Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

references section preference

Hi, I propose to encourage editors to prefer putting a reference instead of external links, to tend to a higher quality level. Many articles on the edge of the encyclopedia attracts novice wikipedians and anonymous editors linking to unverifiable websites in good faith. I make many edits in motoring topics where this scheme could be seen, but popular culture is a great provider too.

By asking editors to cite their sources in a standard manner against linking to every forum in the world, and replacing myself weblinks to reliable references, the article is better. So, discouraging external links improves quality. Renaming them further reading (sounds like books, seems more serious) could be incentive too. --Marc Lacoste 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it would be good to explicitly notify the users that happen to look here that the article should be completely referenced, and all encyclopedic facts should be included, rather than more external links added. Bravada, talk - 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Not "instead of", but "in addition to". A well-writen article will have all of: notes, references, further reading and external links. Notes are footnotes to specific facts within the article. References are what you actually used to write the article, other than what is footnoted, or giving the full bibliographic citation to what is footnoted. Further reading would have works that go into MORE depth then you did, or have variations which you did not use, to write the article. External links will have any other miscellanous thing that the reader might want to pursue, such as groups advocating the thoughts in the article, lists of places where the article is cited or where the thoughts within the article is cited, and other things I can't think of right now. The point is that all the sections named are useful, in their way.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs)

A well-written article may have notes, must have references, may have further reading, may have external links. If you used a source to write the article, that source should be cited, and thus it will automatically appear in the <references/>. External links are only there for official sites, or for details that shouldn't be in the article; for instance, in doing an article about the world trade center, you might have an external link to blueprints of the buildings. An external link to the port authority site would qualify as an official link, as would a link to the site of the architect. Links to advocacy groups would NOT be reasonable, nor would a link to a site selling "we will never forget" t-shirts. This isn't Dmoz, and this isn't GeoCities. Wikipedia needs to focus on what it can do well, or else it will do nothing well. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Links to advocay sites are sometimes appropriate. Although WP and its articlesdoes not engage in advocy, it provides information about advocay groupe, when the meet the other criteria. Regardless of my feelings about the likliness of some WTC groups, they are [unfortunately, in my opinion] prominent in the news, are part of the public discussion of WTC and related issues, and cannot just be ignored. That's not NPOV. Their hypotheses must at least be mentioned, and for a reader who wants further information what would be a better sources than their sites. There are a multitude of less controversial matters where ouside links provide better information than any of us are likely to write. If they're PD, we can include parts, with an extended quote and a reference. If not, we can link.DGG 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand my point about the advocacy groups. There are no advocacy groups that are pro-World Trade Center. There are no advocacy groups that are anti-World Trade Center. They are irrelevant for an article on the buildings.
There are no advocacy groups that are pro-attack. There are no advocacy groups that are anti-attack. Advocacy groups would be irrelevant for an article on the half of the September 11 attacks that ended in New York City.
There are advocacy groups that promote attacks on Iraq in order to show the world that when we are attacked, we use it as an excuse to carry out a war against someone else, that had been promoted for nearly a decade. There are advocacy groups that seek to find millions for the survivors of the WTC victims and a few pennies here and there for the survivors of the Oklahoma City terrorist attack. There are advocacy groups that promote giving money to the Mennonite Central Committee because the Red Cross is obviously not a good choice.
It's only when you do articles on subjects for which there is no broad consensus, that advocacy links are appropriate, and it's because they stand in lieu of an official website. If you were doing Support for New American Century, then pro-Iraq-war advocacy groups qualify. If you were doing The great flyover, then the survivors advocacy groups qualify. If you were doing Public perception of the Red Cross, then the charity advocacy groups qualify.
If an outside link provides more detailed information than an article should have, were it to be developed to Featured Article status, then it qualifies as an external link. If you want to link to external sites simply because it's easier than writing a good article, you're working on the wrong project; Dmoz.org needs editors, too. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just realized I posted in the wrong section. I of course support the above proposal like I indicated above, I oppose the one below. I apologize for the kerfuffle. Bravada, talk - 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this idea. Yes, it may keep useful external links that may not be a part of the article out, but I can't see a comprehensive article not including much needed external links. What it WILL do is discourage the posting of complete garbage (ie. fan sites, forums, community blogs, etc...). I very much like this idea. Roguegeek (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The proposal is reasonable if
  1. The source actually is cited in the article (otherwise, it should be under Further reading).
  2. The source meets WP criteria for a reliable source (e.g., self-published material is specifically excluded). Some self-published material, such as mine :-), is inherently reliable, but some is garbage. Once the door is opened to allow almost anything, there no longer is such a thing as a reliable source. I think even putting such sources in Further reading carries an implication of reliability.
I agree that External links tend to collect all manner of garbage, but given a choice, I'd rather have them there than as implied reliable sources. An even better approach would be to periodically weed out the junk External links. JeffConrad 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Google/Yahoo cache links

I propose that the following be appended to the "Rich Media" section, to clarify the use of Google/Yahoo cache links.

Links to a automatic translation of the rich media file, such as those provided by Google or Yahoo!'s cache features, are accepted but not required. They should follow the citation, and be given the name "(google cache)" or "(yahoo cache)", or whatever the name of the translation service is.

Comments, typo corrections? If there is no objection in a week, please add this to the page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Now replaced by Revised Proposal below. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess this does not concern external links, but rather inline citations/references. And in order to be included in the guideline, the proposed change has to be approved by consensus rather that attract "no objection for a week". Bravada, talk - 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course it does - the "no objections for a week" was simply per Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, as a means to generate consensus, if no comments were forthcoming. Sorry for the lack of clarity. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you mean choosing between having a link to the original file (in example, a PDF) and having a link to Google "View as HTML" for the file, I prefer the PDF. If you mean choosing between a link to a translation (like Babelfish) and a direct link to the article (even if it is in a language other than english), I prefer the link to the original piece. If you mean between having a link to a page that does not exist anymore but is still in Google cache, I would generally agree, however the cache links go down usually within two or three weeks after the original link went down. -- ReyBrujo 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the above + why not use Internet Archives for historic webpages? Bravada, talk - 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive.org does not mirror every site, especially those that prevent bots from crawling. However, Google caches everything in order to maximize their search. -- ReyBrujo 22:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Google does not cache everything. They don't cache sites that have "no cache" or "no index" tags, for example. They also don't cache millions of pages they have not crawled recently. A cache link should never be an external link. The Archive.org guideline is bad in that often times pages are no longer online because the copyright owner does not want them to be, but is clueless about archive.org. Still, archive.org at least is not a flighty link like a cached page. 2005 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the Internet Wayback Machine have a six-month delay from the time a page leaves to internet to the time it appears on their archive? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Per WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it, whichever was used for writing the article or verifying the material should be cited as the source, with the other being linked to secondarily. Google caches and Babelfish translations are intermediate sources. For non-sources (external links), sure. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. Could you explain what you mean by "linked to secondarily" and "intermediate sources"? JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Intermediate sources (which I might also call indirect sources) are sources which are copies of or which cite another source. So verify material in an article based on an indirect source (such as a google cache for a PDF or an altavista translations for something in French), I should cite the indirect source, for the sake of honesty (intermediate sources are generally less reliable), while also acknowledging where the information originally came from. This does not apply to non-sources. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! That was good and clear explanation. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I'm sorry, there seems to be a large amount of misunderstanding here. Let me try again.

I propose that the following be appended to the "Rich Media" section, to clarify the use of Google/Yahoo cache links as optional additions to existing links to rich media.

Following an external link to a rich media file, a link to an automatic translation of the file, such as those provided by Google or Yahoo!'s cache features, are permitted but not required. They should be given the name "(google cache)" or "(yahoo cache)", or whatever the name of the translation service is.
Example: a_nice_file from example.org (google cache)

To clarify: 1) This applies to any link to a "rich media"(typically PDF) file. 2) It would always and only be additional and optional to the primary link, which would of course be to the original file. It has nothing to do with what would "cited as the source" it is merely a help to our readers. 3) This does not apply to pages which are no longer available, i.e. 404, "broken" links. Archive.org may be useful there, but that's beyond the scope of this proposal. 4) As this is optional, if a translation cannot be found, then it does not need to be added; it doesn't matter wheather google caches every page or not.

I hope the rephrasing, and clarifications will reduce the misunderstandings, and I continue to look forward to comments and questions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose, per what was said above (not by me, by others). Bravada, talk - 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The revised proposal is intended to resolve all the objections above. Please specify which objection above you consider not resolved. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Google cache is ephemeral, it usually disappears within weeks after the original document does, and the way it displays "rich media files" using the "display as HTML" option often leaves a lot to be desired. Links to automatic translations also have the tendency to malfunction over longer time. I don't think it's a good idea to clutter the links section with such - anybody can use the automatic translations themselves, and adding "convenience links" like those can create a potentially dangerous precedent. I don't see how it could be further "improved" to clear those concerns. I am sorry, but I still oppose the proposition. Bravada, talk - 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I support linking to PDF files in some situations, but not linking to Google caches. - Mike (Trick or treat) 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you clarify this further? The proposal doesn't affect linking to PDFs or not, and it uses the Google/Yahoo/others cache feature as a format converter, not as a link in itself. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, got confused. I guess I support linking to translation pages, although from my past experience they do not come out very well. Still, some sort of translation is better than no translation. - Mike (Trick or treat) 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be a better rewording for sure, as or whatever the name doesn't seem serious enough. I just convinced someone who wanted to put a news:// external link; we agreed instead on linking to a web interface for the newsgroup. However, this is different, because the cache may disappear at anytime. I am still considering this, though. -- ReyBrujo 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the wording (I agree "whatever the name" is rather fliptant). Regarding similarites between this proposal and linking to a news:// url, or worry that it may disappear - this seems to misunderstand the purpose of the proposal, which is to allow links to format convertsions as a service to our readers. A news:// link is not a format conversion, and if the conversion link breaks, we're no worse off than before. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't apply to sources, sure, why not. As someone who likes Lynx, I support this. I think translation services are also useful for foreign language links. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-write proposal.

I suggested this already, but it got lost in the wheel war and angstyness.

At the moment, the 'rules' we have are very very confused. The only *solid* bar against links we have, the copyvio ban, is under 'Links to be used occasionally', our recomendations on what not to link to are all overidden by other rules, some things that don't fit into a simple rule have been shoehorned into one so we can put it in a list.

I think we should reorganise to this kind of structure,

  • Links that add to an article
  • Links that may be useful
  • Links that should be avoided
  • Links not to be used
  • Special cases

I think the 'the below do not override the list of what should be linked to' line is silly and just an extra layer of confusion. I think it should be left up to a case by case decision on which takes precedence, rather than always defer to the what to link. This is what 'ignore all rules' is for, we shouldn't be putting in confusing replcations of that.

Some time ago I put an example rewrite based on an earlier version of the page we have now at Wikipedia talk:External links/workshop, since we've made some changes since then it's out of date. --Barberio 10:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - but I might naem the first bullet - "Links that support verifiability" --Trödel 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to rewrite anything at the moment. We might discuss about specific points, but I guess most concerns have already been sorted out. Bravada, talk - 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How can it be sorted out when the page is protected? --Trödel 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We could probably get the protection taken off now, but I'm not convinced the issues have been settled. I think we do need to generate some discussion on the future of this page, and a rewrite might be the best idea, even if it leads us back to where we are. Hiding Talk 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

plural links vs link

The suggestion that there is no consensus on using "External links" as the name of sections for external links seems absurd. (source)

In order of importance, reasons 5, 3, and 4, are enough to make a recommendation on using the name "External links". Any objections to updating this section to recommend "External links" as the section name? Gronky 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wholehearted support, also for Reference/References. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46 5 October 2006 (GMT).
Strongly support. Atlant 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Support - this must be an artifact of some old and pretty pointless debate Bravada, talk - 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Support, though we should get a lot of outside opinions if we want to make this policy and avoid edit wars. Fagstein 01:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Support David.Kane 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. Consistency is nice. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. I predict chaos. - brenneman {L} 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Support Who really cares though? - Mike (Trick or treat) 02:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, 7 days have passed, we have 9 in favour (or strongly in favour), and 0 against. I'll update the page to recommend "External links". Keeping in mind that this is a recommendation, not policy. For anyone reading this discussion after the change, here's a link to the pre-change version. Gronky 10:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder. This page is not Policy.

Just a reminder. This page is not, nor ever has been, a wikipedia policy, it is a wikipedia guideline. Please try to remember this, and make yourself familure with the difference. --Barberio 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, even more than I support consistancy. Tidy is nice, a welcoming environment that allows for a variety of ideas is better. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Strike the "one fan site" rule

Okay, since most attempts at change have been too major to gain any sort of consensus, I think I'll mov to something that I think we will all agree on (well, at least those who participated in the straw poll above). Would support keeping the wording about fan sites the way it is, and simply removing the "only link to one fansite" bit? -  Mike | trick or treat  22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it just says "Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." Is that really more lenient? It could be interpreted to mean that including a link to any fan site is bad, which is I guess what some people would like, but I don't. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
But I do. If fan sites fall under any of the 5 categories of link to include, they are free to go anyway. No need to delve into that matter deeper. Bravada, talk - 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
PS. To make it more clear - the below wording just states the obvious and can at best create confusion and mistinterpretations. Let's just limit verbosity to minimum.
How about we say "On topics of articles with many fan sites, including links of this nature may be appropriate in some cases, provided they add something substantial and stay in line with the rest of this guide. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included."? -  Mike | trick or treat  23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
We could just say "Please don't link to fan sites for the sake of linking to fan sites, but feel free to include them if they are useful by the same standards as any other site (see above section on what to include)." Or, if they really aren't a special case, we could not mention them at all. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... too open, as anyone can claim a fan site is useful "because it contains information about the character that nobody knows!", and alike. -- ReyBrujo 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't be such a bad thing on the article about the character that nobody knows, assuming there was at least one reliable source that gave enough information about that character to have an article on them in the first place (which is probably unlikely). On any other article, I think you could just say it was unsufficiently related to the article in the first place. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Fanlistings have nothing to do with fan sites. It's either sloppy or space-saving to dump them in the same paragraph, but fanlistings are a completely different thing than fan sites. Any labguage about one has nothing to do with the other. 2005 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To repeat myself... I suggest deleting: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." It serves no purpose whatsoever. We have no reason to imply "put in one fan site" and as Bravada says external links can have more than one fan site if they meet the criteria above. The line serves no purpose other than to create confusion via verbosity. I'd additionally like to a few more words about higher quality to the guidelines, but I know that won't fly. Then also, I'd prefer a line that basically says to use an ODP category link instead when there are a large number of sites (fan sites or not) that could be linked, but that should be a separate discussion. So again, the fan site line serves no purpose, so it should be removed. 2005 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It is worth saying in an article "many fan operated Web sites exist." and may be worth giving a leading example, or a link to a directory of fan sites. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32 8 October 2006 (GMT).
No, that is exactly what WP:SPAM warns about here. -- ReyBrujo 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's completely different, it's about Spambots, which should iundeed be blocked on sight. Rich Farmbrough, 14:21 13 October 2006 (GMT).
  • I can see the logic behind this. I mean, I think we all agree that where a given fan-site is of exceptional quality, would add to the understanding of the topic and doesn't violate copyrights, we wouldn't be opposed to linking to it. I think perhaps we could guide that when numerous fan-sites meet the exceptions, then we should consider a directory link instead. As long as we make it clear that fan-sites in general aren't recommended as suitable links for adding to Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Sounds good, here's my proposal then:
  • Move the fanlistings bit to "links to normally be avioded". Done. Feel free to revert me if I'm out of line. -  Mike | trick or treat  01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change the wording about fan sites to "Linking to fan sites may be acceptable in some cases, provided they add something substantial, do not violate copyright, and stay in line with the rest of this guide. If you notice the list of fan site links in an article getting very large or multiple high quality fan sites exsist, linking instead to a listing at a web directory, such as the Open Directory Project or Yahoo! Directory is perferred." -  Mike | trick or treat  22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced. It's hard to get the wording right and not allow a coach and horse through. Maybe we should just make it that we add a link to an open source directory, where one exists. I suppose...would you be happy with Linking to fan sites may be acceptable in some instances, where such links do not fail the guidance on what not to link to and the site is of a high standard. In articles with a number of fansite links, linking instead to a listing at an open source web directory, such as the Open Directory Project is preferred. Is that any better? Maybe it's time to suggest Wiktory? We should never link to Yahoo or any other directory, if you ask me. It's advertising. If we want to do that, let's at least get paid. Hiding Talk 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! -  Mike | trick or treat  19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. The web directory appears as optional, which would be used as defense for keeping the fan sites there. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The ODP should be specified. No other "open source" directory should be considered. Yahoo would be okay but that would be as far as I'd go. The spam hell universe known as "directories" is far worse than anything else we may list here. No fanlistings, no link pages, no add-your-site "directories". If a decently updated dmoz category exists, that can be used, but that would be it. 2005 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, we'll do that. Any other objections? -  Mike | trick or treat  00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Where are we at? Taking into account objections above, hmm, okay we can tweak to direct that a directory listing is advised, but remember, it's a guideline, not a policy so it's always optional. The open source directory thing, I don't get the objection, and I've already stated why I don't think we should link to Yahoo listings. It used to be part of the guidance that we link to an open source directory. There's only one at the moment anyway, from what I can see. So, that gives us:
  • Linking to fan sites may be acceptable in some instances, where such links do not fail the guidance on what not to link to and the site is of a high standard. In articles with a number of fansite links, link instead to a listing at an open source web directory, such as the Open Directory Project.
  • Are we there yet? Hiding Talk 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously not...--- Linking to fan sites may be acceptable in some instances, where the site is of high standard, meets the criteria of what can be linked to and does not fail the guidance on what should not be linked to (for example, copyright infringement). In articles with a number of fansites that could qualify to be linked to, link instead to a category of the Open Directory Project if such a category exists and it includes multiple high standard sites. --- Under no circumstances should other "directories" be linked to. The no fanlistings prohibition also covers this but it should be very explicit in both ways that they are never okay. I don't understand the objection to a Yahoo category, but at this point specifying Dmoz would be an improvement. 2005 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with specifying one directory site as the only acceptable one to link to, as in some cases a Yahoo! category may be superior to the Dmoz category. Why does it matter that Yahoo! is a commercial site? Plenty of people link to Yahoo! Directory listings without expecting to get paid for it. -  Mike | trick or treat  15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at the current page and it guides A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories. So I guess the best bet is to leave that guidance out. To be honest, looking at the current guidance, I can't see the impetus behind the change. What are we looking at, removing the hard rule about one? I don't think we need to. If you think you are in a case where having two links improves the encyclopedia, simply cite the fact that this is a guideline, not a policy, and WP:IAR applies. I fail to see why external links are such an issue, what's important is the body of the article, not the external links section. Hiding Talk 20:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. How can fan sites be acceptable if they "contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"? Wouldn't it be better to encourage linking to the ODP, and discourage linking directly to fan sites, unless they are approved by the subject? This way, people will have more choice (via the ODP) and we will avoid linkspam. I would propose something like this:

Linking to fan sites may be acceptable when the site is officially approved by the subject of the article. If this condition is not met, linking to a category of the Open Directory Project is preferred, if such a category exists and it includes multiple high standard sites.

What about that? Mushroom (Talk) 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume you misunderstood something. No one suggests fan sites, or any sites be included with factually inaccurate material, so your comment doesn't apply here. As for "approved by the subject", sorry but that ain't gonna happen at the very least because Alfred Hitchcock isn't coming back from the dead to approve a fan site. 2005 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to invite everybody involved in this discussion to take a look at Wikipedia:External links/workshop, where a more comprehensive rewrite proposition is developed, which, I believe, addresses the issues raised here too! Bravada, talk - 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A general note about leniency

We don't really need to be second guessing ourselves, and adding in extraneous leniency to recommendations on what are good and bad links. As a guideline, leniency and and acceptance of special circumstances is automatic. Adding in all this 'unless it is a good idea to' things just makes the guideline longer and more complicated. Confusing, over complicated, and rule crufted guidelines are bad things.

"Ignore all this if it makes a better article" is automatic, we don't need to be explicit unless we have evidence of the guideline being abused in that way. For example, yes, we could just say 'Linking to Fansites is discouraged, as an alternative you could link to a open directory listing of such sites.'. (Altho, I really don't see why Fansites need their own special note since the concerns are already covered by other recomendations.) If there are *good* reasons for linking to a fan site, then those will be obvious in the context of the article, we don't need to spend time defining what we think an acceptable case may be.

Our recomendations should be simple, clear and make an 'all things being equal' assumption.

I think it may well be worthwhile trimming the other complicated clauses, and just put in a single general 'Exceptions can be made where appropriate'. --Barberio 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. We should make the "rules" universal, but use fansites etc. as examples (unless they're explicitly mentioned people will think they don't apply). Fagstein 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Memorial sites

At Platte Canyon High School shooting there is discussion about whether links to two memorial sites for Emily Keyes, the girl who died in the school shooting, can be included or not. I believe that they should not be included because it doesn't add to the article on the shooting, instead it just memorializes a victim. By looking at the site, they're not neutral sources on the event and are biased, leaning towards the victim (obviously). If the article was about Emily Keyes, then I think the links would be okay, but since it's not I don't think they're appropriate. However, another user thinks that they're appropriate since Emily has no article so they can be with shooting article. Could we get some outside opinions on this? Thanks, Metros232 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, I agree with that. The memorial is suitable in the article about the victim, but I have my doubts about putting them in the shooting article. -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
But there is no separate article about the victim, whose only notability is that she got shot and died. Emily Keyes is, appropriately, a redirect to Platte Canyon High School shooting. So if these links belong anywhere in Wikipedia, it would be this article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel these links belong in Wikipedia. What's the purpose for including them? Simply so that somebody reading up on the high school shooting can find out about Emily, who doesn't merit her own WP article? Submit the links to a web directory instead. - Brian Kendig 03:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Online petitions

I suggest adding a note about online petitions to the guideline, treating them as forums, blogs and social networking sites. The only way online petitions could be accepted is if they are "official" to the topic (in example, an online petition presented by a rock group in the rock group article), if it has been featured in the mass media (newspaper, other reliable sites, etc), or if they have managed to get a huge support (over 50,000 signatures would make the petition fairly known). Thoughts? -- ReyBrujo 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe replace the seperate bars on all these with something like 'Spurious linking to sites that the subject of the article is not closely and directly related to.'. This would cover blog sites, forums, petitions, fansites and so on. --Barberio 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Links to online petitions only seem appropriate to me when the article deals with such petitions, and even then they are a bit controversial. Inserting a link to a petition in a way promotes the cause, which is POV. For example, would we consider a link to a petition demanding the ouster of some president or other official inappropriate, but a petition initiated by himself in his own cause OK? But even if some popular and acclaimed rock group started a petition against something terrible, like killing young seals or something, linking to it would still be promoting it and POV. We need to have a firm policy on that, otherwise we will be dealing loads of abuse. Bravada, talk - 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't use an arbitrary number as a guideline. Wikipedia:Reliable sources already covers this. If the petition is mentioned in the article, or has gained media recognition in its own right, then include it. Otherwise, it's spurious. Fagstein 05:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bravada and Fagstein. Petitions should not be linked unless they are discussed in the article - and that should only be when they are notable. In Bravada's example, the link to the rock band's petition should only be linked if the petition is notable/verifiable - if they've gotten press coverage for their petition, for example. Generally, I find online petitions to be pretty unreliable documents in general. I don't think 50,000 "signatures" on an online petition would necessarily make the petition notable or at all legitimate. Schi 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I removed at least 20 online petitions. It is easy to make one appear in the article ("Upon closure, fans began signing to bring the show back", etc). Only one petition had over 10,000 votes, a couple at less than 3,000, and all the others at less than 1,000. Per our spam guidelines, we should remove or reword them on sight, as it is an invitation to include more ("Online petitions were raised to bring the show back." becomes "Online petitions like this were raised to bring the show back." and then "Online petitions like these were raised to bring the show back." and finally, "A number of online petitions like these in this site, these in this site and these in this site were raised to bring the show back."). -- ReyBrujo 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If someone writes into the article something like "Upon closure, fans began signing to bring the show back" and they don't provide a secondary source to back it up, don't you have the right to delete it? Schi 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In terms of reliability, primary sources are fine, although you would check to see if there were mechanisms in place to prevent stacking the votes, and what those mechanisms were. However, you couldn't make analytic statements on the primary source without a secondary source per WP:OR. As for whether or not the material was sufficiently related/notable to the topic on hand, or if there was enough verifiable material for its own article, that's a separate issue. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, the fact that the online petition is a primary source isn't the problem. I should have clarified that based on my personal experiences with online petitions, most online petitions probably wouldn't be considered reliable sources by themselves (i.e. without a corroborating and reliable secondary source) per the online and self-published sources guidelines. But that's a generalization. Schi 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to directories

Maybe we should recomend linking to an open directory listing where appropriate, as a stand alone recomendation independantly of any issue of fansites/blogs/so on. This would tie into the 'Wikipedia is not a link directory', but still let the readers be able to look up further information.

I think this also ties into the blogs/fansites/forums/petitions issue, as one common call for linking to these is 'that they are potential informative'. Since it's not Wikipedia's role to be a linkings directory for potentialy informative sites, we should transfer this to projects that are. By directing people to link directories on the subject, then it still leaves the potential to find information. (Maybe there should be a link wiki?)

Maybe it would also be usefull to advise adding links to these directories, or even adding categories, and so on, instead of adding the links to the article page. --Barberio 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's a lot of links, sure, but a short list won't hurt. Although, if this is going to be a Wikipedia/Wikimedia user-contributed list anyways, why shouldn't the Wikimedia Foundation host it, so that the list will be subject to our needs and standards, and consensus of the Wikimedia community. One solution, if there is a series of articles all on the same general topic, would be to create a separate article on it, e.g. Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been suggesting using the Open Directory a lot of times, but one thing for a fan is saying "My link is at Wikipedia" than "My link is at dmoz". Just look at this kind of abuse, in example. -- ReyBrujo 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should be promoting and redirecting to Open Directories more strongly than before, to fend off spamlinkers, as well as encourage "fans" to use the correct project. IMHO, as long as we allow any single fan link in WP, people will be craving to have their sites linked from WP. As simple as that! Bravada, talk - 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still think there are advantages to leaving control of which sites are linked to in the hands of Wikipedia editors, especially where Wikipedia editors are motivated to select a small number of high-quality links. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"High quality" is subjective, and quite many, if not most Wikipedia editors likely to get involved here are motivated to promote their sites/causes :D Wikipedia's aim is to provide high quality content, not high-quality links directory or selection. Bravada, talk - 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A guideline should tell the users what to do. Stating that "High quality sites can be accepted" is extremely subjective, and basically common sense. I am currently cleaning up forums from external links, and I can tell you a good number of articles abuse external linking, just see Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. I have put a good number of links there. Unluckily, people don't understand this is an opportunity for expanding the article and not only to advertise. -- ReyBrujo 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a rather depressing outlook. It's probably more true on articles which get less attention than articles which get attention from a large number of editors. I would certainly support linking to an open directory as a way of resolving a content dispute over which fan sites were best. Although these links may be a suggestion for possible sites to use as sources by someone who doesn't know if they meet WP:RS or doesn't have the interest/time to check facts, given the poor quality of referencing in many of our media articles. (In this case, the long term goal would be to either integrate them as references, or get rid of them, but Wikipedia is a work in progress.) On the other hand, linking to an open directory would be less effort, which is good if media articles are being created faster than they can be well-written. *undecided* Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Proposed re-organisation

Following the discussion above, I've done a rewrite of the guideline that shifts some things around. Wikipedia:External links/workshop

  • Consolodated the blogs/fansites/forums/pettitions into 'unrelated links'.
  • Moved the open directory recomendation up.
  • Trimmed away the recomendations about how to format long link lists. We don't want long link lists!
  • Moved the various rules around so they make more sence and are clearer to the reader.
  • Removed some of the second guessing.

Comments? --Barberio 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for comments on this, since I don't want to be accused of 'undiscussed changes' after replacing the current page. --Barberio 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. The ODP section is too far up. Makes it seem as if it's some core part of the page.
  2. The introduction should state what "external links" are. The top of the page seems to focus too much on what they are not.
  3. The references section is confusing. Are references not external links?
  4. Links to other policy pages have disappeared for some reason.
  5. Why the switch from numbers to bullets?

Fagstein 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Switched from numbers to bullets, because numbers made it seem like there was some significance to what order the 'rules' were in. Otherwise, make changes as you want to fix the other problems you see there. --Barberio 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The numbering is useful when referring to particular parts of the guideline. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --Barberio 22:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree in general, but I believe by reorganising the points between section the guideline has inadvertently been made more lenient. I would like a point explicitly stating that "Blogs, MySpace accounts, forums (add more if you think there is anything that should be added) should not be linked to, unless they are the subject of the article". I would also like to propose some wording changes, especially in the "WP is not a link directory" section, but I will post them in the workshop talk page (I have moved the main workshop page to Wikipedia space to make room for more detailed discussion). Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I belive that's covered by "Spurious links to sites that the subject of the article is not directly related to. For example, linking to a blog site that comments on the subject, a post in a forum, a fan site about the subject, or an online petition on the subject.". I'd prefer the bar to be on the fundamental reason for the link, rather than arbitary requirement. This way we cover anything similar but not explicitly enumarated. You can suggest a better wording of the examples to make the interpretation of it as stricter. --Barberio 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you inviting others to edit this directly or merely comment on it? David.Kane 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Both. This is wikipedia after all. --Barberio 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the current fansite wording with a slightly tweaked version of Hiding's proposed wording above. The only change was to remove the "open source" bit, as the Yahoo! Directory, IMO, is perfectly fine to link to. -  Mike | trick or treat  15:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been stable for a while now, any objections to us changing over to this version? --Barberio 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose moving fansites to links normally to be avoided. I also think that the current version leaves less questions unanswered and is generally much more suitable than the version you have made at the workshop. Overall, I'd have to say that I oppose changing to this new version, and it would need to be completely reworked to gain my support. Perhaps I'll start a version here and that will make things more clear. - Mike | Talk 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the workshop is ready to go live yet. However, and I apologize if I'm missing something that's been explained already, Mike, why don't you try to incorporate your changes into the existing workshop rather than setting up a separate one? I think that would make it easier for everybody to come to a consensus. Schi 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
He should definitely not do that. There have been multiple discussions of the fansite rule, and clearly there is no consensus. It is an issue unto itself that should be continued to be debated here (or not). It makes no sense at all to discuss a specific change in the context of an uneded proposal to radically rewrite the whole guideline. All discussions of changes to this guideline should be done on this page in the context of the existing guideline, where there might be productive discussions and consensus on minor changes could be achieved even if no consensus on broader changes is possible. 2005 21:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "consensus" because it seems to have caused some confusion. What I mean is, I think the workshop is useful in that rather than trying to solve problems through discussions, as has been thus far unsuccessful here, the workshop gives us another possible way to reach a solution. I can see that the fansite rule specifically is a contentious one, and I can see the merits of discussing it in the context of existing guideline. What I meant was I thought it might be useful to give a try at negotiating the fansite controversy in a different way: through collaborative editing, rather than each party just shooting down the other parties' suggestion on this talk page. Schi 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly virtually no one is in favor of discussing the topic this way, so this workshop should just be deleted. There are ongoing discussions of many changes on the talk page, and that is where issues with this guideline should be dealt with. Obviously there is no support to even discuss the guideline this wholesale way let alone the myriad of individual changes that are bad ideas. 2005 21:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the above discussion, and the edit history of the rewrite page, which both demonstrate multiple people interested in this, I am confused over your dismissal of this process because 'virtualy no one is in favor' of it. Clearly the people who have become involved in the rewrite process are in favor of this process.
If you don't want to become involved, that's fine. However, you should acknowledge that a rewrite process has begun, and has gained a signigicant number of people interested in the process. Objections to the changes being proposed should be taken up in the process. As I clearly stated above, the amount of problems that are regularly brought up with the current page suggest a systemic rewrite not a 'patch and mend' process.
If you have particular problems you see with the proposed rewrite, then engage in the process to correct them. --Barberio 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Multiple comments have been made by several editors that there is nothing wrong with the guideline, that a full scale rewrite is not needed, etc etc. You on the other hand ignore that, or call people bureaucrats who don't let you change guidelines to follow your view. You need to understand that the Wikipedia is not for your personal use, and that just because you want something doesn't mean it is going to happen. The "rewrite process" has NOT begun. There is no consensus that a rewrite should be done. There certainly is no consensus that what you want to add should be the basis of discussion. You even amazingly suggested this thing with virtually no support should replace the existing guideline. If you have particular problems with the existing guideline, bring them up here. The idea of a systematic rewrite is nearly insane considering people can't even agree on single sentences. Please try to learn to respect the opinions of other editors instead of trying to end run existings guidelines and policies. 2005 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with 2005 here. You have constantly been imposing your opinion about the status of the guide on other editors that don't agree with them. And then when we revert you for making changes without consensus you yell at us (state) that there is "no procedural objection" on Wikipedia. This may be true, but I'm also pretty sure that you can't just makes changes without getting a shread of support for them first. In fact, you can't just make changes based on majority support. Realisticly, you would need the support of about 8 out of 10 editors to make the significant changes to a Wikipedia guideline that you'd like to make. I'd also like to note that you removed the bit about fansites that I added to "links to be used occasionaly" from the workshop page as "cruft". OK, but then why did you place fansites in "links to normally be avoided"? That is not what I did, and in fact when the workshop page started the bit about fansites was in "links to be used occasionally". Please understand that I do not mean to be harsh and that I am not personally attacking you, but you really need to give a good look at WP:CONSENSUS so that you can understand that lack of objection does not constitute consensus. - Mike | Talk 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As of this morning we have had nine editors who have worked on this process, verses one outright oposed, and one who was involved but now rejects it. By your own words, you wanted support of 8 out of 10 , we have declared support of 9 out of 11 editors for this process. I assume you will now accept consensus support for this rewrite?
And in direct responce to 2005 over "The idea of a systematic rewrite is nearly insane considering people can't even agree on single sentences.", the rewrite is needed because people can't agree over single sentences. The guideline has crufted, and suffered instruction creep, and we need a systemic review to consolodate all the lines where they could be condolodated. You should note that the process of the rewrite has so far been cival, orderly, and without contraversy or argument. (Untill this spat) It's my personal opinion that we should regularly review all guidelines. --Barberio 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just the fact that some of us had edited the workshop page does not mean that we support a complete rewrite. I just made an edit that I felt would improve the worshop page, but I still think it has a long way to go before it can go live, if at all. I'm not sure why a straw poll would not be beneficial in this case, because as of right now there seems to be a lot of confusion about who supports a rewrite and who doesn't. - Mike | Talk 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Must you be so outrageously contemptous of anything resembling a reasonable process? Prior to the last several hours you had five editors contribute something to that workshop, not coincidentally primarily the minority of a previous straw vote. The idea that you would just amazingly assert consensus is mindboggling. Please stop trying to ram your agenda down people's throats. This page had a straw vote over basically the addition of TWO WORDS to the guideline. That vote took about two weeks, where a majority wanted something but a minority did not. You now suppose that first people want a complete rewrite of the guideline, and that two it should be put up WITHOUT EVEN ONE STRAW POLL. We have a straw poll over two words, but because you want something, forget about everybody else, and try to ram your ideas down everyones throats. Instead why not try and think of this as not your personal sandbox. 1) Where was the two weeks of discussion about whether there needs to be a general rewrite? 2) Where was the straw poll on the idea of a general rewrite, that editors had two weeks to consider? 3) If the poll found a preponderance of interest in rewriting the guideline, where was the call for multiple re-writes? 4) Where was the discussion of these rewrites? 5) Where was the two weeks of straw polls on these different rewrites? 6) Where was the discussion of what should be adopted based on that thoughtful and cooperative process? If this guideline is to be completely rewritten, it can not be done for at least two months to accomplish the process that needs to take place, that is, if a person is interested in a collaborative encyclopedia rather than a imposing his will without the slightest concern for anyone else. No matter how much you hate other people having opinions different than yours, they do, and you can not get your way just by being the most obsessively rude person in the house. If you are serious about contributing to the encyclopedia, open a discussion here that will lead to a straw poll over whether contributors belive, as you do, that the current guideline is "cruft". 2005 09:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but both I and wikipedia in general, firmly reject your calls for such stratified beuocracy. I'm totaly at a loss as to why you suggest that this kind of manditory polling is the norm, or even desirable. Let alone two months of polling! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Polling is evil. --Barberio 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As you have been reminded several times, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but that does not make it your fascist state. One more time, please try to understand that you are not the only one here. 2005 10:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A plea to keep it calm

  • Okay, we have civility guidelines people. I've stricken comments I think are unneeded. Anyone wants to re-instate them, that's their call, but let's think about how they move the debate forward, yes? If you can't keep it civil in a debate, don't post it. Walk away, have a cup of tea and a sit down and rethink. Wait until your mood changes a bit before you rejoin the debate. Let's just stick to the issues and not the actions. Now, to address 2005's comments:
  • 2: We don't generally straw poll, indeed even the page outlining straw polls notes that. It states In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. I doubt many people would agree that proposing a rewrite of a page in a workshop is a difficult case.
  • 3: I have no idea what this would address. Multiple rewrites? Wikipedia is built through multiple rewrites, we don't need to call for them, that's the basic premise.
  • 4, 5 and 6:Any discussion can be held here or on the workshop talk page. But let's just end the idea that we need to hold a straw poll on everything. Otherwise we end up holding a straw poll on whether to straw poll the community on which option of straw polling should be used to survey people on whether to straw poll on the issue of rewriting a page. Straw polls are used in difficult cases. Let's just widen the discussion, get more people in, see if we can get a rewrite we can all live with and keep it civil. I don't see that anyone has addressed the point that not guiding on fan sites makes. It means that if a fan site meets all other guidance, it can be added. If a fan-site is thought to be neutral and accurate, add it. If it adds to the value of the page, add it. Let's not make exceptions for fan-sites, let's just build some guidance which states that where a link is of value to the article, and is of a high quality, we add it. Nobody here wants to link to Bob's list of wild flowers, with a huge under-construction sign and the list composed of three flowers and last updated in 1995. But there are grey areas, and we will never be able to guide a clear path through that grey area, so let's not try. Let's allow individual editors to use their judgement, and allow the process of debate to determine if that judgement was right or not. So, let's move the debate on, yes? Hiding Talk 11:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hiding for striking out those comments (including mine). This has gotten to be quite a passoinate debate and the advice to "count to ten" before commenting is very good. - Mike | Talk 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. Like I say, there's a link up at the village pump now that might drive some eyes this way and broaden the debating pool. But if we could try and get some clear sense of what we're all discussing, that might be an idea. Like I say, I think we all agree that where adding a link to quality fan-site adds something to the article, and the site isn't in violation of copyright or added by the site-owner, there's no harm done. If we can all agree on that, we can then work out the best way to cover that in the guidance. Hiding Talk 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize comments on this page again. Also, why would you state "I think we all agree that where adding a link to quality fan-site adds something to the article, and the site isn't in violation of copyright or added by the site-owner, there's no harm done" since there is a proposal right now that links to such fan sites are not to be allowed. It doesn't help anyone to mischaracterize the issues here. 2005 20:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you direct me to that proposal, so that I can comment on it. Hiding Talk 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It's currently up at Wikipedia:External links/workshop and actually had moved fansites to "links to be avoided". Later Barberio removed them entirely. I don't really see any consensus that there needs a be a complete rewrite of the guideline, and I think it would be most usefule for us to simply go back to our primary focus on the fansite rule. We seemed to be moving towards consensus when this rewrite (which basically began without any prior discussion) interrupted the process. - Mike | Talk 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Events elsewhere on the page may supercede this but I don't think that's what the workshop page is proposing, actually. It's just trying to avoid the specificity of saying a fansite is good or bad, which would lead to a lot of lawyering over whether a fansite is good or bad, and is trying to make guidance as to what makes a good link. If a fansite meets the guidance, add it, if it doesn't, don't. Let's not get over prescriptive either way. Hiding Talk 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A problem with the conceptualization of the workshop is its dual focus: rewrite guideline and/versus change guideline. Simply simplifying/clarifying/rewording the guideline is a different thing than rewording the guideline but turning some principles 180 degrees. My position is I don't think the word fansite should be in the guideline. It serves no purpose. We should link to really great stuff that adds to articles, and not link to medicre or rotten stuff that doesn't. A simplification of language would be a good effort to undertake, but it shouldn't be done as a way to alter the existing thrust of the policy (for example, adding that no links to sites with red backgrounds are allowed is fundamentally altering the document, not clarifying it). 2005 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


I am one of those Wikipedia contributors who (stupidly) added external links to sites I am affilited with, without realizing (by failing to read) the full extend of the rules. Truly added my links with only the best intentions. Then, got caught up in a number of discussions with the Wikipedia SPAM patrol. My first reaction was surprse, then, a little bit insulted, which quickly passed as reason set in, and the awareness that what I see as truly excellent link resources may not be seen as of the same value to others. The only thing that upset me is that assumptions were made as to who I am and what my motivations were, and it was posted about me being just some "guy" who SPAMS this project. The definition of SPAM is clear, and clearly, this was never my intent. Yes, to (quote) "Walk away, have a cup of tea and a sit down and rethink." (end quote) is one way to handle the situation -- vice versa -- by both parties!!! And yes... once settled, discussions do not need to go on forever. It makes no difference anyway. Wikipedia, as a group will prevail. --Danni R. 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the rewrite

  • I've put a link to the rewrite on the village pump, that should generate comment and discussion on the merits of the rewrite. Hiding Talk 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I must say I like the proposal. I don't have time to review it, but it looks pretty well. I am worried about the third level of heading, since it appears to contradict ("What to link to/What cannot be linked to", in example). -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an important thing that a few people are missing. The intent of this rewrite is to simplify and consolodate the guidelines. The current guideline has experienced instruction creep.

One example is the ongoing debate over how a specific rule to handle fansites should be phrased. The problem is, that there shouldn't be a specific rule just for fansites in the first place. This is almost exactly the same issue as linking to things like forums and blogsites, and those problems are both best resolved by requiring the links to follow the other guidelines already there and demonstrate a good reason to link beyond just existing'. There is no reason at all to keep putting in specific rules for specific situations that are just restatement of this principle. --Barberio 13:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to copy over?

The rewrite has been stable for some time now. And the issue over fansites seems to have been resolved. I've coppied it over now. --Barberio 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Has this proposal been announced somewhere, like the Village Pump, the different involved WikiProject, to obtain a wider amount of review? -- ReyBrujo 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It was in the Village Pump, yes. --Barberio 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it is not time to "copy over" something that has not even been proposed, let alone discussed. If you think this workshop is now in shape that you want to propose it here, the rest of us can now comment on whether it it should be applied, and what changes to it might be in order. Changes to this guideline need to be DISCUSSED first, and before they are discussed they need to be proposed. Are you ready to have the workshop discussed now? If so, say so, then others can add comments, both on the wisdom of whether the guideline needs large change, and on the variety of different changes proposed. 2005 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I added comments to the workshop, and make some small changes I think are in line with the good concept stated above: "There is no reason at all to keep putting in specific rules for specific situations that are just restatement of this principle." I don't know if other people will think a rewrite is a good idea, but if the few changes I added are incoprorated I could agree the change is a good one. However, again, the question here should be to invite comments and discussion, then see if there is consensus for making a the change. Copying something over two hours after it is semi-proposed is not a good idea. 2005 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this workshop and there was no discussion as to whether it should ever have been created. The guide is fine as it is. All I want is a sentence changed. Just as 2005 says, the fact that you want this workshop to go live (or even exist for that matter) does not mean other people do. Please do not expect to make major changes to Wikipedia guidelines without consensus. I must also add that I feel you have taken ownership of the workshop. I can tell you that every edit I made to it was reverted by you because you did not agree with the change. Just because this is what you believe that Wikipedia's external links guideline would be a in a perfect world, does not mean that you won't have to compromise on some of your points. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fed up with the accusations of bad behaviour, and the constant circular debate. We never seem to reach the levels of 'discussion' and 'consensus support' both of you demand. Are you willing to enter the formal dispute resolution process on this? The issue is now listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies, and I will be willing to take this to mediation if required. --Barberio 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Barberio, you did not make any move to ask anybody if they thought a rewrite was needed. You just started it. You did not make much of a move to see if anybody wanted it to go "live". You posted a message here, but you pasted it into to guide before anybody really had a chance to agree with you or object. Please wait more than two hours next time. Most everyone around here will tell you that I'm not one to get angry very easily, but your comments and behavior have been completely unaccaptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that requires consensus to make it work. So that means no matter how strongly you feel about a change, you cannot just go ahead and do it even if nobody agrees with you. Please accept my apologies if it seems I am not being civil, but it seems that every time anybody tries to make this point to you it goes right over your head. - Mike | Trick or Treat 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite has been discussed ad nausium since September, here, on the rewrite's talk page, and on the Vilage pump. It gained support from multiple editors, and while I admit I did the most work, it wasn't just my 'pet project'. There are two, and only two as far as I have seen, objectors. And the objection given is 'there wasn't enough discussion'.
Exactly how much discussion do we need? Another months worth, three months, four? Will you only accept it when I have a hundred editors supporting against two oposed? --Barberio 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Changes to the guide have been discussed but not the full-scale rewrite that you are proposing. - Mike | Trick or Treat 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose you redefine the guidelines clearly cut material out and if you are looking about notifying users add a box to the top of the page. There is currently clear guidelines for certin cases. in the "rewrite" you completely remove or change the meaning of the current policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is getting beyond ridiculous. There has been till now no discussion (let alone consensus) about whether a full scale rewrite should be undertaken, and more to the point, absolutely zero discussion of the workshop that you started without any discussion initally. Once again, stop trying to ram your agenda down other people's throats. ASK for a discussion here. Now that you apparently have finished a first draft of a proposal, I added my comments to it. I could find the workshop acceptable if those changes, again in line with your own emphasis of creeping specifics hurting the guideline, but just because I would I don't presume to think everyone else will. You have shown an unwillingness to follow an orderly process and even scoffed at the time it would take to accomplish one. Get over it. You can't just impose your will here. Ask for comments, ask for discussion, seek a consensus... don't complain about bureaucrats and people asking you to behave in an orderly fashion. The guideline isn't on fire, and any changes to it should be done by consensus, not end run. 2005 21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I too think that the answer to the question "Time to copy over?" is a resounding No. The guidelines have been changed recently in ways that people seem to agree on. The need for a full rewrite is not clear and I don't see a lot of support for doing this right now. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

I have recently removed some links to lyrics websites since they violate copyright. Before going on, I would like to make sure that there is a consensus for the removal of these links. This is what I think:

  • Lyrics on official websites should always be preferred.
  • If these can't be found, links to sites that have explicit permission from the copyright holders are acceptable.
  • If these can't be found, no links should be put in the articles. Google is perfect for finding lyrics. Wikipedia is not Google.

If there are no objections, I will go on with the removal. Mushroom (Talk) 06:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, if it's not the full lyrics, but only a small percentage of the full lyrics, it should be clear-cut fair use. (Although, considering many songs are short anyways, how small a percentage is small enough could be debatable, but at least lyric excerpts don't include the sounds or notes.) Granted, lyric excerpts might not be that useful, unless it was lyric excerpts from a variety of relevant songs. Secondly, copyright does expire eventually. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Some points: most official sites do have lyrics already, so try checking the official home page of the band to see if they already have the lyrics there, if so, feel free to remove the links. Also, most fan sites post full lyrics, that does not qualify as fair use. If they post a section, they usually don't discuss it in a critical way, which fails fair use again. Finally, if the song is 6 paragraphs long and they post one, that is over 15%, above what is accepted as "small portion of text". So yes, I believe it is justified to remove sites with lyrics. -- ReyBrujo 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I think too. I was not talking about excerpts, and I was not talking about expired copyrights (and anyway it's not that easy to identify them). I was talking about sites that post full lyrics to an album without permission, and articles that link to them. There are thousands of them on the English Wikipedia, and I'm planning on removing all of them eventually. I just wanted to know if there could be a good reason not to remove them, but I guess I'll have to do it. It will take some time. Mushroom (Talk) 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it's a huge job, esp. for just one editor... no, there's no reason not to. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is assuming copyrighted lyrics. Many songs covered in Wikipedia are not copyrighted (e.g. any of the Child Ballads). - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

External links and line breaks

Hi, I don't know if this is a known/common issue but whenever I see an external link broken over a line, the little icon appears at the far right, halfway between the lines (with the bottom half missing), while a small gap appears for it in the proper place at the end of the link (on the lower line). Is there anything ca nbe done about this? Rawling 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're describing. Can you give an example or a link to an article that exhibits this behaviour? I don't think I've seen this before. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be a CSS problem. <div style="clear:both;"></div> might clear it up, but I'm not sure. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't say definitively, but I'm fairly certain that wouldn't work; it sounds like it is a problem with the external link style (the icon is presented as a background image for the entire element, with enough right padding to ensure it is seen). I'd have to see an example before I could hazard any other guesses. EVula 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess if you find any article with a long external link, then adjust the browser width until that line wraps, you'll see it. It really depends on your screen width. I'm using IE7 RC1 btw Rawling 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A long link, or just a long line of text for the link? If it is the later, it should be changed as it just looks bad; the linked text should be fairly short, with any verboseness being the descriptor for the link, rather than the entire line being a link. EVula 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I just put my entire response in a link to my website, and the icon displayed properly. Sounds like IE is still screwing up CSS... thank you, Microsoft. I wonder if they at least fixed the blasted box model... EVula 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a screenie: Image:Link-rendering-error.gif This can happen with a link with as few as two words. It looks like vertically the icon is aligned centrally with however many lines the link spans, but only appears where it is in line with some text (hence it only half-appears in the picture) Rawling 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't reproduce this in Firefox on MacOS X, so it may be an IE bug that hasn't been worked-around here yet. You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — Saxifrage ✎ 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Atttempting to reproduce the error:
This is a really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really long external link
Does that not work in your browser?
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to reproduce the error with PDF
This is a really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really really reallly really really really really really really really long external PDF link
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
These recreate the error for me. Rawling 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem when I look at this in IE6 too. —Mets501 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoid special exceptions, Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep

We realy need to stop putting in complicated special exceptions for circumstances.

Idealy, a rule set should be simple, and applicable to situations as they arise. Especialy considering the general disclaimer of 'guidelines are just guideines', we don't need to put in cavets that you can link to a Fansite if it's especialy notable, or officialy endorsed. We need to ween people off this kind of beuocracy, rather than adding to it. (see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep)

As an aside, linking to fansites just to link to fansites goes directly against the 'Wikipedia is not a Linkings Directory' policy. It is not a guidelines place to overide policy. I see no reason to recomend people to link to fansites. And they should be included in a general recomendation against 'spurious unrelated links' which applys in a more general way. If there is special reason to link to a fansite, then it's not a spurious unrelated link. No other special wording is needed, so under Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep it doesn't need it's own rule. --Barberio 22:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Any site that contains…"

I notice that we currently discourage linking to "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." Surely we do not mean that literally. Most university sites contain unverified original research in the form of student papers; newspapers often contain factually inaccurate advertisements or letters to the editor; speeches that are archived on the site of a typical government body undoubtedly contain enormous numbers of lies; etc. If this standard is to be taken at face value, we clearly cannot link to the White House site, the UN site, etc. And that cannot be the intent. So what is it intended to mean? - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It's intended to stop people from linking to conspiracy sites as if they were real sources, or sites of radical commentators who don't back up their claims. The issue is what is linked to, not what else is on the website. How else could we word this? Fagstein 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've atempted to fix this on the workshop. --Barberio 10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)