Talk:McNeil Island

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425234005/http://www.mcneilisland.org/legal.html to http://www.mcneilisland.org/legal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917165525/http://www.mcneilisland.org/ to http://www.mcneilisland.org/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll put this here

Somebody else can decide if and how they might want to put it on the main page. A furtive 2020 excursion (incursion?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xnI1hZdltw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

EDITORBEHEREY, you have added this YouTube video again without any attempt to build consensus or justify your change. Will you please self-revert and discuss your edits here? I am thinking to give you some time to do so before reporting you for edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Very well then, it has been reverted. EDITORBEHEREY (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate it! I can tell from your edit summaries that part of your reasoning is based on the inclusion of podcasts, etc. One difference between those and this video channel is that they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. That aside, please let us know why you think this article would be stronger with that content included. You may want to ping other interested editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

EDITORBEHEREY, you mentioned at my talk page that you intend to reinstate your edit. Please do not do so. You have not made any effort here to convince other editors, and this talk page is the place to do it. Can you please explain why you think adding the YouTube video will improve this article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Hi, I believe it would improve this article as it would give the readers here a better understanding of the subject, as the video is about going on to the island and documenting the findings. In the future feel free to ping me and I apologize for not seeing your previous response. EDITORBEHEREY (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your reasoning. In short, I disagree because the link would not improve the article and because including it would be against our policies. If other editors agree with you then you will be in your rights to add the link back in; until then, please keep it out.

The YouTube video is long (36:46), and not an encyclopedic take on the subject. The creator appears to be trespassing. They do not cover in any depth the history or context of the buildings and locations they show.

Our policy on external links has stringent requirements for what links to include and states:

No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

YouTube is brought up enough that it's a "perennial webiste" with a short primer on usage at WP:YOUTUBE-EL. Additionally, there's a well-respected essay on why we shouldn't generally link to YouTube at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. In general, I would describe convincing experienced editors that this link should be included here as an uphill battle, and I encourage you to direct your efforts to other possible improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thank you for this response, I will keep it in mind. --EDITORBEHEREY (talk)

@Magnolia677: Hi, could you please explain how the youtube video is not notable? I can't see why you think this way. DITORBEHEREY (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@EDITORBEHEREY: The video was posted in an "in popular culture" section, but the video isn't "popular" or notable, because neither the author or the video have a Wikipedia article, which means it's just some guys personal video, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia because Wikipedia isn't Flick or YouTube. I can't even watch the video because you need to sign in to see it. Please take a moment to read WP:E=N. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer : I'm the person who originally put the note here, and I couldn't care less one way or the other whether it's on the page or not. I personally feel it should be, but I also have better things to do than argue with "Wikipedians". (Hence me noting it here, and not adding it to the page itself.) However, having just happened to come across the above debate(s), I would like to point out two things :

To the person who wrote this sentence : "The...video...do(es) not cover in any depth the history or context of the buildings and locations they show." Did you actually watch the entire video? Because that statement is, to put it bluntly, horsehockey.

And to this person : "I can't even watch the video because you need to sign in to see it." No idea where you are, but it works just fine here.

I'm sure somebody else, or multiple somebody elses, will eventually try to add it again. You kids have fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the video, but I do love 'horsehockey', so thanks for that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)