Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Wolfram Alpha

I'm seeing a recent uptick in additions of external links to Wolfram Alpha by different throwaway IP addresses: see e.g. Special:Contributions/37.139.70.1, Special:Contributions/78.138.97.85, Special:Contributions/82.103.129.244, Special:Contributions/103.246.96.184. Given the nearly-identical edit summary but vast distance in geolocation of these addresses, I'm guessing some abuse of proxying services to disguise the origins of these edits. My feeling is that Wolfram Alpha should by presumption be disallowed as failing WP:ELNO #9 (search engine results) but we have currently over 1000 of those links. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do here other than offer a general heads-up. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Not clear the claimed similarity in the edit summaries other than what appears to be legitimate intention to contribute to the understanding of a Wikipedia article. Wolfram Alpha does not seem to be a search engine either, according to the Wikipedia definition a search engine (https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Web_search_engine) is "a system designed to search the World Wide Web" but is rather a closed and curated system/knowledge database (https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/Wolfram_Alpha). 58.82.136.78 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't think edit summaries "Properties and evolution of rule X in Wolfram|Alpha" for different values of X are unusually similar? When none of that phrase appears at the actual link? And the IP addresses geolocate to different continents? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, 3 occurrences of "properties of" (and not your exact template wording) in what appears to be about 10 legitimate additions from your mentioned cases of what appears useful content to Wikipedia articles from 3 IPs among perhaps a hundred IPs that have added what you say are 1K links to WA over a large period of time does not seem like an argument to me specially under the light of the Wikipedia rule that you brought up. 58.82.136.78 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I admire the openness of your mind. And I'm surprised that you don't try even more homeopathy by mentioning the thousands of legitimate users of Wikipedia and millions of articles here. But as the saying goes we should not keep our minds so open that our brains fall out. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Want to get a real account? So far your edits are limited to four total, and you talk like you think you are someone we should be listening to. I can only assume you cycle through IPs, in which we should know who you are by having you sign in. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No I have not a Wikipedia account, it is a good suggestion though, thanks. I am a reader who finds useful what appears to be links that provide further insight from a reliable source (not a search engine) that adds sometimes even dynamic content that enriches the reading experience of a Wikipedia article, I hope you find me worth listening to. I do not cycle through IPs myself and my IP is the assigned one from my ISP and corresponds to my current location. 58.82.136.78 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Spam or not, it needs cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External link in the article List of oldest companies.

My addition of an external link to a totally nonprofit web page listing the oldest companies in Finland by date was deleted by Nikthestunned as a "spamlink".

It is, however, certainly not spam, but perfectly relevant information and based on long time research. Covering years up to 1879 the Finnish list is also a useful addition to Wikipedia's worldwide list up to 1699. Benevolent and relevant attemps to assist Wikipedia's readers by supplementing the global list should definitely not be dismissed as "spam", but rather encouraged.

I request the link to be reinstated. Alternatively, should my link be considered violating some other Wikipedia guideline, I request the wording of the dismissal to be changed. Calling my well meaning contribution "spam" is unjustly discrediting. Please review this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.89.123.43 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes

List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently there are 195 links to YouTube videos (one for each episode) embedded into the article. I could see how a single link to the YouTube channel might be acceptable if used as an inline citation or added to an "External links" section, but 195 embedded links does seem more like promotional spam than anything else per WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. The YouTube videos all seem to be from the series' official YouTube channel so I don't think they are copyvios, but once again 195 links seems really excessive. Anyway, I am wondering if another editor (or two) might take a look and let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

With these, I always wonder whether they should be there at all. Wikipedia is about 'reporting' the existence of the episodes, which could be a mere listing with a proper reference (an I would not consider a YouTube channel a proper source for that). The links to the actual episodes, to me, fail WP:NOT - we are not a directory (Wikipedia is not a service to readers to find the actual episode and watch them).
As it now stands, that list hurts my eyes, and it is completely unreferenced (especially due to the, and including the, 'being incomplete'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted two IP edits to FanDuel and DraftKings that inserted affiliate spam links to both articles, while using an edit summary of "rm affiliate spam" -- clearly indicating that the user was aware that this kind of spam doesn't belong in the article. I guess the user thought that nobody would analyze the content, and would read only the edit summary. A review of the history of both articles shows that this is an ongoing problem; indeed, both articles have been semi-protected (in the past) for periods of time to help reduce this and other forms of vandalism.

The purpose of this report is not to report a specific user (I've placed a template warning on the IP user's talk page, for whatever good it will do), but to suggest that alternative means need to be used to prevent this in the future. I wonder if an edit filter can be created that will nip this in the bud, while still allowing normal editing of the page? It appears that both sites use affiliate marketing codes that have pretty well-defined characteristics -- exactly what is needed for an effective edit filter. (Please ping when replying here.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  16:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Using Google scholar pages as ELs

I see my last query wasn't responded, but every hopeful, is using pages such as this one[1] suitable for the author's article? Doug Weller talk 14:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I doubt, I do think we have something about linking to search engine results in our External links guideline, don't we. And most of these links you find are about subjects someone is interested in, not about the someone itself - hence they are indirect as they describe another subject. Hence they do not expand the encyclopedic understanding of the subject of the page.

palgrave.com

Hello there, There is a series of links from palgrave.com to around 400+ pages and many of the links are dead and most of the links will take you to the main page of the website so i just want to know what we can do. Do we need to use wayback machine to recover dead links or better to remove because this website also sell books and as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID it says, "Instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." Thank You – GSS (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite a mess. Good job spotting it.
I'd first look for spamming, as the links look rather questionable and would be easy to abuse.
From what I am finding with a quick skim, it looks like the links are to sample chapters or similar content from their publications. It looks like they've overhauled their system for presenting samples, creating some redirects in the process, but leaving us with citations with dead links and redirects.
WP:LR covers what to do with the dead links. Links that redirect to a verifying webpage should simply be updated. Links that redirect to non-verifying webpages should probably be removed, especially since the ones I'm seeing are purchase pages. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes its really a mess. I don't think this website is good enough to use as reliable source. It possibly the matter of SEO to increase sales. See this edit (there possibly be more like this) an IP replaced a dead link with palgrave.com rather than using Wayback machine or other methods to repair dead links. This website doesn't seems verified so as per WP:LR I think we should remove all the links. GSS (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Libor Nováček

Libor Nováček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was wondering if someone wouldn't mind checking the external links for this article? I clicked on a few and they were blocked by my PC for containing Malware. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section, moving the potential references to the talk page. Lots of dead links, but at least some are archived. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Ronz. I wasn't able to open those pdf links because my PC security soft was saying they were affected with malware. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

On Social Justice Warrior a couple editors, who are also calling for the article to be deleted and contesting numerous other improvements to the article, are saying an Urban Dictionary link is not a suitable external link. Several of the sources use the Urban Dictionary definition, including the Washington Post, lending credibility to it. I also don't believe it is a violation of WP:EL and in fact it seems to support this being used as an external link, saying it's meant for "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it tell anything that is not included and cannot be included? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, lots of stuff. Anything that was not quoted by the sources cannot be included. It's an in depth page. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
There are 3 established editors saying that it shouldn't be added, and one new, and so far largely SPA, who has repeatedly tried to link to it. The definition is provided several times over in the news articles - but specifically it is not the definition used by the Oxford Dictionary. Furthermore as a user generated content site what is todays top definition of Social Justice Warrior can quickly not be the top definition, and introduces other uncontrolled definitions and original research. We are currently utilising reliable secondary sources providing context and analysis. No more is required. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly a relevant and useful external link. Especially given that many of the sources use it. After reading them, people may naturally want to see the 'source of the source'. You and others just don't like it because you find the content on it offensive. Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not a hugbox. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Instead of making personal attacks and impugning others' motives, why don't you cite actual policies or guidelines that support including Urban Dictionary as an external link. Other editors—including me—have provided many reasons why they believe Urban Dictionary fails WP:EL at Talk:Social Justice Warrior#Urban Dictionary, but you seem to prefer to make straw man arguments. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:EL says it should be included, as I quoted. I posted here to get a ruling or outside opinions. If I wanted to waste my time with blatant POV pushers intent on obstructing any improvements to the article, I could do so on the talk page. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
As I thought, you've got nothing but insults and attacks.
Where did you "quote" WP:EL? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Above. -- "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, Ghost of hugh glass. I didn't see that quote when I was browsing on my phone this morning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ghost of hugh glass: - My primary concern was that it was not adding anything (that can not be included here). In the specific example (Social Justice Warrior) that is exactly so (I now checked). It contains mainly the same text, the only addition would be some examples (which could also be written in the article on Wikipedia). Hence, per WP:ELNO, this link should not be there (and likely not on many pages on Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No, almost never - Unless the article in question is Urban Dictionary, it's not going to be an appropriate link/source. It's user-generated content and therefore not reliable. Here is a thread from RSN on this subject which comes to a pretty succinct conclusion about it being unreliable. It also cites UD's owner who says "Urban Dictionary doesn’t require definitions to be objective or factual. Lots of definitions are extremely subjective or provably wrong!" The line referenced in WP:EL about unreliable pages being included is "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It's under "links to be considered", as in "gray area", and hinges on "from knowledgeable sources". WP:UGC, especially on a site that's entirely ok with its content being "provably wrong" is not "from knowledgeable sources". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Are [2] and [3] acceptable external links for the articles Mahdi and Masih ad-Dajjal? They would most certainly not pass as reliable sources, being self-published and all that (with a dash of WP:COI), but the external links guidelines do not seem to care about reliability. Pinging FreeatlastChitchat and Elzbenz, who have also dealt with Abdullahfaruqibnibrahimy's links, but I'd like some 3rd party opinions too. Thanks! - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I deemed that the author was too obscure, based on his Google Plus profile and the fact that the paper isn't published , but just uploaded on Google Drive. My decision was somewhat rash though, as I am 100% ignorant of the subject matter, and didn't pay any attention to the text in my decision. It was just that the account is the name of the author of the papers, so there was a conflict of interest in adding them, and I had never seen obscure unverified research papers linked in External links before. They should be removed I think, unless someone else vouches for them that isn't the author. Elzbenz (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a research paper submitted to some university. I am not sure what the policy is on those. WP:RS is only for sourcing content, I am sure the policy for links will be a ....... a bit lenient. My revert was more on the lines of COI. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Said user has been at it again, this time adding a link to a youtube video on his personal channel. By now, I think we can safely call this WP:BOOKSPAM and WP:LINKSPAM. I will revert said user's edits. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The following has been repeatedly added to Ark of the Covenant by two editors with few or no other edits:

My instinct is that this is nothing more than spam. Others' views would be appreciated.- MrX 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. Basically unknown article, clearly self-published. But then I'm on of the editors removing it when added. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Drexel Dragons men's lacrosse

Drexel Dragons men's lacrosse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The external link for "Drexel Lacrosse A History of the Heart - William Thayer" seems to be setup so that the pdf file it's linked to downloads to your computer, instead of opening up in your web browser. Not sure if this kind of thing is acceptable per WP:ELNO. It could just be the way my computer is set up, but even so not sure if something needs to be added to the link's description so that the reader is aware that the file may start to download. Is there a way to tweak the url address so that clicking on the link does not automatically start to download the file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: The link in question was removed by another editor for another reason, so this problem appears to have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I was referred here by another Wikipedia user concerning the usage of external links on pages like List of datasets for machine learning research and Comparison of datasets in machine learning. First, some background:

Machine learning is a field where automated methods are used to find patterns in data. It has been argued [1] that the availability of high-quality training datasets is actually far more important than the availability of new machine learning algorithms. It appears that in many/most cases, great technological leaps in machine learning performance come when a new high-quality dataset is made available, not a new algorithm (some examples of this given in [1]).

For these reasons, Wikipedia should have some record of the groundbreaking datasets that have helped to significantly advance machine learning research. Since the vast majority of individual datasets do not have their own articles (and despite their importance in the field, probably shouldn't), articles like List of datasets for machine learning research and Comparison of datasets in machine learning can serve to aggregate the most important among them.

To maximize the utility of these pages, they contain external links to the webpages where the datasets mentioned can actually be downloaded and used. In both of the example articles given, these links are placed in the rows of the tables. I wanted to open up a discussion here about the usage of these links and their compatibility with WP:EL. And, if they are not compatible, begin the process of discussing an exception. I see in WP:EL that "lists themselves should not be composed of external links." However, it also says "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria."

In closing, I believe pages like these will become great resources to the machine learning community as it continues to develop. I look forward to discussing with everyone. DATAKEEPER ✉ 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Wissner-Gross, A. "Datasets Over Algorithms". Edge.com. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
WP:EL is very clear on this. There are no external links for the list entries in a standalone list, much less being inside the body of the article. These links are to datasets and are not citations for inclusion in the lists. From WP:EL: "These lists are primarily intended as providing direct information and internal navigation, not a directory of sites on the web." List of datasets for machine learning research with external links is solely a way to provide links outside of Wikipedia and not for internal navigation. I see no need for an exemption from how Wikipedia treats external links for this article. The best way to have an external link to one of these datasets is to add it as an Official Website link at the bottom of the article about that dataset. But, none of these datasets have an article to add an external link, which further casts doubt on if this standalone list should be included in Wikipedia. Please remove these links immediately or revert back to the edit that removed them previously. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Stesmo: - Hello again, and thank you for clearly stating your stance on this. For everyone's information, I came to this page and posted this question at the request of Stesmo, which can be found on their talk page. Since Stesmo was the one that referred me here, I was hoping to get an impartial 3rd party opinion on the matter before laying it to rest. Thanks again everybody. DATAKEEPER ✉ 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Datakeeper:I don't agree with Stesmo's opinion (on his talk page) that these links cannot be added to the references. Most of the linked webpages provide all the info listed in the table, so they are a reference for that info. Removing them would leave an article about an IT topic with only 3 of 180 references available online. If they can't be in the table, make them references or add them to the references. You may want to get additional opinions before making such changes (I trust you can write a script to make such changes, would be rather tedious doing it manually). Prevalence 04:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Datakeeper, Prevalence, and Stesmo: - First, the way they are currently linked is inappropriate, at best they should be turned into references, or in a far-to-the-right column with 'link to dataset'. And for the latter I would still disagree that these links serve Wikipedia's purpose. They are in a way nothing different from direct links to the websites of restaurants in New York on the article 'restaurants in New York'. And both of those fail WP:NOTYELLOW.

Now, regarding the first entry in the first table on List of datasets for machine learning research there is an external link to FERET. That is a notable entry in itself, as witnessed by our internal article FERET. The external link there should hence be converted to the internal link to the internal page - and on the article FERET a link to the dataset (or better, the 'homepage' of the dataset) IS appropriate (and that is there). It does not belong in the list. I haven't checked any other cases, but I presume that there are many which do have internal links possible.

So shortly, all external links in the first column should go, and should all turn into internal Wikilinks. For items that are not notable in Wikipedia terms (hence, are redlinks) sufficient references should show some notability (as in, reliable independent sources must at least have 'noticed' the database), and could contain a reference to the 'homepage' of the dataset. For items that fail that notability test, they should simply be removed from the list (what we see on other similar list-pages is that people just add their self-crafted example to such lists - anyone can make a database of something, post it online and link it here, that is not enough for being mentioned in Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra, Prevalence, and Stesmo: Thanks everyone for the comments and thoughts. I know everyone wants the best for Wikipedia, and I appreciate any time spent on this. Beetstra, I wanted to address a few of your comments and concerns. (1) A small number of the datasets listed have their own articles — these I will link in. Others are noteworthy and included due to their repeated mention in peer-reviewed machine learning research. FERET is sort of a special case because it is extremely famous. I've made sure that every dataset included on the page has at least one independent, peer-reviewed reference proving its notability. (2) I'm fine removing external links from the first column, but this will leave a large number of the datasets without internal links.
How about I write a script to move all of the external links to the references that are already there for each dataset? Simply appending a "link to this dataset" or "dataset homepage" to each item? Would this be a solution everyone can accept? Thanks again. DATAKEEPER ✉ 20:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As explained above, the links violate WP:EL and WP:NOTYELLOW. Changing the links to references only makes the problem worse by pretending that the links are references when in fact they are there to serve as a directory. The solution is to write the article first, for each notable entry, then link to the relevant article in the list. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Datakeeper: - I think it would be good to see what happens when you try to link the proper articles. I do hope that the references for the then redlinked ones do show reasonable notability over being just mentioned as 'yet another dataset'. As I said above, everyone can create databases of whatever, that does not mean that it should be in the list. I think that the bar should be that the dataset is being used in some reasonably visible or important way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: Thanks for the input. As was discussed above I'm fine moving the links out of the table altogether. I suggested what others suggested, moving the links to the end of each reference as a link to "dataset homepage." This could easily be done with a script. I do not plan to change the links in the first column of the article to internal Wikipedia references, because most datasets (even those used in a great deal of research) do not really warrant their own articles and so they don't exist. @Beetstra: this applies to your comments too. I do want to address your concern that "everyone can create databases of whatever." This is definitely true! I wanted to assure you that, as evidenced by the references, every single item in this article is not only of value to machine learning research, but has been referenced in one or more academic journal publications on the topic. This list is not just an indiscriminate group of datasets from various places.

So, to resolve this and avoid violation of WP:NOTYELLOW & WP:EL, there are two options I see:

  1. Remove all external links.
  2. Move external links from table to tail end of each reference as a "link to the dataset homepage" as was previously preposed.

Because it could be argued from WP:EL that these links are indeed serving as citations, I think the second option is the better of the two. I've heard opinions on both sides and I think the second one will result in a better and more useful article (while abiding by WP:EL) as it grows as a resource for the machine learning community. How about I try it out? I'm fine personally making these edits. Thanks everyone. DATAKEEPER ✉ 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Any link that isn't clearly a reference would be blatant linkspam/refspam. Assuming that all links would be appropriate as references ignores our polices and guidelines. This is a common problem Wikipedia has with spammers. Let's be sure to steer clear of what could be seen as an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in in order to promote non-notable and unencyclopedic information.
You're overlooking the obvious solution: delete the article as inherently unencyclopdic per WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: Each link clearly is a reference. I do not assume this. Additionally, I assure you that there is no hidden agenda to "circumvent Wikipedia's policies." It is for compliance with these policies that I opened up the discussion here. I appreciate your concern for the quality of Wikipedia and adherence to its policies - I share this concern with you and so have made sure to open up a discussion here when the question of external links was raised on the article under discussion. Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that the article should be deleted. This discussion is centered around external links, not the deletion of the article as a whole. Thank you for stating your opinion on that matter. If the consensus seems to be that the external links should go, I'll be glad to remove them. DATAKEEPER ✉ 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the first link in List of datasets for machine learning research, and it doesn't look like a reference to me. Is it an exception or the rule?
Lists of non-notable entries are problematic on a number of levels, comparisons worse. They need to meet WP:N and WP:NOT to start. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above FERET is actually one of the very few datasets with its own article. As for the link being a reference: the given link verifies the contents of several of the columns in that row. DATAKEEPER ✉ 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine removing the links if that is the consensus. It seems to be the majority. I'd be happy to resolve this. DATAKEEPER ✉ 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Datakeeper and Ronz:. I have now looked at the second item in the list (that the first one is notable is already established, we have an article on it). We are talking there about Pose, Illumination, and Expression (PIE), which is a database created by Ralph Gross, with the help of PhD student Terence Sim and under supervision of Simon Baker. You reference that to "Sim, Terence, Simon Baker, and Maan Bsat. "The CMU pose, illumination, and expression (PIE) database." Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, 2002. Proceedings. Fifth IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2002.", which is obviously not an independent reference. The next 4 references clearly state the same names as people who created the database in question. I state above "I do hope that the references for the then redlinked ones do show reasonable notability over being just mentioned as 'yet another dataset'. As I said above, everyone can create databases of whatever, that does not mean that it should be in the list. I think that the bar should be that the dataset is being used in some reasonably visible or important way." For the first handful of items below FERET you have not been able to show that (you merely show existence, which is not enough), nor do I think that these databases are having their own Wikipedia article. I will tag the article with {{primarysources}} and {{notability}} - and I do hope that you will resolve the issues. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thanks for looking the article over. I appreciate the keen eye and feedback. The topic of that article - datasets used in machine learning research - is a notable one - this is established in the introduction. Data plays a key role in shaping the discoveries in this field, and so famous datasets are ones that contribute to significant discoveries in the field. As machine learning and artificial intelligence continue to advance, the availability of high-quality datasets for research will be one of the key drivers of innovation. Due to the unarguable importance of groudbreaking datasets to this field as evidenced by the literature, the notability of this article is established. High quality datasets have significant coverage in reliable (peer-reviewed and other), independent sources.
The inclusion criteria for this list is: included datasets have been used in academic peer-reviewed literature or books. This is to prevent inclusion of various, not-noteworthy "yet another dataset[s]." For them to make it into literature and be cited, they have to be significant. The purpose of the reference column in the article is to show that it is worthy of inclusion in the list. As for your example of "The CMU pose, illumination, and expression (PIE) database," a Google Scholar search (here) will shows that the reference included has been cited 2429 times in academic literature, which makes it extremely significant. The reason I included the primary source is so people can find later find the dataset, but perhaps this would be better to be left Google searching. I'll make sure to go through the sources and add secondary sources to the places where primary sources are used. Since this discussion no longer centers around external links, let's take any further discussion to the talk page of the article. Thanks again everyone for the great discussion. DATAKEEPER ✉ 05:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Datakeeper: and that is exactly where the problem lies - 'included datasets have been used in academic peer-reviewed literature or books' alone is not enough. Notability means that independent parties have used the database for some independent research or real-life use. The references that are there are not showing that, and even having 2429 articles referring to that paper is not enough. If all of those are 'look, there are more databases with faces' then that is not an independent use of the information, let alone that that 'use' is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Moreover, they may be referring to the techniques used in the articles, not to the database itself. I will grant you, with 2429 references referring to the article there are prone to be a couple which show independent importance, but the current list of references does not show that at all - and hence you are not showing notability of the individual items.
I am not questioning the notability of the subject, but a list article is not a proper place to show notability of the subject. Machine learning is the place for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Thanks for the clarification, I will cite secondary, independent sources that use the datasets for their real-life research. Continuing with our example of the second dataset, you will see that many of those sources are real-life applications of the dataset to train machine learning algorithms to perform tasks. Additionally, this article is distinct from Machine Learning in that it is a list of the most important datasets available in the field. As the coverage of machine learning and its sub-topics increases on Wikipedia, I expect many of these datasets could have their own articles. I'll be sure to put in some edits soon to address your concerns. DATAKEEPER ✉ 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Datakeeper: What I meant was, that the base subject is notable, and that the databases are of importance is quite clear. However, if that can be covered by 3 or 4 databases that show significant real life notability then there is no need for the list-article (that can be part of the base subject). There can be 2429 references to the paper of #2 .. but if none of those scientific papers (or mainstream reports outside of this count) show that that specific database is currently in use in some real-life form, then the notability may not be sufficient for Wikipedia to include them in the list. Being used in the 'grander scheme of things' does not necessarily make the parts notable either. We'll see what happens to the 200 items in the list now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Goodreads an appropriate EL?

Hi. I have been discussing with @Srich32977: about his additions of a Goodreads EL template to BLP articles. See our discussion here. I think this is a judgement call, what do others thinks?

I'm inclined towards it failing Links normally to be avoided on points 1, 10, 14 and 17.

Example of some of the links added:

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I think it's a judgement call. If the article is about an author, it may be a good way to include a bibliography without going to the effort of creating a full bibliography in the article. Obviously a full bibliography and the Goodreads EL should not exist in the same article. In the case of George Stigler, it serves no purpose since there is already a more complete Bibliography in the article. In the case of Adam Smith, it seems to be redundant with other ELs and the Further reading section. In the case of Bruce Yandle, I would exclude the Goodreads link and simply add the missing few publications to the article.- MrX 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone point out a case where it should be kept, other than as a placeholder for better information in a low quality article? If anyone thinks it is reliable, could they explain why? --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments: 1. There are two variations of the {{Goodreads}} template. One is '{{Goodreads author}}' and one for particular '{{Goodreads book}}'. The 'author' Goodreads pages do not have links to vendors. The 'books' Goodreads pages have links to vendors and WorldCat. 2. In the case of George Stigler, above, Goodreads lists 27 distinct books by Stigler, whereas the WP article lists 13 books and other articles. With this in mind the Goodreads page is useful for any editor who wishes to expand the article and/or verify ISBNs or other publishing data. (@MrX: would expanding the WP listing on Yandle include all of the same data that Goodreads conveniently provides?) 3. The data contained in the Goodreads listings is certainly reliable – the project lists 125 staff members who manage it. (Also, any WP editor can cross-check the data by clicking the ISBN listing.) 4. Editing of Goodreads pages can be done by Goodreads members (non-staff) if they achieve "Librarian" status. "Super Librarians" have more editing privileges. 5. With these comments in mind, I posit that the use of both templates (books and authors) is WP:NOTEWORTHY and desirable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Modified to supply template links. 12:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please provide some best-case examples?
It's user-editable with qualifications? Any discussions at RSN about this or similar cases?
We don't add external links to help an article's expansion, though I certainly don't mind for the case I already noted, low-quality articles. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@S. Rich: I would not necessarily list everything on Goodreads in a Wikipedia article. Some authors are very prolific, for example, Edwy Searles Brooks who authored more than 800 published works. In fact, a case like this would be a perfect application of using an external link to a Goodreads bibliography, except that I see they only list one of his works.- MrX 22:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say Brooks supports my point about the usefulness of the links. He's got one book listed under Brooks, but the page links to his various pen names. Thus the site qualifies as one "that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. (WP:ELYES No. 3. Emphasis added.) Thus it can serve to help with an article's expansion. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
So maybe on a case-by-case basis, for low quality articles that have no better sources for the same information. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Goodreads is a wiki and what's worse, it presents quantitative rankings that aggregate the "votes" of site visitors. There's no expert editorial control and no authority who's responsible for the content. Moreover, while there are numerous sources for highly notable authors such as Adam Smith, there are few such RS lists of the publications of less notable or borderline writers. Thus, the use of Goodreads or similar sites distorts the encyclopedia by adding WP:UNDUE content with the implication that the Goodreads page lists noteworthy works and valid commentary on the authors. Goodreads should never be used as an external link. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The material is neither neutral nor accurate enough to meet ELYES#3 criteria. If it's being added to help article expansion, add it to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

These comments are not correct. The basic (bibliographic) data in Goodreads is controlled by the 125 staff members. It is not a wiki because the only content that members can edit is their own commentary. Those user comments and ratings are but one aspect of Goodreads. There is no implication that only noteworthy words are listed. The commentary provided by members is no more valid that the commentary we see here on this talk page. (The members are simply people who have read particular works and given their reactions.) So what if "less notable or borderline" authors are listed? WorldCat lists a lot of writers too, and it provides a system for rating and reviewing works. The big difference is that a number of books and writers listed on Goodreads have such ratings whereas WorldCat users do not generally contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm undecided on this. Goodreads is fairly easy to edit and users only need to shelve 50 books before they can petition for librarian status. It's really not difficult to get this. Heck, I have librarian status. With this status I can edit just about anything on there. There are very few pages that can't be edited in some fashion and the only ones you can't edit easily would be author pages where the author has signed up for an account. Only the author can edit those and they can put whatever they want in those infoboxes. If they wanted to say that they're the second coming, they can. Goodreads is relatively easygoing and a user has to really, really give off an impression of ill will to not get approved as a librarian if they've otherwise done everything they should.
When it comes to how correct Goodreads is, there have been cases of people adding incorrect information to pages, sometimes on purpose and sometimes not. Most of the time it's not and it's just a case of people changing something because they heard a rumor somewhere about a book plot. Other times (like Scott Sigler's Nocturnal) it's well-intentioned librarians merging two completely separate books because they share a title and an author. (In the case of Nocturnal Sigler had a rough draft podcast that was 80-90% different from the printed novel, yet people kept merging them with the assumption that they were the same work when they weren't.)
Review and opinion-wise, this is where it gets slightly iffy. Many of the reviewers on Goodreads give honest opinions, but you also get a lot of people who deliberately try to sway reviews one way or another. Sometimes it's authors trying to raise their star rating (which happens relatively frequently) and other times it's people trying to lower ratings because the author did something insanely stupid like attack a reviewer. (This is actually the center of the controversy section on the Goodreads article.) This is something to take into consideration to some extent, although what I'm more worried about is whether or not the site is correct enough to be listed.
In the end I'm kind of halfsies on this. I typically don't use it in articles because it's so often used in order to promote something and people will occasionally try using it in the article as a RS. It's sort of problematic in the way that IMDb is problematic, however the big difference between IMDb and Goodreads is that all changes need to be approved by someone on the IMDb staff before it's implemented. You don't have this filter with Goodreads and I could make a change right now and have it instantly get posted. IMDb is frequently problematic because their quality checks are terrible (the whole Chaneyverse debacle is a good example of IMDb not checking properly, as is Gretel Ashzinger), but they do have just enough of a checking process to where it isn't completely problematic.
I'm not against this being used as an external link, but I do want to make sure that everything is taken into consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Honest reviews is one issue but the aggregation of uninformed public reaction is not consistent with WP editorial standards which require us to use the opinions of qualified authorities on the subjects for which we cite them. Just look at the winners of Goodreads' annual polls for best-in-show of various categories. Plenty of cats and dogs. Not a source for an encyclopedia. We should not direct WP readers to quantitative rankings by the hoi polloi. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Quite judgmental to be calling Goodreads members hoi polloi and cats and dogs. And the comment misses the point. These are simple and useful External links related to the authors and/or books. No one is suggesting that the links be used as a reliable source for material in the project. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would in general say that these links fail our inclusion standards - WP:EL: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." (my bolding) - this information is very easy to include into our articles, and would enrich our articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Hence, as others have said, it is a judgment call. If the Goodreads link (for either author or book) does not contain information already included in the article then it will not be helpful. But if it has additional useful info, then adding as an EL in the EL section will be/can be helpful to readers and editors. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This is why the guideline says that the usefulness of the EL should be determined not against what information the article has currently, but against what the article could/should contain if it were of FA quality. If an EL may be a useful source for editors, then that's what the talk page is for.
I understand completely your thinking and the rational of adding Goodreads to less than perfect articles; for the benefit of readers. But we need to be careful to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a links directory. And, when all is said and done, Goodreads is a commercial operation. It does use advertising and gets referrals income from the book retailers it links readers to. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Hence, if there is additional info in the article, then that can mostly be incorporated in the article. Looking at the pages, I don't think there is a lot of additional information on these pages that cannot be incorporated in our pages, and I would argue that most of the encyclopedic information (e.g. the lists of books) should be incorporated, leaving nothing that is not needed to be incorporated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • But if an editor is creating or upgrading a stub, without wanting to spend a lot of time adding all the individual books, is the reader better served by a link to Goodreads' listing or not? Sure, the book details "should" all be added to the article, but an editor may not have the time or enthusiasm to do so. PamD 09:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If we were to go by this criteria, there are dozens of possible external websites on every article that a reader may find useful. But Wikipedia is not a directory of useful internet links. And its usefulness shouldn't be measured against a stub article. The guideline specifically, for good reason, makes a point of evaluating the EL against a Featured Article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would also be against our inclusion standards per WP:EL ("If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." - though this as a reference is probably unsuitable, and you would have to find better references to show that the list is correct, which again in itself reflects on it's suitability as an external link - WP:ELNO #12, open wikis) .. and as to the point of the three articles in this thread, none of them are stubs (and many of which I checked in this aren't - I have yet to actually find a stub in that list of additions). Moreover, in some cases, it amounts to plain linkfarming (e.g. Noam_Chomsky#External_links - disregarding the article contents, what does this add over the other external links that are already there?). If you find good information that is not part of the article, and don't have time to include it, then the time spent on adding them to the external links section is the same as putting a note on the talkpage suggesting the link as a suitable source of information, and generally just as effective (external links tend to stay and hardly being used).
Moreover, if you have hours to spend updating external links sections on 100s of pages (many of which may not even need this external link), you also have time to actually upgrade a handful of articles that really need a proper biography. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Goodreads is not a reliable source and really adds nothing of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No, Goodreads is not an appropriate external link. There may be one or two exceptions, but some pages I checked were clear fails of WP:EL because Wikipedia is not a directory of links that someone thinks are handy, and the linked pages had nothing of value. If someone wanted to expand an article they would try Google, and that would find Goodreads and any other potential clues, so there is no need to include such a dubious link. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Purge. Srich, your efforts were well-intentioned, but I suggest you remove any such links you have added to WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, folks are missing the point. NO ONE suggests that Goodreads is a reliable source. It is simply a resource. Here is an example: the article about early writer Mary Hunter Austin has a listing of books with WorldCat links posted. The links give some publication data (based on the feeds that WorldCat gets from libraries). Mary Austin's author listing at Goodreads shows 10 books, and none of them have member ratings or reviews. Goodreads lists her works as culturally significant, and the books listed have more up-to-date publication data. (The listing for {{Goodreads book|29047551-isidro|Isidro}} gives us a newer edition (2015) that is not listed by WorldCat.) Now compare this listing to the WorldCat listing: OCLC 861553018. Hmmmmm! WorldCat allows users to review and rate the book. (Shameful!) And WorldCat has a link where users can buy the book. (Evil!!) Do you need more documentation? Look at OCLC 921035182 where we see a user review and links to Amazon and B&N. Come on, per the comments above WP should eliminate WorldCat links from its pages. Is that what you're suggesting? I think not. Having Goodreads links is simply what Lorcan Dempsey calls an "addressable knowledge base". E.g., WP "makes it easy to include in any online communications a pointer to more knowledge on any topic...." Goodreads, like the OCLC, is another pointer. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)15:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • But the moment you say "Goodreads lists her works as culturally significant" you ARE suggesting that it is a reliable source, not just a "valuable addition". I mean, if it's not reliable (and it isn't), then how can it be valuable? Drmies (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Again, no, you miss my point. I do not say we can use Goodreads as a WP:reliable source as in "Austin has been found by scholars to be culturally significant".[1] But it is more or less valuable to editors who wish to use it to track down publication data such as dates, publishers, ISBNs etc. In the context of the External links sections, it is helpful. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • FYI: I have posted a notice about this discussion to two of the editors who created or modified the {{tl:Goodreads}} templates. – S. Rich (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Srich, To avoid any appearance of canvassing, I suggest you also post it to RSN and other neutral venues. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I know you read the suggestion of people complaining that this is not a reliable source, but the basic point here is that this is NOT a proper external link on many of the pages where you added it to, it simply does not give any additional information beyond what is already there, or what can not already be included. You even argue that "Goodreads, like the OCLC, is another pointer", you are hence plainly linkfarming there. It may only be a good temporary external link on some minor stubs where it can be used to expand the article further, but even that is a stretch (we have talkpages for those suggestions).

I think the overall conclusion is here, that you are being asked to remove the links again, and then get first proper consensus before inclusion of this link (per WP:EL). Can you please remove the links and get a proper consensus for the use of these templates? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (ping edit: @Srich32977: --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

  • In a sense everything in WP is temporary because anyone can edit. If editors don't like the addition of a {{Goodreads author}} or {{Goodreads book}} or {{OCLC}} or {{imdb}} or {{ISSN}} or any one of the hundreds of Category:External link templates, they are free to revert such additions. Doing so is part of the WP:CONACHIEVE process, and we do not go to the talk page to first ask if we can add links. We simply WP:Be bold and use good judgment and add them in accordance with policy and guidelines when we seek to improve articles. We go to the talk page only after another editor objects and we (in good faith) disagree. Editors who promote a blanket prohibition against Goodreads links – because Goodreads allows member comments and ratings and because Goodreads has links to Amazon, Barnes & Noble etc. – are missing the point. More importantly, if their "do not use" rationale was applied to WorldCat-type or Goodreads-type link, then every external link template would be subject to a WP:TFD. – S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure, but editors who persist in adding material that consensus has shown is not suitable are eventually sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • What?! I have not "persisted in adding material". In fact, no editor has reverted my edits. This is simply a general discussion as to whether adding the author or book Goodreads templates to various articles is appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        • @Srich32977: you have used WP:BOLD to add these links, and there is nothing wrong with that (you could have started a discussion and get consensus, or be bold and see what people think - you chose the latter). The point is that there is now a consensus against these inclusions (see it as a WP:BRD cycle where we first discuss and then revert), and we ask you to revert them. And as this thread is now developing (with quite a number of editors supporting the removal), there is no reason why not anyone c/should do it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's not get things heated here. S. Rich's additions were entirely proper, good faith and bold. He also graciously stopped doing them when I questioned them, so that they may be discussed. No-one has reverted his work because, I would hope, they didn't want to be jumping the gun on this discussion. However, it looks like consensus is broadly against the blanket additions of these ELs. There may be some cases where an EL is justified, and these can be evaluated on their individual merits. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Also, this is not a blanket objection to Goodreads - there may be cases where the link is appropriate, but in the majority of cases where you added the link the link is superfluous over others (and there may be other cases where the link is there where it is also superfluous, or where it has become superfluous) or over the information that is/can be included in the article. That there are other links (WorldCat etc.) there that are also superfluous in the same reading of WP:NOT/WP:EL is not an argument to add even more of them. That is the whole point of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and (the intro of) WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lists of 'popular songs'

Recently, I cleared out a couple of linkfarms of 'popular songs' (obviously unreferenced as to evidence their popularity), with every song linked to a YouTube interpretation. While I already wonder whether these lists are supposed to be there, I think that they should not link to every available YouTube at all (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and so). I now find out that they have been reverted all back in.

Examples:

It appear to be some IPs who do everything they can to get those lists there, and to keep these lists there. Any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed them again for now. If IPs are disruptively editing an article, page protection can be requested to allow for conversations to happen on the Talk page or here. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And likely many from Special:Contributions/2.92.89.216 etc. If this persists we may need an edit filter to keep this clean. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Another source of pages: to clearout these linkfarms: Special:Contributions/Igor508. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

George J. Morgan

George J. Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would it be acceptable per WP:EL to add www.dropbox.com/sh/e5mqda5g1c14ox5/YJvzhnONiS?preview=zIrish+Times+Obituary+1979.jpg as an external link for the article? I've been searching for an online version of this in the archives of the The Irish Times and did find this which I believe includes a link to the same article/obituary, but it requires a subscription to see. The link to the photo comes from an external link to a drop box of images which was embedded into the article here in January 2014. I'm not sure if adding an external link to all of those photos is appropriate per WP:COPYLINK, but I am wondering if linking to a scan/photo of a newspaper obituary is considered OK. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

MetroLyrics songwriters miscredits

The featured article about "Something", a popular Beatles song written by George Harrison, contains an external link to MetroLyrics, an online song lyrics provider. Along with the lyrics, MetroLyrics includes "SONGWRITERS MAX GREEN, CRAIG EDWARD MABBITT, BRIAN MONEY, ROBERT ORTIZ, JOHN FELDMANN".[4] This is not an isolated error. MetroLyrics miscredits songwriters for several well-known songs, including:

MetroLyrics stresses that it licenses lyrics: "Leading The Way – MetroLyrics was the first lyrics site to provide users with licensed song lyrics and to compensate copyright holders for the content through its partnership with Gracenote."[11] However, their links seem to go against WP policies and guidelines. WP:ELNEVER states "material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." How are the copyright holders rights being respected (and compensated) if they are misidentified? WP:ELNO provides "one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material ..." Links to inaccurate information, especially in WP:Featured articles, reflects poorly on WP.

Most of the external links to MetroLyrics were added to song articles by User:LyricsBot (the "Something" link was added 7 September 2013)[12] and were not subject to fact checking. Do song lyrics links meet WP policies and guidelines if the lyrics are mostly correct, but the songwriters are miscredited?
—Ojorojo (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • They do seem extraordinary errors for the site to be making, and one naturally queries its quality and integrity as a result. The statements included at MetroLyrics would testify to its worth, though. Is there a way to contact the site perhaps? (he asks without bothering to look), because these are all major errors but ones that would be easy for an admin there to fix. JG66 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • MetroLyrics appears to lack a system of fact checking and oversight. I started noticing problems with links to the site about two years ago while preparing song articles for Jimi Hendrix GANs. I stopped counting after finding the wrong songwriters credited with about 20 of his songs (identified with the LyricFind logo, which is supposed to indicate proper licensing). Many more songs without the LF logo, usually supplied by site users, were also incorrect or missing credits. I thought that this might be particular to Hendrix, but found many more miscredits for other songwriters as well. Two years later these errors seem to remain. WP volunteers might be able to point out some specific mistakes, but the underlying problem needs to be addressed. MetroLyrics is a commercial (and apparently profitable) enterprise and should have the resources to ensure the quality of their product. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure why the writers get mixed up (is a Neil Sedaka release of his "Stairway to Heaven" more recent than one from LZ?) The song lyrics links on used WP are supposed to be properly licensed (indicated by the LyricFind logo). Anyway, no one is suggesting that all MetroLyrics links be removed, but I don't think that song links which have been identified as having the wrong songwriters should be used in WP articles. I brought this problem up with the bot operator and his final comment was "Unfortunately most of the sources with correct lyrics are illegal, and most of the sources with legal licensed lyrics are incorrect! It is a tragic state of affairs and I don't see any resolution."[13] I assumed he was in communication with ML and the problem wasn't going to get fixed. Maybe someone in an official WP position could raise the issue with MetroLyrics, otherwise it would probably get ignored. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Aren't you saying that MetroLyrics is no longer a reliable source? Glitch or not, the same mistakes haven't been corrected in over 2 years (AGF on above). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • With all the errors I've come across, MetroLyrics should not be considered a reliable source for songwriter credits. I haven't compared many of the actual lyrics for accuracy, but sometimes their lyrics are for a different song (for Hendrix's "Stepping Stone", the lyrics and writers are for another song, but they get the album right[14]). A recommended list of lyrics providers (similar to WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:ALBUM/SOURCES) that have been checked for accuracy as well as licensing is a possible solution. Then article editors could choose to include a link or reference it if it appears correct. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
1) Should MetroLyrics as a source for songwriter credits be added to the WP:ALBUM/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion)?
2) Should existing links to MetroLyrics that list incorrect songwriter(s) be removed from articles?
—Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As a source, it doesn't appear reliable. I'd hope that would mean it belongs on that list, which I was previously unaware.
All links that we know are incorrect must be removed if we value the quality of the articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Re 1) As long as it's made clear that MetroLyrics is non-RS on the issue of songwriting credits, then yes probably.
On 2) I don't see it as such a problem. From the list at the start of this thread, the Beatles' "Something" is the only song article I've had anything to do with; so, for that article's ext links, I might replace ML with a link to the song lyrics at the Beatles' official site. JG66 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re 1. The minimum requirement is that people are made aware that ML may be wrong.
  • Re 2. ML should be removed where there is a discrepancy between ML & WP and WP is confirmed to be correct. This is to avoid WP being called to account for inaccurate information which is fairly crucial for any encyclopedia!
  • Bearing in mind a conversation on another page, where do people consider the best place to get songwriter details from? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Two proposals to address these issues are open for discussion:

Thanks for your interest. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikitree

What's your take on {{Wikitree name}} being used in the external links section? I think it runs afoul of WP:ELNO #12, although others have disagreed and stated its both stable and has a large number of editors. More importantly, though, I think it just doesn't add anything of value to our articles.

In the single article it's currently in use in, David Niven, the "biography" on Niven hosted by Wikitree just references Wikipedia. The only value added is perhaps the family tree, but any ancestors relevant to an encyclopedia should be covered in the article itself. Additionally, there's no references provided for the family tree. I question whether this provides reliable enough information to be included in the external links.

I'd like opinions on this before I take this to TfD. Note the past TfD of a related template here. ~ RobTalk 16:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While looking at the article Pierrot, I noticed that there were quite a few external links embedded into the body of the article. (See this old version for reference.) My understanding of WP:EL#Links in lists, MOS:LINK#Link titles, WP:RDD and WP:CS#Avoid embedded links is that external links are not allowed to be embedded into articles in this manner; therefore, I was bold and removed them all (49 links in total) here, here and here. Another editor saw my edits and has asked for clarification at User talk:Marchjuly#Pierrot, so I am posting here to see what others have to say. I looked at the links that were embedded to see if they were embedded citations or could be converted to inline citations, but didn't think that was the case for any of them. There were also some links to YouTube or other videos as well as (online) complete published works which might be problematic per WP:COPYLINK. Anyway, if I was too bold and shouldn't have removed the links, then I will happily go back and self-revert. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asked by @Beebuk: to look into this. Early in his Wikipedia career, we crossed paths and I helped them with some of the trickier aspects of wiki coding policies.
I agree with @Marchjuly: that embedded links do not belong in the article. I confess I was unaware of the exception for external links sections at the end of standalone lists. That may or may not apply in this case but that isn’t the way they’ve been included.
The wording and the graphic in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_in_lists is interesting although I contend it’s a bit confusing. The left column shows an example of how it can be done, while the right column shows an example that is not acceptable. However, the right column is conflating two separate issues which are not clearly discussed in the text. The main problem is that the right-hand example embeds the linked within the list as opposed to an external links section at the end. However, the under state second issue is that an embedded link to Alice’s restaurant is inappropriate while and embedded link in an external links section to a general restaurant guide is acceptable. The implication being that the first is blatant advertising. The point could be clearer if the example also included another option, also unacceptable where embedded links to Alice’s restaurant, etc. are included in the external links section, with an explanation that it is not okay to do blatant advertising simply by dropping it in an external links section. I am fairly sure this is covered in general EL policy; however, I think it is useful to distinguish between a link to a specific restaurant, which is a blatant commercial advertisement for a specific place, and a link to a culturally important document such as behind a Watteau picture. It is my opinion that the latter is very consistent with the goals of Wikipedia. I have reread Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and believe it is acceptable. The editor noted that there were some links to YouTube; I haven’t run across that example yet but agree that links to YouTube are often problematic.
I propose the following. I will go through and create footnotes from what used to be embedded links. After that, we can discuss, on a case-by-case basis, whether any of the footnotes qualify as violation of policy and they can be removed. Any objection?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No objections from me about converting the embedded links to footnotes; I did say that would be OK in my edit sums and on my user talk page. As I said above, I did not feel that any of the ones I removed satisfied WP:RS, so I did not convert them myself. Simply converting them all by adding reftags is simple enough to do from a markup standpoint, but the citations would need to be more than bare urls and would also need to be reliable sources.
I don't think linking to the online version of a book, a poem, a video or a photo as a pseudo-wikilink/red link is automatically OK to do just because the online version exists. Linking to a website, on the other hand, which contains commentary about said book, said poem, said video or said photo which verifies statements in the article (such that it is "culturally important" to subject matter being discussed) is almost surely OK to do as long as the source satisfies WP:RS. I am not saying that "Behind a Watteau Picture" is not culturally important to the subject of Pierrot; however, we cannot simply cite the book itself and then say in Wikipedia's own voice that it is "culturally important". I think what we need is to cite an independent reliable source which discusses "Behind a Watteau Picture" and states that it's culturally important. I also don't think it was appropropriate to embedded links to YouTube into the article using parenthetical statements such as "View a dancing Pierrot Grenade" or "View 'Poor Pierrot'" (FWIW, I didn't link the actual YouTube videos on purpose) because such links are often problematic because of copyright reasons, etc. Essentially telling the reader to "Click here to read this book, see this photo, watch this video" does not seem apropriate for the article content, but might be acceptable for the external links section if there are no problems with WP:ELNEVER or WP:ELNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I haven’t looked at a YouTube link yet, but I agree that YouTube videos are often problematic. I made two edit so far, covering three links each, all of which so far were links to the Internet Archive. I agree that independent reliable sources, i.e. secondary sources are better than primary sources. However, I think primary sources are better than no sources all. If someone identifies a good secondary source, I’d be happy to consider removing the primary source link. I think a footnote is a appropriate because it answers the implicit challenge e.g. as a mention in the article Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote a play, Aria da Capo in 1920. If that is all the article said, a reasonable reader could say “really? Please prove it to me”. A secondary, reliable source discussing the play would work as a footnote demonstrating the existence of the play, but so does an Internet archive of this public domain work. I don’t see it as exactly analogist to the Apple example. If an article contained an assertion that Joe Blow worked at Apple, and “Apple” was link to the official Apple page, that wouldn’t be inappropriate footnote supporting the claim. No reasonable person is likely to contest the existence of a company called Apple, but it is quite plausible they my question whether a play by that name was written by a person of that name in that year. The other five links which I converted to footnotes are all in exactly the same category — they provide an answer to the implicit question whether that playwright wrote that play.
I’m not yet suggesting that all of the external links can appropriately be converted into footnotes. I’m starting with the low hanging fruit. I see that some of the links are not Internet archive links so I will discuss them as I address them.
As a relevant aside, while investigating the use of the Internet archive as a link, I was pointed to our copyright policy which explicitly states It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine… --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I seem to have slightly misunderstood your first post about the cultural importance of some of these works. I read it as "these works are culturally important so that we should link to websites where the work can be viewed". My response was based upon not whether the work itself existed or was written by so and so, but on whether we could say it was culturally significant in Wikipedia's voice simply by citing the work itself. I understand that if the point of the citation is just to show who is the author or when the work was written, then citing the book, etc. itself is probably OK per WP:PSTS. However, a website where the entire work can be viewed online seems to be more of a convenience link than the original source itself. It's not necessary to link to online versions of books, poems, essays, etc. just to verify who wrote them or when they were written. The original work should be cited using {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} without using the "url" parameter instead of using {{cite web}} to cite the convenience link. Printed works can often be identified by ISBN or ASIN numbers so there's really no need to link to the full text or pasages of the work itself, unless there is a specific passage within the text which is being used is being used to support article content. Behind a Watteau Picture has an isbn number that can be used to identify the book. There are ISBN or ASIN numbers for Aria da capo, a play in one act, The Maker of Dreams, The Only Legend: A Masque of the Scarlet Pierrot and Prunella: or, Love in a Dutch Garden which can be used to identify them as well. In addition, the magazine The Drama is the source for "The Dream Maker" so citing that using {{cite magazine}} with the relevant issue and page numbers and the year of publication seems in my opinion more appropriate than than simply linking to an online version of the entire work. If a convenience link to the entire work for any of these is deemed necessary, then using the "via" parameter identifying the website should probably be used instead of listing the website as the "publisher". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I probably did not express myself clearly, which is understandable, as I thinking through some of these issues, and they are not all clearcut to me.

I start with the well=know quote from Jimmy, in Wikipedia:Prime objective:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
– Jimmy Wales, quoted in Slashdot (2004-07-28)

That may be overly broad but is not as broad as some imagine, if one emphasizes “understanding” (as used in the article knowledge). For example, an alphabetic list of all the words used in a recent email to a friend is a verifiable fact, but we don’t even need to lean on our notability guideline to exclude it, we can lean on the word “understanding” and assert that such a list doesn’t meaningfully contribute to our understanding of the world.

Now imagine an article about Mary, in which the following statement is made: ‘’Mary worked at Joe’s Restaurant.’’ It is easy to imagine that a reader may wonder if the statement is actually true, and for that reason we think it is useful to provide a reference in which an independent reliable source states that Mary actually did work at that restaurant. If the restaurant itself is notable, we might have an article about it and we would blue link the name of the restaurant. However, an external link, or even a footnote to the official page of the restaurant would be viewed as advertising. The reader is interested in the truth of the assertion, but isn’t necessarily interested in more information about the restaurant itself.

In contrast, if a reader is reading an article about Pierrot, and that article includes a relevant list of notable works, such as Edna St. Vincent Millay’s ‘’Aria da Capo’’, it is quite plausible that the reader will be interested in that play. In an ideal world we will have a separate article about the play itself, and perhaps we will someday, but short of that, I think a footnote that brings the reader to the play itself provides a valuable service and one that would be expected by the reader of an encyclopedia.

The editor has provided an enormous service by tracking down and identifying some of these valuable historical documents. We can continue to debate how best to include such information in this article, but I don’t see the footnotes as comparable to advertising.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on ISBN suggestion (collapsed for length)

First, I wish to emphasize that I'm a big fan of the use of ISBN's. When I was active in reviewing new articles, I often looked up and added the ISBN for hundreds of works. Our template linking to book sources provides a rich source of options for people interested in a particular work.

That said, I think it fails spectacularly in this specific case you suggested. You noted that ''Behind a Watteau Picture'' has an ISBN:

that template will lead the reader to "book sources" which contains 15 resources to help the reader tracked down the book, online, for sale, or at a library. Let's examine the results:

Online text

  • Google Books - your search - isbn:9781245502559 - did not match any book results.
  • Open Library - Search Results 0 hits no hits Try something else?
  • Amazon.com - 1 result for Books : 9781245502559 (An option to purchase, not the original book, but a reprint, for $18.75)

Online databases

  • Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog - Found a print on demand (POD) from a German bookstore for 19 Euros, or 31 Euros or a POD from the German Amazon for 18 Euros
  • WorldCat No results match your search for 'isbn:9781245502559'.
  • OttoBib.com No Results for 9781245502559
  • Copyright Clearance Center Your search for 9781245502559 found no matches.
  • the Universal Digital Library (or .cn, .cn, .in) Didn't work
  • O'Reilly Safari Books Online No Results for: 9781245502559
  • Goodreads Did not find
  • LibraryThing Works search: 9781245502559 No results.
  • aNobii We found no result for 9781245502559
  • Shelfari Shelfari is in the process of merging with Goodreads and is no longer accepting new accounts.
  • the Grand Comics Database Displaying 0 to 0 of 0 issues matching your search for '9781245502559' (not expected, but included for completeness)
  • the Internet Speculative Fiction Database A search for 9781245502559 found 0 matches (not expected, but included for completeness)

That's pretty discouraging. Not only did it not find a copy of the actual book, it did not find a single library in the world containing the book. That's the first time I ever recall getting such results on a valid ISBN. The best you can do is spend almost $20 (or more) to get a reprint.

How on earth do we justify presenting results such as these to the reader, when we have a working link to the actual public domain text?

Link(s) to blog(s)

I am troubled by the (former) inclusion of this link (currently removed):

My main concern is that it is a blog. While some think that blogs are never permitted, that’s not quite the case. They can be used when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (See WP:BLOGS). I don’t know enough about the author of the blog to know whether that applies, but I would not support conversion to a footnote unless it can be demonstrated that it meets the policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

American Verse Project

One of the embedded links is to the text of Bliss Carman and Mary Perry King Kennerly’s ‘’Pas de trois’’

That link goes to the American Verse Project, whose guidelines for use includes the follow:

Individuals are allowed to use the texts freely, whether to create new editions, distribute to students, or use as a basis for multimedia products. Institutions such as universities, publishers, or online providers are required to seek permission from the Press and, in some cases, pay a fee, in order to use or distribute the texts. (Emphasis added).

It is possible this section is included because some of the material subject to copyright. The “conditions of use” section links to Access and Use Policy which states:

  • Users are free to cite and link to digital content without asking for permission.
  • Users are free to download, copy, and distribute works in the public domain without asking for permission. To determine whether a work is in the public domain, see the section on the public domain of the Copyright & Fair Use site of Stanford University Libraries.
  • If you reproduce or republish public domain content from our collections, please credit the University of Michigan Library as the source of the original.

Given this information, I have chosen not to restore the link as a footnote, but suggest contacting the University of Michigan to clarify that they agree that the 1914 document is in the public domain and can be linked freely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the ones identified at the beginning of this section:

@Sphilbrick: It seems that we are in agreement regarding the embedding of external links into the article. If that's the case, then I believe ELN has served its role and it's probably best to move this discussion to another page. We both have started to drift off into discussing various citation methods and possible copyright violations. If this thread gets any longer, there's a chance that it be collapsed by another editor as something more suited for another page. There is a specific noticeboard to discuss the reliability of sources, etc. at WP:RSN where the reliability of the blogs, etc. you mentioned can be queried and content matters (like citation styles, etc.) can be discussed on the article's talk page. I'm happy to continue discussing whether external links should be embedded into articles here with you, but other discussions should probably now be moved to another location. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'm documenting my progress on this article here per your request, but I agree with you that I'm drifting into ancillary issues. It is actually a fascinating process, because I've learned a bit about a number of related issues, but I agree that posting all of that here is getting off-topic. I hope you note that I haven't taken the position of 100% conversion; I've identified some situations that do not belong (or at least require some substantial research which I doubt will support the inclusion).
I'm not yet done — one of the YouTube links is rather interesting, and requires more research. Perhaps I should just update my explanation of any edits I make on the article talk page. Will that work for you? If we find ourselves in disagreement we can take the specific item to the appropriate place.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
By "agreement", I was asking if we agree that the aforementioned links should not be embedded into the article. If that's what we agree on, then I think we can move on from ELN and start discussing whether or how a certain link should converted into an inline citation on the article's talk page or at RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

List of company registers

Well, this is my first time behind the curtain here at Wikipedia (long-time user and financial contributor) so not sure how to go about this. Someone, and I won't mention whom because apparently I have to notify them with some string of characters I don't understand; someone keeps removing the links on this very useful page that lists all government registry websites and when you click on the name it takes you there. Apparently there are some pedantic reasons why the links shouldn't be there but it kind of makes the article useful to people who use it. I read the WP:EL thingy and I really think there is enough wiggle room to allow the links to stay. Especially considering that every time someone takes out the links someone puts them back in. Now I wonder is it the people who use the article that are taking them out or is it someone who really has no use at all for an article about company registers? Its locked now so I'm here trying to get it unlocked and the links put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Westernerer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The links don't belong.
Given Company registers doesn't exist, why does this list? --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly the same reasons as datasets discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the reasons you are referring to. It seems that 'the dataset is being used in some reasonably visible or important way' to me. Especially registries where there is only a single source per nation/state. The Westernerer (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple threads in that discussion. One being an interesting "how to improve the article/list entry Notability requirements" (the discussion about sources, etc.). Another being "Can the Lists of datasets article have external links in the list", which resulted in a No. Datakeeper then removed all of the external links from the article and has been working to improve the article. Stesmo (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm here to disagree again with the narrow reading of WP:EL. Specific articles as indicated in the datasets entry, maybe, but I don't see how this applies everywhere. I think List of company registers more closely resembles this list: https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Sri_Lanka and should have the external links included. Or, again, if you, with the keys to but not the need of this list, could allow the external links to be moved to External links instead of erasing them out right a list that serves the public good can be saved. Considering how often the edits were reversed we can see the clear usefulness of this list for any one other than a wikipedia editor.The Westernerer (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the newspaper article with external links in the body of the article / in a stand-alone list. I've fixed that article as well. You seem to be ignoring that the List of company registers article *already has external links in the EL section* pointing to lists of company registers. There is no reason to add hundreds more to the EL section or the body of the article. Stesmo (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, instead of 'Thank you,' it seems you actually just meant that you're thankful in general (unless you misunderstood my intentions there?). Anyway, thanks for only mostly dismissing my thoughts, I understand I've no standing here and you think you already have a large enough body of discussion to justify editing and locking the lists (or articles as you keep calling them) as per the pertinent panel's conclusions. Oh, one last thing, is this related to the bitterness about the search engine brouhaha that's got everyone pissed here or did this list just get unlucky at random? The Westernerer (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, those links at the bottom are far from comprehensive and are hardly a substitute for the comprehensive volunteer maintained list here.The Westernerer (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging recent-ish contributors: @1.187.250.208:@106.220.72.36:@121.242.29.87:@139.149.1.231:@161.10.40.41:@168.168.33.250:@181.58.19.21:@186.72.109.243:@212.91.12.4:@62.190.147.220:@66.44.40.169:@78.155.36.74:@90.61.182.254:@91.196.215.202:A455bcd9Abhisheksingh8747Ale-sandroBD2412CharybdiszDavid8302DewritechDumbBOTFrenchmalawiGOLDLOANS1Ktr101Mean as custardMelanieNOnel5969Robin of locksleyRprprSERutherfordStephenM.S.LaiStesmoTamilMuthuWillyinnorway Bazj (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep the link for each register where as yet no article exists for it. It seems to me the whole purpose of WP:EL is to stop the addition of a whole load of promotional crud. Company Registers or Corporate Registries or whatever they're called in each jurisdiction are government agencies performing a legal function, not businesses plying for trade. Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?
The article is useful for verifying articles about companies. It's too valuable a resource to be eviscerated just for a zealous adherence to WP:EL. Bazj (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you address WP:NOTDIRECTORY? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Ronz, That would be an argument against keeping the article at all rather than addressing the external links within the article. But since you ask, certainly I can...
Government agencies: Lists of diplomatic missions which links to 200ish lists of diplomatic missions. I think 2002 diplomatic missions dwarfs the scope of 200 company registers.
List of central banks.
Others: Lists of hospitals in Africa, Lists of hospitals in Asia, Lists of hospitals in Europe, Lists of hospitals in North America, Lists of hospitals in Oceania, Lists of hospitals in South America, Lists of military installations, Lists of wind farms by country, Lists of universities and colleges, Lists of banks, Lists of companies, Lists of corporate headquarters by city, Lists of cathedrals, Lists of mosques, Lists of magazines, Lists of newspapers, Lists of radio stations, Lists of television stations in North America, Lists of restaurants, Lists of curling clubs... ad nauseam. Bazj (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:OSE, but thanks for the list of articles. No, it's not about keeping the article specifically, though that is indeed an option here.
None are relevant. None have links like List of company registers. All you've done is show that the article under discussion is the outlier. So why does this directory of links deserve to be an exception? --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Two had some minor problems with their External links sections, which I removed [15] [16], though they are not directly relevant to this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ELBURDEN, I've restored the article to a version without the links. I don't see consensus swinging toward inclusion, and editors have had a month to make a case. --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:External_links#Links_in_lists have an applicable exception here?: "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." SERutherford (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Help: I have several issues. Exactly what are we debating here, the list article or improper use of links placed in the body of the article not as a reference but just an external link, and improper adding of external links in general to articles? I picked one example from the List of newspapers in Sri Lanka
  • | ''[[The Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)|Daily Mirror]]'' || [[English language|English]] || Daily || [http://www.dailymirror.lk/ dailymirror.lk] || [[Wijeya Newspapers]] || 1999 || 76,000 || <ref name="wnp">{{cite web | url=http://www.wijeyanewspapers.lk/About_Us.htm | title=Wijeya Newspapers Limited | accessdate=April 18, 2012}}</ref><ref name="allb"/>
This was a proper removal as that link did not belong. I also looked at an example of external links removal, here, and that link did not belong. I could argue against one or more of the others there also.
    • If we are discussing links like above (and not the article) then I would have to "not vote" Delete or Not keep.
In reply to "Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?": The external links section is NOT a place to indiscriminately add material to Wikipedia just to have it nor is adding extra links in the body of the article acceptable.
I personally don't see the encyclopedia value in a world-wide listing of registry authorities but as pointed out above, since Wikipedia is changing to a directory, I guess we can add a yellow and white page section, add phone numbers, and evolve into a true all inclusive vehicle for listing everything in the world. According to the above (list of lists) rationale, if accepted, I can now argue for the inclusion of any list I like. We have a list of prostitution companies in Nevada, so why not a List of Triple A garages in Nevada then other states. That would give editors something to do for a really long time. There are "54 million members (Triple A) in the United States and Canada". How about a List of war veterans with only a right arm (then break it down for each limb), and then get really creative. Think about it; I bet there aren't 54 million people looking for a list of places to get laid in Nevada right?

I guess in the scheme of things, and considering I can look up a list of prostitution companies on Wikipedia, this List of company registers, that probably should be List of company registers worldwide, seems proper since we have:

I guess I better start my list of Triple A garages, anyone want to help? Note: I will be totally against cluttering up of external links sections concerning "... instead of deleting nearly 40,000 carefully gathered and useful links they get moved to External Links." If that is on the table then get rid of them. Otr500 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're threatening to make articles that you know are inappropriate, you're risking a block. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ronz: I am assuming good faith but your words did ring out as a threat on what you chose to perceive (subjective) to be a threat. If all you got out of my comments was some perceived threat to degrade Wikipedia then you might want to practice reading instead of "skimming" comments. Wikipedia is being degrading almost daily and you deem it important to to warn me that IF I am threatening to make articles that are inappropriate I am risking being blocked.
  • First: I suppose you have not bothered to look at my editing record but just skimmed over and picked what you liked from the comments according to your interpretation.
  • Second "My list" (if you would have bothered really reading), that I mentioned, would actually be the List of Triple A garages in Nevada. That is really obvious hypothetical rhetoric as well as the others. Now, if you deem this inappropriate then I challenge you to start a discussion to have me blocked if that is your meaning. I will submit to you that I can not imagine one editor (except possibly you) or admin that would consider such an article (the list of garages) "inappropriate", as meaning deserving a block, considering we really can find a list of cat houses on Wikipedia. There are also lists of lists that refer back to lists and blue links are used indiscriminately to make content circular. Are these the result of "Wiggle room"? I suppose the lists of lists exampled above should certainly be reasoning to create or "keep" yet another list. I would also assume that reasoning should follow that if we have one list this means all are fair game? That sort of thinking would certainly be a slippery slope to doom.
  • Third: I am not even sure why you chose to single out hypothetical examples unless you are for the many lists of lists, maybe the external links section being used to include everything not Wikipedia, or possible that you support adding 40,000 entries to the external links section.
  • Forth: You must have seriously confused me with some new editor that might exclaim, "Oh shit I might get blocked". Would you suppose because I am honest and do not have an actual agenda but Wikipedia improvement that I would worry about being blocked over BS? Especially when the words "inappropriate articles" would certainly be subjective.
At any rate we still do not need 40,000 more useless (to the general reader) additions to Wikipedia external links. "If" there are not copyright issues, or other reliable source reasoning, it would be far better to have more references. The actual best practice, if the material warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, would be to create articles, but that may be a stretch considering one of the comments above. "Short of creating a stub article for each corporate registry, how else is this material to be presented?", and the answer I suppose would be put all the entries in an external link right? Wait! Maybe the following comment has merit. Otr500 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
How about we move on to other issues. This is dead. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have external links put into footnoted citations, similar to Elasticsearch? The template {{cite web}} could be made to work as these are almost entirely governmental/ministry websites. SERutherford (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

His 13 April contributions all appear to be external links to TechStory corporate page - with a column of material related to the Wikipedia subject -- the rest of the space relating to the corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.159.231 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User warned. - MrX 11:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast media articles

Please take a moment to review and comment at WT:External links#What's so special about broadcast media articles?. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a question about www.clubwebsite.co.uk/chonburifc/113109/Home. This is appears to be an English fanpage of the Thai soccer team Chonburi F.C. The team's official Thai language page can be found at www.chonburifootballclub.com, but there is no link to this particular "English" page. The team also has its own Facebook account www.facebook.com/chonburi.football.club, but this also doesn't link to the English page www.facebook.com/chonburi.fc.73. "Club website" appears to be a web hosting service with no association to the team. I am assuming a good faith effort is being made to post accurate information in English (possibly translating stories found on the team's official website), but I do not know if any of that is approved or verified by the team. Would any of that make a difference as to whether linking to the site is considered acceptable per No. 11 of WP:ELNO? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheist Murderers

This link has been added to Criticism of Atheism by user:Krshwunk - Atheist Murderers. Apart from the offensiveness, it doesn't add to the article and seems to have been written by a religious person (possibly Krshwunk) with a great big axe to grind. I've tried discussing it on the article's talk page, but I'm not getting anywhere. I don't think this link belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. PepperBeast (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I support PepperBeast's assessment of the dubious nature of the link in question. The link is to a site (thomism.org) with no acknowledged owner or contact details and appears to be the work of a single person (whois gives the registrant as Julian Ahlquist, and a page on the Catholic website patheos.com([17]) quotes Ahlquist as acknowledging that he is the creator of thomism.org). I have also reverted the link, but user:Krshwunk has added it back in four times. -- Jmc (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In response to user:pepperbeast, I would like to know what exactly offends you about the link and why your offense merits deletion of the link. People can be offended by anything, as many are no doubt offended by many things on the "Criticism of Religion" article, for example. Also, I would claim the link very much adds to the article "Criticism of Atheism," as it supplements many details of the article regarding atheist murderers, some who have murdered in the name of atheistic ideologies (mirroring how the "Criticism of Religion" page talks about people murdering in the name of theistic/religious ideologies) and various other people who have themselves admitted that atheism contributed in their motivation for committing murder (as can be seen with Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise). Also, if I am a religious person, does this disqualify me from making a contribution to Wikipedia? If I have an "axe to grind" as you say, does this also disqualify me? Should we ban edits made by people whom we view to have "axes to grind" even if their edits themselves do not break any actual rules? Again, you have presented no good reason why the external link is actually inappropriate. The link pertains to the article, giving many further details on the subject, as many external links are designed to do. From my long experience of the subject, the list provides just the details many people seek when researching about critical views of atheism. In response to user:pepperbeast, yes, Krshwunk is Julian Ahlquist and he made the list and, yes, he is me. Again, does this also disqualify me from Wikipedia? Does not mentioning my name and contact information on the list get me trouble? Well, as of now, all that is on page (at the bottom). If people have legitimate reasons for banning this link, I would like to hear them. If there has been some error in scholarship, for example, please tell me. The list has copious footnotes to back up each fact mentioned. Accusations that it simply offends some people, that its author is religious and critical of atheism, that it does not mentioned who wrote it (not true anymore) are not legitimate reasons for banning it from Wikipedia. Or have I missed something? If so, please tell me so we can sort this out. Krshwunk (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that Julian Ahlquist is now acknowledged to be the author both of the page and of the link in question, we're in a position to determine whether the link is to a reliable source. It would seem to me not to be, on the basis that Ahlquist appears not to be (to quote from WP:RS) "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
On that basis, I would contend that the external link does not meet WP standards and should be removed.
-- Jmc (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule in Wikipedia that says that external links must only link to pages written by a Wikipedia-acceptable reliable source. In fact, WP:EL states, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered for external links. The list has tons of footnotes of knowledgeable sources, as I have said before. So, even if you deem me an unreliable source, you still do not have a basis for deleting the external link. Krshwunk (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you can't see what's wrong with trying to "criticise" atheism by creating a stereotype of "atheist murderers", I'm not sure how to explain it to you. However, footnoted or no, the page isn't criticism-- it's a smear. PepperBeast (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You actually have to explain why this link isn't a criticism rather than say, "Oh, I'm sorry, if you just can't see it." You actually have to give reasons. The list never claimed that all atheists are murderers if you actually take the time to read it, which I assume you have not. In any case, the list is undoubtably criticizing atheism. We're actually passed that point. The issue at present is whether the author (me) is a reliable source. I have provided some information regarding that at the end of the page as a link on my name. Krshwunk (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's actually up to you to establish that the page *is* criticism, but basically, the page presents no understanding of what atheism is, let alone any critique of that. In fact, it really has no analysis at all-- just a cursory attempt at knocking over a strawman atheist and a lot of "look at these atheist murderers"! PepperBeast (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Pepperbeast, I am confused as to why you are offended about an article lending evidence to the notion that atheists can be murderers. Apparently you do not find it offensive that the Wikipedia page "Criticism of atheism" mentions that there might be a connection between atheism and violence. If you do not have a problem with the page, you should not have a problem with evidence that supports the claim, which is what the article is.BlazePhillips (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But the article is *not* the evidence that supports the claim. The claims made in the article have sources. It is *extensively* referenced. The link in question isn't a reliable source, and trying to prove that atheism is bad because some atheists are murderers is as ridiculous as proving that religions are bad by slapping together a list of, say, Baptist drunks or Buddhist child molesters and tacking on to the end of other articles. PepperBeast (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't want to misrepresent your argument). You are claiming more than one thing: you are claiming that it is not a reliable source and you are also saying that it is a bad criticism because it does not prove atheism is bad. These are two different points and they can be addressed separately. As for your first point, as far as I am aware, external links are not strictly "sources" as the related Wikipedia page does not reference it. You can go to "Wikipedia:External links" to see how the rules for external links differ from the rules on WP:RS. As for the second, Krshwunk never said that his article proves atheism is bad. Criticism does need to take the form of proof. It can alternatively lend evidence that something might be the case. In this case, it is saying that there might be a connection between atheism and murder. More importantly, it is countering the claim that religion is the only motivation that causes people to murder and thus further counters the common atheist claim that a more widespread belief in atheism will reduce murders. Regarding relevance, the article is supporting the claim on the Wikipedia page "Criticism of atheism" that some forms of atheism and violence may be connected. If you take issue with that, confront the Wikipedia article rather than this external link.BlazePhillips (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
User:pepperbeastYes, look at these atheist murderers, as in, actually look at the site. At the risk of sounding redundant, the list criticizes atheism by showing how people have murdered in the name of atheistic ideologies and how various other people have had committed murders with atheism being part of their motivation (ONCE AGAIN, look at the list's description of Jim Jones, Andrei Chikatilo, Jeffrey Dahmer, Craig Stephen Hicks, Kip Kinkel, and Jeffrey James Weise). This would qualify as criticizing atheism, unless of course, I have to be more meticulous and first establish that murder is an object of criticism as well. Is that it? Do I have to establish that murder is wrong before I criticize atheism? Also, as said before (you need to read the thread more carefully), Wikipedia does not demand that external links qualify as reliable sources. Also, the list is not saying that all atheists are bad either. Where did you get that? You obviously have not read the site. If you have a criticism of the page, you actually have to address what the page says. Krshwunk (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that user:Krshwunk has a record of adding similar ELs to WP articles. For example, the history of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious shows (1 May 2013) the deletion of an EL he added, with the comment by the deleting editor that they are "removing site that fails WP:EL rules quite dramatically - just some crazy fringe theory on a free blog site by some random person off the street". -- Jmc (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I consider the EL in question to come under #11 in Links normally to be avoided: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority", where personal web pages are defined as being "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution [and] primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes but can also be used for personal career marketing, social networking, or personal expression" (my emphasis). -- Jmc (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The EL links to a webpage (again, my webpage) that does not fall under the criteria you mentioned. It is not a blog, it is not some fan site, and it is not a personal web page, as it does not contain content of a personal nature, but rather of various intellectual subjects (some of which may have an entertaining value but that is certainly not the goal of it). It is certainly not used for personal career marketing, social networking, or "personal expression" (i.e. it's not about me ... it's not of a personal nature). The site is about philosophy, theology, history, and a couple interpretations of films. I'm just a teacher and have never made any money from it. I just want to educate and get people to think. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the EL on the basis of what you said. Krshwunk (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised this thread has gotten as long as it has. This is clearly neither a WP:RS, nor a fit WP:EL, and it was added by someone with a COI. There's no way we should be including links to it from anywhere. All of the discussion about atheists, criticism, etc. is secondary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Krshwunk spammed multiple articles with links to his site. I've removed all that I saw. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You need to be more specific than just saying "it was added by someone with a COI". This forces me to read the entire COI page, and so far it does not seem clear why it is a conflict of interest. Are you saying that the author of the article cannot take part in this noticeboard discussion? Or are you saying that the person has a conflict of interest with the actual page "Criticism of atheism" because he is religious. That would seem to be a problem if that is what you are saying, because I can imagine many religious people edited "Criticism of atheism" just as I can imagine that many atheists edited "Criticism of religion". Be more specific.BlazePhillips (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites, for future reference, am I unable to make any external link from any Wikipedia page to anything on any page of a website that I own/manage/contribute to? Is that what you mean by COI? I looked at the rules for COI, and I couldn't find a precedent for that. If there is, I would very much like to know so I can avoid any future incidents of this sort. Krshwunk (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also surprised that this thread had gone on as long as it has, but for the opposite reason. The whole point of external links is that it should be much easier to post than sources in a page. Yes, there are guidelines as to what to put and what to avoid. I went to the Star Wars Wikipedia page and saw the external link to the Star Wars Facebook page (which also seems to be a COI), yet #10 is avoid social networking sites with no exceptions listed. You can go to other popular Wikipedia pages and clearly see how they bend the guidelines (not rules) of the external links. But in the example of "Atheist Murderers", I can't even see how it bends any of the guidelines clearly. Instead, it provides interesting, useful, and relevant information to "Criticism of atheism". So why do you think people are trying to find rules against this more than external links on popular pages that go to personal sites.BlazePhillips (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"conflict of interest" in this case doesn't require much nuance. If there is a connection between you and a site, then you shouldn't add it to an article. Nobody's saying you can't participate in discussions (here or elsewhere), and nobody's saying being religious (or irreligious) gives someone a conflict of interest. But, again, even if you didn't have a COI it wouldn't be an appropriate external link because it's not a reliable source. It is a site with an obvious agenda, does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, does not have editorial oversight, it is self-published, etc. (any one of these is problematic). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So would it change it if I added the article as an external link, because I am not the author? That is an easy fix to what is arguably not a problem (I understood it to be a COI if the actual Wikipedia page is related to the person). You should cite a specific line or rule on the conflict of interest page to back up your claim that a rule was broken. Regarding the reliable source issue, we have gone over it more than once now. An external link does need to be a reliable source in the way Wikipedia defines it. That is partially the point of external links. If it does not fit as a source, it is a good candidate for an external link. That is why there are separate rules and guidelines for external links. Please read the thread and/or the external links rules beforehand so we don't have to be redundant.BlazePhillips (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Clearly a massive violation of WP:POINT. This blogger has an ax to grind, and is making religious attacks against another religious opinion, which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, instead of just saying it is a general violation of a whole page, cite the line and say what is the specific violation. In this case, I am not bringing up other examples to try to discredit a rule on Wikipedia. I have no problem with the rules. I brought up the Star Wars example to highlight the fact that the rules for external links are more guidelines, because it said "what to avoid" and not "what is prohibited", so they are definitely not hard and fast. On top of that, I am also saying that "Atheist Murderers" doesn't clearly violate any of them.BlazePhillips (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "ax to grind" has already been used at the start of this conversation, and it is as unclear as it was when it was first used. For all I know, you could consider the people who contributed to the page "Criticism of atheism" to have an "ax to grind" and you could also say that the page is a "religious attack against another religious opinion", as many have said that. So would you say that? Why or why not?BlazePhillips (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Which isn't the case. The article is a reasonably balanced piece *about* criticism of atheism. It is not, itself, an article criticising atheism. The article is not axe-grinding. The link is. PepperBeast (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying that the page "Criticism of atheism" is providing the information on criticism rather than actually criticizing it. I agree with that. However, the page draws from sources that do criticize atheism of course. One example from the page is "Edmund Burke wrote that atheism is against human reason and instinct." Presumably Edmund Burke had an ax to grind and his writings could indeed be offensive, but it is still allowed to have sources from Edmund Burke on Wikipedia, because there is no rule that says sources cannot have an ax to grind. In this case, it is not even a source. It is an external link.BlazePhillips (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone without a COI wants to make an argument for this site as an appropriate external link, this can probably be closed. As far as I can see there is clear consensus among other participants here (and it seems rather obvious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying there is a consensus when it is four to two is somewhat of a weak claim. Instead of answering my questions and addressing my argument, you resorted to ad populum, and for all I know, the participants against the link could have COI (because it is still unclear what constitutes COI). That is why you need to rely on actual arguments, but Rhododendrites, you have yet to back yours up.BlazePhillips (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it would be four to one now given that Blazephillips and Krshwunk are to be considered the same users (we're brothers, not the same person).BlazePhillips (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As inquired above, am I guilty of COI because I created an external linked to a site that I own? Again, the COI rules don't seem to disqualify that. If they do, I would like to know details on that because I could not find them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krshwunk (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Krshwunk, the conflict of interest is that you have a relation with the information that you are adding - you own the site that you are linking to. Now, that does not forbid you to edit with that type of information (it is not 'forbidden' to link to your own sites and similar), however, care is to be taken. The general practice in such cases is strict BRD - boldly add, if someone complains (reverts) you don't add again but argue in favour. That is also in line with WP:EL, though that is a bit stricter: the burden of proving that a link is actually needed on a page is on the person who wants to add it - which IMHO goes a bit further as it would require reasoning before addition, and in case of this link (where you are biased as the owner and hence would more likely consider it a net positive) you might have been better on the safe side of suggesting on the talkpage and allowing sufficient time for discussion (or just leave it at a suggestion). Pushing it, especially with a COI is certainly not the way. And reading through this discussion does not show any such reasoning of why this external page is adding sufficient information to what is already there in the prose on Wikipedia, and/or covered by the other links that are there (and with that taking into account that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm - we are not here to add external links, even if they are on topic and relevant, your first aim should be to include information in the article itself). (as such, I also oppose the addition of this link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this, Dirk Beetstra. I am glad to hear that adding a link on Wikipedia to a webpage I have does not necessarily disqualify me. Now, I would say that one reason why the webpage adds sufficient information is that much of the information it has is not on Wikipedia. I've checked quite thoroughly during the time I made it. Furthermore, no list like this exists on Wikipedia, even though the information on it, as well as the concise and convenient manner which it was meant to have, is often sought after by people researching things dealing with the "Criticism of Atheism." I agree that Wikipedia should not be a "link farm," but, on the other hand, part of Wikipedia often involves including external links for more information on a topic, which is why Wikipedia has external links, and which is why people are allowed to add them. Besides, the "Criticism of Atheism" page is not overloaded with external links either ... in fact, currently, it doesn't have a single one (unlike, incidentally, the "Criticism of Religion" page). With that said, would the problem be solved if I essentially turn my webpage into a Wikipedia article? Would that satisfy all the objections? Or, as far as you could see, would that just create even more? Krshwunk (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You should not add links to your own websites in general. And in this case the link is problematic in the extreme. It should of course not be added. There is a reason noone else has compiled that kind of list. And there is a reason this "information" is not on wikipedia. Namely that it serves no purpose other than fueling polemics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule against linking to one's own website. Why should the link "of course" not be added? People actually HAVE created lists of this kind, but never this level of detail. Why do you put "information" in quotes? Are you accusing the list of falsehoods? If show, where are they? Please take not of the footnotes. Also, the list doesn't just serve polemics, it was designed to counter the common atheist objection that there are no atheist serial killers or mass murderer, something that I have heard very often and sought to correct. I know some people don't like hearing it. But sometimes the truth matters, even if it sounds offensive. Thanks. Krshwunk (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Many people regard Wikipedia as an opportunity to boost incoming links to their website, but they are (eventually) unsuccessful. There is always the faint possibility that a spammer might be posting links to a useful resource (useful for an encyclopedia), so there is no blanket rule about external links. However, the website in question is known to not be suitable in terms of providing additional resources for encyclopedic articles so it will not be accepted regardless of how much lipstick is applied. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
So, you're saying that one cannot link Wikipedia articles to their websites? Again, that's not actually in the rules. What do you mean by "the website is known to not be suitable in terms of providing additional resources for encyclopedic articles?" Frankly, that sounds like a Catch-22. There can be no external link to a website unless that website has had an external link to it before? The fact is, the webpage DOES add additional information, as much of it is not on Wikipedia. And what on earth do you mean by "lipstick?" I would request you use plainer speech because your point here has genuinely eluded me. Sorry. Krshwunk (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If your website were suitable then someone else would add it. It is however not suitable, and even less so for being added by its own author who is clearly promoting their own personal beliefs in contravention of Wikipedias mission and values.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is the website "not suitable?" This has still actually not been made clear in any way. And once again, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a person cannot add an external link from a Wikipedia article to his webpage. Also, lots of the things on Wikipedia promote all sorts of personal beliefs. Look at the "Criticism of Religion" page, for example, as it has an external link "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum." Obviously, that promotes a certain personal belief. But if you have something very concrete to say on this subject, please tell. What on the webpage is so objectionable on the topic of personal beliefs? Again, be concrete. Pick something particular. Please don't be vague. Please let me understand you. Krshwunk (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: That the information is not there is not a reason to add an external link, nor is that there are only a few there (as WP:EL states: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.". The former could be a reason to expand the article and using the site as a reference for that (though it seems that it was already disqualified as a reliable source as well) - again per WP:EL: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.".
I did not say that these were the only reasons for adding the link. The link does contain relevant information to the article that people often inquire about in connection with the article, but the length and detail of the information would overload the existing article, as I would expect someone would say if I tried inputting it. Again, is the solution to transferring all the link's information to a new Wikipedia article called "List of Atheist Murders" or something? I'd like to hear people's thoughts on that. Thanks. Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What I did say was that you could insert it once, but if it is removed after that, then it should first find consensus (and in case of COI, it is even better that you first find consensus to include, to avoid the implication of impropriety). You, however, insisted. And I see very little in trying to convince editors on content-based criteria, most of your criteria are based on the question "why should I not add this link?" --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by objecting to me trying to convince editor on "content-based criteria." I should probably know what that means and how that is contradistinguished by something else but I don't. What do you mean? Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: convincing = going to the talkpage and start a discussion (at least after the first reversion, but with a COI sometimes even before the very first addition); it is not that you repeatedly insert the link. That discussion needs content based criteria, and with the primary goal to actually incorporate the information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In summary, here is a recap of the refutations to the main objections of adding the "atheist murderers" external link. 1) Some said the link led to an "unreliable source." However, WP:EL states that external links do not need to be a reliable source, as long as it uses reliable sources in it (which it does so meticulously). 2) Some said the link led to a personal website. However, the website does not have personal information but rather is about intellectual topics, including philosophy, history, theology, and film interpretations. 3) The link should not be included because the person (me) has a COI. However, there is no rule that states that one cannot add an external link to their own website. 4) The link leads to a website that does not contain any new information about the Wikipedia article. However, the list, in fact, has lots of information that is verifiably not included in the Wikipedia article and even includes information not on Wikipedia at all. 5) The link does not pertain to the Wikipedia article. However, the link catologues many people who have committed murder with atheism as an apparent motive, thus critiquing atheism from a moral standpoint (furthermore, it counters a rather common atheist claim that there are no atheist serial killers or mass shooters). There have been other ever-changing objections voiced such as the link hurting people's feelings, being so-called "junk," and that "it just not going to be included," though these obviously do not constitute valid objections, and I trust that they will not be made again. I know a lot of people might be uncomfortable with the material it contains, but let's not object to knowledge and let's actually apply Wikipedia's guidelines as they are actually stated. So, once again, does anyone have a single legitimate reason for banning the external link? Krshwunk (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krshwunk:
1) Right, it just disqualifies as a WP:RS, it cannot be used as a source.
2) It is a website made for personal use, not that it contains personal information. Anyone can write something on a website and link to it - it does not disqualify a link per sé, it is however something that we try to avoid
3) That is what I re-iterate - you added it, it got reverted - you should not be adding it again, just discuss its inclusion, and if you cannot get a consensus to it being included then it will not be included. The burden of inclusion is on you, now you need consensus to include it. Having a conflict of interest makes it very likely that the link gets first removed, and that a consensus to include is needed. The reason is not directly that the link is removed because you have a coi, the link is removed because you need an independent consensus to include it.
4) Maybe, but the (your!) first goal should be to incorporate the information into Wikipedia - not just link to it and be done.
5) The article is about criticism of atheism, not about atheist murders. It is not a direct relation.
Now, over that, Wikipedia is not the place to publish your research, there are other outlets for that. Barring that you find consensus to have the link included (which is currently closer to against inclusion) the link is not going to be included. Maybe there are ways to include the information itself (where you would not refer to your own work, nor perform WP:OR, and need reliable references for every claim you insert). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra:
1) Sure. Not an issue.
2) According to how Wikipedia defines a personal webpage (WP:ELNO), the link is not a personal webpage, because it is not a blog, it is not a fan site, and it does not contain content of a personal nature.
3) I understand the point about consensus. Not only am I hoping that people will concede after showing how all the objections thus far against the inclusion of the link are without basis, but also, to re-iterate, the link not only provides additional, relevant, sought-after information regarding the article but it also presents it in a way that is designed to be convenient and concise, such that by simply dumping it into the article will overload it considerably and utterly undo said design which, I say again, is something many inquirers into the subject have precisely appreciated.
4) Sure. I actually intend to incorporate the information into the relevant Wikipedia articles. However, the particular, concise organization of the list as mentioned before would be lost if simply distributed across articles. Now, do you think by starting a new Wikipedia titled "List of Atheist Murderers" and transferring the list onto it will solve the problem? Everything on the list is footnoted. I've asked this a couple times, and I'm curious what people think.
5) I know the article is about criticism of atheism, and the link provides further criticism of atheism, particularly about its connections to instances of murder. How is this not a valid relation? Is there a rule on Wikipedia that an external link must directly relate to the utterly universal sense of an article rather than a specific but still important aspect of it? If so, please quote me the rule. On the "criticism of religion" page, for instance, there is an external link "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum." That link is not criticizing religion in the most general sense but rather criticizing it specifically from a moral standpoint ... which is very much what the external link that I propose does as well except with regard to atheism. Krshwunk (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk:
1) well, a bit an issue, you can not take data from the page and use it as a reference in itself - you'd need other references (that are in the document) to do that.
2) WP:ELNO defines a personal website through Personal web page, a page created by an individual on their own account. That is what your page is.
3) The arguments are not without basis - but it does not matter, you need content based arguments in favour. It remains that it is not in Wikipedia's goals to link to your page, it aims to incorporate. People may show interest in the page, or even greatly appreciate it, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to bring readers to it.
4) As long as you oblige the (legal) requirements (WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYVIO, WP:BLP, other pillars of Wikipedia, etc.) then something like that is a possibility (I am not sure if wholesale copy-paste is a proper option).
5) translated: "the page is about cheese, I have pictures of gorgonzola on my page, which is a cheese, so it is a fit" - no, that is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL13. "... a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". Your page is about a specific criticism of atheism.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:EL offers several reasons Krshwunk. Common sense offers a bunch more. WP:EL prohibits links that are advertising or COI - yours would not be, if someone else had added it. But you did, to advertise and advocate your own personal, non-notable, opinion. It also prohibits personal websites, which your site is. Secondly because of the polemic nature, the fallacious "guilt by association" argument implied, and because it would set a terrible precedent for other articles (imagine a list of Jewish or black criminals as en External Link), it is not suitable, proper, or useful as an EL. Now, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before continuing wasting other peoples time with this argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This will be my last response, as I will follow Wikipedia's guidelines for avoiding taking up people's time. To Dirk Beetstra: 1) I'm not clear what you're talking about (this could be my fault). I simply said WP:RS is not an issue here because the WP:RS does not apply to external links. With that said, the link provides numerous sources that do follow WP:RS. 2) You claimed WP:ELNO and/or personal web page defines "personal website" as "a website created by an individual by their own account" but this definition does not appear anywhere on either pages. As said before, Wikipedia defines personal web page as a website "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature." However, also said before, the link leads to a page that is not of a personal nature. Yes, it was created by an individual (me), but the content is not of a personal nature. Therefore, it is not a personal web page as far as Wikipedia is concerned with regard to external links. 3) I certainly never said it was Wikipedia's goal to link to my page. I have also argued that the content is applicable for the Wikipedia article in question. On the other hand, I may be misunderstanding your point here. 4) All right. Thank you for your comment here. 5) If this is so, I do wonder why external links often pertain to more specific things in articles like how the "Criticism of Religion" page includes a link titled "The Poverty of Theistic Morality by Adolf Grünbaum," as it criticizes religion in a specific way, namely from a moral standpoint (perhaps this needs to be removed from that page).
To ·maunus: I respectively disagree that WP:EL offers any obvious applicable reasons against the link, as I have explained in great detail over and over again, and neither do I see "common sense" oppose it. Notably, WP:EL does not prohibit someone from linking a Wikipedia article to their site (as others have admitted here). Furthermore, as just explained (again), the site is not a personal web page according to Wikipedia standards. Also, why is my opinion "non-notable"? Sounds very POV. I also don't see any prohibition against links that are "polemic" (I didn't see that word on WP:EL, but if it is elsewhere, please let me know). Also, for the last time, the website shows a problematic side of atheism insofar as it shows many leaders have killed in the name of atheistic ideologies, and also shows various serial killers and mass shooters who demonstrated atheism as a motive for their murders (usually this counts as criticism if you replace "atheism" here with "religion" at least). Furthermore, it also suggests that the common atheist claim that atheism, unlike religion, is somehow free from being involved in murder is false. Thus, the page is not merely a practice in "guilt by association." Lastly, your comparison to a hypothetical list of Jewish or black criminals is not particularly analogous, as "atheism" is an intellectual stance (or lack thereof), whereas being Jewish and black has to do with one's race. With that said, there are plenty of external links that I've seen on Wikipedia that have made me uncomfortable and express things that I personally disagree with, sometimes to a very great degree. But this by itself does not make them unfit external links for Wikipedia. What you are expressing here is a POV. And that is the main "argument" against the "Atheist Murderers" link that I have heard in this discussion (though that is not true for everyone here, fortunately). But as Wikipedia's rules stand, I will respect them and will go along with the consensus. I wish you all well. Krshwunk (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krshwunk: - with 1) I meant that the link cannot be used as a reference itself, and from the rest it is likely not suitable as an external link; 2) Personal web pages, as referred in WP:ELNO, are "pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than on behalf of a company, organization or institution. Personal web pages are primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes" - your's is a personal web page of an informative kind. It contains your interpretation, written by yourself, of material. In basis there is nothing wrong with that, but as anyone can do that, these are not the pages we normally link to - except if the writer is a known specialist in the theme (if a person/professional specialised in atheism subjects with many peer-reviewed papers on their name also has a personal web page where they publish a more personal view on the subject, then that would be one to consider - though still preferably judged by someone else and not by the person themselves). It is therefore a 'personal web page', it is a webpage published by a person themselves (as opposed to e.g. a document on cnn.com, where a reporter writes the piece, and the editor decides to put it, or e.g. a paper published by a scholar, submitted to a journal, where the editor submits it for peer reviewing and then decides to publish it), 3) my point was there that your first goal should be to incorporate, not just link, especially since you have a conflict of interest with linking - see 4, 4) thank you, 5) Wikipedia is not finished, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (unfortunately) applies (WP:OTHERLINKS is the external links-discussion of the same nature). You may have a point in that that link is not appropriate either. As nature of pages sometimes shift or pages get more elaborate external links sometimes become superfluous, start duplicating (and WP:SPAMHOLE applies). Or it was simply missed and should not have been added in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Given WP:ELBURDEN and WP:BLP, I don't understand why this discussion wasn't closed after a few comments. Krshwunk was lucky not to be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On the page for Adriana Lima the reference currently known as reference 7 (Adriana Lima talks about her mixed heritage") links to a video which appears to infringe on copyright. Is it valid for this reference to be used? 62.64.152.154 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass DiscoDogs

Not sure if this is acceptable just pinging someone who knows, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not acceptable? Although you cannot use a user-generated website like Discogs or IMDb as a source, you can add it to the "External links" section. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7#Template:Discogs artist. 153.228.194.82 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Usually mass additions require discussion, you have not provided a link to a discussion for your actions. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Which policy states that mass additions require discussion? 153.228.194.82 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Unclear what the problem is here. Looking at a random sampling from the provided link (contribs), it looks like the editor was using templates like [[Template:Discogs artist] how they're intended to be used in a couple dozen articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My concerns of mass unexplained additions is stated above, but if other editors don't have issues with the edits then neither do I. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, User:Mlpearc, I do have issues. 99% of those edits fail our inclusion standards. We are not a linkfarm or internet directory. Most of those pages are very large, and contain a plethora of references. For most of these pages, the content that gets added though these pages is not adding anything beyond the content that is already on the pages or which is not already covered in the other pages. These additions in the contributions by user:153.228.194.82 completely fail WP:ELNO #1 at the very least, and are ignoring the rest of the external links guideline, as well as the relevant parts of our policy/pillar 'What Wikipedia is Not'.

You are completely right in considering that the inclusion, on a case-by-case basis, needs discussion, and I think that on most of the pages where they were here added they should not be. These mass-additions are hence spam (by the definition that Wikipedia uses for it).

I will revert all of these additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thank you, I thought my first intuition was correct. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The community thinks {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}} are useful. These templates survived TfD; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7#Template:Discogs artist and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5#Template:IMDb name. If the articles do not have these templates, we can add them. 153.174.15.48 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@153.174.15.48: We are not saying that there is no use for the template, but not here/not in this way. The endorsement of having a template does not mean that it has to be used everywhere (note that these discussions are already several years old ..). On the articles where you added it, it is not needed (and also {{IMDb name}} may be not needed on (some of) these articles either). Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, external links are sometimes a suitable addition (and then, having a template to make all links 'the same' is a good thing), but the inclusion still needs to follow our inclusion standards. External sites should not be linked if they fail said inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the times, an article in the Wikipedia does not have complete discography and filmography of the artist even if it is GA or FA. Therefore, I don't think {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}} are WP:ELNO #1. Please explain the reason why you think they should be excluded at these articles, respectively. For example, what is the difference between Miles Davis and Little Richard? Additionally, WP:NOT states that "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article." 153.174.15.48 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@153.174.15.48: Finishing the quote: "... however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" Miles Davis contains 11 links, of which several are discographies. It already links to a dmoz as well, as well that we have on Wikipedia itself. It will be hard to justify the addition of yet another discography. I doubt even if many of the other discographies are justified.
The discography or filmography could easily be completed with the help of the external link's data. Furthermore, there are many 'discography of XX' (Miles_Davis_discography, Little_Richard_discography) and 'filmography of XX'-list articles which are supposed to be as complete as these external lists (and if they are not, they should be and easily can be, as requested, updated further). That the information on Wikipedia is not complete is not a reason to link to the external sites: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Chuck Berry became a Good Article (years ago) without the discogs link added to it. Also for Chuck Berry we have a discography which is rather long. Does discogs still have items which are not in the list - please add them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You have removed {{Discogs artist}} from Little Richard, not Miles Davis, which means that your explanation above does not justify your edits at all. You also have to explain your removal of {{Discogs artist}} from other articles. 153.230.42.149 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@153.230.42.149: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That the link is still there on Miles Davis does not mean that a removal from Little Richard is wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and both tagged and pruned the external links section on Miles Davis per your request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your explanation of your removal of {{Discogs artist}} from other articles. {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}} are used at thousands of articles in the Wikipedia. You have to explain why these templates should not be added to these forty articles I added them to, respectively. 153.204.141.70 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@153.204.141.70: The explanation is clearly here above, they fail our inclusion standards, as they do on many articles where you did not add them. See WP:EL and WP:NOT. That they are there on other articles is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning (see also WP:OTHERLINKS). Moreover, the burden of justifying why a link should be added is on the person who wants to include it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @153.204.141.70: Beetstra Has answered your question a couple of times, and the answer is excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia Mlpearc (open channel) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOT states that "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article." The community thinks {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}} are useful; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7#Template:Discogs artist and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5#Template:IMDb name. The consensus is clear. Just because you think the external links section at an article is excessive does not mean you can automatically remove {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}}. If you think these templates should not be added to articles, then please nominate them for deletion. your editing behavior contravenes the community consensus. Again, you haven't explained your removal of {{Discogs artist}} from other articles yet. 153.204.141.70 (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The discogs links add nothing of value to those articles and should be left out. Discogs serves a commercial purpose which makes it even less desirable. I think there is rarely a good case for mass adding external links to articles, and this is certainly not one of them. - MrX 14:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the times, an article in the Wikipedia does not have complete discography and filmography of the artist even if it is GA or FA, so {{Discogs artist}} and {{IMDb name}} are useful. If you think the discogs links add nothing of value to those articles and should be left out, what you can is nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, we can add them to any articles over and over again. You have to explain why {{Discogs artist}} should not be added to these forty articles despite the community thinks this template is useful and the template is now used at thousands of articles in the Wikipedia. 153.204.141.70 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An article don't necessarily need to have discography, but if it does, you can add it to the article or create a spinoff article as is common practice. Your opinion that such external links are useful doesn't seem to be supported by consensus.- MrX 14:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 7#Template:Discogs artist. The consensus is clear. If you think it is useless, nominate it for deletion again. 153.204.141.70 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is clear that the template should exist, and it does. That has nothing to do with using the template, especially mass-adding it to articles.- MrX 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You haven't explained why {{Discogs artist}} should not be used at these forty articles, respectively. What is the difference between these forty articles and other thousands of articles? 153.205.229.33 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@153.205.229.33: what was repeatedly explained and linked was that the existence or use on other pages is not an excuse for adding it to others. On by far most, if not all, of these 40 pages the link was superfluous. That it is there on thousands of other pages may simply mean that it is superfluous on a large part of those thousands of pages as well. But these 40 pages were by far the best examples of where this link is utterly superfluous - most are pages with separately linked discographies and with a plethora of references and links. Their use on pages which are far from complete is questionable (after all, the information can be incorporated in Wikipedia, as has been done for many already - but one could argue that the link could help others to fast information to expand the page), and on pages which are of similar nature as these 40 they should all be removed as they do not lead to more information that cannot be incorporated. In any case, it is not an excuse to add more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #2 "Links normally to be avoided" includes: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" (emphasis added). I have worked on many discographies and have often found that the material generated by using the various search options on Discogs is in fact inaccurate. For example, for "Albums" the dates listed are often incorrect or "unknown" and re-releases, gray market, and bootleg releases are often mixed in with official releases; for "Single & EPs" and "Videos" the listings are often incomplete. Discogs is best used for the information that can be seen on images of specific albums, singles, etc., which is not subject to someone's interpretation. Search results for their categories usually contains a lot of extraneous or misleading information. —Ojorojo (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If you want to remove {{Discogs artist}} or {{IMDb name}} from some articles while these templates are used at thousands of articles in the Wikipedia, you really have to explain the difference. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just an essay about deletion discussions. It seems that no one can justify Beestra's editing behavior, and that's okay. Anyway, we won't stop adding them to articles unless these templates are deleted. Bye. 153.205.225.70 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@153.205.225.70: That was already explained. Likely on many other articles those links should also go as they are not adding to the content that is already there. That is especially true for the articles that you added these links to. The link may be of (temporary) interest on small pages where they still can be used to massively expand the content (after which they become superfluous). Anyway, your goal should not be to add external links, your goal should be to expand the articles. After all, we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Discogs, like Imdb, is indeed WP:UGC and should never be used as a reference. However, there is a long-standing precedent of using it as an external link. That's why we have the templates and why it appears in so many articles.

I think the mass revert of the user's additions is a completely inappropriate and WP:BITEy reflex. Adding an oft-used template to an article certainly does not require a discussion on that talk page first. If someone has reason to object to it, then of course consensus can emerge not to include it. But adding it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Adding it to 41 pages (presuming every single one of the user's edits were adding that template), and then stopping as soon as he/she was asked to stop, is not some egregious example of "mass changes". It's use of a template in the way it's supposed to be used. If there are particular pages where it is not appropriate, then remove it from those, but mass reverting all of the users edits is ridiculous. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: But the use on all of these pages fails our inclusion standards. I saw that it is commonly/often included (which is often a case when something has an own template to use), but that, as on these pages, the inclusion is not appropriate. This link has no place on articles which are including this information already, or have separate discography/filmography pages. If we take massive article on Johnny Cash, we link to three discographies and cite over a hundred references. The page links to the official website, sites which typically also have a discography. If you can show me what the discogs-link is adding to that that is not already somehow included (a quick glance at the discogs for Johnny Cash is not giving a lot of info that I miss). Similar for David Bowie, a huge article with over 300 articles, linking to studio albums itself, but also to a huge discography with in itself 150 references. Can you show me for this article what the discogs list adds that is not already somehow included in the article). Also here, a quick glance does not show me a lot that is missed.
For all of these 40-ish articles the links have the same pattern as for David Bowie and Johnny Cash, as for many other pages where these links are included (but should not be). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Loser's Plateau

Resolved
 – Link is valid FTW Darklight Shadows 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on Loser's Plateau has an external link labelled "Loser's Webpage."

I have no idea if that link is valid or not.

Darklight Shadows 21:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow: the website is located in Austria (TLD '.at'), where also the plateau is. The website is rather close to what could be considered to be 'an official website of the area' (though it is company operated, not governmental, so more likely one of the operators). The site is not particularly advertising, so I think this is a good link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Litreact.com?

I came across the addition in the last hour to A Clean, Well-Lighted Place‎ of an external link to a review on what I would characterize as a user-driven, user-written review site, LitReact.com. I removed it and another one the same user had added, and then ran an external link search for other uses on the site. There were 37. After removing seven of them, it occurred to me that it might be worthwhile to check with others first whether my assessment of this website as an unsuitable target for external links is correct. Opinions? Largoplazo (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Issue 1

From Sept 1st 2016, BBC iplayer is a de-facto subscription only service; With respect to TV content, you now apparently need a TV License to watch BBC TV content, regardless of whether its live, catch up or an online streamed show, not to mention that a large proportion of the content is geo-blocked for copyright reasons.

Whilst Wikipedia does not actively prevent the addition of links to subscription only or paywalled sites, contributors should in my view be discouraged from adding direct links to paywalled content, when alternative links to non-paywalled content or portions of the site could be just as easily provided.

Issue 2

Iplayer links are NOT stable, and typically expire after about 14-28 days, the links that expire redirecting to a main programme page, or to a holding page saying a particular episode is "not available".

Issue 3

Iplayer as of Sept 2016, still apparently needs the proprietary Adobe Flash plugin in some circumstances, which is not available for some users of "free-software". I've also found that Flash is somewhat buggy when used with older OS (like XP).

Given both the above issues, direct iPlayer links should be vigorously discouraged in favour of more stable and reliable links an effort should be made to replace or remove the existing links unless absolutely needed, in which case they should be marked as "subscription only" There is a currently disabled Edit Filter (no 794) for tracking the addition of iPlayer links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Those sound like good reasons to avoid the links and remove the current ones, per WP:ELNO#EL6 and WP:ELNO#EL7. - MrX 22:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIOEL outside Mainspace

Fellow editors, Apologies if this is out of scope for this noticeboard. I have been removing some links to external webpages with copyright violations from mainspace articles (per WP:COPYVIOEL); there are also a number of links to the same webpages in Talk, User talk and Wikipedia namespaces. See [18]. Do we also need to remove links from these namespaces? Many thanks in advance for any response. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is clear that the linked page is a copyright violation, then yes the links should be removed from everywhere they occur. On discussion pages, it is often useful to leave an explanatory note explaining why previously posted content has been removed. Obviously, if a discussion page is in the process of trying to come to an agreement about whether a link violates copyright, then it is generally acceptable to leave the link in place while the discussion is ongoing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: Thanks. Appreciate the advice. I have removed a number of known copyvio links from non-Mainspace; and will be working through the rest of the links in the next week or so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I Love Comix Archive

User:Lilreader has been adding or adjusting links External links to something called the I Love Comix Archive, whose main page requires registration, though Lilreader has been editing that fact out.

From what I can tell, I Love Comix Archive contains runs of copyrighted comic strips. Should this site be allowed as an EL? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

which someone is illegally adding to a cloud storage site. No. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like a straightforward copyright violation to me. Seems easy to assume good faith with regard to Lilreader, though. If I didn't know to be wary of copyright, I might think it's a useful resource to add, too. The registration and generality of the links don't seem to be of much concern, as I could access everything I tried to access without being asked to register, and the changes (vs. additions) to the URLs were because the URL structure looks to have changed (should've changed it to the new direct link rather than the base domain, but meh). I went ahead and removed all instances linked from the linksearch, aside from where it's linked from a fair use file, and aside from Star Trek (comics) where it's used in a citation rather than in the external links section. Still problematic, of course, but it should probably be replaced with a citation of the comic strip itself and/or a better link. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_17&oldid=1136459308"