Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 18

Linking to petitiononline?

Are links to petitiononline suitable for wikipedia articles?

An editor would like This link: http://www.petitiononline.com/effexor/petition.html in the Venlafaxine article. I think the link is unsuitable for wiki, and that the negative aspects of venlafaxine either are already covered or can be covered better using other verifiable attributable sources. I'm I right, or should I let that link stay? Thanks. Dan Beale 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Petitiononline links are horribly nonencyclopedic. About the only time they could EVER meet EL rules is if some instance of such a position became covered by news media and somehow necessitated a Wikipedia article on the specific petition. Since that'll never likely happen it can be quickly removed as serving no purpose whatsoever for all articles. DreamGuy 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I don't think that it's useful just for articles about specific petitions. Such links could be used in an article as a supporting source in conjunction with another high-quality source that specifically mentions petitions and gives WP:WEIGHT enough to include links to actual petitions. --Ronz 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a high quality source mentioning a specific online petition, link to the high quality source. The actual petition still doesn't meet WP:EL. DreamGuy 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not, per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. >Radiant< 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we all agree on this, when some of you reading this have some free time and are looking for something to do, could you put petitiononline.com into the search bar and then go remove the links from articles, please? I just removed a bunch and there are still pages of search results to go through. DreamGuy 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanism External Links

I had an ongoing battle over the EL section over at Satanism, Theistic Satanism, etc. Alot of churches are coming in and plugging their websites and some folks are even putting in their own self-published books are refs and pretty much just writing essays for articles under the guise of being experts" (but that's another matter I suppose). I've said my piece in the talk pages but if some of the more familiar editors could review the talk page contents and give some insight I would be most appreciative. NeoFreak 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you didn't want anti-spam insight, judging from your comments in favor of Wikifur above. But, hey, I love stomping spam where ever it comes, so this could be fun. DreamGuy 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If this continues to be an ongoing issue you may want to bring it to the attention of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I wanted to get some outside input. I've been trying to clean up these article for some time but I'm outnumbered by the folks that sit the page. I didn't want the slash and burn that needed to happen without some outside consensus. I'm glad for all the help but there's alot more to do (including heavy rewrites at a later date). I'm very anti spam, I just thought that having WIkiFur on related article wasn't a big leap. Still, I don't want to drag that discussion over. I can guarentee there will be reverts so I'd recommend the page be watchlisted for now. Thanks again to DreamGuy for the quick response. NeoFreak 00:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution is to whack all the external links and replace them with a single dmoz entry. Let people add their favorite screeds there. BTW {{dmoz}} is useful for this. Brianhe 04:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article criterion

I'm coming in late, since I only became aware of this when external links started being removed from articles of interest to me, and I'm unable to trace the stated reason back to its starting point. Looking at the criterion 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. it seems to rule out just about everything except official websites. So, if this criterion means what it says, I think the whole guideline could be reduced to a couple of sentences, and a bot could be used to eliminate 99 per cent of external links. Looking at the discussion above, clearly some editors favor this.

I think this guideline is silly. To take an obvious example, if Wikipedia has a two-sentence stub for a bio, how does it help things to exclude reference to biographies elsewhere on the web (but not on the subject's official page). Obviously, one would hope that if the article reached FA status, the useful info would be incorporated, but it seems silly to exclude material from (by my calculation) 99.9 per cent of articles on the basis that it would not be needed in the remaining 0.1 per cent.

To sum up, I'd suggest that either (a) the guideline should be reduced to two sentences: "External links should not be used. The only exception is unique resources beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."; or (b) criterion 1 should be scrapped.JQ 11:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How you can get to this misunderstanding of the guideline escapes me. Obviously the featured article statement implies nothing about only official sites. And just as obviously we want people to add material to articles, not merely instead add external links. The Wikipedia isn't here to make lists of links. It's here to have encyclopedic articles. 2005 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• JQ I think that is a pretty dramatic statment. What articles are you looking at? Perhaps that would help us to understand where you are coming from. //Tecmobowl 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards my understanding, I got to it by having the guideline cited to me as a basis for deleting external links from stubby articles, rather than, as earlier versions of this guideline suggested, leaving the link in place until someone got around to incorporating useful information. I've deleted the sentence. It seems to be a recent addition, and I see nothing in the Talk page to suggest that it represents, as it should if it is to be there, the considered consensus of many editors, and therefore effectively binding on the whole of Wikipedia. JQ 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The text has been there for a long time, and plainly is the consensus of editors as virtually no one wants the Wikipedia to be lists of links rather than well written articles. 2005 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that it needs to stay there. I was trying to revert the out of process removal of it when someone else beat me to it, and I suspect that a number of editors were all trying to put it abck at the same time. It absolutely cannot be removed without some thorough discussion here that would give some strong reason and a strong number of supporters to overrule this longstanding consensus. DreamGuy 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That particular sentence was added to this guideline by UninvitedCompany in November 2005.[1] -- Satori Son 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it wasn't in more recent versions I looked at [2] or [3] for example. And there was content suggesting that external links could be left until the useful material in them had been incorporated in the article JQ 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

JQ I agree with 2005 and DreamGuy, it's pretty well established here. That being said, do you have any examples of stubs that you find problematic? //Tecmobowl 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I came to this from Stephen Peter Rosen, where I was reverting a bunch of deletions by a sock of vandal EdwardWittenstein. One was an EL from Sourcewatch, which was promptly redeleted by user USer:Jayjg who quoted this guideline at me. The article was a stub linking to a much more complete one at Sourcewatch. In this case, I copied in some useful content, but that's a slow process.JQ 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what this criterion means in plain English? I know what a featured article is, but I don't see the connection to external links. Thanks!!! Linkboyz 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on this point, it would help editors to follow this criterion if it were explained in clearer terms. Linkboyz 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, since none of the more expert people have contributed yet, I will treat this as a learning experience and try to explain it and see if other people can refine my understanding of it.

In an ideal world, all WP articles would contain enough information to make them featured articles. If they were, then we wouldn't require External Links that duplicated the content, since it's already in the article. We would only link to sites that contained things that we wouldn't include in the article but are nevertheless useful as ELs (see the WP:EL article for examples of this).

But in the real world, a lot (or most) articles do not contain enough information for Featured Article status - lots of information is missing. What the clause in WP:EL that you asked about says is that we shouldn't be providing ELs for things that we could and should put in the article. Instead we should be improving the article. Otherwise you end up with a stub and a whole bunch of ELs that we expect users to go to to get the encyclopedic information they seek. (Essentially a huge "to-do" list. That's not the purpose of the EL section on pages.

OK, that is *my* understanding of this clause. Perhaps others can correct me if I misunderstand something and we can all learn  :-) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alucard (Dr.), but, sadly, this part of the policy is still not at all clear. It makes me sad that people are working on enforcing the WP:EL policy when the policy itself is not clear. Linkboyz 06:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is your lack of clarity a comprehension issue, or is it that you do not agree with it? If the former, let me try to put it even more concisely: "If an external site has content that could be added to a Wikipedia article (i.e. it conforms to all the requirements of Wikipedia content), then do not add that site as an External Link." How about that? Hopefully that is not so short that it is incorrect. The intent is that people work on improving the articles, not slapping ELs all over the place. If you want to add a reference so that other editors can pick it up, then maybe add it into the article's Talk page, with a suggestion that other editors work with it to improve the article itself. Hopefully this is a little more clear. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

full book texts at wowio

Wowio is providing legal full text downloads free of charge for copyrighted works such as Slaughterhouse-five, which are unavailable from comperable sites for free material such as Project Gutenberg. Gutenberg links are clearly preferrable, but for copyrighted works where there is no current alternative, wowio provides an excellent resource. Registration is required, and it is solely advertisement supported, but considering the value of a full-text resource I would consider adding these links to appropriate articles. Thoughts? ∴ here…♠ 03:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and also per Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration. --Quiddity 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And per that, I removed the link in the comment above. Absolutely not under any circumstances, not on talk pages either. DreamGuy 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation, I've re-added the link. Removal is warrented after discussion has ended. ∴ here…♠ 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment, I don't think the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works applies as an obstacle in this case. The full text downloads in question are licensed and distributed in accordance with copyright law. Clearly the registration issue remains, but the question is — does the benefit of providing a unique resource to the reader justify overriding the guideline? --Gmanacsa 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, they're not quite the dubious-legality outfit I assumed them to be from Here's description (and my prior experience); So yes, that Copyrights policy is probably irrelevant here. But they are "only available to people living in the United States", and they require authenticated-registration, both of which still makes them thoroughly non-recommended. They're not really providing any additional encyclopedic information either. Plus the idea of reading Slaughter-House Five with embedded advertising is utterly repellent. People should use a library. --Quiddity 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This was incorrectly perceived and quickly rejected as an illegal service -- lets start again. Libraries are wonderful, but you wouldn't oppose links to Project_Gutenberg based on your desire for folks to get out of the house. Since copyright violation is also not a concern here, the only remaining valid oppositions are 1) registration requirement, 2) USA only, and 3) advertisement. I was also initially opposed, removed these links, and asked that they stop being added. However, upon further review, this really is a uniquely valuable service potentially warrenting exception. I bothered to register and download the text and have put up two screenshots of the pdf here and here. As you can see, the advertising is quite limited -- 2 intro pages and 1 on the end. The text itself includes all of vonnegut's images and typesetting and is devoid of ads beyond an occasional publishing company title. The wowio site is also completely devoid of advertising, and appears to be as well intentioned as possible -- providing otherwise un-free copyrighted full-texts in a cleverly legal manner involving compensation to the copyright holder. This is a legal unique resource providing access to materials valuable to those users able to take advantage of them. A second round of opinions? ∴ here…♠ 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is a legal service, it fails the criteria against commercial services, sites requiring registrations, etc. Linking to it would not be an encyclopedic style assistance to our readers, it would be an endorsement to a business. Other sites also sell ebooks and such and we don't link to them either. The answer is still very clearly no. And I not that Quiddity's post above acknowledges all this as well, so I'm not sure why you posted after that asking for more comments unless you are hoping to find a group of people willing to totally overrule our longstanding principles.'DreamGuy 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a useful site for those who are interested in such things, but it makes for a bad link from Wikipedia. From the "About" page: "Sponsors get a powerful new channel to communicate their message to precisely the people they want to reach. Publishers get a new means of distributing their books, expanding their readership, and monetizing their intellectual property." The point of the site really is to make money for someone - and the content is pretty much already freely available from local libraries. Plus, you have to have a credit card to register: excluding children, poor people, or people smart enough to not have credit cards:) Commercial intent and exclusion of users: bad link. Nposs 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, clear enough. ∴ here…♠ 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the service does not require a credit card. A non-anonymous email address or a picture ID are also accepted. While most of the material may well be available from many local libraries, not everyone has ready access to a library or perhaps only to libraries with limited collections (in small towns or rural areas, for example). Gmanacsa 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not available to people outside the US. I cannot sign up for an account. Dan Beale 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

External links in the article body

This seems like an obvious rule of thumb that's already obeyed by the vast majority of Wikipedia's article, but I'm a little surprised to not find it clearly stated here and only a parenthetical mention in WP:MOS-L. So I'll suggest adding this to "Important points to remember":

External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end.

Opinions? Jpatokal 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased you brought this up, because I am struggling with the best way to do something. Say we have an article about a city, and one of the sections is about companies in the area. Assuming that company doesn't have a WP page, is it appropriate to put an EL in the article right next to the company name? As an EL I would have an issue, since the link doesn't have that one-to-one relationship with the subject (item 13 in the "links normally to be avoided" section). So should we allow ELs in the article in this case? Mostly I tend to be of the opinion that we should not - if the company is notable enough to be linked to, then it would have its own WP page and we would link to that. If it isn't, then we don't care about providing the external link, and adding it is just providing publicity for the company through WP, something we do not want to do. However, I could see value to readers in having the link there. Would appreciate other opinions. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's appropriate. If it's of any significance, the company name (or any other entity/object/concept) should be linked even if its article doesn't exist, as somebody will come along and create it later. And if the company is of no significance, then it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the first place... Jpatokal 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not appropriate at all. Wikipedia is not a web directory. There's no reason to provide links to sites if they don't have Wikipedia articles. DreamGuy 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that we should avoid any ELs which are linked to directly in the main article body. If the EL is needed as verification of some fact in the article, it should form part of a Notes or References section, and be entered as such, enclosed in the <ref></ref> tags along with the required "Accessed on" information. I think they should definitely not be directly linked to in the main article body. The matter would be helped if the entity of fact being verified had its own WP page, but this may well just "pass on" the problem to that article.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ELs should not be in the main body, and have been editing that way to remove such links for years. It'd be helpful if we had something in WP:EL that spells it out for people who don't already use common sense (or who ignore it because they want to excuse their own spamming). DreamGuy 18:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it, let's see if it sticks. Jpatokal 04:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

Is it appropriate to link to a bands "official" fansite? Black Harry • Happy Independence Day 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it meet the criteria of the guideline? I have no clue what an "official fansite" could possibly be, but if it is the official site, it should be linked. If not, if meets the criteria of this guideline, link it, if it doesn't, don't. If for some reason you don't know if it does, don't link it. 2005 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to linkcollection

What is the guidelines on pages like that? Right now, an anonymous user (I suspect it is the same one or two users with dynamic adreses, which makes contacting themselves extremely difficult) keeps adding a link to Entropia Universe, namely this link. In my eyes that goes against "# Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the linkfarm template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template.". There is no difference in posting a lot of links in the article or posting one link to a page with a bunch of links. Most if not almost any links listed there fail to meet the criteria for sites that should be linked (like forums and societies (like clans to other games I guess). I've given reasoning in my edit summaries, I even posted on the talkpage and I'm about ot leave a message on one of the user talkpages, but since it's a dynamic IP adress I'm afraid it won't get read. I leave it be for now, not only to avoid the 3RR (I guess the other editor violated, but with slightly different IPs each time I can't be sure it's the same person) but also to avoid an edit war. Any input from other editors on the talkpage would be appreciated. Hopefully it will be read by the anonymous editors. --Fogeltje 18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

About the only thing we do sometimes is occasionally link to one site that has a collection of links, primarily as a compromise to stop other people from constantly trying to link a zillion things there. In those cases I think some outside source like OpenDirectory is better than just endorsing some random person's website.

Incidentally, the link given above and added to the article in question doesn't even go anywhere other than an error page.

And other links on that article violated the avoiding linking to wikis clause, so I removed them as well. DreamGuy 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and help, hopefully this stops the editting. It is weird btw that you get an error on that link, I do get a page with links listed in categories. I wasn't aware of the avoiding wikis clause until now. I shall keep that in mind. --Fogeltje 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to pages containing only screenshots

I need some other help with an older dispute I had. I concerns a link in the article Command & Conquer to a gallery of screenshots (nothing more) of the game. It has been discussed, no concensus reached but I still think it fails WP:EL to be included. In fact, it fails on point 1 of links that should not be included as it provides no unique resource beyond what a features article would have. A featured article would have an example screenshot, maybe two, there is no real point in linking to a gallery with repetitive screenshots. To avoid an edit-war and a heated discussion (the anonymous user apparently was impervious for reasoning) I disengaged and let it rest, only to stumble on it again by chance. The talkpage of the article contains some discussion still. I'd like some more insights as I clearly think it fails WP:EL. But I could be wrong.--Fogeltje 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's not encyclopedic, unless there's something very specific about the article that makes looking through screenshots hugely important -- and then a couple should just be thrown into the article instead.

I also typically feel the same about links to photo galleries... we need actual *informative* textual content to put something as an encyclopedia link. Anything else is a violation of the "we're not a freaking web directory" concept. DreamGuy 19:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said in the discussion more or less but it seems the original contributor doesn't want to listen. The actual discussion is here.

The anonymous user stated:

1) From Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, point three -- Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

2) The Wiki rule quoted by you when you specified a reason for removing the http://xwis.net/td/ link -- "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

As it is, the http://xwis.net/td/ link provides neutral and relevant material that can not be integrated into the Command & Conquer article due to copyright issues, as well as the sheer number of the available screenshots, meaning they can not be realistically imported to the article for these two reasons. This covers the Wiki rule quoted by you, as this link does constitue a unique resource for original images of this vintage game beyond what the article would contain even if it became a featured article. Thus, it's a relevant addition which meets all of Wikipedia's external linking requirements, and it should remain in the article's external links section because of this.

In my eyes that still just doesn't justify using a screenshot gallery in the external links, but that's just me.--Fogeltje 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Location of External Links

I notice that we have a new entry in the 'Important points to remember' section: "# External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end." added by User:Jpatokal diff

Could someone please point me at where this was discussed, or what style guide this logically follows from? I have seen many, many instances of embedded ELs in articles that seemed appropriate. If it's the case that this should not be done, then I will need to change quite a few pages that I have edited. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above in #External links in the article_body, this seems (IMHO) to be a well-accepted Wikipedia convention, but it was not (until now) explicitly stated. It's implied in several places though, eg. the "How to link" section of the present guideline states:

There are two basic formats for external links. The most common is to add a list of external links at the end of an article. ... Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references.

WP:MOS-L#External_links states

You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article. Instead, when giving an embedded link as a source within an article, simply enclose the URL in square brackets, like this. [1] However, you should add a descriptive title when an external link is offered in the References, Further reading, or External links section.

...which also implies that external links should not be used elsewhere in the body. If you have example of appropriate ELs in the body that are not references/sources, could you post them here? Jpatokal 03:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's legit, but here's what I have seen. In an article on a city, there is a section about companies that have their headquarters in the city. External links are given to the company's site. It's not strictly speaking a reference, although I suppose it could be seen as such. it's not appropriate in the External Links section because the link isn't *about* the article's subject. So if this remains a standard, we will just have to make them references... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed above and the consensus was against it. If the company's noteworthy, it should be linked to its WP article, and if it's not noteworthy, why is the article mentioning it in the first place? Jpatokal 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references - sorry, I missed the replies to that part. I don't disagree with it (quite the contrary), I am just trying to preempt the complaints that come up when I start using it...  :-) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How to determine if a site is "official"?

The site in question is wardchurchill.net. It is a blog containing items in support of the subject. Links to blogs are discouraged unless by a recognized authority. This site has an anonymous author/editor, and so it does not fit that exception. On the other hand, the site's domain name makes it look like an official site, which should be linked. But since the site's ownership and authorship are entirely anonymous, then how do we determine if it meets the "official site" standard or not? My opinion is that if it is not official, then it should not go in, because it violates the anti-blog rule. If it is official, then it should go in. But whether or not it is official is what needs to be figured out, and the guidelines published here don't help much. Thanks for any help in working this issue out.Verklempt 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can go by the domain name - anybody can buy one, if it's not currently in use (I see wardchurchill.com is available, someone could buy that and set up a site today). Also, nowhere on the site does it claim to be official. Indeed, on the "Contact" page it sounds like it's definitely not official. "The Ward Churchill Solidarity Network (WCSN) sees the attacks on Ward Churchill not only as retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, but as part of a larger movement to suppress critical thinking...". So my feeling is that it is definitely not official. Hope this helps. - Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link bot

I've made a dead link bot where wikipedians can submit page and categories. It's still in early stages and I need to make the code multi-thread for any serious use. I'm also programming various heuristics to detect certain types of link set. If somebody has a list of web news services that remove their content after a set amount of time please post here. —Dispenser 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do we keep getting deleted?

People from around the world have tried adding a link to the Arizona Arthritis Center to your page on Arthritis. Within minutes after it gets added, someone deletes it. There are links to other Research Institutes around the world there that survive. We are an educational and research institution and I do not understand why we keep getting deleted. We have been asked by colleagues in London why this is being removed from here. ( I suppose they use Wikipedia a lot there).. Is this an attack on us or the University of Arizona? Can anyone explain? Thank you. Paul Howe, Tucson, AZ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prhowe520 (talk • contribs).

I would refer to wp:el first. Maybe editors find it as some sort of advertisment/spam?? Wiki can't link to EVERY research site so do not take it personally. Anyways--Tom 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary reason is probably WP:NOT#LINK, summarized: Wikipedia is not a repository of links. We try hard not to duplicate the work done at places such as DMOZ, e.g. http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Musculoskeletal_Disorders/Arthritis/

The best place to ask for further advice/discussion would be Talk:Arthritis#Links. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the post myself, since I posted it in the wrong place. Sorry.

LoriM5160 04:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts for what I want to write only exsist in hard copy. So how do I back it up?

There really isn't much more to the question, it's all in the headline. Other than, perhaps, shoul I have posted this in a different part? Josef Glennanthony 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "hard copy"? A published book? Or somebody's term paper? Baseball Bugs 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to write about aircraft avionics systems, some of which are quite old, others new. I have manuals available to me on CD but I can't put their manual online as it is something they sell. But to explain the systems I'd be referencing those manuals. Josef Glennanthony 07:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So reference the manuals. If you're uncertain how to do it, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and ask on the talk page there if you have further questions. (This is not about external links, so you're currently on the wrong page.) --Zundark 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to racist or antisemitic sites

The wikipedia:external links page seems to remain silent about links to sites with racist or antisemitic (r/a) content. I tend to remove such links, but

• What to do if the link is used as a source to support a statement in the article?
• What to do if a linked page itself is superficially non-r/a, but other pages on the same site are r/a?
• In an article about a "organization, person, web site, or other entity", is it mandatory to put a link to the "official" site of this person, even if r/a material is distributed on that site?
• In an article about a book with r/a content, is it mandatory to include a link to the book's online-version? --Schwalker 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If the link is relevant to the article, then it should (has to) stay, even if they advocate raping babies. Jpatokal 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving an answer. I should note that to advocate raping is usually not a part of a r/a agenda. Perhaps some article on a r/a theme should include a link to an r/a site in order to present a sample-site, but except in this case, at the moment I can't think of any other situation where such a link would be really necessary. The paragraph WP:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored states that some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content(...) and do not violate any of our existing policies (...). I don't think that removing an r/a link is censorship, since such a link could form

• an incivility
• a personal attack against a reader who feels to be member of a race which is denounced as inferior or dangerous on the linked site
• a libel.

--Schwalker 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link because you, personally, find it objectionable is censorship. All the three policies you link to apply to personally targeted behavior on Wikipedia. Content of pages hosted outside Wikipedia is neither. Jpatokal 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source, and it supports article content, then there is no reason why is should go. Whatever it is about. Well, certain cases may be eliminated, but I agree with Jpatokal. Lradrama 11:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider what the link shows and how it is being used. Given that a reader will probably recognise incivil, racist, or libellious links for what they are and draw the appropriate conclusions about the authors, we need not be too concerned. The real issue is where links to bigotry is appropriate. A link to a Neo-Nazi site is perfectly suited to Neo-Nazism, because it is giving an example of a Neo-Nazi group, and reading what they have to say for themselves is a useful exercise in understanding such groups (same goes for any related articles, where the beliefs of that group are relevant and illustrated by the site) - but on Judaism or Socialism or Homosexuality, adding the same link would imply that a Neo-Nazi website is a good resource for understanding any of these.--Nema Fakei 14:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When Wikipedia uses an external site as as source for a claim in an article, Wikipedia believes that the site is trustworthy. But this includes every statement made on the external site by the editors of the site, since Wikipedia does not tell the reader which statements on the external site are trustworthy and which are not. So if Wikipedia would use a racist/antisemitic site as a source for a certain claim, at the same time it would agrees with the r/a content. Consequently, a r/a site can't be a reliable source.

The related sites [4] and [5] contain antisemitic and racist material. At the moment, they are used as a source for the articles Nazi occultism, Savitri Devi Mukherji, and for related articles. I think these external links should be removed from the articles. --Schwalker 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad links to database search results

I am trying to think of the correct term to describe a certain type of URL which is worthless as an external link. There are some databases on the web for which one can input a search and receive an output of results, with a URL for the results screen but not one that can be used as a link to those actual results -- just a generic URL. Obviously these are not desirable as external links, but an inexperienced editor might inadvertently try to insert such a link. The problem is that I don't know what those kinds of URLs are called. --Metropolitan90 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Links to search engine and aggregated results pages." -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think what I'm looking for is "cgi-bin" URLs (not sure of the exact name). By contrast, if I provide you with a link to this Google search about Jimbo Wales, you might not get the exact same results I did depending on what Google has indexed since I did the search -- but at least you will get a bunch of search results about Jimbo. --Metropolitan90 08:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

External Link to Advertising Sites

In order to ensure consistency and fairness to everyone, external links to sites that are

1) Commercial in nature 2) Contains affiliate marketing 3) PPC advertising (e.g. google or yahoo ads)

must be removed.

Such rule is necessary or it will open a flood gate for spam due to the commercial nature of these sites. If the site contains relevant information, suggest contacting the site owner to include the information on Wikipedia. Otherwise, users can always find proprietary information from the owner site directly. --Zragon

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. Under this rule the official sites for companies (which are highly commercial in nature and are only there to advertise the company) would not be linkable in EL. Also, a site that contains vast amounts of useful, reliable information on a subject should not be excluded merely because it has a single PPC ad on it. I think the current guidelines are adequate and we do not need this change. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 09:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has clearly got the wrong end of the stick, or even the wrong stick, since they have been removing amongst others links to Snopes, presumably on the dubious grounds that the site is funded by the pop-up adverts. While I despise the adverts themselves (they're annoying and obtrusive), the site is indisputably a reliable source in its area of expertise, and this user should stop their misguided campaign and go in search of the correct stick. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I always try to AGF, this suggests that this user is trying to make a point with link removals. This practice is disruptive to the encyclopedia. --Versageek 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alucard - the listing of commercial company with its own Wiki page is discussed in a separate thread. Please explain your reason for inclusion of "Fraudtoday.com" in Black_money_scam, when it is a membership site with no relation to the topic. There are many sites out there which does the same in hundreds. Versageek - state your reasoning with facts rather than finger-pointing. Zragon 23:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zragon, you are adding blanket comments to the EL section of pages which are not in line with this guideline. If you want to refer to this guideline in a comment, then please feel free, but I feel that what you wrote was an over-generalization. I have removed several, as have other editors. As for the link to which you refer - it had content that is available to people that are not members, and was not swamped by advertising - it seemed to comply with this guideline. I'd suggest discussing this specific issue on the Talk page for the article, if you haven't done so already. Your edits that I have looked at (I have not looked at all) are not in line with this guideline, and appear to be your own opinion about what should and shouldn't be in WP. -- ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alucard (Dr.) (talk • contribs). (well - half signed!)

I did state a fact - the fact that you have declared the existence of some vast commercial conspiracy on this page and on your user_talk page, without providing a single iota of proof - and then commenced implementing your 'plan' to 'remove all commercial links' and apparently articles about companies; despite several people pointing out that your efforts are misguided, is disruptive to the project. I have no doubt that there are some COI editors out there that try to promote themselves here - we have the conflict of interest noticeboard for that.. it isn't necessary to swat flies with a sledgehammer. --Versageek 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alucard, I am not averse to allow sites to include their relevant link here. As you can see from my edits I do not remove all external links blatantly as that would simply be vandalism. However, I do agree with any observation of "over-generalization" and that is the reason of posting the one-sided point of view with regards to this grey area. In doing so, it would allow more transparency as to how editors should decide when or not to remove an external link. We need to set the correct benchmark for commercial or profit-making sites listed here. I am open to proper and clear guidelines related to such matters, but all we can see are generic remarks referring to guides here or there including notability in another thread, which does not clearly define the proper actions in all cases. In the case when you alleged that my edits are not in line with this guideline, please state exact examples rather than over-generalisation as to how the edit was done. Which part was wrong exactly, and I am open to correction. As an example in your case, it is obvious that the site I mentioned does not have a direct relation to the topic discussed in question. Please state facts and do not conclude your observations without stating it. It is equally unclear as to why you have insisted to include that link in a page that is unrelated. -- Zragon 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An example? Certainly. You have gone through quite a few pages and added comments like this to the External Links sections of articles:

DO NOT POST ANY SITE THAT IS COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING GOOGLE ADS. THIS IS NOT A MARKETING PLATFORM. TRY DMOZ.ORG OR YAHOO.COM INSTEAD. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS FROM ANY EDITOR. VISITORS CAN ALWAYS FIND RELEVANT INFORMATION VIA SEARCH ENGINES. THERE IS NO NEED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL RELEVANT LINKS HERE, SO AS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS TO EVERYONE.

This is not in line with these guides and is an over-generalization. I would suggest that if you feel a need to give page editors a pointer, just provide them with a link to this document, rather than trying to summarize it. Also, the adding of additional relevant links is NEVER unneeded - I'm not sure how this lack of a need was determined. You will see from the replies from several editors in this thread that your interpretation of how Wikipedia works does not mesh with other editors. I would suggest you stop removing sites from pages until you can arrive at a better understanding, or reach a consensus here for a change in policy. As for your comment about settings standards for listing of the sites, I agree with you completely - that should be done here, on this page, before wide-scale editing take splace to remove links. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 03:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The same note is found in Wikipedia, and though I changed some words, the content did not change much. Just quoting some examples of warnings against commercial links - Not done by me - but has been there Web_design, trade, Finance. I can pretty much agree with anything you write except for the consistency of application of any guidelines. Links have been removed with little or no discussions, simply because not all editors fall into the category that you mentioned. If you look at the history of those pages, let me know for the past 3 months what were the links removed and were they ever discussed? The Talk Page says it all. Thanks. btw, your blind allegations of whether I have a better understanding of how thing work here... if all else being consistent I would not have to waste my time with this post. -- Zragon 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those pages have notes like that because companies have repeatedly come and put blatant advertisements for "web design services". "trading services" and "financial services" in the external links section. What you are attempting to do with your modified notice is something totally different. --Versageek 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the different in that same few lines to warn advertising and commercial sites? Please enlighten any mistake in English, but does that warrant a complete objection of the message in similar nature? Perhaps using the same words and sentence would help. And why don't you think that the same applies to the current sites in discussion. Some of the sites are selling equipment (e.g. Sonic Wall) hardwares. Yeah, there are dozens of site selling anti-phishing material and products, we can probably convert the pages into a Wikipedia/Dmoz alternate directory. Where is the consistency? -- Zragon 04:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm talking about are people who insert links with descriptive text like "Schmuk's Web Design - for all your web designing needs", that is the sort of links those articles had been attracting, and it's links like that which led to the warnings. You are trying exclude a MUCH more broad class of links/sites - for instance, using the criteria you've suggested - links to virtually all mainstream news and magazine sites would be excluded, as almost all of these sites have huge amounts of obnoxious animated ads. --Versageek 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the following Warning Messages by others are more specific and focused?

Attached 1: Please do not put advertising links in this section

Attached 2: THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING. Do not place advertisements here, such as links to web designers, blogs and/or web design firms. Please propose new links on talk page before inserting, and read the External Links policy. COMMERCIAL LINKS WILL BE REMOVED. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Consider submitting your link to DMOZ instead.

Attached 3: Do not add advertising or commercial links to this article.

Does the following Warning Message of mine help to ease your concern better?

"Do not add advertising or commercial links to this article. Please propose new links on talk page before inserting, and read the External Links policy. COMMERCIAL LINKS WILL BE REMOVED. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Consider submitting your link to DMOZ instead."

Does this suit your intent, or is the above is still "trying exclude a MUCH more broad class of links/sites". -- Zragon 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea: You could read the actual External links policy and follow it, and stop trying to ban any site that has any advertising anywhere. Not all commercial links will be removed, as many do have legitimate encyclopedic content and rationale for being added here. DreamGuy 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So what about those warning messages already in there? I suppose that we can leave it intact as a testimony of inconsistency. -- Zragon 07:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer wording something like this message, which is in Manufacturing:
NOTE: Please do not insert a link to a website unless it has useful information for learning about manufacturing. Links to manufacturers and suppliers would be useful for those who work in the manufacturing industry, not encyclopedia readers. Also, the site should be reliable and you should not have any connection to it. Inappropriate links will be removed.
It clearly states what should be included as well as what should not be included --Versageek 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with any suggestions and open to the rest to comment. The point I am trying to put across is consistency, now I am told to read the External Link Policy and "stop banning any site" - most of which was listed without following the guideline in the first place. For example:

1) Regarding Adding or Deleting links

"If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

If the above was never done in the TalkPage before, is there any different deleting it at the point of insertion, or now? The link was added without adhering to the guideline. These are facts, not my words. Perhaps the word "consider" is not a "must", but I would recommend not playing with words or I would say apply the same to deletion of links. I say this because there are no rules for deletion of links, but there are plenty of rules for addition of links.

2) Regarding Warnings etc.

I do not see any External Link Policy regarding placing of warning. Perhaps we should have some consistency with those warnings already in the articles. Your suggestion is acceptable, but it is something for everyone to agree with. Either remove those warnings or change them in line with the guideline.

Again, its all about being consistent for (1)add/delete links, (2)placement of warning, and (3)dealing with commercial links. There is very little case for anyone to argue further if there is no consistency, as the case will be easily disputed by facts. However, there will always be an issue with commercial links, due the money in the equation unless there is transparency as to "who" actually supports a link. I do not wish to cite examples of recent cases of corruption in charity organisation, but just a brief mention as an analogy.

-- Zragon 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you'll ever find the level of consistency you are seeking. There are three different policies/guidelines that directly address the issue of external links, this page (WP:EL), WP:SPAM and several sections in WP:NOT. In addition, there are other policies/guidelines that address the quality and reliability of sources (which are usually provided as external links), and finally WP:COI which overlaps most of the others - and states quite accurately that if you have a close relationship to a particular group/company, that your assessment of the the value/content of sites provided by that group/company is skewed in favor of the group/company - even if that isn't your intention.
Very few wiki policies are carved in stone. In the end, it's about the value that the content of the site provides to the encyclopedia article(s) the link has been added to. In some cases, where people were edit warring over the inclusion of external links - we've simply removed all external links, because the disruption caused by edit warring exceeds the value provided by the links. --Versageek 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use consistency as a "yardstick" to measure the integrity of editors when editing links, and I am not referring to any of you in this case.

Just a comment that I do not think I deserve to be penalized for adding the warnings above as it is not a "consistent" policy per se, and the deleting of links does not deserve such a strong reaction as compared to addition of links, as explained in earlier para. Let's leave this section as it is for the time, unless anyone else has constructive comments to add.

-- Zragon 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Proxies

I'm going to add a sentence to Wikipedia:External links#Redirection sites denoting that one should not link to web proxies instead of linking to the original URL. I wanted to know if there are objections beforehand huji—TALK 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this one. huji—TALK 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good... but I don't (and never did) understand why PURL is given an exception. It's the exact same thing, just a different name. I don't care if someone somewhere claims that the PURL is the "real" address, we should link to the actual real one. Who even uses PURL? Are there any PURL links on Wikipedia, and are they any good? I'd say remove it unless there's a real need demonstrated, and I can't imagine there is one. DreamGuy 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any, so I deleted the exception. UnitedStatesian 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. huji—TALK 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. thanks DreamGuy 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How does that stuff even get in there in the first place? Or stick around so long. It's silly, and I've seen examples of that sort of nonsense in other policies/guidelines. DreamGuy 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica articles

I notice that EB is now allowing sites to grant their readers access to an article by providing a link to it. Would this apply to Wikipedia readers, and if so, should we start linking to such articles? Some are very good, and would be especially useful when the article here is only a start class or worse. I know of at least a couple of articles that would benefit from such a link, but I want to be sure that the readers will be able to access the article first. Richard001 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that we should be linking to the articles. Instead, I think we should be working on the WP article to improve it. Linking to EB is not a good solution. From a guideline perspective, Section 1 of Links to be avoided "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." applies. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alucard. External links should be reserved for those unique and valuable online resources that cannot be directly incorporated into the article text for various reasons, not simply to link to an alternative encyclopedia article. -- Satori Son 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, we certainly should read the content, and insert it into the article appropriately rephrased. However that takes time. Until then, it is much better to provide the link than not to provide it. Linking to EB is not a good long term solution, but it is a fine short term solution. In other words, if you find such a link, don't delete it until you are sure our article already provides equivalent or better content. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See, I'm afraid I respectfully disagree with you, AnonEMouse. Letting such links stay in (or be put in) discourages people from writing more for the article. I think that this is the precise reason why the "featured article" clause is in WP:EL - to avoid such potential laziness. If we followed the idea that short-term links like this would be fine, then we could enhance every "stub" page with a bunch of links to content that should be in the WP page. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the way a lot of people write articles; first by gathering links, then by incorporating their content. Before After. We shouldn't demand that every character of content be FA quality immediately or deleted. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do the same myself a bit. Does this policy have strong consensus? I'm unfamiliar with the history, but if not perhaps it should be discussed whether such links are acceptable when articles are in early development. Richard001 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we find a resource that could be used by other editors to improve the article, we should be adding it to the Talk page for the article, suggesting that other editors use it to improve the article. That way the resource is captured and it becomes part of the work to improve the article, but isn't part of the article itself. I think the EL guidelines are quite clear that we should not be adding these links to the article, and this doesn't matter what stage the article is at. A change to this would involve a change to a much-discussed element of WP:EL. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What if the article covers material outside the scope (broader or narrower) of the article in question, and we don't currently have an article on the subject, but could have? For example an in depth article on a subject covered only in one section here, but which is a potential daughter article in future. Richard001 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

This is something which I am sure your talk page will have come across before. After watching a recent edit to the Klaxons page, where all YouTube videos of their music videos were removed, i got slightly confused. What exactly is allowed to be kept on wikipedia in terms of external linking? It says on the project page that situations where links should actually be used are rare, so I was wondering if someone could clear it up for me?
One project which i am currently involved in is Wikipedia:WikiProject_TUGS, I was also wondering what the policy on youtube links would be for the articles contained within the scope of the TV show? --SteelersFan UK06 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The main thing is that we are not permitted to link to copyright violations. Unless you have evidence that the copyright holder uploaded the image to YouTube (which is almost never the case for music videos), you cannot link. Even if you do, it would only be appropriate to link in the context of an article about that particular music video only and only if necessary to provide critical commentary. And even then, you'll probably want a warning that the link requires proprietary browser plugins (flash, I think). In summary, linking to YouTube videos is almost never appropriate. --Yamla 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan Sites

Question. Are fan sites permissible as ELs? And if it is not a simple yes/no answer, but rather based on content, what are the criteria to consider? Many thanks.--Epeefleche 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Same criteria listed on WP:EL. Most of them probably don't rate. DreamGuy 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the answer there. Many sites have elements of both ... such as news articles and interviews, coupled with blogs. It is not clear to me what is permissible in a mixed situation.--Epeefleche 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mixed what? 2005 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A mixture of interviews/articles on the one hand, and blogs on the other.--Epeefleche 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sites listed as 'official' sites will probably be allowed. I mean, on the Daniel Radcliffe article, two websites (www.danradcliffe.com & www.danradcliffe.co.uk) have remained on the article and not caused controversy. They call themselves 'official' fan sites. Lradrama 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Official doesn't have anything to do with anything. Let's not confuse the issue with irrelevancy. This guideline covers the criteria for external links. DreamGuy gave the right answer. No reason to make things more confusing than that. 2005 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be allowed if its infact a site owned by Daniel Radcliffe, for his fans.--Hu12 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it says on both sites that Daniel Radcliffe says we doesn't even visit those sites, let alone participate with fans. :-S It says that on at least one. But it also says that the sites are run via people close to the Radcliffe family. Lradrama 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL rules and fansites...

* an "official fan site" is not the "official site" as described in item 1 of "What Should Be Linked.

* Item 3 of that section says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." - this would not apply here - if the information were reliable, it could be put into the article and we would require citations. Information on fansites is not usually considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

* Item 4 in the "Links to be considered" section: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." - this might be a candidate, but it would have to be proven that the writer is a "knowledgable source".

* Item 1 in the "Links to be Avoided" section: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." what does the fansite have over what would be in the WP article? If nothing, then it shouldn't be linked.

* Item 2 in the "Links to be Avoided" section: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." - we have to be careful that what is on the site isn't someone's original, unverifiable research.

To me, these are the factors that need to be taken into consideration when looking at fansites. Just because someone claims to be the "official" fansite doesn't really mean very much unless those claims are somehow backed up by independant sources. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment about Item 3 doesn't say anything. Most sites are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Filmsite.org is a fansite, but almost anybody would consider it a reliable source for some things. Any mention of fansites is a silly, waste of time canard. We have a guideline, and in addition we have related policies. There isn't much complex about the concepts of reliability, merit, externally valued and copyvio that are laid out. The simple yes/no is fansites are permitted if they meet the guideline, and no if they don't. 2005 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I follow that, but what if some of the content meets the guideline (e.g., interview and articles), and some does not (e.g., there is a blog section)?--Epeefleche 21:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The point again is this has nothing to do with a "fansite". You should be just asking what if any site has some content that merits linking, but some that would normally be included. There can't be a black/white answer for that since very many sites will have one sentence or more that would not qualify. If there was some huge academic site that in addition allowed blog space to anyone, that would seem fine. If some site had an index page with a great authoritative article and then 200,000 pages of free blogs used by nitwits, that would seem not a good link. Editors have to use judgment. If there is a site that has content that really merits linking, I wouldn't want to see people not link to it because some other content is weak user-created stuff. You raise a good point though, even rounaboutly, there isn't a line that addresses linking to the index page of a site with great content, and weaker stuff. (Copyvio would be a thing to kill anything, imo.) 2005 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 2005. A fansite is a broad term that covers sites created by fans of a topic. Wikipedia itself (or at least specifically certain articles) could be considered "fansites" as well. There's nothing inherently good or bad about a fansite, it's about the quality of the content. Concerning item 1 in "Links to be Avoided", there is a good deal of information and minutiae that while perhaps of interest to people who are focusing on a topic are not significant enough to warrant detailed inclusion within Wikipedia. I've seen articles removed many times over the years for not being noteworthy enough even though they're of interest to some people focusing on the topic. Most information of value can be incorporated into Wikipedia, no doubt. However I believe fansites operate in a niche that Wikipedia should not (at least according to the current policies and standards). That being said, linking to quality external fansites shouldn't be discouraged for this reason alone; they'll need to be examined on a case by case basis. --Nonance 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

MySpace

It seems this must've been asked before, but is it EVER ok to link to myspace? Murderbike 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. When it's "the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. Yes, if it's an official page of the subject, but NO because not once have I seen a MySpace link that provided useful further information or illumination of the subject of the article. I haven't seen MySpace links to add value to articles. I don't delete them when I see them because I know they'll be added back. =Axlq 00:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that a myspace page is official? Have they added a procedure to verify page owners? (Pet Peeve: "Official" is a hugely overused description in ELs: [http:moosecheese.com Official MooseCheese.com site] )

Same as with any other web site claiming to be official. If it's in doubt, we need to be able to provide a reliable source saying that it is an official site. A news article, a link from another site known to be official that says its official, etc. True, setting up a myspace page is completely free, but setting up a paid-for domain costs $25 or so, it's not a particularly high barrier to cross either. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, yes, they have set up a procedure to verify page owners,(The MySpace Salute) but it's not a reliable source for our purposes. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll on inclusion and appropriateness of link

We would like to get input on the appropriateness of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion here and a poll. Comments prior to August 7, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. see also [6]--Hu12 11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Will this be a straw poll? tia --Tom 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I think it infact is ;)--Hu12 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I need some advice

I removed [7] from Interstate 90, since exit lists are a standard part of articles about Interstates and other freeways. Son objected because "the exit guide provides more in depth information than the Wiki article, including rest stops and toll barriers". I don't see this as a reason to include the link; if anything it's a reason to add those features onto Wikipedia. Can I please have a third opinion? Thank you. --NE2 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you - and your opinion would be in line with my understanding of "Links Normally to be Avoided", part 1. "# Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about sites requiring registration

Hi, folks. I'm trying to get Fun Home up to GA standard. One apparent stumbling block is that the article notes the extensive coverage of the work in the New York Times, including one quotation from the NYT Sunday Book Review and the fact that the book spent two weeks on the NYT bestseller list. All but one of these links is available with free registration to the Times website, and the one paid archive item is merely being cited to show that they wrote no less than three stories about the book in a fairly short period of time. Since the New York Times is America's "newspaper of record", and their bestseller list is probably the most significant such list, I think that the citations are fairly important to establish the cultural significance of Fun Home. But WP:EL says that "a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." The registration in this case is free, not paid — I thought that the guideline used to say that paid registration was to be avoided, but free registration was OK as long as the reference indicates that registration is required. I don't think that any other source can be used to note what the New York Times said about Fun Home. Furthermore, the citation is still verifiable by someone going to their local library, which will probably have either a subscription to the NYT archives or hard copies of the newspaper itself.

Is the GA reviewer interpreting the WP:EL guideline correctly? Is it required that such links be avoided? If so, that seems silly to me: if I had cited the print edition, that would be far less accessible than the free-registration-required archive, but that wouldn't run foul of any guidelines. Y'all are the EL experts — what do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an EL expert, but I have a comment.... Why not cite the print edition and provide a link to the online version of the article? --orlady 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea — I think all that would require is adding the page numbers to the citations. I don't have time right now, but I'll see if I can find that info soon. Would that be sufficient to get around the registration hurdle? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that the page numbers for the print edition aren't available on the website — I'll go to the library in a few days and see if they still have the hard copies. I'd still like some guidance from someone who knows the guideline and the rationales behind it well to explain whether I really need to remove the links, or if adding page numbers from the print edition would solve the problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What's to be avoided is providing ONLY a URL to a site that requires either a paid subscription, or a site that requires extensive information to register - in other words, a URL that is difficult to follow. On the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable (in my opinion) to provide a citation (that would be name of publication, date, title, and author - if any) that includes a URL that is (essentially) difficult to follow (example: paid archive). The later is acceptable because it would be an acceptable citation without the URL - adding a problematical URL certainly doesn't all of sudden make the citation worthless. And a possibly-useful URL (there are, after all, some editors who subscribe or are registered and can therefore follow the link) is better than none at all (again, provided the rest of the citation can stand on its own). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that links used as citations are not covered by WP:EL guidelines – from the lead section: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." The appropriateness of using registration-only pages as citations has been discussed in the past (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive16#Query and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive12#NYTimes.com as a source). There is currently no policy prohibiting the use of such pages as citations in articles, as long as the source is reliable, though some editors prefer to use equivalent freely accessible sources where available. --Muchness 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you �— that makes much more sense. I appreciate the replies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeat insertion of questionable external link

I've been having an issue with a good faith anon readding a removed link to a private community/forum link in the Vorarephilia article. To ensure that I'm not totally off base or to reenforce that I am correct in my interpretation of the guidline can someone take a look? I don't want this to devolve in an edit war so could this be discussed and changed by another editor please? The relavent discussion has reached the "well I don't like that" phase. NeoFreak 01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Left a message on your talk page. Short version: I understand the other editor, but agree with you. --Mdwyer 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

External links to notable copyright violations

I understand the guideline of not linking to sites violating copyright law, but what if the violation is a notable violation. I removed a few of these links (both in external links and in references) related to the Dramatic Chipmumk/Dramatic Prairie Dog video. There were references and external links that linked to pages displaying the video, which is admittedly taken from a Japanese TV Show. We should not be allowing these links, correct? Sancho 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the links. I don't think it's up to a single user to claim that a link to an external site is a copyright violation. In many cases it is not. The external site may have a license, fair use right, or some other reason why it is okay. Both Wikipedia and Youtube (for instance) have a notice-and-take-down procedure to deal with this. I also don't know what a "notable" violation means. An editor should not knowingly link to copyright violations, but that does not mean that every other editor is free to delete links if they're not convinced of the copyright status. Wikidemo 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By "notable violation" I meant that the derivative work (although a copyright violation... possibly) has attained a notable status. Instead of talking about many cases, what about this single case? The video is a derivative work based on an excerpt from a Japanese TV show. Is this a copyright violation? If so, we shouldn't link to it. What is the correct forum to discuss the appropriateness of this link? Sancho 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is merely a single case I would talk about it on the talk page of the article; if it is illustrative or raises a broader policy issue, here is good. You present an interesting argument that's a little unusual. Normally, the copyright claim is that a copyrighted excerpt or full video is lifted intact from somewhere and used without permission, e.g. a music video on Youtube. However, that is always murky because google has gone back and not only licensed a lot of stuff that was previously infringing, but secured permission for people to create derivative works on Youtube. Moreover, short excerpts, parodies, commentary, etc., can be fair use on Youtube and particularly on blog sites, newspapers, etc. For that reason, unless you're pretty sure that there is a copyright violation I would not easily infer one just because a video is on what looks like an unauthorized site. That's what notice and take down is for. Here, however, you are saying that it's not the hosting of the video that's infringing but the video itself, inasmuch as it's an unauthorized derivative work. That's hard to say. Some of these derivative works are legitimate parodies themselves. Sometimes, even if the work itself is infringing, there is a fair use right to comment on it. So there too I would hesitate to simply allow people to decide for themselves and then remove links. I would say there as well, it's best to discuss the matter first.

The article in question is a list of Internet phenomena (i.e. memes). A good many of them are copyright infringements in the first place. People take content from somewhere, often modify it, and then they spread all over the Internet. Every once in a while someone does try to squelch them via copyright threats, e.g. in the case of an inadvertent celebrity whose job application, private email, dating behavior gets plastered all over the Internet. As far as I know they always fail because the content is now the subject of critical discussion; once the content is so widespread there is a fair use right to comment on it. Interesting question, though. Wikidemo 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear copyright violations should be removed, whether it's "up to a single user" or not. Certainly in the question of following legalities we should err on the side of caution instead of assuming that something is OK unless lots of editors here complain. Considering that a large number of editors here have no background or interest in copyright -- or even outright oppose the laws and knowingly favor ignoring them -- we're likely to normally be in a situation where it's up to a single editor to take care of it, and we shouldn't set up some committee to go through before these things are acted on, as it's completely against the law, not to mention the policies here. DreamGuy 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not against the law for us unless we link to what we know is a copyright violation. Err on the side of caution is different than remove links if you personally don't know their copyright status. If you don't know, find out and if you can't figure it out, leave the link be. The policy says you can remove clear copyright violations, not uncertain cases. Many Youtube videos from third party sources are fully licensed, as I said, even derivative works created for Youtube. Wikidemo 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And they are clear. Maybe you aren't as familiar with the laws as others, but when "a single user" is, they should go ahead and do so, and if you profess ignorance, then you shouldn't put the link back, otherwise the issue will devolve to the lowest competence level of all editors involved. DreamGuy 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you claiming is clear? The status of Youtube viral videos is certainly not clear. If someone who knows what they are doing can be sure something is an infringement, that is a fair call. However, armchair lawyering on the subject, and a program of deleting links whenever a user has a doubt, would lead to unnecessary deletion of links.Wikidemo 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:LYRICS? Whether lyrics should be linked to has never been made clear, and I've seen many articles linking to what are clearly copyright violations. Richard001 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I remove links to copyvio lyrics sites on sight. I've never thought this was unclear. My understanding is that WP:Copyright is clear that we shouldn't link to copyvio sites and full reproductions of copyrighted lyrics have been found to be copyvio in US law. Is there doubt about the copyvio status of the sites, policy that over-rides the copyright policy, or are people just failing to connect the dots between our policy and copyvio lyric sites because the sites are so common? -- SiobhanHansa 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to update the lyrics page to say so if you like. Richard001 00:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that indicates it's OK to link to copyvio lyrics. Which bit do you think leads to ambiguity? -- SiobhanHansa 00:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point - it needs to say it isn't okay. By the number of times I've seen links to lyrics on pages I think it needs to be made explicit that copyright violations apply to external links as well as article content. Richard001 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. Sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. I never see that guideline quoted to protest the removal of the links (or justify their inclusion), so I don't see the point in lengthening it. WP:EL is quite clear that you shouldn't link to copyvio sites and WP:LYRICS doesn't contradict it. To me that's sufficient. -- SiobhanHansa 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. See Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry#External link to lyrics. Someone reading this talk page may be in two minds about whether it is okay, especially if they are referred there by someone telling them it's not allowed. Richard001 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the EL document is pretty clear - see the first part of the section called "Restrictions on Linking" - without exception we can not link to sites that violate copyright. I don't think it could get much clearer than that. The link that you provided also says the same thing. I guess I'm not seeing where the ambiguity is... can you help point this out? All lyrics for commercially available songs are copyright, unless they are so old that they have passed into the Public Domain. If it doesn't say explicitly that the lyrics are reproduced with the permission of the owner, then it's safe to assume it's a copyright violation and the link needs to be gone immediately. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

EL policy takes precedence over some sub page on lyrics and poetry. We don't link to them unless they are on an official site who owns the copyright, period. DreamGuy 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification - WP:EL isn't policy, it's a part of the MoS guideline Just like WP:LYRICS. But WP:Copyright is policy, and that is clear that one should not knowingly link to copyright violations. Also, Richard, I disagree with the need to edit WP:LYRICS, but that in no way stops you from being bold if you think it needs updating. I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to convince others to make the change. -- SiobhanHansa 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree that it is adequately covered - external links are only mentioned once in the article and in different context. I've added the following line that should make things clear to people going to that page with concerns about external links: External links to copyrighted lyrics should also be avoided.

This is very concise and links people here for further reading if they should feel the need. I don't believe its creepy given the shortness of the page and the addition, and the fact that it clarifies a point others have been confused about in the past, as evidenced by discussion. It should save those who are unsure from coming here or going to the copyright policy to get an answer, or remaining unsure and adding or not removing such links. Richard001 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

External links to official publishers

If a wiki entry is about an author or musician, it should include information about that person's publications. This information should allow one to identify/track the publication, by including the ISBN number if available and the name of the original publisher.

My question is: may the name of the official publisher be changed to an external link?

For example: there is a CD recording by Xuefei Yang called:

• Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei, 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

published by "Shine Horn" sometimes referred to as "Shine Music".

I would like to include the link to the official publisher, thus I would like the line to look as follows:

• Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei, 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

REASON:

From WP:EL: # 3.1 What should be linked: 
What should be linked
1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link 
to the official site if any.

An official publisher can be seen as an organization, since it's name would be included, when referring to an item. Thus one can change this name, to an external link that points to the official site!?!

(Another route (which does not bend the above meaning as much) would be to create a wiki-entry on a publishing company (e.g. Shine Horn), and to include the official site (Shine Horn) there. Then items (e.g. CDs) from that publisher that are reverenced from other Wiki-pages (e.g. Xuefei Yang) could be wiki-linked to Shine Horn) - but the effect if the same, thus reinforcing the "somewhat-bent interpretation" above.

 From WP:EL: # 4 Links normally to be avoided:
Links normally to be avoided
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to 
a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity 
to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

CD's (and many other items) often don't have codes such as ISBN, and even if they do - the code is probably not standardized, so it is unlikely that a service exists that allows one to search all the world's vendors for that item (e.g. CD). But (from above 4.) I see the phrase "giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources". This means that the reader should not be deprived of being able to source the item in question. Excluding a link to the official website of the official publisher (possibly a hard-to-find link of a chinese publisher's website, for example), is in my humble view, an act of keeping valid and relevant information from the reader.

Thus I ask: may I or may I not change

• Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei, 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

to

• Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei, 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

?

Much of the above is from the following talk page: [8]

AlonsoAlfons4 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In your

• [http://www.shinemusic.cn/gb/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=148 ''Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei''], 1999 ([http://www.shinemusic.cn Shine Horn], 先恒)

there are two links to shinemusic.cn. I don't understand how this is more helpful than

• [http://www.shinemusic.cn/gb/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=148 ''Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei''], 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

But actually the page is in Chinese, not English, so (putting aside for a moment questions about the suitability of linking) it would be a lot better if it were

• (in Chinese) [http://www.shinemusic.cn/gb/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductId=148 ''Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei'', 杨雪霏·古典吉他], 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒).

People could then google 杨雪霏·古典吉他 for themselves.

It may be OK to add the external link. But unless the article makes it as easy as possible for readers to search for something in their preferred way (e.g. by giving the Chinese title of something that's in Chinese), provision of an external link looks spammy to me. -- Hoary 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AlonsoAlfons4, I don't think that is an appropriate change. Pushing readers to an online shop is the sort of thing most editorial policies designed to protect the integrity of content would ban. Pushing readers to a page that provides detailed product information (assuming such information can't be succinctly included in the article) might be appropriate depending on the specific link, but blatant commercial links are not. Readers who are not prepared to pay money don't get anything out of the links you have provided. I don't believe that is good for the encyclopedia.

The book source page is useful because it provides a way to meet the varied needs and preferences of users. Providing a single link to one source does not do the same thing at all. A single source is not necessarily the best or preferred source for a reader and may be inaccessible for many. Providing sufficient information so that people can easily search on the web for the product (in their preferred search engine) seems like a more appropriate approach in most cases.

Also, to clarify one of the points you brought up above: where the guideline recommends "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." It is specifically talking about the official site of the article subject. Not official sites of people, organizations etc. mentioned in the article. So if the article is about Shine Horn, linking to their website is recommended. If the article is about client Shine Horn publishes, linking to any official site for the client would be recommended, but the shine Horn link is not. You mention you thought you were bending the rule a bit, so I guess you know this is the case. Your rationalization for it on the basis it's not really different from wikilinking and the externally linking from there falls down though. If Shine Horn is a suitable company for a Wikipedia article, then wikilinking their name the first time it's mentioned in the article would be good practice - we are then providing people with encyclopedic information about Shine Horn should they wish to follow the wikilink. Externally linking to them does not provide readers with encyclopedic information in the same way (at least, not if we've written a good article :-). -- SiobhanHansa 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!
Including the chinese name "杨雪霏·古典吉他" is a good idea!
However googling for it does not return any links that can be considered useful: try it here- google for "杨雪霏·古典吉他"
Thus this is exactly the reason for including "good valid links" - to point the reader to the source and help the reader locate the source (and not some "middle man" distributor: a person will no doubt be able to search the internet if a different distributor (other than the original official publisher) is desired): the official publisher is so intimately related to an item, that such a link should be included when this is possible!

More examples: If one is referring to an article from a publication, one should include links to the sources as best one can:
Instead of

• A new method for measurement of acoustic efficiency of classic guitars by Giovanni Moschioni, Bortolino Saggin
  Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, 2004. IMTC 04. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE - Volume 3, 18-20 May 2004 Page(s):1953 - 1958 Vol.3 - DOI:10.1109/IMTC.2004.1351469

one should use:

• A new method for measurement of acoustic efficiency of classic guitars by Giovanni Moschioni Bortolino Saggin
  Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference, 2004. IMTC 04. Proceedings of the 21st IEEE - Volume 3, 18-20 May 2004 Page(s):1953 - 1958 Vol.3 - doi:10.1109/IMTC.2004.1351469

I reject statments that this is spamming (Hoary: "looks spammy to me"), since all that has happend is that normal black text has changed to blue links, that enhance and give detailed related information. The blue text will not interfere with any reading, since the publications will most probably be part of a section called "Publications" anyway - which is reference information.

Not only is the official source of the article included (as I maintain that it should be - if possible) but links to the following are also included: authors homepages, Conference Homepage, DOI.

This is all reference information, which is good to have in a link form if one is interested - otherwise one must just resist the temptation of clicking the blue text :)

SiobhanHansa: You mention that "Pushing readers to a page" with links! That is just incorrect! As mentioned above, normal black text has changed to blue links! An interested reader will follow the link, if he wishes to do so, but it is the reader's choice. Also: the links are not to any odd page, but to the source: official publisher, official author, etc.

I don't think your interpretation of what it means to link to an external article is generally shared - otherwise why would we have any guidelines about links, it's just changing the text from black to blue! You seem to be stretching on a lot of this. I don't know if this is because you just really want people to support the links, or if you actually see things in this way. So I'll just go back to the basics in the guideline: It has been a long standing part of this guideline that linking to for-fee services is generally considered inappropriate. External links should directly provide readers with further, freely-accessible information on the subject of the article. Free registration sites don't past muster, a shop even less so. From the information you have provided there is nothing extraordinary about this situation. The example you give above is an great use of linking for the article itself, the author links and the conference link less so, but the IEE wikilink is good. In part this is because it is obvious what the user is getting - where the title of the paper is linked, readers click on the link and get the paper. In your previous example people click on the title of the song and get an online store where they can spend money. These are not the same thing. If you want to change the guideline to make links to online stores like this acceptable I suggest you start a new, more general thread, though I doubt you'll get much support. -- SiobhanHansa 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Say you are looking for a book from a relatively unknown (for westeners) author from Russia. The book is listed on the author's wiki-entry, but it has no ISBN number. And you just cannot find it: Your Amazon, Ebay and Google searches are fruitless. And a few days later you find that the item in the author's wiki-entry has changed to a link to a publisher in Russia, since an admirer of the author thought it would be helpful to include a link to the Russian publisher (that one would not have easily found oneself - since the website uses the Cyrillic alphabet). Would you then use this information, or would you maintain that the link should be removed?

Say you find a book on Wikipedia and it gives the publisher as: Tomorrow Books. You now want to locate this official publisher. But unfortunately Tomorrow is such a common name, that it takes you 2 days to find the link. Hmmm... would have been nice if wikipedia had the link...

The source of a book is it's publisher, and the publisher's website is "freely-accessible", even if the product's content is not (due to the very nature of a publisher!).

SiobhanHansa said: "In your previous example people click on the title of the song and get an online store where they can spend money." Actually, when people click on the title, they can view that article, at the homepage of the official publisher; not just any "online store where they can spend money". Who is forcing you to click the link (assuming a valid link)? Who is forcing you to spend money? (Who is preventing you from searching for an alternative distributor or secondary sources?) I can understand that there are a lot of external links that really should be removed (e.g. material that is not really related to the article or it's contents). But an item (e.g. book) that is mentioned in connection with a wiki entry anyway, can (and should) be changed to a link that points to the source.

AlonsoAlfons4 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AlonsoAlfons4, you have to remember, though, that Wikipedia is not designed to be a collection of useful links. It's primary purpose is to have articles with information about the topic, with citations. Sometimes it is appropriate to add external links because they provide information that could not otherwise be a part of the article, but are still about the subject of the article. In those cases, it is appropriate to have the external links. So in the case of the publisher and author, for example, if they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about them, it is perfectly acceptable to add an internal Wikilink to that entity, but not a link to an external web page on it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Alfonso, I'm not sure we're talking about the same example - I meant this one:

• Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei, 1999 (Shine Horn, 先恒)

Where clicking on "Classical Guitar by Yang Xuefei" appears to take you to an online store rather than an article - of course I can't tell for certain since it's not in English (generally another "to be avoided" with limited exceptions that this does not seem to meet).

The "who is forcing you" questions are bogus. No one forces readers to believe what they read here, we still strive for accuracy; no one forces readers to click on links, we should still strive to provide them with links that are worthy of an English language, NPOV encyclopedia. We are not, after all, a directory, portal, or fan site (any one of which could be great places for such links). Blatantly commercial links have been fairly clearly rejected as generally unsuitable by the community for years.

There are always exceptions to guidelines - when an individual case is sufficiently different that an exception is called for, and your bold approach is reverted, the generally accepted method is to build consensus on the talk page of the article. It may be that the Russian example you give is one where that is appropriate, but exceptions need individual consensus - which is best achieved on the talk page of the article where it is linked.

I assumed you came here asking if the usage you suggest can be considered to fall within the current guideline - and I think it's a pretty clear cut "no - it does not." If you are proposing a change to the current guideline, I suggest you start a fresh thread and propose new wording. -- SiobhanHansa 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unclear wording

Another editor here reads the policy passage "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language ..." as though the second part only applies to "official sites", whereas I read it as describing two different cases, so that an "or" could be added "unavailable in English, or when the link ...". Either way the text needs clarifying. Johnbod 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe your interpretation is the one intended when the text was written. Would using semi-colons do the job (with minor rewording):

Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when a site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. Per the guideline on non-English-language sites.

-- SiobhanHansa 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is better, though "..., or ..., or ..." if a trifle legal-ish, is clearer still. Johnbod 17:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've made the change. -- SiobhanHansa 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL warranting the removal of college statistics?

Can someone please chip in at Talk:Vince_Young#Statistics as to the removal of college statistics in articles (not links) based on WP:EL ? Thanks! Corpx 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please check a user's edits for WP:COI problems?

I'm kind of busy right now, but I saw User:Sexperts make an edit to Moral panic to make a claim and cite American Sexuality Magazine as the source, and if you go to the user page he fully admits he/she belongs to the group that makes that mag. So I removed it and gave a pointer to WP:COI on the talk page, but a quick glance at the user's edit history shows lots of articles and edit comments that make me fear the individual has already gone through linking to themselves all over. I'd appreciate if someone with some free time could go check on it. Thanks. DreamGuy 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is a COI, but the site itself looks like reliable source. Corpx 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Which would mean that the user should not add links himself and should make suggestions on talk pages only and let others add them if the other editors so desire, by WP:COI rules, right? DreamGuy 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but WP:COI is not really a policy, so enforcement is not easy unless its blatant & promotional Corpx 16:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement is just a matter of someone doing it. It's just as easy to do as it is for the people to put the COI in in the first place. DreamGuy 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ELs for externally referenced subjects

I would like to solicit opinions regarding edits like this one. I feel that keeping a reference to external subject, but not providing a relevant link (and quoting WP EL's "not a collection of links") is an abuse of WP EL policy. I fail to see how this sort of edit improves the quality of the article. It simply amounts to artificially inconveniencing WP readers and forcing them to do an extra legwork to access external source of the information. PS. The reason for the question is my exchange with User:Calltech on Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange page.Alex Pankratov 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The edits that Calltech made are in line with my understanding of the External Links guideline, which says that "External links should not be used in the body of an article." They are not being used as citations, so that guidelines doesn't apply. Since they are not directly about the subject of the article, they would not be appropriate for ELs at the foot of the page due to "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Right now I am not seeing a case for making an exception to that in this instance. For those wishing to get the complete picture of this exchange, I provide another link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Need_assistance_with_Inter-Asterisk_eXchange.E2.80.8E_and_YATE_spammer -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of what the policy says, my question was a bit more generic. I look at it from purely practical perspective - if I am reading an article and I see it referencing something external. Why should I be forced to go and locate it through a search engine instead of going there directly ? Why should we intentionally make reader's life harder than it could've been ? What is the ACTUAL reason of not providing in-place link ? Alex Pankratov 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should you be forced to go to some other site to read your favorite cartoons each day? Why should you be forced to go to some other site to look at music lyrics? Why should you be forced to go to a video sharing site to see the latest funny movie clip created by some bored teenager? We don't force yo to do anything, do it or don't, but you don't do it here. DreamGuy 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how your questions relate to what I asked. You are also rehashing the policy, while I asked for the rationale behind it. If there is a software called A, there is typically a primary website maintained by the developer. This site is a reliable source as per WP definition. So my question is what is accomplished by not linking to it directly, but rather forcing users to locate it themselves ? For example, Starcraft page has a link to game's home page. Why is it OK there, but not here ? Alex Pankratov 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see how what I said responds to what you asked you aren't really trying very hard to think about it. We can link to a main site about the main article topic in external links, but not link to every single thing that might be mentioned in the article, and certainly not in the article itself. There's a huge difference. You'll note however that the Starcraft page doesn't have (or shouldn't, I didn't bother to look) a direct link in the body of the article to all the various home pages of teams of players put together, and add on software, and competitors, and so forth. DreamGuy 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• User:Calltech's edits were absolutely correct. We are not a web directory. If the entries do not have Wikipedia articles (where they'd be linked to if we did) then we don't link to anything. DreamGuy 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But why exactly ? That is my question. In the end it is the WP readers that are taking a hit. Alex Pankratov 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because wikilinks go to articles, and articles are checked for notability, controlled for information. Outside sites are not, and it because all too easy just to link anything to any site all over, and that can be spam, wrong websites for information, completely nonnotable sites just trying to get the lift in Google ranking Wikipedia links give them, etc. Any WP reader who wants to look up info on anything that doesn't have a wikilink can use Google or their favorite web directory much faster than it takes me to type even one of these sentences. That's what they are there for, and you can't tell me people know about Wikipedia but don't know about/have toolbar installed/type direct into their address bar for a search Google o some other search engine. DreamGuy 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several reasons why this is a generally preferred way of going about it -

• From a practical point of view I think one of the biggest reasons is because it cuts out a lot of spam listings. There's a huge amount of pressure to get links into Wikipedia and lists with external links frequently become unmanageable and deteriorate into directories (some without external links do to, but there seems to be less of a tendency when there is less marketing power for the organization being linked to). Our readers aren't well served by promotional editing, which these things tend to encourage.
• From an encyclopedic perspective, I think the biggest reason is that we shouldn't be sending people off to non-encyclopedic information in the middle of an article. Wikilinks are one thing, because we're still providing (I hope) encyclopedic information about the thing mentioned. But external links ot the organization's site is not encyclopedic information about the subject of the article.
• Finally I think it worth pointing out that straight listings like that are just pretty poor in most cases. If you look at our featured lists you'll see they don't simply put up all the names of every whatever. They generally provide significant context. And when you look at these articles, the sort of things we should be aiming for, external links aren't included in the main body, and would look fairly promotional if they were. I think these articles show what an encyclopedic listing can be, and what the difference between an encyclopedic list and a directory. Of course there are plenty of poor lists without external links all over them, but that doesn't mean we can't apply some standards to them.

There are probably other reasons too. These are just the ones that sprang to the top of my mind when reading your question. -- SiobhanHansa 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SiobhanHansa. I was not (consciously) aware of the issues surrounding WP lists. This is a sort of a reply I was hoping for. Alex Pankratov 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have another reason. Wikipedia does serve as a valid reference not only for its own information but for citations to sources and underlying websites. You don't come here to choose which toaster is best and who has the best prices on it, but you can expect to find the home pages of the manufacturers, and links to external sites with more information. But:

• People can and do often use valid external links. To be usable they must all be in a predictable location, i.e. in the references section or the "external links" section. A long list, or random links, such as choosing one commercial site out of hundreds of possible sites, actually degrades the reliability of the links because then people can't count on Wikipedia being authoritative. Also, the way to find the primary external link for something is to follow the internal links to the main article about the thing, then link from there. A system where some but not all of the external links are found in other locations would be hard to use. Wikidemo 19:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Find A Grave

I have seen the widespread use of the Find A Grave site as an EL using both {{tl|Find A Grave}} and a traditional link formating. I find the site to be very inconsistent in that some of the pages are useful, and some are not. Is there some reason that prevents the information on that site from simply being incorporated to the articles? I don't know why it is considered an acceptable EL as much of it borders on trivia. //Tecmobowl 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is usually a useless external link, though sometime sit might be okay. Yet another spam link template that should be dealt with. 2005 21:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, yet another spam template that is going to be extremely difficult to remove. Sigh. The {{tl|Find A Grave}} template is used about 250 times and it was created in Dec 2005 by Jim@findagrave.com who was warned and then blocked. Hmmm, COI and SPAM but that's nothing. A linksearch for findagrave.com [9] reports 44451 hits! Yes that's forty-four thousand external links. Most of them seem to be at Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave_famous_people. What sort of official Wikipedia project is that? I slapped a notability tag on the Find A Grave article too. (Requestion 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Good lord. An entire project designed to spam. Afaid I don't know, is there a way to "afd" projects like this? 2005 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate WikiProjects for deletion by listing them at Miscellany for deletion. --Muchness 03:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Burial places of monarchs in the British Isles where it is being used as a reference. Without thinking about it too much that seems reasonable to me. Thanks/wangi 21:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

References and ELs are two totally different things. There are certainly some pages that have valuable information. I am questioning whether it is considered a unilateral EL (and used as a templated). //Tecmobowl 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article is titled "Celebrity Graves", I would think its purpose would be strictly as a reference, as you're suggesting. It was useful in pointing the way to the true death date of John Henry Lloyd, for example. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Muchness et al Looks like we need to kill of this site in instances where it does not provide useful information. //Tecmobowl 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We really have to do something about this blatant spam. User:Lurgis added a link to Chris Benoit, who doesn't even have a freaking grave yet, it's just a blog site for "memorials" and has been very aggressively deceptive in his justification for putting it back. I also see from his contributions that the maority of his edits seem to be to add Find A Grave links/content in a very clear WP:COI... It's really too bad that the people who care about Wikipedia's integrity can't organize to put an end to organized spamming, as all these links are still here, the Wikifur links I think are all still here, the horrible Notable name Database (just another content and reliability-free wiki sort of thing) are getting added to hundreds and THOUSANDS of articles. At one point do we just shrug and give up and let the spammers take over? DreamGuy 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing 250 links is easily done. Who is going to nom this project for mfd? It's horrible and doesn't need to exist. pschemp | talk 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a bot(JabbaTheBot) that can remove any number of spam links if needed.--I already forgot 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with the assertion that these links are spam. I have certainly found them useful when reading articles in the past. Johntex\^talk 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Behind the Name

All, we need input on the use of Behind the name as an EL in the Template:Infobox Given Name Revised template. Please comment below so we can develop a consensus about this matter. The previous discussion about this matter is posted below.

Previous discussion

Why did you remove the external links from the infobox given name revised template? Remember

I took the links out of the name template because: - BTN is a personal website, and I do not think WP should be promoting it by linking to it, per WP:EL and - The SSA is exclusively a U.S. site and so violates WP:CSB. Responses welcome, here or on my talk page. UnitedStatesian 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While BTN is set up by a person, which I guess makes it a personal website, it is the only one that aggregates data regarding the popularity of names around the world (which I would think helps counter systematic bias). If you can find a better website then BTN that is more authoritative, please replace it, but right now it is the best source out there as far as I can tell.

As for deleting the US site to counter the systematic bias of wikipedia, I would think that the answer to this problem would be to add more links to other government websites that state the popularity of names and not take the only one I could find away. I have put a lot of work into trying to make the name articles better and I don't think removing the EL from all the pages is helping these articles be more informative. But that is just my view and I could be wrong.

I recommend that we try to get some other people's opinion on the matter so that the community can settle this debate. I will gladly defer to what the community's consensus is. What do you think? Remember 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the talk page for WP:EL may be the best place to do it; I am consistently impressed by the high qulaity of the discussion there. Feel free to revert my changes and I will take the discussion there, unless you have a different place you would rather take the discussion. UnitedStatesian 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Once a consensus is reached we should also post it on the template page. Remember 03:53, 18 July 2007

Current discussion

This is clearly just an attempt to try to institutionalize an external link to a questionable website by throwing it into a template and giving it the appearance of being accepted by consensus when it's not. It's an extremely common tactic among the more clever spammers and self-promoters these days. The website is just somebody's personal site and should not get such a highly visible stamp of endorsement. DreamGuy 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guarantee you I have no affiliation with BTN and I was the one who made the decision to include it. I was just trying to create a template that gave users the best information on proper names in a easy to read format. I searched around and BTN was the only website that I could find that listed the popularity of names for several different countries over a period of time. I originally intended to try to go to each country and use their statistics (like I did by including the US website), but I could only find data from the US government. Again, if anybody can find better references on the internet, please revise the template to include that reference, but until there is a better link I don't see why we should make it more difficult for people to access useful information just because it is a external link. Remember 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, regardless of your feelings on BTN, I would think that the US government's website should be acceptable as an external link. Remember 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The US govt.'s? Hello? The US govt. is huge, with lots of links, and they should have to go through the same notability measures of anyone else on a case by case basis instead of just creating a template for a zillion pages. Templated links are a bad idea most of the time, unless it's a genuine extremely common link, but then all the spammers and self-promoters grab hold of the concept and abuse it. The default should be no templated links at all until there is a clear established consensus over a huge section of the encyclopedia, not just start them up and then when people complain say that the existence of the template proves a consensus. DreamGuy 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then here are some questions for the group to develop a consensus:

Questions for discussion

1. Is the US government link I used is notable and if not why not?

I believe it is because it shows the US government raw statistics for the popularity of a given name over a period of time. But any other opinions are welcome. Remember 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not horrible anyway, but geographically specific, which is discouraged. Unless you plan on adding similar links to popularity of name in UK, Australia, etc. to the template, which becomes unmanageable. DreamGuy 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do plan on adding them if I can ever find them, and I don't see why it will be unmanageable when there aren't that many to begin with. Remember 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, each state has its own Births, Deaths and Marriages register. NSW has a page where you can search by year of birth and gender.[10] We would need up to eight links (6 states, 2 territories) to cover the whole of Australia - just one country. --Mike 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Is the use of the BTN external link violate wikipedia's policies? And if so which ones? And if this link is not useful, is there a substitute link that provides similar information?

I think that this link is useful and that there is no available substitute. While I agree that we should generally refrain from linking to commercial cites for information, in this case I have found it necessary and have found no alternative. Once an alternative is present, then that link should be used, but until that time I don't see why we should deny people access to information. Remember 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, this site is simply not worth linking to, as it doesn't meet criteria for external links in general and this is clear attempt to promote the site through faux template consensus by fiat. Since these templates affect whole groups of articles all at once, you should have a clear and documented consensus *in favor* of doing it before doing so, otherwise people will just assume it was OK'd elsewhere and then, like always happens, when people try to remove the link as inappropriate we'll get the standard "well, it's on the template so clearly has consensus". Since there's no support shown for it here or elsewhere and it was dicussed above, I'll be removing them again soon. DreamGuy 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a point of clarity, I did not discuss the addition to the external links to the template with anyone, because I alone set up the template and added them. So there was no one to talk with about the addition of the external links on this template.Remember 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just asked about this over at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and was directed to this page and the page for reporting spam. I didn't realise that there had already been a discussion about this. http://www.behindthename.com/ seems like a low-quality website. I don't see why it should be cited anywhere. As I already pointed out on the other pages, there are real academic onomastic dictionaries if this type of information need citing in any pages. Olaus 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Template being debated

Below is the template we are discussing. The external links in debate are the popularity and name day links: {{Infobox Given Name Revised Example}}

{{Infobox Given Name Revised Example | name = William |image=William1.jpg |imagesize=200px |caption=[[William the Conqueror]], The Duke of Normandy in the [[Bayeux Tapestry]]. The name William became very popular in the English language after the [[Norman Conquest]] of [[1066]] by William the Conqueror. | pronunciation = wiljəm | gender = Male | meaning = ''will + helmet (protection)'' | region = [[Germanic languages|Germanic]] | origin = German | related names = [[Will]], [[Bill]], [[Billy]], [[Willy]], [[Wilhelm]] | footnotes = <ref>[http://www.babynames.co.uk/meaning_origin_name_William.htm William - Meaning and origin of the name William]</ref> }}

{{Infobox Given Name Revised Example
| name = William
|image=William1.jpg
|imagesize=200px
|caption=[[William the Conqueror]], The Duke of Normandy in the [[Bayeux Tapestry]]. The name William became very popular in the English language after the [[Norman Conquest]] of [[1066]] by William the Conqueror.
| pronunciation = wiljəm
| gender = Male
| meaning = ''will + helmet (protection)''
| region = [[Germanic languages|Germanic]]
| origin = German
| related names = [[Will]], [[Bill]], [[Billy]], [[Willy]], [[Wilhelm]] 
| footnotes = <ref>[http://www.babynames.co.uk/meaning_origin_name_William.htm William - Meaning and origin of the name William]</ref>
}}

Fan sites addressed in this policy?

There's a discussion at David Strathairn concerning use of a fan site called "David Strathairn Online" [...] [deleted link due to copyright violations as discussed below] as an external link. This had been previously discussed as a source for the article, after the website had protested on bogus grounds. I advocated removal of the sourcing under WP:V, and it was indeed removed.

[Note well: I have deleted the link to the site due to its copyright violations, as per consensus in this section [reflecting the consensus on the talk page]. Leaving it in Wikipedia violates Wikipedia's policies cited in discussion below. It has been deleted from the article for the same copyright violations reason and from its talk space and it should not be added in any space in Wikipedia at this time. --NYScholar 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)] [Updated. See Talk:David Strathairn as well as further discussion below. --NYScholar 16:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

However, now the issue is whether the site should be removed from the external links section. I believe this link should be included because, though unofficial and unendorsed by Strathairn, it contains a variety of useful information on this actor and in my view should be included. WP:EL is ambiguous on the subject. I feel it supports my position but so does the other side.

I think it would be helpful for the subject of fan sites to be explicitly addressed in WP:EL, so that there be one uniform policy on this subject. I think proper wording would be something to the effect that one or two "fan sites" of celebrities are permissible as external links, even if not eligible as sources, if they contain noncontroversial information not elsewhere available.--Mantanmoreland 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on this - any site that contains information that is verifiable should have its text paraphrased and brought into WP, citing the source. You have already said that the site in question does not live up to this, because it has no "official" status, therefore can not be used as a citable source. If the information on the site is therefore not verifiable, it falls under the next provision of "links normally to be avoided" - it is "unverifiable research". I guess I don't see the need for it in an encyclopedia. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

All sites are addressed in this guideline. There is one uniform policy, and there is nothing ambigous about it so why pretend otherwise. 2005 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be removed. If we allow one or two, then we should allow all. I dont think we should be getting into debates on which fan sites warrant inclusion and which ones do not, so I do not think unofficial fan sites should be linked to Corpx 17:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This site appears to be hosting copyright content (images and video clips) without the permission of the copyright holders. If this is indeed the case, we shouldn't link to it per Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States[...] Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." --Muchness 17:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this page in the past about whether or not fan sites should be specifically barred by this guideline. The last time it came up the conclusion was that fan sites are of varying reliability, significance and value and should be evaluated individually. General, run of the mill fan sites for celebrities are probably inappropriate, and there have been significant problems with editors fighting over fan site listings. But there are some subjects where there are one or two fan sites that are the most active and insightful places for continuing pursuit of knowledge in a subject area. These sites are probably appropriate. So specific mention was left out with the guideline since it should be possible to evaluate a fan site under the general criteria in the same way you would evaluate any other site. I don't have a particular opinion on the David Strathairn Online link - if it's generally agreed to be the best source of reliable and NPOV information on the guy it might be a good link (although the copyright concerns above take precedence). If it's similar to a bunch of other fan sites and not generally considered authoritative then it's probably not. -- SiobhanHansa 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see Muchness's point. If the site has copyvios, then out it goes. However, even this discussion takes widely divergent views on both fan sites generally and this one. Why not bite the bullet and hammer out some reasonable criteria applicable just to fan sites? Or eliminate them all. Quite frankly I don't see the harm of including a fan site that appears respsonsibly run and does not include derogatory information. But if the general view is to the contrary, fine. Why not say so in the policy page?--Mantanmoreland 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not say it? Because it is a silly, thoughtless idea. We have a guideline that addresses external links to websites of all kinds. Just read the guideline. It answers everything you need to know. 2005 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of overheated rhetoric that I meant in my "you are being disruptive" comment below.--Mantanmoreland 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, fan sites are run by fans (duh) with little editorial oversight and not much in the way of fact checking. I think all fan sites should be eliminated from WP Corpx 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to allow only fan sites authorized by the subject of the article.--Mantanmoreland 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution is far simpler than that: judge on a case by case basis. It doesn't take much insight to determine whether a fansite cites sources, violates copyright or has significant content appropriate to an article. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Digby. I think only allowing fan sites authorized by the subject is dangerous from an NPOV perspective and disregards the subject areas where there is no "authorizing" entity (for instance when the subject is not a living person or an organization). In some subject areas there is little academic study, but there are hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts worldwide who engage in factual inquiry that would put most newspaper journalists (whom we are quite happy to link to) to shame. These people are the experts in their field and I think outright barring links to the sites they create is spurious and does a disservice to our readers. Standards need to be high for these links as for any other, and most fan sites are inappropriate for our external links sections, but then most websites are inappropriate. We should be looking at how authoritative and encyclopedic any particular link is and using our best editorial judgment - as editors such evaluation is a part of our job. -- SiobhanHansa 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that will be the end it. What "authorized" has to do with merit, reliability, and level of detail is a mystery that we don't need to go into. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release. 2005 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is not the end of it. The issue seems to have been resolved in Strathairn (I think), but it will be a continuing issue in other articles. I don't see the harm of some kind of guideline, at least, addressing the subject.--Mantanmoreland 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is onethat addresses the subject in detail: WP:EL. 2005 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes no mention of fan sites. I don't think that specifically addressing the issues they raise is quite the wacky idea you seem to think it is.--Mantanmoreland 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What issues do fansites raise which aren't already covered by the rules which govern the inclusion of links to unofficial sites? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just being difficult. The guideline specifically details what can and can not be linked, even if it doesn't talk about sites with pink text or whatever. Take the time to read the WP:EL. That is the guideline dealing with external links to websites, and it specifically addresses issues involving websites of every kind. Instead of making dismissive comments about the guideline and the efforts of editors in creating it, please offer constructive comments. 2005 09:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficult? I'm raising an issue that is repeatedly raised in this page and elsewhere, and you're using some inappropriately nasty language to brush it off. I will try to come up with some suggested wording and it can be used or shot down as you wish. --Mantanmoreland 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes difficult. After the posts above you STILL have not stated an issue that the guideline does not address or that you disagree with! I'm not brushing anything off, if only because you have brought up nothing. The guideline deals plainly with copyvio issues, and so there is no pretending that it does not. In terms of your original post, there is nothing ambiguous in the guideline in terms of the Strathairn site, and it is quite rude to start a thread, say you think there is ambiguity then not state what is ambiguous. What is the purpose of that except to waste everybody's time? This is not "I've Got a Secret" where we sit around and guess what you are thinking and why you are thinking it is a problem. 2005 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I said I was going to come up with suggested wording. Now you're just being disruptive. --Mantanmoreland 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, please be contructive. You have made two more posts saying nothing whatsoever helpful to any other editor trying to figure out the secrets you are keeping to yourself here. if the exchange below is the issue, obviously the guideline covers this clearly, so we can move on. 2005 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the David Strathairn board, the discussion became about copyright issues and the site was deleted. This is where this whole issue becomes one-sided and biased. If you are going to remove the David Strathairn site for copyright violations, then you better delete almost all the fansites you have listed on other actors and celebrities here on Wikipeida. Because, believe it or not, all these other fansites that you are linking to have the same copyrighted material posted on their sites too (meaning videos and photographs). What gives that you can delete this particular fansite and not all the others that are violating copyrights? Clearly, this is a biased act against one particular site, and there are plenty of other fansites listed on Wikipedia doing the exact same thing. If you delete one, you should delete them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

Actually, it's just that people who notice copyright violations haven't noticed the fan sites you're talking about yet. Many other fan sites as well as other external links have been deleted because of copyvio concerns, we just don't get around to everything immediately. All external links to known copyright violations should be deleted on sight, it's in these guidelines and it's our policy. Though I would also draw your attention to WP:POINT, which has gotten editors into trouble in the past when they've gone on deleting sprees after their favorite site was removed. -- SiobhanHansa 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about deleting a "favorite site". If it's in your policy to delete fansites violating copyrights, well, then it should apply to all, not just a select few. That's when the policy is no longer valid or holds to the merit it's supposed to. It appears that several editors have started a larger issue than they may have intended. If you editors want to avoid having to delete the thousands of other fansites violating copyright issues on photographs (what fansite doesn't???) then it might be wise to keep the link there. It would be in your best interest to keep the site listed (along with all the other sites you have listed) or else remove all fansites from Wikipedia. It can't be resolved otherwise, because you're singling one out and not the countless others. And that's not holding to your "policy" on fansites then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

It does apply to all. If you find other links to fansites violating copyright, please remove them. --Yamla 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"what fansite doesn't???" Ones that we link to. While one graphic on an obscure page of a 10,000 page site may not disqualify a site, copyvio in general does. And again, despite the way it has unfortunately been presented here, this has nothng to do with "fansites". That's irrelevant and unimportant. This guideline deals with copyvio issues regardring external links, and treats everything equally. 2005 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • That's not the test. If we couldn't link to sites that violated copyright we couldn't link to the New York Times or even Wikipedia. There are two components to the prohibition on linking to copyright violations. First is that you can't do it knowingly. Second is more subtle and has to do with the nature and extent of the violation and the nature of the link. Moreover, fan sites' use of copyrighted material are often in a gray zone between fair use, licensed use, and unauthorized use. For the most part the copyright holders tacitly approve of them because they increase the audience for their content. Does anyone know if a legal standard has developed that we can use for guidance? This is one of those areas where we should err on the side of caution but not be overzealous because (i) when we enforce copyrights the owners themselves don't enforce, we get a perverse result, and (ii) when owners do enforce these kinds of copyrights it is used as a blunt tool to make money by suppressing critical discussion and free exchange of ideas, i.e. antithetical to the goals of an encyclopedia. Wikidemo 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an inaccurate perception re: corporate attitudes toward copyright violations of their intellectual and artistic property/trademarks by fansites. The idea that toleration means approval is inaccurate. For example, in my own telephone contact with legal staff of companies like Warner Bros. regarding copyright violations by fansites, their lawyers have told me that they do object to such copyright violations (they do not consider such unauthorized display of their copyright-protected and licensed trademarked intellectual and artistic properties desirable [they don't need the advertisement, espec. if they can't control the contexts; they pay commercial advertisers for such services]; but they do not issue "cease and desist" notices or (going further) sue every one of such copyright infringing-sites simply because the legal departments do not have the time/financial resources to do so; the legal departments have enough to do as it is with "bigger fish". So I do not find the comments above to be based on reality. [U.S. copyright law itself states explicitly that lack of knowledge of the laws or lack of intention are not defenses against a law suit for copyright violations and that, when in doubt, one should consult an intellectual property legal expert; i.e., an attorney specializing in copyright law pertaining to intellectual property and trademarks. (Trademarks are also being violated throughout Wikipedia, where featuring of trademarked logos are prevalent in articles about commercial enterprises.)] (Re: another point: Wikipedia articles cannot cite Wikipedia as a source.)--NYScholar 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Afraid to say, my comments are based on reality. Hollywood sometimes doesn't like what it cannot control but they certainly do tolerate fan sites. I don't buy the argument that the only reason they let them be is that they're too difficult to police. They can and do go on the warpath when it suits their interests. Lack of knowledge certainly is a relevant legal standard under the DMCA. More likely, the bad will that would be generated by going after their fans is too much for them to face. The logo uses you describe are not trademark infringements. Also, we're talking about linking, not sourcing. Specifically, we're talking about when we should avoid linking because for Wikipedia users to do it would be contributory infringement. Wikidemo 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If logos are registered trademarks (which they often are), then displaying them both without the registered trademark marks and without permission are violations of their owners' rights. Displaying them without permission if permission is required to do so in official commercial site notices is a violation of the rights declared in the notices. Copyright and trademark law offices are different offices in the U.S. (the information is linked on my talk page).

According to U.S. copyright law also, it is not a defense in a law suit against violations of copyright or copyright infringement to claim "lack of knowledge"; read the "fair use" provision more carefully; it says when in doubt to consult legal experts in the field. Most people posting here are not legal experts in the field. If doubts exist, here is not where they are most reliably going to be resolved, especially by people who haven't consulted U.S. copyright law and the Berne convention. (Again, links to them and to Wikipedia's own policies pertaining to the fair use provision in U.S. copyright law are in my talk page and have been there since at least Sept. 2006. E.g. re: fair use: [11]; main site of the U.S. Copyright government office: [12]; other links relating directly to Wikipedia's copyright and fair use policies are featured on my current talk page. [I put them there because I don't have time to debate them. They are clear enough.] --NYScholar 00:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

That is a completely inaccurate statement of trademark infringement. I don't have the time to explain it, and the Trademark infringement article is not very good. this is a better jumping off point on the subject. You're citing the wrong law on copyrights. We're talking about contributory infringement by linking, not direct infringement. For the relevant copyright law on linking and contributory infringement, please see the citations from the linking page. The fact that users are not experts is one reason we have policy. The policy embodies the law on the issue, that actual knowledge is required for liability. If someone isn't clear on things they shouldn't take it upon themselves to delete links. They should follow the policy on linking, i.e. that linking to things they know are infringing is inappropriate.Wikidemo 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not linking to the wrong laws. "We" were initially talking about the copyright infringement on a specific fansite; the infringer is the creator of the fansite. Wikipedia's policy explicitly prohibits linking to sites that infringe others' rights pertaining to intellectual property (both copyright and trademarks). I am not talking about the host provider's "knowledge" (which is a related but different matter); I am talking about the website creator's knowledge. Both are relevant. It is a moot point re: Wikipedia as a provider, if it is obvious that the sites in question (fansites) violate copyrights. Enough of us have pointed that out that Wikipedia is aware of this problem. I suggest that one read the laws in the context of the U.S. government site. It links to trademark office etc. "Fair use" is a very complex provision of U.S. copyright law and the government site's guidance for it has been revised fairly recently. The main point is that Wikipedia's own policies prohibit linking to sites that infringe intellectual property rights of others. We (Wikipedia editors) know that these sites do so, and, therefore, Wikipedia itself (given its statements in its own policies) is also aware that this happens in Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to delete such sites from external links on sight. --NYScholar 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the actual Copyright law, one clicks on "Law" in the top menu of the U.S. copyright office site already linked and gets to the laws that pertain to this discussion about the inappropriateness of linking to fansites which practice copyright and other intellectual property rights infringement/violations.Title 17. As I do not have time for further debate, I refer you to the actual laws and the Wikipedia discussions already linked on my own talk page and via WP:COPYVIO etc. --NYScholar 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For further information about copyright infringement penalties pertaining to intellectual and artistic properties via the "anti-piracy" provisions of U.S. Copyright Law (including the DMCA), one can find it at the U.S. FBI government site, which has the penalties listed, which are severe; the "Anti-Piracy Warning Seal" is featured on all recently-produced DVDs and CDs in the U.S.; when fansites "capture" digital images from such copyright-protected intellectual properties (which they take directly from them and/or from television programs showing them) for uses other than "fair use" (which they generally are not: "fair use" is a very restricted provision: these sites are not making the permitted single copy for "personal use" in research or as part of an educational institution's very-restricted fair-use provision rationale), they are engaging in a kind of cybercrime, which the FBI has an "initiative" to combat. (Displaying such material as unauthorized digital photographs, video captures, music and other sound clips, etc., via the internet is publishing it to a wide readership, going far beyond "personal use" (as in making a single photocopy, printout, digital copy) for one's own individual use only).)[13]; see related press release.[14] --NYScholar 00:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: the so-called "innocent infringement" defense--e.g., [15]. That is not what I was talking about re: "knowledge"--I was talking about one's "knowledge" of the "copyright law" itself; copyright law does not recognize a claim that one does not know what the law is as an adequate defense against a lawsuit charging that one has broken the law. The law is the law. ("But I didn't know it"--that is, the law--is not considered an adequate legal defense.

Those disclaimers on websites like fansites are generally not sincere. The people creating those sites and taking images and other content from copyrighted intellectual property know that they are doing that and, just as we can, they can see the copyright notices on the works and are aware of their own infringement. (They just don't care.) The claim of "not intentional" infringement is an attempt in such "disclaimers" to skirt copyright law (counting on "innocent infringement", but they and we know that they know what they are doing and are not "innocently infringing" these copyrights. It is up to editors to be vigilant in these matters and not to be fooled by such "disclaimers". They really have no legal standing and are just boilerplates pasted on websites. Sorry that this is all I have time for; I've tried to provide some relevant links to further information. --NYScholar 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the laws, although you say so much in the above paragraphs I can't tell exactly where we're going with this. On the question of whether Wikipedia should link to sites, sure. If you know what you're talking about and you encounter a link to a known infringement, then sure, you may delete the link. I do not doubt that there are plenty of piracy sites out there, and that many fansites are really piracy sites. We all agree that most fansites are inappropriate links for many reasons, one of them is in the case of copyright violations. That's in the policy. My objection is to the notion that individual editors should take it upon themselves to ask whether fan sites violate copyright, and de-link if they're not sure. You have clearly thought a lot about the subject, but from your comments about what constitutes trademark infringement and linking to sites you say are infringing, I am wondering if you too might be going too far in the links you would delete.

The relevant copyright law is that of contributory infringement, which is described most fully in recent case law on linking, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry and Universal v. Reimerdes. Contributory infringement requires both (i) knowledge of the infringing activity, and (ii) a material contribution to the infringement. For knowledge, a generalized but unknowing suspicion by one editor who does not understand copyright law and who did not insert the link int he first place does not create knowledge on the part of Wikipedia or its editors. Second, not all links to sites that contain infringing works are material contributions to infringement. As extreme examples and to illustrate this point I mentioned the New York Times and Wikipedia, which we know to have infringing content from time to time. Yet it is legal to link to them. Why? As I mentioned there is the question of the nature of link and extent of violation. For a link to be a material contribution to infringement that takes place you have to know that you are sending users there to infringe. Some say the link has to be the purpose or the sole purpose of disseminating illegal materials. If we know a fan site is a haven for copyright infringement, yes, delete. However, if it is a large site that has some uncertain material, no. We can't have people taking pot shots at external links based on misinformation or a lack of understanding about the law; if that were the guideline it would be a recipe for swiss cheese. Wikidemo 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've already explained that I was talking about "knowledge" of copyright laws; the whole comment pertaining to "innocent" or "unintentional infringement" does not pertain to what I am talking about; anyone who can read copyright notices on websites and other media and who has read U.S. copyright law, including the part of the copyright law pertaining to the provision of "fair use", can tell whether or not a fansite is infringing copyrights and can recognize rampant infringements of copyrights on fansites. [For U.S. sites and sites copyrighted material from U.S. copyright owners, if the copyrighted material posted is not being posted within the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law and the website has not sought and gotten permission/authorization to post the material, it is in violation of copyright.] It is not up to Wikipedians to judge the "intention" of fansites. Whether or not they infringe copyrighted intellectual properties is a fairly-obvious matter. They generally do. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

This is the second time that the above user has mentioned that it is permissible in Wikipedia to link to Wikipedia.

As I have read policy pertaining to sources, one is not supposed to link to Wikipedia itself in Wikipedia. It is not considered a reliable and verifiable source, even by Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, there is no policy statement that (as the user states) "For a link to be a material contribution to infringement that takes place you have to know that you are sending users there to infringe." That appears to be his/her own thought. "You have to know" is unenforceable in Wikipedia. The proof of the infringement is in whether or not copyright-protected materials are featured on a site without permission and without authorization of the copyright owner and in situations that are not within the "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright law and comparable Berne convention (pertaining to multi-national uses). The laws that pertain are those within the jurisdiction of the website(s) featuring the material in question. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is muddled. It's hard to tell if we're talking past each other or you're misinformed about copyright law. To start, you are conflating linking with sourcing. This is a link: apple, and this is a link: apple. This is a source that is also a link, or would be a link if one removed the "nowiki" statement: apple makes computers<ref>[http:/www.apple.com | http://www.apple.com]</ref>. Contributory infringement is a legal problem that arises from linking, whether or not the link is a source (though links used as sources are less likely to constitute contributory infringement). What you claim to be only "my own thought" is the black letter law of contributory infringement. If you're confusing contributory infringement (i.e. linking) with direct infringement (copying content) it's hard to know what to say. An "I know infringement when I see it" standard is questionable. One shouldn't take anyone's word for it. That's why we have policy, not everyone shooting from the hip. Wikidemo 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I myself am not going around deleting links wily-nily from Wikipedia. The subject came up initially when a fansite creator claimed that Wikipedia was infringing on her copyright! That argument did not prevail; in the course of editing the article in question David Strathairn, the material that she claimed came from her website was removed by other editors. I did not think that the fansite belongs listed in External links. I was not the last editor to delete it. Then, apparently posting now via an anonymous IP address (or perhaps not; impossible to know) someone who wants to include the website (perhaps its creator, perhaps not) has gone about deleting other fansites from Wikipedia on the basis that they also infringe on copyrights. I have just been providing links to related information. I think that it is pretty clear that most fansites (all that I have seen in the past seven or so years) do infringe upon copyrights. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the owner. I do, however, visit the fansite in question, as well as many others on actors I enjoy. So you could certainly say I'm "familiar" with the content on these fansites. Virtually all of the ones I visit have photos, media, and other content with similar disclaimers, which is why I'm interested in your singling out. (It certainly looks the way from this end.) In regards to this particular site, I do know having been a part of that community that Mr. Strathairn is well-aware of her website. They've met and it is also known that he contributed news and biographical info directly to the site. And, yet, you don't consider it a "reliable" source nor a proper external link? But if it were to suddenly become official, then it's okay to link to? Very bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 10, 2007

For other reasons as well, however, I think that fansites are not appropriate sources to list in articles on living persons in Wikipedia (as "References" and/or as "External links" or in "in line citations").-NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Information that they include is neither "reliable" nor "verifiable", and to include them in lists of External links (which often are substitutes for "References" or adjuncts to "References" and really not often distinguishable from "Sources" by general Wikipedia readers--most people) in Wikipedia articles on or relating to living persons, runs counter (in my reading of it) to WP:BLP. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And any Wikipedia user can see/vie what Wikipedia links to or cites as its sources, then also view a fansite that, if accurate, contains the same information and connect the dotes. If it does, it's a reliable source. And when the actor in question is aware of the website and has contributed content, most people consider that a reliable source. You seem absolutely set in your belief that the source isn't reliable, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I can get in contact with the webmaster, have her forward any actual content she has from her contacts, and have her forward it to you to prove my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

In my own view, they do not belong listed as external links (as if they were reliable and verifiable sources, which they are not) in Wikipedia articles about living persons. Many of those fansites host linked message board forums which also are not reliable and verifiable sources about the subjects they discuss. They are precisely the kinds of often-"contentious" information pertaining to living persons particularly (and I would think to any other subject as well) that Wikipedia prohibits linking anywhere in Wikipedia: see WP:BLP. ("Contentious" is anything one might contend: that might become "contentious": such as value judgments, gossip, non-reliably and non-verifiably-sourced ("poorly sourced") opinions, and so on.) WP:BLP --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some argument being made by some in this section of comments and elsewhere on this subject that because the links are in "External links" they are somehow immune from stipulations about the quality of "sources" in Wikipedia. I think that is a red herring that avoids the fact that they are not what Wikipedia considers "quality sources". Anyone who wants to do his or her own independent "original research" can do it and find those links. Wikipedia does not have to supply them for readers of encyclopedia articles. Including them, in my view, diminishes the integrity of the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia. As "fan literature" those fansites are perfectly appropriate; but in an "encyclopedia" article, they are, in my view, of highly dubious quality and not to be linked. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the claim by the particular fansite in question that the subject (David Strathairn) knows about it and through some "official contacts" [perhaps with his assistant(s)], though those people or person are not identified specifically and those the claim is not verifiable, that does not make such a site any more "official"; "non-official fansites" are by definition not official. When they become adopted by their subject as the subject's official site, then they can be listed as such (an "official site" of ...). Any Wikipedia reader can then perceive that the site has a point of view directly related to the point of view of the subject and evaluate what is included therein accordingly. WP:POV pertains. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A fansite that became adopted by its subject during his lifetime that is linkable as a source and as an External link in Wikipedia as an example is that of the late actor Alan Bates. From his point of view and from the point of view of his fans, including academic scholars, the site was a fine site and, though begun by a fan with expertise in website construction as a kind of sideline, its creator went on to meet with Bates and to have the site officially adopted by him as his own website. After he died, it featured a very respectful tribute section. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the David Strathairn fansite in question, the subject (David Strathairn) has not adopted the site as his official website (at least not yet). If that changes, then it would be an accepted link in a biography of a living person on David Strathairn. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Offical website webmasters and webmistresses of famous celebrities generally get permission for what they post on the sites (often it is material that they already own the copyrights to); when it is not, the material is generally posted and/or quoted (retyped) with permission. (If the administrator of such official sites get complaints that material needs to be removed because it infringes copyright, they would probably remove it; I don't know how often that happens, however.) --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedians are able to know from an official website when its material has been posted w/ permission, and when not, because that is handled by the website administrator(s) themself. Such official sites feature copyright notices, wherein the copyright is owned by the subject (the actor, etc.); they do not feature the kind of "disclaimer" notice that unofficial fansites feature. An official website is no longer a fansite. These distinctions can fairly easily be discerned by Wikipedia editors. It is current Wikipedia policy that one can link to official websites of subjects who are living persons and to their personal blogs (often hosted on those websites) as sources and in External links: WP:BLP and WP:V. All Wikipedians need to know is that in WP:BLP it is permitted to link to official sites of subjects who are living persons and to their sites in articles about them otherwise. That is Wikipedia policy. --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, contrary to the apparent assumption of another user, I am not the user who has been stating that I will be deleting links to fansites as a practice from other articles in Wikipedia. That is the anon. IP user posting on Talk:David Strathairn, who may or not be the same user as the creator of the fansite in question. For the comments by the creator of that fansite, one needs to go to WP:BLP/N, where the site's creator originally posted the complaints about Wikipedia's alleged copyright infringements of material posted on her site (apparently before that material was excised). --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice this discussion of her site until after the material had already been removed. After I read it and looked at the External links in David Strathairn, for a variety of reasons that I discuss in Talk:David Strathairn, I did and do not think that the site should be linked in External links; this copyright infringement issue in the site itself came up later and led another user to delete the site subsequently after he had first wanted to include it (and reverted my earlier deletion of it). Rather than get into an "editing war" about this, first on Talk:David Strathairn and since then here, I have been trying to set forth the reasons why I do not think such fansites should be linked (as if they were reliable and verifiable sources, which, as self-published sites by people not considered "experts" in Wikiepdia's own criteria, they are not). --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Those who make a strong distinction between W:V#Sources (policy) and WP:EL (guidelines), trying to find "wiggle room" in "sources" via it, seem to miss the main point that I have tried to make: that is, in my view, especially pertaining to biographies of living persons and articles which incorporate information about living persons, Wikipedia should not be recommending or appearing to recommend in "External links" (which serve as a kind of recommendation) sources which it prohibits including as bonafide "reliable and verifiable sources" in "References"; "External links" are often written and read as an extension of "References" ("Sources"). I think that "External links" guidelines need to be written and clearly stated as "policy" in Wikipedia so users and editors know what to do regarding such sites as fansites and other self-published sites (often partisan ones) that people insert in "External links" to articles on controversial subjects, including living persons. [Contrary to assumptions by another user above, I do not have a plan in posting these comments or an agenda. They are just thoughts that have come to mind in response to concerns that I first saw posted here by other people when I followed a link to them via editing David Strathairn, which I can't even remember now how I got to in the past couple of days. After reading the article, I noticed that it lacked information about his stage work and so I added it and one link led me to the talk page link to the WP:BLP/N copyright complaint and then eventually to this discussion. I thought I would add the above explanation to clarify the basis for my concerns. [Updated.] --NYScholar 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing to delete the link based on a premise that fansites are as a rule not permissible links on Wikipedia. That is simply not the case, nor is there a policy that limits outside links to one per living person. Indeed there is a huge difference between a link provided as a source citation, versus a link provided for readers' general interest. There are vast numbers of links on Wikipedia that are not specifically used to support statements made in articles. Fansites are one example. Corporate home pages are another. There is no requirement here that these links meet the same standards as references. I can't agree that BLP, a statement about biographies by the biography wikiproject, as primacy over policies or guidelines promulgated by other wikiprojects for their articles, e.g. the wikiproject music guideline on musical artists. The music project permits fansite links. If the biography people think their policy reflects a consensus about music articles that happen to be about living artists, they got it wrong. Wikidemo 09:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has current policies regarding copyright violations and infringement of intellectual property rights pertaining to all kinds of media, and, unless and until these policies change to different policies, Wikipedia editors are supposed to educate themselves about what these policies (and guidelines) are and to follow them. A lot of people just drop into Wikipedia to add their own self-advertisements for their own fansites and other internet-based sites into Wikipedia articles; Wikipedia also has policy against that; articles themselves are not supposed to be advertisements for subjects and neither are the sources in them. They need to be reliable and verifiable sources according to Wikipedia's own policies and quality standards and guidelines. --NYScholar 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on the subject of copyrights for a moment: I agree with Wikidemo. "A lot of people just drop into Wikipedia to add their own self-advertisements for their own fansites and other internet-based sites into Wikipedia articles". Well, I'm sure some do, but that's still a flat-out biased assumption against this one particular site. I understand your concerns over copyrights, but I find it very odd that it's with just the fansite in question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 23:23, August 10, 2007 (UTC)

That's my comment you are quoting from, not Wikidemo's. [It pertains to fansites in general, not just one fansite.] (Please sign your own comment with 4 tildes (UTC); thanks. --NYScholar 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated.] --NYScholar 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is making a "flat-out biased assumption against this one particular site": the site infringes copyrights; the comments that I have made pertain to most fansites, which also do so. I don't think any of them should be linked in "External links" in Wikipedia articles since they do that, and since they are self-published, unreliable, and unverifiable sites according to WP:V#Sources, I don't think that such fansites should be linked in "External links" or elsewhere in any biographies of living persons or in articles in which living persons are part of the subject, or, generally, in articles in Wikipedia. That's my viewpoint on them--not on only one fansite, but on them all. Unless they feature "permission" and/or other kinds of "authorization" notices about copyrighted intellectual and artistic properties that they post on their sites, they are infringing those copyrights when their use is not within the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law (in the U.S. jurisdiction) and Berne convention (in other jurisdictions; in some nations, as in Canada, copyright laws are even stricter than in the U.S.). --NYScholar 03:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand how some fansites can be unreliable. But many of the ones that have been listed on Wikipedia are accurate resources. If you compare the content on some of these sites with the links Wikipedia provides as sources, they both contain correct information. Such sites, like the Strathairn one, contain further indepth information than just what Wikipedia provides. I don't really see why such sites should be deleted. I certainly understand why other fanatical sites that can't be properly backtracked on the info they contain shouldn't be linked. But in the case of this site, it's run with Mr. Strathairn's approval, even if he hasn't endorced it. Also, he's provided information in the past. So, I'm not really seeing why this site should be deleted, whilst other less reliable fansites can remain on Wikipedia. That's just where my concern as a Wkipedia user/visitor comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 23:34, August 10, 2007 (UTC)

The fansite in question infringes copyrights of intellectual property, there is no way of verifying that it is "run with Mr. Strathairn's approval": it is not an official site of the subject; it is a non-official fansite. It does not meet the threshold of WP:V#Sources, and it cannot be linked in Wikipedia due also to the copyright violations. Actors do not "endorse" websites that they do not consider their official sites; endorsement is a sign of its being an official site (having the actor's official authorization). It is thus a non-authorized ("non-official") site. Many actors know of the existence of many of the fansites devoted to them. There is no way for them to disallow them on the internet, but they do not "approve" them "officially". A sign of "approval" is a notice featured on such a site from the subject of the site that it is his official site and the copyright of the site then might be transferred to him (he would "own" the site, or he would have his agent or agents authorize it. Any statement of a site's being "run with Mr. Straithairn's approval" really is not the same as its being adopted as his "official" site; until and unless that happens, the site (no matter how wonderful it may be according to the site's creator and/or this anon. IP user) is still a "non-official" fansite, thus the "disclaimer" featured on the site. The disclaimer disclaims any official connection with the subject, David Strathairn. He may change his mind, but until he does, it is just one of many websites devoted to this and other actors. Its popularity with internet users will be obvious to anyone who uses a search engine like Google. One is not questioning the value of this particular site to other fans of and others interested in its subject, David Strathairn; one is simply saying that it does not meet the conditions of WP:V#Sources pertaining to WP:BLP, which are very strict, and that it infringes copyrights and for that reason alone must be deleted from being linked in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 03:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record: This is a quotation of the "DISCLAIMER" as quoted on the fansite:

DISCLAIMER:
David Strathairn Online is an unofficial website dedicated to Mr. Strathairn and his on-going career. Though this website has official contacts and is run with Mr. Strathairn's full-awareness and approval, it is not officially endorced [sic], and no infringment upon his privacy is meant or conducted here. First published in November 2004, David Strathairn Online strives to be the online resource for professional information related to Mr. Strathairn's extensive work and career. All resources are properly credited and are public materials only. They belong to their responsible holders, and no copyright infringements are intended. ... (Italics added.)

Note well that despite that statement, there are copyright violations in the site, and what are referred to as "public materials" are in several cases not "public"; they are copyright-protected intellectual and artistic properties and not "public" properties. The copyright infringements form the basis for its deletion from Wikipedia. I think there are other reasons for deleting fansites from Wikipedia "External links" as well, but copyright violations is the reason given by the last person who deleted it from the article on DS and the reason for my deleting the link that had been in the comment below. --NYScholar 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've argued elsewhere that Wikipedia policy and guidelines permit links to fansites, and the links cannot categorically be considered violations of copyright. In fact, the vast majority of such links are not contributory infringement. Some might be, if we linked for the purpose of encouraging copyright infringement. It's therefore a good thing you are not (as you say) going out and deleting links (other than http://www.david-strathairn.com/) based on what seems to be a conviction that all such links are improper. However, it does illustrate the danger of people taking things into their own hands based on their individual views on copyright law or policy. If anyone is in fact deleting fan sites based on that opinion, it would be inappropriate and disruptive. Again, "there are copyright violations in the site" is not the legal standard for contributory infringement, nor for it violating policy here. Wikidemo 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For comparison/contrast, here is a quotation from the notice posted at the foot of the welcome page of the official website (now a memorial site, but still official) of Alan Bates (and included currently among the couple of external links in that article, now a biography of a deceased person)--a site I have mentioned by way of comparison:

The Alan Bates Archive was launched on 17 February 1997,

and was Sir Alan's official website.
Site and domain name © copyright Karen Rappaport, 2006.
Photo copyrights remain with the photographers.
The copyrights for quoted reviews and interviews remain with the individual publications cited.

No links or adaptation of the material herein contained without permission.

That site (The Alan Bates Archive), as I have stated, was, in his lifetime, the official site of the actor Alan Bates. The material that it includes in the site does not appear to be violating the copyrights of those credited, and it appears that the site's creator has acquired permission for featuring it. If copyright owners have objections, they would contact the site. There is also a very clear stipulation that there are to be "No links or adaptation of the material [therein] contained without permission" which is another way of protecting the copyrights of those whose work is featured on it as well as the copyright of the site itself. In terms of linking to it in Wikipedia's article on Bates, that does not seem to be problematic. [Note well: my quoting the disclaimer and site notice from the sites is in no way the same as linking to the site with copyright infringements/violations already established on Talk:David Strathairn, where I have deleted direct links to "David Strathairn Online" as well. (But, if Wikipedia were to determine that there are infringements of copyrights or copyright violations on that website, perhaps it would delete it as a link from the article on Bates just as the link to the DSO site has been deleted.)]

To be clear: I would be happier if DSO were to get permissions to post the copyright-protected material that it posts and would become adopted as the official site of the actor. But it hasn't done that and it isn't (yet). If it were to do so, then the situation would be different. As things stand now, it is an "unofficial" fansite with copyright infringement. (One might also keep in mind that one reason that actors do not authorize some fansites as their "official" sites is for the very reason that those sites do breach copyright law and they do not want to be held liable for those legal violations by the creators of those websites.)

It is entirely within fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law for me to quote brief passages from the "Disclaimer" and from the copyright "notice" of the websites and entirely reasonable not to link directly to either one in discussing them. In the case of the official site of Alan Bates (no longer subject to WP:BLP because the subject has died, the site is listed in its External links section and there is no reason for me to link to it directly in this discussion; one can find it via that article page; in the case of the unofficial fansite relating to David Strathairn, one will not find it linked either on that page (which is still subject to WP:BLP in contrast) or in its talk page or in this discussion due to its current infringements of copyright. So is the current consensus about it that led to its deletion from the article. --NYScholar 07:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated and signing off. --NYScholar 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

Another example is from the official website of 2005 Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter, in whose works both Alan Bates and David Strathairn performed; Harold Pinter, a living person, owns the copyright to that website, and his site "disclaimer" notice reads:

Disclaimer

Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders in all copyright material on this website.

If there are any errors or omissions, please contact news@haroldpinter.org.

The unofficial fansite DSO lacks any similar notice that "Every effort has been made to trace and contact the copyright holders in all copyright material on this website" or any similar kind of offer to make corrections for "any errors or omissions"; its boilerplate-like disclaimer does not give one confidence that the infringements of copyright are unintentional or innocent; such fansites feature those boilerplate-like disclaimers in full knowledge that they are infringing on copyrights and the claim of "public material" is not accurate. --NYScholar 07:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And your statement just goes to prove your biased take on one person's disclaimer. Just because the webmaster does not carry the same exact wording as the Alan Bates site does not give you the authority to jump to the conclusion that the webmaster is not sourcing or, for that matter, knows about copyright infringement. If you actually take a look through the Photo Galleries, for instance, several images are actually being used with the copyright holders' permission. You cannot just make that assumption that the webmaster "knows what they're doing", especially when that person isn't on board to defend themself. If you're "not biased" on the site and webmaster in question, claims like the text above don't hold to your word.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That is an absurd response to what I posted. These are "examples," as I stated. The accusation of bias is absurd. The site in question infringes copyrights and due to that several experienced Wikipedia editors with no bias about the site itself whatsoever have reached consensus on Talk:David Strathairn to delete it from external links. It was on the basis of copyright infringement that it was deleted from external links. On the basis of WP:V#Sources, with reference especially to WP:BLP (tagged on the talk page of the article), it is not linkable as a source in the citations for the article or in its References list. The problems with linking to the site only became noticeable to editors due to scrutiny of the site after its owner posted her own copyright violations complaint against Wikipedia in the WP:BLP/N. The attention to these problems resulted from her bringing the site to the attention of a variety of editors who noticed the discussion first on the WP:BLP/N and then one editor (not I) who began this discussion in WP:EL (which is a guidelines not a policy page) after I questioned the appropriateness of linking to the site at all in External links. Rather than to engage in an edit war over the link in the article page, we came here to discuss the general issue of linking to fansites that are not official sites of subjects who are living persons and that infringe copyrights. This section was not meant to be a discussion of one site. The anon. IP user has interest only in discussing this one site. The rest of the discussion is broader than that. --NYScholar 16:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You've overstepped by deleting a link that justifies what I've already said. I am reposting that link because you had no right to remove evidence that is valuable and contrary to certain claims you've made: [...] (scroll to September 22). Other editors can and should, even if they agree with the removal, be allowed to view the additional information I've provided.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I know about the copyrights issue already, and I know what is considered official, in addition to what the term "endorce" means (which, by-the-by, the webmaster does not use in her disclaimer). Again, being a part of that community, her wording of approval is, and I'm pretty sure on it, is Mr. Strathairn's positive feedback on the website and, thus, providing info (i.e. news) for the site which, for instance, is actually quoted on this page if you scroll down: [...](scroll to September 22). Just to throw it out there, in addition to the content Mr. Strathairn has actually provided for the website, there's pictures of him with the webmaster on the website. So, I have to strongly disagree with your assumption that it's an "unreliable" resource because there's, again, evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 23:50, August 10, 2007

The URL to the site/its link is deleted as per WP:COPYRIGHT; deletion of it is an exception in WP:3RR. I will delete all references to it as it violates U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia editors are to remove such links on sight. Please do not continue to insert it in this talk page or elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is not a permissible link. If you continue to insert it, you will be subject to Wikipedia:Vandalism and violations of WP:3RR and possibly blocked. At this point your arguments are becoming disruptive in Wikipedia. The consensus has already been established to delete this and any other links to this fansite from Wikipedia. --NYScholar 05:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So, someone presents a legitamite link (and, yes, it's legitmate because the news itself is not "copyrighted"; it just goes to prove the reliability of the source, so you cannot claim the news text to be copyrighted) that supports evidence against claims made by a Wikipedia editor, and it's allowed to be deleted and disregarded by that very editor? Your opinions here are allowed to be read but someone else provides material that goes against some of your claims, and you can just delete that evidence? This is a serious problem and issue. I'm not being disruptive. On the contrary, I'd say you're being abusive with your priviledges as an editor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs) 02:02, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

The site violates copyrights of intellectual property and cannot be linked in Wikipedia. Please do not link to it again. [I deleted the link above.] The information on the site (where its "disclaimer" is posted) does mention that it is not "endorced" [sic]--same misspelling--that is it is not endorsed by the subject of the site. Its misspelling of the word "endorsed" as "endorced" [sic] is an error. This is not the place for fans of the website to argue for including it in Wikipedia. It has been deleted due to its violating a policy in Wikipedia against linking to sites that infringe copyright. It is a non-negotiable policy. (Please sign your comments with 4 tildes; if there is an error in your date/time in your computer preferences for Wikipedia or in your computer, please fix that. The UTC is not posting correctly apparently; I am posting after midnight EDT on Saturday, August 11.) --NYScholar 04:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On this copyright issue discussed at length above: I tend to agree with Wikidemo's analysis of the law (keeping in mind that IANAL). However, there is really no point in discussing this subject here. I have learned the hard way that copyright is enforced very strictly on Wikipedia and that there is little point in contesting that. As NYScholar can attest, I was strongly in favor of keeping the Strathairn fan site as a link. That is how I got involved in all this. But when it was pointed out to me that there were copyright issues on this otherwise very good site, I did a 180 degree turn and deleted the link myself. In an article on Martin Luther, an editor found that Fordham University, not some fly-by-night fan site but a distinguished institution, had violated copyright with a Luther translation. So it could not be linked. We swore and gnashed our teeth but the link was removed and that was that. You can't fight city hall.--Mantanmoreland 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record:

NYScholar has posted portions of the disclaimer from the site in question above to support his claim. Above, I also tried to provide evidence via the same site about the reliability of the site and had my link deleted twice. If NYScholar can use the website as evidence to present his claim, I should also be allowed to provide an URL to the same site that is just one example of it being a reliable resource of information. The URL itself is on the 2006 News page (scroll down to September 22) where it clearly states that the news and information has been provided by Mr. Strathairn. There's also further evidence about it's reliability which I have listed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please see earlier discussion; the posting of the link to the site violates Wikipedia's own policy: Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking vis-a-vis WP:COPYRIGHT; to continue to add it is going to be regarded as Wikipedia:Vandalism as you have now been warned against doing so for reasons of copyright violations in the site many times. The whole point is the that URL cannot be linked in Wikipedia due to its recurrent violations of copyrighted intellectual property. The discussion and consensus to remove the link to the site is clear. It violates WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Vandalism for you to continue adding it after a clear rationale for its deletion by a number of editors is already established. Also, it breaches Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for you to continue to post comments on talk pages of Wikipedia without signing them. Scroll up to the top of this page for the tagged notice. Please add the correct date and time stamps to your own previously-unsigned comments by finding them in the editing history. If you are relatively new to Wikipedia, please consult WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information about such policies in Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, I have pointed out that, due to the copyright infringement issues on the site the anon IP user keeps bringing up, I have deleted the live links to it in this discussion. Anyone who can access Wikipedia can also access Google or another search engine and locate "David Strathairn Online" just by typing that site name or his name in the URL locator box; there is no need to link to it and any arguments that not linking to it impedes this discussion are absurd. Wikipedia's not including the link in an article on the actor or anywhere else does not impede anyone from finding the site. The point here is simply whether or not Wikipedia should link to it; the consensus on the article talk page at Talk:David Strathairn by editors discussing issues relating to linking to it was, after an editor pointed to the copyright infringements, no. An editor interested in linking the site removed the link. I followed suit in the talk page, following Wikipedia policy that such links with obvious copyright infringement cannot knowingly be linked in any space in Wikipedia. That is policy. WP:EL is just "guidelines." --NYScholar 16:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan site suggestion

I think adding some specific language in the policy would help editors resolving disputes about fan sites. I was thinking adding the following after "Links to be avoided" as a new section, "Fan sites":

Fan sites can be linked if they are not objectionable under this policy and WP:BLP, but need to be treated with caution. Such sites often contain copyright infringement, so care should be taken to ensure that the sites comply with WP:COPY.

This would spell out the existing practice and would specifically caution editors to red flag these sites to ensure that there are no copyright violations.--Mantanmoreland 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just useless WP:CREEP, and fully redundant. We say that in the guideline already. It's silly to say it again as in "we really mean it this time." 2005 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In general I see this as instruction creep, though I do see why quite a few people would like to see something specific included. So while I'd prefer not to see it added, if there is a consensus to add something I have a few suggestions about the above text. I think it should be may be suitable not can be added. We shouldn't be adding every link simply because it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines and I think careful wording can help stop people from reading it that way. We should also remember that this is a guideine, not policy, and that links need to adhere to all applicable guidelines and policies, not just this and BLP. Finally I think the emphasis on copyvios is inappropriate. We have a very clear line on that in here already, and it makes it seem like that's the only real reason to be cautious. If you want to draw people's attention to the issues we see with fan sites I think it might be better to have something like (significantly rewritten - this is just my rough first translation of our entire guideline mixed with my opinion :-):

- issues that commonly make fan sites unsuitable include WP:COPY, lack of reliability, unencyclopedic and tabloidy content, significant duplication of content already covered in the article or other links, and niche or limited audience. Only a site that is widely recognized as authoritative should be included.

Which is longer - but if the point is to make people apply the guidelines to fan sites, we really need to include the things they need to think about in it, because if this is for people who are looking for special rules for fan sites and we only specifically mention WP:COPY that's all they're going to consider. An alternative is to simply have: Fan sites - fan sites should be evaluated in the same way all other links are evaluated. They are not considered to be a special case. -- SiobhanHansa 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the longer version (with "tabloidy content" etc.) is very good.--Mantanmoreland 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible you're alone in this thinking. This effectively repeats that the guidelines which apply to all non-official sites also apply to fansites, which are non-official sites. In short: this is redundant. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are no specific "guidelines for non-official sites." There are a grand total of three references to "official sites" scattered around the page. --Mantanmoreland 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe Mark simply means our entire guideline - except that little bit that says an official site of the subject of the article should be included. So no, there aren't "specific guidelines", it's the whole guideline. Which is what we're basically saying. Fan sites aren't any different from other sites, and any specific guideline for them needs to effectively summarize pretty much the whole page. -- SiobhanHansa 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the efforts of the wikiprojects? Perhaps this is better addressed on a project-by-project basis depending on whether the subject is popular music, actors and celebrities, authors, etc. Each tends to have its own genre of fan sites, and some individual subjects have their own peculiarities of fandom...I'm thinking Grateful Dead, Star Wars, some anime. Wikiproject Music has a very interesting guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/External linking. That guideline says:

"External links should be used sparingly: ... if there is one, or an official fanclub....fansites, provided that they are an established organization or a recognized fan community and are clearly more informative and more useful than most fansites. For example: a fansite that includes an exhaustive database of tour dates and setlists; a rights holder-approved lyrics site; a large repository of relevant images; a large repository of other trivia that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia; and forums or other community pages, only if there are unusually established and recognized institutions with an important focus...fansites and unofficial fan clubs (subject to the above)...should generally not be linked.

That doesn't address the copyright violation issue, which we discuss above, but it does give a good guide for when a site is otherwise worth adding for an article about a musical artist.

-- Wikidemo 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good solution except that there are, to my knowledge, no guidelines for creative artists other than musicians. I think the above would be useful to apply across the board to all performers, not stated here but linked here.--Mantanmoreland 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to cut the nonsense. Saying there are "no guidelines" is crazy talk. Read the darn guideline. We have a guideline for performers and for politicians, wars and animals. This is just so weird. Even the wording proposed just says the same thing as the guideline does now. We don't need to say 'and we mean it for fan sites" and "and we mean it for news sites" and 'and we mean it for commercial sites" etc etc. 2005 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You really have got to tone down on the rhetoric.--Mantanmoreland 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. "Nonsense" seems to be the word of the day - 8 uses on this page at the moment! Anyway, I wasn't proposing any wording, I was just pointing out a wikiproject that does have a guideline on links to fansites that works for them and seems to be consistent with WP:EL. It only makes sense to think that articles about rock stars, sports teams, or literary authors, might have different standards, and the fansites themselves may be different and raise different concerns. Nothing deep or complicated, but I think it works to lay out the general principle here and leave it up to each wikiproject to decide for itself how to proceed. I don't really have an opinion on whether we need to talk about fansites specifically here, though. user:2005 does make a good point, that from a central spot like this one it's a little hard to anticipate how all of the different projects might want to proceed. You might end up proposing something that works for the kinds of fansites you know, only to find out that there's some different realm of fandom (like chess fans, or dance dance revolution fans) that have their own conventions. So I wouldn't want to be too restrictive. We can let them sort these things out for themselves rather than trying to impose uniformity on all subjects throughout Wikipedia Wikidemo 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your Wikiproject is the only one in the field of the performing arts that specifies fan site linking guidelines. To my knowledge, that is. If there are ones in existence for actors, the largest category, I would like to know. I know of none.--Mantanmoreland 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The main point is calling out fansites is just dumb. It's an overly generalized, meaningless term with no relationship to encyclopedic value. Sites not owned by corporations are dealt with in the guideline VERY clearly. They need to have authority, level of detail and not violate copyright, amongst the other things. Calling out evey type of site specifically, and saying the exact same thing about all of them, is just stupid. The guideline covers these sites, and plainly suggests only the very best (just like only the very best of corporate sites) should be linked. 2005 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is dumb. But I hear your point. The guideline here lays out a solid general principle. Fansites can be different than other types of external link, but I say they vary a lot by genre. Wikiprojects often do repeat and adapt broader Wikipedia-wide policy and guidelines, sometimes transcluded and sometimes restated. If there is disagreement or misunderstanding among editors writing actor articles it might be useful to repeat key guideline points there, and if you can find consensus about actor fansites that isn't plain as day from these guidelines, why not add that to the style guidelines for actor articles? 2005 is the most vocal at the moment but I think you'll find some broader opposition to a one-size-fits-all approach and to instruction creep if you want to put them on this page, and you might encounter a core group of people who simply oppose all fansites.Wikidemo 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I said calling out fansites is dumb, not that anyone is dumb so please don't make inappropriate remarks. Of course some people hate all fansites. That is irrelevant however as the broad consensus is fansite linking is appropriate in general, as literally tens of thousands of editors have added such links in good faith (and sure, maybe even more in bad faith). Using this guideline to try and crush the active consensus of editors is both inappropriate and fascistic. But can we please not have any more arm-waving nothing statements. As with the other editor, if you think there is something missing or lacking in this guideline, without using the word "fansite" please STATE THAT NOW. If there is nothing, then why is time being wasted here, other than as an end run to try to get a guideline to say some fanatical thing that the mass of editors does not believe? 2005 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You definitely need to tone it down there. I'm trying to be lighthearted and congenial and give you only a gentle ribbing for a rash of marginally uncivil comments you're making, the latest of which is calling people dumb. Now you're calling me inappropriate, someone else fanatical, and ordering people what to do in ALL CAP imperatives. Are you telling me not to make the comments I'm making because they're "arm waving?" Someone might need a time out.Wikidemo 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee, another unproductive personal comment without addressing any issue. Please act responsibly, don't make nonsense up about other editors, since anyone can actually read what was written. I didn't order you to do anything and sadly such unhelpful comments make any constructive work impossible. Perhaps you can't be lighthearted, but for heavens sake try. Shhessh. There is no reason for you to have a coronary over this issue. It appears that neither of the two intend to state any positive suggestion for adding or removing content from the guideline based on merit, so I guess that just leaves you to troll if you want. 2005 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you pull this act a lot on this page. I'll give you a civility warning on your talk page. Please be civil and refrain from personal attacks. Wikidemo 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not add further vandalism to your acts. Please be civil. Please stop the persoanl comments. Please stick to the topic, and make constructive posts that are responsive to your fellow editors, and please try not to be so all fired serious about a rather minor topic. 2005 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo is correct. Your comments here have been way out of line. Please pay attention to the warning that he left on your talk page which you deleted.[16] --Mantanmoreland 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that in my time working on Wikipedia, and seeing the debates around the EL manual, there are some topics that always seem to crop up and are put into debate. Fansites is one, You Tube, blogs, open wikis and MySpace are others. In each case, we don't have any sort of exception for them, we merely point out how that particular case usually has the EL guidelines applied to it. We already have notes in the manual about YouTube, blogs, open wikis and MySpace, even though these are just saying that they are no different from any other sites, so I suppose I don't see the harm in mentioning fansites. You could argue that mentioning all of the aforementioned in the article is also scopecreep and that if we just applied the points in the EL Manual to them we would know not to link to them in most cases.

Since the subject of fansites does come up relatively often, and is often a point of contention, I think it would be of of benefit to codify the discussion that we have had here into a point in the Manual. This might make future Talk page discussions shorter, if not easier. Therefore I like SiobhanHansa's suggestion for wording.

One other suggestion for clarity is to divine the Manual in to two sections - the "rules and criteria" used, and then how they are applied in different circumstances. This would allow the actual criteria to stay short and focused, but allow the noting of application of the rules in commonly-discussed cases. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to get a little of the thread topic, I've been thinking for a while that our blog and wiki mentions need drastic work. We ought to be talking about opinion sites, sites with regularly changing content and sites that accept user generated content. Because, for instance, blogs have become a poor man's content management system for some organizations, and there are plenty of sites that aren't actually blogs but have similar content. The focus on the technology is inappropriate, we ought to be focusing on the content. Still, as I said above I have some sympathy for people who want to see things like fan sites mentioned, for the very reasons you state. I'm intrigued by the idea of a two part Guideline. Would there be support for starting a workshop to see if we can come up with a good re-write? -- SiobhanHansa 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would definitely have my support! If we can keep the "meat" to be direct and concise, and then give good constructive directions as to how it can commonly be applied, without watering down the core principles, then it will improve matters, I feel. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think these are all good ideas. --Mantanmoreland 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, avoiding CREEP is important in a guideline, and when it comes to specifics, Wikiprojects are a better place to deal with things. It would be both mistaken and presumptuous to have discussions here rather than on Projects where more expert editors are familar with topics and problems regarding those topics. We have fanatics on all arrears, the ones whose brains explode at fansite links are just the ones who need the most valium. This discussion is a perfect example of dead end CREEP. What ends up being proposed is completely redundant to the guideline. Adding it would just be silly, as if we are hear to say things three times instead of just once. It would be constructive revist the blog wording (I can't see a need to change the wiki wording) and bring it in line with the rest of the guideline, that is, focus on merit/authority and reliable reputation rather than the HTML/CMS part. Last thing, it would be helpful if some editors thought about the bigger picture, not just their own focus. This is a guideline for tens of thousands of editors. It's not a place for three oor four people to try and force a change in behavior on thousands. It's a gneral guideline that says links need to have merit and not violate copyright and stuff like that. This isn't Congress. We aren't here to force a consensus, we are just hear to express that consensus. 2005 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no link guidelines specifically addressing fan sites except for fan sites of musicians. There are certainly none for actors, which is the largest category of fan sites. Now if I'm wrong please post a link, as I'd certainly be delighted to read up on them. --Mantanmoreland 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares, and why? Why do you keep fanatically bringing up this useless point? Please start thinking encyclopedically, not like some sort of fanatic. There is no reason, ever, for a guideline to have different rules for corporate sites than privately owned ones. It's just a dumb idea that you certainly have offered no justification for. Fan sites are covered by this guideline. They are also covered by every project just as any other site. Now instead of going on and on without offering a single specific, what PRECISELY could be added or removed from this guideline to address whatever the heck your concerns are? Leave the silly word "fansite" at the door, and tell us what exactly is lacking in your opinion regarding the encyclopedia's linking guideline. 2005 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not responding to your uncivil and trollish comments, but would be happy to carry on this conversation with the other editors on this page. I see that you reverted the civility warning that Wikidemo left on your talk page. I'd suggest that you take that warning seriously.--Mantanmoreland 02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record:

NYScholar has posted portions of the disclaimer from the site in question above to support his claim. Above, I also tried to provide evidence via the same site about the reliability of the site and had my link deleted twice. If NYScholar can use the website as evidence to present his claim, I should also be allowed to provide an URL to the same site that is just one example of it being a reliable resource of information. The URL itself is on the 2006 News page (scroll down to September 22) where it clearly states that the news and information has been provided by Mr. Strathairn. There's also further evidence about it's reliability which I have listed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please see the main section; the posting of the link to the site violates Wikipedia's own policy: Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking vis-a-vis WP:COPYRIGHT; to continue to add it is going to be regarded as Wikipedia:Vandalism as you have now been warned against doing so for reasons of copyright violations in the site many times. The whole point is the that URL cannot be linked in Wikipedia due to its recurrent violations of copyrighted intellectual property. The discussion and consensus to remove the link to the site is clear. It violates WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Vandalism for you to continue adding it after a clear rationale for its deletion by a number of editors is already established. Also, it breaches Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for you to continue to post comments on talk pages of Wikipedia without signing them. Scroll up to the top of this page for the tagged notice. Please add the correct date and time stamps to your own previously-unsigned comments by finding them in the editing history. If you are relatively new to Wikipedia, please consult WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information about such policies in Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how we can discuss intelligently the subject of whether http://www.david-strathairn.com/ infringes copyright (a matter that seems to be in some dispute) without visiting that website. Doing so to assess whether it's infringing is certainly not a copyright violation, and linking to the site for that purpose cannot be. But if you'd rather tell people where the site is rather than linking to it, fine. I don't see a consensus on the article page for removing the link. There indeed seem to be copyright violations somewhere on that site based on what people have found digging around. I would have to think further whether those violations are incidental to the site or whether they plague the site. The mere presence of any infringement on the site cannot alone be a justification for deleting links. If that point isn't completely obvious to anyone, and it's still obvious after considering the link in the Youtube infobox, I could explain further. Meanwhile, this is a principled discussion that for the most part has remained civil. The warnings on vandalism, linking violations, and etiquette are misplaced. The 3RR warning is clearly incorrect. NYScholar is heavily involved in this issue. If he/she believes another editor to be committing sanctionable violations of Wikipedia policy I urge him/her to take the matter before a neutral administrator because the warnings seem to be an attempt to win arguments by issuing warnings.Wikidemo 10:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could return the discussion to WP:EL and away from the David Strathairn fan site. --Mantanmoreland 14:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You yourself [Mantanmoreland] were the one who removed the link from External links after another user (not I) pointed out to you multiple infringements and violations of copyright in the site. [The matter of its infringing copyright is not in dispute; it is established and has been accepted by several editors reaching that consensus, including yourself!]

It is disingenuous to say we are unable to be "visiting that website" to see what it is and does without an active link to it in Wikipedia. It comes up very early in a Google search and the name of the site is given "David Strathairn Online" (which describes itself as an "unofficial website" which is "not endorced" [sic] by the subject): I quoted from its own "Disclaimer" notice to improve not to impede discussion of it on this talk page about external links.] You yourself, I, the editor who pointed to the copyright infringements (I left enough information in his post so that anyone could locate them by visiting the menu links on the site), other editors have all verified that there are copyright infringements on the site. Due to them, it is not linkable in Wikipedia.

You youself said[As M. observes earlier, that is] obvious (scroll up and visit Talk:David Strathairn).

This discussion of fansites goes beyond one site; it is about linking any such sites. I have remained entirely civil.

I mentioned 3RR because it is clear to me that the anon IP user is relatively new to Wikipedia and apparently has not consulted its policies. The anon IP user is complaining about the removal of the link to one website which infringes copyright from Wikipedia space and had already reverted my deletion of the link twice. I pointed him/her to WP:3RR for his own protection and to Wikipedia:Vandalism for the same reason.

In WP:3RR#Exceptions relating to WP:BLP, it is clearly stated that removing clear violations of vandalism in biographies of living persons (which David Strathairn is and is subject to, as per its own talk page) is an exception to WP:3RR, which is why I am removing the link whenever I encounter it.

For the time being, the consensus on Talk:David Strathairn appears to be that deleting the link from External links and/or elsewhere in Wikipedia space is appropriate. There is no impeding of discussion by removing the link; anyone can find the site on his or her own. To continue to post the live link when so many people here and in WP:BLP/N have objected to its insertion in Wikipedia at this point would appear to be WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Vandalism.

I felt that by pointing the anon IP user to those policies, I was being courteous; otherwise, I thought, the person might not be aware of those policies.

There is a difference between pointing the way to policies that are germane to a discussion and making uncivil accusation.

I was and am not in any way being uncivil. If you one examine[s] the anon IP user's responses to my pointing out several times that the site has been removed as a link due to its infringing copyright, with the accusations of being "biased" against the site, etc., you [one] will find examples of WP:CIVIL incivility. My removing the link is not uncivil; it follows current Wikipedia policies in both WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP.

If one recalls, I am opposed to posting links to any fansites that are not official sites of subjects of biographies of living persons. David Strathairn is a biography of a living person; WP:BLP and WP:V#Sources (policies not guidelines) pertain to editing it and to what sources may be included as External links in it; policy prevails over guidelines. In trying to decide whether to follow a guideline if the guideline violates Wikipedia policy, one should be deciding in favor of policy over a guideline. I have stated this in a variety of ways above and in Talk:David Strathairn. To respond, as the anon IP user has done, with irrelevant accusations of bias against one site, is, in my view, not only uncivil but absurd. It is not a logical response to a logical argument based on Wikipedia policies. The anon IP user needs to read WP:BLP and to follow tagged notices on the top of talk pages (like both this one and Talk:David Strathairn) and to sign his/her comments with four tildes among other practices in Wikipedia that he/she needs to consider and follow. Accusing other editors of "bias" when none exists is not civil. It is a red herring. It ignores the valid points being made by more than one editor here and in WP:BLP/N that Wikipedia policies prevail in the editing of Wikipedia; WP:BLP is very strict. The anon IP user needs to read it and see how it links to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines that pertain to WP:EL (a guideline not a policy in Wikipedia). The prevailing policy in Wikipedia is to remove on sight links in biographies of living persons that do not follow WP:BLP and its cross-linked policies. To see what they are, all users need to read the policies. The debate is based on the policies not on one individual fansite. [Updated. --NYScholar 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

Just to clarify - I think you may have confused Wikidemo's comments with mine, as they are close in proximity and not sufficiently separated. E.g., I did not say you were being uncivil, and I did not object to your removing the links to David Strathairn Online. On the contrary, I think that you were correct in removing those links, and have been scrupulously civil. My only comment was that we should try to focus the discussion on a possible change in the guideline.--Mantanmoreland 14:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, M.--I did indeed get mixed up re: the two sets of comments; I crossed some stuff out to clarify. (Just noticed these replies.) --NYScholar 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has a bias against any particular fansite; the discussion pertains to both Wikipedia policies and the guidelines of WP:EL as these policies and guidelines pertain to fansites. The policies in Wikipedia take precedence over the special interests of anyone in the inclusion of any particular fansites in Wikipedia. [The only "bias" or leaning is toward adhering to Wikipedia's own policies.] These fansites can be found via any search engine; not linking to them in Wikipedia does not impede discussion of them. --NYScholar 16:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)]

So as not to lose focus on the particular guidelines in WP:EL that pertain here as numerous editors above have already pointed out: Linking to the fansite in question does not meet the guidelines based on Wikipedia policies in WP:EL#Restrictions on linking and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided (espec. #1-3). Several editors have already pointed out where it does not meet even the guidelines for inclusion as an "External link" in Wikipedia, especially in an article on a living person, which David Strathairn is; the guidelines link directly to WP:BLP, which itself links to WP:V#Sources, where this particular fansite, a self-described, self-published "unofficial website" that is "not endorced" [sic] by its subject]. is clearly not meeting the requirements for being linked as a source in an article on a living person, because it is self-published, the publisher of the site (its creator, who describes herself as a college student) is not a recognized "expert" in the field (in Wikipedia's terminology--not a recognized "expert" by dint of publications that are not self-published and thus verifiable), its information is not verifiable (independent of its creators' claims), and thus it is not reliable as a source (in Wikipedia's definition of "reliable and verifiable"--see WP:V#Sources for definitions) (and/or as an external link); WP:BLP still prevails in WP:EL.

As I have also pointed out several times in Talk:David Strathairn, the site in question is indeed already accessible via "Miscellaneous sites" in an already-linked external link in the article to the IMDb.com entry on the actor. (Those links often get into IMDb.com because the creators of the sites and/or their fans add them to IMDB.com entries. There is no "quality-control" feature in IMDb.com's editing of that section; it fact-checks the biographies and filmographies; it may see if the links function, but there are no criteria relating to the nature of the sites, except perhaps that they not be pornographic or violate IMDb.com's own terms of service; how careful IMDb.com is about that I do not know).

Thus, as I see it, there is no need for Wikipedia to promote the site by adding it to External links. The guidelines for External links is to keep them as few as possible. When links are already via the site menu of an already-linked site, there is no need to list them separately. That was among my original reasons for not needing to link to the site. The copyright infringement/violations issues pointed out by another editor are its final kabash due to WP:EL#Restrictions on linking, which is a guideline citing Wikipedia policies, including those relating to WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works. [Updated; additional info.]

In WP:EL, as I've already cited in Talk:David Strathairn, the policy referred to in the guideline there is at: WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for "the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights". (Italics added.) It should be clear that, in any such cases, when in doubt, don't link to such pages or entire websites that contain such webpages, which is, in effect, linking to those webpages in them). [Often (as is indeed the case with DSO in its initial page that one gets to upon entering the site--News updates etc.) even the welcome pages of such sites violate intellectual property rights in the media that they display without permission and/or authorization from their copyright owners.] --NYScholar 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See my latest comment below. Let's not waste our breath on this discussion until the issue is resolved in BLP.--Mantanmoreland 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition on "self-published" ("unofficial") websites being used as a "source about a living person, including as an external link"

I returned to post the clearest reference that I can find in WP:BLP to this matter:

• See WP:BLP#Reliable sources:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (See below). (Italics and bold added.)

That policy statement explicitly prohibits from listing as "an external link" self-published websites "unless written or published by the subject of the article," which prohibits "unofficial websites" not "written or published by their subjects." As I read that policy in WP:BLP it refers to fansites such as David Strathairn Online and other similar "unofficial websites" which are not "written and published" (or authorized and endorsed as "official") by their subjects. In my view, that policy statement is very clear and not ambiguous, just as are the policies already cited pertaining to not linking as external links webpages with copyright infringements (see earlier discussions above). There are clear links to WP:BLP in the talk pages of articles that are considered biographies of living persons in Wikipedia, including David Strathairn (which is just one example of an article in which these issues arose). [updated as a separate subsection]. --NYScholar 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [Please note: I do not have time to discuss these matters any further. Please consult the information already linked on my talk page if one needs to find additional sources relating to copyright matters pertaining to Wikipedia (discussed earlier). Thank you.] [Updated.] --NYScholar 20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting and I don't think our guideline reflects it appropriately. We might include this almost verbatim in the guideline and link to WP:BLP as we do with the copyright line. I should point out though that "unofficial" and "self-published" are not the same thing. -- SiobhanHansa 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The above reasoning is controversial and among other things based on a confusion about the relation between sourcing and external links. WP:BLP is driven by the project for biographies, not articles concerning an artists, musicians, actors, etc. There is no consensus for a project-wide ban on external links to fansites in articles within those wikiprojects that happen to concern living people. In fact there are tens of thousands (probably) of articles that do so, wikiprojects where this is the norm, and at least one wikiproject (music) with a guideline on which fansites are appropriate. There are other discussions on this page asking when it is appropriate to include fansites, and a general assumption that they are permitted. Although the WP:EL guideline would seem to set out adequate rules that would govern when fansites may be included as external links, a proposal like this one lends support to the notion that we should make it explicit. Wikidemo 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a policy which applies to all articles on living people. As a guideline this page should be reflecting that policy. I see that Wikidemo has opened a conversation on the BLP page about this though, so I think we should wait until that discussion is finished before updating (or not) this guiedline. -- SiobhanHansa 11:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. In the course of trying to figure out why the heck BLP would care about links to fansites, it looks like the purpose of cracking down on external links is to avoid defaming living people with derogatory information, agenda-pushing, etc. Copyright vios and some of these other things just aren't their focus. On closer looks it looks like the new language is just over a month old, has no consensus, and set off a several-week edit war. The issue never got resolved, it just got quiet. That's definitely not a green light for us to rush to change our guideline, or begin deleting links on sight. So I started up the discussion again there. There are a host of other issues too, which I raised, e.g. links to galleries of art photos, links to recipes, links to sports statistics, etc.

I'm not sure the policy applies to fansites anyway, even if it were upheld. The ban is only on self-published content. Any websitesw or blogs that are authoritative enough for us to include as external links are most likely the efforts of more than one person, where the authorship is distinct from the question of who owns the website...in other words, not self-published. A self-published website (the concept doesn't really apply to websites but I would take that to mean a personal site, vanity site, site run as a hobby, etc.) is likely going to fail our test as it is. Also, self-published seems to relate to people publishing their own editorial content. When people set up a website as a useful tool, technology, data, gallery, set of links and references, etc., they aren't publishing their own work, they're publishing someone else's work. So again, that kind of useful data is not self-published.Wikidemo 12:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP is policy, but that passage was slipped in without consensus, and frankly makes no grammatical sense as it was. 2005 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I mainly agree. That was sort of the point I was making with unofficial != self-published. I do think in general the BLP policy requires us to be more cautious about everything that goes in an article about a living person, including external links. But neither that, nor the wording above being discussed in the policy, is an outright prohibition on fan sites. Once the discussion on BLP comes to a conclusion it may be appropriate for us to provide guidelines that are more explicit about some of this. -- SiobhanHansa 13:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The example that I have been referring to (as an example)--David Strathairn Online--which is the initial subject of this comment section (scroll up) and whose "disclaimer" and some other features have been quoted and mentioned is both "self-published" and "unofficial"; many (if not most) fansites originated by fans--the initial inquiry (scroll up)--or, as they are most frequently self-described on those sites are "unofficial websites" about actors and other celebrities, many of whom are still living persons, and these "unofficial websites" (fansites) are both "self-published" (They are created by and on websites created by the sites' creators, who are not recognized otherwise published "experts" on the subject--not considered "reliable and verifiable"--WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which is where the prohibition against using them "as an external link" originates) and not authorized and most often (though not always--see the example of the Alan Bates Archive (given earlier) are not endorsed by the subjects of them (the living person-actor/celebrity, etc.).

Thus including them "as an external link" in articles about living persons (not only biographies of living persons but as sources for "material" about living persons in other Wikipedia articles) is prohibited by WP:BLP as cited above. This discussion is about fansites, most of which are published by the fans (although some may be published by commercial ventures, like Warner Bros., and those are generally official fan sites about their own productions). Non-self-published websites are those published by newspapers, magazines, publishing companies, and so on--"third-party" entities, which often include "biographies" of living persons, including actors and other celebrities; those are capable of being linked as external links if they meet the rest of the criteria for "external links" etc. Won't go into that. --NYScholar 20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that in addition to "self-published," the quoted prohibition states "unless written or published by the subject of the article"; that is clear (I think). The sites that cannot be cited as "sources" including not "as an external link" as information about a living person are those sources/sites about a living person which are "self-published" and which are not "written or published by the subject of the article"; that is, sites that are both "self-published" and "written" by other people who are not the subject of the article or about living persons in any Wikipedia article about a living person. That seems to be what that current policy statement states.

I don't think that one gets to pick and choose which parts of current Wikipedia policies one wants to follow if there are not conflicts with the rest of WP:BLP and WP:V#Sources, which it does not appear that there are.

WP:EL presents "guidelines" based on policies, not policies; the guidelines cite policy links to policies like W:BLP and WP:V, which includes WP:V#Sources, and WP:NOR, as cited as two Wikipedia "core policies" in the informational page linking to them, e.g., WP:ATTRIBUTION, etc. WP:BLP#Reliable sources is consistent with WP:V#Sources, I believe. --NYScholar 20:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage in question is no longer in the policy, and seems certain to not be so in its current form, so this discussion is all irrelevant, at least until a BLP section achieves consensus. 2005 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked again after reading the above comment: I find this passage clearly posted there in WP:BLP#Reliable sources:

Reliable sources

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

[See version already quoted; link to "see below" is in above version.) --NYScholar 00:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To me "never be used as a source" includes sources presented as "External links"; people seem to want to get around that, but a "source" is something that is listed both in "References" and in "External links"; if Wikipedia editors were not intending readers to consult the "External links" as "sources" of information about the subjects of articles, the links would not be listed at all. That pertains to "See also" too, which is a section of what is supposed to be already "well-sourced" "neutral point of view" material on a subject. These are to me "red herring" arguments that seem designed to get around Wikipedia's own policies re: sources, which are "core policies" in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:V. [[WP:#Sources]] is clear enough. One is not supposed to put links to "sources" in articles on living persons that are prohibited as "sources"; what could be clearer? These kinds of machinations undermine the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia as a consultable "encyclopedia" of reliable and verifiable information about a subject (especially about living persons). --NYScholar 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the WP:BLP is being repeatedly added then deleted in the continuation of a six week old edit war. You must know that. You contributed to the talk page section at BLP where the history of this section and its edit war are discussed and linked to, and they're also discussed here. The default is to honor the status quo, i.e. that it is not a part of policy, and wait to see if a consensus ever emerges before trying to decide what the policy is.

There's no undermining of Wikipedia's credibility and no machinations. Quite the contrary. Relevant external links to content, services, material for further study, etc., make us a much better reference. You're again confusing what a source is. As Wikipedia uses the term a source is a citation to external material used to verify statements made in an article. An external link that is not a source, by contrast, directs the user to places where they can find additional relevant information, features, services, material to study, etc., that are not in the article. Thus WP:V does not apply. The link is not there to verify anything. You're also stretching the definition of self-published. If a person creates text and puts that on his own website without substantial outside material, that is self-published. If he compiles or invites a bunch of information from third party sources and publishes it, that makes him an editor and a publisher of other people's content. The fact that person A has incorporated, filed for a business license, and hired ten interns whereas person B is still operating without revenues from his home office does not make person A a real publisher and person B a self-publisher. We just don't have that kind of anti small guy bias nere, not on this point. Wikidemo 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"To me "never be used as a source" includes sources presented as "External links";" External links are not reliable sources... that is why they have different names. Let's keep it on topic here. This is the external links guideline. It refers to external links. WP:RS refers to sources of articles, which external links are by definition not. 2005 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SiobhanHansa on this. Let's see what happens in the discussion in WP:BLP before we continue this fan sites discussion, as EL is a guideline and is subordinate to BLP.--Mantanmoreland 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See currently-protected version of WP:BLP#Reliable sources. On the "project page" WP:EL, WP:EL#What should be linked item #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" directly contradicts that policy relating to living persons and also contradicts WP:V#Sources, on which it is based. A guideline should not alter core policy for verifiability (WP:V) in Wikipedia. As currently protected (which could change, but it is what is currently stated now), WP:BLP#Reliable sources prohibits linking to self-published "non-official websites" or "unofficial websites" (common self-descriptions in fansites)--those not written or published by the living persons themselves (which includes those "not endorsed" by them as their "official" sites)--in "External links" sections of articles or as any other external links in Wikipedia space; that is, linked as potential "sources" to be consulted for further information about the living persons. I understand that the language of the policy may change in the future, as discussion develops, but the protected version of the page currently includes that language. So for what the policy currently is, please read WP:BLP#Reliable sources. In my view, a guideline should not misinform Wikipedia users and potential editors about Wikipedia policy, or misdirect them in any way. I think that the guideline needs revision to be consistent with the policy statements pertaining to living persons linked to WP:BLP and WP:V thoughout Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As it is being considered in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, I'm quoting the current version of the passage in WP:BLP#Reliable sources: The passage quoted earlier now currently reads:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Unreliable and unverifiable sources should not be linked anywhere in Wikipedia space as sources of information about living persons, including in "External links" sections of articles.

Item #4 in "What should be linked" is inconsistent with that. Of course, "external links" must be both "reliable sources" and "verifiable sources" (reliable and verifiable sources) when they pertain to living persons; to state otherwise contradicts core policies in Wikipedia. [Deleted accidental repetition: For "reliable sources" pertaining to living persons, consult both WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:V#Sources. There was an "editing conflict"; this is what I wrote before the next comment posted.] --NYScholar 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We're supposed divine policy from a new sentence that got slipped in three minutes before the page wae locked in the middle of yesterday's edit war? I don't think so. Let the dust settle on BLP first. Wikidemo 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to the implications of "slipped in three minutes before the page wae [sic] locked in the middle of yesterday's edit war": See Diffs and the related edits and editing summaries by others before and afterward and the discussion being done in good faith on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons; WP:AGF. (I did not realize that the WP:BLP project page had been protected later in that current version with that sentence that I had added yesterday until about a half hour ago. "three minutes" and "slipped in" are exaggerations and seem to imply editing not in good faith. Despite the implications otherwise, as I stated there, I was editing in good faith and explained my edit on the talk page of the article.) --NYScholar 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you kindly concentrate on the discussion at hand? As you know, the BLP paragraph you are citing as evidence of policy is unstable having been the subject of edit warring for the past six weeks, before which it stated no prohibition against external links to self-published material. I will add that this guideline is not incompatible with WP:V. Verifiability applies to article content, where reliable sources are cited as a reference to support statements made in an article. This guideline applies to external links, not verifiable sources. They are two different things. Wikidemo 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am "concentrating on the discussion at hand" in a section that I myself added (scroll up). As far as I read WP:V it pertains to all external links listed in Wikipedia; I do not think that WP:EL can countervene WP:V; it is a core policy in Wikipedia. WP:EL is a page of "guidelines" pertaining to "external links"; "external links" are not just the "External links" section in Wikipedia articles; they are any "external links" used in Wikipedia. An "external link" is an "external link." In various revisions of this project page, the subject of the page has been reconfigured in ways that circumvent and contradict WP:V, yet the project page itself refers to WP:V as a core policy in Wikipedia. I disagree vehemently with the repeated comments by Wikidemo otherwise. My own view is that linking to an "external link" implies that readers of Wikipedia are being directed to it as a "source" of information about a subject. If the subject is a living person, then WP:BLP prevails, and, like WP:EL, WP:BLP must be consistent with WP:V and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The language as currently locked can certainly be interpreted to exclude all fan sites. I tend to agree that there is little point in debating fan sites here in light of BLP as currently written, particularly since that language is now locked. This debate really needs to migrate to the talk page of WP:BLP.--Mantanmoreland 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

..."My own view is that linking to an "external link" implies that readers of Wikipedia are being directed to it as a "source" of information about a subject."... That may be your view, but it isn't the view of the encyclopedia, the policies or guidelines. It's impossible to have a discussion with you if you refuse to understand that external links are not sources, and that they have different names and different purposes for a reason. Also, please try to make your comments more pithy. This discussion page becomes unreadable if one editor monopolizes the lteral space on the page with text saying essentially the same thing. 2005 21:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are not providing an "external link" in a section called "External links" as a source of information about a subject, why are you providing it? For what purpose? --NYScholar 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"source of information" has no meaning here. Sources are used for material used in articles. External links are further reading of material not cited in the articles. Please read the appropriate guidelines, this one and WP:RS. The terms 'external links" and "sources" have specific meanings in the wikipedia. In this context, the terms don't necessarily mean what they might in normal usage. here, and external link is defined as something that is not a source, and sources are not external links. This is why there are two guidelines. 2005 10:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If the subject of the "external link" or of the "External links" section is a living person, then WP:BLP applies (all of it) and also the core policy in Wikipedia called "verifiability" applies as well: it is linked in WP:EL as a "core policy" to refer to in contemplating what sites to link to as an "external link." --NYScholar 03:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also re: the last comments in the main section: I came here originally to see what to do re: a fan site (self-published and self-described as a "non-official" or "unofficial website" that is "not endorced [sic]" by its subject, a living person) that was being linked as an "external link" in an article about a living person; when I read the guidelines here, I realized that they seem to conflict with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Reliable sources. As stated by others above earlier and in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, also by others, until these contradictions are resolved, WP:EL does not seem to be consistent with the core policies in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [I have to log off again for the rest of the night and to do other things in the rest of the week.] --NYScholar 04:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer? It is okay to provide external links fan sites in articles about living people, provided they meet appropriate guidelines and policy. WP:V is not among them because it only applies to material in Wikipedia articles, not material present on external sites. Your theory that a "source" is the same as an "external link" and deduction from there that this guideline page, purporting as it does to announce rules on when to use external links, is out of line and violates policy is an odd one. If that's how you feel there are ways to take that up. Maybe you should nominate this page for deletion or merger with WP:V. There is really no point debating this issue. You have stated your argument several times on a couple pages, they have been refuted just as many times, and going through more iterations of that seems unhelpful. Wikidemo 06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided "the answer" to the questions that I actually asked (scroll up). Moreover, your continual restatements of your own position here and in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons are not the only "answer" to the problems asked about by me and a number of others (scroll up to earlier sections too). You are not the single arbiter and interpreter of Wikipedia policies, and the statements that you place in your comments do not have general consensus in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons.

I suggest, as I have already done several times to no avail, since you come back each time to contradict me, that people who come to this discussion need to read all the comments in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons concerning this matter. Several administrators do not agree with what you state. WP:V#Sources is core policy in Wikipedia, and WP:EL links to it as such and also to WP:BLP, which includes WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which refers to what can be linked as an external link in an article about a living person in Wikipedia and to material about living persons in any space in Wikipedia. Please consult that. There is no need to depend on what I or any other commenter here says. The policies are clearly enough stated. If they are in flux, one can adjust one's practice to them as they develop. (I returned to post this because I think it is important not to mislead people unintentionally or otherwise. Great care is necessary in articles about living persons and in anything posted about a living person in Wikipedia. For well-known public figures, consult WP:BLP#Well known public figures.) Thanks. --NYScholar 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

E.g, as an administrator User:Jossi replied to your similar comments there on Aug. 13: "(ed conf) You are missing [an] important distinction: WP:V is a core official policy, WP:EL is a guideline and cannot trump policy, only describe ways to apply policy." --NYScholar 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That was too muddled for me to respond. Please don't try to personify a statement that WP:EL is a valid guideline page as my own personal opinion in an effort to argue your novel position. That's getting uncomfortably personal. As you know, you are citing an unstable portion of BLP that is in the middle of an edit war you have participated in and thus a bad source of policy. When claims are made that this guideline page is invalid, that external links are the same thing as sources, etc., it's useful to state the more common understanding of things lest people become confused. Wikidemo 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting "uncomfortably personal" [so far that is the only thing we seem to agree about]. As I do, I think editors of Wikipedia just want to know how to apply core policies in Wikipedia to "external links" that they are considering linking or keeping in articles about living persons in Wikipedia. I do not think that this is clear from WP:EL. These are content-related matters and the reason people are "confused" is because the "guideline" currently in WP:EL is inconsistent with core policies in Wikipedia and with WP:BLP. This is not the result of something that happened in the past few days. These inconsistences have been in WP:EL for a long time. People need a clear guideline to go to that is consistent with all of Wikipedia's core editing policies. --NYScholar 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[For the record:]I find nothing "muddled" in Jossi's comment or in my own; please don't characterize other people's comments as "muddled"; if you are confused or "muddled" [and unable or unwilling to "respond" to a comment], that is your response and your own responsibility for feeling that way. My comment is not "muddled" or "confused"; the "guideline" stated in WP:EL is confusing and inconsistent with core Wikipedia editing policies. It needs to be revised so that it is consistent with these core policies. That is not a "muddled" viewpoint. That is a reasonable viewpoint. If potential editors and current editors of Wikipedia are "confused" by the guideline, it is because the guideline is not clear, not because they are personally "muddled" or "confused" people. The problem is in the guideline. --NYScholar 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Muddled, as in mixing disparate things to the point of confusion or befuddlement. Prolix also works. I'm not sure exactly what to caution you about. There are so many things. For a start, please keep your posts succinct, on topic, and as courteous as you can. If you look at the history on this talk page the preponderance of edits are yours. That is too many. Your comments are a moving target: you keep going back to revise and add things to what you said earlier, and this causes edit conflicts, sometimes with yourself. Don't mock, or quote from discussions on other pages to try to impugn my credibility. Most of that is in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and it would be a good start. If we can get past those quirks, I'm fine with the guideline subject to some minor improvements. You aren't, apparently, so rather than arguing repeatedly and at great length that the guideline is wrong why not propose an overhaul? I don't agree to one, and I doubt many others would either, but you're welcome to try. Wikidemo 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we have a problem here. EL sections need to be used judiciously, as these sections are not dumping grounds for anything and everything that cannot make it to the article due to content policy violations. That applies to all type of articles. In BLPs we are very stringent about ELs, much more than on say, popular culture or other types of articles. That is well covered in WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP is now being used as a universal hammer against unwanted nails in non-BLP articles. Is there anything in WP:BLP that restricts its stringentness to bio articles only? AndroidCat 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Its brief covers "biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles". I can't spot any exceptions for non-bio articles. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so. It would be silly to say we can slander people in peripheral articles as long as we abstain from it on that person's own primary article. Jimbo Wales has even stated that BLP, despite its nomenclature, applies to deceased persons as well. wikipediatrix 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, BLP is mostly concerned with derogatory (not necessarily slanderous) material about living people in whatever article it may be found. It does not for the most part concern material about other subjects nor, despite the Jimboism, does it apply to deceased individuals (there are reasonable limits to our love affair with Jimbo, no? - his sneezes do not make policy). Wikidemo 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody picked up on this. All teasing of our beloved father figure aside, I agree that we should not speak ill of the recently deceased or anyone whose memory is still cherished or fresh. Badmouthing Caligula or Atilla the Hun, however, should not be a problem...subject to verifiability and sourcing. Wikidemo 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)