Talk:List of copyright collection societies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

external links etc.[edit]

  • I just rolled-back an edit by User:Stesmo (@Stesmo:). It removed the external links as well as all red-linked or non-linked entries. This is way too broad to do without discussion. The list is a list of notable entities -- in many or most countries, quasi-governmental agencies or commissioned organizations, of interest to a very broad sector of society. But unfortunately, because of the list's international scope, it is unlikely that all the items will be de-red-linked any time soon. That does not remove the value of the list as a reference, however. So I would argue strenuously against removal of red-linked list items. Remove the links themselves, if the red link is offensive, but the entities' names are widely useful. --Lquilter (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: On looking at the list, there are actually very few redlinks. --Lquilter (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lquilter. There are two issues here. There are a ton of spammy External Links in the body of this article. After removing those links (per WP:EL), that leaves entries without a link (or reliable, third-party published sources that show the article would/should have a Wikipedia article). Since those list entries lack blue links, they were removed. If you can find Wikilinks for the external-link-removed entries, please feel free to remove the ELs and substitute valid Wikilinks for them. Regardless, the ELs need to be removed and this stand-alone list should not have non-notable list entries. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me some examples of what you mean by "ton of spammy External Links". These are generally links to quasi-governmental body websites. --Lquilter (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through each and every one of the external links here to make sure I've not made a mistake in removing a valid reliable, third-party published source that should be converted to a cite. I found only external links that went to the org official websites. Solutions I see here are:
  1. Start a process of trying to keep external links on this page (but not inside the body of the article). Per WP:EL "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." You'd need to find how each link meets WP:EL (WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE are good places to start) and post the justification for each link here (new section, perhaps). Other editors could then lend their voices, point out where it does or doesn't meet the guidelines (from WP:ELNO or elsewhere in the WP:EL page, for example) and consensus could be gained for each external link to placed link to be placed at the bottom of the article in an EL section.
  2. Create articles for the orgs without articles and add their official website links there. Then, link to those articles from here.
  3. Create an off-site collection of links at DMOZ (or another similar site) and linking to that in the EL section of the stand-alone list.
The external links cannot stay as they were. Stand-alone lists (such as this) are primarily a list of valid wikilinks to other articles. Since the External Links must be removed from the body of this article, that leaves dozens of no-link and redlink articles. The list is no longer meeting the stand-alone list spirit, either. Now, there are exceptions for companies in a stand-alone list that lack an article ("If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group."), but none of these external links are independent or reliable sources, so they can't just be converted over to cites and keep the entry.
This list needed work. I've started it by removing external links and non-Wikipedia-notable list entries. An editor (you, someone else) can do the work to add back orgs that meet the requirements, minus the external links in the body of the article. Or, revert my changes and then remove External Links from the body of the article while keeping non-notable list entries (no-links/redlinks). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stesmo, first of all, we are still in the middle of this, so changing it again before we have even begun to get consensus is edit-warring. I'm putting it back to the normal state, because your edits are wrong. You can try to persuade on this page but don't change it without getting consensus.
Secondly, you keep removing the content and describing it as merely removing the links. You are removing both the external links and the entries themselves.
Thirdly, set aside the external links for now and let's just consider the entries themselves. Lists can include non-notable items, but we don't need to argue about that now, because these organizations are all notable, virtually by definition. Each is of national (or international) scope, often chartered or given monopoly powers by the government. Given that they are national, however, you can see that many countries will be a long time in coming -- English-speaking countries and European countries in most cases have articles on the organizations already. But African, Asian, and other non-English speaking countries will no doubt be a while before educated editors create the articles. That does not invalidate the list. For instance, under global organizations you deleted the entry for the International Federation of the Phonogram Industry; it's really difficult to see how anyone could claim this is a non-notable organization. Under India you deleted he Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation. You repeated this process in each section, simply deleting entries that linked externally. You did not review any of the entries for notability as an individual organization (they all are), and you did not review any of the entries to see if they were appropriate for this list (they all are). You applied an in-apt criterion (external linking) to a question of notability, inferring (incorrectly) from the existence of an external link and the non-existence of a Wikipedia entry that the items were non-notable.
Lastly, on the links to the organizations themselves, I'm not convinced they violate WP:EL, given the nature of the list.
So, rather than me undoing your mistakes on this article piecemeal, I have reverted them wholesale, which is the only reasonable solution given the large quantity of errors you made. You are undertaking two major actions. (1) Deleting list items. If you want to delete list items, you should make your changes or proposals individually after individual consideration of notability. (2) Removing external links from list items without existing entries. If you want to delete these links from otherwise notable list items, we can have a discussion. At this point I think this is an appropriate use of external links, but I am open to persuasion otherwise. But given that you have made really significant errors of judgment here, you SHOULD NOT remove the links until we have consensus.
--Lquilter (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lquilter. As I mentioned above and you've agreed, there are two issues here. One issue is that there are external links in the body of the article and the second issue is that there are non-notable list entries. The second issue first: Honestly, if you want your article to have links to non-notable list entries, you've completely worn me down on this issue. Have a stand-alone list filled with non-notable list entries. I'll let someone else who is more passionate about stand-alone lists die on that hill. However, as a point of order, I don't need to show notability for list entries, the editors adding the content need to show notability with reliable, third-party published sources to allow for verification (see WP:VERIFIABILITY). Additionally, I'd like to apologize as I've mentioned "notability" without of specifying "Wikipedia-notability". I have no doubt these orgs are all real-world-notable, even if this list does not show they are wikipedia-notable, as WP:CSC mentions "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia". However, as I have already stated, I have given up on expecting this article/stand-alone list from being no-links/red-link free.
To the first issue, these list entries absolutely violate the spirit and letter of WP:EL. Stand-alone lists or embedded lists should not list external links. They should be removed immediately.
I understand you feel passionately about this article and it would appear you'd rather this article wasn't changed. However, I made no errors, I made decisions you disagree with. I made decisions from experiences with Stand-alone lists and WP:EL that you disagree with, which is perfectly fine and expected on Wikipedia. Undoubtedly, you see these as errors because of your experiences and expectations of what's right. While we obviously do not agree on these edits, I would not think to insult you or belittle you personally for this disagreement. You have insulted me and my judgement multiple times (here and on my Talk page) because I edited your article in a way that you'd rather I did not. I'd ask that you remain civil and assume good faith and stick to discussing the edits and not the editors involved. Stesmo (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ratchet down the rhetoric. First of all, me critiquing your decisions or approach is not a personal attack or an insult. I completely think you are working in good faith; but you haven't demonstrated an understanding of the organizations listed here, and until this most recent post, you haven't really substantively engaged the issues I've raised. I am happy to engage with you here on the talk page, but you need to engage with the substance of my comments, and not just refer to policies and guidelines. We can all do that and it gets us nowhere, because policies and guidelines are all subject to differing interpretations and exceptions. It's useful to cow newbies but it's not a productive strategy for actually working on content. So to engage with a dispute about the contents of a particular article, you need to offer examples and counter-examples, and/or responsively engage on those examples.
Second, on the substance, the organizations are all clearly Wikipedia notable, per WP:ORG, and the kinds of criteria I described above (national in scope, quasi-governmental in function, typically long-lasting, etc. Unfortunately, because this is a list that includes representatives from around the world, it is certainly going to suffer from the sorts of systemic biases that pervade Wikipedia -- meaning that all of the articles that should be here are not here, and may not be here. That does not mean that the items ought to be excluded.
For the record: You say that all items on a list need to be notable. This is not true. "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. " Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists.) That's just FYI -- again, as I said, all the organizations on this list are per se notable (by which I mean Wikipedia notability).
Third, I agree that it is less than desirable to have the entries externally link to the organizations. After I created this page (which I must note has been very highly visited and used and contributed to), I saw that people were starting to do that, and I initially policed it, but then decided that in the absence of articles it wasn't harmful. One work-around would be to include the external links in footnotes. I'm not sure that makes the article more usable, although it would conform to the letter of the WP policy on ELs. Going through the list item by item would also be an opportunity to link-check and verify organizations, which seems useful. What do you think of that approach ?


--Lquilter (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lquilter. As I mentioned before, I'll let someone else discuss stand-alone lists and their entries. As to the best solution for ELs, I don't believe putting external links to a top-level, official website in a footnote is a good references for anything other than a website existing. But, is having first-party, unpublished refs better than having dozens of external links? Yes! The good news is that we've reached consensus that the external links should be removed as ELs. Would you rather that you were the one that removes them (either for good or as a ref) or would you rather I removed the ELs? Stesmo (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stesmo did delete the ELs (diff), when I didn't get to it, but did not convert them to footnotes as discussed, and still described the items as "non-wiki-notable." In the meantime, I've started adding in the existing wiki-links to the organizations that weren't wiki-linked before -- because of course, as I previously discussed, these are notable ("wiki-notable") entities. Recording the diff here so that I can more easily reclaim the URLs as appropriate. Otherwise, this appears to be resolved. --Lquilter (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of copyright collection societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_copyright_collection_societies&oldid=1208224801"