have made. And consensus is not a vote. So, no you can't just "delete & move on", not without a clear consensus. In the absence of a consensus, you are free to seek resolution through WP:DR. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that if anyone wants to change the link to a citation in the text of the article, seek the assistance of a knowledgeable but uninvolved editor at WT:PSY. That would resolve the issue but reduce the chance of biased editing by those who have been most involved in this dispute. (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comment: "I express a strong objection to any of these editors making the change." What did you mean by that please? Also I don't think you need to now accuse all other editors of bias! And I realise it is not a vote, but when 5 independent editors all agree that the best solution is to delete the link, perhaps that should be the solution (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171 wrote, "Shall we add masses of other external links for balance? Why drive traffic to private websites with commercial interests?" IPIP is not a commercial site. Like Mrm7171, I have deleted links to external commercial sites, which is the appropriate thing to do. But the IPIP site is noncommercial. It may also constitute the largest collaborative effort by a team of distinguished psychologists to create a pool of personality items that are widely available to veteran and student researchers. The external link to the IPIP site is a worthy link to retain in the personality test encyclopedia entry. Iss246 (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is perhaps not the appropriate place for this discussion. Please see base of the Talk:Personality test where discussion is current.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
First, Mrm I would appreciate it if you would stop pronouncing comments here as "not the appropriate place". Every comment here is as appropriate or more appropriate than your own. Secondly, Mrm please READ my comments. I have included myself in the list of editors who should not make the change from external link to citation in the text. I have not accused "all other editors of bias". I have stated that four editors, including myself, have been involved in quite a scrap here so none of us should be making a change to the link in a way that might not be acceptable to the others. And for the last time until an actual consensus develops, there is no consensus at the present time. If you want to change the link to a citation, it would be quite easy to seek help at WT:PSY. Or are you concerned that letting others who actually know something about the topic might sway consensus against you? (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I realise it is not a vote, but when 5 independent editors all agree that the best solution is to delete the darn link, perhaps that should be the solution and we just move on?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I will no longer pander to your saying the same thing over and over and over, Mrm. There is no consensus at this time. End of discussion on that point until a consensus emerges. And again, are you afraid to raise this issue at WT:PSY? I thought you might want to do that yourself, but I'll be happy to do it instead. (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not repeating anything Please be civil. I am just trying to achieve a solution here. All I am saying is that when 5 independent editors all agree that the best solution is to delete the darn link, maybe you should respect those 5 editor's opinions. I also agree with the genuine message left on your talk page by Elizium23, that you quickly deleted: please see here: [26].Mrm7171 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Take your own advice about being civil. And repeating "5 editors is a consensus" does nothing to achieve a solution when consensus is not a vote. By the way, Elizium changed his opinion, and (since you wouldn't do so) I have posted a link to the discussion at WT:PSY, which may get even more opinions. At that time (but not at the present time) there may be a clear consensus. Now, I'm finished on this page. If you want to address the issue at the article's talk page, I'll read them there, but not here. (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving toward a solution

As I already proposed much earlier, it seems that the body of the article, would obviously be a better place for the IPIP test than in isolation in the external links section? We just place it alongside all of the other reliably sourced examples of different personality tests. Seems most logical solution and we can all move on?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If a clear consensus does not emerge, that might be a solution. But as I have stated above, an editor not involved in this dispute (perhaps from WT:PSY) should make such a change should it be needed. But for now, there is no consensus and we should wait to see if there are additional opinions over the next few days. (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask why you don't trust one of your fellow editors to just make that simple inclusion Okay, why don't you go ahyead and include it in the article, and add a reliable source I am sure other editors will Wikipedia:Assume good faith, if you do. If there is a problem, we can then take it from there, but it seems like a good solution and this is such a minor edit, I really don't see what the big deal is?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm not answering a question that is intended to bait me so that you can declare that I have not assumed good faith or that I am making a personal attack, despite the fact that I have included myself among those who should not make the change if it is needed. And again for the last time, there is no consensus and we need a clear consensus abut whether the link remains where it is before any change is made. My final comment to you here; I'll only respond on the article's talk page. (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said much earlier, this is perhaps not the appropriate place for this discussion. We are also duplicating comments it seems. We should discuss on the article talk page, as I had earlier suggested here: [27]Mrm7171 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
For once I agree. So please be kind enough to stop commenting here and instead do so on the article's talk page. (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I actually made that suggestion in good faith! I'm sure noone is trying to bait you here. Responding to an earlier point you made, I also thought IPIP was a personality test? This website says it is? Now I'm confused by saying it is not a personality test? I just want us to reach a solution here.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requested for ELNEVER "uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"

Please see my question at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22. Thank you for responding there! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)