Contents

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:09, 15 August 2010

Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed. Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide. Sections older than 10 days archivedbyMiszaBot. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:ELN WP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

There is currently a debate going on at an article talk page as to whether or not leaked U.S. government documents are able to be linked to in its appropriate article. Some editors are implying that linking to it provides a method for further analyzing the subject in question, while others are opposed to it as they believe that the material is on copyright grounds, and thus should not be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. We would all appreciate a third perspective on this matter. Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what's currently written in the external links policy, practice in these types of cases is that the link will stay in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well "AnmaFinotera" over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#.22illegal.22 would be an example of an editor who disagrees.Bdell555 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't seem to know very much about the context. Wikileaks is a reliable source for the Afghan War Diary, because not only is the website the publisher for the documents, but the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel have all deemed the documents as genuine and accurate. Therefore, the War Diary-dedicated section of the site is a reliable source. I'm not sure what exactly she meant by saying "nor a valid external link per the existing guidelines", however. In my opinion, the link should stay unless Wikipedia is specifically asked by the government to remove the link; otherwise, we are not in the wrong as much as any other website linking to the documents, which we all know is many. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reliable source issue. We don't link to copyright violations and then just wait for the government or a lawyer to ask us to remove it. We instead have policies. While conceding that in this particular case the link could stay, the issue is underdeveloped policy. If it reflects badly on Wiki to link to websites that don't license their images, we shouldn't be linking to websites that steal their material, unless other news media reckons there is a public interest in the disclosure.Bdell555 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now beg to differ. Not once, not twice, not thrice, not even four times. I could probably find over ten examples in a few more minutes of torrent sites, illegal download programs and clients linked in Wikipedia articles. Some times you just have to ignore Wikipedia policy. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that documents produced by the United States government or employees of the United States government acting in an official capacity are not usually protected by copyright. The only complaint with possible merit is that the documents were illegally obtained and that hosting or linking to the documents may be a criminal act. But that's a matter for WP:OFFICE and no one seems interested in taking the matter up there. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case why don't we throw out all of that WP:BLP policy and all of that copyvio related policy and just leave it all to WP:OFFICE. The fact is that if something is stamped with a C that has a circle around it, Wikipedia takes that seriously. But if stamped SECRET by a democratically elected government, that means NOTHING? This cannot just be dismissed out of hand. There has to be an argument about why Wikipedia protects copyright holders with reams of policy but has nothing protecting governments with a legitimate interest in security.Bdell555 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright protection persists even in the face of infringement, but state secrecy is generally vitiated by public dissemination. Wikipedia would never be an appropriate venue to release state secrets, but once they are published and widely distributed by other reliable sources, the secrecy claims are largely moot. I don't see how there could be any additional significant harm by Wikipedia linking to these documents after many major newspapers have already done so. Dragons flight (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in general agreement here in that "after many major newspapers have already done so" is key. The problem is that there are currently no Wikipedia policies that would preclude "state secrets" being released here, and/or for Wikipedia taking a leading role in "widely distributing".Bdell555 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't distribute leaks, we don't find leaks, we simply report and document leaks for historical and encyclopaedic purposes. Rest assured, if ever someone were to leak document information directly on Wikipedia, it would be removed as soon as possible. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what policy would it be removed if it were a state secret? I happen to agree that Wikipedia is, or ought to be, a tertiary source, and indeed that is why I am opposed to direct link(s) when secondary sources have exercised their editorial discretion to make such links and have decided against direct link(s).Bdell555 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a state secret were to be directly published on Wikipedia, then it would be removed per WP:OR. If an article was made and linked to a leak before mass media reported on it, the article would be generally sourced by a primary source, and thus could be in violation of WP:PRIMARY, in itself violating WP:OR again. Again, the decisions of other media outlets do not reflect on ours. Unless we have a specific request from the US Government or the state of Florida to remove informational links to leaked material, we are under no obligation to remove them. Anything else? Because this is just going into circles. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:OR would serve to keep a state secret off Wikimedia Commons but I'll grant that I should have specified and distinguished the Commons from Wikipedia. There is a discussion underway on the Commons about "controversial content" and I should have raised the issue over there. re "the decisions of other media outlets do not reflect on ours", I note that you say this in the same paragraph that you say whether "mass media reported on it" or not is relevant to whether a Wikipedia article should be deleted or revised. Fact is that the decisions of other media DO matter in that they create the material that allows Wikipedia to go with preferred secondary sources instead of primary. Consistent with that philosophy is following the lead of the secondary sources with respect to how to treat the primary. When the Wikimedia project is not following, it is pursuing its own agenda. In any case, I will grant the discussion is indeed at an end when one party starts to simply declare "this is how it is and how it is going to be."Bdell555 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than merely "one party". Bdell, you have put forward your passionate arguments on multiple pages, and you have absolutely failed to gain any sort of consensus that Wikipedia needs this kind of policy at all, much less that any specific change should be made.

Additionally, based on your comments above, you might want to review the structure of the WMF projects. Decisions on the English Wikipedia do not affect any other Wikipedias, and they certainly do not change policies at Commons, or at Meta -- and, FYI, the discussion you link above is at Meta, not Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge your assessment of Wikipedia's "consensus" on the matter by inviting you to head over here and explain, as a response to my observations about Wikileaks' BNP membership list leak, how you would distinguish a unanimous precedent that was decided by ArbCom. Bdell555 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 2006 ArbCom case about individual Wikipedians WP:OUTING other Wikipedians offwiki has no bearing on whether an external link to a notable website with zero information about Wikipedians is acceptable in the main namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is "unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy" if the info is about a "Wikipedian" and just fine if it is someone else? What is so special about Wikipedians that they have superior rights to privacy?Bdell555 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing private information about a Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia can interfere with Wikipedia's normal work. Imagine, for example, a person with a psychotic illness or a sexually transmitted infection: WP:OUTING that editor's private medical information could lead to disruption on Wikipedia (e.g., discussions about whether Wikipedia wants 'that kind of person' as an editor, accusations of rudeness, efforts to topic-ban an editor who has done nothing wrong on the basis of personal medical history, etc). The same type of information, disclosed about a person not editing Wikipedia, has no similar effect. The goal of WP:OUTING, WP:CIVIL, and similar standards for editors' behavior is to avoid disrupting the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. I have a blog, www.grandpasipod.com /, on which I am posting audio files of radio programs from the 1940s. Some of this audio is previously unknown and unavailable elsewhere. I had the idea of posting links to relevant programs on Wikipedia pages that relate to them. For example, I have a recording that was conducted by Andre Kostelanetz. I put a link to that program in the external links section of his Wikipedia page. I did the same with the Wikipedia pages for Archie Bleyer, Buddy Childers and Cafe Rouge (Hotel Pennsylvania). Now I'm afraid I'm going to be labeled a spammer.

Are these links appropriate, or should I remove them? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangenuer (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for the note. Unfortunately, the external links guideline generally directs that we avoid adding links. This is certainly not a slight against your site, but simply a reflection of the fact that there are literally millions of possible links for all of the different subject we cover. Additionally, any links to old radio programmes would also need to address the issue of copyright. However, there are certainly many, many ways in which you can contribute to the site. I would be happy to explain this in greater detail if you like. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read WP:PROMO for some standard advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you are not getting any monetary gain, and as long as no copyrights are being violated, I think links to some of these programmes could be quite useful. However, you probably shouldn't go posting external links everywhere that you think qualifies. It might be better to let people in groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz know about the site, and let them work with you to decide which ones to use. Kingturtle (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link to "CAMPAIGNS" (Children And Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation) appropriate on this page?Gabbe (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It looks basically like a personal website, not like a major organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm posting here to seek consensus regarding link to xkcd on this page. I've dealt with many external links and to me this clearly doesn't meet WP:EL, not by a long stretch, but there is one user who is pretty adamant about retaining it. His response to me was hardly constructive so I'm bringing it here for review. For the sake of convenience please try to keep the discussion on this page for now since the discussion was uncoordinated the last time this link was discussed. ThemFromSpace 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed ad-nauseum on the relevant talk page. It didn't come to the decision that ThemFromSpace and his friends liked so they created a fake summary, harassed me on my talk page, and then used an anonymous IP to edit war away the text..- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My natural inclination is to remove stuff like this, but there is no need to be over zealous. The article is perfectly encyclopedic (as are, I think, its other links), so this one xkcd link is not just "more junk". I am not going to express a keep/remove opinion, but suggest the matter be left to the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper, as a procedural point, WP:ELBURDEN says that any disputed link is removed unless/until there is a consensus to include it. So your recent comments on the talk page are exactly backwards: If the discussion closed as 'no consensus', then the link should normally be removed.

I'd like to see editors at that page reach a solution that they can all live with, where "live with" means that we don't see complaints about it every couple of months. IMO the link is neither prohibited nor required by the guidelines. It's in that mushy middle space, which means that editors need to get out their Best Editorial Judgment, keeping firmly in mind that whatever the outcome, it's Not the End of the World.

And if consensus really can't be reached, then I'd like to remind you all that there are more than three million articles out there, and a bunch of serious spam that needs attention from experienced editors (i.e., all of you). I'm sure you all could easily find something more productive to do than to argue over one borderline link. (Twenty years from now, will anyone here be glad that we spent several more irreplaceable hours arguing about this link?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that works more your way than mine. I actually helped write the article, and me and others that helped write the article are generally much more likely to know what's best for the article. If you reread the discussion about this, most of the people that helped build the article support the presence of the link, and disagree with your claim that it doesn't meet WP:EL. It's the people that swung over from here, that probably don't entirely understand or necessarily even have read the article that are voting for removal, and they are resorting to what can probably best be described as 'dirty tricks' to try to force its removal. Particularly when there's evidence of vote stuffing the wikipedia is not a place where we simply count votes, and your arguments are simply not as strong. I'm pretty clued up on policy and guidelines and I genuinely don't know of a single policy that permits you to exclude this link.- Wolfkeeper 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELBURDEN plainly says, "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them." This is the community's view, even if it's not written on a page that says "policy" at the top of it. (You might need to read WP:PGE.)

I don't happen to feel strongly about this particular link: it's not blatant spam, after all. IMO it contributed less information than the lead of the article -- which means it fails WP:ELNO #1 -- but perhaps someone else would see value that I don't (e.g., a visual learner).

None of this changes the actual facts, which are that the link is disputed, and that standard operating procedure is to remove links unless and until there is a consensus to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a content guideline; the actual policyisWP:CONSENSUS and it says that: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

In other words you don't get roll into an article, claim its not consensus, fail to get consensus to remove it, and then remove it anyway because 'it's not consensus' because you say so. Consensus is the arbiter of what goes and what stays, and you don't have it.- Wolfkeeper 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that you were the person that added this incredibly dubious part of the guideline.[1] Give that it is at odds with the Wikipedias major policies, and given that you appear to have added this deliberately as a way of removing external links that you personally disagree with, I award you a WP:TROUT slap.- Wolfkeeper 22:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added that section -- after a formal proposal, more than a month's notice, and multiple editors strongly supporting the addition. WP:ELBURDEN is the community's consensus on this point, just like WP:BURDEN is the community's consensus about putting information into an article. If you have concerns about it, you are welcome to start a discussion on the guideline's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the self-evident way you're abusing the guideline I'm going to have to start a formal process to have it removed. In meantime it's overridden by WP:CONSENSUS anyway. Removal of established material and links without consensus is clearly abusive. I'm even considering starting an RFC on you; this is not how things are done here.- Wolfkeeper 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose changes to WP:ELBURDEN, then you need to propose them at WT:EL. If you want to start an RFC/U, I recommend that you read the summary and the more detailed directions, and consider the implications of the long-standing statement, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose changes to WP:CONSENSUS that would let you remove things in the absence of consensus, please go right ahead. In the meantime, the RFC failed, and a single sentence cobbled together by a few people and stuffed at the end of a minor guideline doesn't override one of the key policies of the wikipedia and the link is therefore staying in.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So, what, exactly, is the big deal here? It looks like ELMAYBE #4 fits, but the link is certainly neither essential nor harmful to the page. Chill, please? And dispute the links, not the process or personalities, hmm? Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the the RFC which was essentially a no consensus. Wolfkeeper here is arguing that the lack of consensus meant that the article should retain the link (due to the fact that this is how the article was prior to the RFC), while I and WhatamIdoing and others find that this means the link should be removed. The most recent actions: It was removed in mid-February by an IP, readded a week later, and subsequently removed. That portion of the article has been stable since. Wolfkeeper here essentially unilaterally readded the link a half week ago, and his talk page contributions[2][3] do not paint the restoring edit in good light, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement over removing the link per the reasons given above. While the link doesn't hurt, it also doesn't help. It's a comic. It's not a news article or an academic paper. While I understand the creator is educated and has a loyal, hard-core following, that doesn't make it magically appropriate. It just looks out of place on an encyclopedia that is supposed to be formal in tone. By the way, as someone not educated on the subject (though I am a fan of the comic series in general), I have no idea wtf is going on in it. There's no explanation given or more material to read through. If I wasn't aware of the comic's popularity, I would assume it was linked to as some sort of prank by a linkspammy vandal. --13² 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wikipedia and it works by changes requiring consensus. The RFC to remove it failed to achieve consensus.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add to the Anita DeFrantz page and entered a link to my YouTube documentary on her as a reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsFSxS_H54. This documentary won 1st place in the 2006 California State History Day finals (Junior Documentary Division)and went on to the Nationals. Ms. Ms. DeFrantz' has also been gracious to put it on her website. I wanted others interested in her story to be able to see it and to have access to the information contained in it. Does anyone know why it was removed and what can I do about it? Thanks, Siegen McKellar —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimSeagull (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the following relevant pages: WP:COI (there is a conflict of interest here as you've admitted that this is your video, even if your intentions are in the right place), WP:OR and WP:RS (it's nice that it won an award, but as you created the documentary and are not a published expert on the topic, it can't be included as it is original research and not a reliable source (even if the sources you used may be)), and WP:YOUTUBE. Again, I realize your intentions are good, but we just can't include this video simply because your intentions are good. There has to be some extraordinary reason to include it and I just can't find one here. Sorry. --13² 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've gone to your edits to look them over, anther relevant page would be WP:PROMO as your wording was highly promotional in nature. You didn't simply tack the URL on to a statement as a reference, you actively promoted it by talking about the award it won, who made it (despite not being an expert), adding unsourced statements that may or may not be sourced in the video, and using wording like "is now available on YouTube." --13² 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation does exactly what it says on the tin.

The site www.greymansland.com claims to be the single best information source out there for all things Andy McNab, and currently there is no official site online it seems. But it is for the purposes of WP:ELNO an unauthorized and unofficial fansite not written by a recognized authority (infact, author/owner details are completely unavailable it seems). It also has a commercial aspect, with an Amazon shopfront on it, but it is not too intrusive, and you could hardly say that selling appears to be the primary purpose of the site (although it comes close imho).

So, is this sort of linking acceptable, or is it still barred per WP:ELNO? I ask this as a general point, because I can see this situation existing for many potential articles, and see no reason why there should be an exception just for this site.

MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, from Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - the keywords here are 'normally' and 'generally'. Mick's commentary above centers around point 5 and, like him, I see the Amazon Rewards linking too, but would dispute that this site contains "web pages that primarily exist to sell" (my emphasis). - Alison ^❤ 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:ELPOINTS says "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Unless you can justify this under WP:ELYES, point 3, I don't think it should be included. This site admits it is a fansite, which normally should be avoided. Vyeh (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for discussing this. WP:ELYES point 3 'Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.' I think our site is exactly that. Neutral might be debatable since we are a fansite, but that doesn't mean we're not critical or allow others to place critical comments (you will find examples of that on our News Page). We do feel we give a lot of information about McNab that cannot be placed on the page (such as news about book signings, but also photos, videos, exclusive interviews etc) but would still interest people who are looking for more information about McNab. Basically we are one-of-a-kind on Internet, at least at the moment. Slightly commercial..we only try to cover some of the expenses we make to be able to maintain the site. We are a long way from making any profits, and I doubt we will ever do!! Main goal (sorry if I repeat myself) is to provide accurate and up-to-date information about McNab that we feel (know!) people are very interested in. ACatharina (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fansite in question is certainly not unique, as exhibited by this alternate Andy McNab fansite. If one fansite is allowed, then so should the other, and I personally believe that neither are of a reasonable, unbiased standard to be included in any article. 144.140.22.4 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no official site then inclusion of dodgy fansites is not right. The EL policy is quite clear so it it should be followed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a link farm. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect Jezhotwells and 144.140.22.4 - I know who you are - I'd like to hear the moderators/administrators opinions on this one. We are not dodgy and therealist.. is not a fansite, quite the contrary. Also for the mod/admins: I had nothing to do with adding the Greymansland link to the McNab page again, I'd like to conclude the discussion first! ACatharina (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At WikiPedia, admins are simply editors who have additional privileges (e.g. being able to block users) because they have the support of the community. What you are looking for is the opinion of neutral uninvolved editors. Start with the introductory material in WP:EL: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Clearly it is on-topic since it is only about Andy McNab and there is more detail (in particular the gallery and the videos) than can be included in the article. I took a look at www.greysmansland.com and I noted the interviews with Andy McNab. I believe that clearly meets the criteria of WP:ELMAYBE, point 4. (Who is more knowledgeable than the subject of the article?) Going down the list of WP:NO, I think the only points that need to be discussed are 5 and 11. Looking at the site, it does not exist primarily to sell products and it does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising. Point 11 applies. I don't see a reason to make a general exception for cases where no official site exists. (By the way, I looked at the references and it seems there used to be an "Andy McNab Official Website". Is there a reason the archived version of this site isn't listed in the External Links?) If it is included, it should be because there is a consensus among the editors involved in editing the article based on common sense. For what it is worth, I do have some tangential questions: (1) Why isn't the archive of the "Andy McNab Official Website" included as an external link (is there some issue of whether this site was authorized by Andy McNab)? (2) Why are the existing external links there? (They all look like reliable sources, which can be integrated into the article; and the Quick Reads link contains very little material related to Andy McNab - a picture of a book and a link to a short excerpt from the first chapter.) Vyeh (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

........Hi Vyeh, point 5: 'Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.': Both Alison and MickMacNee already said (see above) that Greymansland doesn't seem to a site with primary purpose to sell - and it isn't! Point 11 'Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites' definitely applies, I never stated anything different. The question is whether our link would be allowed despite the fact fansite links are 'normally avoided'. Keyword 'normally' - this leaves room for exceptions and I think we would qualify to the exception :-) ACatharina (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What additional reliable information about teh subject would teh addition of a fan site bring? Answer - none. So leave it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..Additional reliable: interviews with McNab himself, photos, videos, the latest news on projects..Can't make those up (so reliable)and can't be placed on the Wiki page. I'd say that's a lot 'additional' Just because you obviously hold a grudge against our website/Andy McNab doesn't mean your opinion should be followed.ACatharina (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added books to the "further reading" section of History of Greece with links to Amazon.com. I've tried pointing to ##5 and 15 of WP:ELNO on their talk page, but they insist that the links as formed meet Wikipedia guidelines. Little help? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon and other commercial sites are not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia unless they are the topic of the article (ie: a link to amazon.com would be fine only on Amazon.com). --13² 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting excuse the editor is using, free excerpt and text search. Which Amazon offers because it helps them sell their books (and you have to log in to your account to use it). But I wouldn't revert his edits calling them vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not vandalism. Someone else reverted them that way. I would have done it myself without the vandalism tag, but I had already reverted three times. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki rules say not to link to a page whose primary purpose is to sell things. But that allows links to pages that have an incidental purpose. In the case of "further reading" we are in fact recommending commercial products--books--primarily because they are the the basis of many RS --indeed the foundation for many of our articles-- and are a service to our readers. It's alarmist to see something negative in the possibility that an individual or library might purchase a book Wikipedia uses and recommends.Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of Amazon.com is to sell stuff. Ergo, links to Amazon.com are to be avoided. Your noncommercial intention of linking to Amazon does not alter Amazon's rationale for creating pages on books with "buy me" buttons. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, I appreciate your good intentions here. Is there a particular reason why you feel that providing an ISBN link for each book would not have sufficed in these cases? The standard Wikipedia ISBN interface would provide the reader with links to both Google Books or Amazon.com for text access; is there some reason you feel that it was appropriate to favor Amazon in this case? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN links are useful and cover all books. Only a limited number of newer titles are covered by the text search and excerpt provisions in Amazon and Google.com. Simple links to the ISBN will not tell the users that they should go to Amazon or Google because this resource is available to them there. Verifiability using RS is a very high priority for Wikipedia, and in history articles the main source of verification is going to be books. Sometimes one of the editors has a copy of the book; most of the time they do not. Verification of a statement in the article that references a specific book is therefore very difficult, but it's made much more feasible by the use of text search engines in Amazon and Google. In summary, the Amazon and Google links benefit the users, librarians, and especially the Wikipedia editors. Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I agree with you to a considerable extent, but my specific question here is whether there was a reason you thought it appropriate to favor Amazon.com here, rather than the less overtly promotional environment of Google Books (where, for example, they usually provide links to multiple sellers rather than just one).--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of policy, I think links to Amazon and Google have the same status. Personally, I find Amazon slightly easier to use. Amazon links to far more book sellers. For example, one of my "further reading" items that started this controversy was Boardman, John, et al. The Oxford History of Greece & the Hellenistic World (2002) excerpt and text search. click on the link and notice that Amazon sells the book, but also links to 57 other dealers, most of them small independent bookshops. Google does not sell the book, and instead links to only two book dealers, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Both Amazon and Google also have very valuable book reviews on their pages; Amazon has reader contributed book reviews, which Google lacks. All in all, I believe these free features are a very valuable resource for Wikipedia editors and that linking to them is a positive service. Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you are totally wrong. Your are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to use our process for amending guidelines and policies, but you are not welcome to edit war against consensus to include things clearly against the EL policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, ELNO bans links to pages if the page's primary purpose is selling things, regardless of what the editor's primary purpose is for providing the link. All links to books at Amazon.com have a primary purpose of selling books. If this needs to be clarified (i.e., editors of good will are honestly likely to hold different opinions about the rule's intent after a discussion), please leave a note at WT:EL.

IMO in this instance the ISBN magic words are sufficient. Readers who like Amazon (or Google Books, or their local libraries, or...) can certainly scroll down the page and click the links they like best instead of the many other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Alex Jones, people keep posting links to his websites under the website subsection. While it's no big deal and I can remove them, the complaint I have is that I have removed the links several times in the past. It appears some editors keep adding the links in the article when they know it's a violation of policy. The links belong and are appropriate in the external links and infobox areas, but not in the heart of the article. These editors should know better.  Burningview  ✉ 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the links (they are already in the External Links section). You should consider deleting the sentence "The best known of these sites are www.infowars.com and www.prisonplanet.com," as it is just begging have a link (or maybe it could be rewritten to say InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. In any event, there needs to be a source that says these are the best known sites. You might consider dropping a note about external links not being in the body of the article to any editor that adds such a link. Vyeh (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the link to CoupeDeval.com in the External links section of Deval Patrick as it's one of the usual 'anti-blogs' which seem to exist for all politicians but which we don't include. I considered it clearly Wikipedia:ELBLP, so I didn't expect the deletion to be controversial. As it's been re-listed (and I received a snarky message on my Talk page about it), I leave it to you. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs in general shouldn't be included unless they are written by the person the article is about. Blogs attacking a WP:BLP-protected topic should never be included, even more so when the blog/site isn't even notable in the first place (Alexa). If there is legitimate criticism about him, there will be plenty of reliable sources that can be used to cite information within the article. --13² 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it and left an explanatory note at the article's talk page. If it continues to be a problem, we can always send it to WP:WPSPAM for blacklisting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not directly an EL question, but I hope people won't mind giving suggestions for how to deal with Provisioning#Server provisioning which includes the spam magnet "There are many software products available to automate the provisioning of servers, services and end-user devices from vendors such as Stratavia, Sigma Systems,[2] BladeLogic, IBM,[3] or HP." These four edits added the Sigma Systems item. Would it be too bold to remove the whole sentence? I was inclined to list the companies in order of my guess at company prominence, while removing the two references, which could be regarded as WP:REFSPAM. However, IBM is so big, that there is no clear mention on Wikipedia of the product identified in the IBM reference, so that is a good reason for keeping it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I don't think it would be an issue for removal. The sentence itself is pretty promotional in tone. If I were to have stumbled on the page, I would have removed it, whether or not I knew the issues surrounding it. --13² 03:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd kill the links as refspam, too. Have you considered leaving the first, rather generic part of the sentence, and just removing the "from vendors such as" parts? Or is "software exists" not WP:DUE or encyclopedic in your opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Someone has removed the recent addition, and my inclination is to leave the others (established text) for now, but will watch and perhaps remove list if necessary later. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AtMitanni a Google Books overview page is being used as below:

• Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"

Besides the fact that there is some edit-warring and sanction breaking involving Armenian related issues here, I've reverted it (and it's been replaced) because I can't see how it meets WP:EL and the fact that the page doesn't seem to even mention the Mitanni or Armenians (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can others please weigh in on this link?

• bobbinis-kitchen.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.bobbinis-kitchen.com

I initially removed it due to the site appearing to be a personal blog, as well as the SPA behavior of Bonzothedog (talk · contribs). My primary concerns about the link are:

• Related to ELNO#4; to date, the only edits to article space by Bonzothedog (talk · contribs) have been to add links to this one site. This is common behavior of single purpose accounts who exist to promote a specific URL. Although to the user's credit, they have stated a willingness to work with the community and have now started a discussion about a different issue in an article.
• For ELNO#11; I fail to see where this blog site is created or maintained by any expert in the field of German cuisine. The site's own "about" page makes clear the site is written by amateur cooks. The links being added provide no context, no historical information, not even nutritional information - it's simply someone's recipe blog presented with photos.
• For articles where existing recipes exist, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY can also be an issue. In some additions, there are already links to recipes that have only slight variations from the new one being linked, so the new link was redundant.

Please note, I am not saying that recipe links do not provide value; but I saw potential issues with this specific source as well as the initial behavior of the user adding it. In some cases, where no other recipes are linked, this site could be useful until a better recipe link is found - although I think it would be best if an established editor who did not have the appearance of being an SPA were to be the one to review and re-add the link in those cases.

I have attempted to encourage discussion on the individual article talk pages, but I'm not going to start those discussions myself. Especially in cases where existing links to very similar recipes exist, I feel that the addition should be discussed individually on the article talk pages in order to weigh which is the better currently available site(s) to link rather than having a directory of very similar recipe links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across the same problem recently. It isn't often that we should have links to recipes, and when we do, there needs to be a pretty convincing reason why the link is exceptional. I have a huge collection of recipes, recipe books, and recipe sites, and pay subscriptions to several and have RSS links to a number of recipe blogs, and I've never run across this one. I am curious if there has ever been a discussion about links to recipes - and if we do have them, I'd think we'd link to some of the more famous sites like epicurious.com, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been some discussion over at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding links to pages formerly hosted by the now-defunct GeoCities. An automated process of redirecting GeoCities links to a partial archive has raised a number of red flags with various editors (including me). It is apparent that a consensus needs to be reached on the best way to deal with these links.

The problem

• There are currently 11,000+ articles which link to GeoCities URLs, whether through references or external links

• There are currently 5,000+ articles which have had their GeoCities redirected to oocities.com (a partial archive of GeoCities pages which by it's own reckoning hosts only 2 million of the 38 million GeoCities pages.

• Given the nature of free web hosting services, many of these links are of dubious value. However, many of them are useful sources.

A solution?

User:Moonriddengirl suggested establishing a working group here to deal with this problem, so here I am. Based on discussion at WP:AN, I propose:

• Manually reviewing articles (to be clear, explicitly NOT talk pages, archives, etc.) which contain links to GeoCities or oocities.com

• Where these URLs appear as external links only, either a) point to an active site which serves the same purpose; b) redirect to a Wayback archive; or c) remove the link entirely if it falls under an WP:ELNO category.

• Where these URLs are cited as references, either a) point to a currently-available resource which supports the same claim; b) redirect to a Wayback archive; or c) remove the reference and the text it supports. Obviously c) would only need to happen if no archive of the page exists and there is no other reference for the information available, and it's what we should be doing anyway in line with WP:RS.

On the face of it, this looks like a big job, but it is achievable. If 10 people tackled 10 articles a day (or 30 people did 3 a day), it would be done in under 6 months. That's not such a long time considering these links have now been dead for nearly 10 months.

So: thoughts, comments, objections, suggestions, and perhaps volunteers? Katherine (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise my hand. :) Most of these pages are unreliable and unusable, anyway, but some of them are valid content. I can easily average 10 articles a day, although with my usual work approach I'll probably cluster more than that into every few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As said before there probably werent 38Million geocities pages available at a time but only 38 Million user account (both inaktive and aktive ones) a better impression gives the following fact: Geocities when it was alive was visited about 5 Million times a day.

• OoCities stated that they specially collected all pages linked at wikipedia and indeed a part of about >90% out of the pool of these 34.000 pages are available there.

• As iam already done with a lot of research on the topic and have a complex Regex and handmade lists in AutowikiBrowser i will of course volunteer and be able to change effectivly semi-automated all geocities.com links to archive.org/..../geocities.com/ one's which will work there, which will as said before only be about 50% because they only have about 50% avaialable. at least this will already solve half the issue within weeks and within consensus.

• please note: i strongly suggest just to stick to the question how to update but not declare each and every single free webhost link an outlaw. i assume that most contents on wikipedia are linked with a good reason by people who actually had knowledge about the single topics and i think so do you also. Thus to decide which are worth to stay at wikipedia even available or which should better be removed just because geocities was a freehost is a whole other question. and please, its not right to make it something which everyone can decide on his own neither you guys just while updateing some links. there must either be a general discussion about wikipedia's view on free webhosts - which would be a much more striking bigger thing - or there should be a discussion/consensus about every single link deletion which occurs. Thus i strongly suggest again to seperate both issues, which will only make this updateing issue easier. if wikipedia had strict general prejudices against freewebhosts there were no links to geocities (orginially 34.000 links, angelfire 5000, tripod (10.000), sites.google (40.000) and so on. Furthermore, if you delete any reference links you will even more definitely harm Wikipedia.

--Updatehelper (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]