"WP:ELN" redirects here. For links normally to be avoided, see WP:ELNO. | General | | | | Content | | | | User issues | | | | Noticeboards | | |  | Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place: | This board functions as a place to obtain a consensus for local disputes or questions involving external links. Editors may post questions here about whether individual external links or sections of article content are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links and editors interested in issues regarding external links may give their opinions on the matter. This board is not intended for generalised discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. For ease of use, finished discussions may be tagged with {{resolved}}. Please abide by our civility policy and, to facilitate clear discussion, keep messages short and to the point. You are more likely to get a helpful response if you provide convenient links to the article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
I am disputing the addition of an EL here. This is a page on an international company and links to the websites of specific outlets seems contrary to policy. If editors here consider that the link is fine that's fine and I'll leave it. However, if it is thought to be inappropriate then I should welcome someone else removing it since I have now removed it twice which is my limit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) - Strong Keep - Significant to the article. section Fiat Marylebone. A useful and relevant EL to the official website. G87 22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a keep/delete !vote; it is a discussion on the application of policy. Far from being 'useful and relevant' it is actually spam. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's actually the official website of Fiat Marylebone, which is part of Fiat Automobiles. And I think you'll find that it does not violate WP:EL policy as it relates to main part of the article. Not spam and very relevant. G87 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider it spam, since it is an "official link" to a Fiat website. However, it is still not an appropriate link. The main Fiat website (fiat.com) is already linked, and the fiat.co.uk site can be easily reached by selecting the UK in the "Choose a Country" box prominently displayed in the middle of the main site's homepage. Per the guidelines, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." --RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the guideline above, the link should remain as it is not prominently linked from the other external sites. The Fiat Marylebone website is not easily reached by either two of those links. Content is also unique to Fiat Marylebone. G87 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Links to specific outlets shouldn't be in an article of a general automobile. See WP:ELNO points 13 and 14. ThemFromSpace 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of links. If the website is important, it will be on the main Fiat website, which is in the article. Even if it weren't, it is not Wikipedia's role to provide a helpful link to every significant commercial outlet. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree too. Linking to the main Fiat website is sufficient; no need to link to individual dealers, "flagship" or otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Links to OpenStreetMap relations Would a link like [1] in New York State Route 9A be a good external link? If so, how would it be formatted? --NE2 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - I think that would be acceptable. I typically discourage maps in ELs of specific locatsions, since the geocoordinates at the top of the page link to maps, but a highway is a different story. I'd format it something like
- ThemFromSpace 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Global museum on communism Should the article Mass killings under communist regimes provide an external link to the Global museum on communism?[2] It is not cited in the article and appears to be not neutral. The chairman, Lee Edwards is a historian at the Heritage Foundation and the board appear to all have links to the American Right.[3] There are no independent reviews of the site and the museum does not have a professional curator. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The link at issue is Global Museum on Communism from Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation which is chartered by the Congress of the United States and whose charter was signed by President Clinton. It is a non-profit organization. I, in fact, have found absolutely zero references in WP that having or not having a "professional curator" meant anything at all. I did, however, suggest that this is the proper noticeboard. My own feeling was that the person marked the external link as POV, and I suggested he find external links to add himself if the issue is actually POV. Also pertinent is the AfD for the foundation wherein one editor accused it of being a "commerical venture" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_Foundation Collect (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Noting also that "external links" per WP:EL should not be directly cited in the article. Collect (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Collect, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with using an external link as a proper WP:CITE. Wikipedia accepts websites as reliable sources. EL bans only making them clickable in the text as nonreferences, like "Apple, Inc said today..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Why would it be relevant there? Shouldn't it be in Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation? --NE2 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The organization has information concerning killings under Communist regimes. It is a direct cite for the organization article, an external link here. Collect (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- My search on
mass killing at the website in question produced nothing. If there's a page at this website that specifically provides information about mass killings under communist regimes (i.e., the actual subject of this Wikipedia article), then the specific page can be linked. - The website itself (i.e., its main page) is, however, essentially irrelevant: The article is not about the Global Museum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- [4] refers to "mass murderers" which does rather imply "mass killings" -- so, yes, the site is relevant. Also the term "victims" does have some connotations as well, no? The mission statement says
-
Our foundation works to honor the more than one hundred million victims of communist regimes while educating the public about communism’s crimes against humanity and the heroes who successfully resisted it. -
-
-
-
It is a great moral failing that so many do not know the extent of Communism's atrocities. While the horrors of Nazism are well known, who knows that the Soviet Union murdered 20 million people? Who knows that China's dictators have slaughtered as many as 60 million? Who knows that the Communist holocaust has exacted a death toll surpassing that of all of the wars of the 20th century combined? -
-
- Per WP:EL where more than one page on a site is relevant, it is proper to link to the main site and not to each page as an EL. Collect (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Collect, as far as I can tell, there isn't even one page on that site that talks in any detail about mass killings. A keyword search on "mass" produces essentially zero hits. It's entirely possible for an enormous organization to kill millions of people individually.
- Yes: The website says that lots of people were killed.
- No: readers clicking on that website will not learn anything about (specifically!) mass killings in communist regimes.
- Consider this: Red Terror gets no hits. Russian Orthodox gets no hits. Great Purge gets no hits. Great Leap Forward gets no hits. What makes you think that a website that can't even be bothered to name a single one of these infamous mass killings and their victims is somehow "about" these mass killings within the meaning of this guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- IOW, the fact it refers to millions being killed does not mean any "mass killings" occurred, Simple. Collect (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that about sums it up. For example, Cholera kills millions, but death from cholera doesn't qualify as a mass killing.
- A site needs to provide information that is obviously on the precise topic of the article. This website might be appropriate for an "evil communist leaders" article (because the majority of the content is about the crimes and sins perpetrated by individual leaders), but not for mass killings. The fact that nobody has been able to find link to even one page specifically about any of the mass killings named in the Wikipedia article is strong evidence that the subject of the website is different from the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There's currently an argument between several editors, myself among them, over the external links in this article. Many of them resemble fan sites, such as Twitter, Myspace, Yahoo and the like. As such, I don't feel they belong here. User:Purplehayes2006 but he has made some viable points when I discussed the links with him on his talk page, but I still am hesitant to accept the links. Can some uninvolved editors look this one over and give their feedback? Thanks ThemFromSpace 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - I agree with the removal. We don't link to every initiative a person is involved in. --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. The key is officialness. Btw, the MySpace and Twitter are not fan sites. Those are her personal and official MySpace and Twitter. The Yahoo Group is her official fan site, it is that way since 2002, and she is a moderator and posts on there. If no one minds, I'm gonna re-post here my thoughts. As the title of the section (and this was already discussed on Jenna Haze talk page in the past...) says, links to MySpace, Twitter and Yahoo are normally links to be avoided. Their inclusion are not prohibited though. They can be used under certain conditions. Officialness is the key. People can have more than one official site as it is explained on guidelines for external links. Those are her official MySpace and Twitter, and there is proof of it as stated on the article talk page. And they meet the "Official links" conditions. As noted on Jenna Haze talk page, that Yahoo Group is her Official Fan Club. It is that way since 2002. Don't look at the word "fan". I mean, she posts there and moderates the group. It is an official page of hers. I also read on the guidelines: "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate." and "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.". Those official sites provide unique info about the subject of the article that can't be find or hardly can be find in any other site, and there is no link to any of them on her main official website. The MySpace and the Yahoo Group Official Fan Site links were long discussed in the past on Jenna Haze talk page and moderated and finished by an Admin, keeping both links. I would suggest to read the previous discussion on Jenna Haze talk page. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the general rule is that if they are prominantly linked from the 'main' official page, then they don't need to be in the ELs. I haven't looked in this case, but it's something to consider. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the question is.. How many official sites can a person have? There should be only 1 'official' site, not 3 or 4, the others obviously can't be that official. Things would get slightly out of hand if every notable bio article had all their 'official' sites listed: official fan club site, official social network site, official pic site, blog site, etc. etc. Just pick one already! :) -- Ϫ 07:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The idea of multiple official sites has been discussed at WT:EL before, and there is not agreement that there can be only one such site. If she has an official (for example) MySpace that is not linked from her regular website or vice-versa, and both are clearly official sites, then it is OK to link both. There is consensus that the number of links should be kept to a reasonable low number, so if she's got a dozen then it needs to be culled a bit, but three or four is not going to turn her article into a linkfarm. I only looked at her main homepage briefly, but there was no obvious indication of links to MySpace or Yahoo. (I didn't look for those to see if they link back to the main site.) Assuming her sites are not interlinked, perhaps this would be a good case to use the {{Web presence}} template that was created a while back for use when subjects have multiple sites? --RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:ELOFFICIAL specifically permits more than one official link when reasonable. For example, during the 2008 US presidential campaign, nobody thought it appropriate to restrict Barack Obama to either his official senate website or his official campaign website. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive web directory, but it's not necessary to impose mindless or arbitrary limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks for the clarification on that, I haven't really followed WT:EL much and wasn't aware of prior discussions. I still think only one 'official' site should be enough, but I do like that {{Web presence}} template.. that would seem to be the ideal solution for these situations. -- Ϫ 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NWS-current {{NWS-current}} is a template used to link to specific national weather service pages from hundreds of airport articles. My initial impression is that these links are off-topic and contrary to WP:ELNO#13. City articles almost never link to this type of page, but instead include the information within the article under a climate section. What are other thoughts on this template? ✤ JonHarder talk 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC) - It's not the only link to an external weather source. There is a Canadian one as well, {{Can-arpt-wx}}. While I'm not sure about the NOAA link there was a good reason to create the Canadian one. At the time there were multiple attempts to add external links to sites that provided weather and other aviation related information. In these cases the sites were not things like Weather Channel but to sites targeted to the aviation industry, mainly general aviation. Having seen how badly some sites are when producing weather I thought that it would be better to link directly to the source of the weather reports. While I think it would be best not to have the templates it is a lot better than having multiple people linking to their own sites and Wikipedia editors spending time removing spam. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it's pretty much a clear violation of WP:ELNO #13, but I suspect that removing all of them would be either painful or ineffective. I suggest slowly removing links (e.g., a few per day, not hundreds per day, so that other editors will have an opportunity to express their views), with a clear explanation that points to ELNO #13, and scrupulously refusing to revert anyone who restores it to a given article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- There are about 250 or so of the Can-arpt-wx links. The Airports/page content guideline cautiously endorses the use of weather links. Perhaps the appropriate course of action is to change that guideline (I'll start the discussion there) and, depending on the outcome of that discussion, look at deleting these two templates. ✤ JonHarder talk 15:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Datamix There is a user out there who keeps inserting an external link to [http ://sites.google.com/site/datemix/ this "blank?" site]. Here are a few of the edits which inserted a link to the site: The user appears to have created multiple accounts (since they are all inserting the same link): There may be others. Is there anyway to determine which pages link to this site? I'm not sure what should be done about it. Jwesley78 14:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC) - Here's another user that appear to be adding the same link: Carlode Jwesley78 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- You can see what pages have links to this site by looking here. There are only a few at this moment, but it is such an obviously unhelpful link that I wouldn't expect it to stay on pages for long. There are even more accounts involved. I'm going to open a thread about this at WP:ANI, because this appears to be a relatively sophisticated operation, and the lack of any obvious commercial purpose to the spamming leads me to wonder if there is some other ulterior motive, such as attempting to spread malware. --RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- ANI thread opened here. Recommended the link for blacklisting here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks, Jwesley, for noticing this problematic site. I have some hopes of it winning a spot on the meta-wide blacklist (in which case, we may have to insert a few spaces into the link above so that this page won't be 'advertising' it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Its been blacklisted localy, however based on the scale of the spam effort and mass sock accounts, I would expect this may return under another URL or sites.google.com name. Probably best to watchlist the most frequently spam-targeted articles for the next week or so. If any variation of this returns just report it and it'll be blacklisted on site. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Meodatz It appears that the "datemix" user is back, but using a different blank web site. Luckily, Theresa has protected the pages which appear most often affected. I'm still curious about what his motivation might be for inserting these links. Currently no pages link to that site (except, I assume, this page). I'm also curious if there are other similar links being put in other articles that are currently not being detected. Jwesley78 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC) - There's already a ANI thread about it.Jwesley78 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Blacklisted this one also;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
|
