Talk:Lakewood, Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Washington, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

[edit] COPS

Is Lakewood really "the city with the highest number of [COPS] episodes filmed in it"? COPS (TV series) has been on the air since 1989; Lakewood wasn't incorporated until 1996. No reference is given for this claim. Travisl 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CityOfLakewood.org

I keep removing this external link, and several accounts (anon and just-created) keep slowly adding it back. Can I get someone to back me up here that the cityoflakewood.org site shouldn't get a link here, so that I don't feel that I'm going through a very slow revert war? Travisl (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The supporter of the CityOfLakewood.org link e-mailed me. I responded with the following points (from WP:EL):
  • It is not the official site (cityoflakewood.us)
  • It contains nothing that can't be integrated into the Wikipedia article
  • Any meaningful, relevant content it has is already included in the article
In fact, it does meet the criteria in "Links normally to be avoided":
  • The site does not provide a unique resource beyond what the Wikipedia article would contain if it became a featured article
  • The site appears to be a blog or a personal web page
The site also appears to be actively looking for an advertiser, giving me the impression that the owner wants to add the link to the Wikipedia article due to its prominence "and the amount of extra traffic it can bring ... there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings." (Again, from WP:EL) -- Travisl (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[Moved from incorrect placement] Answer to self appointed internet God!..
cityoflakewood.org fits every description of nonprofit site. You need find yourself another hobby rather than messing with the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.93.3 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert it again; I'll leave that to someone else, and go with the consensus. Perhaps I am playing internet god, but I don't think so. I will also not post the threatening personal attack you just emailed me, but would like it noted as part of the record that you engaged in an off-wiki personal attack, in violation of WP:RPA#Off-wiki_attacks.
For the sake of argument, let's agree that cityoflakewood.org is a non-profit site. Explain to me how the non-profit nature of the site brings it into line with the external links guideline. Travisl (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to fit perfectly in line with the definition of a link to be avoided. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service. The link should stay out. Murderbike (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, the site should not be included here. However, I would support adding a {{dmoz}} link here and including the link to the disputed site over on that directory. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to add it, here's the code for creating the relevant dmoz link:
Code: {{dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Washington/Localities/L/Lakewood,_Pierce_County/|Lakewood, Washington}}
Displays as: Lakewood, Washington at the Open Directory Project
The dmoz directory is already populated with other links over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While abstaining from an opinion on the link, I thought I'd mention, in case the editor who added it hopes it will help search engine ranking, that wikipedia's external links are ignored by search engines. I'm not sure if there is a page describing this well, but some info is here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-22/Nofollow. Not to say the editor is hoping for search engine rank gains, but on the chance they are I thought I'd mention it. Pfly (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any idea why there is a group of people who may think they are self-regulator. If you review my profile, you may see may liberal internet policies. I think not just my site but others should be included as long as they are non-profit. I think there is a fruitless arguement going on here. I hope we can move on and go and do more constructive stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.93.98 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. There's policies and guidelines, and editors who come to consensus on how to implement them. The argument against your site has been made pretty clear. Murderbike (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not too fast..My site is a media outlet and it is a registered site. In the media outlets several for profit or supported non-profits organizations have been mentioned. Therefor, it is clear why other non-profit media outlets should be mentioned also. We are talking about a uniformity here. Therefor the site should be here. Matter of fact it is a citizen website!.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.93.98 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that you are currently in violation of this site's WP:3RR policy. Further, your site violates WP:EL, and your adding the site is a violation of WP:COI. I strongly suggest that you read thos policies. Lastly, Wikipedia exists first and foremost to provide encyclopedic content, not to provide a directory to external sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ismail, I'm not understanding your argument. All web sites — from CNN to porn, from Google to Amazon — are, by their very nature, both registered sites and media outlets. Your site's non-profit status is not a valid criteria for inclusion, according to Wikipedia:External links, which I strongly suggest you read. If you disagree with the Wikipedia:External links guideline, by all means, discuss it on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:External links, and if you can reach a consensus that the criteria should change to permit links to a personal, minimal-content, unofficial city page, I would be among the first to add your link back to this page.
Please, I implore you, read Wikipedia:External links and tell us what criteria your site matches to warrant inclusion in this article. I'm not seeing it, but if you've read the guidelines, you clearly believe that such criteria exists. Help me to understand your side. Travisl (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those sites are also by definition "citizen" sites since they are not run by the government. The argument fails. Murderbike (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I like to remind you guys none of your are owner of this page. It is bleong to public. So, anyone can edit it. I read the Wiki rules and I have seen nothing to cover your words. FYI, I have been one of the backbone of FIDONET and other networks as a rule maker, your ideas nothing but protectionist egoism. KLAY is a for-profit organization. So KVTI - Semi-profit (I advertised/sponsered it). I think you guys need to take a step and rethink your position. Stop double standards and go with a signle one. Otherwise, take a chill pill and join the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iarslangiray (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You say you've read the Wiki rules (I assume you mean the Wikipedia:External links guideline, which I directed you to), but that you see nothing there to support our position. Could you merely do two simple things for me? First, tell me which of the items in the "what should be linked" and "links to be considered" support posting the link. Second, tell me how your link does not fall under "links normally to be avoided" items 1, 4, and 12. I really do want to understand where I'm wrong here. Travisl (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You are in violation of multiple site policies. Your editing patterns have violated WP:3RR and WP:COI. The link itself also appears to violate WP:EL. While it's true that none of us own the page, the same can be said of you. Consensus appears to currently support removal of the link. If you feel it should remain, actually read the policies and guidelines, then respond on the talk page with explainations of how your link does not fit the "links normally to be avoided" criteria, and how it does meet criteria for what should be included. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Accounts

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. --Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)