Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Restriction of Multiple External Links -- Wolfgang's Vault

Hello,

I've been restricted from publishing an external link under the Wiki pages for several musical artists. Upon attempting a few times to add a link to an artist's profile page on Wolfgangsvault.com as an additional external link, I was met with a skeptical message relating to spam links that are discouraged from being posted on Wikipedia. Upon receiving this message which also read that my previously-posted links would be deleted, I was directed to your article on External Links, which thoroughly includes all relevant information regarding the posting of external links and the reason for me being met with the earlier error message.

Upon reading the external links article, I believe that Wolfgang's Vault artist references are relevant as an addition to the content already on their wiki pages. Wolfgang's Vault holds un-tapped and pertinent history of hundreds of artists and bands, and is commonly used as a resource for their fans. The Vault's collection does include many items which are or sale, such as apparel, posters, photography, etc., yet also includes a music collection free for listeners to listen to, and additional information regarding written publications and past/present touring information.

All material and information on Wolfgang's Vault is legally accounted for, and no copyright issues exist amongst what Wiki users would be linked too. Wolfgang's Vault is another referential tool for music fans and readers who come across an artist's wikipedia page, much the same to how All Music, discogs, or Rolling Stone offers additional information from countless wikipedia pages.

Given the above characteristics of Wolfgang's Vault, and their relevance to the contents of artists' pages, I believe that these links should be allowed as external links from an artists' wikipedia page.

(66.11.202.34 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

-PL

Per WP:ELNO, I'd argue against any such links other than those to Crawdaddy articles and perhaps some concert links.
Wolfgangsvault.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.Wolfgangsvault.com
--Ronz (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not really free. Registration is required to listen to a concert and they say upfront that you will get spam as a result. If you could just immediately listen to a concert with no impact, then some of those concert links could be valuable. I didn't register so I have no idea how hard it is to actually listen to a concert. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems this website has been added (spammed?) into 553 articles. Most often hidden as references in the article body. I'm of the opinion that this site has no business as an external link and is certainly not a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point from UncleDouggie on the concerts. They should be removed. Crawdaddy articles, however, seem to be fairly typical quality for music reviews and the like. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

External links noticeboard

Hi, I'm trying to start up an external links noticeboard, so I've set up a draft in my userspace. If anybody here is interested in issues regarding external links feel free to comment on the draft on its talkpage or edit it directly. For a noticeboard to work it needs editors to watch it and participate in the discussions on it, so I'm posting this around to try to probe if there are enough editors interested in this to get it started. ThemFromSpace 01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed that the noticeboard go live. We have several good test cases posted on it currently. All input is welcome! UncleDouggie (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The noticeboard is now live and has its first real question. Please add Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard to your watchlist since many questions previously posted here will be going to the noticeboard instead. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should links to Twitter be allowed?

I have noticed quite a few links to Twitter pages being added onto celebrity pages. However, as many people know, there are many "fake celebrity" Twitter accounts out there. Should we allow such external links coming from Twitter, should we require verification, or what? MuZemike 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Twitter feeds are already listed as "Links normally to be avoided". I can't imagine any exception to that except in the very, very very rare circumstance where it is the only official online presence of a celebrity. 2005 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why should Twitter be allowed in such cases? If a notable person has nothing else, then there's no rule against not having any EL's. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Because the guideline says an article "should link to the subject's official site, if any". In this case, an official Twitter is "any". For me, it is the absolute bottom of the totem poll... I'd link to an icky Myspace before a Twitter page. More importantly though, this should hardly even be the case. Who has a Twitter and does not have an Official site, a Facebook, or Myspace page? Just about nobody. (I wouldn't mind a ELNO line like "Twitter feeds should never be linked to unless it is the only official site of a person.") 2005 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've also seen this problem. Aside from the fake accounts, many Twitter links are remarkably uninformative (of the 'Just wanted to say hi to everyone because it has been so long since I posted anything' type) or with no messages for weeks or even months.
User:2005, your proposed expansion works for me; I'd add it as a footnote to the ELNO item that names Twitter links, or in the section on official websites that I proposed a while ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Like it or not, Twitter is popular. Enough with guide-tinkering to promote anti-external-link activism. The page owners here have refused to address even the worst outright-deceptive fork abuse in ELNO #11 (see WT:EL#WP:ELNO#11 exposed as an unauthorized fork). So, I'm calling for a halt to further expansion of WP:ELNO and the abusive enforcement it has spawned – which in my opinion lacks wider community consensus. Milo 05:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The popularity of the service is irrelevant. External links in Wikipedia's articles need to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Twitter links are almost never encyclopedic in nature. (Neither are telephone numbers or mailing addresses, which you will also find generally excluded from articles.)
The fact that you (alone, apparently, among thousands of editors) misunderstand ELNO #11 as prohibiting "blogs (no matter what), personal websites (no matter what) and most fansites, except for fansites that are written by a recognized authority", while everyone else understands it to mean "avoid blogs (except those written by a recognized authority on the subject), personal websites (except those written by a recognized authority on the subject), and most fansites (except those written by a recognized authority on the subject)" is really not something that I think I can help you with. You failed to gain any sort of consensus for your position, despite your efforts to convince us that a prepositional phrase never refers to anything more than the last noun in a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice strawman of my actual positions. Never mind the ELNO#11 phrase confusion issue for now. The ELNO#11 fork is forbidden by policy. The ELNO#11 deceptive fork is just plain cheating. If you won't fix it sooner, it will be fixed for you later. The oppressive page ownership here means that consensus will have to come from outside, and I haven't even begun to work on that yet. No rush.
If you want evidence of why things will change here, it was that horrifying libel of an out businessman, and the fact that I, not originally a participant in that Lord of the Flies dialog, had to be the adult to wade in and put out the fire. (I reported it to the top, btw.) That event demonstrates that this page has an attitude that enables periodic out-of-control abuse toward outside visitors, capable of endangering the Foundation. Aside from that, it's abusive to regular editors who consense links that extremist enforcers from here won't allow. I've seen it for myself, and it's unpopular with regular editors.
As yet my sample is too small, but it will be interesting to find out just how unpopular you've (collectively) become wiki-wide. All but banning Twitter will be one more log entry on the camel's back.
The claim that you (collectively) know what's encyclopedic (an opinion) without doing field opinion polls is elitist at best, fascist at worst, unconsensually cliquish, and certainly unscientific. Milo 10:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
More to the point, Milo, is that you have consistently demonstrated a complete disregard for the founding principles of this encyclopedia and your continual attack on everyone who disagrees with you means nothing to anyone here. You claiming we're unpopular because of banning Twitter and other obvious common sense encyclopedic decisions, well, anyone who would hold that position isn't someone whose opinions mater a jot toward building an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"you have consistently demonstrated a complete disregard for the founding principles of this encyclopedia" ... "continual attack on everyone who disagrees you" ... "anyone who would hold that position isn't someone whose opinions mater a jot toward building an encyclopedia" Untrue personal attacks probably, but bald incivilities for sure. Note that I supported WhatamIdoing's position in the previous section, so there's no evidence for "continual attack". I could just point to your lengthy block log, RFC/Us, and RFARs, and compare your regard for founding principles, but since you defamed me during our last meeting, I'm going to look into this further. Let's see... at WP:RFAR/DreamGuy 2 the opening paragraph reads "Through continual incivility, DreamGuy manages to alienate every editor that he comes into the slightest conflict with." Your case resulted in an indefinite civility restriction. Looks to me like you're in violation again. Strike those sentences please. Milo 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that it's fair that you do the same above, labelling users as "extremist", "elitist", and "fascist". MuZemike 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reread please. "elitist", and "fascist" refers to "The claim" (a position). I have plenty of evidence for the extremism, thus no need to strike. Milo 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that's name-calling. MuZemike 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Not with evidence. Milo 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stay on point, both of you, and refrain from addressing the arguers' characters, instead addressing their actual arguments. MuZemike 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Reread please. I addressed behaviors. Milo 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I did. You're calling users names, plain and simple. No personal attacks, please. MuZemike 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to get your research right to avoid making charges you don't understand – which btw is a violation of WP:NPA. Milo 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Milo's also using unverified statements by an editor involved in that dispute (and many others) (that is, not ArbCom) in two-year-old cases to attempt to influence current discussions and perhaps to intimidate DreamGuy into not participating. It's not desirable behavior, but Wikiquette alerts is over there, and we should try to focus on the real question, which is whether Twitter links are generally a good idea for the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"perhaps to intimidate DreamGuy into not participating" Is that a PA by accusation without the slightest evidence? DG's behavior is at issue, not his participation. I certainly intend to influence current discussions by citing the "two-year-old" Arbcom case in which DG was sanctioned for incivility, as the result of which, he is still under current sanction for incivility. At a minimum he just did the same thing again here. Milo 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic

I couldn't put it better. Who cares if it's popular? WP:ELNO may have to grow as social networking sites grow. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if the above no longer makes sense, people have edited between the edit I was responding to and my edit, and now there's even a section break that wasn't there when I wrote the above. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I should note here, that User:XLinkBot is reverting additions of this link, as they, as the guideline now stands, they are to be strongly avoided (and I agree with the things here, where most is a derivative of our WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY-policy (link only the official site, not all others ..)). However, I noted that there is a, widely used, {{twitter}} for these links (and XLinkBot can't detect nor revert these properly). Any ideas anyone? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The twitter template should be deleted, as it serves no encyclopedic purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above that Twitter should only ever be added if it's somehow the ONLY official site of a person/group the article is about, which for all practical matters is just a blanket ban and might as well be worded that way. DreamGuy (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If tweets were allowed as external links, we would be spending all day removing blatant spam. If something is notable enough, it has more than tweets to back it up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitly not, unless the twitter site is itself the subject of the article. I also support Twitter being on XLinkBot's revert list. I'm neutral on the template. Its usefulness would depend on how many times the link can be used here appropriately. ThemFromSpace 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a quick scan shows Britney Spears, Stephen Fry, Slash (musician), Ben Stiller, Stephen Baldwin ... those certainly are not needing a twitter feed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If it really was notable, there would be mainstream media coverage as well, like the plane in the Hudson.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And if there's media coverage, such a feed may belong under ==References== instead of ==External links==. I also support its removal by XLinkBot (which, of course, only affects external links placed by completely new users, who are the most likely to make mistakes of this type). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Mostly agree. Case in point - Ashton K's Twitter account is a likely candidate for being included on his page, as it has appropriate mass media coverage during his million-follower run. SpikeJones (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that that is done without using the template, and with a bit more description than 'Ashton K's Twitter account' (as this would probably result in a EL-patroller removing it as being there without reason). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of anti-Twitter commentary here doesn't strike me as being based in sound, generalizable principles for external linking. In particular:

  • Complaints that Twitter content is often vapid or infrequently updated. This can also be true of a traditional website. We don't currently have a rule that says, "link to the subject's official website unless it sucks."
  • Complaints that Twitter feeds may be from fakes rather than the actual subject. Again, this can be true of other types of internet presence. It should be obvious that hoax pages should not be linked, regardless of what method or service was used to create them. This is something that ought to be determined case-by-case, not by ruling out an entire social networking service.
  • There is an implicit assumption in some comments that a subject can/should only have one "official" internet presence, and that linking to more than one would somehow be undesirable.
  • There is a somewhat more explicit ranking of different types of internet presence, with a traditional website being considered more valid, Facebook and MySpace pages less so, and Twitter below those. This ranking appears to be based entirely on people's personal opinions about different types of sites, not any objective criteria or even a general consensus of the Wikipedia community.

In short, I don't see why a subject's official Twitter feed wouldn't typically be an appropriate external link, even if the subject also had some other form of internet presence. If the feed is a fake or is never used, then subject-article editors can handle that on a case-by-case basis. --RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the account being fake, if we were to allow such external links, they need to be verifiable; that is, something verifying that the account is actually from said celebrity. The last thing I want to see is having links to go an account run by Joe Schmoe Fanboy rather than said actual celebrity. That would end up giving readers more of a disservice than a benefit. MuZemike 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed, we should not be linking to faux-subject pages, and the burden of proof in on the editor placing/retaining the link to show that it is verifiable. Again, I don't see this as different from how any web page would be treated. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I do know that Twitter has just started to provide authentication for many of these celebrities' accounts that are operated by the celebrities themeselves. To what extent currently, I don't know. I suppose my concern is that we're going to get people edit-warring over the removal of said Twitter link, where we hear "he said/she said" back-and-forth arguments going something like "this is the official Twitter account." "We don't know that." "Trust me, it is." ad nauseam. I don't know if what I said helps out any, but I thought I'd throw that one out there. MuZemike 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The first two are bad arguments, yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The third is also not what is said, what is meant is that if twitter is the only source that is available, the person is probably not notable enough for an article (there may be an odd exception, but well, we are not forbidding the link, are we), if there is more, then twitter may be an additional link, but as soon as there are an official page, and a myspace and a facebook, then twitter falls off. Again, we are not saying that links to twitter are never OK, it is just that in most cases, it is not. And yes, sorry, the information that can be available from a myspace or facebook is simply more than from by far the most twitter feeds. I think that it will be a rare exception if the twitter feed is telling significantly more than the persons facebook and myspace, let alone his official page. Myspace, Facebook and Twitter are all discouraged as external links, and external links should only be added if inclusion is justifyable. I doubt if that happens that often, and I certainly doubt that it will happen so often that a separate template is warranted, especially since that hides the addition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Links to social networking sites are "all discouraged," as you say, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject," as the guidelines currently say, which makes perfect sense to me. However, what some seem to be implying is an additional rule beyond that: that pages on these sites shouldn't be linked even when they are a subject's official page, if the subject also has an official regular website. Now, if a subject has a ton of pages on different sites, I could understand keeping the list limited to just a few. But the impression given in some comments is that if the subject has more than one official page, then only the one most preferred (based on the hierarchy I mentioned, which appears to be entirely subjective) should be linked, with no additional official pages linked unless there is some extra-special justification. But that isn't something that the guidelines say currently, nor can I think of any good reason why there should be such a limitation. If a subject has both an official web site and an official Twitter feed (or Facebook, etc.), both verifiable as the subject's own official content, then I don't see why it would be inappropriate to link to both. If the content is mostly redundant, of if the social networking page is linked from their main web site, OK, I understand not having redundant links. But assuming they aren't redundant, I haven't seen a single good argument yet for not linking both. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"I haven't seen a single good argument yet..." Scroll up. The links almost never will add encyclopedic value, and yes they are definitively inferior to official sites, or Facebook/Myspace because those don't have a 140 character limit. The argument is plain and unimpeachably objective: you can't do on Twitter what you can do on the others, and it is darn near impossible to be encyclopedic in 140 characters. As the guideline states, external links are largely for sites with an "amount of detail" above what the article can handle. Anything of encyclopedic value of 140 characters should be incorporated into the article and cited with a reliable source. 2005 (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI to those interested, the tweeter template is up for deletion now. If you have an opinion you should go voice it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Requesting wider community input on whether or not external links to accounts on Twitter be allowed, and, if so, how should they be taken care of. MuZemike 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • RfC comment. No, they should not be allowed, although there may be a rare exception that I can't think of. As noted above, this is really a matter of following existing policy. I would add to the comments in the sections above that Twitter is also, intrinsically, constantly updating its content, which also makes it somewhat like another Wiki, which we also do not usually regard as RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Attempting to forestall the usual confusion: I hope that we'll get a lot of responses from editors that don't follow this page regularly, so here's a little background information: This question is about when/whether a link to a Twitter feed should normally be placed under ==External links==. For example, some editors will include Twitter feeds on a page about a music group (e.g., here's their regular website, their MySpace page, their Facebook page, their Twitter link, their YouTube channel, etc...) or at the end of an article about a natural disaster (here's the government disaster relief agency's website, here's the Red Cross' page about the disaster, here's a local radio station's Twitter feed...).
    This question has absolutely nothing to do with whether Twitter is a reliable source for building article content.
    The current rule, for reference, treats Twitter feeds like an e-mail list: "Links to ... chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists," partly on the theory that a 140-character tweet is not dramatically different in user experience from a short e-mail message by a listserv. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I fully understand why the way I worded my comment would raise that issue for you, and I'm sorry for any confusion that I caused. But, believe it or not, I understood that when I wrote my comment. My (badly worded) reference to RS was not in the sense that feeds would be used as content sources, but in the sense that linking to them just isn't providing anything that useful, anything encyclopedic. The fan-related cases to which you refer are fancruft, and the news-related ones serve to show why WP is not a newspaper. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it had nothing to do with you: we were actually typing at the same time. I should have labeled it as an edit conflict. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Good, no problem then. Thanks. Anyway, you did give me a good opportunity to clarify what I had written. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, they should be, and they are in this guideline, very strongly discouraged. They generally do not add information to a page, they are unstable (like a wiki), and they can, in practically all cases, be replaced with more stable pages and pages which contain more content (i.e., the official page, if any, or official MySpace and FaceBook pages). It is not wikipedia's aim to include all possible external links, which means that we do not have to list the official page, a MySpace, a Facebook, a Blogspot, ... and a Twitter, and IMHO the twitter feed will often be at the bottom of the list, and the first to go. Where the list is not too long and includes a Twitter, there notability may be a question.
This is not to say that is is not allowed to link to them, but in many cases they fail this guideline. It is also therefore that {{twitter}} was put up for deletion, the few cases where they are suitable, don't need an own template (they can be linked normally!), which also improves the visibility and the ways of monitoring such additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Dirk, I admire the way you did a balanced investigation of the gomolo.in link placements, so I'm not being critical when I suggest that you give more careful thought to the Twitter deletes that you're doing with the bot. You cite the guide, but the guide may be too much the product of an unrepresentative deletionist group. "Very strongly discouraged" has become its own problem at the External links guide - such guidings are just too extreme, so they produce extreme behavior. I've seen four enforcer editors from this page harassing a local page over one excellent and years-long locally consensed external link, resulting in an ANI, an unfair block then rescinded, and a WQA. There was talk of a "link farm" when there were a total of two or three links. The official Twitter was not very good, but when there are only three links, and the Twitterer is a superstar, so what?
By way of reference, in the massive 2009 Date delinking case, Arbcom described how well-organized MOSNUM enforcer teams using automated tools engaged in pitched revert battles with local editors, including TE who reverted over 700 by himself. A precursor to that was the Spoiler Police squad in 2007 in which a highly-placed clique of six admins and enforcers used AWB to delete 50,000 spoiler tags against the consensus of 40% of editors polled, resulting in a six-month, million-some byte loudly dissenting debate.
I'm not a Twitter fan, but I have the feeling that all this effort to suppress Twitter is causing more harm in conflict than would be done by one more harmless link. Milo 11:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, for me, the twitter links seldomly add significant information. And for Britney Spears, when I checked it, she just told her father that she was coming to have dessert with him. Quite an addition to Wikipedia, I would say. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I contend that links to false/misleading Twitter accounts can create potential harm in linking to false information about BLPs, and we should not be in the business in linking to false information. That is why, if such accounts are to be linked, then it needs to be shown that this is the actual person's account, and not some account created by Joe Schmoe Fanboy as I noted above. MuZemike 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me that what is needed is a generalizable rule that isn't Twitter-specific. Right now, the guidelines says that social networking links (including Twitter pages) are OK if they are a subject's official page. In fact, the guidelines say that a subject's official page should be linked, not avoided. What the guidelines don't directly address is what happens if a subject has multiple "official" pages: a regular website, a Facebook page, a MySpace page, a Twitter page, etc. There is an implicit hierarchy that some editors seem have formed, that a regular website is preferred over Facebook/MySpace, which in turn are preferred over Twitter. But this is 1) subjective, and 2) it isn't generalized, so it gives no guidance about other sites/services that might be used. My suggestion would be an explicit guideline that considers the amount of content, redundancy, and interlinking. When there are multiple official pages, don't link to multiple pages that have similar content, or if one of them links to the others. But if they are non-redundant and not interlinked, then it is OK to link multiple pages (all official and verified to be such), with the site providing the most content linked first. Something like that would be a general rule that could be applied to any type of internet presence the subject might have, which is much more useful than a specific invocation for or against Twitter. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    I have the feeling that the guide has become too stingy with external links, when there is plenty of room for them (WP:NOTPAPER). This creates an artificial economy of scarcity that makes editors fight over the only one or two links artificially available in some cases. Milo 11:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It was pointed out elsewhere that exactly the rule that I want is in fact already in the guidelines, just buried in a footnote that I had not noticed. What's in the footnote is very sensible. It's also more permissive than what some comments here seem to be urging. --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing wrong with the current policy, which has little to do with anti-Twitter snobbery. The real problem is having external links sections clogged up with non-notable trivia and blatant spam from blogs etc. This has to be removed, which takes up time that is better spent doing other things. If a user really thought that a tweet was of earth-shattering importance, they could raise it on the talk page of the article to see what other editors thought. The reality is that most tweets are non-enyclopedic, and it would be a worrying development to allow them as external links as things stand.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the current guidelines are good, particularly now that I realized that the rule I wanted about multiple official pages is already there in a footnote (probably is should be more prominent in the guidelines). But what is happening is that some editors are repeatedly going beyond the guidelines as they exist in declaring a different method for handling multiple official pages, which they apparently think is already official. For example, the comment immediately below says "We also do not link to Yahoo Groups, MySpace, etc. unless they are the official site and there is no other official site with better source of info." Only the first part is in the current guidelines. --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, Twitter should not be linked -- and we don't have a Twitter-specific rule, just a rule against linking unhelpful sites, of which Twitter is about the least helpful example that we could possibly come up with. We also do not link to Yahoo Groups, MySpace, etc. unless they are the official site and there is no other official site with better source of info. We're not a web directory, so every link has to serve an encyclopedic purpose. These kinds of links do not. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We currently have a rule that allows a subject's official sites to be linked. It is well-established that linking to a subject's own page serves an encyclopedic purpose. What we do not have is a rule that says, Highlander-style, "There can be only one." Under the current guidelines, a link to Twitter would be entirely acceptable, if it is the subject's official page and it "provide[s] unique content and [is] not prominently linked from other official websites." That is different from only linking it if "there is no other official site with better source of info." --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We do have such a rule. It's called WP:NOT. We are not a web directory. The exclusion is for the official site, not a long list of any site that might in any way be considered official. It's an exception, not something to be encouraged widely, and certainly not for a site with an expectation of next to zero meaningful information available there. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the event that a subject has multiple official pages that can be verified as official and are not redundant and not already prominently interlinked, then having two or, gosh, even three or four links to those non-redundant, non-interlinked, verified official pages would not turn Wikipedia into a web directory. It is extremely unlikely that there would ever be a "long list" of such sites, as a subject with numerous pages is very likely to be interlinking them and/or posting redundant material on them. The explosion of external links on articles has virtually nothing to do with subjects' verified official pages. The problem is all the fansites, blogs, etc., which are not official and which can proliferate in unlimited numbers if not kept in check. If you have an example of an article that has more than three links to non-redundant, non-interlinked, verified official pages, I'd love to see it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Example of when I feel a Twitter link is valid Just an example of a usage that I feel follows the letter of WP:ELNO and is useful. I wrote most of The Tabernacle and included a link to their Twitter feed. This is a music venue, i.e. a business. I also link to their official site, but it is (a) a Flash site, which excludes some users and (b) brochure-like in that it is never updated, and does not have links to the social media. If you want timely updates about what is going on at this music venue, you have to go to Facebook or Twitter which they update daily. Now Facebook has the issue of requiring one to join, which is advised against elsewhere in WP:EL. So, if one wants freely accessible up-to-the minute information about this particular music venue, for instance to know whether tomorrows concert is cancelled, Twitter is the best external link that fulfills that goal for this venue. It seems to me that under the current guidelines, as written, an external link to their Twitter feed makes sense. --Krelnik (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I looked at that page. The first external link is to The Tabernacle's official web site. That is perfectly appropriate (even given the faults with that site that you point out). The second is to the site for buying tickets from them, and is completely inappropriate. The three links after that are their Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook sites. I would argue for deleting all of those. You use the example of having Wikipedia provide links "to know whether tomorrows concert is cancelled." For the same reason that we are not a newspaper, that is exactly the kind of thing our pages should not be doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agreed, and removed those links that violate WP:EL rules. The official website is the only link that is needed there. Ticket info, Twitter, etc. are all completely inappropriate and at odds with the goals of an encyclopedia. We are not a web directory, we are here to provide encyclopedic information. Ticket sales, Facebook, etc. are not encyclopedic. If someone "wants freely accessible up-to-the minute information about this particular music venue" they should go to freaking Google and find it, not expect Wikipedia to be all things to all people. DreamGuy (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fine, I guess I don't "get it". It's no skin off my nose, as you say folks can find it in Google. IMHO I really think the wording in WP:ELNO needs work to clarify this properly. Because I've read it, including the footnotes, several times, and it sure seemed like my linking was legitimate under the letter of that guideline. I think there's something about the wording that I'm just not getting. --Krelnik (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just by way of not wanting to leave any hard feeling about it (and I really mean that!), I do think that #10 of ELNO does apply. But I agree with you that there are a lot of problems with wording of guidelines about includible/excludible content. From what I've seen of some AfD debates, too much of it is in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • comment I don't see a problem linking to Twitter if that is the primary website someone uses. I doubt this is often the case, but when it does occur I see nothing wrong with it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Joshua, by "someone" do you mean the person reading the Wikipedia page? If so, I don't think that's a valid argument, for the reasons already stated above. If you mean, instead, the subject of the page, then what do you mean by the subject "using" Twitter? If all a subject is noted for is having a presence on Twitter, and there are no secondary sources establishing notability, then I would think the subject does not qualify for a page here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • comment The discussion at WT:External_links/Archive_24#Twitter_proposal sufficiently covered this point with Talk:Stephen Fry being another RFC about this matter. The conclusion there was only if it is an "official site" and it then falls under the current guidelines. A search through this page's archive would be better than raising another RFC.—Ash (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Policy should strongly discourage Twitter, but leave room for exceptions . A great example of when twitter would be (in my opinion) appropriate is relating to recent 2009 Iranian presidential election. Twitter was used to share information with the world at a time when the Iranian government had shut down many other means of communication. Here, twitter played a specific and notable role in the event and surrounding circumstances. However, the vast majority of the time twitter links are added to articles seems to be just tacking on extraneous and un-encyclopedic information. In these cases it (in my opinion) detracts from the quality of the article, because its stream of consciousness-ness. — Mike :  tlk  20:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The footnote concerning Twitter should be more explicitly stated and not in a footnote. The top of the section gives an exception for "a link to an official page of the article's subject"; the footnote then contradicts that statement with "more than one official website should be listed only when..." Evil saltine (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Citing" external links

I looked on both this page and the citations page, but couldn't find anything clearly identifying what I'm trying to do. If a person's website is listed in the External links section for thier article, but is also mentioned in the body of that article, what is the appropriate citation method?

  • Do you just ignore citing the website altogether, trusting that people will look for it in the external links?
  • Do you put "Subject-of-Article's website (see [[#External links|external links]]) ..."?
  • Or do you add a normal {{cite web}} entry for it ("Subject-of-Article's website<ref>{{cite web ...}}</ref> ...)?

Thanks! —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the person is the subject of the article, then it is appropriate to put their website in the External Links section, regardless of whether it is also mentioned elsewhere. If the website is mentioned in the article body as a source of information, then a {{cite web}} reference note citing the specific page with the information (not just the home page address) would be appropriate. If the website is mentioned but not as a source, then a {{cite web}} note linking to the home page is not necessary, although it's not uncommon to see it done. And it should not be linked in-body, only in reference notes or the External Links section. --RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the feedback RL0919! —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If the sentence basically says, "Look! He has a website, just like millions of other people!" then I wouldn't bother "citing" it. People with look in the EL section. But certainly if you're citing specific information off the website ("Chicken Little issued a correction on his website that the sky was not falling"), then the specific page with that information should be cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me give the specific section in question, then, and you guys can see for yourselves. The article was up for AfD, but the consensus is pretty much "Keep, but get rid of the blatant promotional material", which several of us are in the process of doing (and in that light, I can see an argument for deleting the entire section, but have retained it for now in the spirit of documenting what's on the website while not overly promoting it). I think the {{cite web}} is probably the most appropriate here, but obviously, it's more of a concern that additional links might be seen as spam, so I can see just removing it too. Anyway, the section in question is here. Thoughts? —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Perfect example of "Look! He has a website, just like millions of other people!" Not notable. Remove that whole section and leave the link as the first external link. And really, about 80% of that article needs to go away as not having reliable sources or notability. DreamGuy (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking after reading WhatamIdoing's response. Thanks for the second opinion. As for the 80%, what's scary is that we've already removed large sections of even more blatant promotional material. :) —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
For a third opinion, I agree with WhatamIdoing and DreamGuy on the specific case. A person's website should not be mentioned just to tell readers that he has a website. The link in the EL section does that just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to my question above, although that wasn't regarding the main subject of the article. I still wonder if we couldn't perhaps make this all more clear in the guideline. I'm not sure what would work the best for others since I've been so close to the subject lately. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The underlying connection between these two questions is "Wikipedia is not a web directory". Unlike some websites, Wikipedia does not link every possible website just to prove that the organization exists and/or owns a website. Most of us suffer from the occasional impulse to overlink, but I don't know how to say "No, really, we're not joking when we say that the mere fact that a website exists does not mean that you have to link it" in this guideline without being rightly told off for being condescending. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
For the situation UncleDouggie discussed previously, we could add a entry to the ELNO list, something like, "Sites or pages for persons or organizations mentioned in an article (but not the subject of the article) when the site or page linked is not specifically about the subject and is not used as a source for claims made in the article." It's a bit redundant, but it might clarify the situation for some editors. The situation RobinHood70 has is hard to address in EL policy, since it is more about what is relevant article content than it is about whether the site is acceptable as an external link. --RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But that is really just confusing. We should say "external links do not go in the body of an article." Ever. We now say "normally", but that is mealymouth talk. If we just give the current sentence the backbone it deserves, then it solves all the problems -- external links do not go in the body of an article, but if someone thinks there is really really really a reason to have the link, this is "only a guideline", and a consensus could establish that an exception is appropriate. Another way to put it, since no one has ever articulated a consistent exception to normally, why keep the word? This is a guideline. The widespread consensus is external links don't go in the body of an article. Let's keep it simple, and leave the wildly obscure exceptions to consensuses on individual articles. 2005 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes please. Simplicity is good, and external links in an article are bad, first because they are not helping Wikipedia, and second because they are a magnet that attracts other external links (and, despite WP:OSE, act to justify external links within other articles). If I read an encyclopedic article that "XYZ is a really big corporation", I do not need a link to xyz.com at that time. If my intention in coming to Wikipedia was to find xyz.com, I would use Google, not Wikipedia. Also, the article on XYZ would have xyz.com in external links (and/or in an infobox), so an external link in the article is confusing (are they different? why are there two links?), and we should not assume readers are so stupid that they cannot find the External links section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to strengthening the language, but Uesr:2005 -- as I'm sure I've mentioned every single time you've asked about this -- there is one clear, consistent situation in which external links belong in the body of an article. It is the [[List of ____ websites]], in which it would be really, really, really stupid to name 200 websites, and then separately list all 200 of them again under ==External links==. See List of webcomics and List of online dating websites for two examples of how this situation is sometimes handled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There still is zero reason for such badly created lists as those mentioned. There is no justification or reason to make link farms. If something is notable, it will have a wiki article to link to. If it isn't notable, then the thing should not be linked to. 2005 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the main issue: Both RobinHood70 and I stated that we felt the links were worthy of inclusion under the EL section of the respective articles. Furthermore, at least some plain text related to the links was worthy of inclusion in the bodies. We both carefully read the guideline on no ELs in the article body and we weren't trying to invoke IAR or anything to get around this. We independently struggled with the conflict between the guideline and being kind to readers by providing hyperlinks instead of making them hunt down something at the end of the article when they couldn't even be assured that it was down there. And in each of our cases, the conundrum finally led us to posting here. Other well meaning editors could easily have had the same struggle and may have chosen a different path. And then we wonder why people aren't following the guideline! Both discussions have gone off the rails into assuming that we were trying to imbed ELs directly into the body when neither of us proposed any such thing. We were both trying to follow the guideline but found it confusing. I sympathize with WhatamIdoing on the best way to say it. I'll see if I can come up with alternative text in the next few days. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that the "do whatever you like" nutshell and body text is hopeless (of course it doesn't say that, but that is pretty well the effect). It should be more restrictive, with some example exceptions where embedded external links are acceptable (see 06:20, 10 September above). Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
External links are allowed within the article, in a large number of infoboxes, the ones I can think of being throughout the medical/chemical/biological/legal topics, eg Fluoxetine, Dalmatian (dog), Roe v. Wade, etc. Some biography infoboxes also allow/encourage them, eg John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Magic Johnson, etc. Trying to forbid them entirely would create more problems than it would fix, in most of these cases. This guideline should be seeking to restrict them within the article, not forbid them, despite some of the extreme opinions above. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a simple statement that in-body ELs aren't allowed would be overly broad and not descriptive of current practice. We could try to list out the different situations that are and are not considered acceptable uses of in-body ELs, but that seems to be getting too much into instruction creep. --RL0919 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, now I feel like a moron. I don't know why I didn't spot it before, but the References and citation section covers exactly what I was trying to do. Of course, the point is moot now in any event since the entire section has been deleted from the article. :) —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Under all normal circumstances, external links are not allowed in the body of an article. That is the point here. Infoboxes are not in the body of the article so I don't know why that is mentioned. External links only should be in infoboxes and an external links (or further reading) footer section. No one has even produced a single reason why they should ever be in the body of the article, so removing the "normally" solves the issue. 2005 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"A single reason that is personally acceptable to you" is not the same thing as "a single reason." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, no. One single general reason of any kind. No single reason has been posted. You stated they were appropriate for lists but stated no reason why. The two examples you listed showed clearly there was no reason for having external links there since all the things externally linked had articles/wikilinks. It's obviously no principal that everything that has a wikilink should also have an external link otherwise we'd have millions more external links. So until anyone articluates even one general reason an external link should ever be in the body of an article, having "normally" is just a pointless weasel word. 2005 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Again:
(1) There exist lists that aggregate information about types of WP:WEB-compliant websites, not all of which actually have Wikipedia articles yet.
(2) It's silly to entirely exclude an external link from Wikipedia -- one that would otherwise have "official website" status (=intrinsic value to the reader, in the minds of most editors) -- simply because no one has yet WP:SPLIT the list into a series of stubs solely dedicated to single websites.
Given that, in this instance, editors do, and will continue to, provide these links (and there's not one word in this guideline that would prevent them from doing so, as they are accurate, on-topic, and relevant), it would be stupid to demand a formatting system that results in a long list of websites names in the article, followed by a duplicate list under the title External links, solely to comply with the "no links in the text" standard.
In these rare instances, it's perfectly appropriate to provide links in the text. As proof of community consensus, several such lists have been around for many years, with no apparent interest in removing the links, and no success in deleting the lists entirely.
I don't say that you or I have to like this status: I only say that there is apparently, in practice, a community consensus for this single exception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would you ever link to a website that doesn't have an article "yet"? That makes no sense, and violates this guideline. The website is not notable. It is not meritable. It should not be linked. These lists usually are nothing but controversy and spam magnets produced by limited focus users. There is certainly no community consensus that they exist, though also many editors do want them. But that does not answer my question what is the general principle behind this kind of linking? In this case the general principle is "link externally to a website not notable enough for an article" which if followed through on would mean tens of thousands more external links in the body of an article, and completely reversing this guideline. Once again, there is no reason for "normally" if no one can articluate a sentence that explains a common exception. You are advocating an exception for link lists, when we aren't a directory, for non-notable websites, when this guideline is clear that non-notable/non-authority/non-meritable websites should not be linked. It makes no sense to say we can link to crap in lists, but not in non-list articles. 2005 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
George W. Bush would be notable even if the article, George W. Bush, did not exist. Google.com is notable according to WP:WEB even if the article, Google.com, did not exist. I cannot understand why you think that a website that meets WP:WEB is not [[[WP:N]]/notable until the moment that someone writes the article. Writing articles is not what makes a subject notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I don't feel strongly about whether or not "normally" should be explicitly indicated (vs editors simply invoking WP:IAR). It's just clear that there are some long-standing, heavily watched, clearly community-supported lists that do exactly what you're saying never happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Having beaten the lists issue to death, let's move on to something that came up during the noticeboard trial regarding YouTube Awards. In this case I stated that I thought IAR was enough, my opinion would likely change should the normally to be avoided language be tightened up. The defense of invoking IAR would become a huge hassle. I'll bet we have at least a thousand similar cases floating around. It might be quite a struggle to figure out how to tighten the guideline without choking off each case one by one. As for the lack of flash warnings on the site, I think it's a safe bet that someone looking for YouTube Awards probably has flash loaded. Please note that I have already cleaned up the 2006 awards table in the article to be more what I think it should look like. I didn't fix the 2007 awards table because I wanted to let you all see the difference side-by-side. Really, I had nothing better to do with another 30 minutes. ;-) The article also needs to have a table added for 2008 if anyone feels real ambitious. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

similar issue at The Shells

I'm in the middle of a dispute regarding external links that duplicate references. Unless the link is to the official website of the subject in question these links should be removed from the external links section, correct? I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this article and/or the discussion to provide some clarity on the policy. Thanks. ~ PaulT+/C 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a similar problem. That talk page could use a hefty injection of AGF. I didn't have time to dig into the actual refs. Both of the above discussions concluded that the links should be ELs only. What is the basis on which you think they should be refs instead for this article? Have they been used as actual sources for the material in the article? If so, are they reliable sources? UncleDouggie (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read the discussion, and glanced over the article, and I'm not sure which websites you're talking about. Could you please identify exactly which references you think are duplicating precisely which external links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Official links

UncleDouggie, can you tell me whether WP:EL#Official links is likely to be at all helpful? I've tried to consolidate some of the scattered notes from different parts of the page, with a more significant explanation of the concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the person you asked, but I think a separate section about official links is a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the new section is very helpful. I'm about to make a few cleanups on it now. We may also be able to remove redundancy with the other sections that reference it. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for the improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Flash required for YouTube videos

WhatamIdoing recently added that "YouTube videos should indicate that Flash video software is necessary to see the content." If we're going to be serious about this, we should probably also mandate the use of Template:YouTube. A little scary considering that people keep trying to delete it. However, what if YouTube changes their video format down the road to UltraFlash, or supports more than one plug-in? We wouldn't want all the YouTube ELs in Wikipedia to suddenly be wrong. The template seems like the best solution to me. Then there's the matter of links in a table like in YouTube Awards. The template in its present form doesn't work so well for these links. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a long-standing rule (by which I mean "since May 2004") that I have repeated in the WP:YT section, because people get pointed at WP:YT and miss paragraph above (WP:YT is only half of WP:EL#Rich media).
I specifically added that as an example for the convenience of editors that don't know what software is required. That is, I'm trying to make it very easy for them to do The Right Thing by our readers with slow connections, not to impose a novel rule.
(Western editors who think all of this is unnecessary because they and their best friends personally have excellent internet connections are invited to read about about the bandwidth of a passenger pigeon.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize this. I'm sorry for inferring that it's a new rule. What I was trying to say is that the enforcement effort is more recent, as evidenced by the addition of "Adobe Flash Video" to {{youtube}} on 11 August 2009. With the addition of this specific example to the guideline, we may want to also reference the template. We should keep this issue in mind for other types of rich media that are website specific. For example, {{youtube}} is much better in this case than creating something generic like {{flash-media}} that won't follow changes in YouTube specific operations. YouTube can start serving up all their video in an alternate format overnight. In fact, they're already starting to for mobile phones. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Some editors like templates, and others don't. Special:Linksearch doesn't 'see' templates, so the WP:SPAM folks are sometimes unhappy with them.
In the event that YouTube changes its file format, we could always have a bot update all the labels. I don't think it's very likely to happen any time soon, however, so I don't think that it's something that we really need to worry about right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not normally used in the body of an article

Like some of the editors above, I often find external links in the body of the article (I seem to notice this when following a linkspam trail). In Prattville, Alabama#Media we find two external links that identify a local newspaper and a community magazine (and here is an SPA who added a lot of links to one of those). This is not the place to resolve the particular issue, but it would help if the guideline were to give some guidance on issues like this. I suppose the answer is "it depends ... discuss on article talk page", but can't the guideline be more helpful? I would want some wording to the effect that if a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, then add a link to the article (whether blue or red); if notability is not currently apparent, do not have any kind of link to the topic. Also, it would be helpful if "not normally used in the body" were in a specific section to provide an easy link, for example in an edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

External links in the body of the text are to be discouraged. Not having a wikipedia article is not an excuse to link to the external site. You say that this concerns a link to a newspaper in Prattville, Alabama on the page Prattville, Alabama, there the link is also not directly linked to the article, that link would be appropriate on the page of the newspaper in the external links section (and/or the infobox), not here. I generally convert them to wikilinks, sometimes the link is suitable as a reference and I choose that method. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The wording you've suggested is a good idea; that's the policy I already use. If it's likely that the subject may be notable enough that at some point an article will be created on it, I change the extlink to a redlink; if not, I just remove it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Bibleverse is used prolifically in article bodies.

There are probably more examples within Category:Bible link templates and Category:Islamic text templates? eg Template:Cite quran is used inline at Dhimmi. There appears to be an abandoned/historic attempt to cleanup the bible cites at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. Can of worms. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't those templates just being used as proper <ref>s? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It shouldn't be difficult to transition them in any case. I wouldn't consider sorting out that particular instance of misuse to be a prerequisite for sorting the wording in the guideline out. Inline citation has actually been discouraged for about five years now, after all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, we may have a jargon mis-match here. WP:CITE#Inline citations are highly recommended. WP:CITE#General references (the opposite of inline citations) are discouraged. Did you perhaps mean WP:CITE#Embedded links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Yep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wind Rivers link

I added what I believe is a legitimate external link but it was removed. The link was to the website http://www.outpostusa.org/14.Expeditions/WindRivers/WindRivers.htm, which includes a weeklong backpacking trip through the Wind Rivers complete with numerous photographs. The website OutpostUSA.org does not sell anything, is not a blog, does not promote a company (such as an outfitter) and adds textual and visual information to the entry on the Wind Rivers. I believe this link should be reinstated. --Dan Omlor

Since your question relates to a specific link rather than to changing the policy about links, your concerns should go to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard instead of here. I have taken the liberty of creating a new section there and copying your comment to it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Shadowrun external links

Hey. Can some people take a jaunt over to the Talk:Shadowrun page and let us know what you think about an external link. Basic story, the S-Run community site, [2], was removed in an EL purge some time ago when the site was gone. Now it has returned in a new guise and the people running the site want to add the external link back into the Shadowrun page. This was removed by several editors from the article as a non-notable fansite and conflict of interest spamming. However now many people from the site have come over and are making arguments as to why it should be included. Myself and another couple of editors can't see how it meets the standards of the external links as it offers no encyclopaedic content in addition to the article, however it's getting out of hand with editors coming from S-Run itself. Long story short, can we get some more neutral eyes on the topic to see if some decision can be reached on this one. Don't mind the final outcome, but this single discussion now takes up the majority of the page and it getting nowhere. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll want to move this to our new External Links Noticeboard. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realise we had one of those. :) Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

28 links at Neo-druidism

At the moment the external links section is basically a directory. I removed all but the general links but that was reverted. I'm not sure where to go from here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added this topic at the new External Links Noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Refencing youtube

Is it okay to reference YouTube in some cases such as the amount of views of a video, as the article Evolution of Dance does? 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, considering it's number one on youtube. I would however point out that it may not be for forever, so a dated thirdparty source with clout saying as much would be more reliable. Maybe ref both for the best possible outcome. Generally youtube isn't linked on Wikipedia, but this may be an exception for the topic. JoeSmack Talk 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if it is a legitimate, legal video. For example, in Grizzly Rage, official RHI making of featurettes are referenced as they are legal and legit. If its unsure is the uploader is the legal copyright holder, then no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In the future, you might prefer to post questions like this to the reliable sources noticeboard, which is watched by editors with a lot of experience with this issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

template question

Hi. A template has been affixed to a band article that lists the band's fan pages on social networking sites, and a couple of other external links that concern the band, at The Shells (folk band). Can someone suggest to me whether the existing links are in fact in violation of the guidelines here (I thought not)? And, if so, what need be done to remove the template? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have done a good job cleaning out the most obvious problems (e.g., the Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook links, all of which are duplicated in large type on the front page of the official website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. Agreed -- I actually think this looks much better.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDb and Last.fm

Just to solve a little dispute, do these sites meet EL requirements? Or would their inclusion in an article be considered spam?  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like these sites, and I think that they frequently provide very limited information. Different pages have different amounts of detail, though, so you'll need to consider each in turn.
In general, so many different non-newbie editors have posted them that I think we have a "consensus" for permitting them in at least selected articles. Note that this doesn't prove that this is good, but only that it is done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem regarding the use of them for the artist or artwork in question. Last FM is a great resource for finding similar sounding bands. Imdb is a well known database of movies, and provides plenty of (useless) interesting trivia. TvTropes is similar. All three websites provide trivial information that wouldn't be of an encyclopedia nature to include on wikipedia, therefore they are perfect external links alongside the "official" website for that article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think their inclusion should be on a case-by-case basis, a blanket acceptance or ban isn't necessary as there are some pages on the sites which are helpful and some which are not. ThemFromSpace 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's clear that the IMDb main page for each movie violates WP:EL due to the lack of useful info and all the user comments displayed on the page. I have linked to the IMDb credits page for a movie. The {{imdb}} template only links to the main page, so I think it should be retargeted or deleted. I don't think there is consensus to link to the main page. We just have a lot of lazy editors who only use the template because they think that anything with a template is approved. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{imdb}} should not be used without the required id parameter. Pointing to the main page would not be helpful or interesting to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think UncleDouggie means the difference between the movie's main page, and the movie's credits page. eg http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/ vs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/fullcredits (using the FA 300 (film) as an example)
I disagree, and think there is consensus to link to the [movie's] main page, because we're not just linking to imdb for the credits. We're linking to it for all the "material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" from full credits to trivia, goofs, trailers, posters, dvd details, etc etc etc. Ditto for lastfm, and the dozens of other usual EL suspects.
As has been said numerous times over the years, these kind of links should be judged on a case by case basis, and keeping in mind the subjective nature of this inclusionism/exclusionism dispute. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about the movie's main page vs. the movie's credits page. It's not possible to give the template a parameter such as "0416449/fullcredits", although this could probably be fixed. I respect that in some cases it may be appropriate to link to a movie's main page. What I have found in my limited number of cases is that the credits page was more useful as a source and the main pages didn't offer much that wasn't already in the Wikipedia articles. I've never included IMDb as an external link myself. Hopefully linking it as a source was OK. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The {{imdb}} templates are only intended for the EL sections. {{Cite web}} should instead be used for the sources sections, which also makes linking to a specific subpage easy! Assuming RS is satisfied, of course. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You're correct of course. Since I did experiment with the template once, I must have been adding an EL after all. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these links too commercial?

Location hypotheses of Atlantis has a large number of links, far too many in my opinion (some are also references). I removed two today, one a blog, both full of ads, and they've been restored. Are they in fact within our guidelines? Here's the diff where they were restored [3] and the links are [4] and [5]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

One seems like an adsense scraper site, and the others a blog....doubt theres any value in including them.--Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Try posting this to the new noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Question first though, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" - is a wiki open if you have to register to edit? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If I can go to a wiki right now, create an account, and say the world is flat, and that gets published... that is an open wiki. 2005 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a good description of an open wiki :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is an 'open Wiki'?

Starting a new discussion as there is disagreement on this specific issue here and at the new notice board [6] as to whether [[7]] is an open Wiki. There I'm told it isn't an open Wiki and thus can be an EL, here I'm told it is - which I think is the case. But the disagreement suggests we need to be more specific in our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not an issue of a disagreement between two communities. The question was fragmented by being posting in two different places. Let's finish the discussion over at the noticeboard before coming back here to discuss any changes to the guideline. I've posted two questions on the noticeboard towards this end. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal websites

About this change:

The point is that if (name of celebrity here) has a website or Facebook page leftover from his/her school days, and it doesn't say anything about (whatever the person is notable for), then Wikipedia should not link to that page. I'm not sure why this would be considered confusing, or why avoiding linking to pages that aren't actually informative would be deemed unhelpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the matter. On the one hand, I understand the argument you give above. On the other hand, one purpose of an official link is the allow readers to access the subject's own perspective on themselves. If the subject thinks that their grandkids are the most important thing in their lives, and whatever they are notable for is not worth discussing, then that seems to be a legitimate perspective for them to have. If the site appears to have been abandoned by the subject (like ye olde Facebooke page), then I think it should be avoided. But if it is an active site, just not about what makes the subject notable, then we may want to be more lenient. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not expert on this, but I can see both sides. I may not know the applicable rule, but I do know that in practice people who are notable often have information about their personal lives and families (and pets) in their Wiki articles, for example. True, I've seen some disagreements as to whether some personal information should be there, and perhaps there is a rule that says it is OK if it relates to their notability, but practice goes far beyond that. Obama's kids (at what point in time did they become notable?), Nixon's dog Checkers (I guess mention in a speech clearly made him notable), and Scott Schoeneweis's wife (suicide that interrupted his season) may be easy cases, but I think that many notable persons attract coverage in articles that are reliable sources about their families (just think of most media guides as to athletes of US and European major sports teams). It's a tricky area.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about article content (in which case, the rule is that if it's in all the newspapers, it can be in the article). This is about official external links. Unless the person is "famous for being famous", I really don't see a justification for including links to information that is really quite unrelated to the person's notability. I think our readers want to know Yo-Yo Ma's views on the cello, not his views what he ate for dinner last night.
For Paris Hilton, there's not much difference. But for the thousands of people with borderline notability, it doesn't make sense. A university professor or business owner ought to be able to have a Facebook page with notes from his past students, or with pictures of his grandkids' birthday parties, without all of Wikipedia's readers being directed to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't get what you think an "official" site is now. Of course people want to know about celebrities eating habits and stuff like that. The justification for such sites has always had overwhelming consensus. Offcial sites are linked. LOL, we aren't the official sites police. It's not our business how a celebrity uses their official site. 2005 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If a celebritywants to make their website about their grandkids, that's fine. Your argument makes things even more confusing. We are talking about official sites here. What exactly are you objecting to, and how can you state it coherently? Every personal website will have personal details. At what point does it tip your personal scale of being too personal.. 24%? 72%? C'mon, this is just way, way past WP:CREEP, and our guidelines should not encourage silly arguments on talk pages. If there is one official site, link to it. if there are multiple official sites, there is a criteria for including more than one. The "personal" nature is not a concept that should ever be considered. 2005 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Official links (by our definition) are required to be about whatever the person is notable for. Wikipedia does not write biographies solely about celebrities. Presumably celebrities have a publicity staff that will try to kill off old or personal pages. The restriction on websites that are primarily personal (personal = NOT official) is to drive home the point that if you can't find an "official-about-whatever-they're-notable-for" website, then you don't link to whatever you can find just because you can find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You are very much mistaken in your idea. Official sites do not need to be about what the person is famous for. Why would you want that? Some famous actor can have his painting site linked to. That is no problem. A famous person can have multiple interests that people interested in the famous person can appreciate. Likewise our articles mention people have kids, or grew up in Peoria... which are not thinsg they are famous for. External links follow on that. 2005 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, please don't bring non-official websites into this disussion, that confuses things even more. The issue is only official websites of the subject of the article. There ahs never been any restriction on the content of these, and there is no point in starting now. 2005 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to determine whether you believe it is even possible for any person to have a non-official website. If the CEO of a high-tech company has a website about his home garden, is that an official website in your opinion? According to the definition you've forced into this page, it most certainly would be, because it is "controlled by the subject", even though it has nothing to do with the subject's notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what your opinion is of whether something is an entity's official site, and I don't care what my opinion is on that either. I only care if John Smith sayd "this is my official website". If John Smith says that, then it is hsi official site, and it should be linked. People have have dozens or hundreds of websites. That is not the topic of the official sites guidance. My goodness, how did you tangle yourself up like this? Everything that is not an official website is not an official website! LOL 2005 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Tricky area. Interesting point about expectations of privacy. Taking the university professor example, with the focus raised on his expectation of privacy ... if he wants to limit who can see what he puts out on a social networking site, he often can. Or he can limit what he puts on the site. If he shares the information in a public manner, hasn't he perhaps waived any right to an expectation of privacy? This also brings to mind things such as Spitzer's prostitute -- her social networking page seemed to be of enormous interest to people, despite its arguable lack of connection to her notability, and isn't the fact that she shared that information publicly enough? Just a thought.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If something is an official website there is no privacy concern. The person deliberately published the website, and officially stands behind it. 2005 (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I also just removed the completely new and erroneous concept added that official websites must meet some "51% must be about the the thing the person is famous for" as this is utterly unhelpful and directly against years of all prior consensus. 2005 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your undiscussed changes, because the text there was discussed, at length, in at least two separate conversations. (It also didn't specify any particular percentage, which is a strange idea anyway. I doubt any two editors would agree on a method for calculating that percentage.) I think you need to demonstrate a consensus for changing this text, since a consensus existed for adding it.
If anyone else thinks that links that have nothing to do with the subject's notability should be given a free pass from all other considerations as "official websites", please say something.
Editors have, in repeated conversations on this and other pages, been able to identify circumstances in which a website (or other link) for a person (1) would exist and (2) would not be a useful, encyclopedic, or appropriate link. For example, consider Henri Paul, who became notable literally overnight, by virtue of being the driver when Princess Diana died. If he had a website the day before the wreck to share photos of his children and talk about his garden, would you consider that his "official" website? I certainly wouldn't. "Bona fide" and "official" have different meanings. If he put up a website to communicate with the public about his driving or about the wreck, I'd be perfectly happy with it. But publishing a link to his family photos would have as much encyclopedic value as publishing his home telephone number -- another thing that Wikipedia doesn't do, even when we can verify that the number is True™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop adding that section that has never been discussed, and 100% reverses the longstanding consensus of this guideline. What are you thinking here? I have never even seen anyone ever express such an idea, let alone try and cram it into the guideline without discussion. You are simply being incomprehsible here. So an actress with a three page website only focused on acting gets an official external link, but an actress with three pages about acting and 10 pages about charity, and five about her family, and six about her travels can not? It's completely absurd, and it's even more absurd to invite disputes on articles where some majoritorian formula is used to be sure somebody doesn't talk about their family too much. The longstanding consensus on this page, and the practices of tens of thousands of editors is clear... if a person has an official site, at least one must be linked -- regardless of whether 51% of the pages about the person's fame or not. 2005 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Who appointed you king? The text has been in the guideline since 11 September 2009. There were extensive discussions here and here. It's fine if you want to start a new discussion, but that should come before any editing. Please post links to the past discussions you mentioned instead of engaging in an edit war. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Missed the most important link. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be rude, and don't make up nonsense. None of those discussions relates to this change so don't say they do. My goodness why would you say such a thing? There was never any discussion of this change. It is totally out of line to make a change that 100% alters the guideline. It has been the guideline that official sites must be linked. The Bill Gates article links to his official foundation site even though it has nothing to do with his "fame", Microsoft... and the guideline has been explicit on this point for a long, long time. There has never been any discussion, or even a proposal, that we stop linking to sites like Gates' Foundation one or others that are not majority about the principal fame of the subject. making such a 100% change in the guideline would require an extensive discussion and request for comment, not an addition that was never discussed. 2005 (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with everything you have said here. However, you seem more interested in making attacks than discussing anything so I'll wait for opinions from other editors. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would you even post more rudeness, without even addressing the issues, including that you completely made up that this had been discussed before? Why don't you just apologize for that and move on? 2005 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Official websites should be linked, regardless of what proportion is personal information and what proportion isn't. The people who create official websites have control over them, so they dictate what goes on them and what does not. It is their responsibility to reveal as much or as little personal information as they want. Wikipedia should not judge the content of an official website unless it fails Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
User:2005, you've basically said that if any person is unlucky enough to meet WP:BIO, then Wikipedia does not allow him (or her) to have any personal links on the internet. Every single thing that the person does or says qualifies as an official site, merely because it's his.
I really don't think this is the appropriate standard. It should be possible for a person to have a nonofficial website, and for that website to be linked (or not) according to our normal rules, instead of according to the "definitely link it no matter what, because it's an official website" rules. Is that what you really want? For us to declare that vacation snapshots posted by a person who happened to be caught up in a major event are "official"? What connection does that have to the meaning of the word official ("of or belonging to duty, service, or office") here? Would Terry Schiavo's vacation snapshots tell the world something about her "duty, service, or office"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What is official is whether the person has control over it. If the person (or his or her estate, for dead people) chooses to post this content, then that is their problem, not ours. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So people that we deem to be notable, even over their objections, are allowed zero privacy and anything they do at all becomes "official". The definition of "official" you support is "controlled by", instead of "having something to do with their office." So if the CEO of a high-tech company starts a personal website about his dogs, then that's all "official business", even though it has nothing to do with his position as the CEO of a company, right? You refuse to admit even the possibility that any of the three-quarters of a million biographies might cover a person with a non-official website, correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding "zero privacy " and "over their objections" - When have people not wanted their websites to be linked? Really, if they don't want information on a publicly viewable website scoured by visitors, they should not keep it publicly viewable (i.e. they should remove the content or put a password on the website)
Is the CEO of a high tech company the subject of the article? If not, then his personal website shouldn't be included. If so, weigh it along with the other personal websites. If there aren't very many links, then we could include it. If there are many links, then only include the most relevant to the person's lineof work.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The intent is to include official sites that cover the subject(s) for which a person is notable. In the case of Bill Gates, he is notable for both his co-founding of Microsoft and for his foundation. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't have the foundation where it not for Microsoft. If the hypothetical CEO above adds 1000 pictures of his dog to his official site one day, we shouldn't automatically unlink it so long as it is still the best available official site that covers his area of notability. We should not link to sites unrelated to a person's area of notability just because the notable person controls the content. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, the subject of a biographical article would have one or more websites that have content related to his or her occupation or notability. If there is an excessive number of external links, I suppose we can trim those that have less to do with why the person is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I prefer one official site that best covers the area(s) of notability. In the case of multiple areas of notability, one site per area may be required depending on how the person has segmented their official site(s). UncleDouggie (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Whisper, you need to pick one position or the other. Either it's "What is official is whether the person has control over it" or "his personal website shouldn't be included." Either the CEO's website about his home garden (or dog, or grandkids) is official, and therefore should be linked, or it's personal, and therefore should not be linked. Assume for the sake of this discussion that this website is the only internet presence that this individual really controls, and that it contains absolutely nothing about what the person is notable for. Which of these two mutually incompatible statements reflects your current opinion on this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
WhatamI: "his personal website shouldn't be included" was in "If not, then his personal website shouldn't be included" - As in "if the article is not a biographical article about the person himself/herself, then don't include the website" - There is no contradiction in what I said. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So if John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, has a Flickr account with photos of his dog, or his garden, or his grandkids' birthday party, then you'd link that to his Wikipedia biography specifically as an official link, right? Despite the fact that his dog, his garden, and his grandkids have nothing to do with why there's a long article about him on Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If that was truly the only account/website he had, yes. I would imagine that the particular scenario doesn't happen very often, as usually people's main personal websites are usually about their work. usually links to other social networking sites are easily found on the main website domain. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. That has been the guideline for freaking ever, and lterally tens of thousands of editors have added official sites in compliance with it. I couldn't care less if you don't like what John Chambers or anyone else wants to call his official website. It's his official site. 2005 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, why do you keep bringing up this wildly irrelevent junk? The issue here is official sites. An official site is the official web presence of an entity. If somebody, like Bill Gates his official website to be a Foundation one, fine. privacy and "over their objections" are nonsense strawmen. It is literally impossible for a person to put up an official website and not want to have an official website at the same time! You haven't made a single argument as to why we should be the official site police, nor why you think we need to start deleting Bill Gates' foundation website. Don't flow your own confusion over into the guideline. When it comes to the first official site, there has never been anything but a crystal clear consensus, which is an official site should be linked. there is no value at in in editors now fighting over whether and official site should be linked because somebody has a photo of their dog on it. 2005 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of "official links" on Wikipedia are not labeled as official sites by the subject of the article. You've given Bill Gates as an example: there's not a single word on either of his "official links" that says they are official links. I'd be astonished if even 5% of corporate websites went to the trouble of saying "This is our official website."
We get questions on this issue, and therefore we need to give some guidance to editors about what constitutes an official link for Wikipedia's purposes -- and consequently, what doesn't constitute an official link for Wikipedia's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Making a break

My two cents, to try to narrow some of the issues: Having thought about it, my view is a) there is no legitimate expectation of privacy where the subject has a site (including a social networking site) -- this is because by posting anything to it in a manner that allows the public to access it, he has made it public information rather than private information; and b) as editors we are probably not well equipped to say what information is or is not notable; as with Spitzer's prostitute, where her social networking page was of enormous interest to people, despite its arguable lack of connection to her notability, so I would not favor a rule that would for example lead us to exclude reference to that site in that situation.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated in Ashley Alexandra Dupré, her area of notability is prostitution. How could we possibly say that her myspace page isn't directly applicable? No matter what word games we play with "personal" sites, her myspace page is going to get linked under WP:IAR if nothing else. On John Chambers (CEO), his official site is controlled by Cisco. Since he is the CEO, it's safe to say that he can direct the content. However, what about a VP of Cisco? Does he really have control over his corporate page? Should it be his official site? UncleDouggie (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche, do you think your "no expectation of privacy" idea hold up when the person becomes suddenly notable? For example, Wikipedia had an article until recently on Christina Desforges, who died supposedly because her boyfriend at a peanut butter sandwich many hours before kissing her (peanut allergies), but actually because she was smoking marijuana (asthma). Her notability appeared entirely as a result of her death. If she had a website at the time of her death -- a website that was created when she was essentially anonymous, and that she couldn't possible have changed the second she achieved notability -- then do you think that she would not be entitled to some consideration of privacy, or should such a link always be included?
What if the 'notability' is stale? If Elián González opened a MySpace account, would you link that just because he was in the news when he was six years old? Are Jaycee Lee Dugard's choices limited -- for the rest of her life -- to either "no websites at all" or "websites definitely advertised to the entire world on Wikipedia", even if she wanted to have a website or a Twitter link that had absolutely nothing to do with being kidnapped? If she's posting pictures of her dog in fifty years, do you think that should be her "official" website? What exactly do you think the value of such a link would be for readers?
Note, please, that the question is about official websites -- websites that are currently exempted from every single item in WP:ELNO, including malware. A non-official website by the subject could still be included if it met the usual rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Responding to WhatamIdoing -- Yes, I think my "no expectation of privacy" view applies as well when the person becomes suddenly notable. The person has waived the expectation of privacy when they listed the information publicly. No right of privacy suddenly adheres simply because they have become notable. While their sudden notability may impact the interest that the public has in their information, if they've waived it then they've waived it. As to your next question, I think we could not even measure if notability gets stale -- for that reason we don't pull down Wikipedia articles based on stale notablity concepts either. People who the public had interest in while they held public office or played pro sports are often of interest after their moments of fame anyway, so yes I would allow the linking to the site of Elián González years later. I think that many of these websites often allow the user various levels of publicity -- so its not necessarily a "no websites at all" issue. If she chooses setting or a website that allow access to the entire world, that is the her choice. (Then again, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your personal opinion. I don't think that your opinion is shared by most editors, and it's certainly different from mine, but I'm glad to know what your view actually is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. As to others sharing the view that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as to information posted publicly on social networking sites, you may be interested in this and this.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"I expect some people to see this" is different from "I expect one of the most heavily trafficked websites of all time to post a URL that explicitly identifies this URL as being controlled by a person who was kidnapped and raped for years". Under 2005's proposed definition, the website doesn't have to say "Jaycee Lee Dugard's Official Website". It could be merely "www.flickr.com/photos/jd1234" or "www.myspace.com/anon0000", with no name or other identifying information anywhere on the site, so long as it's controlled by the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The links that Epeefleche referred to shows that, in a court of law, the "while I posted it online myself, I did not expect it to become so well trafficked or so significant" does not work as a legal defense strategy. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Tx. Moreover, it suggests that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information when it is posted to such a site, if made available to the general public. As the first reference says: "The presumption that a user does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to information posted on a social networking site is strengthened by the fact that ... Facebook's policy actually states, "[p]lease keep in mind that if you disclose personal information [on your page] ... this information may become publicly available." Since these sites' privacy policies recognize and even caution that any posted information may become public, a user may not be able to contend reasonably that such information is private...."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
User:2005's definition does not require the website to contain personal information. It applies to links with no name or other identifying information anywhere on them, so long as it's controlled by the subject. It is not reasonable for "Anonymous1000", who says nothing at all about her identity, to expect her link to be associated with an article about being kidnapped and raped, even if she controls the website. User:2005's definition does not require voluntary disclosure of anything. What part of "anonymous" are you not grasping here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Any link that cannot be proved as coming from the subject of the article should not be listed. I think what 2005 was referring to was an account clearly by the subject of the article, but at a time when he/she wasn't as well known. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I support restoring the stronger language indicating that an official site needs to be about, or representative of, the subject's work. WP:EL is needed to provide guidance for choosing external links that help Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose. The only reason for mentioning "official links" is to provide an exemption from WP:EL so that the official site for a subject does not have to be a unique resource or freely accessible, etc. However, there should be a good reason to believe that a site is the official site for a subject and isn't just someone with the same name. If a scientist has a Facebook page where none of the scientist's work is described, that page should not be exempt from WP:EL because we are not a gossip column, and external links need to inform the reader, not just entertain them. A link to the Facebook page for a subject should not have an automatic exemption from WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) That isn't what User:2005's changes said. That's what you're guessing a reasonable person would probably interpret it as. Pages like this have to be written so that reasonableness isn't required of all parties. (2) Your assumption doesn't address the case of some scandal-mongering publication 'outing' the BLP subject's website. If a BLP subject has made every reasonable effort to be anonymous, but The National Enquirer bribes someone into disclosing the connection, would you still link it? Under what User:2005 wrote, linking it as an official site would be the natural conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

EL and museums etc.

Hey all, just dropping a note here to say that, following a discussion at WP:CoI about museums/libraries/archives we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. I expext this will become "WP:GLAM" and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. Sincerely, Witty Lama 05:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ELs of official websites archived on web.archive.org

User:AnmaFinotera removed the archives of the official website of Central Park Media, saying that talk page discussions prohibited linking to archives of official websites in the infoboxes and in the external links sections: [8] - Central Park Media is a defunct company, so its website is no longer active When I asked her about this on her talk page, she said that there is a consensus to always remove External links that are archived on web.archive.org. She cited Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 23#Linking to archive, a discussion about linking to official external links In this revision of her talk page, I stated on her talk page that, after looking at the link, I have no reason to believe that a consensus was reached in that discussion - The flow of the discussion and the division between the individuals who advocated always removing She asked me to consult WP:EL The following featured articles, as of writing, link to archived sites in their external links sections: Super Mario 64, Encyclopædia Britannica (Scotland and the Ultimate reference book), and Metabolism (The Nitrogen cycle and Nitrogen) So, should we have a policy where we should never to web.archive.org? If so, we should update WP:EL to state this clearly. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my remarks in the discussion, ELs should never include any kind of archive link to an official site, including Archive.org links. Beyond failing WP:EL's requirement that links be functional, they are completely pointless and server no purpose. "See the old dead site"? That is not the purpose of external links. Archive links are okay for references because it is referencing a specific point of data that is available. Archive links to a full site are almost always broken and non-functional. Either the article has an official site, or it doesn't, not "it used to have one and here is a partial view of what it kinda sorta looked like" which adds no encyclopedic value to the article. I would think this would be common sense and not need explicit statement, but if it would avoid future arguments, I agree EL should be updated to more clearly state - only LIVE active sites should be linked, not archived copies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:External links#What to link - The functional part says "Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?" - I believe what that refers to is whether the link actually works and whether it is likely to remain working for the long term. I do not believe this is saying that pages that work but are no longer at their original locations are prohibited. I believe it is asking if the content is visible and working. There are archived pages which are totally not functional (those should be removed), but there are also archive pages which are fully or mostly functional.
"Archive links to a full site are almost always broken and non-functional" - Web.archive.org specifies a listing of dates. If none of them have any meaningful content that is accessible, then I agree the link should be removed. In many cases I notice that one or more dates in a given web archive have accessible content. As long as some dates have some accessible content, then we should link to the archive.
""it used to have one and here is a partial view of what it kinda sorta looked like" which adds no encyclopedic value to the article." - In some cases it is 100% accurate, and in some cases it is partially accurate, but as long as there is some functional content, I believe that having archived pages adds some value. We have screenshots of what pages used to look like, so we ought to link to pages to show what they looked like.
Here is an example of an archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.centralparkmedia.com/ - As an example, most of the functionality at http://web.archive.org/web/19961224074316/http://www.centralparkmedia.com/ is available. Some images are broken, but most of the content is still available.
In any case, I support the view of linking to archived sites on a case by case basis, depending on what has been archived and the usefulness of the links. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'd go quite as far as never, but I'd be willing to get awfully close to it. Certainly in the instance of non-official links (e.g., Metabolism), it would be very difficult to convince me that this was a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In what circumstances would you support including web.archive.org external links (in official and in non-official circumstances)? And as a note regarding the previous discussions and copyright, companies have a way of preventing web.archive.org from archiving their content (robots.txt), so if companies don't do it, then we should rightfully assume that they consented to their material being archived WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I might consider a web.archive.org link for a website that was notable for an innovative design, assuming that the relevant design work was visible. I'm not convinced that I'd link it as an official link (I'd have no reservations about doing so as a reference), but I'd at least consider it.
Most businesses don't know that the Internet Wayback Machine exists. I've only heard of one person attempting to remove a website from it, and the website is still visible (as of one minute ago, and I believe he put up the robots.txt file during the summer). So I don't think we can assume consent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php - "While we collect publicly available Internet documents, sometimes authors and publishers express a desire for their documents not to be included in the Collections (by tagging a file for robot exclusion or by contacting us or the original crawler group). If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice." WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a nice theory. Here's the data: A robots.txt file was put up, like their directions instruct, and the site is still visible in the archive. Now, I grant that it's a sample size of one, but that's the only data I have. Do you have any data that indicates that the removal process actually works? Or are you just trusting their words instead of looking at their actions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Internet Archive explains the removal process in this page: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php - It tells the user how to set up the robots.txt site, and it also tells the user to submit the URL of his website to a contact form. - Now, as for the "success rate" of the process, I have encountered sites blacklisted by robots.txt. When I tried to access the archives of China Yunnan Air, http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.chinayunnanair.com was totally blocked by robots.txt. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So now we have two data points: one site owner who objects and is still listed, and one site owner who objects and is not listed. (I wonder whether the dates matter. I have wondered on occasion whether the archive is actively archiving anything; if they aren't, then an objection registered years ago would be honored, but an objection registered this summer would not.) An even split isn't exactly confidence inspiring when it comes to presuming consent.
More importantly, I don't think that WP:COPYLINK is the primary reason to avoid using archived sites as External links. They have only partial functionality (which does not serve our readers well), and they don't represent the current POV of the website's owner (which is the primary purpose of the official link exemptions). On the whole, I think that while there may be some justifiable exceptions, these should generally be deprecated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it be alright if I message all of the people who contributed to the previous discussion to inform them of the new one? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS is the relevant standard. I might suggest the simpler option of leaving a single note at the previous discussion itself, rather than individually identifying each and every editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not possible because the archives explicitly say "Do not edit the contents of this page" - Also there weren't many editors who participated in the previous discussion. What I'm think of is leaving a link to this discussion with the message "At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll post the message above to the editors in the previous discussion who do not already know about it. (2005, WhatamI, and AnmaFinotera already know) - I notified Quiddity, Cojoco, Goodraise, Aervanath, and NE2. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any reason an archive.org link would ever be in the external links section. 2005 (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How does being web.archive.org make the link less useful? I can think of the following cases in which, IMO, a web.archive.org link is useful:
Official websites of companies that have ceased operation
Especially notable websites that have ceased operation (Pets.com, for instance)
General academic resources that have a broad amount of information (I.E. it would be not simply used once in a citation, but would be linked as a general resource for a topic) - For instance, in an aviation accident, if a copy of a final report of an incident is only hosted on web.archive.org, it would be in the topic's interest to have the general link in the external links section, even if that same link is also being used as a citation.
Banning all web.archive.org links, IMO, from the WP:EL sections would make Wikipedia a less useful resource
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
External links should not duplicate citations. This is an obvious extension of WP:ELNO #1, and has broad support. For official links, instances in which a specific part of a much larger work has been cited, and perhaps in rare WP:IAR-worthy instances, a duplication or near-duplication may be appropriate, but generally it's deprecated. This is also a tangential issue that is not specific to archive.org
Generally speaking, there appears to be broad support for linking "live" websites and not linking mirrors (of which archive.org is only one of many). I don't see any support for your hope to change this consensus. I think you'd be better off talking to AnmaFinotera about whether the specific links you want to use merit an WP:IAR exemption. That's something that can be easily addressed by editors on the article's talk page, without trying to change the guideline to accommodate your position in this dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: My initial post said that AnmaFinotera wanted to always ban web.archive.org links in every instance. Because there is not a consensus for that, then we would be forced to talk about the specific WP:IAR link. There is not a consensus to block every web.archive.org link, so therefore we will go to that next stage. That is what several people in the previous discussion wanted: to look at web.archive.org links in a case by case manner. Yes, it is preferable to link to a live link as opposed to a web.archive.org link, but sometimes live links do not exist. In those cases one should link to web.archive.org. ::::WP:ELNO #1 says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." - My specific example refers to aviation accident final reports, which contain all of the investigative data done by the investigation country in an air accident. The general reference is so important to that kind of an article that it has to be included in the external links section, even if it also is being used as a reference. The aviation accident final report is "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." We can't describe every single finding, but the final report does do that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the keys to designating something as an "official" site is that it is "controlled by the subject". I do not see how this can apply to a third-party archive. The subject may have controlled the content of the site when it existed, but once a page is in the archive, the subject can no longer update it to reflect changes in viewpoint or even correct mistakes. At most, the subject may be able to have the page deleted from the archive. If the subject is a defunct organization or deceased person, the idea of them controlling anything is inapplicable. So the underlying notion of linking to a site that provides the subject's own viewpoint about itself is not applicable. Either no such viewpoint exists (because the subject no longer exists) or the linked page cannot be confirmed to represent the subject's current views. In short, I do not think any third-party archive should be considered an official link, ever. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For "the subject can no longer update it to reflect changes in viewpoint or even correct mistakes" - think of every day as a chance to "update" or "correct" this. Web.archive.org captures pages and sorts them according to their dates, so you will get to see both the later revisions, which may be corrected, and the earlier revisions, which have the initial content. Viewers get the chance to see the corrections, if the subject felt that any were necessary.
"So the underlying notion of linking to a site that provides the subject's own viewpoint about itself is not applicable" - People change their viewpoints all of the time. That is how people are. Just because the subject no longer holds A viewpoint, doesn't mean A viewpoint is no longer notable. As I have explained, web.archive.org captures all possible dates of a page, so we get the chance to see how viewpoints change, up until the termination of the page or site.
For deceased people, their estate controls the website. Instead of the person himself/herself, the estate would make the demands regarding the web pages.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to using archives as sources of information about the subject. But we're talking the use of an archive as an external link, when the live site is no longer available. (Unless someone is promoting the use of archives instead of a link to a site that is still live, which strikes me as obviously inappropriate.) The non-existence of the live site precludes the subject from updating it further, and the fact that archives capture snapshots is exactly the problem I'm talking about. The material on subjects' live websites can change constantly, and archive.org only captures specific-time snapshots of those. The subject's own viewpoint can change after the archive snapshot is taken, but the archive itself can't reflect that unless/until a new snapshot is taken. Consider an individual subject who changes his views on an important matter. Perhaps he had a website extolling his previous views, which he took down because he no longer holds those beliefs. An archive of the subject's own defunct site would actually misrepresent his current views! Probably this situation is the exception rather than the rule, but the general problem still holds: In linking readers to a live site, we can assume that the subject may change the content as their own will dictates. In linking readers to an archive, we cannot make that assumption.
As far as heirs (or successors of organizations) are concerned, they may have control over the subject's property, but they are not the subject. If the subject has ceased to exist, there simply can't be an official website. Any former official sites might be of interest for various reasons, and perhaps they may even be reasonable ELs in some cases, but they should not be treated with the sort of deference/preference that we give to official sites of subjects that still exist. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There are official websites of dead people operated by heirs, i.e. Osamu Tezuka's site http://tezukaosamu.net/ is operated by Tezuka Productions, the company he founded. Also in terms of current views one can tell what they are by seeing recent reliable sources that publish them. If the official website stops after X year, one will understand that the views were current until that year. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be a worthwhile clarification to make in the site description in each case. "Former official site" etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree with WhisperToMe that these are generally valuable links to retain. (And per my remarks in all the previous discussions)
If something has been publicly published, then it ought to be difficult to get it "wiped from existence". You cannot retract the things you published in your student days, even if they embarrass you now. The web just makes publishing (and re-publishing) faster and more potentially ephemeral. Unless the site has been actively removed with robots.txt, then it is more equivalent to a book going "out of print". It's potentially just as relevant as it was whilst "in print", but harder to find a copy.
This goes even more emphatically so for "official" sites.
It makes the web's history somewhat accessible. Almost like revisions of a wiki page.
A link to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http%3A//www.microsoft.com has the potential to be vastly more informative than (or alongside of) a direct link. If archive.org were more consistent and efficient, there'd be editors wanting to link to it by default in certain circumstances.
I still don't believe there was a consensus for the removal from this guideline of the advice to use archive.org, and would like to see that replaced. There was unhappiness about it elsewhere, that I noticed, but I can't find those threads immediately.
(I was already watching this discussion, but haven't had the time nor energy to contribute properly.) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That discussion is here, where you'll see that none of the six involved editors had a problem with this guideline no longer recommending the use of web.archive.org links under ==External links==. It's pretty hard to re-frame "100% support" as "no consensus".
There's nothing on this page that prohibits them, and as I've noted above, there are a few limited circumstances in which I think they would be reasonable. Other editors seem to have other opinions. I therefore think that this guideline should remain silent on the issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime I would like to discuss the former website of Central Park Media with AnmaFinotera. Should the first venue be the article talk page? Talk:Central Park Media. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've already given you my view there and it has not changed. An archive link of a former company's former website is not an appropriate EL and it does not belong on the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, yes, the article's talk page is the right place to start. After that, you may choose to look for other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Talk:Central Park Media has no comments. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
When I reverted their addition of the archive link, WhisperToMe started a discussion on my user talk page (archive of which is linked at the start of this topic). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll start on the talk page (Talk:Central Park Media). I'll explain more there. EDIT:Done. I'll also consult the Anime and manga project talk page and direct the subsection to the article talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I also linked to the CPM talk page from this subsection: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Archives_of_Central_Park_Media_official_website WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I notified WP:NYC of the discussion - AnmaFinotera already notified the Companies WikiProject here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#Archive_Link_in_EL_at_Central_Park_Media WhisperToMe (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In that archived thread, I view 2 of the participants as non-explicitly objecting to the change (Dispenser and Jmabel). They are objecting to the validity of the 'facts' used to endorse the change. Namely, whether there is any truth to the "copyvio site" charge leveled at the archive. Given that this claim is frankly ludicrous (publicly published means "it's out"), the whole premise for the removal was in error.
Look at any recently featured article with an EL section (Barbara L, Rhodotus, Virginia, Battle of the Alamo, etc...). If any of those sites listed, stop being renewed/developed/paidfor/available, that does not necessarily mean they are no longer worth linking to.
It obviously can't/shouldn't be done automatically or by default, simply because archive.org is inconsistent in quality (primarily due to technical issues with javascript/flash/databases/etc). But if good information for readers is still available via wayback, then we should assist in making it available via Wikipedia.
Whether in citations or ELs.
All of this goes doubly so for "official" sites.
The other old thread where editors expressed unhappiness was at Wikipedia talk:Dead external links#No reason to link to an archive copy of a page. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add my name to those who don't have a problem with archived version of now dead official sites. Yes, they aren't as good as live links, but I think an archived "last official version" is better than no link at all. I also think the current "no guidance" state of the policy is the correct way to go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the value of such links (links to archived copies of the websites of defunct companies), nor can I find anyone stating what that value might be in this discussion. Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By having the links, we know how the company presented itself and what services it offered. We know what the company's contact information. We can see how the company's website developed as time passed. Anyhow, I am fine with the consensus of "WP:EL should not say anything about it" and instead discuss each contentious link in the article talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That important information should be in the article, properly sourced. I don't see the value in providing access to old contact information of a defunct company. Likewise the ability to see how such a website changed over time. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Not every piece of information belongs in an article, and one WP:EL's criterion on whether to include an external link is: "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" - In the context of a defunct company, in which the original location of the website is dead, the surviving archives of its websites would be useful. The people who would want to know things like how the website developed, old contact information, product catalogs, etc are people who would be interested in the dead company to begin with. A criterion in links normally to be avoided is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" - So external links are supposed to link to material that would not necessarily be included in or referenced in the article itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that archived sites should be in infoboxes or listed as an official site in the EL section. Citations are OK. In some limited cases, a non-official EL may be appropriate so we shouldn't have a blanket ban. I've posted more detailed comments at Talk:Central Park Media. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that WP:EL should be silent about the matter. I am fine with that. :)
As for Talk:Central Park Media, the discussion on that page about that specific EL has not reached a consensus, so I am thinking of starting an RFC. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have started the RFC on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Section title "Important points to remember"

The title of the first section is descriptive of an attitude or an orientation that might better be termed "Read this first" or something more descriptive of it's contents.

The current title "Important points to remember" is slightly off for two reasons. 1) It contrasts with important three-year old essay titled Wikipedia is not that important" (having AfD, patrol, and adminship type links to it) 2) It contrasts with the guideline for naming section titles. As a heavily used editorial reference, it should attempt to be more of an example of neutrality. CpiralCpiral 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about what the section should be titled, but WP:WTA applies to the main namespace, not to project pages like this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality applies to both main and project namespaces. Do you believe that the word "Important" is neutral? (Do you believe the phrase "I don't feel strongly" is a reliable barometer?) Sincerely, CpiralCpiral 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope: WP:NPOV clearly says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view". It doesn't say that Wikipedia's own rules have to be neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Obviously guidelines aren't neutral. They are specifically intended to advocate certain behaviors and discourage others. --RL0919 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I was thinking of the guideline for talk pages (where it says "The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. ") Thank you. CpiralCpiral 04:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – WP:NPOV does not apply to policy pages.

First sentence

I found the first sentence of this guidance quite confusing when I read it (and reread it). I would suggest that it be revised to be clearer. Here is my first take (feel free to improve upon it or let me know if you think it is not an improvement over what we have now): "Each Wikipedia article may include as 'external links', set forth at the bottom of the article, certain links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but such external links should not normally be used as well in the body of the article."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you find confusing? Your statement above takes a clear concept and jumbles it up into something hard to understand. Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. External links don't normally go in the body of an article. 2005 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
As it stands today, the first reference to links is not limited to "external links". It is much broader: "links to web pages outside Wikipedia". Thus, I read it as referring to "all links to web pages outside Wikipedia" at first reading. Same with the reference later in the sentence to "they". If we can give the reader a clue at the outset that we are referring to a certain subset of "links to web pages". which subset btw would not include footnotes the way I have rewritten it, IMHO I think it will make for an easier read.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the editor finds the bad grammar confusing.
It should be re-written to say something like this: "Each Wikipedia article may include as 'external links', which are certain links to web pages outside Wikipedia. These links are set forth at the bottom of the article, under the heading External links, or in an infobox. They should not normally be used as well in the body of the article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I still find it confusing. How about: "External links are links to web pages outside Wikipedia. These links may be placed at the bottom of an article under the heading External links, or in an infobox. They should not normally be used in the body of an article." UncleDouggie (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that I'm not the only who found it confusing. The one issue that I have with your re-work is that it doesn't distinguish ELs from refs. Those are also "links to web pages outside Wikipedia." I would think we would want our intro sentence to leave the reader knowing that ELs have the characteristic you describe, but also the characteristic of not being footnotes/refs in the body of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. References are covered in-depth by the third paragraph. We could improve the intro with: "External links are links to web pages outside Wikipedia that are not citations of article sources. These links may be placed at the bottom of an article under the heading External links, or in an infobox. They should not normally be used in the body of an article."UncleDouggie (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. The guideline says that many times, including right at the very beginning, and then again at the beginning of the intro. We can't put it into every single line, and the guideline can't make sense if you expect every single sentence to answer everything about the guideline in that sentence. The last line of the intro could be moved to be the first, but that seems to be putting the cart before the horse since the hatnote already basically says the same thing. 2005 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I like UncleDouggie's version. This would be the fifth or sixth time we tell people that this page is not WP:RS, but I don't think that it will harm anything. Perhaps someone will actually read it. We could even link WP:CITE and WP:RS in the first sentence, in an effort to send people to the correct pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The full definition needs to be in the first sentence as I proposed above; the hatnote isn't sufficient. We could minimize the repetition by modifying the third paragraph as follows:
"The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links to web pages outside Wikipedia used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources." UncleDouggie (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the hatnote is not enough. I think it is a basic drafting concept that one defines terms in the first instance of the text, and think UncleDouggie's version goes in that direction. It's not about the number of times we alert the reader -- more about alerting them at the first mention of external link in the body of the article what it is we are referring to. Just my two cents.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this, but I like the UD's previous version better than the latest proposal. External links containing information not yet in the article may not be proper reliable sources, or the information itself may be unsuitable (see WP:ELYES). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that I'm looking at the same version you are looking at, I think it is less helpful than it should be, as reading the first sentence by itself leaves one with an overbroad understanding as to what ELs are. We should be able to be more helpful to the reader than that, IMHO, by either in effect identifying what ELs are at their first mention, or else using a qualifier such as "certain" before "links", alerting the reader that we will shortly narrow the phrase "links" by describing the characteristics that make up an EL.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an updated proposal to hopefully address everyone's concerns.

  1. Replace the first sentence with:
    "External links are links to web pages outside Wikipedia that are not citations of article sources. These links may be placed at the bottom of an article under the heading External links, or in an infobox. They should not normally be used in the body of an article.
  2. Replace the third paragraph with:
    If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider updating the article using the website as a source and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes links to web pages outside Wikipedia used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

UncleDouggie (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. Just one short suggestion: Change "citations of article sources" to "cited as footnotes" or "cited as references". Each of those is I believe a technical wiki term, whereas "article sources" is not and again as a generic phrase is probably overbroad.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"References" might be okay, I suppose, but "footnotes" usually refers to WP:FOOTNOTES. "Citations" seems to be the generally preferred term when you're talking about "the stuff you type so someone knows where this information came from". "References" seems to cause slightly more confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, "source" is a well-established bit of wikijargon. You'll find its formal Wikipedia-specific definition at the very end of WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Tx. Source seems over-broad -- it could include ELs. I'm trying to distinguish the specified sources from ELs. I thought references might work as invariably (almost) they will be listed in a list entitled References. But if footnotes are better, I'm OK with that as well I guess. Either is better than sources IMHO. I think you could replace the last four words in the first sentence with whatever you choose.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "citations of article sources" is the best phrase based on this quote from Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I ask for those that feel otherwise to please post references to the guidelines or policies that support their position. Thanks. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. The proposed rewrite is worse than the text it replaces. First, it changes the definition of external links to mean something different than established practice (both outside Wikipedia and in). An external link is a link to some other website, regardless of where it appears. The proposed rewrite uses a nonstandard definition, in that it says that external links are not external links if they appear in citations. Second, it far too prescriptive. It's perfectly OK to have a table with one column containing external links, for example, even if that table is not in the External links section. Perhaps there is something confusing about the current text (it's not clear to me from the above discussion what that would be), but the proposed revision is far more confusing than the origina. Eubulides (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As far as this guideline is concerned, a convenience link in a citation is not an external link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This rewrite is only to clarify what we already have. If you don't like the changes, this would seem to be proof that the current version is unclear and needs improvement. If you want to change the meaning of the guideline, please start a new section. An "external link" has always had a special definition. This is our only guideline for ELs, yet the hatnote currently states that "For the guideline on citation/reference links, see Wikipedia:Citing sources." Thus, any links in a citation/reference cannot be considered an EL today if you do enough parsing. For links in a table, it is always possible to invoke WP:IAR in special cases as I did myself recently in YouTube Awards. Besides, the restriction against using ELs in the body of an article is already in the guideline. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Link lists

WP:LINKFARM directs editors to this guideline but I am not seeing guidence on how to handle Lists that are a list of External Links (such as the ones found at Star party and Astronomical society) at this guideline or at WP:LIST. It seems to stradle WP:LIST, WP:EL, Wikipedia:Linking, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, WP:SPAM, and the tags {{linkfarm}}, {{Too many links}}, and {{cleanup-spam}} - although they are not technicaly SPAM (unless the editor is promoting their club). Is there some specific guidence I am missing? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not missing any more explicit guidance: AFAIK you've found it all.
Star party is a clear violation: Wikipedia is not a list of local organizations or a directory for events. I've killed that section (and would be happy to have several editors watchlist it for potential edit warring).
Astronomical society is probably okay. These links could reasonably be interpreted as WP:Embedded citations instead of WP:External links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You removed links to 7 articles that were within that list. See Category:Star parties. They should probably be replaced. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm open to that, but I'm inclined to kill the entire directory. Wikipedia isn't a directory of local events even when those local events have a Wikipedia article. A See also to Category:Star parties might be in order, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been said here more than once that we shouldn't link to a website for an organization just because we mention it in an article. That's not in the guideline in those words, but perhaps it should be. For the specific cases, I agree Star party article was violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and WP:NOTHOWTO in another section), and Astronomical society doesn't seem to be as bad. I don't see any harm in mentioning some specific examples of notable star parties in the Star party article, and wikilinking to the articles for those, but putting it in list format just invites additions of non-notable external links like the ones that were there. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it might be a bit of spambait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added it as ELNO #19 because it keeps coming up over and over. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
On the actual question (instead of the examples): Do people think that we should provide a specific piece of advice about lists of the sort seen in Star party? Or is the existing advice, although perhaps somewhat vague, good enough? Personally, I think it's probably good enough, but I am not firmly committed to that view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of a coincidence, as I just moved the Astronomical Society article and changed the tags on it without knowledge of this discussion. I removed the linkfarm template from that page because it appears that the external links in that page are there as malformatted references, which is along the lines of what WhatamIdoing said above. ThemFromSpace 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we purge all links to YouTube?

Per Wikipedia:ELNO#Links normally to be avoided #8 it would appear that YouTube links are now deprecated. If that is consensus I suppose {{YouTube}} should be nominated for deletion. __meco (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
From ELNO 8: "unless the article is about such rich media". If an article or section is about a work, and the work or an excerpt is lawfully available on YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, or another video host, the link falls under WP:ELYES. Likewise, in an article or section about an author of video, the author's own channel would appear to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL if the author doesn't have a proper web site elsewhere. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely, disqualification on technical grounds as is the case with ELNO8 overrides these other guidelines which focus on information content? __meco (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
By that logic, we should disallow any links to any kind of video, since you either need to install Flash, Quicktime or something like it, or download it and watch the video with a player which you have to install first, too. And anyhow, don't we regularly link to .pdf files? --Conti|✉ 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that would seem to be a logical next focus in correspondence with this doctrine. __meco (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In a way, yes. I'd rather we focus on the "doctrine" itself and its purpose, tho, before we follow it mechanically. The point of it is - I think - to discourage users to use such links, but not to disallow it entirely. I'm pretty sure that it does not mean that links to YouTube (or Quicktime videos, or pdf files) are now (why "now", anyhow?) deprecated. One should simply think twice before linking to such files/sites (not only for the reason cited here). --Conti|✉ 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No. That rule specifically addresses "Direct links to documents that require external applications...". This means that it's okay to link to "www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAYVa1cKC8k" (an HTML page) is okay, but that "s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch_v8-vfl126580.swf" (a Flash video file) is not.
Also, if this document universally deprecated YouTube links, that would be plainly stated at the WP:YOUTUBE section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This isn't what the guideline actually says, although I'll admit that it is somewhat inconsistent. ELNO #8 states: "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media." The note about "relevant content" implies that an HTML page with nothing more than embedded rich media is not permitted. However, this is contradicted by Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media. Also, the caveat "unless the article is about such rich media" implies that such a link is only acceptable if it is an official link and that the wikilink to the rich media section doesn't apply for a non-official link. Just what do we really want to say? I believe that the rich media section should apply to all links to rich media and that truly direct links should be permitted only for links about the rich media file format itself. No need to fret over official links since they are already exempt from ELNO. --UncleDouggie (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks like your complaint is due to a simple "editing only part of the sentence" issue. You can seen the change, which was made in July 2006. Once upon a time, Wikipedia had much more restrictive rules for External links, and this is an artifact of that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the page per my understanding of the consensus. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about those ogg files we put in our articles. Ban those too? Kill the whole WP:Featured sounds section? File:John F. Kennedy Inauguration Speech.ogv and File:January 2009 ISS tour.ogg are useless? No.

Oppose. Idealism must be balanced with realism. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Those files aren't "External links" for the purpose of this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:YOUTUBE already sets strict standards, and anything that is clearly a copyright violation is unacceptable. However, there may be occasions when a YouTube video meets all of the requirements of WP:EL, so there is no need for an outright ban. The current wording is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
How are "YouTube links […] now deprecated"? (my emphasis) As for the suggestion to nominate {{YouTube}} for deletion: the template has been considered for deletion twice, last in March/April this year. What has changed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deprecated is certainly different from banned. Unless the links are banned, I see no reason to delete {{YouTube}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

URL redirection avoidance vs. dead link maintenance

From WP:EL#Redirection sites:

It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link. For instance, if example.com is an automatic redirect to tripod.com/example, it is better to link to the exact page, even if the webmaster considers the redirect address to be more official.

This appears to contradict WP:EL#Longevity of links and established practice for status codes 302 and especially 307. The page on Tripod is likely to become dead more quickly. So to what page do we link if, say, example.com points to a different URL every day? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is caught by the 'generally preferred' in that sentence in the guideline. Or if longevity of such links is a serious problem, one could consider that maybe this is not such a suitable external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, you're assuming (I think) that both example.com and tripod.com/example showed the same page on the day that the editor placed the 'specific' link. What we don't want is to have a very specific deeplink to a particular page, and have that replaced with "well, it's probably somewhere on this website". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this is yet another way that "official links" should be treated differently. Imagine a free software project that moves from college hosting to ad-supported blog hosting to SourceForge to Google Code, but the redirector remains accurate throughout. Is it that beneficial to link to whatever hosting provider is giving the project a subdomain at the moment and then fix the dead link every time the project moves, as opposed to linking to the official site? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
But the opposite happens as well: A site is on one place, with a redirector because it's expected to move -- but then it never moves, and they decide to quit paying for the unnecessary redirector... and perhaps the expired redirector domain will then get picked up by a spam or malware site. There's no perfect solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Patents inclusion question

I'm looking at an article (Toroid (geometry)) that has a section called Patents consisting of a couple of links to Google patents. This just seems wrong to me but I'm having a hard time seeing how the ELNO section would prevent it. It's not really advertising, the patents are related to the subject though they really do nothing to enhance understanding of it, and they're not really being used a references. Not sure that this occurs frequently enough that guideline needs to be amended but it would be nice to have a second opinion before removing the section. FYI, there is an earlier discussion of patents in archive 14.--RDBury (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I made it a further reading section, could be useful as references (don't know, did not check). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:EL does not ban the use of WP:COMMONSENSE. If editors don't believe that the links provide value to the reader, then they should be removed. This page requires a justification for adding links, not for removing links of dubious value. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." How about deleting the text I have placed in italics? Seems superfluous. Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus possibly leaving editors thinking that medium quality is good enough? I'm not sure that we gain anything with this proposed change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's superfluous since it also has "judged by a higher standard". On the other hand it's fairly harmless and there are more important things to worry about.--RDBury (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Both points taken. The sentence still rankles a little for me. I will try to come up with a better construction. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC on official links

{{rfctag}}

We need input from other editors about whether external links included under the "official links" exemption should have any relationship to the subject's notability, or if links with entirely irrelevant content are recommended, so long as they are controlled by the subject. 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

The major purpose of an official link is to allow our readers to read an unfiltered version of the subject's (e.g., a person, a business, a charitable organization, a music group) own opinion, which may differ substantially from a WP:NPOV-compliant encyclopedia article. When one or more official links exist for a BLP or organization, at least one of them should always be provided to the reader unless it violates copyright. Even websites blacklisted for spamming may be whitelisted for this purpose.

Official links are entirely exempted from practically every normal restriction on external links. For example, we normally avoid external links to MySpace, but if a notable band uses MySpace instead of a normal website, then such links are always permitted under the "official links" exemption. We normally avoid external links to webpages that sell things, but we link http://www.Amazon.com in the article Amazon.com. We normally avoid external links to pages that are factually inaccurate, and to internet chat rooms, but if a WP:FRINGEy group's official website is an internet chat room to discuss their belief that the earth is flat, then we still link to their factually inaccurate website as an "official link" on the page about the Flat Earth Society.

Wikipedia needs a definition of "official link" because almost no official websites actually self-identify as being an official site, and some that do self-identify as official sites do so falsely (e.g., the million "official fan clubs" found by Google, which are not official links for Wikipedia's purpose, even if they are authorized sites).

Recent change that is disputed

The original two-part definition was this:

  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Last week, User:2005 shortened this definition to a single requirement:

  1. An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
Arguments for and against

According to the new definition, any and all websites or other internet links that are controlled by any of the 750,000 bio subjects or the tens of thousands of businesses are definitely "official links" for these articles, even if the content of this website or other link has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the reason that Wikipedia has an article on this person.

Some editors want to restore the original wording, to provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio to our readers. These editors believe that if a person is notable as the CEO of a major high-tech company, then a link to Flickr photos about his dog or his home garden, or to a blog about his grandkids's birthday parties, would generally be unencyclopedic and inappropriate, and therefore should not be entirely exempted from the usual WP:ELNO requirements. (Such websites could still be considered under the usual rules that apply to all websites.)

As discussed above, other editors want to keep the expansive definition, so that any website or other Internet service that is controlled by the subject, regardless of content, the link is always completely exempted from standard restrictions of WP:ELNO, and if it is the only link controlled by the subject, then it is always advertised to readers. For example, they would always link to any website controlled by kidnapping victim Jaycee Lee Dugard, even if it contains only irrelevant information, such as pictures of her dog or a blog about grocery shopping, as her "official" link. Under this scheme, no webpage controlled by the subject would ever be considered irrelevant, unencyclopedic, or personal.

In addition to having zero content/relevance restrictions, at least one editor also believes that there should be no time limit on official links, so that a website created before the person achieved notability, or created decades later, should always be linked as an "official link" that is not subject to the usual rules.

Responses

(Please keep them brief!)

  • Restrictive definition. I think that Wikipedia's readers are best served by evaluating websites that are primarily about something other than the subject's notability to the standard WP:ELNO rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would prefer a restricted definition, but think it should depend upon individual cases. e.g. If someone is known for writing books, but spends half their life growing cacti, and has an extensive website about this, then why not include it (but note it is about cacti), as this would tell you about that author, and how they define themselves. If however someone is famous for a BLP1E event, and has a website selling cacti, then this should not be included. Martin451 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support restrictive definition If a notable nuclear physicist has a hobby growing cacti, and has a web site on that subject, the site can be added to External links using the normal guidelines, or even WP:IAR for the rare situations where consensus agrees that a bad external link needs to be included for some reason. Any site meeting WP:EL can be added to an article, and there is no reason to exempt a site from the WP:EL rules only on the grounds that it is controlled by the subject (how do we verify that?). In all cases it is vital that there is good reason to believe an official site really is the official site for the subject because the Internet and Wikipedia attract hoaxes, spoofs, parodies and general nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support more restrictive definition, and after the above discussion, would also add - must be the actual official site and not an archive/copy/snapshot to be considered an official site. Anything else should have to follow normal EL guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support restrictive definition per Johnuniq and also agree with additional restriction per AnmaFinotera. Applicable links to a site archive can still be added as citations, or in unusual cases as a regular EL. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Controlled and relevant to the article. Of course! Why would we want anything else? Does this really need a RFC? SilkTork *YES! 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Original restrictive definition. And if the site is no longer accessible, but relevant/useful content is archived/cached by WebCite or Archive.org, then it should be linked as "Archived copy of official site" (or similar). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest we close this RfC as there has been no opposition. The example cited by Martin can be covered under regular EL criteria without needing to be an additional official link. If it's the only official link, I don't see a problem so long as the author's writing career is well covered. --UncleDouggie (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no comments for about two weeks, I'm turning off the RfC tag. It looks like the changes supported by this RfC were made some time ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

YouTube and Flash video

I removed the part saying that Flash is required to play YouTube videos. Research from Adobe published in September 2009 shows that Flash video is available on 99% of browsers in the English speaking world [9], and accounts for around 75% of all online video [10]. Flash video was new five years ago but today it is mainstream, so it can be taken as read that a browser will play Flash videos.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. CpiralCpiral 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we are talking about an independent source. I will revert, and would like it to be discussed here. However, even if it is installed by most users, and even if it is free, it still needs to be installed, and hence is a valid line. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, 75% is still 25% of other videos. Still, you also removed "Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content.", which has nothing to do with Flash, Flash was just an example. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about Flash being required to play YouTube videos is bordering on classic pedantry. As far as I can see, none of the YouTube links on Wikipedia say "Flash is required to play this video" because a) it is a statement of the obvious and b) it is extremely rare to find a browser nowadays that cannot play Flash videos. Things become more complicated when formats like QuickTime are involved, but the Flash explanation is largely superfluous.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rare, in America and in Western Europe. But there might indeed be a better example than Flash/YouTube, that sentence would be better with another example, any site that is known to use QuickTime a lot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way 'As far as I can see, none of the YouTube links on Wikipedia say "Flash is required to play this video"' might as well be a problem that people who add the video format don't bother to link. However, {{youtube}} does include the statement. Though I agree, also there it seems a bit superfluous, but I would not use it as an argument. On the other hand, .pdf files get automatically a correct icon, IIRC. There would be nothing wrong with just being complete, and including that Flash is needed. There will still be people out there which do not want Flash installed, and 99% still accounts for a huge number of computer users. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it was launched, Flash video has largely eliminated the opposition. Back in the 1990s, online videos were a mixture of Windows Media Player, QuickTime and RealPlayer, and a computer user often had to install all three pieces of software. Nowadays all the main video sharing sites are Flash based (eg YouTube, DailyMotion, Vimeo, Metacafe) and when a computer user clicks to watch a video it will probably be Flash. There are some exceptions, and QuickTime is popular for HD movie trailers, eg on Apple's website.[11] It might be better to use a non-Flash example such as QuickTime, because Flash support is pretty much universal on today's browsers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(Confusion edited-out; sorry)
To expedite content debate will probably require another discussion focused on that particular rule. See the topmost banner on the content page. (See also about indention. Thanks. )
CpiralCpiral 18:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Er yes, at the risk of another hasty remark, it would help if some of the above was expressed in plain English. Hopefully the article is now more suitably worded. If not, back to the drawing board.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this as well. I mean, if we're this strict, that's fine by me. But shouldn't countless links to official websites also have the "requires flash"-notice then? What about links to software? "This software requires windows/linux to run" would be necessary there, too. What about websites that require certain browsers? What I'm trying to say is.. yes, flash needs to be installed. Just like an operating system, a browser, or Java. Requiring a note because 1% (or less) of users don't have flash seems a bit over the top to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Operating systems, web browsers, and Java virtual machines are distributed as free software in the United States, Wikimedia's home territory. Programs that view FLV or most QuickTime codecs are not, due to video codec patents. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that whether software is open source or not has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. And I'm also pretty sure that the most used operating systems and browsers are most definitely not open source, so that argument wouldn't hold any water anyways. --Conti|✉ 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If a person clicks on a link to a YouTube video and does not have Flash installed, they will automatically receive a message telling them this, and asking if they want to install the Flash plugin from Adobe. This does not really need to be in the article because of the WP:NOTHOWTO issue. WP:EL is mainly about the suitability of links as reliable sources, rather than a tech forum giving advice. For the tech minded, Flash and QuickTime have to be installed separately because of the patents on technology like MPEG-4 AVC. Wikipedia articles occasionally have Ogg Theora videos, which are open source.[12] All very interesting, but the main issue when someone adds a YouTube video to a Wikipedia article is whether it is a copyright violation, not what codec it uses. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)With this I disagree ianmacm. Yes, they get a message that will ask them to install the plugin. Knowing it beforehand takes away the necessity to have to cancel an unwanted install (yes, there are still people that don't want it, and there will also be people who can't install it anyway, not everyone has a modern Windows XP or up-to-date linux install, there are also still users on older or less common operating systems), people know that they should not click on this interesting link, when they don't see beforehand that it is a YouTube video. Readers may know wikipedia, they may know youtube, they may not know Vimeo (I do not know it), having a text 'requires this or that' with a wikilink might make me think, oh, I don't want to follow that, it is fine with me. Moreover, we do have a section on 'how to link'. I, for one, think that it is very useful to see that one is linking to a pdf file, a music video, a sound file, or whatever, especially for the people who are not behind a fast internet connection (who unknowingly click a youtube video, after which the computer becomes slow because it is buffering), who are using alternative ways of viewing webpages (following a link to a video can be regarded less useful for the readers (and editors!) who depend on a screen reader to use the internet, &c. &c. I know that youtube videos can be informative and useful here and there, but there is nothing wrong with giving the reader some information on what they can expect at the other end. Flash was not an optimal example, as that is indeed almost everywhere installed, still it should be mentioned that YouTube links require Flash (as, as I said before, even though it is installed on 99% of the PC's in English speaking countries (I wonder how many people in countries that do not have English as a main language still use the English Wikipedia as it is the biggest one ...), it still needs to be installed; installed computers may have it already, but users who install their Windows separately do not standard have it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "... the United States, Wikimedia's home territory." .. true, but that does not mean that Wikipedia does not get used outside of the US, or that, since the US has everything in a certain way, that we then have to expect that that is also true for all countries outside that. High speed internet is a commodity in many areas, but there are still quite some users behind a dial-in modem. Flash works, sure, video's can still be seen, but it becomes less useful for those users. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see harm (to a small number of users) in refusing to provide this information, and no harm in providing it. The argument against seems to be "people with nice computers and great internet connections like me don't need this information". I therefore oppose removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add: I have a lovely Mac and a great internet connection, and I personally find those labels useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
When taken to the logical conclusion, it would be necessary to add "a broadband connection will be required to view a YouTube video". Nobody with a dial-up connection can view YouTube videos in streaming format, should we mention this as well? All that I have done here is to suggest the removal of WP:NOTHOWTO information that would be of little relevance to the average reader. It is worth pointing out that some external content requires software that is not installed on all computers, eg QuickTime or RealPlayer. Flash is not the best example because most computers play it, and without it access to online videos would be very difficult.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if WP:NOTHOWTO applies to guideline and policy pages. If so, then we would have to delete WP:MOS, as it is quite a prototypical how-to, isn't it? added after reading WP:NOTHOWTOIt does indeed not apply to policy and guideline, but only "Wikipedia articles should not read like:". --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

People with a dial in can view You Tube movies, no problem at all. They slow down, framerates become very low, but it is not impossible (if that was the case, then I would say that ELNO #7 applies, and it is a reason to more strictly remove any video links). It would be nice if they knew that they were going to need Flash for the external site (which is not only true for youtube, by the way), and for those it is just a service.

There is nothing wrong with specifying it, ianmacm, even if it is just for those couple of 10's of thousands of editors who have this situation. USA has 300.000.000 inhabitants, 1% is 3.000.000 inhabitants. Now they are not all going to have internet, but it is a significant number, isn't it? And now I only did this calculation for the USA, if I include the UK, Australia, India, and all the other countries who have English as a major language, and all the other people who use the English Wikipedia as it is the biggest and they generally do speak good English (quite some countries in Europe), then I think that providing that service is warranted.

It is a service to those people (and that is why most of us are editing here), and I can't imagine that the other 99% of the users finds it annoying it is noted here. The guideline says 'should', not 'must', and that is exactly proper wording. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that all the main user submitted video sites use Flash. It is also OK to point out that Flash is required to view this type of content. The only other issue is whether this policy on Wikipedia is actively enforced. Five years ago it would have made sense to say "Flash required" when clicking on this type of link, because it was considerably less common then. Today it is more or less taken for granted. Ideally, Flash video should have its own icon, like PDF documents do when they are cited. It would be rather clunky to say "Flash required" every time a YouTube video is cited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Flash is installed on all of my browsers on my many computers. And I frequently disable it so I don't see all those highly annoying ads. Some browsers support better ad blockers than others, but that will always be an arms race. The trend to disable flash is increasing as websites get more distracting all the time. Please don't believe Adobe's partisan research that ignores grassroots push-back against their product. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Dirk Beetstra and IanMacM - links to PDF files automatically gain an icon (red curly thing), so since this and Flash both come from Adobe, there ought also to be an icon denoting "Flash video"? If there is one for Flash, use of that icon next to such links should eliminate the need for any "Flash player required" text as well as giving a hint as to what you're about to surf to. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of raising this issue was not to be an advertising agency for Adobe Flash Player. Most computers in the English speaking world can play this format, even though it is not universal. The patents on Adobe formats require $ to be paid, but without this Wikipedia users would not be able to play Flash videos with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos. There are freeware alternatives to Acrobat Reader (eg Foxit Reader), but Flash video requires the Adobe plugin to be installed. To keep everyone happy, the best solution would be to have an icon in Wikipedia articles for Flash video, like the one for PDF documents, which are also in Adobe format.-♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that an icon would be an elegant way to convey the information. I also think that it should be conveyed, despite the prevalence of Flash, both for users who don't have it and because of users who actively disable the capability in order to block ads. Finally, I note that for YouTube in particular, the much-maligned Template:YouTube automatically includes text about the Flash requirement. If an icon is provided, it could be updated to display that instead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also be happy if it were possible for links to automatically signal the video format, a la pdf. Until such a time as the wiki software can figure out that an ostensibly HTML page actually requires Adobe Flash software to see the primary content, then this won't be possible.
In the meantime, manually including an unobtrusive note that the page contains Flash video (or QuickTime video, or mp3 audio, or whatever) is the Right Thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
An icon like File:FlashVideo.png or File:Adobe Flash Player icon.png ? Could those be used at {{Google video}} and {{Youtube}} instead of the text?
Note that {{PDFlink}} (and the autodetecting system that we use to add the icon) does not actually contain any kind of link to Adobe Acrobat or Portable Document Format. Is that on purpose? Should that be copied for flash video, or corrected for pdfs? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the Wikimedia software does not allow us to link icons to articles. Clicking on an image must always take the reader to the image page. Consequently, I don't think that using icons would be a good choice. Many editors won't recognize the icons. (And it would be the first icon, not the second, that is the correct one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be careful about this. The PDF icon is currently up for deletion because it's not a free image. We would have the same problem with the flash icon and I'm not about to write a fair-use rationale for every page that has a YouTube link. I doubt we can find any icon that suitably conveys the information without copyright restrictions. If we do use an icon, I suggest the second one without the red box border that shows in my browser for some reason. Still, I think it will be an overpowering red box in articles. We're not here to advertise flash. WhatamIdoing: Why do you say the first icon? It's not free either. I like the second because it displays well at small size and is very recognizable. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) If the paragraph (from WhatamIdoing at 21:38) is true, how does the PDF icon work? Clicking that takes you to the PDF file just as if you had clicked the text which precedes the icon. To see this at work in a real article (as opposed to the demo in {{PDFlink}}, try Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway#References. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) We can link to pages with this syntax: 16px|link=Flash video ( [[:File:FlashVideo.png|16px|link=Flash video]]<!--Non free image removed by DASHBot--> ) As found at the now deprecated {{Click}}. I'm not sure about the legality of that though. (but that goes for the pdf icon too) -- [I've corrected your link to the deletion discussion, UD]
We're currently assuming the readers will recognize the pdf icon in http://www.example.org/foo.pdf (though I admit that is a safer assumption to make).
UncleDouggie: the 1st icon is for the actual file format, the 2nd icon is for the Flash software as a whole. I agree that the 2nd is more legible (that's why I included it), but the 1st is more precise. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Clicking the PDF icon takes you to the PDF document, not to the article on PDF or adobe.com to download the software. Wikimedia is just tacking the icon onto the end of the document hyperlink. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Using the article link syntax also fixes the extra red border that I was seeing: 14px|link=Flash video. This icon is 14pt and still legible. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The logo of Flash Player is a florin sign on a red background, presumably ineligible for copyright as a text logo: --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we only have a trademark issue instead of a copyright and trademark issue. At least this icon doesn't have the border problem either despite the lack of an article link. Nice observation Damian. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The first icon is correct because it represents the file format instead of the software needed to use it. It's the difference between saying "This file is in the ASCII text format" and "You need vi to be able to read this file" (or EMACS: I don't have a dog in that fight). There might someday be a non-Adobe Flash option for viewing Flash videos, but Flash videos will always (by definition) be in the file format.
BTW, that's what we already do with pdfs: the icon is "Portable Document Format", not "Adobe Acrobat".
(I'd never thought about it, but that icon may run afoul of Wikicommons' rules (because it's certainly trademarked). Well, here's hoping that they'll automatically add "(pdf)" instead of leaving the user in the dark about the file format.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also potentially relevant: Adobe gives permission for the PDF icon's use, but not for the FLV icon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Very relevant indeed. I believe this is the nail in flash video icon coffin. I understand that the first icon is technically better, but it's unreadable at small size so it may as well not exist. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Since when does Commons have anything against trademarks? See commons:Template:PD-textlogo and commons:Template:Trademarked. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just because Commons lets a trademark be hosted there doesn't mean that it's legal to use it in all situations. For some legal background, see trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Also see Adobe's full licensing statement. My summary of all this is that we can use the non-copyrighted icon for content actually produced by an Adobe product. This is a very important distinction and I believe we have many non-compliant PDF links today. MediaWiki automatically applies the PDF icon to all PDF links. However, there are many non-Adobe PDF writing programs available and applying the icon to such a link is infringement. Even for Flash, there are non-Adobe components available today. Applying the icon to a link produced with such components may be infringement. In the future, completely non-Adobe products may become available that support the flash file format. So it's probably better if we stay away from the whole mess. If we really want to use an icon, we should make our own to reference the file format. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Judging by that doc linked above by UncleDouggie, we're using the wrong icon for a PDF file. This is on page 7 (of 13), according to the menu bar; however page 6 is shown lower right of the page concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we're using the wrong icon. However, changing it may put us in a worse position for links to PDF files not produced by an Adobe product. I suppose someone could write a bot to scan all externally linked PDFs and determine what software was used to generate them. But what a maintenance headache that would be. We really should make our own icon, just like we seem to be settling on for Flash. --UncleDouggie (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, although getting a bit off topic, I created an alternate PDF icon to consider. It's not legible at 16px, but 24px looks OK: 32px is of course nice: I've posted this at the deletion discussion for the current PDF icon. --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
← Dedenting

The logo for "Adobe Flash" is a dark gray "Fl" in a red square. The florin logos are used for Adobe Flash Player, which I'm pretty sure most people will actually be using to watch SWF objects and FLV videos, apart from a small minority who use Gnash. PDF, on the other hand, doesn't have such an Adobe monopoly: Foxit Reader is fairly mature and widespread, as are Preview and Evince. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Re icon for Flash: Using Noscript in Firefox, I see an icon instead of a Flash video (and I also do not have a Flash player on my main machine for reasons explained by security mailing lists). The Noscript Flash icon (if reduced in size) would be much better than the suggestions above; it consists of a red 'f' in a circle which I suspect would be a lot less ugly than the in-your-face white 'f' on red background. I have no idea where the icon comes from. An icon should only be used if it does not destroy the look of the page (i.e. the icon would need to be very sedate, which rules out the above examples). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I've cropped it and uploaded to commons. Full res: 16 pt: --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is that PDF icon coming from anyway? The HTML source generated by http://www.example.org/foo.pdf shows as:

<a href="http://www.example.org/foo.pdf" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.example.org/foo.pdf</a>

When I put the same wiki source on Commons, I get a generic icon with some blue lines. Is there some CSS magic going on for Wikipedia only? --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to this thread, if you use popups, this page now comes up with an icon for Flash! Here's a deliberate self reference so you can see it. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is evil

IanMacM,

It may have escaped your notice, but:

  • The paragraph that you've been changing, most recently to talk about QuickTime, is reached by the shortcut WP:YOUTUBE. It's silly to have the "YouTube" paragraph give, as an example, a file format that is not present anywhere on that website.
  • Your repeated efforts to remove the relevant file format from this paragraph are opposed by multiple editors. I've reverted your anti-consensus changes. Please don't restore them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree that it's low down, dirty, and maybe even disgusting. But evil? It's not like he deleted the page and wiped out all our backup copies. :) --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that IanMacM would agree with the sentiment as expressed -- but probably not that his (two) (somewhat different) changes actually rose to the level of edit warring (at least, not yet). I would not consider his position actually unreasonable.
I chose that perhaps excessively flippant header partly as a statement that we didn't need to reach that undesirable point, and partly because using ===break=== all the time results in many non-unique headings in the archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been an open discussion here and two edits are not edit warring. However, I do agree that QuickTime is not the best example since user submitted video sites are based on Flash technology. The consensus that has emerged from all of this is that it would be helpful to have an icon for Flash videos, like the one for PDF documents. BTW, please assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rich Media

Given that Flash and Java have become more and more standard to modern browsers and that it's virtually impossible to reasonably navigate the internet without them nowadays, I suggest we establish a discussion and revisit the 'Rich Media Links' policy.
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please go read the archives. We've been over this at least three times just this year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Please go read which of the 27 pages of archives? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest using the search box to look for "youtube" and "rich media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I searched the archives and saw that Graham87 brought it up here a couple years ago. But beyond his opening statement, the discussion quickly derailed into copyright and Youtube related nonsense.

The issue, even more significant now than it was two years ago, is the wording of the policy regarding Java and particularly Flash-based links. As standard as these formats are in browsing now, it seems archaic for policy to state links to pages using them 'should be avoided'. For the time being, I don't think it's unreasonable to retain the requirement of 'explicitly indicating the technology required to view the relevant content', but even that may warrant reassessment in a couple years.
-K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This guideline does not say that links to (HTML) pages containing Java or Flash video "should be avoided".
There have been several conversations this year about this issue. Please do the search again, and pay particular attention to discussions in 2009. Note that I have recommended "Search", not "click on the oldest archive that is labeled YouTube". You might choose to use "2009" as a search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Links to professional reviews should be part of a Response or Critical response section. There may be times when someone hasn't done such a section, so an EL is better than nothing, but some kind of comment would be appropriate.

  • Current copy: "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews."
  • Suggested copy: "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, reviews should be sourced in the main body, typically in a Responses or Critical responses section, if this is not the case then temporary links to professional review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic may be considered."

Thoughts? SilkTork *YES! 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The links don't need to be temporary. Imagine a situation in which you have a lot of good reviews: You might (and should) use some in the text, but you might not have a justification for using all of them. Any 'unused' reviews could be legitimately demoted to External links.
Would you be satisfied with something like:
  • "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews that have not been used to verify article content. (Using such sources to build the article is always preferable to listing them as external links.)
Also, the major point behind this item is that non-professional reviews are unacceptable. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see that it was created after a dispute about whether Amazon.com (or similar) customer reviews should be linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I take your point about linking to a body of useful reviews - however, when doing a Critical response section the typical approach is to give an overview of the critical response, linking to sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and complete-review, which collect professional reviews, and then picking on individual critics for detail. Also, if people then add links over and above what is in the text, how many links would we be talking about, and what would be the definition of a good review? I can only really see an EL section to reviews being useful if someone has not already written a response section, and it should be temporary, as once a response section has been written, the links are in place as sources as we don't have sources as references and EL in the same article. SilkTork *YES! 11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:ELNO #1, we should not have ELs just because the material has not yet been incorporated into the article. We have discouraged such temporary links in numerous other cases. I don't think we should start now to enshrine their acceptability in the guideline itself. This is a classic dilemma of ref vs. EL. Suppose that a review EL has a highly useful comparison chart of some kind that can't be incorporated due to copyright. Then one day someone uses the conclusion sentence from the review as a source and the whole review has to be moved from an EL to a ref. UncleDouggie (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. EL should not be a collection of sources to use "eventually", those should be put on the talk page if the finder doesn't have time to incorporate them. Links to sites such as RT and MetaCritic should be added only when they add value, which is not always the case, and in which case they should not be temporary. One should only pick specific reviews to cite when there are just too many to cover them all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. So are we saying that we should not have ELs to reviews? That the reviews should be used as sources in the body (or in an infobox, as they frequently are), or listed on the talkpage, but not used in the EL section. SilkTork *YES! 11:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Except where appropriate, RT/MC are the only "reviews" that should be in the EL, and if they are that useful, they should be worked into the article. Also, I can't think of anytime a review should be used as sources in an infobox? The infobox should summarize content in the article, not introduce new facts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You can have external links to a review. Or to several, even. Even if they're not from the two suggested sources. What you need to justify such links is this situation:
  1. A properly developed article (that is, you've already written a perfectly decent section on the critical response to the book/movie/whatever [read: Nobody could accuse you of being a lazy spammer instead of a good editor])
  2. You didn't use this(these) review(s) to WP:Verify any content in the article AND
  3. The review still communicates something unique/useful/interesting/not going to waste the readers' time if they click on it.
So it's the combination of ELNO #1, principle of non-duplication, and ELYES #3 that you're aiming for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox album}} has a field for reviews - see Please Please Me as an example. Though neither {{Infobox Book}} nor {{Infobox film}} have such fields. It is quite common in film articles for there to be a decent Response/Critical reception section which appropriately uses professional reviews as sources, and the same reviews/sites to be listed in the EL section - see I Am Legend (film) as an example.
If the EL section is not to be used as a place to temporarily hold links to reviews until someone writes up a Response/Reception section (which I quite understand), then I don't see a valid use for having links to reviews in EL. If a review contains something of value to the reader, then it should be mentioned in the article, and sourced appropriately. Saying that there is a source which contains something of interest which is not mentioned in the article is the same as me saying we should list it temporarily until someone decides to incorporate it. Something of interest or use should be mentioned in the article. SilkTork *YES! 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A typical reason to include an external link is the presence of 'interesting' information that is un-encyclopedic and therefore should not be included, e.g., complete career statistics for a baseball player. In connection with a review, perhaps a suitable link would include a well-told anecdote about the book/movie/etc., or details that go well beyond the 'summary' nature of an encyclopedic article, like a line-by-line exposition of a poem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Professional reviews 2

I've merged "Professional reviews 2" back with "Professional reviews" to aid in others reviewing the discussion and so that the sections will get archived in one piece. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further objection to what has been discussed above I will remove the statement "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews." from the WP:ELMAYBE section with no replacement. SilkTork *YES! 09:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are about 100 links to WP:ELMAYBE, so perhaps we should note it as a deleted item and preserve the numbering. --UncleDouggie (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Check what I just did on ELNO #3. Feel free to improve, we should make both look the same. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal. There are times when these links are warranted, and the removal leaves us with no statement against nonprofessional reviews, which IMO is the major point behind that sentence. Furthermore, permitting them doesn't actually harm anything.
I'd be willing to compromise with a reminder that the best use of any high-quality source is to build the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In your compromise, would ELMAYBE #1 stay or go? If we want to prohibit unprofessional reviews, ELNO would seem to be the right place. No need to beat around the bush. --UncleDouggie (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "Repealed. (Professional reviews should instead be cited as sources in a "Reception" section.)" for the time being so people can see there has been a recent change, and after a couple of months, adjusting it to "Professional reviews should only be cited as sources in a "Reception" section."

To address WhatamIdoing's valid concern, it might be worth adding - "non-professional reviews should not be linked or used as sources." SilkTork *YES! 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment. Maybe #1 is now "Repealed. See WP:ELNO #20", while I have added "Links to reviews - professional or otherwise. Professional reviews should instead be cited as sources in a "Reception" section." to ELNO as #20. I wasn't sure of the use of the anchor template. SilkTork *YES! 10:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
SilkTork, I disagree with these changes because I believe that professional reviews should be considered for inclusion as External links. We need both an injunction against non-professional reviews and a statement that professional reviews should be considered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have "boldly" suggested an alternative that I think is much closer to the community's consensus -- which has, after all, recommended that editors consider these links for several years -- and invited the major WikiProjects affected by this change to add their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of professional reviews in ELMAYBE category. I would even go as far as to say that good quality non-professional reviews may occasionally be appropriate in external links, but that professional English language reviews are preferred when available. I've read some excellent amateur reviews and some lousy professional ones, but there is no objective criterion to differentiate between good and bad reviews, whereas "professional" is relatively straightforward to define. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that most editors would support links to, say, Epinions.com or Amazon.com, which are the archetypcal "non-professional book reviews". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty much back to where we started. My concern is that we haven't really addressed unprofessional reviews. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I am uncomfortable with the situation. I am unclear as to why reviews of films and books gets a special treatment, when some very useful and detailed analysis of architecture would not. "Professional" is vague, and is not the language we normally use in guidelines. We would normally say reliable source or notable as we have clear guidance on such terms. Also I am unclear why reviews to a select few topics are appropriate, while reviews to other topics are not. Why creative works and not wine, restaurants, pubs, architecture, cities, etc. And then, why "reviews" and not deeper analysis, or other forms of commentary? If we open up the language then ELMAYBE 1 becomes: "Links to commentary by reliable sources on anything is allowed." SilkTork *YES! 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Regarding the history of the wording. As far as I can see, the wording was created by User:Siroxo on 6 August 2004 in Wikipedia:External links/temp, which was moved to Wikipedia:External links on 4 March 2005 by User:SimonP.

I have picked up various concerns regarding the inclusion of reviews: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. In these concerns I haven't seen a rationale for linking to reviews - it's more a case that the concerns have not been followed up based on an assumption that there must be a valid reason for the link to reviews being there.

As Wikipdia has developed we have moved away from placing a couple of books and websites at the bottom of the page as our reference sources, and onto inline cites which detail the page of the book so more accurate and reliable tracing of sources is possible.

And that is the case here. I can't really see a valid argument for why a vague bottom of the page link to an online review would be more appropriate than an inline cite. I don't see why a film review should be treated preferentially to a scholarly article in an academic journal. SilkTork *YES! 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For a while, reviews were included under ELYES #3. Largely in this discussion, they were moved to ELMAYBE. I agree in general with SilkTork's latest point that given how we handle sources today, there isn't much of a need for ELs to reviews. They could still be justified under the current version of ELYES #3 in limited cases. I suggest that folks post some examples of articles that would be affected by this change, both for good and bad. --UncleDouggie (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that ELYES #3 covers appropriate circumstances for linking to helpful commentary, including film, music, book reviews, that may not already be included in the main body of the article. As such, specific mention of reviews in the guideline (with an unspoken assumption that such reviews may contain useful material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons) is not needed. SilkTork *YES! 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
SilkTork,
This guidelines does not say that "a film review should be treated preferentially to a scholarly article in an academic journal". (It makes no comparison between the two.) It also does not say that "a vague bottom of the page link to an online review [is] more appropriate than an inline cite". (It actually says the opposite.)
It says that editors should "consider" adding links to reviews that have not been (ELMAYBE #3), and can not reasonably be (ELNO #1), used to build the article. If the music is, e.g., a well-known classical symphony for which dozens of much better options are available, the editor is entirely free to "consider" such a link to be "a bad idea". This is ELMAYBE: something to think about, not something to always add.
Your current argument appears to be that this line might be redundant, if only editors carefully thought through the implicates of ELYES #3. This guideline is written to be useful to busy editors. It is, consequently, deliberately redundant on occasion. We include all kinds of things that ought to be obvious to the editor who carefully thinks it through -- including, well, practically every line in ELNO. This is not, IMO, a valid reason for deleting any and all direct reference to the community's long-standing recommendation of links to reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are quite addressing each others concerns, and may need to take this discussion to the community for a consensus view.

  • My concern is that I do not understand why reviews have been picked out to be considered as external links. I am not convinced of their special significance.
  • Your concern appears to be that the comment has been there a long time, therefore it has assumed consensus.

I have looked back at the history of the comment and it has been challenged several times, without an adequate defence. It appears to remain there though lack of examination of its credentials, rather than through force of logic. Also, consensus can change.

Would you have an explanation, not covered by WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, as to why specifically reviews are to be considered? If there is no specific reason, then the comment should be removed as misleading. SilkTork *YES! 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Should reviews be specifically considered as external links?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. As such there are guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the External links section of an article. There are three appropriate sites for linking: 1) The official site for the topic; 2) A site hosting a copy of the topic if appropriate; and 3) Sites which contained copyrighted material or large amounts of data not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. There are various sites not to be included as external links. And there are four sites which may be appropriate as external links.

The four sites which may be considered: 1)Very large pages; 2)Directories; 3)Knowledgeable sites that cannot be used as reliable sources; and 4)Professional reviews of creative topics, such as films and books.

It is not clear why reviews have been selected as external links when other sources that provide appropriate information (such as newspaper reports and scholarly journals) have not. Reviews which provide useful information should be used as a reliable source within the body of the article, and any useful review (same as a useful news report or scholarly journal) which cannot or is not used as a reliable source, may be linked under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Therefore it seems both redundant to have a special clause for reviews, and potentially misleading (there are a number of articles which have links to editors' favourite review sites). The arguments in favour of keeping the professional review clause is that it has been there a long time, and that redundancy is useful for busy editors. The arguments in favour of removing the clause is that we clean up and rationalise Wikipedia as we go along; that the clause does encourage unhelpful linking to review sites with no criteria on which sites are appropriate. Discussion above has stalled, and so it seems appropriate to ask for a wider consensus: Should reviews be specifically considered as external links? SilkTork *YES! 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Clarification The existing advice does not recommend linking to a "review website"; it recommends considering links to the (professional) reviews themselves. This means that you might consider linking to a review from The London Times or The New York Times Sunday book reviews if the review wasn't used to build the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it should be removed. There already acceptable for other reasons, and we need to simplify our rules any way we can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? That is, why do you value simplicity in "rules" more than clarity? (It doesn't sound like you object to the links themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Rewrite that bullet to say "Uncontroversial reliable sources that would help in building the article, such as professional reviews or academic papers, if none are present in the citations." I think that describes current practice, which is to throw a source into EL as an intermediary step between researching for articles and then writing the sources into the article. Nifboy (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That suggestion conflicts with WP:ELNO #1, which specifically rejects that practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • An article with no references and links to reviews is better than an article with no links at all. Nifboy (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    I tend, overall, to agree with you. However, in that case, I'd consider them to be WP:CITE#General references instead of "External links". (This would make WP:ELNO #1 completely irrelevant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough: I just don't want to see anyone dinged for putting good external links in, well, the external links section. Nifboy (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • For decent articles, the reviews should be used as references. Using an EL as a crutch for a stub doesn't make much sense to me. It would be better to not have such an article so when someone searches for the topic they find useful sites. --UncleDouggie (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
          • That's my concern, though, is that EL patrollers go "LINK BAD, SMASH LINK" when a relatively new user thinks he's helping (and he is) when he puts a relevant, reliable source in the wrong section. Our ref tags are pretty opaque as is, nevermind the process of creating a reference section where there isn't one. Nifboy (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • We tend not to put links to possible source material on the actual article page because the article page is for readers, it's the talkpage that is used for editors to discuss improvements to the article, including possible sources. {{find}} is a useful template for putting on the talkpage for finding sources. SilkTork *YES! 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • To clarify, oppose removal of the clause: EL is the fastest, most newbie-friendly way to get sources into articles that need them. See e.g. this diff of mine, which predates this discussion by a couple weeks. Nifboy (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I do a lot of external link cleanup on Wikipedia, and with all of the articles I see this type of link is one of the most problematic that we have on here. I see minor review sites being spammed across multiple pages almost every day and I imagine great linkfarm issues arising if we would encourage the linking to such sites. I think a simple solution would be to try our best to link to sites which host multiple reviews, such as Rotten Tomatoes for films. Linking to other reviews, even to a major critic's site such as the reviews of Roger Ebert or Rolling Stone, provide a sense of bias and acknowledgement that these sites are more legitimate than others, which conflicts with our NPOV policy. Ideally, reviews should be discussed within the context of the article and not just tacked on as external links. The relevant points of the reviews should be considered and the reviews should be cited as sources, and linked to if in full if they back up the article's context. All in all, I strongly favor trying to limit our links to professional reviews when they do not back up the content of the articles which they appear in and I definitely see the need for this clause within our external links guidelines. ThemFromSpace 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Dumb question: How are such links "problematic"? I know that, "ideally", the reviews get integrated into the text but we have a lot (and I mean a LOT) of less-than-ideal articles that benefit from such links. Nifboy (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I meant problematic as in they attract spam. Because reviews are essentially informed opinions, I feel that once we allow some reviews in, the question of which reviews to allow and how many will pop up. Even adding a review to the EL section requires a justification for why that particular review is selected above others, and if this justification is given it isn't much more work to write that into the article. I feel this is in keeping with NPOV. ThemFromSpace 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • This item doesn't prevent you from doing that. It does suggest considering links to reviews that weren't used (or useful) as reliable sources. If the criticism section is already fully developed, and you've got another just-as-good-as-the-reliable-sources review, then there's no reason to think that using it as a redundant footnote is always better than simply linking it under ==EL==. Additionally, the reliable sources might happen to cite only offline reviews. A link to an online review is a service to the reader, even if it isn't needed to verify article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviews are suitable references to the article regardless of whether they are positive or negative; if they are substantial reviews in RSs they show importance. Many people put them negligently as ELs--they should be moved. , All that is necessary is to add a sentence: "This software (or whatever) has been reviewed in several professional magazines:" and then give them in reference format. I normally move them as a matter of course when I encounter them. Its very easy ro just put the in <ref> </ref> tags and let one of the wikignomes clean up later. if there is a convenience site for the reviews, I add that also. For some types of articles like those authors, I list them under the books like the following:
  • Book One
    • Review in Journal A <ref>
    • Review in Journal B <ref>
  • Book Two .. ..

and so on. I agree there is no need to give every possible source of reviews in most articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Themfromspace, DGG and SilkTork (in order of significance.) Perhaps part of the original reason for including reviews was concern for writing a decent article about a creative work while maintaining NPOV. However, I've seen several of them done very well. I don't think we need to call them out as special cases in the EL guideline. --UncleDouggie (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's not a huge amount of interest in this; however, the consensus of those responding is that the reviews statement should be removed. I'm not clear on Nifboy's final stance, so I haven't counted that at the moment. As it stands it appears to be six in favour (UncleDouggie, Themfromspace, DGG, AnmaFinotera, Peregrine Fisher, and SilkTork) two opposed (Contains Mild Peril and WhatamIdoing). SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have actioned the consensus view. I used Damian Yerrick's wording from an earlier edit. I will now close this discussion and remove it from {{Cent}}. SilkTork *YES! 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linking to an author's syndicated column

When are external links to an person's syndicated column appropriate for the External links section of the person's Wikipedia biography? example

While cleaning up the spamming of by Chilangringo (talk · contribs), Projectsyndicate (talk · contribs), and 195.250.138.178 (talk · contribs) I encountered a discussion here on the links added by Chilangringo. Spamming aside, there's the question of how useful and appropriate such links are for biographies. One editor brought up ELNO#11, but I don't think applies because the external link is to a work by the subject of the biography, rather than about the person. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that these links would qualify easily as either WP:ELYES #1 (WP:ELOFFICIAL) or #2 (links to media described in the article).
You can ask about the specific links in question at the external links noticeboard, if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Taking it to WP:ELN per your advise, where I mention why I don't think ELYES #1 and #2 apply. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested people are invited to comment here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Subheadings in External Links section

Some articles break down the External Links section into subsections, and it seems that it is a common practice to use bold text in place of true subheaders. I presume this is to prevent cluttering the table of contents with additional headings, and would absolutely agree with this rationale. However, following a few edit requests from an IP user, who wanted the bold text replaced with third and fourth level headings, I found I was unable to point him to style guideline to support the use of bold text. I checked the places where I would most likely expect such a guideline, namely this page and MOS:HEAD.

Therefore, assuming I've not overlooked it elsewhere, I would like to propose such a guideline is added to this page (or if it is deemed preferable, MOS:HEAD) and seek the opinions of other editors. Regards, AJCham 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it makes sense to me to use bold text instead of headings in these cases, and can't see any reason not to add it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
We should take care that this guideline not appear to endorse sectioning External links at all by any method; quite often, when that occurs, an External link farm is the problem, or sections are used to bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
See the first bit of MOS:APPENDIX for the formal advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks good-- I think that covers it well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, fantastic! That's exactly what I was looking for. AJCham 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_27&oldid=1137411062"