Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 28 December 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the External links page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Sorted by subject /workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite YouTube discussions Sorted by date Archive 1: 2003 - 2005 Archive 2: January 2005 - March 2006 Archive 3: April - July 2006 Archive 4: July - August 2006 Archive 5: August 2006 Archive 6: August - September 2006 Archive 7: September - October 2006 Archive 8: October 2006 Archive 9: October - November 2006 Archive 10: November 2006 Archive 11: November - December 2006 Archive 12: December 2006 Archive 13: December 2006 II Archive 14: January 2007 Archive 15: January-March 2007 Archive 16: March-May 2007 Archive 17: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 18: June 2007 - August 2007 Archive 19: August 2007 - September 2007

Fan sites?

Here's a question - I keep getting told there is a blanket ban on "Fan sites" (usually with little definition of what that really is), yet this page only says that web pages with certain features are "normally to be avoided." What about a fan site that doesn't have any of those features (if such a thing exists). What is the rationale for the blanket ban I keep getting told about, and if there is such a ban, shouldn't it be listed on this page somewhere? I think there should, at the very least, be some small wiggle room to allow for (rare) exceptions, but I'm not a Wiki admin, so I will defer to the wisdom of TPTB - if someone will tell me what the actual stance is. Rabidwolfe 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on fansites; WP:NOT#LINK suggests linking to a fansite may be appropriate in certain circumstances. However, almost all fansites contain content that violates the copyrights of others – for instance, reprints or scans of press and magazine articles, commercial and promotional images used without permission of the copyright holders, YouTube videos, song lyrics, and so on. Per this guideline's restrictions on linking section and Misplaced Pages's policy on linking to copyright works, we cannot link to such sites. If the copyright issues are not a concern (i.e., the site displays no copvyvio content or has obtained permission from the various copyright holders for any copyright content), then it may be appropriate to add a link to a fansite, provided that it meets WP:EL's criteria on what to link. Another thing to bear in mind is that fansites are often added by the site's owners, which is strongly discouraged per WP:COI; site owners should suggest their external link for inclusion on the article's talk page and let neutral editors discuss the link's merits and make the call. --Muchness 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict so pls. forgive if this is redundant) There is no blanket ban, more of a nuanced set of criteria that ends up filtering out 99% of all fan sites. A fan site makes sense if it is the authoritative fan site for a subject, isn't full of copyright or BLP violations, has some useful content that isn't the sort of thing we can include in an article, etc. That's particularly appropriate if it's an official fan site sponsored by the subject of the article. For example the Hannah Montana article can link to the site Disney has set up for fans. What we ought to avoid are random low quality sites without any useful content, self-published tribute sites, sites built to spread copyright violations and bootlegs, or that are set up over the objections of the article subject, etc.Wikidemo 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I keep getting told there is a blanket ban..." Just ignore anyone telling you that. 2005 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something which definitely needs to be clarified. Right now the lack of clarification leads to an extreme logic which says that any site which is not an official site is a fan site. (I can just see a professor diagramming that on a whiteboard.) As has been noted above, when you have a site which is officially endorsed, full of useful content, and not intended to circumvent copyright laws, it is wrong to lump it in the same category as a goofy sparkly page with gushing tributes and pirated media. Rabidwolfe's comments come from a discussion we (attempted) to be involved in where a site which is so complete, authoritative, and officially endorsed that large parts of it are being merged into the official site within the next 60 days was still labeled a "fan site", the link was delisted from dozens of pages, and the person making the point resorted to bullying and puppetry against anyone trying to make a constructive discussion out of the issue. If the rules against the site's inclusion were solid enough, the person making it would not have had no reason to turn to personal attacks and putting words in other peoples' mouths. I have no problem if further clarification of the rules results in the site's definite exclusion, I do have a problem with people using the ambiguity of the rules as a vehicle for aggression. Idea15 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bullies will be bullies regardless. There is no prohibition of linking to non-offical sites. If some editor insists there is they next thing they will likely do is just invoke ignore all rules and bully what they want anyway. 2005 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The way to view it better is that whatever is included in the EL section should be material that would normally be included in a Feature Article-quality article but cannot be included due to copyright, technical, or other reasons. Additionally, WP does not allow linkage to sites that have copyvios on them. While these requirements do not exclude all fan sites, it sets a very high bar for their inclusion. Inclusion of a fan site on an article page should be based on consensus of its editors. --MASEM 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to trailers is discouraged?

Any of the admins care to inform me the Misplaced Pages policy on linking movie articles to (specifically) trailers?

An Admin on the farsi wikipedia has left me a message citing WP:NOT#LINK, and has deleted every link I put from every article to any trailer of that movie. He claims "links to trailers are not encyclopedic and are not relevant". Am I missing something here? Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think they are appropriate? Links are supposed to be for information sources, not for entertainment purposes. DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to trailers is informational, and obviously something we can't have in articles ourselves. If the trailers are on an official site, they are a fine link. If they are on a ripoff copyvio site, then they should never be used. 2005 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If the trailer is on the official site of the movie, then we should already be linking to the main page of the official movie site anyway and wouldn't need a separate trailer link. If it's unofficial we shouldn't be linking. Therefore I can't ever see a reason to link to a trailer itself at all. I also dispute that trailers are informational, at least in the sense that an encyclopedia requires. DreamGuy (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So I take it that there is no specific laws or even consensus on this matter as far as "relevance" and WP:NOT#LINK is concerned? The links mostly go to IMDB or the official website of the film itself.--Zereshk (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't there already be links to the official site and IMDB entry in such articles? --The Brown Bottle 08:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends. For example, there are instances where the IMDB link redirects to somewhere like http://www.rottentomatoes.com . But the admin is making his case based on "not being informationally useful for an encyclopedia". I dont know what to make of that, because it seems a slightly subjective argument. Who determines what is/is not "useful"? But I need English Misplaced Pages's admin feedback, because he's basing his argument on English wikipedia. Thanks to all.--Zereshk (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy. Link to the official site of the movie. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's obvious, but it doesn't address the issue. If the trailer is on the official site, then you don't need multiple links, but if there is an official site, but the trailer is not on it but it is on the Warner brothers site, then linking to the trailer on the warners site is a very good link. 2005 (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True, it would be appropriate provided the trailer is hosted somewhere authorised by warners. And not requiring proprietary software such as flash or windows media player (see WP:EL, "Rich media", it's not a blanket ban). --Yamla (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken links on the EL page

The examples in section 7.1 seem to be broken or missing. DGG (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have successfully deleted every single external link of mine - congratulations! There were actually other websites than bootsnall.com and travellady com, what about artist-at-large.com and zuvuya.net. I do not own, maintain or represent any of these sites. Neither do I breach any WP-relevant policies or guidelines - read with my eyes. And I do not promote myself or my articles, that would mean I got something out of it financially - sorry, I don't. I feel I can contribute with a different angle on cities that you cover in WP, but I have learnt by now that WP is not interested in covering a subject broadly. Some of your articles are in such a poor condition that I do understand you may have to prioritize - the improvement of all the bad writing in WP for example, although unfinished articles seem to be tolerated indefinitely. My own articles, however, are at least ready to be used, as all of them have been through a publishing process and appear legible.

You are welcome to carry out all your threats: blacklisting, blocked account and whatever. Or will you content yourself with the smear that you just published on every discussion page involved? Anyhow, I have wasted too much time on WP already. To be honest, I never experienced so much hysteria and narrow-mindedness before. One particular editor should be praised, though - she listened, understood, explained and advised, always kind. I wish her attitude would spread.....

Scribbleman 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Scribbleman"

anarchism.net

Contravenes WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Anarchism.net has racist material on it or at least has in the recent past. Mainly forum-based. Infoshop is well established (first anarchist website?) and notable as verifiable anarchist resource. WARNING: The trolling going on is multiple sockpuppets by a banned user RJII (2006?) who claimed he was a multiple as a 'Jewish business' campaign and deliberately inserting material ala Misplaced Pages:Original research . Same language and uncivilness. -- maxrspct ping me 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Breach of Privacy

Hu12 equals my user name, Scribbleman, with the author of the travel stories in question, which I never did myself. Whether the assumption is correct or not, this is a serious breach of privacy. I demand that his/her piece must be removed - both from my Talk page and every other page where it has been inserted.

Scribbleman 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Scribbleman"

You have spammed several articles with external links that do not meet the guideline standards, to that same author's travel articles in the same magazine. You're the one who added the author's name, Terje Raa, to the link citations. It's a fair question to ask whether you are that author. No breach of privacy in asking because there was no private information. Nevertheless, if you think someone misbehaved please bring it up on the administrator's notice boards instead of posting the exact same messages to that least three different places. It's hard to figure out what you're talking about or what you want out of this forum. Wikidemo 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RE; External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote Terje Raa and Terje Raa articles. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Scribbleman consist entirely of promoting Terje Raa articles on / bootsnall.com / travellady.com /artist-at-large.com / and zuvuya.net and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Terje Raa related only. It has become apparent that your account are only being used for spamming and promoting inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Misplaced Pages is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

From a look at User:Scribbleman's Talk page and contributions, he seems to be embarked on a program of non-stop addition of external links to articles. User:Hu12's warnings seem fair. I doubt that Scribbleman will receive much sympathy here at WP:EL. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rickenbacker links - unofficial page.

Hello, I have read the WP:EL policy more than once and I understand the fact that fansites generally should not be linked,

My question is - What about unofficial sites that contain vast amount of information that is not available in other places?

rickresource.com (the site I was trying to link to from the Rickenbacker guitars page) is currently the most comprehensive site for Rickenbacker guitars as well as it has the largest forum with participant of many Rickenbacker Luthiers and Rickenbacker officials. There is NO copyright violation anywhere on this site and every copyrighted material is used with a permission from RIC.

So, back to my question: Don't you think this is a bit bizarre that the most comprehensive Rickenbacker webpage is "banned" from the Rickenbacker article on Misplaced Pages? I have tried to resolve this dispute with the person who removed the links to no avail: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:156.34.217.92 Thanks, GilbsonLP 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the "vast amount of information" original research, and does it provide a source? If not, it shouldn't really be added. Jack?! 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Some material is an original published research of Peter McCormack, Assistant Psychology professor at St. Thomas University (New Brunswick), some of it is contributed by others, most of which containing references to external sources, additionally - Rickresource offers a huge Rickenbacker register that provides statistical analysis of models/years/finish/etc... as well as stolen Rickenbackers database. GilbsonLP (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone??? Is there a way to get this reviewd by an editor? Thanks GilbsonLP (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes maintaining a website?

I am involved in a dispute with another editor over whether I may link to another website, the editor objects that I cannot link to it because I 'maintain' it. I am not the webmaster but the website has used some of my writing, so you could say that I am a contributor to it. I also own a domain name that I point to the website. I can't see that is what is intended by WP:EL in talking about 'maintaining' a website but this editor insists otherwise. I compare it to not being able to link the the Journal of Financial Economics, or any article therein, because I once wrote an article for said journal. Any views? --Simon D M 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, our conflict of interest guideline goes a bit further, it states: "... but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles ..." (all the way at the bottom). Guess it is better for you to discuss the link on talkpages, although as long as you don't excessively link to the site containing your information, and the information is not really controversial, it should be fine (though it is best to just post on the talkpage as well, and/or in the edit summary, just to acknowledge the point). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The page in question is for a fringe theory/new religious movement and only has regular editors with COI (one neutral editor does take some interest but is denounced as COI by one of the COI editors). Thus most links are to sites with which the linking editor has COI. Hence COI is not really the issue. Rather the issue is over the meaning of the word 'maintain'. I hold that this does not cover contribution. The other editor claims it does, even though he has linked to sites which he says he has contributed images to (he maintains that this is a different matter). The talkpage is a quagmire of non-consensus which is why I ask about the general principle here. --Simon D M (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would also be careful with linking to publications you are affiliated with. Linking to publications of others on the same site should generally not be a problem. You are not a maintainer of the site. The story would be different if you would have an interest in having links to the site (e.g. for revenues). --Dirk Beetstra 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Madisons Foundation

Madisons Foundation's website is dedicated to improving the quality and quantity of information available to parents of children with rare diseases. Our mPower Rare Disease Database is a free resource so parents can find out information about their child’s disease.

We would like to add direct links to our site for each respective disease found here on Misplaced Pages. For example:

Aarskog-Scott syndrome

Would link to:

Madisons FoundationPediatric rare disease information and support website for families of children with a rare disease.

Thanks in advance,

Marcy Smith

Founder, MadisonsFoundation (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Case Law on links to YouTube

This policy says "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." Can any one cite for me any case law where a website was held liable for contributory infringement for directing others to a site that violates copyright?--MiamiManny (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The leading case at the moment seems to be Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., full text here. There's nothing wrong per this case and others with innocently linking to a noninfringing part of a site when other parts of the site are known to have infringing content. If that were true then all links to youtube (and google, and Microsoft, etc) would be illegal. The problem - which isn't reached in this case - is if you link to a site, knowing that you are facilitating infringement, or with the purpose of facilitating infringement. In other words, if you know that a youtube video is infringing, you should not send a wikipedia reader to view it there. Even if you don't know, if a subsequent editor believes it to be infringing, they don't have a legal duty to delete it on sight, but as a matter of Misplaced Pages policy it's reasonable that we encourage them to do so. We can and do go farther than the law does by asking people not to link to sites where the copyright status is questionable at all. Among the reasons, wikipedia doesn't really have a legal budget to be defending copyright claims, we don't want to encourage infringement even if we can get away with it, and finally, we have no way of knowing what an editor was thinking when they posted a link. Rather than getting into the subjective question of whether that editor know or intended to contribute to copyright infringement, we sidestep the legal issue and simply say when in doubt, don't link. Wikidemo (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If this is all there is, then this policy is completely unnecessary and needs a massive re-work. First, in the decision you cite, the court granted the request in part and denied it in part, ruling that the thumbnails were likely to be found infringing but the links were not. However, even the thumbnails part was later reversed on appeal (see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., CV-05-04753-AHM (9th Cir. May 16, 2007). The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reads: "We conclude that Perfect 10 is unlikely to be able to overcome Google's fair use defense and, accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction regarding Google's use of thumbnail images." Frankly, I am shocked at the number of editors who are are eliminating legitimate links and pictures from Misplaced Pages under the guise of conforming with US copyright law. I hereby wish to revise this Misplaced Pages policy on external links to reflect current law which permits all such links. I am seeking comments and discussion here before I do so.--MiamiManny (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is different because, as you highlight, the thumbnails are fair use. Some YouTube videos are probably not. Really, we can't say what the law is right now, so there's no reason not to be cautious. Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry tells us that contributory infringement for links is at least a possibility. We must not ignore it. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as I suspected, there is no case law that supports the blanket removal of YouTube links. Too many Wikipedians are being overly anal and deleting perfectly legitimate photos at an alarming rate. If a copyright holder has not raised an issue, I am not sure why a Wikipedian would be so concerned. I only wish those editors who are interested in wikipedia's copyright policies would devote their energy to justify the inclusion of material rather than to aggressively seek its removal.--MiamiManny (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Interwiki map

(User:Ned Scott made an undiscussed change to the guideline, then added it again without a discussion. Below is a comment he put on my talk page which I moved here in case he wants to pursue the addition.)

Every wiki listed in Meta:Interwiki map is discussed before being added. Inactive or dead wikis are removed, or simply not added in the first place, so that's really not a concern. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So then the line isn't needed. The addition is redundant... but at the same time, some wikia sub-domains are totally spam filled, so what you were suggesting is an invitation to say they are allowed, which is a very bad idea. Essentially a Wikia needs for something.wikia.com to meet the criteria to be linked to an article about "something". If you still want to pursue the point, please use the EL talk page. 2005 (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the mention of the Interwiki map should include the disclaimer that while such sites are "special" , inclusion of the links must meet all other EL standards for appropriateness. However, that really makes them nothing "special". --MASEM 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to be more clear, the addition implies links to these Wikis are acceptable. This is certainly not correct. A Wiki needs to meet the criteria for linking. For example, I do a lot of editing in the gambling area, and have removed links to pure spam-hell wikia.com wikis. Such links are obviously garbage, and can't just be added because they happen to be on the wikia.com domain. Some additional language presenting the value of the domains on the Interwiki map could be fine, but giving a blanket pass to spamcrap.wikia.com is not a good idea. 2005 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam is not tolerated on Wikia, and it's very easy to report it (they have a nifty "report a problem" tab). While underdeveloped, most of Wikia is not spam, and the appropriateness of linking to them is easily discussed on the talk page of the topic in question. My thinking was that if someone had an open wiki that met our criteria, they would also wish to request an entry on the map. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're entire argument seems to come down to "I hate Wikia". Wikia is only one part of the interwiki map, and we can make a special note about Wikia sites if need be. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd comment since it isn't even a part of the "argument". Just because something is on a wiki on the map is a silly "we should link to them" argument. This guideline deals with overall merit and reliability. Wikis by their nature are changeable. Spam not being tolerated on wikia is silly. Some wikia are setup to promote a specific website, and are not reliable or fair links that could ever merit a link. Some of course do. There is no blanket prohibition against wikis, and likewise there is no "you can link to any wiki you want on these domains" either. The guideline as previously written was sensible. What you have put on there now is okay with me, since it doesn't imply that any subdomain on those wikis merits a link. Any wiki anywhere still needs to add value as a link, and has to meet the general criteria of the guideline. 2005 (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what the exact problem is here... any Wikia site can be linked to via the master "wikia" link (example: wikia:godzilla:User:EVula). I only count a half-dozen or so Wikia sites that are specificially define on m:Interwiki map, so again, I'm a bit confused what the problem is... EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• With respect to "Every wiki listed in Meta:Interwiki map is discussed before being added. Inactive or dead wikis are removed, or simply not added in the first place" - this may be the hypothetical ideal situation, but in practice that is not true at all. Many wikis are added there for arbitrary reasons, or for no apparent reason, and an effort a few months ago to remove inactive or dead wikis was met with molasses. So simply put, the interwiki map is rather messy. >Radiant< 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bringing a little more attention to it is a great way to help with the cobwebs. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't to change our own criteria, and in fact I saw little to no conflict between the criteria on the meta page and on here. I wasn't even thinking about Wikia when I added the link, but I do agree that Wikia hosted wikis need individual evaluation and can't have blanket criteria. (though I do get annoyed at what seems to be Wikia-hate.) The point was that many people don't even know about the interwiki map, that wikis can be added, and that many are already there. In case anyone didn't notice, last night I had already changed the wording to this:

"# Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map."

So.. yeah. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bands (music)

Bands often have names that are unrelated to music. A case in point is Furlong. This band does not seem to meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (music), but an IP user keeps adding an external link in the Furlong article. So my question is, if a band does not have a Misplaced Pages article about it, and does not meet the notability criteria, should any kind of external link to the band be included in articles with titles similar to the name of the band? If so, how should the link be included? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. External links are supposed to be relevant to the article. Obviously, a link to a rock band has nothing to do with a measure of distance. The appropriate place to refer to the alternate use of the word, if any, is in a disambiguation page. By convention disambiguation pages mention, but do not link to, non-notable (but otherwise mentionable) usages of a term. Furlong has no disambiguation page so if (and only if) the band is notable and has its own article it would make sense to include an "other uses" mention in the article. The band does not, so this should drop. Wikidemo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on external wiki link

• Hiya. =) I've been reading Misplaced Pages for a long time, but am fairly new to editing so I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this. I'm discussing on the talk page for the article on the Heroes television show whether an external link to a dedicated Heroes wiki (heroeswiki.com) can be added. Some people are suggesting it violates WP:EL, but I'm not so sure that it does. I've read the policy a few times and the policy does contain some subjective criteria which depending on your perspective could apply or not. (For instance, what is a "substantial number of editors") I made a brief list of other articles we have on television shows that do have external links to dedicated wikis already and those, which are similar in size and purpose to the Heroes one, have apparently been allowed to remain. I was hoping to hear some comments from WP:EL experts whether it appears to actually violate the policy or not and if it does try to understand the reasons so that I understand the policy better. Thanks ahead of time! =) --Centish (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting situation. What's also interesting is to find that NBC also hosts an official wiki running Mediawiki software, which I thought was pretty cool. I haven't looked at heroeswiki.com in depth, but it does seem to have a fair amount of activity for an independent wiki. Too bad their content is under CC 3.0 noncommercial, which makes them incompatible with our own content. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw NBC's, too. From what I can tell they started their wiki a few months after the heroeswiki.com one, but based on the activity there it doesn't appear to be maintained whereas the heroeswiki.com one is very actively maintained. As for the CC license they're using, yeah, it's a little unfortunate however the Heroes articles we have here are pretty in-depth (or at least as in-depth as we can go given our encyclopedic requirements). Plus I don't think they'd count as a reliable source when it comes to citing their info within the body of an article anyway, so it probably doesn't make too much difference. Since they're not strictly an encyclopedia like we are, they can go into Heroes-specific detail we cannot such as places within the world of Heroes that are not notable enough for inclusion here. Anyway, I'm digressing. =) I have noticed on several occasions people who are fans of the show trying to add info to the Heroes article here, but the information gets rejected because what they're looking for is a site all about Heroes that is interested in the information. We have more strict requirements here. So I do see value in the external links we have to other wikis on some of our articles. Sorry about this digression, I hope it doesn't detract from my original request for comments on whether it passes WP:EL or not. --Centish (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the license unfortunate? The GFDL is not a great license for an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I think links to them should be fine except perhaps on actor biographies. A BLP is no place to link an open wiki, but a reasonably authoritative fan wiki should be benign, useful to the reader, and not possible to replicate here (since we're an encyclopedia/license incompatibilities). I think this is no different than Memory Alpha or This Might Be A Wiki, and others that are commonly linked. For what it's worth, I think the "substantial history of stability" is not usually the crucial distinction. The site looks like it has significant activity. Really, we ought to weigh the value of the content to readers against our encyclopedic purpose. Looks ok to me. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just meant unfortunate in terms of using their content here, but as I may have alluded to it's not unfortunate in any practical terms since, as you mentioned, there's no need to link to there for actor biographies since any information on those pages would be citable and thus could be included here (except perhaps in rare instances where they might have unique content though the interviews they perform, but even then as long as the license wouldn't come into play unless we were taking substantial portions word for word). In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that it's not inherently different than Memory Alpha or any number of other external wikis dedicated to a particular topic. (Centish (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

It's unfortunate because the specific CC license they use only allows for non-commercial use, meaning we can't transwiki articles to or from there. Many CC licenses are compatible with us, and, yes, are much better for a wiki than the GFDL. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the license has no bearing on if I think it should be linked or not, but rather was a side comment. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the word "noncommercial." Yeah, that is weird and unfortunate. Concluding side discussion... Cool Hand Luke 06:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Google's new knol project

It would be good to think about how to handle knol links before editors start adding them. I've started a discussion to get editors' opinions:

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#knol's implication for policies and guidelines

Your inputs there are welcome. --A. B. 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Blog Reviews

Hello. Please, I would like to get your opinion about insert links to book reviews in articles. This user has an Arthur C. Clarke fansite and linked almost every ACC article to it. I understand that links to blogs should be avoided, and I do not see any particular reason there should be an exception in this case. Please, what is your take?

Discussion Links:

--Legionarius (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither blog reviews nor professional / major publication reviews are appropriate. Among the reasons are that they are spammy (whether on purpose or not they tend to promote the reviewer and perhaps the thing reviewed); they tend to be less reliable and trustworthy than we would like; and perhaps most importantly the selection of any single review or small group of reviews among the entire universe of reviews is arbitrary. Either we become a link farm to reviews, something we are ill equipped to do or maintain (google does it better), or else we arbitrarily link to a few reviews, in which case it is sloppy and unencyclopedic.

The edits you refer to are clearly intentional WP:linkspam. The editor is admittedly promoting his own fansite. Even though he has good motivations and does not stand to benefit financially or personally, he is still promoting his own work at the cost of the impartiality of the encyclopedia. Sometimes the word "spam" turns people off because they don't think they're doing anything wrong. I'll leave a note on his talk page and revert the links. One hopes it won't come to this but if he revert wars further over them, successive warnings are in order and then an administrator would likely block him from editing for a while to encourage him to read up on the policies and guidelines.Wikidemo (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to Blogs

Hi to all. I am new to this so don't bite me!

There is an issue about external links that point to blogs. While linking to personal blogs is 'normally to be avoided' to which I agree there is a case which has been controversial. There is this article of Misplaced Pages about the block or book stacking problem and there is this blog entry that refers directly to the relevant mathematical theory.

To make my points succinct, this blog does not have any other feature of the 'normally avoided' external links. For example, it does not have advertisements. Also it seems to have quality content, but the author did not publish it to Misplaced Pages. His results seem to contradict both Misplaced Pages's and Mathworld's results. The information in the site is in my opinion, 'neutral and accurate' enough for Misplaced Pages's standards. Since it has too much of mathematics it seems not appropriate to have it posted in Misplaced Pages. So it might well be a relevant link.

I would hope for your opinion.

Magicheader (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but the author is not "a recognized authority." It's definitely a link worth discussing on the article talk page as something to be watched. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to map services

Misplaced Pages currently has around 300,000 articles with geographical coordinates, which all link to a Misplaced Pages edited list of map services available for those locations. In addition, Misplaced Pages articles have 18,000 external links to specific map services. These numbers are big enough to have a guideline on what kind of external links location related topics should have.

I assume most of the external map service links are trying to give readers a helpful way to see where the location is. Such links don't however give any information of the location on their own, they're printable only to tell that the online link may have useful information, and they make Misplaced Pages articles dependent on external services. This is not the case with coordinates, which are general information usable anywhere. Discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates may provide further information.

The Misplaced Pages page the coordinates link to, Template:GeoTemplate, links to over 100 different map services. In addition, next to all coordinates is a link to an entirely free Wikimedia map service. Should Misplaced Pages articles then have additional links to any external map services? This is also related to the recent guideline change from "Links should be kept to a minimum" to "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful". In light of WP:USEFUL, the change might be a problem. --Para (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I haven't thought about this much and I'm no expert in mapping services. But for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps (though a special link, or free map on the page might be appropriate if there is some special reason why the geo template is inadequate and that particular map has to be used). Ideally they could set something up in their browser or wikipedia cookie to indicate a preference of one service or another, which could be launched directly from the template as it displays on the page, but that's getting fancy. (all just my opinion, of course) Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)