Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 15

Open Meridian Project URL on Meridian 59

Resolved

 – Case seems resolved since it seems that at an open source game everyone who is opening a server with a homepage is allowed to link it in the original game article in Wiki. Seader (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that anyone who opens a server with a home page can do that. Please see my comments below, which address the risk of spam. --Stfg (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well depending on the answer from the project for videogames they can. And at the moment there is no way to make a distinction without violating original resarch guidelines but this does not matter in this discussion anymore.

It was suggested by CaptRik to Seader to open up his dispute here, but he seems unwilling to do so. I am therefore opening this so that a resolution can be reached.

Seader claims the link I have added to Meridian 59: http://openmeridian.org is an advertisement, and that it does not belong on the page. I claim that the link adds unique value to the page.

Please see the full discussion so far here: Talk:Meridian_59#Link Daenks (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not you to decide what I am willing to do or not. I already requested a third opinion on this [1] even before CaptRik suggested this discussion here. I again ask you kindly to stop with your assumptions about other peoples intends or doings and to follow the guidelines for discussions. The discussed link is how I already explained violating against #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. ... Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.". The private homepage is only about the game mechanics and changes of one specific server which is also owned by the same person who runs the homepage and not about the game in general. I also see it as advertisement of this one specific server since when u enter the homepage the first things u see is "Home of Server 103" and "Server 103 Changelogs", "Server 103 Charter", "Server 103 Statistics" and also the tool with which you can create an account for this one server to play on it. It also links only to the forum and blog of the developers team of this one specific server. Even the linked game wiki on this homepage is only about this one server. This whole homepage is not about this game or its development but only about this one server and thatfore (external links guildelines #13) and because it is advertisement for one specific server it should not have any space in the article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not speak for you. I do not understand why you keep thinking I am insulting or targeting you. I have not said one negative thing about you. I am not going to respond to the argument you laid out above, as I have already done so in the Talk:Meridian 59 page. I opened this request to get external opinions, not to repeat the same items again. Daenks (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

" but he seems unwilling to do so.". Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The important word here is "seems" please look up the definition.Daenks (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is Meridian 59. Currently there are three active servers: 101 and 102 hosted by the owner of the source and one of the original creators of the game, and 103 which is the first significant server to operate using the open source code. Most of the population remaining in this game resides on server 103, the webpage for which is the link in question here. Not only is this directly related to the game (and thus the article) it is also correctly placed in the open source section since the server is built from the open source code. The link is not just about game mechanics; game accounts can be created here, there are links to the original (101, 102) servers, links to forums and IRC for discussing game content, links to the github page for commenting on or submitting code changes and also blog posts and update posts which discuss current and future changes (for 103).

Seader, what else would you like to see on the homepage for the game server where the majority of the game's remaining players reside? I believe there is enough content there (and again reiterating the fact that this is the game's 'flagship' server right now) for it to be more than relevant to this article. Delerium1 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Guideline #13 for external links is pretty clear here: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. ... Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." The article is about the game Meridian59 in general and not abot Meridian59 Server 103. This homepage is only about one version of this game on one specific server and its changes like you just said: You can create game accounts for 103, read about the game changes on 103 and its mechanics, get to the developers forums, IRC chat and blog for the game content for only for this one server and it also links to the server 103 github group where people can submit code changes for server 103. The links to 101 or 102 are not to be found just one link which leads to the officiall homepage. And since Daenks is running this server and you are one of the developers of this server we are also very near to a conflicts of interest. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that openmeridian.org is a team project for the entire open source version of Meridian 59. We have crafted a launcher that can be used to log into any server, as well as created numerous improvements to the game itself, and a new client is being worked on that anyone can use. There is no specific private server being advertised. If, for example, Seader wanted to start a server, his server would also be listed as part of the open meridian project. Frankly, all the volunteers and contributors working on these projects find this rogue individual's edits insulting and tiresome. We have already dealt with him causing problems in other arenas for quite some time. I'm not clear on how Wikipedia works, but this isn't a "two opinions" case. This is one person vandalizing pages for a project, a team, and a community. Gar103 (talk) 6:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And here we have a third puppet account directly related to this one server (Advertising and conflicts of interest). My opinion and our experince with each other does not matter here at all since the guidelines for external links are not supporting this link. What you do not seem to understand: I am not acting against this project, but I am acting against the abusement of WIKI as an advertising platform for the personal gain of a small group. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they can see IPs and realize we're not 'puppet accounts'. I'm sure they can also tell you're just a banned player with a grudge, no matter how politely you try to write. Gar103 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well they can see that you were just created only for this one purpose here. Oh and btw: I am not banned, I am risking right now to get banned but the integrity of WIKI is more important for me than a game and I would appreciate if you would keep discussing the topic and stop trying to move this discussion into the personal field with trying to kill my credibility with this nonsense. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment we have 3 voices positive to this link but actually this three are first no real editors in Wiki and directly related to this issue since one is owning the server and the others are the main and the second developer of this server. I would like to hear some opinions of other real Wiki editors to this case. Kind regards Seader (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As would I. Daenks (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just like to add that at 1842UTC 5 June 2014, there are 15 players on 103 (link in question), 4 players on 102 and 1 player on 101. The 103 server *is* the game right now. Seader, this is the same behavior that earned you a month-long ban from the Github repository. This is Wikipedia; I believe removing links (or content in general) because you personally dislike the content or the people associated with it goes against the spirit of an unbiased source of information. Delerium1 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stay at the topic and stop spreading nonsense about my person and your POV about the servers (juat for example earlier when I was on there were only 5 accounts online ) since you as a developer of 103 are probably in a conflict of interest here. Try to argue without getting personal just by facts according to Wikipedia guidelines can you please? The guideline #13 and the easy to see advertisement effect for 103 of this homepage are what make this homepage not suitable for the Meridian59 article. Thanks and kind regards Seader (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As a developer for the server in question I believe it is relevant that you have been banned from a public forum related to this game previously for posting derogatory and antagonistic comments towards developers. Your edit is not unbiased by any means.

It seems to me Guideline 13 is in place to deal with cases where a general article (such as 'Online Gaming') contains a link to a specific gaming server (this link, for instance). In that case, the topic might be far too broad to include such a specific link. Conversely, this Meridian 59 article doesn't need links to the history of computer programming, as those are far too broad in scope for this article. Guideline 13 (I believe) isn't meant to be a weapon to strike down links that are on topic, in scope but which you might personally dislike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delerium1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems you cant stop it to try move the discussion to the personal side. I was not banned but got my writing tights removed for a few days ( same hat can happen here) since I criticize your or Gars motivation behind your coding. So it is clear that you guys take it personal with me here now. Like I already said: Even if I am risking right now to get banned from your server which I still enjoy playing from times to times the integrity of WIKI is more important for me than a game and I would appreciate if you would keep discussing the topic. Kind regards Seader (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope that an admin can remove all the not topic related nonsense here. It destroys the possibility of an construktive discussion by strechting it into unnecessary complexity. Or maybe we better start a new discussion without this personal nonsense. Kind regards Seader (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Meridian59 has been on my watchlist for quite some time, it's usually pretty quiet.

A few thoughts :

• • All four users Seader, Delerium1, Daenks, and Gar103, are single-purpose accounts. Apparently created specifically to war over this link.
  • The link in question was first added back in February by a two-edit ip address.
  • This open-source server does not appear to be endorsed by the current maintainers of the official Meridian59 servers.
  • The open-source server does not seem to be based directly on the assets of the original. It's a clone.
  • It was not at all appropriate for project members to add the link to their own probject, much less edit-war over it. (However it's pretty common for new editors to be unfamiliar with the Conflict of Interest guidelines.)
  • If the link to this project is removed, the link to meridian59-dotnet should also be removed, as it's also an unofficial open-source clone.

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about the link itself. It's not hurting anything, and may be useful for the people who search for Meridian59. However, searching other game articles, I can't find a single game where an unofficial clone, or unofficial pirate server is listed under external links. Occasionally when the clones have their own notability, they're mentioned in the prose (see : Civilization (video game) or Battle.net) , but never linked.

APL (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That IP is me. I added the link. I have acknowledged elsewhere that I was previously unaware of the conflict of interest guidelines until today. I also apologize for my involvement in the brief edit war, I am passionate about this topic, and I was upset and make a mistake. I will be sure to follow these rules in the future. The Open Meridian Project (which is not a server itself, but does host one) is a fork of the Meridian 59 Official repository, correct. But it is also the only actively maintained repository for this game. The only commits or modification to the parent (official) repository over the last 9 months or so have been critical bug fixes submitted by members of my team, or otherwise had origins from the Open Meridian Project. Although we have made game play and system changes, the core of the game is still Meridian 59. We are not writing a new game in the game's engine, we are writing a new expansion. There is also a new client, the other link that already exists on the Meridian 59 page is also part of our project. Also, a large part of our goals is to write tools that make it easier for other people to easily operate other meridian servers, which previously has required significant technical involvement. One could construe that our project is a "clone" but I prefer to think of us as a maintenance fork. Finally, I would propose that at least some of the visitors to the Meridian 59 entry would be interested to know that there is an active team (of close to 20 people) making improvements to the game, whether that interest is over the server and the opportunity to play there, for technological interest, or other reasons that I have not thought of. By this alone, I think it is clear the link should be considered a positive contribution to the page, and should therefore be reinstated.Daenks (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. The OpenMeridian project is an actual fork of the official server code? I misunderstood. I thought it was an independent work-alike clone like bnetd was to Battlenet.

In that case it probably does make sense to have a link. It's not too unusual for Wikipedia articles to include to prominent forks of a project. APL (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are a fork. Our github page (https://github.com/Daenks/Meridian59_103/) is directly forked from the Official repository, clearly stated in the top left corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daenks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

LATEPOST: I know its late but since the discussion is so much strechted into complexity and I forgot to comment on this point earlier I dont find a better place for this: Well to answer the question if this fork is prominent or not is a question of the point of view here. I know other people who worked on the code of this game which do not intend to work with this projects team and I know that the playerbase of this projects server dropped in the last few months over 80% of which I know quite a number who have no plans of comming back in the near future. I would not really say that its that prominent. And even if there are still reason for not being usefull. Kind regards Seader (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the user contributions can show that my and Daenks account have been activated a long time ago. Gar and Delerium were only created for this one discussion just yesterday and have no experience with Wikipedia discussions yet which explains the non existent distance to the topic caused by an interest conflict which they showed during this discussion. I myself am an active contributor to the Wikipedia for years with thousands of edits but mostly on the german Wikipedia. Here in the english one I did only some smaller corrections yet and can be seen as a visiting neighbour. Because of my long experience with the Wikipedia I should have acted better and I apologize for this bad neighbours/guest behaviour which is responsible for the unnecessary ruckus on the meridian59 article and discussion. In the german WP we have similar guidelines regarding this case which allow to remove non topic related personal assumptions from others discussion edits. After I read the discussion guidelines here I saw that this is differently handled here so I apologize for the removal of some parts of Daenks edit. I as a long time Wikipedia contributor believe in the idea of Wikipedia and it's integrity which is secured by guidelines and that Wikipedia should not been abused for personal gain in any way, which is how I think happening here with the server 103 link. We also have a very strict and similar guideline like here for external links in the german WP which is protecting the WP of abusive advertisement via external links for personal gain and since Daenks and the developers announced that they have big plans for this game and are planning to bring their server on Steam in the next year it is also possible that there might be a commercial interest in advertising their server here. But I still believe that Daenks and the others want to help the game how they seem fit, but I disagree how they try to use the Wikipedia for this purpose. The Server 103 is still a privately owned server managed by one person, even if a group is coding for it it is only Daenks, the owner of the server who makes all decisions. Calling this an open source community project would be too much and does not seem to reflect the reality. There is no difference to the previous existing pirate servers except that with the open source license of the code this server is now legal to host. Otherwise there is nothing of officiall nature on this server, it is a privately owned and runned project. The discussed homepage is specifically only about his own hosted server 103. There is no information about the game in general but only about the development of 103. A user who gets on this page is only able to find news, discuss change suggestions and contribute changes and create an account for the server 103. The guideline #13 says that external links have to fit directly to the topic of the article. Well the name of the article is Meridian59 and not "Meridian open source", "Meridian59 Servers" or "Meridian59 server 103". 103 is still a Meridian server yes I agree with that, even if its a special version of the game which has been massively changed in its gameplay, but the homepage is specifically only about one aspect of the game and this is the development of server 103. Thats the reason why I think that positioning this link into the article violates #13 of the external links guidelines and is for advertising reasons. The reason that this sites only purpose is to inform about server 103 is also the reason why statements like "I think it is clear the link should be considered a positive contribution to the page" do not reflect the reality here since its topic is not Meridian59 but a very small and specific (not even officiall) part of it called server 103. Thats at least my opinion on this and I think to remember that in the past advertisement for private servers has already been removed from the article in the past. Kind regards Seader (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do hope to one day get the game meridian 59 on steam. We envision a counter-strike like system, where the "game" is really just a launcher, which would then list all the available servers (which would be run by any independent operator who would wish to do so). We do not envision any commercial ventures; nor to put advertising in the game. None of this can be done by us anyway, as we do not hold the copyright nor the trademark, nor even any license to the graphics. As I have publicly stated previously, Server 103 is just the development platform for a larger goal. It is also not uncommon for a single developer to have access to a system in an open source project. Its also notable to point that only the game server do I have sole access to. The rest of the project is completely open, or managed by a team of moderators (forums, etc.).Daenks (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

About this "everybody can come to us and submit his server details to our project and we will list and suppoirt it" claim since it is supposed to be an open project ( which btw is not related to this topic). I will add also some not to the topic related comment on this: I remember when another specific player and server hoster came to your server 103 and advertised his own server there he was jumped also by people from the developers team who publicly claimed that nobody should play there since he is supposed to be a scammer. It seems that not everybody can start his own server and gets supported by your "team". Now his server does not exist anymore as far I know ( I dont know the background here about him and I do not intend to discuss it here it is just a fact that this claim does not seem to be valid for everyone).
And now back to the topic: If your team is successful with your project and you really archieve this goal like you just described than this project could be relevant enough to deserve an own subtopic in the Meridian59 article or even an own article in the Wikipedia itself. Then you can of course link your private projects homepage to the related article. But how it is right now with your private project it is not relevant enough for this, otherwise we should list all open source projects and their homepages to every other topic too. Kind regards Seader (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're very much getting off topic here but you mention Revenant's server; anyone familiar with the game's history knows why playing there is a bad idea. To the Wikipedia admins and/or third party observers: is there somewhere I can submit a formal complaint about Seader's conduct on this article? This individual has had extremely poor conduct in a number of forums related to Meridian 59 due to his extreme dislike of server 103 and its administration. His editing of the Wikipedia article is simply a continuation of him trying to convince players on the original servers not to play, abusing developers on Github, abusing developers even more using in-game forms of communication and actively trying to force new players to quit via harassment.

Yes, I created my account yesterday to join in the debate over this link but I don't think that fact lowers the validity of my arguments. This particular player has been a nightmare for our dev/admin team and I apologise for dragging our conflict onto Wikipedia but the alternative was to have him watch the Meridian 59 article for who knows how long, editing out any mention of 103 to satisfy himself. 58.7.128.230 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (edit: post by Delerium, didn't realise I was logged out.)

It seems to be hard for some people of this same group which come here from the 103 project to argue for their homepage to stay at the topic in this discussion with valid arguments and not to try to move it to the personal area by trying to kill my credibility on personal basis. This is WIkipedia and not your gameserver anymore. So please leave the grudge and personal conflicts to where it belongs. All you said dear Delerium is not related to Wikipedia and even if it would be true it is not relevant here since I am not acting against the server or anything you accuse me to but just mention that this link is violating against the guidelines of wikipedia itself and your private project is not relevant enough yet to be mentioned in the article and thatfore also not your link, which at this stage is nothing more than advertisement for your server, which in my ezes is abusement of Wikipedia. I ask you kindly to be part of this discussion according to Wikipedia guidelines and try to argue according to the guidelines why this link should be in the article. Till now your comment "editing out any mention of 103" seems to confirm my thought that for you this is just a kind if advertisement of your server. Kind regards Seader (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One could argue that the entire article is an advertisement for Meridian 59. Server 103 is the main server for Meridian 59 at this point in time. As Daenks pointed out earlier, fixes developed on 103 have been applied to the repository for 101/102 by the owner/creator of the game. We are all volunteer developers and everyone who cares enough to write some code or help out in any way can join the 'private' project. Of course, you already know all this which is why your edits of the Meridian 59 article and your comments here are a product of extreme bias and hatred for the 103 server/team rather than stemming from a need to correct some imagined injustice that the link's existence has caused. This is a clear case of a disgruntled player taking out his frustrations for a game on as many public forums as he can find, and if you lose your editing rights on Wikipedia for this it will not be the first time you've been punished in a public forum for unprofessional conduct relating to this game. Delerium1 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I guess any further discussion with you is meaningless and a waste of energy since you dont seem to be willing to argue according the the wikipedia guidelines and always return to moving this discussion into the personal field not related to the topic of this discussion and are not willig to let your personal grudge against me out of it. Yet you were not able to argue according to the guidelines against my arguments. Your argument with main server is also invalid. Since you are deeply involved in this project and since you obviously take my critique on the link in the article as such an attack on your project (I dont get it what you mean with that I want to harm the project? The only thing I did was to remove a link according to wikipedia guidelines of which I though was placed for advertisement reasons. I have not lost even one bad word about this server) it seems for me that you are highly probable in an conflict of interest here. Well I am not here to argue with just created and biased one purpose accounts, so I also wont answer on the nonsense you spread here about my person, but I am here to see what other real Wikipedia contributors which actually care for Wikipedia think about this link. Kind regards Seader (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns about the relevant guidelines. Pasted from my comment above: 'It seems to me Guideline 13 is in place to deal with cases where a general article (such as 'Online Gaming') contains a link to a specific gaming server (this link, for instance). In that case, the topic might be far too broad to include such a specific link. Conversely, this Meridian 59 article doesn't need links to the history of computer programming, as those are far too broad in scope for this article. Guideline 13 (I believe) isn't meant to be a weapon to strike down links that are on topic, in scope but which you might personally dislike."

The link is no more advertisement than the rest of the page is. If you google Meridian 59, you will find the link in question on the first page. The player base is on server 103, the server has ties with and gives content back to the original servers via the Github repository. The link in question also links to the official webpage for the original servers, and the forums accessible through that link also provide redirects to the forums for those servers. Think about it this way: a former player or someone searching for information about Meridian 59 on Wikipedia would probably find it informative to follow that link and see the current state of the game through all the information accessible through the link in question. Delerium1 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well and I believe that this guideline is to protect wikipedia articles to be spammed with non relevant external links. How I understand this guideline the external links which are in the articles have to target the topic of the whole article and not just one specific part of it, also the other way around that external links of specialized articles should not target the area around it, like for example a homepage about MMOPRGS in general on the Meridian59 article. This also excludes the link to your homepage since this homepage only provides informations about one little aspect of the game in this is server 103. But I already explained this above. And if you want to argue with the information gain of the forums and blogs of your homepage: these are not to be linked in articles anyway. Also the position at google and the mentioned link to the original website are no valid arguments for the project homepage. Also the discussed project homepage is actually a the developers blog which means that the linking to this page in the article is also a violation to #11 of the external links guidelines since it is not written by a recognized authority. So we have now 2 points of the guidelines (#11 and #13) against which the linking of this projects homepage in the Meridian59 article would be a violation. Kind regards Seader (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The link is relevant to the whole article; as I have said many, many times, this is currently the MAIN SERVER for the game. This server is where all the players are. Do you dispute that? You call it "one little aspect of the game" but for somebody playing the game right now, or interested in learning about the game, this link would be the ideal place for them to go. Do you disagree that 103 is currently the main, most populated server? If so, please explain why. The link in question is not a 'blog', it is the official page for a Meridian 59 server and as such it handles account creation and client download in addition to providing links to relevant content such as current/future changes, forums for discussion, etc. You're really clutching at straws here looking for a reason to strike this link down and you've modified your argument several times now in an attempt to discredit the link. Delerium1 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am still playing this game and your statement "this is currently the MAIN SERVER for the game. This server is where all the players are. Do you dispute that? You call it "one little aspect of the game" but for somebody playing the game right now, or interested in learning about the game, this link would be the ideal place for them to go" is your own POV, which I and also others do not share and which is not relevant for this discussion here since its not the official game-server nor is it the official game homepage. Sry. And no I have still the same arguments, I just found a new one. A closer look shows that the homepage is actually a blog which provides all this services only for one specific server of the existing ones and which is not written by a recognized authority, since the projects own wikipedia article was fast deleted because of lack in notability. So we have besides the advertisement aspect the guideline point #11 and #13 after which this link should not be usefull for the article. Kind regards Seader (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've spent a lot of time over the last few days at the talk page working through this. The issue with the Open Meridian Project link is really only the tip of the iceberg. The article was still standing on the position that there were only two servers, although that is certainly not true now and may not have been for much of the last two years. The meridian59.com link, which explicitly recognises servers 101 and 102 on its home page, and not any other servers, was reinforcing that position. Part of the work has been to ensure that the article as a whole presents a balanced picture.

  The inclusion of the Open Meridian Project link helps to restore the balance, and its Charter subpage has useful things to say about the state of the game in general. I don't think the arguments relating to criteria 10, 11 and 13 hold water. It isn't any kind of social networking site (#10). It links to a blog, but is not itself a blog (#11) (one might equally object that meridian59.com links to a forum). The page is about Meridian 59, the subject of the article (#13). I agree with APL that it merits mention as a fork of the official server code rather than an "independent work-alike clone".

  I disagree with Seader's comment that "it seems that at an open source game everyone who is opening a server with a homepage is allowed to link it in the original game article in Wiki". We should make a distinction between significant code forks and clones in people's garden shed, otherwise we'll be opening ourselves to spam. ("Significant" in intended to exclude minor tweaks to get round this.) I offer to keep the article on my watch list to ensure that it doesn't get excessively spammed, and to use the means described in WP:SPAM to address anything like that if necessary. --Stfg (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well technically it is a blog and I never mentioned #10. No clue where this comes from now. Well #13 is still not solved in my opinion but this does not matter here anymore since its the smaller issue about this links and its group and nobody seems to watch this site here anyway and I asked at a different address. Just to clear it up since this discussion and arguments have been splitted over more than just this page since it was a the question about this link from a different point of view than the external links guidelines: It was not only the question about the mentioned external links guidelines. It was a question about encyclopedic relevance and a prominent feature which was not given here, needed to think of mentioning them or the homepage from the very beginning. The case was about a formerly commercial video game which went open source end of 2012. Then 8 months ago a group of players formed together to modify the game code and opened their own server. Since there has not been any medial coverage or other independent secondary source yet which is acknowledging this "open meridian project"-group or their server, which could give them a prominent feature, the question besides the external links gudelines I was also asking was: Is the linking their homepage on the games article appropriate or not? Is this group and its project encyclopedic relevant enough? The only independent source which is in any way mentioning this group (I think its refering to them) is a recent article from May 2014 of the The New Yorker which covered the history of this game and shortly mentioned the development after it went open source. But also there this group could be only referred as "a group of dedicated players" without any mention of their server. I still have concerns that the linking is not appropriate. My opinion here is if its ok to link their homepage (without any reliable secondary resources acknowledging them) in the article it should be also ok for other people I know which also already contributed to the open source development of this game (and also could be refered to with the new yorker article as part of this "dedicated group of players") to open an own server with an own homepage and to link it in the article. Well after we did not receive any answer here during the last few days regarding the link directly I asked about the encyclopedic relevance at the videogames projects talk page where I got the answer that their site but also the other sites would be allowed be linked. About Stfg comment: "We should make a distinction between significant code forks and clones in people's garden shed", well how it is now there is no way to make this distinction since you weould need secondary sources (like I already mentioned) for this which do not exist. Everything else would violate the original research guidelines. So at the moment since there is not way of making this extinction without violating other guidelines all other peoples server homepages would be also allowed to be listed. Thats also the reason why I marked this discussion as solved. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia

I was at WP:RSN but this is better. I'm not certain about Daily Bleed's Anarchist Encyclopedia as used in Template:Dailybleed (and elsewhere). I'm not certain it's anything beyond one person's original research and it's seems to gone out of use around 2006. The fact that it's in a subdomain of a used book publisher is the most concerning fact about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a desirable link according to WP:ELNO#blog. Some of the links on that site lead to questionable web sites, and some even point back to Wikipedia. FWIW, the template only has five transclusions.- MrX 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The template seems rarely used, but the site is linked fairly often from articles. I don't think it looks particularly useful, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Links to Author's Works on Amazon

Hello. In an article about an author, references are being added to individual works which are basically a link to Amazon's page where you can then buy that work. From the External Links guideline, this seems to be an inappropriate link, as they don't give any information beyond what the article itself could state (indeed, many of the product descriptions are sourced to the subject's own site). Are these types of links in fact inappropriate, or am I reading too much into the guideline? Can Amazon even be used as a reference in the classic sense? Thanks to all, Electric Wombat (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Electric Wombat: I would say that no, Amazon.com should not be added to external links. We don't link to Newegg.com in the Microsoft article, and we shouldn't link to Amazon.com in book articles. As far as a reliable source, there's a debate going on right now at WP:RSN about that. If you ask me: no. Many other users say it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are definitely not appropriate external links, nor would they normally be reliable sources, except perhaps for the price Amazon is charging for a particular book. WP:LINKSPAM or WP:REFSPAM may also apply.- MrX 03:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. I think a justified link would be for a new book title, or release date; often Amazon is the first to carry such info before even the publisher. But otherwise we should avoid linking to commercial sites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't put an Amazon link under ==External links== per WP:ELNO#EL15. The problem isn't exactly that it's "commercial" (in the sense of being for-profit), because non-profits get treated the same way, but we don't spam around links to booksellers.

That said, if these are being added as references, i.e., supporting article content, then the problem can't really be solved by referring to WP:EL, because it says (some half-dozen times or so) that it has nothing to do with reliable sources. You'll have to go look at REFSPAM and related pages for an official justification for removing those (assuming you actually need a page that you can point the other editors at). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

External links on article talk pages

• WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages

It may be useful to put relevant external links on article talk pages, and anyone interested may care to comment at the above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

TS Roadmap

Recently User:Carolmooredc has removed a bunch of external links to the site such as [2], claiming that the links fall under Advocacy. She also notes that the owner of the site has been banned. ( Specifically she is topic banned ( not site banned ) on the subject of human sexuality, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for details. ) The links in question were originally added by other users, often around the time of the article creation. I believe that the links in question are a useful and curated resource and fall on the side of being useful to have, with the exceptions of certain articles and sections of the site. I have reverted one of the removals, but would like additional input before I decide to either revert my revert or look at restoring the link to other articles on a case-by-case basis. PaleAqua (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also wanted to be clear I support some removals such as this one, though that was one used as a source, not an external link. I've quickly gone through the remaining links to the site ( most of the remaining are on talk pages and archives ) and don't see any other ones that might be problematic from a BLP pov. PaleAqua (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links says that "Links normally to be avoided" include those that are "Advertising and conflicts of interest" and I think this definitely falls in the former category; not familiar enough with circumstances to know if the latter category is Relevant. It also notes "In biographies of living people" which reads: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. That doesn't include someone's personal website giving recommendations on whether someone is a good doctor or not. Also, I noticed three other External links to personal web sites are dead links and they also should be removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If the dead links are in external links they can go. (If they are used as sources ( and are reliable ) then replacements should be found or they should be marked as {{dead_link}} and possibly an archive link added. Just because as source link is dead does not mean it can be removed. Similar to sources to out of print books etc, the source doesn't need to be online to be used.) For the cases of Blanchard's etc, I can see a POV issue and possible COI, in other cases this is a well known site, and it is a curated collection of multiple reports, not just as personal site. I can see if being a little greyer issue. Especially if the reports are negative. If I recall with Meltzer, though it has been a while since I read though it completely the reviews were generally positive which is one reason I felt more comfortable reverting that one vs. the others prior to discussion. I'm not sure if advertising applies as it wasn't the site owner that added the links. The other thing to note some of these links have been present a long time even through the conflicts that want through arbcom. I imagine if there were issues with them they would have been examined and gone through at that point. PaleAqua (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this link fails Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided in some form under 4.1 Advertising and conflicts of interest; biographies of living people' and Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. There are a bunch like that on related type articles. Dead links for high quality sources doesn't apply to lower quality and questionable sources like these. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The list is here, and it looks like only 19 (13%) of them are in the mainspace at the moment. A glance at Carol's contributions suggest that perhaps about 10 have been removed, almost all from biographies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I saw when checking as well, had the same link list up earlier. Mostly in talk pages or archives. A handful still in article space, Carol removed a few that were in BLPs. I reverted one before noticing the other and switching to discussion. I do think that if they are restored it needs to be on a case by case bases. I am of a different opinion then Carol on some of the concerns but can see how it could go either way. ( I don't think it falls under the advertising clause. And I'm not sure I would consider Jokestress to have a COI issue, but more a point of view issue over a closely related topic which I don't think is at play here in most of the cases. ( See the Carol's removal in Blanchard's typology I noted above for a case where it might be in play. ) PaleAqua (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really mean to be bureaucratic about it, but it looks like a good deal of those removals were as sources, and ELN doesn't deal with sources at all; that's WP:RSN's territory. How many removals (or potential removals) were actually under the ==External links== banner and not BLP-related? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a really good question. The ones I looked at were external links. And those are the ones my opinion differs. The ones used as a source are a different kettle of fish. It's probably why your count of 10 looked a little high to me when I first saw it. I do not have the issue of removals used as sources. I would consider TS Roadmap to be similar to linking Yelp, Urban-Spoon or the like. Better to use a meta-critic like site for sources if necessary, but considering that TS Roadmap is one of the best know review collection site seems ( at least in my opinion, hence the question here ) to be worthwhile as an external link. PaleAqua (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In particular, see the pages for surgeons Toby Meltzer, Stanley Biber, and Suporn Watanyusakul; as well as Deep Stealth Productions. I also think what it might be useful as an external link at Douglas Ousterhout where it was removed as a source. PaleAqua (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for info on searching for external links. Most seem to be talk pages. I was concerned about a number of such SPS testimonials by various individuals used in external links, not just this one individual's. Toby Meltzer has four links, all dead. Did a quick search of Category:Surgeons specializing in transgender medicine and didn't find any. So not as likely to look through Category:American_plastic_surgeons.

TSRoad map still seems to fall under Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided in some form under 4.1 Advertising and conflicts of interest; biographies of living people' and Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. I know some SPS sites used in external links in other topic areas were brought to WP:BLPN last year and nixed. So I do see BLPN as the final judge for BLPs. Of course, I feel I've wasted more than enough time on this specific issue.

But am surprised that advocacy and promotional sites being given so much slack since have seen them slashed out of a lot of political and economics articles over the last year. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the link search tool is really useful. There was another one that search across different language sites in the past that I've used in the past, but can't remember where it is right now. Was useful for dealing with problematic source links. Looks like the link at Douglas Ousterhout got put back in. I just checked through the Toby link's and about 4 or 5 of the dozen or so at TS Roadmap seem to be dead. For the other links at the articles 3 of the external ones that are dead are to Anne Lawrence site. Let me fix them, though not making a comment for keeping them by doing so. Do you have a link to the discussion from last year? I still don't see how the pages in question are advocacy or promotional. I still don't see how a collection of surgery results and photos counts as advocacy. I also don't see any advertising involved. Gender reassignment surgery is not something that the owner of the site performs. She is not the one that originally added the link. The pages do not seem to say go to this surgeon or not that surgeon. They aren't even a part of the site that extolls either the benefits or determents of the greater picture on if surgery is the right choice. They just document the results. Note that SPS are may be valid if they are from an expert in the field. I would definitely say that Andrea James is a notable expert and TS Roadmap is a well known repository of information. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead links under ==External links== should always be removed or replaced. Also, looking at Toby Meltzer, there are three links to the same site, which is generally not desirable per WP:ELPOINTS #4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, sources that have become deadlines are still sources, external links that are dead are useless. For the duplicates as I noted in my link-vivifying comment they should be merged with the index link. And since that's unrelated to the TS Roadmap link in question going to make that change now. PaleAqua (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As the only apparent defender of the external link self reverting my restoration of it as it has been 7 days. Note this does not mean that I support the removal and I still believe that it is a valuable resource, but not interested in standing alone. PaleAqua (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Always nice to run into a reasonable editor :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014

• List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is a classic collection of every possible external link, handily embedded in the article. It appears the tradition goes back to List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 (see the navbox at the bottom). Does anyone recall this issue being discussed? Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No need for discussion, this plainly fails WP:EL and WP:NOT. Wikilink to the Wikipage of the subject is enough (and there the official website of the subject should be listed, not every online presence). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Beetstra. The use of Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook links is highly inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started cleaning out, there is also a wiki, standard linked from the final external links, and I have problems with seeing 'playboy.com' being the official website for these lists - there may be an appropriate link there, but .. not everything needs to have or has an official external link. Also pruned those. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. That page needs both weeding and BLP-quality sourcing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I take exception to any claim that there is "No need for discussion." While these pages (the Lists of Playboy Playmates) are prone to collecting excessive external links, particularly for social media and for-profit blogs that are not official Playboy sites (despite some having names like "Playboy Blog"), at least two types of external link are fully appropriate. One type is the official website of the particular Playmate, assuming that it is has not become a deadlink. And the second is an official link of Playboy, not for the company as a whole but for that particular Playmate.

It is appropriate to link the Playmate's own website if she has one, because she is one of the subjects of the List of Playmates and she should be able to say something for herself. The link for Playboy about that Playmate is expressly allowed under WP:EL as an "official site" directly related to the subject at hand. "Playmates" are the creation of Playboy, after all, and Playboy is the ultimate authority regarding who is or is not a Playmate, and where they can be found as Playmates.

There should of course be only one such link, and the best candidate for such a link is the Playboy Wiki -- and specifically its page for the Playmate named in that entry on the List of Playmates. Despite the word "Wiki" in its name, which may raise a red flag with certain contributors here, the Playboy Wiki does not, as Wikipedia does, have hordes of contributors both competent and not. It has the form of a wiki, but it was established by executives of PEI and is maintained by organizers appointed by them and who closely monitor the relative handful of active contributors. In practical terms, the Playboy Wiki is the best single official Playboy site to link to because its page for any particular Playmate consolidates all the information regarding where she can be found _as a Playmate_ on every other official Playboy site. Links to Playboy.com have long been accepted as external links, but especially since that site was outsourced by PEI, it does little more than confirm that so-and-so is a Playmate, and then directs viewers to "Playboy Plus" which is only accessible to paying members. In contrast, a Playmate's page at the Playboy Wiki lists her every appearance at the Playboy.com free site, at "Playboy Plus", at the still-archived previous paysites (the Cyber Club, Playboy Girls Network, and Special Editions Club), and at Playboy.TV, In most cases, the Playboy Wiki page also lists information relating to that Playmate's appearances in Playboy's print publications and in Playboy videos—even old videos that may only be available as VHS tapes and may not be listed at IMDb. No other site does all that, and it is all directly relevant to anyone seeking information about any given Playmate _as a Playmate_. And unlike a Playmate's page here in Wikipedia, the Playboy Wiki reveals nothing that might violate her personal privacy. Only what she chooses to reveal herself in the course of her role as a Playmate, posing for pictures and video. Wikilister (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That page needs citations, not external links. The social network links are especially unwanted per WP:ELNO#social. The only WP:ELOFFICIAL link should be the playboy.com link. Each individual entry should not contain external links.- MrX 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I started working on the Playboy lists some years ago, focusing more on the lists in general, but noticing and removing the inappropriate external links. See Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1955. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Related discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilister, the subject of the page is not "Miss July", or whatever the models are called these days. The subject is "Playboy Playmates of 2014". Therefore, the only possible WP:ELOFFICIAL link is to a page or website about all of the 2014 models, presumably hosted at Playboy's own website. "Miss July" only gets a link to her own "official" website if the article is entirely about her (i.e., it does not include the other eleven models for that year).

The far more important point is that the page (last I looked) contained zero WP:Citations to WP:Reliable sources, and it's a WP:BLP-oriented page. If you don't get some proper citations on that page ASAP, then it could get deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not start any of the "Playmate Lists", and I am not versed in Wikipedia's means of handling citations. I do try to improve the lists with what I do know: appropriate links to further information. But most of those lists, which have been up for years, do have the required citations.

Re your first paragraph, I take it then that you won't object to me adding back the links that were at the bottom of most of these lists — links not to the Playboy.com home page, which does not focus on any given year's Playmates, but links to the appropriate sections of a Playmate index at Playboy Wiki. Of course, you have to know something about Playboy, its various sites, and "what the models are called these days" to appreciate the difference, but those links would be better focused on the subject of the article (the 12 Playmates of a given year), and still hosted on one of Playboy's own websites: Playboy Wiki.

To save time re predictable objections: Playboy Wiki meets every one of the requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL. And although it is a wiki in form, it meets the exception in WP:ELNO #12: "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". For what it's worth, it is also vastly smaller and far more closely monitored than Wikipedia. Most of its content is generated by, and all of it reviewed by, the "organizers" appointed by Playboy executives.

It is not a "fansite" either, but since at least one objector has tried to dismiss it as such, it escapes under the very section cited against it: ""Fansites" ... are not considered official websites because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented." But the subject (Playboy) _does_ control the information. The section cited is in the form of "A" because of "B". Logically, ~B implies ~A. The reason for considering it "not official" does not apply. Overkill, perhaps, but Playboy Wiki additionally meets WP:ELMAYBE #4, assuming that you accept information from other official Playboy sites as knowledgeable sources, even though Playboy Wiki editors often seem to point out errors at the other sites, which later get corrected. Wikilister (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Playboy Wiki" can only meet the requirements of ELOFFICIAL if Playboy Wiki (the website itself, not the magazine it talks about) is the subject of the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're all getting a lesson in WP:EL, I thought that a lesson in WP:ES would be beneficial as well.

From WP:ES: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit... Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it."

It would have saved a lot of my, and other's, time if the editors who were carrying out the consensus of this discussion would have provided a link to it in their edit summaries instead of vaguely making references to WP:EL. EL is several screen views long with several sub-sections. Meanwhile, this discussion sums up the reasons for the edits succinctly. Now, if you don't mind, I have better things to do than instruct experienced editors on basic wiki-etiqutte. Dismas|^(talk) 05:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article looks much nicer after the cleanup. What it needs now is prose expansion of the individual playmates. Without the linkclutter this is obvious. The links really served as a distraction from building encyclopedic content; they promoted linkbuilding instead of content creation. ThemFromSpace 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dismas: - just to note that I removed them on the basis of the consensus of WP:EL (& WP:NOT), not on the (maybe at best emerging) consensus here in this thread. (the latter, as I expressed above, I feel is not even necessarey). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on Spyro (series) external link

Hello all, the Spyro (series) page has been having a dispute for a while now about the external links. A certain user has added a link to "SpyroDragon.org", which is apparently a small, freely-hosted discussion forum. I and several other users feel that having this link on the page violates the Advertising and Conflict of Interest section of the external links guidelines as well as several others (not neutral, not providing any good information relating to the subject). The user who is adding the link disagrees, stating that the number of Facebook likes on the page proves that the site has "earned" its spot in the article. I would appreciate opinions on this so we can finally settle this. Thank you in advance! Sfstormy (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a forum you say, so that invalidates it as a suitable external link. Nothing 'earns' a link a place on Wikipedia. Please remove the link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The page is currently protected because I and the user who was adding the link were edit warring. Should I just take it off when it becomes unprotected in a few days? The user is refusing to accept the removal of the link (so we have apparently not come to a consensus), and I don't want to do anything that would be considered edit warring again. Sfstormy (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think that the http://lair.spyrothedragon.com/splash/ should be in the external links section as the official site - link. The three links http://www.SpyroDragon.com/ , http://www.SpyroTheDragon.com/ and http://www.skylanders.com/ are all three not the official links, the first one the forum discussed, and the other two seem to be of the merchandise, not the official websites of the subject. At least http://www.skylanders.com/ belongs on Skylanders and not on Spyro (series). See WP:ELNO regarding direct and indirect links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Spyro is not a currently running series and thus has no official website. The series was replaced by Skylanders (which is why the Skylanders link was there), but I can see why it might not count since Skylanders only has a small section in the article, and it's debatable whether or not it's considered part of the series. http://lair.spyrothedragon.com/splash/ is a dead link - it's been down for years since the series it was promoting was replaced by Skylanders. Sfstormy (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That latter link is in the infobox .. that's why I took it (I haven't looked at the content linked to, just at the application of WP:EL). That link then should go, and maybe more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again for your input. Should we maybe just remove the external links section altogether for now? I can't think of any relevant links to add in place of those. Sfstormy (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is the mobygames-link (though I have no clue about that one, I see it around more - I think it is deemed informative and adding to the knowledge of the subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For me that link is saying the game group no longer exists. I'll check out some other video game series articles and see what kind of links they have. Sfstormy (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes the most sense to remove all of these from the External Links section. Most non-official websites simply fall on the wrong side of WP:ELNO. Regarding the official website, I don't think it should be removed if the only problem is that it is now defunct. Archived versions of most websites are available via the Wayback Machine at archive.org, and a link to an archived version (e.g. this) could easily be supplied. But I would disagree with the removal of an official URL even if an archived version was unavailable. That kind of information can be extremely helpful to researchers. -Thibbs (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there's already been some trouble with edit warring, I suggest getting someone else to remove the link. Dirk can help with WP:BLACKLISTing the link sitewide, if that becomes necessary (I really doubt that it will).

The general rule for disputed links is at WP:ELBURDEN: in case of dispute, the link gets removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There has actually been ongoing dispute over the link being re-inserted in multiple articles by multiple IPs and one named account, as well as an offsite forum discussion that appeared to be driving meatpuppetry. Given the persistent abuse, I've added the link to the en blacklist a couple days ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Honorverse wikia

At Honorverse (book series) article, several editors agreed to link to the Honorverse wikia ([3]). One user raised concerns about how this wikia may violate WP:ELNEVER due to its use of copyrighted images, some going beyond fair use, and after over a week of discussion we are clearly deadlocked, with none being able to convince the other party of their arguments superiority. It is my understanding that ELNEVER does not prohibit us from linking to such sites, as long as we don't link directly to infringing content, which is not the intent here (we just want to add a link to the Honorverse wikia main page to the article's external link section). Further, looking at past discussions here and at our other practices, it seems that it is acceptable to link to large, active wikis in such a fashion, when there is a consensus that such a wikia is a valuable resource for our readers. Few examples: We do link to some wikia sites. Yu-gi-oh Wikia ([4]) is linked from Yu-Gi-Oh!, following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_45#Allow_external_links_to_Yu-Gi-Oh.21_Wikia.3F. Naruto links to Naruto wiki ([5]). Memory Alpha ([6]) wikia linked from Star Trek or Wookiepedia ([7]) linked from Star Wars. Young Justice (TV series) links to Young Justice wikia ([8]), following a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14. I'd like to hear thoughts of EL experts on the case of Honorverse wikia, which at over 8k articles (thus about five times larger than the Young Justice wikia which was discussed here), edited daily, seems like a very valuable resource to link from the Honorverse page. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment only on the copyvio issue: Normally, when we evaluate the suitability of a link, we are evaluating the suitability of the single, exact page that's being linked, not other stuff that happens to be on the site. With copyrights (and anything else with potential legal complications), then you need to use some judgment: If we're talking about some www.copyviosRus.com website, then the fact that the home page is all legal—and all the rest is illegal—is not a good enough justification. But if you're linking to the main page, then the fact that a few of the 8,000 other pages on that website contain some copyvios is not necessarily a barrier (or even that a few percent of them might contain some copyvios: it's worth remembering that where Wikipedians generally draw the line is much higher than where US law does, so we sometimes tend to overstate the existence of problems). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Good points. So to be clear: you think that linking to Honorverse wikia would be as acceptable as linking to Memory Alpha, Wookiepedia or other examples I cited in the op? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion at all on the Honorverse wiki link. I've never looked at it. I only say that the presence of a small number of possible copyvios somewhere else in the site is not necessarily a bar to linking to a page that does not have any copyvios. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that for a Wiki, often the main pages reflect content or show content (we show featured pages on the main page). Although I agree with WhatamIdoing (we have other reasons to exclude fair-usable material), point is that WP:COPYRIGHT does strictly disallow linking to sites which carry work in violation of a copyright. Wikipedia has an educational target, and can use a lot of copyrighted material under a fair-use flag (not that our pillars would want us to, but that is a different matter). It however depends on the external wikis form whether it is allowed to use material under fair-use too. The above mentioned certainly seem reasonable at first sight, but wikis can have a completely different target (there are commercial wikis out there as well), where fair-use can simply not be claimed in any form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Honorverse wiki is a regular, non-commercial site, neither selling anything, nor carrying any pirated works (outside the usual abandon of images, some exceeding fair use, but not mote than the well-estabilished Wookiepiedia, Memory Alpha or other wikis). Since here, at ELN, I am asking about "yay or nay" for linking to this specific wikia, Honorverse, would you mind commenting on whether this case is acceptable, or if not, what makes Honorverse wikia different from the other examples linked in my op? Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying they are different. If Wookiepedia and the others are similar to Honorverse, and the verdict is that we would be linking here to copyvios (when 'featured' or whatever on the main page) .. that would mean the same thing for the other wikias. What I will add is that it should not be our goal to include external links, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. If people are looking for the Honorverse or Star Wars wiki, that is what search engines are for - and I do not think that omitting these wikis is detrimental to the understanding of the topic as described by this encyclopedia, it is just additional info that one can get. It's not worth the electrons. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Beetstra: Would you mind commenting on the Honorverse wiki, because so far this discussion is still not helping - the same editor who went against the page consensus at Talk:Honorverse before is still reverting the inclusion of the link, arguing that the discussion here is not conclusive/not relevant/does support the removal of the link. The purpose of me posting here was to see whether neutral EL experts would support one of the sides in the argument there, and while I find your comments quite valuable, unfortunately they are too general to help us. So: Honorverse wiki link: yay or nay? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - My stance here is clear - if the mainpage of the wikia linked to features material in violation of copyright, it should not be linked to. Whatever consensus on a talkpage you have, it does not trump our policies and guidelines, especially not WP:COPYRIGHT (and some others). I am not going to get into the dispute itself, I have over and over commented on the general problems and general issues. And I still believe that it is not our goal here to include external links, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You have dodged the question ignored the remark, whether not linking to the wikia is detrimental to the understanding of the page, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• All large sites have a certain percentage of copyvios. Our link does not guarantee that everything on the site is clean. If the main page of a site is not itself copyio, and does not primarily serve the purpose of linking to copyvio, this is sufficient justification to linking to the site. After all, we do link to other WPedias, and does anyone want to claim that all of them follow copyright exactly without a few errors and misapprehensions slipping in? Beetsrta is in my opinion way over-zealous to the point of impracticality. WP is an encyclopedia, and exists to provide basic information and to guide to further information. When there are pages on the net that extent our content , we not only can must emphatically ought to link to it. We are in a limited sense a guide to that small portion of the internet that extend our contents, just as we are a guide to all the copyright non free published material that extends our content. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Our overriding concern should be the quality of our articles and informing the reader; all else is secondary (for example, protecting the WMF from legal harm is useful only insofar as it serves the reader). So the question here is, given Wikipedia's well-known proclivities for trimming fiction articles, is the reader well-served by linking to the Honorverse Wikia? Certainly yes. Is there any copyright danger to some of their arguably-fairuse image usage? Certainly not. The Wikia is the target for any legal action, and in any case, the relevant parties are completely uninterested in harming the fan communities which keep the franchise selling so well; I will point out that Baen & David Weber have gone so far as to put several Honorverse works into the Baen Free Library - they are literally voluntarily giving away copies, believing this increases sales of other work, and if giving away entire works is something they think is a good idea, how much more so a wiki? --Gwern (contribs) 19:17 6 July 2014 (GMT)

Interwiki link

How to create a link from Y-DNA haplogroups in Central and North Asian populations to Haplogruppen (Y-DNA) in zentral- und nordasiatischen Populationen? --Su4kin (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A question like this should probably be at WP:HELPDESK (it's not related to external links) however let's talk about it. First, you must have scripting enabled. Then you can see a "languages" box in the left sidebar. It's empty. Click "Add links". However, it's not easy to sum up what happens next, although it's fairly simple. Do you want to try, or do you want me to do it? Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be nice if you could do it for me.. ..since I failed already ^^ --Su4kin (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Scripting has to be enabled probably for all of: wikipedia.org + wikimedia.org + wikidata.org. After clicking "Add links" in the empty Languages box, a prompt asked for the Language and Page. I was going to type "dewiki" into Language because I knew that's what it wanted, but by the time I typed "de" it prompted "dewiki". Then I pasted the title from the dewiki page, and that was it. To finish the job, someone should click "Edit links" in the Languages box and enter the description, but I should be doing something else... Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

findagrave

See also: WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:ELPEREN § Find-a-Grave

I had removed it's link on some pages and a user restored them on two pages. We could've added better website.

There has been discussion about adding findagrave.com before, such as[9],[10]. Link seemed to have been discarded as spam, fansite, etc. The main issue is that if we should add any link of findagrave anywhere on wikipedia? If it has been removed once, it should be re-added? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The information on findagrave is rarely unique (sometimes even taken from Wikipedia), or adding. If s.o. removes a link, the burden of showing its use to a certain page is on the person re-adding it (and preferably that is before re-adding it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thanks for the input. When writing for a GA, it was told that findagrave must be removed. I looked around and found that all GA, FA, etc have avoided this link. In some instances, where a person may have been fascinated by the information provided on this website, after a little bit of research it was acknowledged that the depicted tombstone never existed. Wouldn't be same for all pages but still it was defective. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, I'm sorry to say that your GA reviewer was just making up that alleged "rule". There's not one word in the WP:Good article criteria about external links. It's one of the many areas that are not supposed to be considered at all in a GA review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I never said that it is a rule. GA not only follow rules but also some common sense. GA policy doesn't say that you cannot use wordpress for source yet you have to remove its link if it has been used as source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. Iff the Wordpress page is a WP:Reliable source for the statement being made, then you do not need to remove it. If it's not reliable, then you need to remove it per GACR #2b, not just common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Beetstra, OccultZone. The problem is OccultZone is removing *every* occurrence via a bot/script. See talk discussion. Occultzone has been told by multiple people to stop removing every occurrence. Removing links from hundreds of articles via a bot/script is not to be done. This is controversial and controversial things are not to be done this way per WP:BOTASSIST. Bgwhite (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed had it, but not doing at this moment. WP:BOTASSIST is for only for bot account. FYI, this page is about discussion of the link. So your assumption seems to be highly unrelated with the credibility of the link. Just because "multiple people"(so far only 2) is seeking to spam the link, it is not enough argument for keeping a spam link like it has been discussed numerous times. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

BOTASSIST is for scripts and bots, "'Assisted editing' covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. " You are doing upto 17 edits a minute, thus this applies. Six people have commented on the page, only you agree with your stance. It is not a spam link. Nowhere does it say this except back in 2010 when it was a problem. It has been since been removed from the blacklist. You are removing all instances of findagrave at a rapid rate of speed when five people call this controversial and it isn't spam.

This discussion should have stayed at your talk page. Six people with multiple comments are there. Coming here and doing a POV summary is not the way. I suggest anyone look at the discussion here. Bgwhite (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong because coming here for exclusive discussion about this controversial link is the right way, a circular argument with apparent POV on a user talk page decides nothing about the whole link, only a reference to any past discussion on appropriate noticeboard concerning this link can be helpful and pretty much most of the people seemed to have disagreed with the use of this link. Question is that have I removed since the discussion? No. Every single time, on that discussion nothing has been presented by you or Kraxler other than "Link is not blacklisted yet". I don't know if the link was backlisted before, but the quality of this link has not been improved whether it was 2010 or now. None of the people have commented about findagrave except you and Kraxler. Goingbatty only said that this has been used many times in wikipedia.. Just like other flawed (fringe, conspiracy, wordpress, blogspot, etc) links have been. It doesn't make any point. I understand that the pages are very few, but doesn't decide any credibility.

Furthermore, one user has already noted that findagrave lacks quality and they copy from wikipedia a lot. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone - the additions of these links are controversial, they, often, should NOT be there in the first place. Defending the links because they are bot-like removed is not the way forward - the inclusion of the link is controversial in the first place. I can agree that bot-like removal is not the way forward either, if the link is 'spammed' by users, then that is also akin to bot-like inclusion. Please, when the links are removed, discuss re-insertion, and though bot-like removal is controversial as well, that does not mean that the removals need to be reverted if they result in a good removal (as it is, per the guidelines etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beetstra: That was nicely explained. To be more specific, I removed it on 3 pages and haven't removed after a user reinserted on 2 pages. Not that I was specifically targeting the pages having this link. In short, I fully agree with your comment. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

# RE: Dirk Beetstra "sometimes even taken from Wikipedia" - The tombstone photos at Francis B. Spinola and Robert B. Van Valkenburgh were not copied from Wikipedia.

# RE: Dirk Beetstra "akin to bot-like inclusion" - You're quite mistaken, I've written more than a thousand bios during the last 8 years, and have added Find a Grave links manually to many of them after checking the info. I've never used a bot or script in my whole wiki-life.

# RE: OccultZone "We could've added better website" - Which one? Please give me a link.

# Find a Grave is neither spam nor a fansite. I think we can assume good faith. It's a valuable source for burial place info and in some cases the life dates can be transcribed from a tombstone. That's sometimes the only source for not so well known minor notable people. Even if some FaG contributors make mistakes, we can not discard the whole site. Just to compare: There are mistakes on Wikipedia (let's say a few hundred in almost 5 million articles), so, should we shut down Wikipedia because of it? Well, we all know the answer... Kraxler (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please clearly identify the articles and especially the discussions mentioned? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check User talk:OccultZone#Find a Grave. There are some links, FWIW. The articles which had Find a Grave links removed by OccultZone, and re-instated by me, are Francis B. Spinola and Robert B. Van Valkenburgh. FYI, OccultZone's AWB access has been removed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of AWB bit for User:OccultZone. So, the botassist part of the discussion above has become moot. Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But how we can deny that it is a spam link? Even if good faith has been assumed I would still suggest against adding this link due to its lack of accuracy. It will lead to WP:Burden if you think that some pages are correct but most aren't. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So no article talk page discussions? Why not? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: Yes none. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Then the links should be kept out until there had been demonstrated clear consensus for inclusion per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting on Kraxler, lets see if he can provide some reason. If not, it will can be removed again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler - there is a long-standing consensus that findagrave should not be used as a reference, and hardly ever as an external link. If someone removes them, a discussion has to take place about the re-inclusion: they are known to be wrong, they are known to have information that is just from Wikipedia, they are unchecked, and they are often just plainly unnecessary - the data is available from reliable sources (which findagrave is not). Although I agree that the links should not be bot-removed (for which I would like to see evidence, if I understand it correctly it were a couple of edits between other edits ..), I do agree that most of these links simply should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is so, does that make Template:Find_a_Grave a problem? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RE Dirk Beetstra - "If someone removes them, a discussion has to take place about the re-inclusion" - You're mistaken again. If something has been in the article for a long time, and there is no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion, then the stable version of the article should be preserved until the discussion is finished.

RE OccultZone - You continue to talk gibberish. While removing your AWB access, your WP:Competence has been questioned, for a good reason. I suggest you consult an English teacher, and learn the language to avoid posting more comments like "~I am waiting on Kraxler, lets see if he can provide some reason. If not, it will can be removed again."

RE Ronz - WP:EL says at Links normally to be avoided #12. "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Find a Grave is such an exception. It also says at "Links to be considered" #4. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Knowledgeable in this case means somebody who visited in person the burial site, and publishes the info, including many times a photo of the tombstone. You see that Find a Grave is far from "disputed". It remains "controversial" because some people seem to have prejudiced opinions and are not willing to debate the issue, instead repeating over and over again the same already refuted arguments. See Dirk Beetstra "they are known to have information that is just from Wikipedia" after I stated clearly that the tombstone photos at the two articles were not copied from Wikipedia, and that I created bios to which I appended a Find a Grave link. How could somebody add something from Wikipedia which was not there yet?

RE Thargor Orlando - No there's no problem with the template. Kraxler (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold letters and apparent incivility is not helping you, we can get this straight. You must be bad at copying words or you don't know how to use them, if not, kindly tell if you have 'refuted' anything. Not my fault if you cannot understand simple English. If you are trying hard to get away from the argument concerning a spam link it becomes more clear that you lack WP:COMPETENCE for not only grammar but also for the reviewer right. First you assumed AWB to be a bot and you defended such nonsense by misinterpreting your own words, and after showing multiple archives you failed to acknowledge that the URL is controversial, who is incompetent here? Only you. While you are replying to people, you are writing in upper case or lower case letter without even knowing that how they should be used. It must be questioned again when you have reinserted a spam link, you were unaware of WP:ELBURDEN and here you are pretending that you know about WP:EL, but you are only WP:CHERRYPICKING and disregarding the actual. "because some people seem to have prejudiced opinions" makes no sense at all because you are clearly unaware or you have failed to point even a single opinion that was against the basic guidelines. Like any one else who enjoys making WP:POINT or at worst defend a spam link with no basis I highly doubt if you will ever understand the guidelines of external links. If you still don't want to acknowledge consensus against a fansite or spam link, it is your choice but stop getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed them, as no one has even attempted to explain why the links belong as far as I can tell.

I normally remove them whenever I come across them, and I've been wondering if active cleanup is needed. After seeing this discussion, I think think it should be discussed once we get the current discussion settled. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sign of progress . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ELPEREN#Find-a-Grave says "as an External link rarely" - Well, that clinches it. That's a positive statement that allows links to Find a Grave. IMO entries that feature photos of the tombstone, original newspaper clippings and burial plot numbers make an entry interesting, helpful and verifiable, especially in the absence of other sources, and thus a link may be added under this express permission. Kraxler (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELBURDEN says "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." - There is no default here: several discussions have taken place. It would be your burden to show that in these past discussions consensus to include has not been reached. The vast amount of links and the existence of a template for Find a Grave, and the posts of numerous editors in those discussions show widespread community approval, and tend to assume that consensus is that the links may be added/maintained. If you think otherwise, show me a link that supports consensus against Find a Grave. Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RE Ronz "I've gone ahead and removed them, as no one has even attempted to explain why the links belong as far as I can tell" - I urge you to re-add the links, since my explanations here and on the pertinent talk pages pre-empt your rationale for removal. The links have been there for years, and the stable version of an article should be kept until the end of the discussion, per WP:Reverting. Kraxler (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're correct in that FindaGrave is not automatically disallowed nor blacklisted.

"There's no default here" The default is to exclude links. Maybe we should reword ELBURDEN to make this clearer? The burden is on those arguing for inclusion, not exclusion.

WP:OSE is of no help in gaining consensus.

Until the article talk page discussions were started, there were no specific claims about the value of the link. The claims now appear to be that it is a reference. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First: WP:OSE has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody has claimed that one Find a Grave link should be added at X because it has been added at Y. When I see a Find a Grave that doesn't add anything to the article, I don't add it. Second: The two links (Spinola and Valkenburgh) are supportive evidence to the actually used references, one unverifiable, the other of doubtful reliability. Third: I saw that you have been blocked for WP:Battleground behavior. So, I'll wait now until tomorrow, and see how things develop. Then I might take further action. Don't expect me to revert again. I ask you to rethink your position in a wider context of this issue. I suggest you re-read all of this discussion, the talk page discussions, the discussions at the links given by OccultZone, and especially all pertaining policies and guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about bringing up OSE here. Retracted.

Could you WP:FOC please? This has been brought up, yet you continue. While you've repeatedly complained about drama in these discussions, much of it is of your own doing and in violation of WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE. It makes you come across as needing to attack others to distract from the policies/guidelines and actual content.

"especially in the absence of other sources" That's a good argument, and should be brought to Valkenburgh, the only article where it applies. I'll do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor linking to all their own Articles (with dubious notability)

The user [[11]] Is editing multiple articles pertaining to their area of research simply to link to their Arxiv pre-prints. This seems to be a clear violation of the conflict of interest and external links policies. The added content is not terribly clear, represents a viewpoint, and is supported by links of borderline notability.

Here is an example, removed from the abstract of the Spatial_analysis page:

The current spatial analysis is accused of being dominated by Gaussian thinking, so it requires a different way of thinking in terms of modeling spatial heterogeneity.<ref name="Jiang2">Jiang, Bin 2014. "Geospatial analysis requires a different way of thinking: The problem of spatial heterogeneity", GeoJournal, xx(x), xx-xx, DOI: 10.1007/s10708-014-9537-y. Preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5889</ref>

This does not link to a peer-reviewed article, only to a self-published preprint. "Spatial heterogeneity" and "Gaussian Thinking" are not terms of art in Geospatial analysis, let alone concepts that belongs in the header material.

That editor has placed ego links in about [dozen different articles]. I believe all should be removed, but would prefer an editor with more clout and awareness of proper procedures do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.147.205 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The larger problem is that the editor is promoting his work without regard for it's prominence within the subject matter of the articles and without regard for WP:COI.

I've cleaned up quite a bit of what hadn't already been removed by others. There's likely still more. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Official campaign site links in election articles

I had started a discussion about this subject here but it has been suggested I bring this up here. In short, should external links of official campaign websites of candidates be given in election articles of the relevant election? I started the discussion after external links on that same election article were removed here. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no firm rule against it. (There is a rule against listing dozens of external links, but that's rarely a problem for US elections.) Any such links would not be WP:ELOFFICIAL links for the election, but they could qualify as normal external links. (On the candidate's BLP, the links could be ELOFFICIAL links.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The answer really isn't simple. It's case by case. It comes down to common sense. In your article I would question if adding Erick Bennett campaign page would present Undue weight under WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I would also question putting them there under qualification of normal links if they can't be put there under WP:ELOFFICIAL.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been told in my original discussion by Ronz that they shouldn't be permitted in election articles under any circumstances, not even case by case, as "off topic" because the article is not about the campaign organization itself, but the election. That user has said it might be slightly more acceptable to have them in the articles about the candidates- though IMO that does not help readers of the election article.

I included Bennett as a matter of fairness as he was a candidate covered in a few legitimate, verifiable sources(attempting to appear on the primary ballot, then as a write in for the same race). 331dot (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I again don't really see it as helpful to the user. wp:soapbox may make room for some. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. But honestly I'm not sold on that in this case. It might infact be better to post this on the BLPs. While Bennet may certainly merit inclusion in the article I do find it questionable if his EL merits inclusion. Fairness really wouldn't apply. wp:GEVAL comes to mind for me. In forgoing due weight we might and including Bennets EL we may unduly legitimize him. As Due wight seems to apply it seems as well that GEVAL should apply. Honestly I'd lean more to posting the link on the candidates article to cover your reader accessibility concern.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Candidate internal links are already on the page in several places. The context of a campaign site, though, is different than that of a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVOTERGUIDE that does not but should exist at WP:WWIN, I lean as "opposed" to including official campaign websites in the EL section of election articles in the name of "fairness". As much as I dislike the status quo in US politics, fairness to candidates should never be a factor in whether we create a candidate article or chose to include a particular EL in some other article. I agree with the rationale provided above that ELs in election article are to be about the election. Location (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How are the participants of the election not about the election? What ELs are there out there for an election that don't involve the candidates? 331dot (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot have an election without candidates, and you cannot have a basketball team without players. Still, we don't link http://www.lebronjames.com/, http://dwyanewade.com/, or http://www.chrisbosh.com/ in the EL section of Miami Heat. Perhaps you have discussed this elsewhere, but what specific content under WP:ELYES are you arguing should be included? Location (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The candidates for an election are not on a team working together, unlike basketball players who are. User Number 57 explained things here probably better than I could. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres features competitors not working together, but we don't link http://usainbolt.com/, http://ybafraid.com/, http://gatlin100m.com/, http://www.tysongay.net/, http://www.churandy.com/, or http://www.asafapowell.net/ there. The point is that various individuals may have some connection to some other subject, but that does not necessitate that individual websites should be listed. How would you handle candidate ELs in United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2004 where there were 53 seats with as many as six candidates for a few of the seats? Should http://www.susancollins.com/ be placed in the EL section Maine gubernatorial election, 1994? Location (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have all the answers for every conceivable situation across tens of thousands of articles, so if that's required I guess I'm out of luck. A sports contest is different than an election; spectators at the 100m dash are not selecting the winners. I'm just thinking about what would be beneficial and informative for readers of the article. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, Ronz has pretty much established that those 2 links shouldn't be added. They are indeed promotional. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is being promoted; there is no suggestion to vote for a candidate(or to vote period) or otherwise advocate a position. We aren't saying "vote for X candidate, here's their site". 331dot (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Web page is. That is all the webpage does. Posting it in the article only serves to do that. And since you can't post everyones link with out adding undue weight, the other people's link only actually serve as promotion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the page, not the purpose of the link. If certain links add undue weight, they don't need to be posted(such as those of fringe candidates not actually on the ballot, such as Bennett). 331dot (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The link connects to the page for the promotion. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. This is what it seems to me that you are attempting under a charge of "For the reader". It's possible you can link these to the candidates article. That would be a better place. It doesn't seem to me to serve a encyclopedic purpose on this article. While it does seem helpful to the voter, it doesn't seem helpful to the reader. And I think this conversation has went on long enough for me. If there is nothing else for me to respond to then I bid you all good day. :)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's helpful to the reader, especially one from outside the area the election is taking place in, who might want to learn more and not be familiar with the website addresses. Voters are readers, too. The candidates articles are already linked to in several places in election articles. A Wikipedia article has a different context than a campaign article; both have a role, but are not the same thing. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as remotely helpful to the reader. It may be elsewhere but that doesn't mean it should be.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly your prerogative. I take the opposite view; I don't see how it is beneficial to readers to exclude this information. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing how a temporary promotional website would be of any interest to a general reader.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

General readers of the election may want to learn more about the candidates in the election, regardless of if they are voters or not, for their own personal benefit. Wikipedia articles about the candidates are in a different context, being in a NPOV and more general. I have been told the links would be OK on articles about the campaign apparatus and organization themselves(such as Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008) but such articles are unlikely to exist for all the candidates involved in all election articles. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as prerogative go, wp:elburden you want it's inclusion you have to justify it's conclusion and gain a consensus for its inclusion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I've started these discussions; even though I think the onus should be on those who want them removed when this sort of thing(the links) is done across Wikipedia- but I respect the guidelines. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Location: WP:NOTVOTERGUIDE doesn't link to anything. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. That's why I said it "does not but should exist at WP:WWIN". Location (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry. Brain fart.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus to include them was achieved years and tears ago. "The onus" doesn't automatically get reset whenever someone wanders into an article and objects. We're not going to start deleting infoboxes for the same reason. Precedent and settled consensus are followed until and unless a Very Large Number if editors agree it's out of date. As I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Politicians shows that it remains the consensus to include such links, and others, in election articles. We're here to inform readers and help them find more extensive information easily. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking to that discussion (where consensus was achieved years ago) would be helpful. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, you could simply observe the obvious precedent, going back to 2006. Example: United States Senate election in California, 2006. as I said it's not my job to "prove" that Infoboxes should continue to be used. You're free to search Wikipedia Talk pages for nine years if you're interested. there used to be a very active Project: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Consensus was reached on many things, including Template:CongLinks which is now being totally ignored by Ronz, ArthurRubin, Binksternet, Thargor Orlando, MrX and Beetstra. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Bioguide#External_link_template:_CongLinks and use View history to see how long that was established precedent: 8 October 2006. Note the original name, and the two original links. Then this small group jumped in, most of whom were never active in any U.S. politics articles (other than some being recently topuc-banned from Tea Party articles), decided to hit RESET and demanded "consensus" among themselves. I myself have never been interested enough in any other nation's politics to fight about deleting information in their politicians' articles, yet for six months that's what this group has been doing. And that is ALL they've been doing on U.S. politics articles: nothing but delete and argue about those deletions. I see no trace of real interest in the topic on their part, which us why I'm reminded of Bell Pottinger. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"The consensus to include them was achieved" Not that I can see. Did you link the wrong discussion perhaps?

"unless a Very Large Number" That's simply not how consensus works.

"and help them find more extensive information easily." No. That would violate WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Six months of continuing to refuse to admit Further reading exists and has a purpose, just like Beetstra. Why don't you explain why you ignored the project consensus on Template:CongLinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Bioguide#External link template: CongLinks? Projects used to be the place people went to, to find other volunteers interested in the same topic and working to achieve some consistency with the related articles. Now you and your buddies are demanding the clock be turned back and thousands of U.S. politician articles be argued over, one at a time. I've asked that before, and I've yet to get an answer. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed them from United States Senate election in California, 2006. See WP:OSE.

I'm quite familiar with the particulars of the Further reading section and how its scope can overlap with our policies/guidelines related to external links. I see no explanation of how it applies here in a manner that makes any difference. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you following the related discussion? ":Beetstra: You continue to avoid explaining Wikipedia:Further reading. Perhaps you, an Admin, never read it? I find it perfectly clear. There's also its successor, WP:FURTHER. Note: "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." (For those who weren't at Wikipedia in the early days, in-line citations were NOT used, and the References section looked much like External links does today. Most articles only had a few sources. The intent was to clarify which links had already been used to write the article, and which either had not been used or only a small section had been used.) I think it's time for you to stop tap-dancing around the issue and explain why you, of all people, should be able to strike down a standard Wikipedia section on your personal whim. How can you be so against Wikipedia's basic structure and goals? You've been here long enough to know how everything evolved...I've now found that this Talk page used to have a link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline. Since you posted there, I assume you're read the Guideline, even if you now want to ignore it." That applies to you as much as Beetstra. As for your juvenile bragging that you aren't going to let any discussion stop YOU from doing whatever you like...well, that speaks volumes. After six months of your show-boating, nothing would surprise me. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• United States Senate election in Maine, 2014 should include links to the Wikipedia articles on each candidate, and the external links section should not have any kind of link pertinent to a candidate (official/pro/con/whatever). Wikipedia articles are not a place to record all possible external links—an article on the election points to articles on the candidates, and each candidate's official website can be listed (only) at their article. Johnuniq (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ELOFFICIAL is not all official links

One of the areas of confusion I'm seeing above is about "official" links. So let's start from the beginning:

• People and organizations have "official" links. These are links that they have duly authorized somehow.
• English Wikipedia articles choose to supply (usually just one) "official" link to the subject of the article.
• There is a big difference between "an official link for something or another" and "an official link for the exact subject of the particular article in question".
• The subject of the disputed article is a particular election in the State of Maine.
  • The actual official link for the election itself, is, as far as I can tell, http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming.html – the official government webpage about the government's election. This webpage is not just "an official link"; it is "the (notice the singular) ELOFFICIAL link".
• The subject of the disputed article is not any of the candidates, voters, PACs, or other people or groups associated with said election.
  • Probably dozens of these people and organizations have "official" links. None of those links are ELOFFICIAL links.
  • Because none of them are ELOFFICIAL links, then ELMINOFFICIAL is irrelevant.

Now for the complicated bit:

There is no rule against including a link that is "official" for X, but not "ELOFFICIAL" for Y, in the article about Y, assuming that X is closely related to Y. For example, in an article about an election, you may, at the discretion of editors, include a (short) list of links to candidates' websites. You're not required to include these, because they're not ELOFFICIAL. In many cases, it might be preferable to include a single link to a page that happens to list all of the candidates' websites instead of listing them all yourselves.

But this idea that X is official for X, and so must never be listed at Y, is wrong and dangerous. Almost every website is official for some person or organization. We don't want to tell people that only shady fly-by-night websites are okay, because links to government agencies or statistical databases (for example) can only be placed where they're ELOFFICIAL, and not where they're relevant and justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful.

I hope no one is making the argument "X is official for X, and so must never be listed at Y". (If anything I've written could be interpreted that way, point it out and I'll address it.)

The confusion I am seeing is that editors feel if X is official for X, it meets WP:EL for Y. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ELMINOFFICIAL is quite relevant actually. It brings forth the logic that that External links can bring Undue weight to an article. The argument above is abit of strawman. It asks that one ignore that policy altogether. It doesn't actually look to much into what has been said other than ELOFICIAL and what ever were the quoted policies. The question is do the suggested links provide undue weight?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:ELPOV in general. ELMINOFFICIAL just expands on it specifically for official links, because it is an extremely common problem. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for the general case, it's ELPOV and ELPOINTS #3. There's plenty of advice about minimizing links without resorting to a statement that says "one one official link". ELMINOFFICIAL is there to discourage people who are trying to turn Wikipedia into a complete directory of people's or business's web presence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

True. We had people listing not only the official campaign site, but also Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, and various links within the official campaign site itself. All of those were linked from the official campaign site, almost always in a prominent position on the main page, so it was unnecessary as well as redundant. We had a similar issue with companies. Occasionally it was difficult to find the link for important information, their Board of Directors for example, so that was included as an indented link under the official website. However, that was rarely the case. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilister and external links in Playboy lists

• Wikilister (talk · contribs)

Previous discussions: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Playboy_Wiki_as_an_external_link_in_Playmate_Lists and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_15#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2014.

Looks like Wikilister isn't clear on what are and are not appropriate links despite all the discussions, so he's reverting once again in a series of edits [12] through [13].

I thought the consensus was clear from the second discussion linked above that the links are not appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We're not a link farm and having multiple external links sections in an article contravenes WP:LAYOUTEL.- MrX 22:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not about "Wkiklister turning anything into a link farm" nor as accused on my talk page, of "spamming". I undid a few of the many List of Playmate deletions by Ronz and a like-minded editor, who were stripping those pages to a bare minimum while actively seeking to have them deleted entirely. They lost that bid [[14]], but continue to delete as much as they can from those lists. As noted by several editors on the winning side of their attempted deletion, they repeatedly wave rulebooks without citing specific text in support of coherent arguments, and they fail to respond to specific arguments by others. MrX above does the same—WP:LAYOUTEL describes what an external link is, but nothing there supports his desire to delete them from the Lists of Playmates.

The successful argument in favor of retaining the Lists of Playmates included the point that they appropriately summarized a notable category in which not each included example merited a separate article. As such, each section of one of the yearly Lists of Playmates constitutes an appropriate substitute in lieu of a full article. There are appropriate external links that relate to specific entries in the List rather than to the List as a whole. Among these are links to IMDb, for which there is a consensus in favor of its use as an external link here: WP:ELPEREN. I undid just 4 of the many wholesale, indiscriminate deletions of such external links in those Lists. Deletions, as noted, by editors whose avowed preference was the deletion of the Lists themselves. I restored the work of others, not in this case adding any myself—though I do advocate the inclusion of a better official link for Playboy (a single link that consolidates their other possible links). There are in fact external links in the Lists of Playmates that need to be trimmed or changed. What I undid was the wholesale deletion of external links per se. Wikilister (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be best if we keep editor conduct out of the discussion and focus on content. The norm across Wikipedia according to WP:LAYOUT is to have a single external links section per article. If you have knowledge of a consensus to include an external links section for each entry in a list article, please point us to it. WP:ELPEREN is an essay, meaning that it does not necessarily reflect consensus. In my opinion, there is nothing at IMDB that could not simply be included in a dedicated biographical article, if any of these playmates are notable on their own. Also, IMDB is self-edited and frequently contains fan trivia and misinformation.- MrX 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Having to defend ones self for following policy, and being attacked with assumptions and false accusations, is not cool.

There was absolutely no argument--ever-- that surviving an AfD qulifies an article for GA status. There is also no known practice that weighing in on a debate, and being on the "losing side", is an indication that any such editor automatically refrain from further improving such articles without some intervention. The article in question saw major editorial improvements to specifics (references) that were raised in the AfD which gave rise to consensus for keep.

It is not just the practice of a few editors but the Wikipedia community, per policies and guidelines, to have one external links section. There is even a picture provided (WP:FNNR) for visual aid on article layout. There are also no exceptions to external links policies and guidelines for stand-alone lists to provide for trying to individually "reference", which is seen as spam or advertisement, each entry (12 on each article) in a separate section of a list using external links. Unless I made a mistake I am sure I left an external link where it is suppose to be and did not even get into specifics concerning content of links provided. The mass inclusion of external links in the body of the article clearly violated current Wikipedia practice so content was not relevant. Also included in the layout policy is: These hyperlinks should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section. AND last but not least: The external links guideline states "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.". "Not normally" would mean there would need to be some community consensus for exceptions and the length of time a violation remains does not qualify it as consensus.

A list article is still an article and I performed cleanup according to more than one policy (I listed one in the summary) and, like it or not you were in error to revert. It is sort of hard not to assume that you not were meaning me (even as I try to play dumb in good faith and assume not) because I have N-E-V-E-R advocated, certainly not with an avowed preference, to delete Playboy lists. In fact, with MUCH verbiage, please look here if in doubt, that was largely ignored I defended that the articles (that are not actually lists any way) need fixing to comply with policies and guidelines and provided a multitude of examples. If an article has "mass" violations it is not unreasonable to perform cleanup all at one time. In fact I think I have "won" because article improvement (which I sometimes question concerning others) is my actual only agenda.

There are still problems with those lists and I will now go to each and explain them, with appropriate tags, so you can spend some time helping fix them if you like. Would it be too much to ask that you self-revert your good faith mass reversions, since they were valid Wikipedia cleanup efforts? If further assistance is needed for clarification to rebut "without citing specific text in support of coherent arguments, and they fail to respond to specific arguments by others", I will be glad to provide it. Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

How many more times do we need to say this?

Is that clear enough? Not only is it a violation of MOS:APPENDIX (which is sometimes enforced automatically, by script), the Table of Contents doesn't work correctly on any except the first section with the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

Is this book a valid "further reading" entry for the article Bharatiya Janata Party? Also, if consensus is not achieved either way, does WP:BURDEN apply to external links?

• Elst, Koenraad (1997). Bharatiya Janata Party vis-à-vis Hindu resurgence. New Delhi: Voice of India. ISBN 81-85990-47-6.

I am of the view that Elst is a fringe source, and therefore WP:ELPOV would require his ommission. I believe Maunus agrees with me. Jyoti disagrees, and says that Elst is sufficiently mainstream to be included. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that Elst is a fringe source in the description of Indian history and politics and cannot be included as EL.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic of discussion is a book in Further Reading section. Here is the link to the still running RfC discussion:[15] and link of discussion on user talk page: [16] No point rehashing the discussion here. You may find mine and other editors response at these two places. --Jyoti (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not an external links, so EL does not apply here.

Elst's opinions on the BJP cannot be called fringe when the top senior leader of the BJP (LK Advani) has been repeatedly referring to Elsts views and books in important forums.

Elst is a controversial author, but wikipedia should not be censored and include all viewpoints.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of LK Advani is rather irrelevant when discussing what is an isnt a fringe view in the literature on the party itself. That is probably the last place one would look for an objective judgment. It arguably shows notability, but has no bearings on Elsts status within his academic field. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN does not apply to external links. However, WP:ELBURDEN does: disputed links are removed, unless and until there is a (rough) consensus to include them.

WP:FURTHER is not a collection of external links. However, approximately the same standards are conventionally applied, and sometimes the two sections are merged (if the resulting section would have only two or three items). This is as good a place to ask about this as any other. There is no dedicated noticeboard for further reading items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thanks for the detailed reply. The users that I am engaged in a dispute with still maintain that ELBURDEN does not apply, on the grounds that the disputed addition is not a link. What course of action would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Honestly? I'd find something more productive to do than argue over a single link. You can remove ten spammy links in the time it takes to discuss one. But if you're more seriously involved in that article, rather than just wandering by to do some link-weeding, then you could ask them what guideline or noticeboard they would consider relevant and binding. If they would not accept, for example, a decision made at WP:RSN, then you can try an WP:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing; unfortunately, I am rather involved there, I'm trying to get it to GA, and hopefully further. One of the editors disputing this with me did start an RfC, soon after adding the content; this behaviour made the RfC a joke in my opinion, so I brought it here. I have asked what guideline applies, and the question has been dodged multiple times. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst is not a website but an author, it should be decided on talk page(of article), WhatamIdoing got it right about consensus through RFC VandVictory (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Woman

I tried to add an external link to the article Woman only to be told it violated WP:ELNO. The external link is this one. As the article is Woman, I feel the link is an excellent documentation in video form of the way the female human body can function. The seven women depicted are top notch in a particular endeavor, which happens to be tennis, and there is nothing whatsoever demeaning about the particular video document. All seven athletes have Wikipedia articles. It is argued that the link violates WP:ELNO # 1 and # 13. I fail to see that. # 1 seems to require a "unique resource". The cinematography is of exceptionally high quality and in slow motion, allowing the viewer to see exceptional muscular performance in top-notch female athletes. # 13 wants appropriate relation between the link and the subject of the article. I think physical performance is one facet of the subject of the article. Perhaps there is a puritanical current that does not wish to look closely at women's functioning bodies in the way highlighted by the video. But Wikipedia is not censored. Nor should there be any offense. These are tennis players. There is no sex act being depicted. Talk page discussion goes on here. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Full discussion can be found here: Talk:Woman#external_link.2Ffemale_tennis_players. Another editor have expressed doubt that this external link will add anything to the page. I am the one who argued that it violates WP:ELNO #1 and #13. To me, it does violate them. My more subjective reasoning for not liking the EL is that it's objectifying and "fitness porn" (but I know WP:IDLI is not sufficient reason for excluding it). Regardless, there is clearly no consensus for its addition on Woman. User seems to have come here because they did not like the answer they got on Talk:Woman. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you assert that the external link "violates WP:ELNO #1 and #13". But does it? Shouldn't you present an argument? In what way does the external link violate WP:ELNO #1 and #13? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Number 13 is the clearest as it's not directly related to the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While the link is not prohibited, it would be one to avoid in my opinion. It's not authoritative and it really adds very little to understanding the subject. Personally, I would rather see a woman with a big brain or a big heart, than one with rippling muscles.- MrX 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an either/or situation. This is merely one more external link being added to an article. Several external links are are already in place and I fail to see why this external link is being singled out for removal. Are the other external links more on-topic? @MrX: How do you know that the 7 women do not have big brains or big hearts? They are illustrating women excelling in sports. That accomplishment, by the way, requires brain-power. These 7 women voluntarily participated in the making of this video. No one forced them. And there are no men in this video. This video is very much on-topic because it is about women. Could you argue that the link fails #13 at WP:ELMO? Is it only indirectly related to the article's subject? The subject is Woman and the link surely concerns women, in our case women excelling in athletics. (@EvergreenFir: says "Number 13 is the clearest as it's not directly related to the topic.") By the way you can't eliminate the sexual dimension from all things. This would be the same for an article on Man as an article on Woman. Sexuality is almost unavoidable. Wikipedia is not censored. The link is non-pornographic despite a reference to "fitness porn"[17]. Bus stop (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite my link about "fitness porn" you seem to think it's about pornography. It's not. It's like "food porn". Anyway, the link is of women, but not about women. It's about tennis. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You provided the link to an article titled "The Pornographication of Fitness Needs to Stop". The article itself does not even contain the phrase "fitness porn" yet you say "Frankly the EL is just 'fitness porn'." But the external link in question is to a video of the best women tennis players currently in the sport. The New York Times is not known for producing or distributing pornography. You raised the specter of pornography. I think that talking about pornography is muddying this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedic content in the linked article. It is slo-mo videos of women playing tennis. It does zero to augment the reader's understanding of the topic of women (the female gender of humans). As such it flat out fails ELNO, not only here but on pretty much any article on WP because of the lack of encyclopedic value. Art and/or photographic value, yes, but not encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about "Art and/or photographic value". The external link shows women—not men—engaged in physical exertion. What the video shows is the female body at work. Not just any work—but playing tennis. And not just any tennis players—but the best female tennis players in the world at this time. The video itself is of exceptional visual quality. It certainly does contain a wealth of information. It is in a nonverbal form but Wikipedia hosts tons of nonverbal information. A reader interested in the physical form of women can be interested in the video. That is probably why The New York Times produced it. The New York Times, as a responsible journalistic outlet, is a disseminator of good quality information. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It adds nothing. It is a fluff link for the topic of Women because without any discussion it is random videos with no context to the topic. We apply much more discretion in our links. I understand it is non-verbal, but I have no idea what is important to take away from the article that applies to "women" the topic, because "women" is an extremely broad topic. If we had a topic that was, say, "the physiological differences between male and female athletes" (a much more narrower scope), then sure, the link is fine because it is appropriate for the narrowness of the topic. The link is far too indiscriminate and uninformative to the topic for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That is just linkfarming - that link is not adding anything and simply fails the intro of WP:EL, as codified in what you generally should avoid (WP:ELNO). Indeed, this specifically fails #1 and #13. One could even argue this fails our pillar WP:NOT (in which WP:EL has some roots). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road (marketplace)

The link to the Silk Road .onion hidden service was removed from Silk Road (marketplace), the wikipedia article on that site/service/marketplace, with a note that it violates the guidelines on External Links (diff).

At least one other user appears to agree (diff).

Neither user indicated which policy they thought was violated, but I've taken a quick look through the policy and there appears to be two potential violations. I don't think that there is a violation of either, but I've addressed them both below:

1. I am not sure if accessing the site is illegal but, even if it were, it is the subject of the article

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist."

First, the link was to the official page of the silk road, which is the subject of the article, so even if accessing the link were illegal in the U.S., it seems that it doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy.

Second, I don't know that it is illegal. I hope somebody else can help here, but I haven't seen any order of the Court stating that accessing the site is illegal.

2. The site is registration-only

"...A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see Official links below) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)."

The site does require registration but, again, the website itself is the topic of the article. So the policy specifically provides that linking to the site does not violate the policy.

I don't agree that a link to the subject of this article should not be on the page. The link has been there for three years (diff) so I'd like to know why people are suddenly saying it violates policy.

I will post messages on all three involved users' talk pages to get their position on the issue and would appreciate other users' insight on the matter.

Frazzydee|✍ 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• My initial read of WP:ELNO was that the site is illegal, which was borne out by its seizure, therefore inappropriate under #3. You are correct that the guideline as written does seem vague on the question, since I agree that the mere act of accessing the site is probably not illegal per se, and the seizure itself is not the final judicial answer on the site. As for "why now", that's just when I saw the reverts going on in the Recent Change list, and made a call based on how I read the policy. I'm not above being wrong of course, so would also welcome more opinions on the subject. I've looked for a precedent on other pages, but cannot really think of a close enough analog to SR to establish a meaningful one. Electric Wombat (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it was seized is a good indication that the site itself, and running the site, are illegal. The question is whether access is illegal; I think that's a different act entirely and it may very well not be illegal to do so. Again, I haven't seen the seizure order and I'm not familiar with the law. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the legality of the current market ("SR2") depend on its location, and/or the location of those who are administering it? The advantage of not publishing the URL is that it would no longer be subject to malicious edits, inclucing attempts to replace it with URLs for phishing sites, though presumably it could be "protected". - Oniscoid 12:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the legality of access is what's at issue, not the legality of the market itself. Any URL can be maliciously edited, the only difference is that .onion URLs are not as simple/readable. That has been solved by sourcing the URL, but I like your solution better of protecting the URL. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We have occasionally considered making the common-sense exception to ELOFFICIAL be more explicit, but it's only come up in two non-trivial cases that I can recall: Silk Road, and a malware-infected politician's campaign website. (On the second, there was some question as to whether the site was still infected.) The practical answer to whether we need to explicitly flag this in the guideline is that editors who don't have enough basic sense to stop linking to malware, porn-spewing, or otherwise seriously inappropriate sites, even under the excuse that "it's official!", usually end up blocked before they have time to read the entire guideline, so resolution is quick and simple. Consequently, it hasn't ever seemed truly necessary to say "don't turn off your brains once you encounter the word 'official'".

But in case you're wondering, foundation:Terms of Use also covers the subject of people violating ELNO#3. Search for the keyword "illegal" to find the right section. In the meantime, WP:ELBURDEN applies: once inclusion is challenged, even for an official link, the link is excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if a site is official that really shouldn't mean it should be included no matter what, although the policy suggests so. But I still don't think we have a clear answer here, or if there is one, assuming that accessing the site is legal. Perhaps we should do a straw poll, but I don't know what the procedures now are and if it needs to be a WP:RFC and if so whether the RFC should be here or on the article talk page. Can you advise?

There is no WP:ELBURDEN issue AFAIK. I don't think anybody wants to put the link back until there is consensus to do so, which there clearly is not. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Accessing the site is NOT illegal. Put the link back so people who want to look at the site for whatever reason end up at the right place. We're doing a disservice to anyone with curiosity and inviting folks to publish malicious URLs advertising themselves as The Silk Road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:9480:EF:EDCD:6EB1:336D:B73B (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with 2601:7. While it's obviously illegal to trade illegal goods through the site, visiting it is not illegal. It goes without saying that this is a vital piece of information for our readers. I've replaced it as it was in the past with a reference demonstrating that sources have linked to the site. SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Silk_Road_(marketplace)/Archive_1#The_link and all those linked discussions. It was previously confirmed by the WMF that linking to the site is not illegal. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Interactive video

• Interactive video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please add the above to your watchlists because it seems to have fallen through the cracks and attracted a bunch of spam links. I'll try to clean it later, but it's going to need follow up. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Maandate.com being added to external links of investment firm pages.

A lot of investment firms are getting [18] added to them, as shown in this diff.

Is "maandate.com" considered a reputable organisation, or are these additions spammy?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is being added to several pages seems spammy to me. Besides, it's company profile information, which would seem to contravene WP:ELNO#not unique.- MrX 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been removed. That's probably for the best. The site looks like it's registration-required, and inaccessible to the general reader beyond a small pre-approved membership as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Blues_dance#External_links

I am concerned that some or all of the links currently at Blues_dance#External_links are not appropriate, insofar as they are more about where to find good Blues dance venues than they are general histories/descriptions of Blues dance. But I'm not very well versed in the external links policy, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look. Thanks, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

References

They are all advertising links and should all be removed.- MrX 14:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you do the honors? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

LocalWiki as a RS for EL?

Moved from RS/N

I just noticed that an editor has been adding LocalWiki, using a template, to the External links section of many articles. Since wikis, including Wikipedia, are not considered RS, is this a good idea? Since they are wikis, savvy business owners are using them for free advertising space. OTOH, maybe they're good enough to be used as EL. I really don't know. Pinging the editor, @User:Michael Barera, so we can get his input. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. To be clear, I'm posting these links as external links, not as sources. I believe that LocalWiki articles (like Wikipedia articles) shouldn't be used as references, but I do think they can be useful to readers as external links. Brangifer, your point about LocalWiki being (or potentially being) used for advertising is well taken. However, I'm trying to be sensible in my edits and only adding links to LocalWiki articles that appear to merit such treatment. Until we reach consensus on this issue, I will voluntarily put a hold on all my LocalWiki-related edits. Michael Barera (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: A number of Ann Arbor-related topics have been linked to (what was) ArborWiki (and is now part of LocalWiki) for over a year now. All of the links to other LocalWiki communities have been added today, since the template has been updated to enable linking to all such communities. Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to get some outside input on this because ELs aren't exactly in the same class as other types of sources. LocalWiki might be good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll be interested to see what the community thinks, and I'll certainly respect its decision. Also, I think it is useful to note there are a number of other external wikis (including Wikia ones) that are essentially in the same boat on this issue. Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider them in this discussion as well? Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A positive decision here would allow editors to add those links without having to "look over their shoulder" in case someone disapproved. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Brangifer for bringing up this issue, and to Michael Barera for bringing it to my attention. Having a consistent template is helpful in many ways because it allows for straightforward monitoring of edits to Wikipedia that reflect on Localwiki. I treat Localwiki as a potentially useful external link, but not as a reliable source, in much the same way that when I'm editing Localwiki I think of Wikipedia as maybe a good start for an article but decidedly not something to simply copy from without localizing and verifying. The two projects should complement each other and the "external link" is the right structure for that. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We actually have a separate noticeboard to handle questions about external links: WP:External links/Noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll move this discussion over there. It should appear in a few minutes. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, carry on here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the question basically boils down to: "does the article on LocalWiki contain any information that our local article could not contain?" If I take our local Plum Street vs. http://localwiki.net/detroit/Plum_Street my answer would be no! If I take Champaign Park District vs. http://localwiki.net/cu/Champaign_Park_District then the only additional information on localwiki is the history, a part that is missing on our article and could easily be included. Answer again: no. Third case: Vashti_McCollum vs. http://localwiki.net/cu/Vashti_McCollum shows that the article linked to contains significantly less information than the Wikipedia article, and I would regard the external article (being completely unreferenced) to be utterly unverifiable, whereas the Wikipedia article contains 16 references. Although I can see that there are cases where the localwiki-article would be a welcome external link, I think that there is no reason for a blanketed-like inclusion "adding link to LocalWiki article of interest". Wikipedia links to external sources because they contain extra information, or more detail than what the Wikipedia article should contain - not to articles which contain the same info, or which contain extra info which could easily be included. That is against our polices (policies on LocalWiki likely differ).

Just as a note, I see that parts of the texts on both the Wikipedia articles Plum Street and Champaign Park District and the LocalWiki articles http://localwiki.net/detroit/Plum_Street and http://localwiki.net/detroit/Champaign_Park_District are literally the same (which sometimes makes it an obvious case for not needing to link to it in external link sections from en.wikipedia to localwiki.net) - may I raise a question of attribution here? Did A get copied from B? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the Plum Street (Detroit) article. I took at look at it and made a swipe at including text that would not be apropos for Wikipedia coverage, yet that would be perfectly suitable for Localwiki. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the standards regarding these templates, and so I don't have much to add about whether or not this should be any kind of default for new articles. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what's being debated here, but I wanted to reply to a few of the great questions asked by Beetstra above.

Regarding "does the article on LocalWiki contain any information that our local article could not contain?" I believe the answer to be yes. There are some cases, particularly with not-yet-fully-developed pages, where the LocalWiki page contains no information that the Wikipedia page doesn't also provide. However, in many other cases the relevant LocalWiki page contains lots and lots of information that isn't even remotely appropriate for Wikipedia (due to a variety of factors, explained a bit below). And, importantly, even if the relevant LocalWiki page doesn't have any additional information yet, LocalWiki represents an open, non-profit, advertisement-free and like-minded location for Wikipedians to contribute local knowledge in a manner that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

Regarding references, LocalWiki pages do not require external citations (but are welcome), because the majority of local knowledge is not written up in an external, citable source (such as a local newspaper, which are increasingly disappearing). The way LocalWiki handles verifying local knowledge is by ensuring that local community members are involved in the process of editing (with local admins being responsible for content debates).

A couple of examples off the top of my head: http://localwiki.net/sf/Gentrification (see list of tagged pages) Many of these pages were started at a series of editathons at a local historical library (http://localwiki.org/blog/2014/aug/4/san-francisco-localwiki-gentrification-editathon/), and many of these pages would make interesting external links from Wikipedia articles about San Francisco. Take http://localwiki.net/sf/2976_23rd_Street as an example -- that page isn't appropriate for Wikipedia (it's about a private residence), but it's interesting to anyone reading about San Francisco housing policy in 2014. Another quick example: http://oaklandwiki.org/neighborhoods (will be accessible at the localwiki.net/ URL in a couple of weeks) contains more and complementary / different information than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neighborhoods_in_Oakland,_California. Each linked page contains more information as well (http://oaklandwiki.org/Fruitvale_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitvale,_Oakland,_California, http://oaklandwiki.org/Jingletown and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Oakland,_California)

Again, no opinion on this particular template-default, but wanted provide some background on LocalWiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.225.137 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I would add, that since I do not see any reason for blanketed addition of LocalWiki to our articles, that linking can be done completely by hand, and that {{LocalWiki}} should be deleted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what has been said so far, I would disagree about deleting the template. It is a more elegant, more efficient, and most of all a standardized way to link to external content (which is good for preventing linking errors such as "http://localwiki.net/detroit/Champaign_Park_District"). Plus, it allows editors to easily monitor where and how it is used, which I think has already proved useful in this discussion. Michael Barera (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:180.254.225.137 - You say that in many cases the LocalWiki article contains a lot of information that can not be included in the Wikipedia article .. yet, the first three articles that I found (the last three that Michael Barera added the link to at that time) do not show any of that. That distinction was not made when they were addedYou did not make that distinction when you added them, and I think that all of those should be removed, and others screened as well.

Regarding the example http://localwiki.net/sf/2976_23rd_Street - that is not appropriate as a stand-alone Wikipedia article indeed, nor as an external link in San Francisco, or even on the 2014 housing policy in San Francisco or on 23rd Street (San Francisco) .. that still fails our inclusion policies. Similar, List_of_neighborhoods_in_Oakland,_California is a list-article, not self contained information (that would be Neighborhoods_in_Oakland,_California), it links to the different neighbourhoods. Moreover, the article on the oaklandwiki does not contain much more encyclopedic data than the Wikipedia list-article does at the moment. I do not think that the suggested LocalWiki entry is appropriate on either, the info is in the different neighbourhoods' articles. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the point of an external URL that it provides information that isn't written in an exact style that would be appropriate for direct integration into Wikipedia? Almost every external link on Wikipedia is to a site that isn't an encyclopedia. The provided example URLs contain a lot more information than anything on Wikipedia (seriously, did you look at the Oakland neighborhood pages?!), and all of my previous points still stand. I don't know what standards you're referring to by "fails our inclusion policies," but reading the external linking guidelines, it seems a large number of LocalWiki pages would be appropriate as external links on Wikipedia. Again, I'm not sure what the technical debate is here, but I believe that external links to LocalWiki could be very valuable in many cases. Whether or not that's automated / blanket in some fashion, I don't have an opinion on, but I wanted to reply to your points here which seemed to imply that LocalWiki is inappropriate for external linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.159.35 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, I believe you are confusing me with the other participants in this discussion (please note that I did not write the unsigned post). I never said anything about LocalWiki articles being able to contain information not included in Wikipedia articles, and I did not give any examples about OaklandWiki (which is a project that I have never edited). I did add the links in the first place, and if there is consensus here to revert my edits, go ahead and do it. But please do not confuse what I have said and done with the actions and words of other Wikipedians. My only posts on this page were to explain my edits and the logic behind them and then to defend the existence of the {{LocalWiki}} template. All of my posts have been clearly signed by me, and any posts that were not signed by me were not written by me. Thanks for understanding. Michael Barera (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oi, sorry. I missed that, got the threading confused. My apologies for the misattribution, but I think that the basis of the post still stands. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Dirk. And yes, I agree that the basis of your point still stands. If you think it best to revert the edits I have made in the cases that you have pointed out, I would have no problem with it. Of course, I can't speak for anyone else, but it wouldn't bother me. Michael Barera (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: If evidence shows a link is not needed, or is not relevant, or in some way should not be added to an article, AND the adding editor agrees the points are valid, why not just agree to remove them and not suggest that it would be alright if they were reverted. That is like, "I agree with your arguments for exclusion but "I" will still keep them in the article unless you choose to remove them"-- so do the work and I will go along with it---just a thought especially considering "I'll certainly respect its decision.". Otr500 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Otr500. I've gone ahead and removed the LocalWiki links in the three cases cited in this discussion: Plum Street, Champaign Park District, and Vashti McCollum. Michael Barera (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External link removed

Hi, i added a reference link to a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hosting_service but my link was removed by Bonadea <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bonadea> for the reason that it was a spam link, wich i belive to be a mistake, a spam link sends a user to a unrelated web site that dosent contain the topic and is used to promote the website, in my case i used a link to this site: http://nex2host.com/web-hosting-articles/what-in-fact-is-web-hosting/ A relevant page with content that explains more about the topic, so im a littel confused and angry since my reference link was related to the topic and other links that isent related to the topic is still being seen on that site" godaddy gets sued"

From my point of view it looks like sites with adsence ads are okay to link to, since its from google and other related links are not?

I have contacted bonadea, but i do not get any response, who is right in this matter? did i infact create a spam link? or do wiki make the rules as they see fit?

Kind regards Dennis møller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis møller (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You placed it under references section, it looked like your aim was only to promote this specific webpage. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but it was not my intention to promote the webpage but to add more information to the wiki page, i just find it frustrating to get marked a spammer when in finaly have something relevant to add, and at the same time seeing pages that clearly is spam on wiki pages. Do i have your permission to ad the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis møller (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You can add. But you should add them under "External links", not under "References" like you had done. Read WP:EL, and consider reviewing your link. If you think that you should add, be bold and add. But don't just edit wikipedia for adding links to articles, nor you should be adding links of a particular website, unless it is actually prevalent. For example, imdb or any en.wiki's sister project. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Learning a language

On Amharic language I performed this removal of external links but got reverted. I see many of those links, or similar links on several pages. I believe that these are not appropriate.

Note: this goes for many, many pages about languages. I quickly ran into Dari_(Persian_dialect). I came here and there through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#www.worldmentoringacademy.com_as_external_link_for_language_learning, which serves as an example of WP:SPAMHOLE regarding these 'learning the languages' sites.

I removed:

• 1) Learn Amharic (Organization teaching grammar vocabulary and phrases)
  • The page is about the language, not about learn101, not about learning Amharic. Why link to a learning page anyway, why this one and not the thousands of others. What does learning the language tell you more about the language itself. This is about understanding what the language is, not understanding what someone is saying/writing when they are using the language.
• 2) Windows Vista Amharic Language Pack
  • What? And for Android or Windows 3.11? What does this tell you about the language?
• 3) USA Foreign Service Institute Amharic basic course
  • Another course .. per 1.
• 4) Amharic Bible at St-Takla.org
  • This is NOT about the Amharic bible, this is about the language. Why the bible in the first place, do we promote christianity here. Why not The Hitchhikers Guide in Amharic (which is also inappropriate)
  • Additional note: the bible is already linked from the body through an ISBN.
• 5) "Unicode Ethiopic charts" (PDF). (250 KB) (Also "Supplemental" (PDF). (65.2 KB) and "Extended" (PDF). (100 KB))
  • We are not talking about unicode, we are talking about a language. How does this help understanding what the language is.
• 6) Voice of America Amharic news broadcasts in Voice of America website
  • America-centered, news broadcasts in the language do not help you understand what the language is about.
• 7) Christian recordings in Amharic in Global Recordings website
  • Again, Christianity promotion? What does this help you in understanding what the language is.
• 8) GeezEdit Online for Typing in Amharic ግዕዝኤዲት በነፃ by Dr. Aberra Molla
  • So, we are not talking about typing in Amharic, we are talking about understanding what this language is.
• 9) The Amharic–English Medical Dictionary audiovisual Amharic–English medical dictionary website
  • We are not talking about medicine in Amharic-English, we are talking about the language. This is similarly inappropriate as the bible, Christianity and news broadcasts, they do not give you more information about the language.

I still argue that these links plainly fail WP:EL (and sometimes even WP:NOT). That overruling consensus makes a page-by-page discussion unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 September 2014‎

I have similarly cleaned Lithuanian language, Lithuanian grammar, Latgalian language and the abovementioned Dari (Persian dialect). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is beyond the point of absurd to have to explain to someone how a medical dictionary in English and another language is useful to researchers of the language, or how hearing a book read out loud in the language is useful to students of the language, as well as language courses. This user is single-handedly going willy nilly into a lot of languages he does not know or care about, and is enforcing his own interpretations by deleting such useful links, to the point of creating edit wars, and that should not go over too well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything absurd about it, and nothing single-handed about it either. These are simple, uncontroversial applications of our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Xomba.com

I stumbled onto a few links in articles that go through xomba.com, which is an earn-per-click platform. eg, someone is using links on wikipedia to earn cash for himself, and the linked articles dont really appear to be relevant (and often 404)

Some links are already quite old, and i'm not really certain if we should keep or remove those links. Perhaps a more experienced wikipedian than me can have a look?

Occurrences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=xomba

I actually found xomba through this article, and was wondering if the entire 'see also' section shouldnt be deleted. I just suggested this on the TALK page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_sharing Koesper (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Koesper

See also was removed because it contained only red links. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to a an outsourcing firm's blog

A user registered an account and immediately added an external link to an outsourcing company's blog; I reverted the link per reliable sources, suspecting a conflict of interest given the single-purpose nature of the account/edit. Walter Görlitz disagrees with my assessment. Feedback appreciated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

When I saw the addition of the link, I was fully prepared to revert its addition as well. I read the contents on the page. I confirmed that it wasn't a typical blog that copied-and-pasted other distinct blogs into a "new" blog. I read the contents, and the overview of the subject is oddly good and it's a compelling read. I concluded that, per WP:ELYES, that the information contained "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". Much to my surprise, it was reverted without explanation by Ohnoitsjamie. I restored it for that very reason, but also added that "They (the authors of the blog and website) appear to be recognized experts. There is no attempt at sales in the article. It's encyclopedic." Ohnoitsjamie reverted again this time claiming rv link added by SPA account to outsourcing company. The account is not what I would typically call an WP:SPA since the editor made only one edit. There's no clear limit to one very narrow area or set of articles, or edits to many articles for a common purpose as there's only been one edit. The company hosting the material may be an outsourcing firm, but that doesn't mean that the material is bias or inaccurate. In fact, there's no proof that the subject who added the link has any affiliation with the site that hosts the article. I have added many links to www.stickyminds.com, but I'm not affiliated with them: they simply provide material that is useful.

So now to this entry. Ohnoitsjamie may have thought that the material violated RS, but that wasn't stated in either revert or any of the responses on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page or mine. Even if that were the case, RS applies to references, not ELs. Even if it did apply to ELs, there's no indication that the source is not reliable, except that no author is supplied for the blog.

I see no reason to exclude the material based on current guidelines here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a computer programmer, and the article seems to be well-written. Looks like a nice summary of available methodologies. I wouldn't have any problem adding it myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would instinctively remove the link because it was placed by a new editor and the link is to a site I've never heard of. But the site does offer unique information that might be valuable to readers. My first impression was that the graphic reminds me of Andersen Consulting Method/1 and other software development methodologies that I've been exposed to in my career. I don't really see a guideline-based reason for excluding the link, so I would defer to the consensus of editors working on the article. - MrX 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment supporting removal: I just saw this and have an opinion. My opinion may not mean much, in and of itself, but the consensus of many has shown to change minds. First off, I am not crazy about blogs but that is just me and what do I know because we have a blogging project with the purpose of expanding the coverage of weblogs on Wikipedia to the point where it is the most comprehensive resource in existence on this emerging aspect of online and media culture. Wow!--- no ---WOW!!! lets go add it everywhere. I am less enthused about corporate blogs as the ultimate intent is almost always still "marketing, branding, or public relations". Second, the article has problems and adding to them does not help the article nor Wikipedia.

It was mentioned in defense of adding (and/or keeping) the link that the editor was not a WP:SPA and an edit summary "Adding a single, valid link. Editor is not an SPA" was used. As far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, that is not what the user contributions "still" shows and this was proven to me by User:Ohnoitsjamie here and maybe, possible, shows more than one single purpose (external links) edits. That does give immediate rise to justifiable reverting and not justification that it was wrongly added "but" we might as well keep it. It also gives rise, if what I see is correct, to reporting the account for being an SPA.

We can re-argue that a blog or other content that is known WP:OR can be used in external links because WP:RS does not count concerning external links but the policy on OR is specifically only excluded concerning talk pages. Wikipedia:Verifiability is still important and noted specifically in WP:ELNO #11 --AND a few more cover exclusion. There can not be a trend allowed that indiscriminate information can be added to an external link because it is a good waste basket place. The big picture is that the article has a reference tag. It is a fairly long article with "much" information that is not sourced. The article has 10 references and 5 external links. Restricting the adding of more external links in cases like this are valid and important as more than one external link, and two at the most, is enough and a discussion can be had for which of the excess can be culled.

Summary: My advice is: Remove the link, report the SPA account if the evidence warrants it but specifically if evidence can be found to disprove the evidence of the editor contributions, look at reducing more external links, add references and not more external links, and refrain from politely scolding, or whatever we want to call it (Hey! just my opinion) an editor ("I would defer to the consensus of editors working on the article"), for good patrolling practices because "if" this is an SPA good catch. Editors working on "an" article may decide 10 external links is alright but would that "really" be a good thing? Otr500 (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

spartacus-educational.com

A user has been updating the weblinks to spartacus-educational.com as it has changed domaion name but it shows up that it appears in the external links section of a number of articles. A self-published website it doesnt appear to add to the article but just promote the website. Tempted to remove it from all external links sections but thought I would seek other opinions first, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions of Spartacus Educational of varying length on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Spartacus Schoolnet @Jmabel and Aldux:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29#spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk @Collect, Cameron Scott, and DreamGuy:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Spartacus @JzG, Itsmejudith, and Biophys:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Anarchist Catalonia @BillMasen, Jayjg, Fifelfoo, and Epeefleche:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#schoolnet @Barnabypage, Fladrif, and Will Beback:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Rodda Smoke Burner @ColinFine and Elen of the Roads:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121#User:Fladrif and blanket removal as .22Not RS per RSN.22

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive405#Blacklisting sources

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#Blanket removals of refs as .22Not RS per RSN.22 .28Moved from WP:RS.2FN.29

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ (mentioned in a sanction regarding unreliable sources)

I am mostly familiar with this website regarding the material John Simkin has published about the assassination of JFK. In that subject area, he appears to give an inordinate amount of weight to what would normally be considered "fringe sources", including those who simply make stuff up. The material is presented with an obvious slant and there are enough inaccuracies that I do not trust the website to be a reliable source on any topic. In my opinion, it fails WP:ELNO #2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." -Location (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Location, the discussions are about using the site as a reference where the issue here is using it as a external link, unless anybody objects or does it first I am tempted to remove it from the External Links sections. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those discussions are about its reliability as a source. I think the reliability or unreliability of a source is intertwined with WP:ELNO #2. I would not object to removing it from EL sections, but you might want to wait for additional opinions since it covers a large number of articles. I've pinged those in the above discussions; hopefully I haven't pissed them off by doing so. -Location (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone provide recent specifics (articles, editors, discussions), so others could help easily? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz: I was referring to the discussions linked at the top of this thread. The articles in which the new EL has been placed can be found here. Location (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So editors like 2.120.239.61 (talk · contribs) and 31.4.129.112 (talk · contribs)?

Are any of the noticeboard discussions recent? Is there general consensus for the noticeboard discussions? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood your question. Yes, those two accounts seem to have updated the domain. I'm not sure what MilborneOne saw, but I observed that Morris1834 (talk · contribs) also put some effort into updating the links. I have not seen anything on the noticeboards since May 2012, but the site is periodically discussed on various talk pages. One recent one with which I am familiar is Talk:Nazi Germany#Request for opinions: External Links which points to a small consensus that it is not acceptable. (Disclosure: I did provide an opinion there.) Unfortunately, most talk page discussions about the website seem to be of that scale. Location (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the problem because some users were updating the name of the website and it was clear as a self-published website they dont add anything to the article other than promote the website, hence the original post above and the suggestion that they be removed from the external link sections. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see in the analysis stated "... appears to give an inordinate amount of weight to what would normally be considered "fringe sources", including those who simply make stuff up...". That suggests, that the information is not necessarily accurate (or may plainly be inaccurate) and/or be particularly undue. Although External links do not have to live up to the standard of reliable sources, it is then not an excuse that links that are not a reliable source simply can be used as external links - there should not be any (intentional) linking to unreliable/wrong/inaccurate information in the external links either (as WP:EL states it: "...further research that is accurate and on-topic .."). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to look further, but I'm leaning toward recommending they be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing of the discussions, it's use as a reference should be tagged with {{better source}}.

As an external link, it should be removed in general per ELNO #1 and #2. I can imagine it might be helpful to move it to the talk page for stub articles or the like. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been the one who has been updating the new URL of Spartacus Educational. I thought it would be in the interest of Wikipedia users not to be given a dead-link.

There is of course an argument for removing all external links from Wikipedia. Academics rightly point out that they would like to see all Wikipedia articles include notes and references. That is of course where all links should be. However, you are proposing to remove all external links to Spartacus Educational, suggesting this source is worse than other links. I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that it is. In fact, in a recent debate on Spartacus Educational it was decided that it was a reliable source of information. There is evidence that it is the most used history website in British schools and colleges. I used it as a student as do my own children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_Educational

Location makes the claim that he does not like some of his pages on the assassination of JFK. “In that subject area, he appears to give an inordinate amount of weight to what would normally be considered "fringe sources", including those who simply make stuff up. The material is presented with an obvious slant and there are enough inaccuracies that I do not trust the website to be a reliable source on any topic.”

This is indeed a serious charge and it would be a good idea if you could give some examples of this. Have you tried contacting him about any mistakes he has made on his website? Every page has an email contact that enables you to provide information about mistakes.

For example, a few days ago I sent him an email about a page he had produced on Loran Hall. On his website he said "Loran Eugene Hall was born in Cuba on 30th January, 1930." However, according to FBI records, Loran Eugene Hall was born in Newton, Kansas on 4 January 1930. I told him this and he changed it.

One of the reasons that John Simkin seems to upset people is that he produces material based on the requirements of National Curriculum history in the UK. This includes the need to provide evidence that the past is interpreted in different ways. For example, the page on Loran Hall includes a wide variety of different sources that give different views on the role that Hall played in the assassination.

That includes the historian, David Kaiser (Professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the Naval War College), the author of The Road to Dallas (2008), who accepts Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman but believes that Loran Hall was part of a larger conspiracy against JFK.

G. Robert Blakey (chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations), the author of The Plot to Kill the President (1981) who believes JFK was assassinated by the Mafia.

The Warren Report (that does not believe Hall was involved in any conspiracy).

Two interviews with Loran Hall in 1964 and 1977 where he gives his own view on the assassination.

FBI letter on the interview that it carried out with Silvia Odio about Loran Hall.

An article on Loran Hall that appeared in the Dallas Morning News (13th September, 1989)

Two interviews with people who knew Loran Hall.

It is possible that you find one or more of these sources unacceptable. However, it is believed in the UK that students should be made aware of a wide-range of views on a particular subject.

I don’t always agree with the focus of Spartacus Educational. For example, it is far too anti-communist for my taste. Recently he has been doing a lot of work on the large number of Soviet spies working in the government of Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, it is all sourced from documents released from the FBI, CIA, KGB and especially the Venona cables.Morris1834 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Morris1834 (talk · contribs)

A few points to address:

1. Re: "a recent debate on Spartacus Educational it was decided that it was a reliable source of information." The recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartacus Educational pertained to the notability of the website, not whether or not it is a reliable source of information. I agreed that it squeaks by the notability guidelines.
2. Re: "Location makes the claim that he does not like some of his pages on the assassination of JFK." I did not say that.
3. Re: "This is indeed a serious charge and it would be a good idea if you could give some examples of this." Provided in the sub-section below.
4. Re: "Have you tried contacting him about any mistakes he has made on his website?" No. I have my hands full trying to fix the errors in Wikipedia, and information coming from Spartacus Educational is frequently one source of those errors. It is the responsibility of Wikipedians to assess the content of external links to determine if they are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedians to fix the errors in external links to make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Spartacus Educational is not supposed to be another wiki relying on readers to fix it.

- Location (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to contact him via his email on the Spartacus website with your points, maybe he will be happy to correct any mistakes or offer any answers to your concerns. Morris1834 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I sent a copy of this discussion to John Simkin and he has emailed me back his response.

== "I have no problem with adding the word “claims” to statements made by the people mentioned in the Wikipedia noticeboard and I have done that this morning. I agree with Location that people like Judyth Baker, Madeleine Duncan Brown, James Files, Chauncey Marvin Holt and Beverly Oliver are unreliable witnesses. I have discussed this on the JFK Education Forum and as a result I have been attacked by other members.

Although I have got involved in discussions in the past on the forums, I am reluctant to express opinions on my Spartacus Educational website. My objective is to inform the public of the different interpretations of history that is in accordance with the terms of the UK History Curriculum.

You state that on the Madeleine Duncan Brown page: “the article appears to differentiate Brown's claims from fact but does not note any of the refutations of her claims.” This is not true. The refutation by Gary Mack is primary source 5. However, as it is possible that some people do not read the primary source section I have added his points to the main narrative.

The views of John McAdams can often be found in the primary sources of these unreliable witnesses. As you probably know, he is the most active researcher who has examined the value of these witnesses.

I have adapted the following pages on:

Judyth Vary Baker Mary S. Sherman David Ferrie Abraham Bolden Madeleine Brown Acquilla Clemons James Files Chauncey Holt Jean Hill" ==

- I hope this helps in some way to understand John Simkin and Spartacus Educational. Can I point out that the JFK section is only a very small part of the 10,000 pages of content on Spartacus Educational. If you go to the Spartacus Website you will see that it covers many subjects such as Women's Suffrage, World Wars, British History etc.

I personally was simply updating links that are all out of date, and which were originally added by numerous other Wikipedia users/editors. At the time these editors thought Spartacus was a good source for further reading, maybe they should be considering whether these links should be removed on an individual basis. Morris1834 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding "He claimed..." or "She claimed..." to some of the examples I provided does not alleviate my concerns. The fact that there are so many errors and so much bias evident in one section of the website is part of the problem because it leaves one wondering how reliable the material is in all of the other sections. For example, the grandson of Halliday Sutherland noted that Simkin's article on Marie Stopes contained "serious errors". While bias alone is not a reason for us reject a source, bias to the point where is misleads readers is not allowed. The American History section has pages titled "The Crimes of George H. W. Bush" and "Propaganda, Disinformation & Corruption".[19] The second of these has a sub-page listing individuals under the heading "Masters of Deceit: Propaganda, Disinformation & Corruption"[20] which appears to label anyone who had connections to the OSS or CIA as "corrupt". (And for those on the list who are living, this is a distinct violation of WP:ELBLP.) - Location (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem overall with Spartacus has already been shown. It is a personal website project of one man with no oversight and cannot be said to adhere to WP:RS and includes what would be considered WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples

Morris1834 has asked me above to provide some examples of inaccuracies found in Spartacus Education:

1. Judyth Vary Baker — Spartacus Educational states: "After the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, Judyth Baker received a phone-call from David Ferrie warning her that she would be killed if she told anyone about her knowledge of these events."[21] States as fact that Baker received a call from Ferrie, but there are no reliable sources to support Baker's claim.
2. Abraham Bolden — Spartacus Educational states: "At a meeting with James J. Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, Bolden criticized the "general laxity and the heavy drinking among the agents who were assigned to protect the President". As a result of these complaints, Bolden was sent back to the Chicago office and assigned to routine anti-counterfeiting duties."[22] States as fact that he was sent back to Chicago because he complained to Rowley, but there are no reliable sources stating that he ever voiced his complaints to Rowley.
3. Madeleine Duncan Brown — Spartacus Educational states: [23] The article appears to differentiate Brown's claims from fact but does not note any of the refutations of her claims.
4. Acquilla Clemons — Spartacus Educational states: "The Dallas Police warned her not to repeat this story to others or "she might get hurt"."[24] States as fact that Dallas Police said that to her, but there are no reliable sources that can confirm this.
5. James Files — Spartacus Educational states: "In 1963 Files was recruited by Nicoletti to take part in the killing of John F. Kennedy."[25] States as fact that Files was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, but there are no reliable sources that can confirm this.
6. Jean Hill — Spartacus Educational states: "However, they were detained by two secret service men. After searching the two women they confiscated the picture of the assassination."[26][27] Reiterates as fact Hill's claim that Hill and Mary Moorman were detained by secret service agents. Hill's claims are not supported by reliable sources and Moorman has explicitly denied them.
7. Chauncey Marvin Holt — Spartacus Educational states: "In 1963 Holt received instructions from Twombly to provide false ID documents for Lee Harvey Oswald. These documents (in the names of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hiddell) were delivered by a man called George Reynolds. In August, 1963, Twombly asked Holt to travel to New Orleans, where he met Oswald and Carlos Bringuier."[28] States as fact that Holt was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, but there are no reliable sources that can confirm this.
8. Barr McClellan — Spartacus Educational states: "Soon afterwards he discovered that one of the partners, Edward Clark, had been involved in planning the assassination of John F. Kennedy."[29] States as fact that he uncovered a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, but there are no reliable sources that can confirm this.
9. Beverly Oliver — Spartacus Educational states: "Oliver was standing on the south side of Elm Street when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. She was therefore one of the closest witnesses to the shot that killed Kennedy. She filmed the motorcade with a Super-8 Yashica movie camera but claimed that it was taken away by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent on 25th November and she never saw it again."[30] States as fact that she was in Dealey Plaza, but there are no reliable sources that support Oliver's claim.
10. In June, I pointed out another error in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 42#Harbinger Group.23Connections with the CIA concerning Porter Goss and a photo that was alleged to have Goss on it. John Simkin of Spartacus was apparently aware as far back as 2008 that Goss had denied he was in the photo, but he apparently only updated the website this month... after my posting.

As you can see, these errors are claims of fact that are severely more inaccurate than noting the wrong date of birth or a different interpretation of fact as Morris1834 has alluded to above. - Location (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an awesome idea: if information coming from Spartacus Educational about this or that aspect of the Kennedy assassination is incorrect, remove it editorially, the same way that any rational editor would for errors of fact sourced to the New York Times or Time magazine or a website of CBS News or a book published by a major publisher. The notion that any source is 100% on the mark 100% of the time is goofy. In general, the content of Spartacus Educational is excellent; I'd say roughly in the ballpark of Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, in general we at WP should be writing our own tertiary source articles, not milking the tertiary source work of others — be they EB or SE. That's a separate matter. Nor should they be spamming external links onto hundreds of random articles to build site traffic. But in principle there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Spartacus Educational content taken as a whole. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a little slow, I just figured out the point of this thread. External LInks to SE should be removed on a case by case basis, I think, not by automation. There are probably some cases where the WP article sucks and SE has a good piece and an external link would be beneficial to our readers. Others are probably spammy in intent. Sort the sheep from the goats. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)