Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 14 December 2013

Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed. Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide. Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:ELN WP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Bank Accounts

Links have been added repeatedly to International Bank Account Number and Sort Code. The links are to different versions of a site that now offers to take local bank details and provide the IBAN that would be used as the destination code for an international transfer of funds to that account. The sites do not claim to be provided by any bank or banking body and the additions are by a site owner - who has discussed it at Talk:International Bank Account Number - so they may fail WP:ELNO and WP:COI. But worse, I see no way to verify the accuracy or bona fides of the sites. Such a site could be used to harvest bank details, but worse it could provide an incorrect IBAN so that funds would not go to the intended account. I and another editor have tried to remove the links at the first article but they have been re-added and updated. I have just now discovered the links at the second article and wonder if there may be more in other articles. I don't know WP policy and practice well enough. Should the editor be persuaded not to add the links? Would a preventative blacklisting of www.iban.net, www.reverseiban.com and www.sortcodes.co.uk be appropriate? NebY (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes why not remove all external links? we buy www.iban.net because of this change www.reverseiban.com to www.iban.net!

Why not remove other links? in http://en.wikipedia.org/International_Bank_Account_Number IBAN page

ecbs.org (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards)???

why not remove http://en.wikipedia.org/Sort_code

"Bank Account Modulus Checking eSortcode from esortcode.com??? Up to date Bank Sort Codes from SortingCodes.co.uk??? Weekly sort code directory updates available from unifiedsoftware.co.uk" ???

that also make 100 post of links in wiki like also http://en.wikipedia.org/Bank_code

I've now examined and removed many other links you mentioned. They are indeed from other vendors and non-notable sites of uncertain purpose and reliability. But please note, finding other breaches of Misplaced Pages policy doesn't excuse or justify making similar insertions yourself. Quite the opposite; if you're here to improve the encyclopedia, you work to remove them too. WP:OSE goes into further detail about this principle. But most of all, Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to advertise your services - see WP:NOTADVERTISING. NebY (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for which I have a legitimate reason that it meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on external links

In the external links for Thomas D. Barr, there is a blacklisted link to Computer Business Review. Per the fact that this link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic which might be useful towards expanding this short article, please white-list it. I'll just point out for the benefit of those who might think that a spammer planted this link that this link is in the original edit of this article, so was placed there by its author. Thank you, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You may get a faster response by posting a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I posted here because of the note at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards. The procedure for posting a request here is a bit simpler. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:JoeWiki

There have been two deletion discussions about the template {{JoeWiki}}. The first one was closed as "keep", and the second one closed as "no consensus". However, editor Nikkimaria, who was the only opposition to keeping the template in the second discussion, has been removing it from all G.I. Joe articles anyway, citing WP:ELNO. I have discussed this with Nikkimaria and the closer of the discussion, but since there was no consensus to delete the template, it feels to me like she is editing Misplaced Pages to make a point. If the template was chosen to remain, then shouldn't it remain on all the articles that use that template? Is there any precedent for me to re-add the template to those articles? Fortdj33 (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, the mere existence of such a template does not mean that it is appropriate for use on the articles on which it was included. Compare for example the more general template {{wikia}}: it too was kept at a deletion discussion, and yet it is completely appropriate to remove it where the link it produces violates WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking template (promoting an external site), and there would need to be a good reason to use it. Misplaced Pages is a strange place, and bad things may be kept because they might be useful, but a good case would need to be made for such a use. It would help to post links to a couple of articles where it is proposed that the template be used. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

User:Srich32977 is inserting the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism as a further reading in a lot of articles that are not really related to libertarianism at all, and many of which already have better coverage of the topic than the article in the encyclopedia - for example Human sexuality, Michel Foucault, BArtolome de las Casas, Salamanca school, Social Darwinism. This looks a lot like promotion or spam to me. As far as I know the further reading sections is for works that can provide indformation that is not already included in the article, or which is somehow of general relevance to the topic. I am checking here to see if people agree with me that this is not an appropriate use of the further reading section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like spam to me. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an External links Noticeboard issue. The Further reading items I am adding have a link to basic page for Google books , the ISBN, WorldCat number, and Library of Congress catalogue listing. The book is published by SAGE and the Cato Institute and is a good tertiary source. The particular articles are written by respected university professors and authors. Maunus seems to be saying "don't put that reference in because it is too specialized and has stuff that is somehow outside the topic of the article". But this sort of material, especially if it lets readers know more about a topic, that should go into a WP:FURTHER reading section. If there are objections to particular articles, they should be brought up on the individual article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is a good tertiary source for a specific topic then use it as a source. IN all the cases I have reviewed our articles contained more information than the corresponding encyclopedia article, which then does not lets the reader know more than they would be merely reading the wikipedia article. The question of the encyclopedias specialization is relevant because articles are focused on describing the relation between the topics and libertarianism - e.g. Bartolome de las Casas or Human Sexuality may be relevant to Libertarianism, but not necessarily the other way round. In any case inserting the same EL or further reading across many articles tends to be deprecated because it easily looks like promotion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't care to discuss the matter here, we can try WP:ANI. Spamming isn't looked upon kindly there either. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago I saw WP:WALL mentioned frequently in discussions involving Austrian economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. So I thought I'd try to expand the topic beyond the wall, and provide more links. This particular encyclopedia, it seems to me, helps in that regard. It has well written articles on a variety of subjects. My plan -- I thought I could simply post the reference in a gnomish pattern. And then the intention is to incorporate the material into articles with more relevance and usefulness. (The gnomish entries also helps keep myself busy rather than engaging in some other ongoing disputes.)

So I'm getting some grief at this stage. That's fine. I'll stop adding the article references and focus on incorporation. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is specific information in the encyclopedia that is not already in the article, then adding that information using the encyclopedia as a source should be fine. I think that probably the encyclopedia might be able to provide some additional information about the relevance of topic X to libertarianism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is something directly relevant then, yes, mention it in the body of the article. As a FR/EL item, it seems often to be tangential in the extreme. Are we going to link to similar compendia concerning other philosophies - utopianism, socialism, ism-ism? Where do we draw the line, given that no topic exists in a vacuum/everything is somehow connected to other things, especially so in the case of overarching theories of thought. Libertarianism's relationship to these subjects is just one of many possibilities and would best be dealt with in articles relating to libertarianism itself. Surely we don't want to spread the battleground that is libertarianism on Misplaced Pages to what could well be a huge number of vaguely-connected other articles that we host: we're not here to promote that concept or indeed any other. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Playboy Wiki as an external link in Playmate Lists

NOTE: This is a continuation of a discussion at RS/N, since this is a more appropriate noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been adding external links to the Playboy Wiki for the past year and a half, one per Playmate in Misplaced Pages's Lists of Playboy Playmates. These links have been replacing previous external links to Playboy.com, which are often broken. Updated links to Playboy.com and all other relevant Playboy sites are incorporated in the Playboy Wiki links. Just within the past week, beginning Dec 7, 2013 Nikkimaria has been deleting these links, citing WP:BLPEL. When asked about the deletions, she claimed that the site was not a "recognized authority", stating that while it "might satisfy the ordinary provisions of WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL has more stringent requirements". Another editor then began a thread at RS/N#Playboy_Wiki in order to discuss Playboy Wiki's status as a reliable source. I made what I think is a comprehensive case for Playboy Wiki's "official" standing and reliability, and answered other questions raised there. However, at least two participants including Nikkimaria thought that "Reliable Sources" was the wrong venue for the discussion and suggested this one instead.

Since that discussion began, Nikkimaria has accelerated attempts to find and delete more Playboy Wiki links, denying my objections regarding "due process" by citing WP:BLP and WP:ELBURDEN. I cannot match such command of the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages, so I can only hope for a fair hearing here in what she cited as a "correct venue".

Here is my case:

(A) The Playboy Wiki external links are on Misplaced Pages's Lists of Playboy Playmates. The primary "subject" of such lists is, I submit, which Playmates were chosen by Playboy in a given year. It is not exactly a stretch to say that "Playboy" is the subject of the list at least as much and probably more so than the individual Playmates who appear on it. Nikkimaria, however, chooses to interpret each entry on it as "biography of a living person" and so to apply whatever "higher standards" she is trying to apply. Never mind that not all Playmates, unfortunately, are "living persons"—and I might concede to such standards on a page dedicated exclusively to an individual Playmate living or not—although even there I don't believe that a Playboy link would be inappropriate. But to emphasize WP:BLP standards on the List of Playmates page itself is I believe inappropriate, especially if used as a reason to exclude an otherwise appropriate link. WP:ELNO specifically cites an exception in the case of "an official page of the article's subject". Playboy is a subject of articles entitled "List of Playboy Playmates". Playboy is properly entitled to external links regarding Playmates on such a list.

(B) The status of Playboy Wiki as an "official" site of Playboy was then challenged. The main objection was that it is a wiki and so allows users to edit it. Some therefore try to dismiss it as a "fansite" and to disqualify it on that basis alone. They are aided in this by the Playboy Wiki "Organizers" own modest self-description on their home page as "fans". I would note that another regularly accepted external link in the Playmate Lists is IMDb. I think that is proper, even though IMDb too allows user editing. In the case of the Playboy Wiki, I have exhaustively described its relationship to the rest of Playboy at RS/N#Playboy_Wiki, in my first entry, (1) (A) (B) (C) and (2) (A) (B) (C). Let me summarize here by stating that although unpaid volunteers did the work in creating the Playboy Wiki, it was directly authorized and set up by Playboy itself, with the express purpose (and result) of providing a resource that was beyond the ability of paid staff to provide at that time. Its original editors were not members of the general public, nor were they "fanboys" intent on saying how much they liked Playboy. They were longtime members of the Playboy Forums who had proven their competence in the eyes of the administrators of Playboy's Cyber Club and its Forums, and they were entrusted to produce the directories that are now the heart of the Playboy Wiki. It is used as a reference by paid staff at other Playboy sites. Other Playboy sites link to Playboy Wiki. The Playboy Wiki is an integral part of Playboy's online presence, © by Playboy.com, its domain registered and annually renewed by Playboy Enterprises, International, and its Wikispaces account was set up by paid Playboy administrators. Paid administrators of PEI or, subsequently, Playboy Plus Entertainment/Playboy.com have always been among the "Organizers" of the Playboy Wiki, including its "Organizer and Creator". All this is referenced and documented in RS/N#Playboy_Wiki as cited above. Playboy Wiki is subject directly to Playboy for its authority and accuracy. Playboy's legal department occasionally sends requests of one kind or other. All entries at Playboy Wiki are either written by or at least reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness, by one or more "Organizers". Who is to tell Playboy what resources it can or cannot use to produce something they deem "official"—whether paid staff or competent volunteers? Can a test of "officialness" or "authoritativeness" really be reduced to the question of whether or not Playboy pays all of its Wiki "Organizers" at least a nominal $1 a year?

(C) WP:ELNO #1 suggests that an external link should provide a "unique resource": The subject of the Playmate Lists is "Who did Playboy select as Playmates that year?". That is "who" and "when". A Playboy link, and none more so than the Playboy Wiki, also tells "where" they can be found as Playmates. The relevancy should be self-evident, as is the fact that this is supplemental information not found directly on the Playmate List pages. If it were, it would have to cite Playboy Wiki as a reference, because it is the only Playboy site to detail all the places a Playmate or any other Playboy model can be found among Playboy's other official sites (Playboy.com, Playboy Plus, Playboy TV, the Cyber Club, Playboy Girls Network, and even the old Special Editions Club).

(D) In case anyone agrees with Nikkimaria that WP:BLP standards should apply: Even if considered to be in a section that is a "biography of a living person", which I maintain Playmate Lists are _not_, Playboy Wiki does not attempt to make any biographical claims. Its editors do not report on whom a Playmate is dating or has married or divorced, nor even whether or when certain Playmates have passed on. It reports only on things that are relevant to their status _as Playmates_ and published in Playboy magazine or on its other websites. That is, where and when they appeared in Playboy pictorials or videos. If Playboy Wiki provides links to any other biographical info, it is only in the form of links to content on other Playboy sites. Even Nikkimaria, who leaves Playboy.com links alone, seems to accept them within the scope of WP:BLP standards.

Nikkimaria seems to accept (A) above, as she is not deleting Playboy.com links. She is accepting IMDb as an exception regarding what she would call "fansites" because she is also leaving those links alone. She seems intent only on deleting Playboy Wiki links. But as established in (B) above, Playboy Wiki should be recognized as a perfectly suitable replacement for Playboy.com external links. It should actually be preferred, because the Playboy.com links usually do little more than show a handful of pictures and say "Go join the paysite." Playboy Wiki provides a much more comprehensive overview of each Playmate's online coverage before anyone is required to pay to see more. Wikilister (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor mentioned has been notified User_talk:Nikkimaria#Discussion_about_Playboy_Wiki_at_WP:ELN

I also posted a notice in the RS/N discussion, where others had suggested it belonged here instead. Wikilister (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(A): all of the links being removed are to articles on individual people (not collectives). While it is true that not all people on these lists may be living, all of the links removed are on living people (or in one case recently deceased), so WP:BLPEL is the appropriate policy to apply.

(B): Playboy Wiki is a fansite, not an official site; ""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (WP:ELOFFICIAL, my emphasis). That there are other links that may need removal is true but not relevant). In particular, I've already explained my reasoning regarding IMDb.

(C) is not relevant - while the site may or may not meet point 1 of ELNO, WP:BLPEL's more stringent standards are not met

(D): Again, biographies in a list are still biographies; again, what other sites may or may not meet our standards is not relevant to the question of whether this one does; and again, "Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs".

I count three people (not including me) at the RSN discussion telling you these links do not meet our standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I commented there noncommittally: I hadn't yet seen examples of the links that are under discussion. I still haven't: the list pages I happen to have tried don't have them. The difficulty, then, in commenting, is that the layout of playboy wiki is also a bit strange and I don't find it easy to sample (from our family living room) what I would get from one of the links that Wikilister wants to make and Nikkimaria wants to remove. Ah well.

Considered as Misplaced Pages list pages, the format of these is unfamiliar to me: they seem normally to consist of twelve biographies. Is that right? OK, so the consensus must be that these ladies are 1/12 notable enough for a whole Misplaced Pages biography. Still, since most of them are living, these little biographies are subject to BLP. If playboy wiki is an open wiki, I would definitely avoid making an external link to it on a BLP because anyone might add to it stuff that we shouldn't be linking to. Even if Playboy controls its content (and just happens to use the wiki format as a structure) I would still hesitate, and probably decide against, because as far as the subjects are concerned this is not their official website or controlled by them. That's the most I can say. Don't know if it's any help. Andrew Dalby 10:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the links in question are completely valid and appropriate for Misplaced Pages, plus any non-involved user/editor can see that they in many cases provide better options with more comprehensive, complimentary information than the corresponding (often broken) links to playboy.com and I'm at a total loss to see why Nikkimaria wants to remove them and wonder what's really going on here? These external links are clearly very valuable to the subjects at hand and it's very clear based on the information provided by Wikilister that they are ultimately referring to sources under the official over-arching control of corporate playboy and the search for Misplaced Pages criteria to apply to justify removing them strikes me as being a bit dubious, as first the complaint was that they violated copyright but now it's that under WP:BLPEL they fail. I do not agree with this claim and strongly oppose the attempt to delete these links and think continuing to do so is inappropriate. Azx2 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

These links are completely appropriate. The wiki is authorized and supervised by Playboy and provides content directly relevant to the subject but not available to Misplaced Pages. --NeilN 19:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution