Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Official malware

At the moment, Wikipedia:External links#Official links exempts official links from compliance with all of WP:ELNO. I'm not entirely sure that we want to do that. At a minimum, shouldn't ELNO #3, "Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware onto a visitor's computer", be kept? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware should be moved to EL:NEVER. 2005 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

EL:NEVER is a good place for Malware links. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware was removed from ELNEVER per consensus on this page. Of course nobody supports malware, but ELNEVER is limited to (1) OFFICE said so, and (2) the software won't save the page if you add that link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please point me to the discussion on removing malware from ELNEVER? Thanks. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ELNO #3 was added in August 2007 after a discussion that concluded that it wasn't appropriate to list it under ELNEVER because it's neither a policy nor a technical reason. I believe that at one point after its introduction, someone rearranged the lists, and was reverted, but I don't really want to go searching for the diffs unless you need them.

Of potential interest is the fact that nearly all malware sites are also on the meta-wide blacklist, so in practice, a good deal of malware is already blocked by ELNEVER. Listing it at all is a little WP:BEANSy; I can't recall a single instance of anyone reporting a malware site. (Perhaps they report them to the blacklist folks, which would be more pointful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the discussion, there was objection to including it in ELNEVER. But it seems they didn't really think through the implications of instead placing it in a section about links "normally to be avoided", implying that sometimes malware is OK. The new caveat for official links further highlights this oversight. As you have explained, malware is effectively covered by ELNEVER #2. I propose that we reword ELNEVER #2 to "Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist of spam and malware sites without being whitelisted." Are we sure that these specific lists contain the malware blocks? I ask because the title of both lists only contains "spam". We should then delete ELNO #3 without renumbering as we'd break half the take pages and edit summaries on Wikipedia. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is quite simple, if there is malware on a site which may damage the computer when the link is followed by a reader, then that link should be blacklisted on meta without question, comment, whatever. For those knowing, reporting it already takes too long. There is no reason for it to be in WP:ELNO, and it then automatically falls under WP:ELNEVER. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fault is in declaring official links to be absolutely, categorically free of every single line in ELNO that's at fault.

I'm not inclined to roll malware into the blacklist, because while such sites should be on the blacklist, new malware sites presumably begin every day, and we shouldn't have to wait for the blacklist process to catch them. Whatever choice we make, I could accept a descriptive note on ELNEVER #2 that mentions malware as one of the reasons sites get blacklisted. One possibility is a new ELNEVER #3, but this would require fundamental changes to the nature of ELNEVER, from a list of rules that editors, in practice, have no control over to a list of some "rules from on high" plus whatever we feel strongly about this time. This seems less desirable to me.

All things considered, I think that fixing the official links description would be simpler, since it would just require undoing only a small bit of copyediting, so that the current "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking" would revert back to something like the original, which said that "Such links to official websites are exempt from nearly all of this guideline except for Restrictions on linking." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And just what do we mean by "nearly all"? What about the restriction on links in the body? I made the copyedit in the interest of clarity and I think it's good that it has now pointed out a fundamental problem with ELNO #3 that goes beyond official links. I don't think that ELNO #3 has any affect on the number of malware links. Would any editor not immediately remove a malware link just because it's not in ELNO? I proposed a wording change above that would add malware to ELNEVER #2. Is this a good compromise? UncleDouggie (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware update

I have implemented my above proposal seeing that everyone either supports it or is OK with it. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Having thought it over, I support the improved description of WP:ELNEVER #2, but the guideline now has a hole: It does not address the acceptability of a malware site that doesn't happen to be blacklisted. I think that we need to restore the "redundant" ELNO #3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this would lead us back to where we started with implying that Official sites can host malware. I can't see anyone claiming that malware is OK if it's not on the blacklist. The items in ELNO should be driven by things that really need to be explained to people. Even the title of "Links normally to be avoided" implies that malware is sometimes OK if we have it in the list. --UncleDouggie (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's wrong with restoring ELNO #3 and revising our "official links" section to prohibit malware? (We could even add a reference to WP:Use common sense while we were at it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware at ELN

We removed the "not-yet-blacklisted malware" line a few weeks ago. There's an open question at WP:ELN#External_links_.26_malware about a suspected malware site. Editors here may want to share their opinions there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Links in "List of.." Wikipedia-pages

What do you think about Wikipedia-Lists. For example, if you have a list of products or software and there are is not an entry for every single programm, could´t you just link to the product homepages? At least as references for the table? Otherwise you might just have a stub for each software.--132.230.190.212 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

External links in a long list are sometimes accepted; this is why we say that links should not "normally" be placed in the article. It would be silly to name all of the software, and then re-name them all in the external links section. The usual thing to do is to use the WP:Embedded citations format, thusly:

• Example software[1]

This is style is much more popular than the standard external links style (Example software), perhaps because it is easier to combine with a wikilink (Example software[2]).

Another option is to list all of the relevant links at a DMOZ (or similar) page, and provide a single link to the DMOZ category at the end of the page. (This approach prevents complaints that you're only trying to promote a particular website or turn Wikipedia into a web directory.)

"Just a stub" is highly desirable, because that's how Wikipedia starts articles, but some items that are appropriate for inclusion in a list won't qualify for an article.

Note, please, that if you choose the embedded citation style, the link must still be justifiable under this guideline and under WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a web directory for software, even when it's discussing the software in a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

COI to /take down/ ELs?

So I ran into a curious case. Someone took away an EL because, apparently, he was the page owner and took page itself down (but just said "link no longer exists"). Now, figuring it was just a case of someone clicking and finding a broken link, I put a Wayback machine link to replace it. Then person comes and removes it again, saying that they took down the page. Now, in this case it wasn't THAT great a link, but I wonder in a general sense if we should take down good ELs because the page owner doesn't want it there? What about in cases like this where only an archived copy is left? Thoughts? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If person is determined that nobody be able to access the site, ask person to ask Internet Archive to take the site out of Wayback Machine. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-great links probably don't meet my threshold for including anyway.

Asking the archive to suppress the page is a good idea, but since it doesn't work reliably, that's probably not a sufficient answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive effectively operates on an "opt-out" approach to copyright permissions: If you don't block them from your site or ask for material to be removed, they assume they have permission to keep a copy. Whatever one thinks of that model, it sounds like this particular site owner does not want his material archived. So while I agree that he should go through the steps to get the archive taken down, in the meantime we should avoid abetting any potential copyright violation by not linking to the disapproved archive. (Assuming, of course, that there is good reason to believe the person editing here really is the owner of the material in question.) Note that this is an entirely different situation from a site owner who is keeping live material accessible to the internet, but for some reason doesn't want Wikipedia to link to it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my question wasn't so much about the archive -- that was how it came out -- but think about it this way: Since someone who wants to add "their site" may get reverted for it not being good enough, if consensus decides a site IS good enough, could the person whose site it is over ride that? And as far as this site being the user's, well the original link had the name of the site's owner being very similar to the username that look the link down. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have thoughts on this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit here to comment on this transcluded page

The following multi-section text, beginning with "Use {{Dead link header}} in sectoins that have dead external links", is transcluded onto this page: if you want to comment at WT:External links (without your comment appearing on every page the proposal has been placed on), then don't use the [Edit] buttons in the 'proposals' sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Use {{Dead link header}} in sectoins that have dead external links

See previous Village Pump, and BRFA discussions regarding this same template (or similar templates)
So I am bringing this back again, because I think it has a reasonable amount of support. I want to get consensus to use the template : {{Dead link header}} on the top of sections that contain the template {{Dead link}}. Here is what it would look like

Section Name

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicin elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

References

The template is small, discrete, and provides a link to Dispenser's external link tool: check-links.

Tim1357 (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

O yea, and this would be automatically added by Skybot , or another bot, if he isn't still up to it. Tim1357 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better just reworking {{linkrot}} to cover both bare URLs and dead ones? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we do this? We use in-article banners to notify readers of potential issues with article content. Unreferenced, COI, or NPOV tags are there to benefit the readers understanding of what is in an article and disclose what problems there may be. Dead links do not cause any problem for the reader that would need to be disclosed in the middle of the article. If we are going to continue to tolerate dead-link tagging (which I find ridiculous since they are as easy to fix as they are to tag) then the only place a banner like this might be useful is in the references section. Since the dead-link tag is already sitting next to the footnote, the template is redundant and seems excessive. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I said at the BRFA, this seems redundant to the inline templates. Why is it really needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So what about putting at the beginning of the references section? Tim1357 (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Most maintenance banners have an equivalent inline version. Equazcion (talk) 06:06, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Responses from editors at WT:EL

• If I understand your proposal correctly, you aren't talking about WP:External links at all, but instead are working specifically on dead links in citations. If it's between <ref> tags, then it has nothing to do with this page. It's probably best to be talking to the WT:CITE folks instead of us.
  (I can't quite imagine why anyone would object... although is probably sufficient in most cases.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusion: are external wikis also fansites?

I've seen an editor deleting external links to stable and active open wikis, on the basis that wikis are also "fansites", thus must meet the ELNO exceptions for both fansites and open wikis. Is this even possible? i.e. how can a wiki editable by anyone ever be written by a recognized authority? How would I explain my confusion if I add an external link to a wiki but have it repeatedly deleted as a "fansite"? Would some clarification in ELNO help? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, yes they are. 99.9% of wikias/wikis are no different from any other fansite except they are editable by anyone, as you already noted. They are primarily aimed at fans of a fictional work to provide extensive plot, fan rumor, guesses, etc information. I have yet to see any wiki that actually meets WP:EL, though some are given a "pass" because they are relatively stable and have a large registered editor base (versus just being active with primarily IP editing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The pass they get is stable/large editor base is a tradeoff agaisnt "recognized authority". They are basically always fansites, but viewing the editors together can be seen as similiar to a singular authority. 2005 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikis are not always fansites; we had one case a year or two ago involving a wiki set up by a small medical charity, supported by competitive grant funding. (It failed the "large editor base" issue, as it appeared to have been edited by only a single person after an initial burst of enthusiasm at its founding.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You might say "Wikis are no different from fansites except..."; I might say "Wikis are different from fansites because...". Same logic, opposite spin.

Concrete example: Heroes (TV Series) includes a broken link to an abandoned official (i.e. recognized authority) wiki, while the obviously more active and stable Heroes Wiki gets no external link. At least in one case, stability and activity appear to be the appropriate standards, while the recognized authority standard is nonsense. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet mailing lists

There are several articles on technology and related topics which ignore WP:ELNO's prohibition against discussion forums including internet email lists. It's not hard to find them, but I'm hesitant to list those in which the external links to mailing lists make the greatest contribution to the article, frankly because I'm worried deletionists would "correct" them for us. (Similarly, I am leaving myself logged out to post this question because I've recently been involved in discussions pertaining to this issue, and I don't want to attract more deletionist stalkers.)

In any case, it should be easy to find such articles with straightforward searching.

My question: Should this guideline be modified to reflect current practice that internet mailing lists are often included as useful external links? 99.25.113.244 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the links should be removed. Logging out to hide behind an IP while making disparaging statements doesn't really reflect any ind of actual desire for a valid answer though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Disparaging statements about who? I only wish to avoid attention from a stalker I've attracted. Anyway, what are the reasons for excluding links to email lists? For organizations governed by members of their mailing lists, what could be more authoritative and where would you draw the line between simple mailing lists and the bona fide online proceedings they represent. We link to organizations' proceedings when they are available online, but simply because they are collected by email we exclude them? Why? 99.25.113.244 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO#10 - forums, email lists, etc should not be linked to. They are not appropriate links per Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia is not a link farm nor here to help advertise email lists or other communication medium. If the lists you are particular concerned about are organization lists, then they should be linked to from their official websites, which would make a link here redant. Online proceedings shouldn't be linked to either. Primarily, the ELs should be the main official website for an organization, and usually few others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines you refer to are this page, and they are contrary to actual practice. For an example which I don't really care about but appeared first in my search, OpenBSD was promoted to Featured Article at a time when its external links included multiple mailing lists, none of which are linked from the organization's main page. While those have since been deleted, OpenBSD#External links now links to the project's IRC channel, which is similarly hard to find on its home page. If the FAR didn't care, why should we proscribe exclusions contrary to actual practice? 99.25.113.244 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus changes. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that policy says not to vandalize, but it happens in actual practice. That doesn't negate the guidelines. Just need to clean up to follow the guidelines as instances going against them are found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you discuss the matter with the relevant wikiproject(s). You'll probably arrive at the same conclusion, but it might be a bit friendlier. Restricting links to 1-per-domain as a rough guide, simplifies many decisions.

This page tends to attract editors with a desire for a standardized very small numbers of external links (0-3 seems to be preferred by some), as well as the usual random editors. See Wikipedia#External_links for example, which is getting a bit large even by inclusionist standards. The next step there would be to find which links in there are useful as sources, and discuss the remainder on the talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that ELNO #10 bans links to e-mail lists is because the person placing the link can't possibly know what the reader will see next week, much less next year. Most websites are fairly stable; e-mail lists are by their very nature changing with every message. Wikipedians generally believe that if you are certain that you don't know what the link will show the reader, then you shouldn't be placing the link.

Pages to sign up for an e-mail list are even worse, as it's a WP:NOTDIR violation and is absolutely worthless to the reader. (No one learns anything interesting from a page whose content is "Fill out this form to sign up.")

Remember that ELNO is not ELNEVER: if editors at an article agree that they have very good reasons for including such links, then it is permissible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a helpful and insightful and friendly reply (for the anon). Thank you for setting a consistently great example. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

May I jump into this discussion? I assume the discussion is about rule #10 under External links - Links normally to be avoided? In particular I am concerned about this: Links to … groups (such as Yahoo! Groups…

Yahoo Groups

I wonder how many here are familiar with Yahoo Groups and know that some Groups are fully moderated and have been so for many years. There are many such Groups at Yahoo and they offer excellent information on a variety of topics. I would hate to think that Wikipedia will automatically remove a link to a such a good source of information that cannot be found anywhere else on the web.Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well one problem with Yahoo Groups (and other MLs) is that you have to be registered to see the content; often you even have to specifically apply for it. ELs from Wikipedia should avoid any such sites that require that, in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid this is one of these Urban Myths common even among experienced Yahoo Groups managers. It is not true that one must become a Yahoo member in order to view public Group discussions,. As long as the Yahoo Group was set up to allow public view of its Message Archive anyone with access to the internet can view it. I can provide several examples if it will not be considered spam.Ottawahitech (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the word 'often' mean something other than what I think it means? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One need not be registered with Yahoo to be able to read messages posted in public Yahoo Groups. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a case for summarising editors and administrators views here, if only for for newbies like myself. In July 2009 in the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_26#Yahoo_groups and earlier on Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_1#Are_Yahoo-groups_legitimate_links.3F editors and administrators said:

• Yahoo Groups is explicitly listed under the WP:EL links to be avoided section
• However an editor added a Yahoo Group to an article and was promptly told it was against WP:EL guidelines
• Another said "This group contains a wealth of useful information not available anywhere else, so it is a useful reference"
• To be dismissed by one editor: "I'd revert it as spam and give a warning. It completely fails WP:EL and there is never a valid reason for adding a Yahoo Group to any article".
• In addition COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to "promote" your (group), another reason for disallowing. Activities regarded by (group members) as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. from WP:COI
• Two editors, one of whom is a Yahoo Group moderator, are researchers in the field of SubjectX, and are routinely consulted by the press and reference books ... but feared their stature in the field might be invoked to disqualify us under the WP:NOR policy), got the measured and useful response: "Yahoo Groups are unusual, but not outlawed. Many such groups are, like blogs or usenet groups, probably not reliable sources. Some are. And by the way , expert stature should not disqualify anyone, rather the reverse".
• WP guideline defined: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (emph. added) If you want your link to a Yahoo Group to be one of the "occasional exemptions" - convince us why this link should be one of the exceptions that will improve the encyclopedia.

(Might be a case for adding an even shorter summary to the Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual.)--Lidos (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lidos, or someone else familiar with it, could you express what 'moderated' means? Because if I think what moderated means (removal of not-on-topic-remarks, removal of foul language, removal of attacks), then it still fails our reliable sources guideline (original research, moderated != verified, self-referencing, etc. etc.), and in many cases, it will also fail WP:ELNO #1 (it is generally not content that you need to understand the topic, it may help), #2 (as I said, moderated != verified), #6 (depending indeed if registration is required), (and #10) by nature. If moderated means 'the content that is posted is factually checked or the content is verifyable', then it is different. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only Yahoo group I am familiar with is the [Lidos History Society] where members discuss outdoor pools now closed or demolished, those being re-opened and occasional news items about lidos in the UK. As far as I know membership is restricted to people who can supply a name and postal address to the moderator, but this is really only to prevent spam. Unlike some Yahoo Groups very little of people's personal point of view or research is ever discussed. Not sure if this answers all your questions, Beetstra?

Could this particular group be whitelisted so it can be used to reference pools which are subject to closure, before this has been reported in the press, for example?--Lidos (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps all this discussion is academic when User:XLinkBot/RevertList contains groups\.yahoo\.com See the User_talk:XLinkBot remarks of frustrated editors who try and include external links which are not allowed. Are they all newbies I wonder.--Lidos (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of more than a few Yahoo groups, some recreational, some with noted academics on them, and moderator of several, very few are moderated in any way that would meet our RS requirements. And not surprisingly, quite a few contain copyright material downloaded to their files section, reason enough to not link to them in my opinion. This includes some of the most respectable/academic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Lidos, that answers my question, and I hence agree with Dougweller. In short: although there are some exceptions, by far the most of the cases links to yahoo groups should be avoided, and there are several which simply should not be linked to at all (per WP:COPYRIGHT). XLinkBot was set up in such a way, that it is allowed to revert additions of such links (where the error rate is pretty low), and I think that (except if someone comes with statistics that I am wrong) that is still the case with Yahoo Groups. Note that the talkpage of XLinkBot is not a good reference, we get there on a regular basis complaints about YouTube and MySpace, but e.g. a check of a significant number of MySpace reverts yielded in the end only 1 which might be good to include (it was the only one which was actually thé MySpace of the subject of the page, but the official homepage of the subject and another social networking site of the subject was already there as well, so one could argue that we do not have to link to every social networking site of the subject, but this was only the second .. I would not have reverted myself). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC about external link to commercial search engine in a template

There is an RFC going on about whether a link to google searches should be included in a wikipedia template. This link is alreayd included in the BLP unreferenced template. Participate in that discussion here. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know Ottawahitech (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nutshell

The "nutshell" box reads "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.". Shouldn't it be "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." or am I missing something? Grim²³★ 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the intention. I've made the change; anyone should feel free to revert if I'm missing something. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment about ELNO#1

which states: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
FIRST:I understand wanting to make articles good enough that they don't need external sources.
HOWEVER: Most of the articles in Wikipedia will -never- become Feature articles. (Isn't that clear yet?) Many, many of them need a LOT of improvement. External links that are substantial (but not 'beyond' Feature quality) can be very helpful to improving articles. I suspect a lot of editors add xlinks in hopes of helping future editors. I know I do.
SO: I think that this stipulation is too strong and discourages middlin-good external links. Maybe adding a template to discourage more/most XLinks makes sense once an article is 'B'-class or 'GA', BUT some editors go overboard and add a {{External links}} template to articles that really need the help. Maybe it'd be better to use the time to search for and substitute a better x-link for one that's been found wanting. (No mail on the subject please; just leaving a thought.) Twang (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and the decision is always to retain the item. I have found it particularly useful for getting rid of links that provide distinctly less information than is already in a start-class article, e.g., some Canadian health org's "cool teen" (read: condescending) sexual health website, that says things like "So, what is syphilis anyway?"

If you want to do more than express your opinion on this point, then you might like to both read the archives and consider the importance of WP:IAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, #1 could be shortened: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains."; the rest is done by the intro of WP:EL: "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.". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I support ELNO #1 as written. I think its one of the strongest provisions in the ELNO section and it helps keep the external links relevant to the purposes of the section, which is to link to material which expands outwards in ways that our articles cannot. ThemFromSpace 23:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand Dirk Beetstra's suggestion. The point of #1 is that the article might be weak now, but you still should not add external links that don't contain significant information additional to what the article should contain. For example, if the article is a WP:BLP, linking to a site which has nothing more than a few motherhood statements and a handful of obvious facts like "X was born in <place> on <date>", then the site is probably not suitable for an external link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, that if the article is a stub "A is a character", then an external link to a page which says "A is a character" is not a suitable external link. If the external document contains "A is the first character of the Alphabet", then it might be a suitable external link (though the intro clause '.. not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article' would preclude it, it can be used to expand the article. I understand that what it says now precludes also the second example, but the statement is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, if we know what the article would contain when it would be a featured article (or, lets say, a full fetched article) then we would know if it violates #1 .. but we don't know what would .. we know what information is there now, and if it would violate that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dirk, I am sympathetic to your argument, but the other side is that putting pressure on ELs gets us more refs/proper article development.

I do expect editors, especially when faced with a stub, to use their very best judgment and some WP:COMMONSENSE. ELNO isn't ELNEVER, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove

There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? --PBS (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

not references

I clarified two section to more firmly indicate that the restriction on language and paid sites do not apply to references. It was already on the page, but people who do not know this keep saying otherwise, so my intent was to make it more conspicuous. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should tag the <ref name=NotRef /> footnote on to each and every one of these statements, so it's easier to keep track of how many times we've said this when we moan about the inability of certain editors to read and retain more than one sentence. We make that statement in at least half a dozen places, including the sentence immediately before your first addition.

It can't be helped, I suppose: I'd far rather have an annoyingly repetitive document that pounds this simple point through our thick skulls by main force than to have disputes prolonged because I keep assuming that everyone can remember WP:ELPOINTS #1 once they've moved on to the next sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I started to standardize the language of two of the sections because using consistent language might help drive the point home as well. They now start with "Outside of citations,<ref name=NotRef />". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk)

The ref was lost in intervening edits. I assume that was an oversight and I have restored it. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolding the ext link if it is the subject of article

Many articles have more than one ext link and when the link to the subject of the article it can disappear amongst the clutter. Also, I am not a fan of the "Official website" label. Is there an unofficial website for a government for instance? The word "website" is always redundant since an ext link is by definition a website. As a solution I like the idea of bolding the ext link that is the subject of the article - just like we do with the first occurrence of the article name - and using the actual article name (which is generally the website name). As an example for the Celebrity Fitness article:

External links

• Celebrity Fitness
• Official Facebook page

rather than:

External links

• Official website
• Official Facebook page

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would presume that the top EL would be the official site, and I think that is customary. I am used to unbold all external links on sight, their primary use would be to expand knowledge, and which one is then more important then the others? Moreover, the official link is on many pages also in the infobox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Official website is a better way to go normally as it is often the case that there is more ways than one to name the entity, and there is no pint in arguing about it or encouraging COI accounts to either promote or unpromote something. Bolding seems a terrible idea to me. We don't bold internal links why would we bold an external link? 2005 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I usually prefer using the organization's own name in such links, as in your first example, but I wouldn't bother with bolding. IMO the only good use of "official website" is to distinguish it from unofficial ones. This may be a significant concern for orgs (e.g., pop bands) that attract fansites, but probably not for a fitness studio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Official social networking links

Are official Facebook and Twitter links okay? The "Official links" section says that they are not okay, but the "Links normally to be avoided" section says that they are. Evil saltine (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, they shouldn't be added as they usually are already linked to from the actual official site, and rarely meet EL in general for providing a resource beyond what an FA-level article would. Social networking isn't content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Template linking to another wiki

I'm unsure whether {{Arborwiki}} runs afoul of the guidelines here. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, like most of those other templates that do the same. It doesn't meet WP:EL, so there should be no template encouraging its linking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam junk should be deleted. First page I checked that was linked was just a placeholder. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting/hoping to find an arborist's wiki. Sadly, it's just a low-quality regional wiki with pages like Iggy Pop. I'd endorse a tfd. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#Template:Arborwiki. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers linking to its own content

In the process of link cleanup, I regularly substitute external links with the equivalent article link, moving it up to the "See also" section. This practice recently came under scrutiny at ANI. My reasoning, as adapted from an ANI post is as follows:[3]

With respect to converting external links to internal links, I do this on the basis that Wikipedia should give preference and priority to its own content. This is implied with the standard order of appendices: See also, Notes, References, then External links—these give preference to other articles, then verification of the current article, and last and least, content on other websites. Preference for Wikipedia's own content is corroborated by the prohibition of most external links to an organization's main page embedded in the main body of an article (see WP:CITE). I believe an article is improved when a link can be taken out of the "External links" and substituted with the equivalent article in the "See also" section. When that other article is correctly written, the reader can trivially find its associated web page if desired. As a corollary, I believe that if a link is not appropriate in the "See also" section, then neither should its equivalent be in "External links."

This principal was formerly stated in the lead of this this very guideline some time ago. It was removed, not because of any consensus that the principal was not valid, but simply because it appeared in the lead paragraph but was not spelled out in detail later in the article.[4]

This principal of "Wikipedia first" is so basic and sensible, and so many articles are cluttered with links that have an equivalent internal article link, that it would be good to bring this back into the guideline. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It must however be treated with common sense. If it involves the conversion of the external link http://en.wikipedia.org on the article Wikipedia to a "see also" item Wikipedia, then it is not correct. External links are there to lead to more information, so it may be difficult to do this in all cases. I do however agree that edits like this indeed would be preferred, as the external links that were replaced might actually fail WP:ELNO #13 (I would not know if they should be in the see also, though, sometimes they are superfluous in total; might I remark that this article needs external link pruning, this fails WP:NOT and WP:EL!). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article Wikipedia links to the main page because it's common practice for official links to link to a site's main page. And per the guideline on self-references, it's an external link instead of an internal link to Main Page so that it will make sense even in the context of mirrors and forks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left a supportive comment at WP:ANI#Response.

As for removing the org spam, ELNO #5 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website") may apply. ELNO #19 seems highly relevant: "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." The two orgs shown in the diff above aren't (yet) incorporated into the article, but they belong under Orthodox Judaism outreach#Outreach_organizations and should follow the same rules as the three orgs currently listed there. Nothing in this guideline can be construed as approving links to dozens of separate charities and religious organizations that reach out to Jewish people. If the link doesn't tell you something about the subject (e.g., details that aren't WP:DUE for inclusion in the article), then it doesn't belong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline change

I propose we include another criterion of links normally avoided to handle this case. I'll present a first pass at potential wording:

20. Links to web pages that are the subject of an existing Wikipedia article. Instead, use the internal link within the article if it is appropriate, because Wikipedia gives priority to directing readers to its own content.

This is an important addition to the ELNO section for several reasons. The practice of linking to sites that have an equivalent article is widespread throughout our article space. Although there is some overlap among the existing criteria, this clearly and unambiguously identifies a whole class of links that up this point can weasel around the existing rules. Currently these types of links can be removed because it is such a common sense rule of thumb, and I believe it is important to document what is common sense to 95% of editors to help out the other 5%. This rule would also shine a light on links that appear to be appropriate, but are actually slightly off-topic. For example, language articles often become large and are broken into sub-articles such as "grammar," "verbs," "nouns," etc. yet the main article will contain long lists of links to articles on those specific topics. So, to repeat myself, this will help editors easily and unambiguously identify a class of links that appear widely but are redundant, while at the same time helping the project by encouraging a preference to our own content and further establish a "Wikipedia first" principle. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think that much of this is covered by #13 already. The subject of the page is not the organisation, it is something that the organisation stands for. These link-lists are hence totally inappropriate, and a WP:SPAMHOLE. We are not an internet directory for finding the organisations. Such sites could be 'listed' using wikilinks in the body of the text (e.g. under a heading 'organisations that "do this"'), the wiki-articles should do the rest. IMHO, the proposed #20 is therefore superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon, when you're mopping up this kind of spam, do opposing editors usually approach you out of confusion (e.g., they honestly thought that an uninformative link to the main page of ____ Charity's website was a good link for an article about _____), or out of defensiveness (e.g., they are determined to have their pet organization's link publicized on Wikipedia if at all possible)?

If you're regularly getting hassled over this, then I'm in favor of ending the hassles. But I suspect that the people spamming the links are doing so out of either ignorance of or indifference to WP:NOTLINKS, and that no addition here is going to make them more familiar with, or more committed to, Wikipedia's voluminous standards.

If editors usually go along with the deletion (after a short explanation, in some instances), then we don't need to bother with writing this down. It would suggest that such an addition to this guideline might be WP:CREEPy (specifically the "nobody reads the directions" clause).

I occasionally do a bit of anti-spam work, and my usual protocol is to simply delete inappropriate from a dozen articles, and let them go unwatched. Generally, only one or two will get reverted, and I leave them alone (unless/until I run across it another day anyway). It takes so long to argue with people -- even if there's a firm rule that explicitly rejects the link in question -- that I decided to skip most of the arguments. I can remove a dozen inappropriate links in the length of time it takes to explain a single, simple rule to a single editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There used to be text that said internal links were preferable to external links, even if they are red links. But that has been gone a long time. The above sentence is micromanaging though because, first, external links should not be used in the body of the article. That concept is already in the guideline, but could and should be even stronger. The articles that violate this principal the most, and the most obtusely, are list articles. List articles should only link internally to the article about the entity. If an entity is not notable enough to have an article, then it isn't notable enough to be on list. Simple. So again, if there are no rogue external links in an article, it is impossible to have this issue come into play. We need a simple guideline. There is no problem here is external links are never in the body of an article, and external links in the external links section are only directly on the topic of the article. The guideline already says these concepts but in a too mealy-mouthed way. 2005 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifications. This is primarily about links in an "External links" section. It isn't so much about spam (intentional promotion of a site), but about links that are not appropriate because we already have an article covering that topic. I don't get a lot of complaints about this or any other aspect of my editing, but I do like to have a solid reason and a principle or guideline to point to.

Beetstra is correct in saying that this is essentially covered by #13, particularly the part that says "a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." There is a subtle problem that arises and I run into it a lot. Take for example an early version of an article on Minnesota. It would rightly link to the very best external site about Fort Snelling. Later "History of Minnesota" is created, and now that link is more properly in the latter article. And finally a "Fort Snelling" article is created and now think link properly belongs there and not in either of the others. In this hypothetical instance, the link is very much appropriate in each case, until a more specific article is created. In a similar vein, the "Chinese language" article would have links to the very best site about grammar and site about Chinese characters, but now that articles on those topics have been created, the links are properly in the more specific article. The difference between a "specific subject" and "general subject" in the current #13 is, well, somewhat subjective. In a very real sense, by the existence of an article on a more specific subject, Wikipedia helps determine where that line can be drawn.

Another area where this will be helpful is by giving cleanup editors a concrete rule of thumb that is fairly easy to apply. I attempt to clean up articles on topics that I don't always understand well enough to know when a link is too specific. But I can look at alquranacademy.com for example and see that it is appropriate in Quran Academy but not the other articles it is in. (This might be a bad example, as it may not even belong in that article, but you get the idea: one can clean up articles you don't fully understand because you know a more specific article already exists).

I would like to see something added to the guideline along these lines, because it shines a light on a fairly widespread issue in a way that is more clear than anything we presently have. Perhaps as a new line item as I have suggested or as a clarification and sharpening of ELNO#13. Is there a way to get there from here? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:2005, would you reduce List of ibuprofen brand names to two items? The fact that there are many brand names (and resulting confusion and risk of unintentional overdose) is discussed in multiple reliable sources. Would you recommend that the Featured List List of English words containing Q not followed by U be turned into an incomplete list until someone figures out a way to justify the last handful of words under WP:N? What about List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures)? It's a featured list, and almost nothing under #Treasures has an article about the specific sculpture. It looks like there are articles on the subjects of most of the sculptures, but it'd be like linking to David instead of to David (Michelangelo).

I think that your idea about removing any item from a list that doesn't have a separate Wikipedia about it is untenable. It also contradicts WP:N's basic rule: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."

Jon, the "way to get there from here" is to convince editors that you can't do this valuable work without adding this line (or a similar one) to this guideline. My mind's open, but I'm currently at "* Weak oppose". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List of ibuprofen brand names has two wiki links to Advil and Nurofen, and no external links. Please state more clearly what you think is wrong with that. The same with the other examples. Neither has external links in the body of the article, why is that bad? (And why did you mention the Notability guideline, since I just restated that concept you repeated.) 2005 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see my comments were not clear above. I didn't mean remove the non-notable item from the list. I meant to not have external links to the non-notable items. Aside from the random linking of countries, List of ibuprofen brand names is how lists should be done... internal links to those things with articles, and zero external links. 2005 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree 100% with that. I was going to call you out on your comments above too, as it DOES imply that "only items with articles should be in a list", which is just crazy, though I'm pretty sure I've seen people say that very thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what sites this would directly prohibit that aren't already covered in our other points, particularly ELNO point 13. Can anyone give some examples of where this would be used to a greater effectiveness than our other points? ThemFromSpace 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The new rule will identify a class of external links that are too specific for a given article and that are ambiguous by the current rules. Here are a couple of examples of how I applied the principle recently. A link to an impressive sounding article by the American Association of Feline Practitioners about cat behavior was removed from Cat because there is a more specific article, Cat behavior where it would be more appropriate.[5] Currently there is disagreement at Outward Bound whether a link to the official site of Outward Bound USA belongs in that article (I don't think it does). Although this case might fall under ELNO#19, a new rule based on article existence would help draw the line. Other examples are in my post several paragraphs above, starting with the paragraph beginning "Beetstra is correct…" ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary

To close this off, I'll summarize what I see as the result of the discussion:

• There is no consensus for adding the proposed change because it is adequately covered by existing guidelines, particularly ELNO#13.
• The principle of not using an external link when an equivalent internal link is available was not challenged and can continue to be used in practice.

If editors believe this principle would be a helpful clarification to #13 or elsewhere in the guideline, I am willing to come up with proposed wording. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sites reported as virus hosts

Is there any guidance that applies for how to handle linked sites that get reported as virus infested? In the case of Universe People, the official site has recently been reported by Google as a possible trojan hazard and I am unsure of how to handle the link. On the one hand it is the official site while on the other we probably have a duty to warn the reader that the link is problematic.—Ash (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't do disclaimers. If the official site is suspect then it has to be removed: official sites are usually linked to articles, but this isn't mandatory. Even better would be to find secondary coverage of the virus issue and discuss it in-article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Malware sites go on the meta blacklist without excuse. After that it is best to disable the links to the site to avoid damage to users' computers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ELNO #3 used to ban malware sites even if they hadn't yet been reported to the blacklist, but other editors seemed to think this was unimportant.

(The difference is that it's "phyiscally impossible" to add (or keep, if you've edited a page with a preëxitsting link) a blacklisted site: the software won't let you save the page. ELNO is our own rules, not what the software forces us to do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ELREG

Obviously sources that require a subscription are not allowed, but what if they offer part of an article free? Someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#New reliable ref wants to use a site that allows you to read the first paragraph of a article, but requires a subscription to see the rest. I think this still fails EL, but what is the official stance? I won't even get into that the site doesn't produce any original material (it just collects articles from different sites into one location, so editors can and should just use the original source). TJ Spyke 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's important to retain the distinction between what is appropriate for use as a cited source vs. what is appropriate for an external link. If the site meets the standards for a reliable source, then it can be used as a source even if it requires a subscription for some or all of its content. Essentially, if the content is reliable and was used to supply information for the article, then we should point readers to it even if it is hard to get to. However, we discourage subscription sites for use as non-source external links, because ELs are supposed to be leading readers to extra information, and it is not a good service to our readers if they can't get to that information. So based on just the information you provided, without any investigation of the link itself, I would shy away from it as an external link unless there is a substantial amount of useful information in the free previews. (By the way, for feedback on particular links, let me encourage the use of the External Links Noticeboard, or for sources the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. This page is primarily for discussion of the linking policy itself.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration, paying very careful attention to the first three words, which are in bold-face text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re: an external link in city articles

A discussion has been started at WT:USCITY#External links clarification regarding the use of a link to an external wiki within city articles. Input at that discussion from those familiar with WP:EL would also be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use in external links?

From Restrictions on linking: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." Was this intended to include or to exclude copyrighted works used under a fair use defense (17 USC 107 or foreign counterparts)? For example, this policy page links to the video "A Fair(y) Use Tale", which uses snippets of Disney films without permission but under U.S. fair use law. If it was intended to include fair use, is there anything wrong with the following wording? "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as (A) the website has licensed the work or (B) the website's use of the copyrighted work is a fair use." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL's obligation here is to summarize the most important issues named at the real page, which is WP:COPYLINK. WP:EL doesn't "own" the issue in question and doesn't need to provide detailed guidance; our primary goal is really just to point editors to the real policy.

Consequently, I don't think that an expansion is necessary or helpful; in fact, I think that it tends to reduce utility by introducing complications that some editors won't be able to process correctly. However, if you've got an actual dispute on your hands over this, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

After rereading it, I see that it's intended as "if", not "if and only if"; "if licensed then OK" doesn't rule out "if fair use then OK". I'm just having a hard time coming up with a wording that makes this clearer without making it longer. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is one actual open question directly related to this. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17#Template:Wikia is currently discussing a promotional template linked to a for-profit series of (mostly) fan site wikis, these wikis in turn are using huge quantities of illustration and plot summary from whichever copyrighted entertainment franchise is being promoted or discussed there. I'd expect that such a widespread use and overuse of "fair use" wouldn't meet with the higher standards applied on Wikipedia itself, but does this mean that we should stop linking to these wikis unless and until they get authorisation from the copyright holders for this stuff? One can only push "fair use" or "fair dealing" so far... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So... a template that makes for consistency in formatting is a "promotional" tool?

Beyond that... and bluntly... Wikipedia cannot force its guidelines and policies on other sites.

Yes, the wikis hosted at Wikia, as well as any other wiki, are more narrowly focused than Wikipidia is. They are also free to decide for themselves what "fair use" entails. And keep in mind, Wikipedia is overly conservative on how much non-free content is acceptable - both from the aspect of images and plot summary. Both of these mean that the articles on those other wikis do provide expanded and additional information that Wikipedia won't include.

As for waiting for the wikis at Wikia to get what amounts to a licensing agreement - If that is really wanted, then we should systematically strip all external links, images, and summaries currently on Wikipedia for which we don't have such and agreement. Fair is fair. Oh, and it is worth noting that such a license could wind up only being in effect until Wikia pisses off the licenser. And I'm aware of at least one case where they did and an "Official" wiki for a game move off of Wikia.

Last thing - WP:ELNO #s 11 and 12, which are aimed at a per site/wiki level instead of a domain level, would normally be used on a per article bases for removing these types of like. Operative word - NORMALLY. With the way works of fiction, and elements in those works, have been treated, we, Wikipedia, have be relocating material to other wikis, mostly on Wikia, under the premise that the articles could/should be pointing to where the information was moved to.

- J Greb (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To the anon: "Editors might misuse this template to violate a policy" is not generally an accepted reason for deletion. Whether you place a link as a 'spelled out' link (e.g., http: //wikia.com), or use a template to simplify(?) it, you (as the editor placing the link) have exactly the same obligation to determine that the external link complies with all of Wikipedia's requirements. We don't have separate rules for linking to a webpage with a template vs. rules for linking to a webpage without a template. The existence (or non-existence) of a template is absolutely irrelevant to decisions about whether a given page should be linked.

To J Greb: Wikipedia doesn't impose its standards on anyone. We only say that if a page doesn't meet our standards, then we don't choose to link to it. We have standards for all links, and one rule that specifically applies to open(!) wikis. We don't need, or want, an agreement from any website. We're not trying to be "fair" or to force our guidelines on anyone. We're simply refusing to link sites that don't meet our standards (regardless of how they fail to meet our standards: I believe that more sites fail for providing less information than the article, for providing primarily non-encyclopedic information, or trying to sell things than for fair use concerns). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Malware (third time? fourth time?)

About this: I agree that there's basically never any reason to link to a malware site. However, this edit screws up the numbering scheme, which is a Very Bad Idea, because so many editors refer to items strictly by number.

Additionally, the section that we casually term "ELNEVER" is actually better described as "ELOFFICE": it's stuff that editors aren't permitted to do, no matter what we say on this page. A discussion at WT:EL is incapable of changing WP:COPYLINK or making the software accept blacklisted links; "ELNEVER" is (only) supposed to accurately reports these major policy decisions.

The rest of the rules (ELMAYBE, ELNO, YOUTUBE, and so forth) are "owned" by this page. We can put whatever we think appropriate into them. Malware that wasn't (yet) blacklisted has been banned in ELNO #3 for years, but this was removed for what I thought were rather weak reasons (largely an assumption that all malware sites were reliably on the blacklist, if memory serves) a few months ago, and my subsequent efforts to fix the resulting problem haven't received much support.

As an intermediate approach, I've moved Hu12's text to ELNO #3. If I could, once again, then direct editors to the need for an exception to the "anything goes" approach at ELOFFICIAL so that even "official" malware links aren't acceptable, then we could perhaps finally have tied up all the loose ends on this issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping it at EL3. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or illegal content will never be acceptable for inclusion (few would dissagree), however these sites are promply blacklisted when discovered. Only then does it become ELNEVER. So EL3 is the logical and apropriate place. Not sure why it was ever moved to begin with. --Hu12 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the formatting. "Illegal content" is an interesting addition (which I don't think was present in the old version of this statement, although I haven't looked). I think it's desirable, though, as it would (apparently for the first time) make this page ban links to child pornography sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would cover areas like child porn or linking to any other Illegal content that violates local or intenational laws, ect... --Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

External links including the official band site on musician articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#External_links_to_official_band_sites regarding the inclusion of official band sites in the external links section of musician articles. If you chime in over there it would be nice to let them know where you learned of the discussion as usually it is just music project editors discussing on that page. - Steve3849 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Raw linking in infobox

I've never seen this discussed: not sure if this is the best place to bring it up, but let's see.

In my opinion things like official websites should be linked raw in infobox templates. This makes them useful in print and spoken formats. The purpose of the website field in infoboxes is really to say what the URL of the website is, rather than to really serve as a link to it. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying about raw, you mean make the output of the entry look like http://www.elpasotexas.gov/ rather than City of El Paso? To print out the raw URL rather than the name of the site it references? If so, I disagree 100%. The document, a Wikipedia article, is written for readers of English, not readers of "computer". If you really honestly think that that information is important to the article output, then I will argue it should like http://www.elpasotexas.gov/ instead, because that is literally what you are talking about: printing the plain English of a computer function. How does that info serve the reader? I'll argue instead it destroys the whole point of having hyperlinks in the first place: They were designed so that people could use links in English (or other natural language) rather than have to read the underlying code. The article on English Wikipedia is written for the reader of the article, and readable English is the only standard I know how to follow as an editor. (Note: I am also a computer engineer, but that is not what we're here to do as editors.)

The links are functionally useful to the reader. There's no reason I can think of why the reader of the article "El Paso" should be banned from hyperlinking to the city's web site and be forced to do some odd rigamarole just to get to the site. This strikes me as just mean and rude beyond comprehension.

This is a web site. The web uses hyperlinks.

My point is: Your argument (if I'm understanding it correctly), applies equally well to every external (and internal for that matter) link in every article. To me, it applies to all of them, or none of them. My answer as an editor, not a computer engineer is: None.

I rather imagine this is addressed in some MOS subpage somewhere, but I'm not sure I care: Each policy and guideline page has at the top of it a disclaimer about common sense. Above is my "common sense" of the situation.

Note: If your argument is "Website: City of El Paso" looks useless in print, I can grant that's true: It's not my problem as an editor that the City of El Paso chose to name their web site "City of El Paso" rather than "The City of El Paso web site". I can make it clearer in context for readers of the document in print, and I think I'll go do that just now (looks pretty dumb on the web page version of the article, oh well). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember we're talking about the infobox, with is informational -- NOT the external link section which is navigational. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is solely for the infobox URL, which should be duplicated in the extlinks section anyway (appropriately wrapped in explanatory text). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The form "http://www.elpasotexas.gov/" (or "elpasotexas.gov") makes it clear that it is an official government website. I don't even have to read .gov to know that!

This form also serves as a literal address, which if memorized would make it easier to find in the future (otherwise requiring a bookmark, or a google search, or a return to our article).

I don't have a strong inclination either way at the moment, but I note that Presidency of Barack Obama and Barack Obama vs Whitehouse.gov and .gov use either method, and might be useful examples for our discussion.

I would suggest that the "http://" string is not necessary to include (per those examples above, and per modern browsers not requiring it). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way. If the name of the website is well known/commonly discussed in sources, then naming the website might be WP:DUE. OTOH, if it's a long, unintelligible (to human readers) URL, then I'd recommend against it. We have plenty of government agencies (and many public schools) that are notable enough for their own articles, but whose website is long (division.department.state.gov/subpage) and unreadable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not to have a URL in the infobox at all is tangential to this one. I'm simply saying that if there is to be one, it should be spelled out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

Based on edit summaries of recent edits to the project page, 92.62.52.90 disagrees with the section "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" with the following rationale: "As editors, we can't control how many good outside links exist or don't exist for different viewpoints." My spidey-sense is tingling that it could lead to a revert war. So let's discuss it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's not much to talk about. WP:EL cannot authorize violations of WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE). The rule we summarize here would still be the rule imposed by that policy, even if we didn't give editors 'fair warning' about its applicability on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor's objection is right, I suppose. But it would be the exception to the rule, not the normal situation, when there are one or more quality links to one side of a multi-sided issue but none to the other sides. Normally you'd have multiple sites available and want to link to several or more likely none. Anyway, this section has stood on the page for a long time without objection, so in the interest of stability I think we shouldn't fix it if it isn't broken. Is there an actual widespread problem with people misusing this part of the guideline, or disagreeing on its implementation? Incidentally, I've changed the heading level and edited this a little bit so it's part of "links to avoid", thereby making it an exception to the "official site" section. It definitely should be an exception, because official sites are almost always POV in favor of the article subject but we include them nonetheless. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's really that unusual a situation. Most AltMed runs afoul of this rule: a dozen 'good' sites promoting the latest get-rich-quick scam, and zero sites, or very few good sites, that debunk it. Dubious ideas run in fads, and reputable organizations are usually slow to respond. Some neglected medical issues, like Post-Vasectomy Pain Syndrome, require regular weeding on exactly this point. (Imagine the links we would have seen in 1982 about AIDS [remembering that HIV was isolated the next year] if the web existed then: we probably would have had a mishmash of Duesbergian anti-gay/anti-drug abuse complaints and Regeanesque religious platitudes, and disproportionately few medical sites.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're making an awfully good point here. I'm going to have to wander off and think about it some more. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting guidelines?

WP:ELMAYBE #4 states "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." while WP:ELNO #1 states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." These seem to be in direct conflict, and as some editors are trying to use MAYBE4 to add invalid links to self-published reviews to articles, claiming they fall under MAYBE despite their clearly failing NOT as the links are not from experts, already clearly failed as reliable sources, and do not not provide any information about the subject. Further, MAYBE4 seems to open the gateway for anything to be linked to, including "fansites" and what not, while such links clearly fall under what not to link to. This issue was brought up over the attempts to add two random reviews from non-reliable sources as ELs to King Cobra (film)‎[6][7]. Some clarification of which is valid would be useful here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems quite clear and not contradictory. An EL is not required by guideline to be an RS, only something that may be pertinent to the article topic. If it were RS it would be usable in a citation.

Quite clear... MAYBE1 says... suitable reliable should go in the article.

Quite clear... MAYBE4 says... suitable non-reliable go to EL

Quite clear... ELNO covers non-suitable fansites and blogs and advert and such, so no doors are being opened, and no need to be re-addressed in MAYBE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ELMAYBE1 was deleted in part because of claims about redundancy: its opponents were convinced that nobody would ever object to (professional, not Amazon/Epinion-type consumer) reviews being permitted under ELMAYBE4.

ELMAYBE4 is a direct and specific authorization for editors to consider (not to require or to demand) including links to non-reliable sources. So all of the "it's not an RS" complaints above are out of place and should be ignored.

That leaves us with "not provid[ing] any information about the subject", which is a little odd. Either the reviews are about the movie, or they aren't: even if the "information" they provide is only one person's subjective opinion, that's enough for this criteria.

However, my conclusion that these links are "probably not prohibited by this guideline" (although I'm a little concerned about a different ELNO issue: "objectionable amounts of advertising") doesn't mean that they're actually valuable additions to the article. The editors at the article need to have a civil discussion about the merits of the specific, individual links, alternatives that might be more valuable, and so forth. While all links need to comply with this guideline, we can't include every one that doesn't happen to be prohibited. I suggest leading the discussion from the perspective of common sense and your perception of what will be most likely to help or interest the reader, rather from a legalistic or rule-based system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 1 was removed because professional reviews should be used as sources, not just thrown in EL. That doesn't really address the question of "not provid[ing] a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" - a FA film article contains a properly referenced, well-crafted reception section that would contain all relevant critical opinions. How is a non-reliable, non-critic opinion a "unique resource" and how does it provide any information beyond what is already in the article from reliable sources (i.e. critical reception of the film). By that reasoning, it would seem that we should be linking ePinions, Amazon reviews, and any other non-professional reviews because they are "unique" and not reliable sources... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The belief that professional reviews should generally be used as sources was only one part of the argument in October; it was not the only reason for the change. Additionally, there are times when even RS-qualifying reviews are better placed as external links -- for example, when the alternative is a long string of refs that support the same claim. "This is an artistically important movie^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]8][9]}" is silly.

A film review that presents the opinion of an individual is a "unique resource" within the meaning of this guideline. "Unique" does not mean that the resource is "valuable"; it only means its contents are at least somewhat different from the article.

Editors have specifically discussed, and rejected, links to consumer reviews, although this information is not actually contained in the written guideline at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically, "consumer reviews" shouldn't be listed, but any other self-published, random non-review is fine? So if someone links to my personal reviews of various anime series, it meets WP:ELMAYBE because it is a "unique" source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: It's called "links to consider" for a reason. "Editors should think about adding these kinds of links" is materially -- some might say dramatically -- different from "Add these links". If you consider these kinds of links, and you "consider them to be a bad idea" in the specific article, or, after due consideration, you decide that the specific examples put forward are low-quality or have other flaws, then you've met the very limited requirements here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, and 4 all look to be written by English as second Language candidates. All of EL:MAYBE should be dumped, except the Dmoz suggestion. MAYBE #4 is particularly idiotic as it says nothing at all. One editor kept insisting it be put in, so he could link to some blog as I recall, but it is mealy-mouthed nonsense. We should almost never link to soemthing that is not a reliable source, something that is not an expert. Of course the idea of having non-expert reviews in external links but not expert ones is stupid on its face. 2005 (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:2005, It seems to me that we've had this conversation before, and that you have never managed to get much support for your view. This section exists to help editors understand the kinds of links that might be useful. As a work of editor education, we want both the carrot ("Maybe this could be linked") and the stick ("But not that") in this document.

Also, it appears that it wasn't merely "some blog" that prompted the creation of ELMAYBE #4 in May 2007, but what we would now call an official link. (See this change.) It was heavily, and repeatedly, discussed at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If that was true, which it is not, then please explain what that sentence means. #4 does nothing to explain what types of links are useful. It was discussed, but no one can even now state what the it means in coherent English. The vast majority of websites are not reliable sources but do "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". My neighbor is knowledgeable about food, but we don't put his recipes on the food article. As this issue raises yet again, useless text can be used to justify any external link... like any person who has seen a movie is "knowledgable" about it. 2005 (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2005, I have asked User:Jbolden1517, the editor who added Number 4 three years ago what his opinion is about this "mealy-mouthed nonsense". Ikip 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonion per the first template above: "DO NOT ask about specific external links here! Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link." can you please remove the specific external links, thanks. Ikip 01:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If AnmaFinotera's understanding of the guideline had been correct, then we would have needed to change the guideline to resolve the perceived self-contradiction. Real-world issues that illustrate possible errors in this guideline should be brought here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you learn not to go around refactoring others people's posts before whining about that. I didn't ask about specific links, I asked about the guideline and noted an example. You and Michael are the one trying to make it about those links in particular. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, did you somehow forget that you specifically mentioned Apollo Movie Guide in you opening remarks on this page? You removed 2 ELs from the article in question but only used the poorest of them as an example of those you would deny. For me to respond with my own example inre eFilmCritic below, and then qualify it, is most prudent. It would be a disservice to all of Wikipedia to declare all insects as bees simply because bees are insects. Recognizing and being able to accept the differences improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, "Consensus": WP:ELMAYBE since May 2007. "Consensus": "DO NOT ask about specific external links here!" I think one particular editor said it best: "Not my opinion, but consensus which, as usual, you dislike."[8] Ikip 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Then its good that I'm not asking about specific links, but the conflict between the two, now isn't it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you did not wish input about one specific website, you would not have used it as an "example". Look... you win on Apollo. However, now that the issue is raised I wish a ruling on the other you would so blythly disallow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for specific input on any website, you did. I gave an example to illustrate my valid question about the seeming wording conflict between WP:ELMAYBE #4 and WP:ELNO #1. I'm sorry if you dislike my using an example, but that is not the topic of the discussion. I asked about the guideline, period. If you want to discuss those specific links, then do so on the talk page or the EL Noticeboard, as Ikip has repeatedly pointed out. I am, again, not asking any feedback on those links only using them as illustration for the overall question. I also gave another example in requesting clarification from one of the only uninvolved parties not trying to fill this with discussion about those links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not begin the discussion here, you did. I did not begin it with a specific example, you did... couched within a generalized question that could be later used to remove any EL not on the list of RS. Your opening question requires showing that all current non-RS are not as poor or unacccepted by the industry as your sole example. Remember all the drama over IMDB as an EL? Dicussions of sites that may be suitable per ELMAYBE are quite relevent here, as the request for clarification has been made... by you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "drama" over IMDB as an EL, only that it is not a reliable source. It does, however, actually provide a unique source beyond what an FA article would have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we aproaching an understanding of how a non-RS might provide something of value as an EL... each to be considered for what it is, what it provides? And inre IMDB, I'll search my histories and see if I can find a link to a discussion of it as a non-RS suitable as an EL. Lots of pages to search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem blogs and crapsites are nicely dealt with in WP:ELNO. I suppose then we're headed for another RFC to delete WP:ELMAYBE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But until that RFC, I have found I agree with User:Jayjg and other temperate editors at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cheryl_DeWolfe who have explained unsuitability of Apollo Movie Guide, and I will no longer opine for its inclusion.

However, this still does not address the arbitrary removal of eFilmCritic from the EL section. Per the proposed compromise at Talk:King_Cobra_(film)#Compromise_proposal, I ask it to be returned. Even if they do not yet have an article on Wikipedia, eFilmCritic does seem to have the respect of many of the other sites that Wikipedia considers reliable for their own editorial staff and reputations for fact checking and accuracy. The accepted RS that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and choose to use eFilmCritic as a source include Screen Digest, Daily Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Los Angeles Times, Hartford Courant, Chicago Sun-Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, News & Record, Sunday Herald, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, Animation World Network, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsday, The Record, Yakima Herald-Republic, Telegraph, San Diego Union-Tribune, Daily Astorian, Kansas City Star, Dayton Daily News, Deseret News, Hollywood Reporter, Financial Post, Jewish Journal... to list only a few. This seems indicative of two things:

1) even if not (yet) accepted as RS, I believe this shows eFilmCritic as acceptable for consideration as an EL that honors both the spirit and intention of WP:ELMAYBE, and

2) eFilmCritic seems to surpass requirements of WP:GNG and would themself merit an article of some kind at some point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You listed 30 sites that respect eFilmCritic. How did you get that list? Do you have an example for, say, the Los Angeles Times that shows the respect? What is the process whereby a review is placed at eFilmCritic? Could anyone post a review (perhaps after registering)? Is there any evidence of editorial oversight? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That list was determined through a brief Google News search to determine how many other sites, sites accepted as RS through their own editorial oversight and reputations for fact checking and accuracy, had themselves chosen eFilmCritic to quote, or write about. I stopped at 30. There are many more. If our Reliable Sources use eFilmCritic as a source of unique informtion, is it not reasonable to at the the very least allow it as an non-RS EL here?

I am not stating or postulating that eFilmCritic is a Reliable Source, and am not here at EL trying to argue nor determine its utility or acceptability as RS nor qualify it as one through any as-yet undetermined editorial oversight. I am here simply to ask of its suitability as an EL site offering reviews or opinions under ELMAYBE, in that the site may be able to in some instances provide unique information for the readers of our articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And one I missed adding... members of the Online Film Critics Society also contibute to eFilmCritic [9]. This is mentioned not to assert reliability of opinions, only instances of knowlegability per "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why #4 was added

The reason #4 was added was quite often you had unreliable sources like blogs or web forums where experts were addressing the topic at hand. For example a political speech on a topic. That sort of speech is biased, and not fact checked hence usually not a reliable source but can be a terrific source of things like context. Linking to the full text of the speech might be useful for determine what was said but not for what is true.

The sort of thing #4 was meant to address can quite often happen spontaneously on the web. We had an example where a football conversation got rolling and more and more people get involved on a football site's forum and a few professional coaches start discussing and then the coach who invented the play gets involved.... Nobody is fact checking and being subjected to peer review but it an excellent EL.

There was an example of a web interview, again where the chief pastor of a church we had an article on gave an "on the record" interview regarding some of the controversial issues, on a blog. Again the idea of ELs is material that falls short being stated in wikipedia's voice (i.e not an RS) but still would be useful information. Hope this context was helpful jbolden1517^Talk 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

EL's are not excluded on the basis of RS; they're not used as sources in article text. Comment falls under WP:TLDR before the rest can be reasonably read. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Aladdin, I agree that your comment falls under TLDR -- specifically the paragraph that says, "Citing this essay during internal discussions is considered dismissive and rude." I recommend reading the pages that you name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell, citing it for something only 9 sentences long is worse than rude. There weren't even links-to-further-details in the 3 short 'tldr' paragraphs. Not having the patience to read such a brief comment, is a bit of a problem. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to assume that the comment was directed solely at the comment Jbolden1517 was specifically invited to make. The entire thread is rather long. The fact that it might be a response to the complete eye-glazing discussion doesn't make Aladdin's comment helpful, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"EL's are not excluded on the basis of RS;" Well first off they probably still are. The point of #1-4 was to decrease the frequency. In 2007 ELs were being excluded quite often based on the RS criteria. jbolden1517^Talk 23:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes even less sense. Expert opinion, like the pastor, has always been allowed in external links (IF it is verifiable it IS the pastor saying it), but someone posting on a forum that "John Doe said..." is never allowed. If you think #4 allows you to link to forum threads, you are sorely mistaken, and just shows why ambiguous text like that is horrible in the guideline. It should be removed because it is both incoherent and, if read as jbolden1517 just said, means that anything can be linked anytime so long as someone who is knowledgable says something. That's absurd. Any movie review by someone who saw a movie and posted it on a forum then qualifies as an external link? No way. 2005 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How does linking to the actual content of a speech on an issue by a public figure, comments by a noted expert in an informal setting or ... have anything to do with either of your examples or hearsay or a random person who saw a movie? Please don't put words in my mouth. If you think #4 allows for those things then indicate it as your opinion not mine. I was very clear the purpose was recognized experts in informal settings not non experts. jbolden1517^Talk 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We see questions on that point. I believe that I point people to the specific line about non-RS links being acceptable about once a month; presumably, more editors actually find the answer themselves on this page than need to ask us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The situation in 2010 is very different than in 2007. I think those lines accomplished what their aim was. We have a clear separation between RS criteria and EL criteria. 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 says "knowledgable sources", and says those sources do not have to be reliable. The wording means anyone who is unreliable, non-expert and unnotable but "knowledgable" about something can be linked. That's absurd. #4 can be used to justify virtually any link that is not prohibited by ELNO or other parts of the guideline. There is absolutely no reason to for such broad text in the guideline. 2005 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have the notion of "reliable persons" only reliable sources. But the link is clear that if the site met the criteria for a reliable source than the content would have to meet the criteria. That is the person quoted would need to be the kind of person who could be quoted in a reliable source. So to use your movie review example, a movie critic commenting on a blog meets #4; while a random person who saw the movie commenting on a blog does not meet #4 because (s)he wouldn't be quoted in a reliable source. jbolden1517^Talk 13:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The last half of the last sentence makes no sense whatsoever as #4 specifically is not about reliable sources. The sentence as written allows all external links of any kind to be considered. Are you trying to say: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from reliable or expert sources."? If so, that is completely different, and does not allow links to crap websites with random people babbling. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jbolden, you might like to look at Wikipedia's actual definition of source.

User:2005, the short answer is yes: you correctly understand the guideline. We really are asking editors to consider(!) links to web resources that have been written by non-RS, non-expert, and non-notable people. I know that you don't approve, and you apparently worry that it will lead to the WP:Spam event horizon, but we're deliberately authorizing these kinds of links (subject to all the other usual restrictions), and asking editors to use their best judgment in deciding what occasional links to non-RS websites might actually be valuable to readers.

The SEH has not been reached during the nearly three years that this advice has explicitly been present in the guideline, so I am not very sympathetic to unsupported assertions that leaving it there will magically start harming the encyclopedia during the next time period. In my experience, this particular line is rarely invoked without a quite good justification. If, however, you've got data to support your worries, or even a couple of examples of intractable disputes on this point, then please feel free to share. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have a guideline if anyone saying anything can be "considered" for a link? Once again the lack of any articulated reason that such an obtuse line adds anything is weird. Please explain why there are any other words in this guideline (besides EL:NEVER) since we allow non-reliable websites with "information" from random "knowlegable" people? 2005 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline exists because editors have found it to be an efficient method of resolving disputes by providing written advice that documents the actual rules, instead of requiring every single dispute to be argued from first principles and made-up "but I thought the rule was..." claims. This particular line relates to that second problem: Editors have wrongly asserted that EL categorically banned non-RS links.

This guideline does not permit "anyone saying anything" to be linked, and never has. It requires that the source be knowledgeable -- not "expert", not "notable", not "cited in other publications", not "reliable", but "knowledgeable", as in "Members of the 29th Infantry know what they personally did at Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, even if they aren't certified 'reliable sources' within the meaning of Wikipedia's definition on the subject of D-Day". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It means what it says, anyone knowledgable. That would include 98% of the non-random text webpages of the world. Disqualifying only pages written by a person who knows absolutely nothing about the subject. #4 renders the guideline useless in that it can justify virtually anything. It doesn't help anyone as it doesn't say anything remotely useful, and contradicts most of the rest of the guidance in the guideline. As for your example, #4 doesn't say someone has to be a member of the 29th Infantry. It says anyone with knowledge of the 29th Infantry can be linked to regardless of what drivel they say. Every person seeing a History channel program on D-Day now has knowledge of the event and #4 allows their webpage on an unreliable website to be linked to. 2005 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're failing to account for the difference between "consider linking" and "definitely link". We expect editors to use their best judgment. (I'm a bit surprised your definition of 'knowledgeable' is so generous as to encompass people who watch television and blather about what they think they remember from the show on their websites. I firmly believe that this is not the normal standard that a typical editor would apply here.)

IMO, the item fulfills its primary purpose -- ending disputes by directly prohibiting the wholesale removal of links solely on the grounds that they aren't reliable sources -- quite effectively. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not failing to consider that. #4 allows such linking, period. So someone considers a link to unreliable, unauthoritative junk, likes the junk, and thus links to the junk. The guideline now says that is fine. "knowledgable" means both what it means, and whatever an editor judges it to mean, which makes the guideline text obtuse. We define reliable elsewhere. We don't have a guideline that defines "knowledgable". The normal standard the mass of editors use is ILIKEIT or it is "useful", and #4 makes that as broad as possible. As for the backwards view of it in what you consider "its primary purpose", that's not what it says. The dispute that lead to the above thread is what needs to be avoided. #4 allows linking to just about anything, so the rest of the guideline is incoherent in light of it. Read the nutshell. External links need to be meritable. #4 directly contradicts that, for no good reason. #4 makes no positive contribution as written. If as I wrote above the intention is to say "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from reliable or expert sources" then why don't we say that? 2005 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason we don't say that is because we don't have a definition of reliable people. We have the one line you linked to, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." and an entire policy at WP:RS that says nothing about reliable people. It would take a log of work to get to an actual guideline about reliable people. In their absence "knowledgeable" works. Something like "particularly knowledgeable" might be OK if you want to emphasize that #4 should not be broad enough to cover everyone. Let me give you examples and you show me from policy how these qualify as ELs without #4:

1. The full text of a politician's speech on a topic, on a 3rd party blog like Firedoglake.
2. A football coach on a football website forum talking about why he did something.
3. An interview with the chief pastor of a church on a controversy, on a blog.
4. A movie producer or director commenting discussing how they are going / did handle something on an actors/actresses personal blog.

etc... The positive contribution that the Maybe section makes is to prevent the standard for ELs being as high as the standard for RSes. In 2007 the standard was too high. There was material that the editors would have had a consensus to add to an article that they believed they couldn't because of policy. You aren't really addressing the root problem. #4 was added to fix a problem that was happening on the encyclopedia. jbolden1517^Talk 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd add oral histories as another category of links that qualifies as "knowledgeable" but not "reliable" or "expert". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth is "reliable people"? Wikipedia deals with reliability of sources, verifiability of statements, and expert, "recognized authority" humans. It is not helpful to add even more confusion, unclarity and alien concepts. As for your examples, please read the guideline. Recognized authorities can be linked to. Forums can not. An expert on a forum should not be linked to. A politician can be linked to, but a blog that is not verifiable can not. (In other words, we have to be sure the politician did in fact state these things and some garbage website did not make it up. If it can verified those are the politician's words, then it can be linked as expert/authority content.) Same with the pastor. A producer commenting on his/her official blog is an expert on a verifiable site. So, none of your examples are impacted by #4. So let's not focus on what the guideline does not impact but rather what it does. Please explain why you want unclear text that does not use standard language instead of: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from reliable or expert sources". It appears they reason you want the unclear text is because you want to link to a forum thread, and EL:NO prevents that. #4 certainly does not override that. What #4 allows is linking to unreliable (non-blog, non-forum, non-wiki) websites where unexpert people with knowledge of the subject say stuff. It does not override EL:NO. 2005 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ELNO isn't ELNEVER; the fact that a type of link is listed there does not absolutely prohibit editors from linking to it. Editors must use their best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but that isn't really on the point here, since IAR can be used to justify any link, any exception. We are talking about the general guideline and the guidance for how to generally do things. 2005 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Twitter links

Recently, I encountered an article (a BLP, as it were) that had a link (as of this version) to what seemed to be the subject's Twitter account. I removed it, because I did not and still do not see why a link to a Twitter page is encyclopedic, even in external link sections. I was reverted a few hours later, and so I started a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted. After a couple of other users joined in, it was determined that the Twitter account was actually a "fake"; that is, it did not belong to the subject of article. After this experience, and given the problematic nature (even more for BLPs) of verifying whether an Internet account corresponds with an individual, I think WP:EL should be far more restrictive on when to link to Twitter accounts, unless they have been independently confirmed as being "official". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How would you change it? What text would you add? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good at drafting this type of thing, but I'll think about it and give it a stab tomorrow (about 18–20 hours from now). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On further examination, I don't think we need to add more text. WP:ELOFFICIAL explains it pretty well. If anything, perhaps we should add a note to the individual template pages themselves (e.g. Template:Twitter) to remind users to ensure that an official site or feed is truly official. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think that any template for formatting external links should have a clear disclaimer in the documentation about making sure that the EL guideline is followed. Perhaps there should be a template for that? --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that within the next 24 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a similar message to Template:Facebook User for good measure. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Interview transcripts

Doesn't seem like interview transcripts would be something to recommend as an external link. Biography subjects could give tons of interviews, doesn't make it something that should be included. Makes sense as references, footnotes, perhaps even further reading but less so as external links. If people add it that's fine (they can discuss the weight on the talk), but I don't think we should put it as a recommendation on "What should be linked". Morphh ^(talk) 16:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't their interviews be included? Interviews are some of the most valuable sources there are for biographies. And references, footnotes, further readings, etc. are all subsets of external links (if hyperlinks they be); it'd be strange if they were permitted only in the narrower, more stringent places and not in the more general section. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 16 January 2010 (GMT)

"Most valuable sources", yes - exactly. The purpose of external links section is not to duplicate source materials. As I understand it, this MOS is not about linking externally (as you seem to suggest with regard to subsets in refs, footnotes, further readings), but the external links section. See WP:GTL. It is separate from the other areas and has a particular function. If someone has 10 interviews, it would not be appropriate to add them all into an external link section. They would be better as references to the material, unless one particular interview stood out as comprehensive beyond what the article would include as an FA. Celebs give interviews all the time, we shouldn't suggest linking 100 interviews. If the material is relevant, then it will be included in the article and referenced to the interview. The external links section would include links to their web site, or other primary sites about the person. Again, I'm not saying that we recommend against it, I'm just saying that I don't think we should recommend it either (as is currently the case). I agree with the other cases presented in that particular section. Morphh ^(talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Interview transcripts are primary sources. If they're published in/by an RS, they're great refs. Even if they're self-published, they should be usable within the context of WP:SPS. The one circumstance where I can see adding them to the external links section is when there's a new, unreferenced or under-referenced article. It would be reasonable to add an interview transcript there, and then migrate that to refs later once the article is rewritten into a better format. I wouldn't want to remove good transcripts from ELs on a Start- class article, but nor would I expect to see them in a GA-class article. In between, I would expect to see them gradually be phased from ELs to refs. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens here. In a perfect article, or a pretty good article, the external links section would be very small and not include any interview links (since they would be used elsewhere in the article), most assertions would have cites & quotes & links, there would be Free pictures galore etc., and all the editors would have ponies. But it's much better to recommend putting the interview link in the EL section than the alternative, which is to not link the interview anywhere. (That's the only alternative, since obviously if it's being used as a citation or something, this question would never arise; who would use a link inside some <ref></ref>s and then go and put it in the EL section as well?) --Gwern (contribs) 21:57 16 January 2010 (GMT)

• Nothing on this page can be reasonably construed as recommending that editors create a comprehensive web directory of all interview transcripts. Not every notable person has a publicity machine that produces hundreds of interview transcripts. An interview transcript from a 19th century politician might be an exceedingly valuable and interesting resource for the reader; an interview transcript from the pop star du jour might be worthless. The guideline says, at the top of that section, that "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." The guideline also names interview transcripts as an example of a type of desirable link, not as a type of mandatory link. There is no "ELALWAYS" in this guideline.
• Interviews might not be useful a reliable sources for various reasons, e.g., they're generally held to be WP:SELFPUBlished. Given the choice between an interview transcript and some much better source, why would anyone ever use the 'worse' source instead of the better one? I strongly dislike sloppy duplications, but the fact that it's possible to use some interviews as proper sources does not actually disqualify any of them from being used as an external link.
• The "particular function" of ==External links== and ==Further reading== is at least very highly similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As a point worth considering (because it's intentional), the text says:

• 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.

The text does not recommend "interview transcripts"; it recommends "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, or other reasons" -- and names "professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks" as examples of these kinds of websites. The distinction is intentional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough... just didn't see it as a thing that is normally placed in the EL and thought I'd bring it up. Doesn't seem to fit with the other examples in my view... but at least it's discussed and a little more consideration was given to the example. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ELs in articles following a disaster

The EL section for the article for 2010 Haiti earthquake was templated without talk page explanation. I do not believe the EL policies and guidelines cover the appropriate types and number of links for disaster articles while the event is unfolding. The editors working on this article have done an excellent job removing social sites, blogs, scams, and patrol it frequently for problematic links. Although in 6 months there will be no logical explanation for why the International Red Cross and other aid organizations are still ELs in this article, for now there is.

I'm asking if discussion is necessary to clarify what links are appropriate in an article immediately following a disaster. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This, I think, is a good example of where common sense and IAR are appropriate.

EL is permeated with 'shoulds' and other such qualifiers; a disaster where news & sources & links are constantly changing and increasing, and where editors are swamped in more pressing tasks, is an article where dumping all and sundry into a giant EL section is not a big deal. How many & which links make it a 'directory' can be discussed in the future. --Gwern (contribs) 15:13 17 January 2010 (GMT)

Thanks for your response. I think I may go with IAR, and I removed the EL template. But it's certain a disaster will occur again and the same questions will arise. The discussion should be held before the next article pops up. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Two potential problems people have mentioned are:

• Giving undue prominence to some aid organisation over others, especially where soliciting donations is concerned.

We can list the major organisations, but we can't list all legitimate ones. Common sense seems to have worked ok on this so far, and no one has kicked up a major fuss that their link is not included. Sure there is bias but that creeeps in everywhere.

• The addition of fake phishing links or similar

With the high edit rate on such articles, these additions will be quickly spotted and reverted. Sure there is also a high view count so some people may be caught out, but there is not much more that can be done.

I don't know if it's maybe worth creating a WP:DISASTERS dealing this and other issues e.g. [these]? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It wouldn't hurt us to have a little essay somewhere about external links in articles about current news events.
• There should be zero purely fundraising links on these Wikipedia pages. If every page on a website is a fundraising page, and you can't find a single page that provides actual information, then the website shouldn't be linked, full stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on the fund raising websites comment. We should be extremely cautions about linking to any fund raising sites. I remember with Katrina, a supposed 60% of sites were highly suspect for fraud according to the FBI. It would be a particularly bad if we directed someone to a scam. Morphh ^(talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Having those links here encourages people to think that Wikipedia is a reliable place to look for disaster information. This is very dangerous. Wikipedia is not Google or a substitute for proper news channels. Adding links here is a nice way to feel good about onesself, but not a very good way to actually aid people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would hope we would be a more reliable place for disaster information than Google. --Gwern (contribs) 14:37 20 January 2010 (GMT)

External links as stand-alone list entries

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists currently states, "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." It's had language to this effect since just after it was split out of Wikipedia:Lists in December 2003 (first addition). I've always taken this to mean that list entries should always have internal links (whether blue or red), never external; and, indeed, just about all well-maintained lists seem to work like this.

I was somewhat surprised, then, to see that there isn't any such mention here in WP:ELNO. #18 (dabs/redirs/cats) doesn't quite apply, since stand-alone lists aren't strictly navigational, and external links on lists sometimes are acceptable so long they're links to similar lists, not to specific items that would normally be entries.

Especially given the long-standing consensus in the more specific guideline, I'd normally just be bold and add it here, perhaps with language like

"External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only."

I've recently been revert-warring with an IP over just such an external link however, so I want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety that adding it without discussion would entail. —Korath (Talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support such a change, with the understanding that a link to the entry's home page will be appropriate in the articles that are linked to. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of the problems you're trying to address?

I think it's a bit more complicated than this conversation seems to suggest so far. We certainly never want to see a list (article) like this:

• [http:/example.com Website]
• [http:/example.com Website]
• [http:/example.com Website]

However, we would normally accept legitimate lists that contain some external links, e.g., a list of medical conditions named after a person, and a link to http://whonamedit.com/ under ==External links==.

Additionally, we always accept lists with references, even in the WP:ECITE format. Also, I suspect that WP:SAL is at minimum incomplete, since List of ibuprofen brand names is a stand-alone list that contains many items that verifiably belong in the list but for which no reasonable editor would expect to have an article written (because not every brand name is actually notable, even though the multiplicity of brand names is, itself, notable). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some extreme examples are List of web based file managers (current revision), List of LDAP software (current), List of installation software (current), and List of PIGUI packages (current). More moderate are preventing List of content management systems (current) from backsliding into something like this revision from October 2009, or List of text-based MMORPGs (current) into this revision from January 2006—in the latter, the tendency to insert external links has been so persistent that even redlinks regularly get reverted now (example).

Whonamedit.com is the sort of external list that's ok to link in List of medical conditions named after a person, but would be an entry in List of medical dictionaries and thus be inappropriate there without an article - the idea isn't to exclude ==External links== sections, but inline external links posing as entries within the list article's main section(s). Similarly, a reference that's a mere link to an entry's homepage is at minimum very dubious; unlike their stand-alone articles, list entries don't get the benefit of ELYES #1, so have to be looked at in the context of all of WP:ELNO. In particular, #4 (promotion) and #5 (advertisement) are generally large enough considerations to overwhelm the inconvenience of having to google for the entry's homepage again when creating the article. "*Product http://product.home.page.com" might see product.home.page.com removed under ELNO #4 or #5 alone, but removals of entries like "*Product" sometimes get viciously edit-warred over. —Korath (Talk) 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with rule no. 11 Blogs

I'm only a new contributor here, so perhaps I will not be taken seriously by seasoned Wikipedia powers-that-be, but I do have a problem with the fact that blogs are unanimously rejected as sources of authority. I find this general rejection of blogs as unfortunate and discriminatory, when compared to static websites. From this rule one understands that a static website is accepted as a possible source of authority while a dynamic one isn't. Why? Just because a blog actually takes the time to update their articles and information continuously?

I agree that many blogs feature personal opinion, but there are some that contain unbiased information and careful research that should be assessed just as seriously as any other website. It implies that bloggers are considered untrustworthy just because they blog! I believe Wikipedia should be a flexible tool that seeks to acquire knowledge, not a tool for blanket discrimination, whereby a blog is rejected just for being a blog. Jo Esoteric (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If a dynamic web site "contain[s] unbiased information and careful research" that has been cited by others, it probably meets WP:RS and can be cited in an article. Reliable sources aren't subject to anything on this guideline except ELNEVER. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs can sometimes be used as sources, if they are by a recognised expert or have some direct connection to the article (ie the blog of the subject of a biography). Your own blog doesn't appear to meet these criteria. What you can instead use are the references you have used to write your blog, assuming they meet reliable source criteria. Personal websites of all kinds fail WP:RS. Best, Verbal chat 09:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal websites can easily be RSs. See WP:SPS. Experts are experts, regardless of where they publish. --Gwern (contribs) 16:21 24 January 2010 (GMT)

I agree, but personal websites of all kinds do fail WP:RS. I didn't say all, and I even said how some could pass in my reply above. Jo's blog fails. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories and its discussion archives for a group of editors that defend using SPSs of unknown authors because no reliable sources can be found. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that self-published works by grad students aren't generally considered reliable sources, but this isn't the page to talk about that issue. See "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content" and similar text liberally scattered elsewhere throughout the entire page in an apparently doomed effort to send questions about reliable sources to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. No discussion at this page is capable of changing the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of blogs covering important subject areas whose authors are understandably anonymous for reasons that may include, for example, risk to personal security when the subject is an area with a recent or ongoing history of conflict, violence or human rights abuses.

Over time specialist blogs, including anonymous blogs, are identified by visitors interested in the subject as a useful aggregator of serious information as well as a source of subjective content. Some information may be reliably sourced, sometimes significant but unconfirmed information may be provided which is useful background for the reader.

The author may quite possibly be partisan but this is very often explicitly acknowledged and as long as subjective text is readily identifiable and distinguishable from the information component then it is not unreasonable to consider the reader capable of exercising care and judgment.

I am referring specifically to the merit of including this type of blog in the External links section, not to their use for referencing the factual content of an article. (I can however see a justification for citing this type of specialist blog as the source for a particular view in a controversy as long as the nature of the citation is clear.)

Important sources of information should not be arbitrarily excluded. Might it not be reasonable to have a "Committee of Experts" to whom the External linking of specific blogs could be referred? Opbeith (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO already contains an exception for blogs written by recognized authorities. So far, editors have found no value in providing links to blogs for unrecognized authorities.

If you have questions about a specific blog (by which we mean something more like "daily diary" than "any website created with software frequently used by bloggers), you can ask for opinions at WP:ELN or a relevant WP:WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chambers of commerce

Can chambers of commerce be automatically added to external links for towns? If not, should they be explicitly mentioned here for exclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 08:52, January 29, 2010

I would not add them automatically (to avoid WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY-issues; we are not the yellow pages), though there also not a reason to categorically avoid them, as they can be of interest on some pages). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I disagree with an editor with three times the edits of both of us put together. I need a stronger reason. He allows for "small" towns (we can probably agree on what constitutes "small". Whether this agreement will be recognized by others remains to be seen!  :). I would prefer not to see them at all. It's easier. Student7 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell us which links/articles are being disputed? Alternatively, WP:ELN is a great place to find a third opinion about a question like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This type of link is endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline: A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, the chamber of commerce, and the convention & visitors bureau (emphasis added). I would say that as long as it is recommended there, it will be hard to exclude from city articles. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In what world is a chamber of commerce an official link for a city? It's a private organization whose sole purpose is to boost members' businesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

& vs. &amp;

By the W3C, links should use & rather than &. Should we do so as well? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, if I were to use the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&action=edit&section=8, should I keep it as such or change it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&action=edit&section=8? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Its fine as is. Both are recognized by all browsers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki translates it—compare the wikitext and the actual html served for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&action=edit&section=8. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rich Media guidelines need to be revised

According to Adobe's statistics from Dec 1999, 99% of browsers have Flash Player installed. RIAStats.com has more detailed statistics, and worldwide it's on 97% of browsers. With this kind of availability should Adobe Flash still be considered special software? I suggest that that Adobe Flash be moved off the avoid list and into acceptance. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

97% of browsers means that one out of every 30 readers directly benefits from this kind of 'fair warning'.

Additionally, I suspect that a similarly small number of readers have Flash software installed, but might avoid clicking high-bandwidth links for other reasons (e.g., wireless connection is being flaky, or your internet access isn't the 'unlimited use' model that's common in the U.S.).

So I'm estimating that one reader in 15 receives concrete benefit from typing "Flash video" at the end of a link.

What actual harm do you think that providing this information causes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I use an iPhone and it doesn't have Flash or Java. Web enabled smartphones may be the reason behind the apparent discrepancy of Adobe's 1998 99% and the current 97%. If the link says video but it's not YouTube it's almost assured I can't view it using my iPhone (unless it's Quicktime format).

I don't think Flash media needs to be on the "Links normally to be avoided" however. I would rather #8 say "except Flash or Reader" instead of "such as Flash or Java". -- Stillwaterising (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the very first word in the ELNO rule? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct. Yes, but can you clarify how that's interpreted? It's very common to have direct links to PDF documents but that's not allowed by WP:ELNO #8. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some editors don't seem to think that PDFs count as rich media (although the guideline says it is, and uses it as an example). In that instance, it helps (a lot) that the software automatically tags the link with an icon. Much of the goal with ELNO #8 is the principle of least astonishment.

In general, "direct" means "Link to the regular YouTube page (which is in HTML), not to the actual Flash video file." Can you ever think of a good reason to link directly to the Flash video file instead of to the HTML page that has video embedded in it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of wikinews

Hi, I think the page is silent on this -- does anyone here know the policy of putting a wikinews link in the inline text, even after the event took place many months ago? Or is it more appropriate to put the link (if it should even still exist) in the external links section? Thanks. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's usually best to place the link in ==External links==. You might like to look at WP:SISTER, if you're not familiar with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of this earlier today. I was puzzled that we often link to Wikinews because we usually try to avoid linking to most reliable news stories, and I doubt that Wikinews would be considered even a reliable source. I'm really not sure what encyclopedic benefit our articles get from Wikinews links, although I do sympathize with the idea that we should be promoting our sister projects. ThemFromSpace 19:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am less than enthused about this breathless, "breaking news at 11" type of hype. Great television grandstanding. Lousy for an encyclopedia though, where a month from now, reader will care less. The stuff we are doing is supposed to be for the long term IMO, not perishable, forgettable, often misleading stuff that tv proclaims. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Gowalla WP:ELNO social networking?

I have moved the discussion to WP:External links/Noticeboard#Is Gowalla WP:ELNO social networking? because this page is for discussing WP:EL, while WP:ELN is the noticeboard to discuss particular links. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki distorting external links with quotation marks

Did you ever notice that Mediawiki distorts external links when the URL contains a quotation mark (")?

See this distorted link to a Google Results page:
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q="Foo+Bar"&start=10 Google on "Foo Bar"] gives "Foo+Bar"&start=10 Google on "Foo Bar"
which neither works nor looks correct.

To make it look correct, I need to manually encode the quotation marks as %22:
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22Foo+Bar%22&start=10 Google on "Foo Bar"] gives the correct Google on "Foo Bar"

I think that this needs to be covered on WP:External links and/or on Wikipedia:Linking#External links to provide help if someone runs into that error and doesn't know what's wrong. How do you think about this?

Regards, PanchoS (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This page concerns if an external link should be added. The issue you raise is important, but as a how it is covered at Help:URL#Linking to URLs. Possibly that "how" section needs to be improved, but I believe that is the place for any clarification. I guess there should be a very brief note at Wikipedia:Linking#External links that certain URLs need special treatment, with a link to the help. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As you say, a brief note with a link for further help would do here. Note that currently the WP:External links#How to link-section doesn't point to Help:URL at all. PanchoS (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Link to films on Internet Archive that are PD in US but not elsewhere (Things to Come and others)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Link_to_films_on_Internet_Archive_that_are_PD_in_US_but_not_elsewhere_(Things_to_Come_and_others)

Moved discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 13#Link to films on Internet Archive that are PD in US but not elsewhere (Things to Come and others). -84user (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Burden

I saw a comment recently about a disputed external link that said, "You have not been able to get consensus for its removal."

It seems to me that the overall community view is that one must have consensus to include links, much like WP:BURDEN requires editors to provide sources rather than relying WP:IKNOWIT -- and that an inability to provide sources to WP:PROVEIT means that the claimed facts can be removed.

Would it be worthwhile including a similar statement in this guideline? I'm thinking of something like:

"Rarely, despite good-faith efforts by all concerned, an apparently intractable dispute about whether to include a given external link will arise. In these situations, the link in question should be removed unless and until there is a consensus to include it."

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I've seen the same thing happen in several articles, when it clearly goes against the actual community view that the burden is on the one wanting it kept to get consensus to have it, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've watched many articles for years accumulate questionable links, and someone BOLD come along and erase all of them (to standing, but quiet applause from me!). The whole idea is to have as few external links as possible. Some articles are horrible junkpiles that no one can make any sense of due to the huge quantity of links. No one even bothers. Thus the erasures and a clean slate. At least for awhile!  :) Student7 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, cut dubious links without hesitation. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Buddhipriya (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the burden belongs on those seeking to include a link, just as the burden belongs on those seeking to include other material in an article. If in doubt, keep it out. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that none of you has actually ever read or used a print encyclopedia. Do you'all realize that encylopedia are filled with 'external links'. This is where reader is sent to learn more about small details of subject. 'To learn more about X, go here'. Sure seems very valuable to me. If referenced subject is notable, then deserves internal article in place of external link. Likely on that we all agree. What am not understanding is why would anyone want to hide information, to limit the knowledge shared by the wiki. Where to go for more info is valuable knowledge. THI (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I used to read print encyclopedias for fun. None of them cited any sources or provided any pointers to further information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

THI, that is just what we mean here. 'For more information go there', you hit WP:ELNO #1 straight on the head. What we hence say here, when an external link is not following those rules, and does not yield more information, then its inclusion should be discussed, not just put there, and create a linkfarm of links which do not add more. Keep external links to a minimum, making sure that they are clear is much more in line with an encyclopedia than having a plethora of external links where the reader then has to filter, search and try to find that piece of information that they need. That is why we have the policies WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, upon which this guideline is based. And I am sure that the Brittanica does not link to every other external source, also they select. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead comment in this subsection says it all: WP:BURDEN. It is up to us to demonstrate that the linked-to material is useful and not a blog or something. A print encyclopedia is not going refer me to a blog (I hope  :) Student7 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We should, I think, aspire to be better than a print encyclopedia. --Gwern (contribs) 17:35 19 March 2010 (GMT)

I've created the redirect, WP:ELBURDEN. (Note that it primarily relates to the last sentence in that short section.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Battlestat wiki

Is the EL here The Galactica is a model from the Galactica class of battlestar. okay and if so why? The line comes from Battlestar_(fictional_spaceship)#List_of_battlestars_2 Gnevin (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, we don't make such inline links. This normal advice could be overruled if the editors have a very good reason for doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is the general rule why is this sort of link supported by media wiki? Gnevin (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki supports a lot of things which aren't best practice for the specific purposes of the English Wikipedia - much like how shells give you enough rope to hang yourself with rm -rf *. --Gwern (contribs) 15:20 20 March 2010 (GMT)

Fair enough. ThanksGnevin (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal content

There have been several reverts recently[10][11][12][13] related to the phrase "illegal content" in WP:ELNO #3. It seems like it is time to discuss. The concern that this phrase is unclear is a legitimate one, since what is perfectly legal in one place may get you the death penalty in another. I also note that historically, ELNO #3 was about malware. The addition of "illegal content" is relatively recent (end of December 2009), and was only briefly discussed at the time. My suggestion is that we should either clarify what is meant by "illegal content", or drop the phrase. --RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer that we drop it. AnmaFinotera's examples are bogus; footage of crime is not illegal, nor is the Anarchist's cookbook illegal. What's illegal is incitement to crime, for example. When the proponent of a clause cannot give correct examples of criminal speech which are not protected by the relevant jurisdiction, that's says something, I think. --Gwern (contribs) 17:19 20 March 2010 (GMT)

(I am not a lawyer so don't quote this as legal advice)This looks like another case of balancing WP:NOTCENSORED against the law. For legal reasons we would probably need restrictions on linking to content that is illegal in the state of Florida, since that is where our servers are hosted. Our policy already backs this up; for example, reverting the addition of this sort of content is an explicit exception to our 3RR policy. Because of this I would (sadly and only for procedural reasons) support a restriction to linking to content illegal in the state of Florida. I don't think any restriction beyond this would fit in very well with WP:NOTCENSORED. ThemFromSpace 18:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good clarification, much like WP:COPYRIGHT is primarily per the laws of Florida (and the US by proxy), the same should be done here of "illegal content", unless of course Gwern also wants to argue that linking to, say, child porn, should be allowed (nothing else in the guidelines prevents that). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment on the edit warring, "I don't know what that means" is a good reason to ask a question on a talk page, but IMO a pretty stupid reason to remove a statement like this from a guideline.

I take it that there's no actual dispute? Nobody has actually encountered a dispute over whether links to child porn or such hinged on the precise definition of 'illegal content'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific link in dispute. There aren't many situations where a link to child porn would pass the relevance test of ELNO 13, and attempts to add a non-relevant link to shocking material are likely to be reverted without much dispute, possibly with a block for persistent offenders. On the other hand, the odds are good that the content of some links in articles about political, religious and sexual content are illegal somewhere. So stating the applicable jurisdiction goes a long way towards clarifying the meaning. I do wonder, though, if this really belongs as part of ELNO #3. For years that item was about malware, which we don't want to send readers to regardless of its legality. Kiddie porn and such doesn't have much to do with that. Perhaps this should be a new item (number 21)? --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to clarifying the relevant jurisdiction, although it's redundant to WP:NOTCENSORED. I'd rather keep them grouped: most malware is illegal (in the US), and the ELNO list is already quite long. A multiplicity of numbers doesn't really help our editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist information

You talk about "blacklists" in the Restrictions on linking section but you don't give any information about what are blacklists and why are they pertinent to Wikipedia. In my opinion, this is almost an office action performed by software. It would be nice to have an explanation of why the Foundation found it necessary to impose such restrictions. See also my comments on the talk page of WP:SPB. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this page needs to explain some other page's workings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Using Wiki's

other than sister projects of Wikipedia, why should we use other wiki's at all? WP:ELNO#12 says that as long as it has a history of being stable and a substantial amount of members it can be used. but there are so many flaws in that system, because it only asks for amount of members, not amount of 'active' members, and if an article was stable, doesn't mean it makes it anymore reliable to use. and usually they don't have neutrality. thoughts?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I never understood why linking to more specific Wikis is such a big deal. To me, so long as they are at least decently comprehensive, then they are EXACTLY the type of EL we would want on WP. I agree that the criteria is silly, but people WILL often want more info than can be has in WP, so directly them to a place where there's lots of it is a GOOD thing. Yes, there needs to be a bit of quality control, and linking to a very incomplete AND dead WIKI is obviously bad. But linking to stuff like Memory Alpha or even the Final Fantasy Wiki certainly can't be a bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, such sites should not be linked to. They are nothing but fansites. Their being "wikia"s (and thereby related to Wikipedia on some level) does not change nor alter that fact. If they were not wikias, we wouldn't think twice about excluding such links as fansites but somehow the wikia name makes them special or better? I think not. We are not Google nor DMOZ. If people want to find fansites, they can find them without the assistance and endorsement of Wikipedia.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we not link to them? Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are extremely good resources. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 19 February 2010 (GMT)

Memory Alpha's home page, sounds to me like a official website, so that one may be allowed, but as for final fantasy Wiki, i dont think so.

i feel the same way AnmaFinotera, i think this falls almost around the same situation as a forum> plus these wiki's have speculation and trivia, usually don't have any neutrality.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is not an 'official' website. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 19 February 2010 (GMT)

There's one exception: Memory Alpha is the official website for the Memory Alpha article. For general Star Trek articles, it isn't official. ThemFromSpace 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

having a lot of information, doesn't mean it's a good source. they must have found the information from other places, so it's just using another Wiki as a source but without the sources. It's a link of yet another source that resembles Wikipedia. I never even heard of Wookieepedia. It's the same for forums too, if they found an information, we use the source as a ref mroe than the forum itself.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But we're not talking about sources/refs, we're talking about ELs. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Open wikis are generally not considered reliable sources under any circumstances. But the External links guideline doesn't care whether something is a reliable source: it cares whether it's a justifiable link. The kind of software used to get the information in front of the reader is not the most important indicator of whether the link is justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason we don't link to fansites is because they often don't reference their materials and even when they do, its a matter of picking out which fansites to represent. Normally, when we do link to fansites they are either mentioned in the article they are about or are considered reliable sources meeting the WP:SPS guidelines and are relevant to the article. I see therefore no reason why any wiki, short of copyuright or BLP violations, cannot be linked if RSes mention it as a credible source.陣内_Jinnai 07:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people use Wikis for their own official websites: Oscar van Dillen, for example. These are (usually) only editable by registered account holders and thus are relatively stable. I suggest they are fine to use with the {{official}} template. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Jinnai's first asserted reason for not linking fansites: We don't link to fansites even when they extensively reference authoritative sources (which I've seen), and we cheerfully link to thousands non-fansites that don't mention a single source on any page.

Jubilee, the scenario you describe is a closed wiki, not the "open wiki" that the ELNO rule specifically addresses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, the problem is that using a wiki is the same as using Wikipedia. they are editable, which could change information. Plus they aren't always neutral tone. It's pretty hard to justify wiki's even if they appear to have information.

there are differences between fansites and other EL. Wiki's are made up of ordinary people, as for other EL we find that are by legitimate people who know what they are saying or know about the subject, or possibly someone who did there research extensively. Also there's no reason to link a fansite at all or a wiki if they use RSes. We don't have to link the EL just to get to RSes. we can just find the RSes the site has and use them there, instead of using an EL.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, once again, this discussion is about external links, not references. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe you could reread my comment, or be more specific. either way, these mirror wikipedia in some way.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikis are not always made up of ordinary people; I ran across a closed wiki a year or so ago that was exclusively edited by employees in disease-related charities. Additionally, we don't care if the wiki 'might change': any link we post 'might change'. We have linked to Apple.com since the very first version of the page in 2001, and I'm sure nobody objected to the link on the grounds that the website 'might change' in the intervening nine years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

but that's different, and i think you know that aswell. theres'a clear difference between an ordinary person changing information on a site that alllows such things, then an official site being change due to updates or better formatting.how about we change the Wiki rule to those that are made up of exclusive members and shows history of stability. Still, i find it very off for wiki to use another wiki as an EL. A wiki that's more exclusive and more reserved, maybe. but the majority of wiki's arent like how you said. Wiki's are very difficult to use when it comes to stuff about fiction. They dont meet WP:ELYES, and they are usualy salvaged by WP:ELMAYBE. Bread Ninja (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't really know what "the majority of wikis" do; you really only know what the wikis that you personally have seen do. Wikis are used by thousands of private companies for internal work.

Wikis that are exclusive (closed membership) are treated like any other website by this guideline. The rationale is that if the same X number of employees are generating the content, then it doesn't much matter whether they're using wiki software, hand-coding the HTML, or using Adobe Dreamweaver. Do you object to this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not using these as RSes though and shouldn't be holding them to the same standard as a RS.陣内_Jinnai 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

for whatamidoing, that's the very reason why i brought up the subject, to see if we can change the rule to being more reserved with wiki's. I know we shouldn't hold them to Rs, but we still need to chosoe carefully what other links wikipedia can also offer instead of this one.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. Consider the case of Mary the Marketing Director. She needs to create a website for her employer. Are you proposing that whether or not Wikipedia should link to Mary's page should depend on whether she uses Dreamweaver or wiki software to post exactly the same information on the website?

Pay careful attention to this fact: no matter what software she uses, only Mary will be posting content, and the content will be exactly the same no matter what software she uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "Official company site or official company wiki" and "random fanmade wiki anyone can edit". No company in its right head would let just anyone edit their company site, no matter what software its on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, your really missing the point. I wasn't talking about Wiki software, i was talking about how Wiki sites itself. Basically i'm talking about sites that are made by normal people that can edit whatever they want without a source, and basically mirroring wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bread, what you're describing is an open wiki. Many (possibly most) wikis are not open wikis.

This page already discourages links to open wikis; it is silent on non-open wikis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

well i dont see any rule on it. Just to be safe, should we make it loud and clear?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:ELNO#EL12: "Links to open wikis".

Note that we generally discourage open wikis, but we permit external links (which are different from reliable sources!) to open wikis that meet certain specified standards (standards that mean a particular open wiki has successfully minimized the problems that cause us to generally discourage links to open wikis). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant being more strict with it. Some are even being used as social networks.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You want a stricter rule than the one that is already in place. What exactly would you change?

(Remember that all links -- whether wikis or not -- must be justifiable, and that editors are already required to use their best judgment [again, for both wiki links and non-wiki links].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WhatamI doing, you really shift opinion when it comes to something like this. if it's about open wiki's then we are talking only about that. you try to make it sound like non-wiki's are involved. Still, i was hoping something different than substantial ammount of members and history.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Examples usually help to focus discussions that are getting too abstract. Is there a specific site that you believe is falling through a loophole, and needs to be removed entirely from (some/all) article(s)?
2. Do you have specific suggestions for the additional criteria that open-wiki sites should need to meet, in order to warrant an EL link from any article? ("members and stability" are the current criteria). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i do, for example, i see a lot of Wiki sites around articles about fiction and don't meet the criteria.

i was thinking instead of number of members to be removed, i don't see how number of members helps the article be justifiable. I was thinking to have a good tone aswell, not just wiki's that have a tone of a fan and improper grammar. And possibly one that's well organized or having enough info on the page.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Bread Ninja is right. What we should be focusing on are quality standards, not number crunching. There is also a state between open and closed wikis-wikiedpia is one such Wiki.陣内_Jinnai 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bread Ninja: 1) Do you have a specific example or two? Just saying "about fiction" isn't at all clear. 2) Do you agree that certain open-wikis are justified (when linking in individual instances seems appropriate, ie not to a substub) eg the commonly-used-as-examples MemoryAlpha and Wookieepedia and TardisLibrary, or do you believe that they too should be considered unjustifiable and that we should tighten the guideline to stop them being linked? 3) Please indent when replying to someone, so that conversations are easier to follow! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

for example, the .hack//Wiki which i already removed a while ago. the kingdom hearts wiki i saw a little earlier and even the final fantasy wiki i saw following. they all didn't meet the right criteria of the ELNO rule we have now. And i really don't think open Wikis should be used on another open wiki site, especially if we worry about mirroring. and yeah i usually dont indent due to conversations never lasting so long. so yeah.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bread, here's what I've understood from your comment:

1. Somebody linked a website in violation of the existing rule.
2. Therefore, you conclude, the existing rule needs to be changed so that even more websites are excluded.

Why do you conclude that the problem is with the rule, instead of with the lax enforcement of the rule? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that hardly anyone is seeing the difference if wiki's should be used or not. Those who even know about the rule still claim that it's still appropriate. the problem is that the rule is too vague.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think that the rule is too vague, but how would you clarify it? The current text says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." What do you think it should say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with how it is written. Neutrally and clearly define "substantial history of stability" - different people have ascribed different meanings to it. The same thing with "a substantial number of editors". In far too many discussions on whether a wiki should be included as a link, I see folks saying "well we have 200 IP editors and 20 registered editors, that's substantial." or "its been around a year, no major issues, we have 20 dedicated editors, thats stable." The "exception" is too vague and needs to be made clearly. While I personally think NO open wikis should be used as ELs, if we are going to allow ones like Memory Alpha, we need to make it extremely clear what does and does not qualify for some exception. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And I think it's ridiculous to suppress good sources of information where Wikipedia can't have that much detail. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is trying to define "good" sources. I like the comment in another thread, above, "When in doubt, keep it out!" Student7 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about reliable sources. these are just about external links that can be added at the end of the column for further reading. Still, the whole point to this argument is to see if there should really be an exception for open wikis. they really shouldn't be, i can't see how they are justifiable.Bread Ninja (talk)

We don't have an exception that allows open wikis; we have an exception ("ELNO") that prohibits some open wikis. If we take away the existing rule, then all open wikis will be permitted.

You have indicated a desire to prohibit more open wikis than the current rule requires. Please tell me exactly what you think the rule should say.

I'm asking this for very practical reasons: I cannot put 'We've adopted Bread Ninja's opinion about open wikis; good luck guessing what this rule actually is now' in the guideline. We've got to have the precise words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Bread Ninja: In general, they're justifiable if they are a place for readers to find further information - information that we don't currently include, or would not ever include, for various reasons. Eg. Sith vs Sith, or Redshirt (character) vs Redshirt, or Cloud Strife vs Cloud Strife, or Unobtainium vs Unobtainium, or Amsterdam vs Amsterdam, or Angina Pectoris vs Angina Pectoris. etc. (those are just random examples; there are almost certainly higher quality examples for each)

Aside from that, WhatamIdoing's question is key to taking this discussion any further.

Tangentially, from a historical Wikimedia perspective, we started off with just Wikipedia. Then as dictionary-like entries proliferated Wiktionary was started, and as huge lists of quotations were being added Wikiquote was started. Other open wikis can provide a place for content to be moved to, instead of simply being deleted from here. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Directory of alternatives for other examples. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that was just about the best way to describe it. Fully agree with the above (if that wasn't obvious). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the instance of open wikis, i think it should be reversed, especially if we demand content be removed from Wikipedia itself and transferred over to another wiki (usually fiction cruft). Instead of demanding an open wiki show substantial number of editors or lengthy period of instability, it should be reversed and require others to show that the site is not maintained. Other factors we have, like copyright restrictions, can limit what we do.

The other issue is that there are semi-editable wikis like Wikipedia which we do not cover. They aren't open wikis, but neither are they closed.

This or we have hard concrete numbers (can be a range) that is indisputable.陣内_Jinnai 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always been considered an open wiki for the purpose of this rule. Anything that does not require advance registration/permission to change the content that the next user sees is an open wiki for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

for Whatamidoing...

1. .removing a rule in order to replace it is possible.
2. . the rules starts off open wiki's not 'some' open wikis. it's more of an exception to allowing open wikis.
3. . i think you're over thinking it. I'm not the only one who is against open wikis but it's not like if we change the rule everyone will get confuse and not know what it means.

Jinnai, if they are semi editable, then they are open either way. i dont think we'll ever get a right number for open wikis. it would have to depend on the wiki. still, I'm asking for more strictness. Personally i think we could add a completely new section to this article, a section that tells us what every external link should have (well written, neutral tone, etc.). it's not exactly an ELYES rule or an ELNO, just some rules telling us what is required in every EL. either way, i think it would be incredibly helpful if we added to ELNO #11 to instead say 'most fansites', it would say 'most fansites, or sites resembling fansites'. idk something like this. that way the open wikis about fiction can be controlled easier. but that's jsut something extra that i'm thinking aboutBread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some wikis linked to by wikipedia articles, if this helps to inform the discussion (although it seems any rule is doomed to be vague given the large variety):

Wikitokyo by Megatokyo

comixpedia by Megatokyo and other articles

Wikitravel by Wikitravel and other articles

wikivoyage by Wikivoyage and other articles

tvtropes by TV Tropes and other articles

wikia.com by thousands of articles

-84user (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bread, the actual rule reads: "...one should avoid: 12. Links to open wikis..."

Now would you tell me how "one should avoid links to open wikis" is an exception that allows open wikis? Or perhaps you could explain how removing this rule would ban all open wikis (by making open wikis not mentioned anywhere in the guideline)?

Contrary to your assertion, we know that links to open wikis are supported by the community -- because they're being added and retained by dozens, and even hundreds, of relatively experienced editors.

Changes to ELNO #11 do not affect ELNO #12, but you'll doubtless be glad to hear that we use a simple quack test for fansites: if it looks, sounds, or feels like a fansite, then it is a fansite for the purpose of this guideline.

And, finally, if you want the ELNO #12 rule changed you must propose the precise text you want included so we can figure out what the heck you want. Not "I think there should be a stricter rule", not "I think there should be a new section", but "Here are the exact words that I want to add." If you can't figure out what words you like to add, then I can't either, because mind reading is not in my skill set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

you're so black and white about this. you really misunderstood many things. read onto the discussion more. i meant removing the rule and replacing it. Changing ELNO#11 was so that fan-open-wiki's would be suppressed. but you claim that wikis are made up of dozens-hundreds amount of experienced editors. Also i did give my thoughts, but i didn't expect you to actually want to hear the exact thing i want to be changed in a way that i have to write the rule. I'm not so good with words and i thought we could discuss what could actually be changed, as in what would the others want changed as well. 1.my first option is simple: change the rule by the example i said before, has to be well written, considerable amount of information, and well organize. or remove them completely due to mirroring Wikipedia. and of course what I've stated before 2. we make a new section that tells us what every single EL needs in order to be justifiable. instead of making ELNO#12 stricter (as in my first example showed). i find this much more suitable for this article and it doesn't just affect. this would affect all EL in ELYES, ELMAYBE and ELNO. i would imagine rules like. #1. Needs to be easy to read. #2 Tone must be neutral, #3 needs to have considerable information (not so sure about this one).etc.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

About 'new section that tells us what every single EL needs in order to be justifiable': We have that. It took ten sections plus the introduction, but we have that. That is the purpose of the entire page.

Your suggested rules, e.g., easy of reading and neutral tone, are not requirements. In fact, many 'easy to read' pages fail WP:ELNO#EL1, and so are actually prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

you know what i mean, and the page isn't doing that. the page only tells us which we can use and which ones we should avoid. not what is required for them. And i'm saying that easy to read and/or neutral can be a requirement.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

Does anyone else have a comment in this?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

just from the perspective of fiction, I see the negative feeling about some of these sites to be an extension and amplification of the feeling that WP should give minimal coverage to fiction. It seems to be saying that , not only should we give the minimal possible coverage in our articles, but we should avoid linking to places where more coverage can be found; not only shall we prevent people from using our site as a provider of information about fictional characters , but we shall use whatever excuse is available to hinder their seeing links to where they might find such information. Perhaps the way to deal with this is to say affirmatively that the major fansites for a fiction or related topic are a proper and necessary link, official or non-official. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea that any fansite, incluing a wiki/wikia is an appropriate link for anything. First, define "major" in a completely neutral fashion. Two, it completely fails WP:EL. Three, the large majority also fail WP:COPYRIGHT and do not provide any actual resource except to feed fan love. Wikipedia is not here for fans. If people want to fine a fansite for a topic, they can do so. Wikipedia is not here to pimp out any specific one and it certainly should not be giving preference to Wikia just because its a sister project (which only feeds the very real criticism that Wikipedia helps wikia profit by sending content over there saying it isn't appropriate here, then linking to it). We don't link to movie star fansites, company fansites, etc and rightly so. Its an NPOV nightmare, and does not add any encyclopedic value to any article. I support the idea that all wikis be banned period, unless it is the actual, and only, official site for a company. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Read what DGG said, and try again to come up with an actual real argument. Because he's right, and you're wrong. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And your remark is helpful how? You don't get to arbitrarily decide anyone is right or wrong in a discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i originally thought so too AnmaFinotera, but now, i feel just open wiki's should be out with no exception whatsoever. melodia, can you please collaborate a little more on how AnmaFinotera is both right and wrong?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I say official, I mean an actual company wiki that is not an open wiki. And even then, only if it is the only link. So basically, yes, I agree all open wiki's should be excluded. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh then i agree aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ban all open-wikis, that's a discussion for a larger forum (Village Pump). Yes, a couple of editors will agree, but the vast majority will strongly disagree. (I predict, based on every single time this has come up previously. I'd point you towards those past discussions, but "wiki" is a difficult term to search for...! Perhaps someone else can supply links.)

Part of working with a community, is adapting to the perspectives of all the other people, all of which are subjectively valid. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

this subject has came up before? can you please show me the archive?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You can search for the subject in the archives box near the top right corner of the page. Click here for one set of search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, when the question is "Should EL prohibit fansites?" then "A link to a fansite completely fails EL" is an illogical response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

right now, i don't think fansites should be used, they usually hold information not entirely related to the series, more such as for example, a toy plushie, fan fiction and many other products the fan site created, or so forth. just little media. occasionally they do hold some info, but it coincidentally (or not)matches the same information on Wikipedia, official site, or on the other external links. it's a bit tedious to have external links that have the same information as the other.

and on a more personal note, EL should be more Conservative onto what information. External links should lean towards more official sites like AnmaFinotera said. we should be careful to what kind of info (that can only be found on EL) we try to promote.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

These problems are already addressed by the existing rules.

Whenever you find external links that contain the same information as the Wikipedia article (or, even worse, less information than the article), please remove them and cite WP:ELNO#EL1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" as the reason for the removal.

If you find links that say the same things as each others, then please remove them (leaving whichever you think is the best one link) and cite WP:External_links#Maintenance_and_review's "duplicative links may be deleted by any editor" as the reason for the removal.

Often, these kinds of mistakes are made innocently, e.g., by someone adding a link without looking at the others. Any editor is able to deal with this sort of basic maintenance task.

(As a hint: If you remove a link, and someone adds it back, don't start an edit war. There are so many links to be reviewed (and removed) that fighting over a single one in a single article isn't the best use of your time. I'd give up on the "one" for a while. You can always come back to it in a month or two, and in the meantime, you can usually clean up ten articles whose editors will be happy to have your help in the time that it would take to argue with a single editor who doesn't understand the guidelines.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah i see your point, but really, there are the obvious links that don't belong. to be honest, i try not to get in an edit war, but really, if it needs to go, than it needs to go. sometimes i even have a 3rd party supporting me and they still ignore me and the 3rd party. Also the example seems like two months ignoring is the same as one day trying to fix it. Anyways, whats wrong with the other proposal about asking for requirements within every EL? i think it could even summarize most of this article.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, would you rather remove five hundred inappropriate links this month, or argue over one?

It's up to you, you know, but I think the encyclopedia is generally better served by having you remove 500 bad links. After all, why should 500 bad links be kept for weeks and weeks while you carry on an argument about one of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop it, seriously, don't use that over exaggerated example. There hasn't been much lately to do from my scope of articles other than vandalism and other members usually take care of it before i get to. I'm not saying I'll pay attention solely to one article at a time, because clearly i have a watchlist filled with other articles. but anyways, it's not just one article, it happened before on a few other articles. Anyways, what about my second suggestion?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an exaggerated example... unless you only care about "your" articles. See, e.g., Special:LinkSearch/groups.yahoo.com for a single website that likely violates this guideline about 500 times in the mainspace.

I have previously attempted to explain the problems with your other proposal. You do not seem to have understood my explanation, but I will repeat it here:

The requirements for every EL are exactly equal to this entire guideline. There are positive requirements ("must be justifiable according to common sense") and negative requirements ("must not violate copyrights") and conditional requirements ("official links are exempt from ELNO"), but the entire page describes what you are asking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sort of, but not in a direct way, still, i do care about my articles, i tihnk thats what most do, and even so, i still have a large scope. it's exaggerated because you assume that if i focus on one, i wont be able to edit other articles in the mean time.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Official" (verified) Twitter feeds?

I'm just wondering what the policy is on these. Official sites are mentioned as OK, and Twitter feeds are mentioned as being avoided. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I don't know. I would think verified Twitter feeds are usable, but maybe not? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  21:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

i think it's the same as an open wiki or youtube website that have official videos from the actual companies.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but I'm not clear if that means: yes, they're ok, or no, they're not. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  22:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:ELN (this page is to discuss the WP:EL guideline). It's best to provide a specific example (what link at what article). Also see the archive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ELN is appropriate for asking about specific links, but to clarify the general guideline: "official" links are typically an exception to any of the WP:ELNO rules. So although Twitter links in general are to be avoided, an "official" Twitter link would be OK (provided the requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL are met). Hope that's more clear. --RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the most important requirement is that an article not be spammed with every possible "official" link. If the regular website has a prominent link to Twitter, then there's really no need to include it in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that unless the Twitter feed is the only official link for the subject, it wouldn't be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most editors agree with you, at least for the vast majority of articles. However, I'm sure you could imagine a scenario that would be an exception. For example, what if the Twitter link isn't easily found on the main website, but the person or organization has received a lot of media attention for using Twitter?

In the end, editors must use their best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) So the definitive answer is "maybe", haha. Honestly, it makes sense, but might there be a reason to establish consensus and place this into the guideline; so, then there wouldn't continue to be the need to rehash this conversation? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Or, maybe I should learn to read and see that it is basically in the guideline, but it's just not explicit. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  00:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The very first sentence of WP:ELNO says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject," with a link to WP:ELOFFICIAL. What did you have in mind by way of clarification? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear, but the blurry line between "official links are OK" and "too many official links aren't OK" wouldn't seem to be as definite as it possibly could be. That said, I do understand it; it's just, there probably isn't a definitive answer to this question. So, it's probably fine as is. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  01:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this falls in WP:ELNO #4. Doesnt it?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No more than any other official link. Official links are generally exempted from ELNO, although editors are still required to use common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But do we even consider twiter an "official" link. if it's something like that, then it wouldnt be exactly official. it's sort of like linking a myspace page or a facebook page onto here jut because we might run into some important info on there.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we consider Twitter an official link? If the person has avowed it and uses it, then it's official. If they have an avowed blog, it's an official blog. If they have an avowed mailing list, it's an official mailing list. Twitter doesn't have some reality distortion field around it which negates all officialness. --Gwern (contribs) 18:49 15 April 2010 (GMT)

• Fundamentally, Twitter (of whatever sort) is too ephemeral to be considered a source for an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As this page says repeatedly, EL has nothing to do with sources for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Library of Congress To Archive All Public Tweets - Slashdot. So not quite as ephemeral as they were a few days ago. And I've seen them used as sources as recently as today. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Openly Declared twitter page automatically makes it official? One there's no "official" in the name, it' just someones twitter. this discussion has came before and was rejected in the WT:SE page. Twitter, itself is a promotional site just like youtube, does anyone here link official Youtube pages of companies and/or People? it's not an official link unless the link is specifically for Twitter articleBread Ninja (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all "official sites" promotional? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly defines what is an official link. Yes, a YouTube or Facebook page could be an official link, and so can a Twitter page. I presume most official pages serve promotional purposes, but they still meet the guideline. This has been debated at some length in the past, so a look through the talk archives might be helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends, which promotional sites there are. It's an official "twitter page" but not an official "[insert here] page" it's not an official website dedicated to the person, what i mean to say is, Official website, but to what extent? how general are we going to go simply with the word official in it? official youtube pages only promote videos, even though sometimes they are mentioned in the official website of the company/person's official site. it's not a direct official stand-alone site. it's the official "page" of the company/person.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we link to official youtube channels when appropriate. See Stanford University for example. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I sense someone changed ELNO, because i am sure it did not say that and it coincidently fell into this arguments favor.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Having the word "official" in its title is not what makes it an official link. What makes a link an "official" one for the purposes of this guideline is explicitly defined in this guideline. Look for the two numbered items under WP:ELOFFICIAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline has been changed lots of times, but an exception to ELNO for official links has been in the guideline since 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i don't remember a link to official and the word "page' either way, the second rule to official links is The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable this one i believe needs to be re written because i feel this one could very well be against Twitter, Facebook,Myspace and all that. the only exeption it would be if it's information was based off of what makes the article notable, which is odd, then why would we even need the EL? Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The content provision of WP:ELOFFICIAL is intended to limit the linking of pages that wouldn't contain anything relevant for most readers of the article. For example, if Professor A is notable exclusively for his accomplishments in physics, then we would prefer to link to a faculty page or a blog he writes about physics, rather than to a Facebook page where he posts pictures of his kids but says nothing about physics. That doesn't mean Facebook, etc., are completely ruled out from having official links. If Miss B, a notable comedian, uses a Facebook page to post about her tv appearances, tour dates, etc., then that is just as much an "official link" as if she did the same thing using a traditional website. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, if this the case, why do we have social networks in ELNO?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:ELOFFICIAL describes an exception to WP:ELNO. As a general rule, social networking sites do not provide the type of content that we would want to link to, so they are discouraged in WP:ELNO, but a subject's own page gets a pass (with some qualifications that are detailed in the guideline). --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I really hate how this policy works due to a few inconsistencies and exceptions seem to happen more than the word implies. We define official on our own, if official section changes then it would affect ELNO. This is a problem i see, so official social network pages of company/person go in . Plus the information is always short-lived. It's up to us on how we consider the twitter pages, so if someone is just talking about how they live and happen to say something company related, it would go in the persons article simply for that? what if he mentions it a few more times and mentions stuff he does everyday. the level of relevance changes.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making this a sound a lot more difficult than it is. In most cases we don't even need to bother putting in ELs for social network pages, because the subjects advertise them on their regular websites that we already link to. Sure there will be gray areas and cases where the content changes, but that happens all the time with other kinds of sites as well. It's a guideline, not magic. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the example with magic-guideline. Either way it doesn't matter if its a social network or not, it would be removed for other reasons. no matter what, as long as we have an article on the person, it has the chance of entering as an external link. the grey area is large, I'm not making this sound "difficult" I'm just making difficulties noticeable. the information on these social networks are short lived...it all depends mostly on our perspective and how informative we see themBread Ninja (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are so many problematic links that are causing controversies, then please take them to WP:ELN for review. I don't seem much benefit in discussing vague "difficulties" with hypothetical situations. --RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't act like twitter pages are 100% informal on wiki related or 100% informal daily life related. this isn't as hypothetical as you think. same for facebook and myspace. especially myspace and twitter. facebook, i could kind of see the exception due to various differences, but i could also see the changes.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)