Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archived 2 Discussion of changes to guideline 2.1 Working copies 2.2 What should be linked to 2.3 Links to be used occasionally 2.4 Links normally to be avoided 2.5 Dead links 3 Template:Unverifiable-external-links 4 Questions about application of guideline 5 Iceberg Radio 6 Blogs 7 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict 8 This guide needs review. 9 Advice needed 10 Little arrow graphic gone 11 Linking to "Cheats" for computer games

Archived

Refactored and current discussion to come soon. - brenneman ^{L} 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of fansites seems to have been active, and covers an ongoing problem. I'm not sure why it was archived, but I hope some consensus can be reached on the issue. -Will Beback 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of changes to guideline

Working copies

Here are some "in progress" version to play with as seen fit. It might be good if comments are made right below the section they refer to, as well. I'll try to summarise the existing arguments soon, but they are all over the place. - brenneman ^{L} 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be linked to

• Isn't No. 1 an example of what should not be linked to? Shouldn't it be in the next section? Fagstein 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, number 1 covers things which should be linked to; it's just that in this case these are things which should be linked from a Notes or References section, not an External links section. So I think that number 1 is in the right place. -- JimR 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the above working-copy section has been unchanged since 22 July. That could represent enough consensus to insert it into the real page. -- JimR 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been no changes to the working copy section since I wrote the above, and no contrary comments, so I've now changed WP:EL#What should be linked to to be the same as the above working copy (as it is at present). -- JimR 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to be used occasionally

linking to copyvio

I'd like to see #5 strengthened to point out specific and common examples, including lyrics sites (not on a band's or record label's page), and videos at sites like YouTube and Clevver that are of obviously copyrighted material but not released to the public domain (such as musical performances, music videos, movie trailers, and so on). -- Mikeblas 15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fanlistings are NEVER appropriate, and should be vlearly moved to the next section. Fansites should probably be moved in the "not normally appropriate section" too and covered in this one by the "web directory listing" provision, if only because in most cases, disputes arise as to which fansite(s) should be linked too. Circeus 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Most thought about fansites here seems to be directed towards "topics with many fansites". For topics with few fansites, linking more than one may be appropriate, especially where there is no official site. I can see why we want to avoid having a twenty-line link farm of fansites for Star Trek, but if there are only two or three major fansites for LEXX and no official site, why not link all three? As written, the text implies that a topic with few fansites gets no links at all. Vadder 22:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided

Factual inaccuracies

According to this policy, "links to be avoided" include:

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research.

However, according to WP:V, Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". Why, then, has "truth" been written into this policy? What would happen if it was re-written:

Any site that contains unverified original research.

? mdf 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"What should be linked to" refers to accurate material, so not linking to inaccurate material is appropriate to call out. 2005 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If some other policy refers to "accurate material", my question still stands: why has "truth" been written into policy, when one of the core policies disclaims truth to mere verifiability? mdf 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a matter of context. If it is a partisan site, identified as such, in a context where partisan sites from multiple sides of an issue are linked, that's fine. The problem comes when a link gives an aura of authority to a site that would not, itself, meet standards comparable to Wikipedia's own. - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, my question is unanswered. But to take this fork: if the direct intent of this policy is to forbid a link to a website that has standards inferior to those of Wikipedia, then why not just explicitly write this into the policy:

Any site that has editorial standards that do not meet, at least, WP:V and WP:RS.

instead of depending on second-order effects to achieve this policy goal? mdf 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question: to change the guide (not policy) to ban external sites which do not have the same editorial standards as Wikipedia would eliminate large numbers of links to sites which nonetheless are valuable in providing a reasonable level of verification and background — all the more so if you mean "Any site that does not have explicit editorial standards . . ." (Examples could readily be provided, but just to give one I used today, see [1].) This would not be a desirable outcome. If your question was rhetorical (as I took it), then perhaps you agree! -- JimR

MySpace

If official MySpaces are allowed like you said in the last archive, that needs to be noted because there are administrators who remove them frequently. Crumbsucker 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat that I find the wording of 8 just plain confusing. I think this one will have to be a longer rule on behalf of clarity. Here's my crack:

8. Blogs, social network sites (such as MySpace), should generally not be linked to. Exceptions could include if the website is of a particularly high quality, or particularly high relevance to the article, such as an official site of the article's topic (including MySpace Music pages). They should not be citations for negative information under WP:BLP.

I think that covers the broad strokes (as I would like them to end up!). I think it's clear where I stand on the issue of band MySpace pages, as opposed to just-anybody pages (see archive for more). Band MySpaces are frequently more up-to-date than official websites. (I'm going to alert stakeholders WikiProject Music to this discussion so they can be part of the consensus.) Additionally, I think it's usually non-controversial and hypertext-friendly to link to a living person's own blog, especially if they have no other official site. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the MySpace link from musical artist articles is somewhat counterproductive. External links should provide insight beyond the article into the subject. As Dhartung pointed out, some artists only have an MySpace page, others update theirs more frequently than their official website or offer a lot more content. --Johnnyw talk 08:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since MySpace pages aren't registered with any public information, we don't know if they're truly representative of the artist (or their label). Aggregate blog hosting sites usually have the same problem. How do you propose we address the verifiability issues? -- Mikeblas 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the MySpace is linked from the person's official site, it shouldn't be a problem. Kevin Smith, for example, gave out his MySpace through his message board. Moby gave his out through his journal on his website. Several music artists link their MySpaces on their official sites. Crumbsucker 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of MySpace, I'm personally confident that the legal exposure for News Corp. is sufficient that a MySpace Music account is, with near certainty, authentic. Billy Bragg and others recently got them to change their license terms [2][3] which is goign to make the site even more attractive, so this problem isn't going away.

SNSes are aware of the fakester problem and handle it in varying ways, but here we're not talking about user accounts. Blogs may or may not be hosted on a public service so there are two classes of problem there. I'm not playing disingenuous when I do ask what is verifiable about non-blog "official site" external links in many cases -- after all WHOIS registration is fakeable or concealable too. But to echo Bragg, "The last thing any of us wants to see is a situation in which everyone posting a song on the site has to have a lawyer sitting next to them." Is that the way it's gonna be with external links? Seems daft and counterproductive. This doesn't seem to trigger any of the Wikipedia:Common knowledge tripwires.

Don't get me wrong, I fully see the wisdom of eschewing blogs as reliable sources, but we're just talking about linking to them, and in the context of providing information, uncharacterized. If we were to truly apply RS/V to all external links strictly in terms of identifying them, quite a few would have to go. I doubt very many have ever been challenged, but MySpace (for example) gets deleted with the label "linkspam" all the time.--Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I want to see is anyone who thinks up some original intellectual property needing a lawyer sitting next to them. Let's err on the side of protecting the rights of the creators.

If the registration of a site is concealed, I wouldn't consider it worthy of use in an external link that claims to be owned by the topic matter. If the link claims to be the official site (or page) of the artricle, then it must be verifiably their site (or page). MySpace pages (and almost all other social networking service-hosted pages, AFAIK) are not verifable. MySpace authenticity isn't sometimes correct and sometimes forged; it just doesn't exist. I'll pick sometimes forged over not available every day. (And twice on Sundays.) -- Mikeblas 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

MySpace pages (and almost all other social networking service-hosted pages, AFAIK) are not verifable. If the author of the MySpace links to it from their official website, it is verified. I just gave some examples above. Kevin Smith is a very clear example of what I'm talking about.[4], as is Nelly Furtado.[5] There are now movies what use MySpace as their official website (John Tucker Must Die, Step Up) with links given out in tv commercials. Crumbsucker 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How would an editor verify that the MySpace page for either those movies is the "official" page for the movie, endorsed by the studio (or distributor, or whoever owns the movie's promotion)? On the StepUp page, I don't see anything that makes me think it's official or endorsed in any way. Meanwhile, it seems staggering that anyone would use MySpace for artistic promotion as MySpace assumes copyright over whatever is posted. [6]. -- Mikeblas 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The editor inserting the link must bear with the burden of evidence. Maybe the {{MySpace}} template should be modified to get an extra parameter for a link to verify that the account is in fact the official page. -- ReyBrujo 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Same for John Tucker. In fact, John Tucker demonstrates my point: it's setup to be the my space page of a guy named John Tucker ... who turns out to be the title character of this movie; that is, he's fictional. I still don't see any way to verify that this page is endorsed by the studio (or director, or whoever...). There's no provenance. You don't have to be named "John Tucker" to create a MySpace profile named "John Tucker". You don't need to be anyone, in fact, to claim that the site is the official page of some other entity.-- Mikeblas 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As it said above, "If the author of the MySpace links to it from their official website, it is verified." (Emphasis mine). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As it said above, there are sites where MySpace claims to be the official site in and of itself. Do you have a proposal for verifying those sites? -- Mikeblas 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per verifiability, if you can't find a reliable source (the band's home page, the discography site, a well-standing magazine article, etc), then it is not official. -- ReyBrujo 16:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no general rule, but, similarly, someone can fake being an "official" site outside of MySpace. It's always a bit of a trick to work out whether a site is legitimately what it claims to be. - 06:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose to leave some room for the editors of the related articles to distinguish between an authentic MySpace profile and a hoax. Considering that there are some indicators available to the editors (e.g. link on official website, totally exclusive content (news, material) which would be unable to a 3rd party), I'd leave it up to them to decide whether to link the page or not. The external links are - after all - listed to provide some extra insight in the topic that is or cannot be provided by WP articles. --Johnnyw talk 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally exclusive content is impossible to verify, since, if it is "totally exclusive", has no other source. -- Mikeblas 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Impossible? Not quite. WP:V requires to establish beyond "a reasonable doubt" that the source of a personal site etc. is the subject of the article itself - which seems sensible. Maybe I should point out an example to illustrate. Recently a MySpace link has been removed from the Tool article, the link to the myspace page of guitarist and visual artist of the band, Adam Jones. The reason given by the editor for this removal was of course WP:EL. When looking at the MySpace page, you not only see material that is unavailable to anyone but the artists themselves, as e.g. photos of the band recording, of (well-known) visitors to the studio, photos of their family, crew etc. There is no _reasonable_ doubt that this material is authentic and exclusive to the artist himself, which is why I would reason to include it under EL. Removing it would just seem unreasonable, since this kind of external content is exactly the one we will not incorporate into the article but rather list them as an external source. --Johnnyw talk 10:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that a MySpace officially endorsed by the subject of an article is OK, but I would remove the text or where the website is of a particularly high standard since the problem is not of quality but of falsifiability - also, it opens the doors for endless Wikilawyering about standards of quality. Just zis Guy you know? 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on this talk page) is there a consensus that the MySpace exclusion should exempt a band's officially-endorsed MySpace (in which there is no reasonable doubt that it is official, etc.)? If so, should this be written in #2 of "What should be linked to" (Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one.) or #9 of "Links normally to be avoided" (Blogs, social networking sites and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.)? Schi 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

We can fix the "social networking sites" link so it doesn't redriect, right? -- Mikeblas 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this on the project page. -- Mikeblas 15:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sites requiring registration

Are there any objections to adding the "require registration or" qualifier to the guideline? --Muchness 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that a blanket ban on links to sites requiring registration or subscription would cut off wide sources for verification of articles, such as subscription-only journals and newspaper archives. There is a debate about such issues at WT:RS. -- JimR 06:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to banning links to sites requiring registration and even links to sites requiring a subscription because it effectively bans using them as sources. For many subjects, the sources available are limited, so it would reduce the sources that we can use even further. Also, all other things being equal, sites requiring registration or a subscription are more likely to be high quality than other sources. Finally, offline materials, like books, some magazines and some newspaper articles (especially those of small newspapers and old articles), are far harder to check out than sites requiring registration, and they are often harder to check out than sites requiring a subscription, depending on the rarity of the book and the price of the subscription. -- Kjkolb 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to add the registration ban with a disclaimer to make it clear that the ban only applies to the external links section? For example, "Sites with limited accessibility that meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines and are used to verify the article may be linked to in a references section, if there is no equivalent freely accessible site." --Muchness 08:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would still prefer not to have it in the guideline. First, I think it would be confusing to people. They tend to view things as all or nothing. For example, there was a policy that discouraged cross-namespace redirects and some editors used it as a reason to delete all of them, even those that could in no way be confused as article topics, that had been in place for years and that were useful. Some people actually thought that the policy said they were prohibited (the policy may have been changed since this took place). Second, I do not think that the linking of sites requiring registration and definitely those requiring a subscription is common enough to require a guideline. Third, it is possible that linking to such a site would be beneficial in some cases, even if it is not used as a source. For example, it might be the subject of the article, or it may be an extremely useful resource on the subject that just was not used as a source. Guidelines can inform people of what to do and settle minor disputes. Unfortunately, they can also be substituted for common sense. -- Kjkolb 07:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Link format???

I just redid the external links on baseball (i have used this format on a few other pages), do you think this is a good way to format them? Wolverinegod 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

The following paragraph contradicts (or nearly contradicts) Wikipedia:Citing sources:

External links to dead URLs are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be removed, or updated with archived versions, which may be found at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

I believe it should be rewritten as:

Links to dead URLs in a list of external link are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be removed, or updated with archived versions, which may be found at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Note however, that the matter can be quite different when these links are references: see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead".

I made the edit, then belatedly noticed that the page was protected, so I'm bringing it here to make sure there are no objections. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Three days, no objections, I'm making the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah, we should really get this page unprotected first, eh? I've reverted the change, and I'll list this page on requests for unprotection. - brenneman ^{L} 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected; I've re-inserted the improvement about dead links. -- JimR 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Can I suggest adding, where relevent, a strong recomendation to use the Template:Unverifiable-external-links template where needed.

It outputs the following,

--Barberio 09:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would this template ever be used? External links should either be removed for a reason or used for a reason. In fact, why does this template exist? It should be deleted. ((Added, I see ita already has been put up for deletion.)) 2005 09:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal wikipedia, this template should not exist. Neither should any of the other POV templates. Unfortunatly, there are disputes over removing external links, as demonstated in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I have given further information on the TFD page. --Barberio 11:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

During the failed tfd a sufficent amount of people said they would find this template usefull. The template's page now has useage guidelines.

Would there be any objections to linking to it under 'see also'? (Preferably, objections from people who don't outright object to the template.) --Barberio 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The template should be linked from nowhere. Instead you should follow the policy of this guideline. 2005 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about application of guideline

I've added this section to keep it seperate from the above discussion. - brenneman ^{L} 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Iceberg Radio

The account User:Iceberg 76 exists only to place links to interviews on artist or band pages to his own website, icebergradio.com Iceberg Radio. [7]. Is this linkspam? -- Mikeblas 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The user is spamming, that is what you are asking, not whether the links are any good, right? 2005 05:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the spamming issue, the interviews themselves appear to require registration on their site. Usually we don't link things that require registration, except insofar as they are actual references. - Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

Why such a restrictive policy on restricting links to blogs? In at least one case, this policy seems counterproductive. Specifically, the page on the Connecticut 2006 US Senate election. As currently written, there is a section devoted to opposition to each candidate (hence preserving NPOV). The section on opposition to Lieberman has links to blogs systematically removed - most recently by SandyGeorgia. Since much of Lieberman's opposition and much of Lamont's support has come from blogs, restricting links to blogs leads to the erasure of much of what is actually going on in this election -- and hence to a biased picture.

In general, though, what is the basis of this policy? Is it that blogs are partisan? If so, are links to Fox News or the Hertiage Foundation allowed? --Jred 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

With blogs, as with many other forms of transient online information, not only can we not be certain of the true identity of the person posting, there is no bar whatsoever to publication. Even where a blog is written by a known authority the post can change in content and context quite rapidly. So blogs lack the stability and traceability of other sources. This is a pretty long-standing guideline. Just zis Guy you know? 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, listing one blog would lead to the listing of all blogs, creating a massive list of anyone's blog even only somewhat related to the issue. Official blogs are one thing, or blogs that have a notable, appreciable impact on the issue. But random people's opinions on things are really not worth including. Fagstein 17:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if it's random people's opinions, why not limit links to partisan/opinion magazines that have readership lower than a certain number, say 100,000? --Jred 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad start, as long as there's not 100 blogs that fit that category. And the blog would have to be really on point (i.e. about the issue and not just occasionally discussing it). Fagstein 18:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then pick a number that makes the # of blogs sufficiently small. But that leads to a linked question. Should The National Review and The New Republic be blocked as well? They offer opinion and have less than 100,000 in circulation. --Jred 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're being silly. The National Review and The New Republic are not blogs, and are generally accepted as reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The main thing is that blog content changes, by its very nature. Links should go to stable sites with information about the subject. There is no reliability if the information is guaranteed to change in a few days, so there's no point in linking to it. - Rainwarrior 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What about permalinks? Sure the blogs change, but individual postings don't so often. And then, news organizations such as CNN also periodically (regularly?) edit the content of their stories. I believe I've noticed the NYTimes and MSNBC doing it as well.--Jred 22:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no sense being rational, for pity's sake. Heck, over at WP:BLP they're discussing deleting every biography of a living person who isn't a world leader. I am not kidding. We're in the post-Seigenthaler era now. It was fun while it lasted, eh? --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about blogs, not blog postings. Theoretically a blog posting could have useable information. Though quite a few blogs have message boards attached to each post, so a lot of the page's content would be unstable. I wouldn't think we should forbid blog posting links, but I would at least advise against them. When is a blog posting ever the best source? (Maybe sometimes?) - Rainwarrior 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about information and knowledge, and blogs are almost exclusively about opinion. Their purpose is fundamentally different fomr ours. External links are supposed to act as references and sources; a secondary purpose is to expand on the topic beyond the detail Wikipedia can sustain. That's about it. Blogs by their nature provide editorial content, not factual - even if they have a factual basis. And we really really don't want to set a precedent here, because otherwise every blogger-after-truth will insist on adding their blog to "balance" articles whose content they dispute. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd worry about that too. I was just saying that there could be very, very rare cases where a blog post has good information, maybe even have a bibliography. But actually, thinking about it, that's not the purpose of blogs... yeah, I think you're right. Even if it was the case, that there was good material in a blog post, that kind of content belongs on a regular website. I'm going to agree with you on this. - Rainwarrior 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no opinions, just facts, is the rule, are links to Cato Institute barred on matters of the virtues of tax reduction? Are links to NARAL, the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, The National Review, etc. barred as well?

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources includes this definition:

"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."

-- Donald Albury^(Talk) 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as information not available elsewhere, are there other places that one can read the text of Judge Walton's decisions in the Scooter Libby case? or of Libby's lawer's filings? I haven't been able to find these on the DOJ site (which does have the indictment though)--Jred 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Since no opinions, just facts, is the rule..." no, that is not the rule, so let's not suggest it is. Opinions in external links are fine. 2005 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What's with all these slippery slope arguements? "listing one blog would lead to the listing of all blogs," "every blogger-after-truth will insist on adding their blog". Weblogs are no different than other sites. Most of them are garbage and shouldn't be listed, but that's not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a ton of good content on weblogs that shouldn't be excluded merely because it happens to be on a weblog. - EurekaLott 02:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I bring up another concrete example? The Williams College page currently contains an external link to EphBlog, a (unaffliated with Williams) blog devoted to news and discussion about Williams-related topics. Does this belong? I argue (in the Talk:Williams_College) that this belongs because it is a site that many people reading the Wikipedia entry on Williams College would be interested in. But I do not see that as am explicitly reason for inclusion. So, I would propose adding one of the inclusions to be "High quality but unofficial websites or blogs devoted to the topic of the article may be included." (There is a separate issue about whether or not I should be involved in this edit war since I founded EphBlog.) David.Kane 23:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

There is currently an important mediation case over how these guidelines should apply. Please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. At the moment current compromise is to allow unverifiable and potentialy misleading links so long as they are clearly marked as such. --Barberio 11:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This guide needs review.

Following on from the above mentioned mediation and template deletion discussions, it appears this guide needs serious review. No one seems able to agree on how these guides should be applied, and there are sections of it that are so subjective to be totaly useless. At the moment, despite the clear warning against using them, Blog sites and forum posts are commonly used as links. And there are ocasional disputes against atempts to remove them. (The template was only intended as a stop gap for pages where these disputes were ongoing.)

At the moment, the page is a bit too muddled, in that it is not clear which items overrule which. The section on Blogs and comunity sites is curently muddled, starting by saying they are almost always to be avoided, then giving a set of exceptions that are vauge enough that they could be interperated to allow anything. There needs to be a clearer, stronger language on what is expected from an external links section. --Barberio 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: To understand why Barberio is so interested in changing the wording of WP:EL, please see the active arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israel-Lebanon (and /Evidence). AdamKesher 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi there. I'm hoping someone can help me out with a conflict about an external link that has come up at a page I've been editing -- I really don't know what to do, and am kind of at a loss. The problem regards a site which claims to be run by a moderately famous person. Actually it doesn't directly claim -- it just very strongly insinuates. An editor has been adding and readding the link to this site in the external links section of the article on the person in question. Problem is, no one can come up with any hard evidence about the ownership of the site. It's entirely possible it belongs to who it claims it does, but if it doesn't, it fails to be strongly relevant to the topic of the article. Can anyone advise me as to what the correct thing would be to do in this situation? -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 05:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove it from the article and post the link and an explanation of your doubts to the article talk page for review. If indeed it is genuine, as agreed by other members who contribute to the page, let someone not associated with the website post it to the main article. Until a consensus of support forms, keep deleting it. See item #3 in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Carboncopy 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented a good bit on this on the article's talk page, but only a smallish number of editors have commented -- 2 established editors also expressed doubts, but there are a number of new accounts with no other edits that have gotten involved to support the link. It's fairly high up on the page by now, so I may try to start a new section on it and hope it gets seen. Under item #3, the link is looking a lot like an attempt to generate traffic to the site. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Little arrow graphic gone

I request the little arrow on every external link be restored. While external links are a lighter blue to internal ones, the difference is very slight, and it can be difficult to determine which are external links without scrutiny/hovering over the link. i.e. bunny Microsoft TransUtopian 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's back. Whoever changed it back, thank you! TransUtopian 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's gone again. Where's the page where this is changed to comment? TransUtopian 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is back for me. I know the arrow is missing on trans-wiki links (ie: Vader), but it appears for regular off-site links. EVula 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know where this stuff is changed, so I can talk directly to the people changing it if it gets changed again? I did a quick search on metawiki but no luck. I guess I'll ask on the Village Pump if it happens again. Did the transwiki links have the arrow on it, or are you saying you'd like to add the arrow to them too? TransUtopian 01:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to "Cheats" for computer games

I would just like to raise a point or seek clarification on what not to link to. Currently on the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas article there are several anonymous contributors who keep putting external links to dubious websites which provide cheats to this game. Myself and Falcon9x5 have attempted to remove them yet they keep persisting (claiming that it doesn't violate this policy).

Can we ammend the policy to exclude the listing of websites whose specific purpose is to provide cheats to computer games? If we start to allow this to happen then every man and his dog will list HUNDREDS of these sites and wikipedia will lose its encyclopedic value. Not to mention that the majority of cheat sites contain spyware and other malicious entities which unsuspecting readers may stumble into. Enigmatical 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheats, unless notable (like the Hot Coffee, in example) are not encyclopedic, nor enhance the article about the game itself. If they continue adding it, maybe you should requeste a semi protection? -- ReyBrujo 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While it may not violate the policy explicitly, one could justify the removal as removing a Fansite, or the fact that the site simply doesn't add to the article. I have to say that the one site at www.cheatcc.com/psx2/gtasa.html doesn't appear to have advertising, and does appear to be very complete. If I had to include a cheat site, I'd be tempted to use it. -- Xinit 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then people come along, see the existing cheat site, decide that its a precident so they all add their favourites. Before long wikipedia is inundated with thousands of game cheats and becomes known as the place to go if you want to find cheats for games. Where is the encyclopedic value there? Enigmatical 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the spam event horizon. Just zis Guy you know? 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like it. It is basically what I had to do here. -- ReyBrujo 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Section 4., Instruction manuals, cover this? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Or the recommendation to not include fansites, or consisting of original research... -- Xinit 05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is only for content inside Wikipedia, not external links. You can argue Wikipedia is not a repository of links, though. -- ReyBrujo 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Game cheats aren't illegal and shouldn't be treated as such, but they're inappropriate external links to articles about the games. Fagstein 07:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I see little harm in having such a link, I can see you disagree, with the reasoning that generally they're not noteworthy enough to be added as links. Perhaps, since they're not illegal, you could suggest on the article/user talk pages for them to make an article on game cheats (when searching, all I found is cheating in online games, when I'm talking about offline game portions) where a few relevant external links could be added. I think the general phenomenon of game programmers creating cheats for various reasons, properly sourced, would be encyclopedic. TransUtopian 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an article on the phenomena, covering its development and reactions to it, is fine, but it would still be true that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is why we have articles like Hot Coffee mod and Konami Code, in example. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not the specific link itself, its the "trend" that may start as a result. What would be the purpose behind including such a link? To inform readers about something of interest regarding the topic of the article? Or to help play the game? We allow one to be added and then someone else goes "I have a better cheat site than that" so they link theirs. Then the next person does the same and then people on other computer games articles start doing it. Before you know it we end up with every single computer game artical covered in cheat sites which while not illegal do have a tendancy to carry spyware and other computer nasties on their pages. Enigmatical 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)