 | DO NOT ask about specific external links here!
Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link. | 
Archives | 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 Sorted by subject: - Archive index
- Workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite.
- YouTube, 2, 3
| | |
[edit] Link to films on Internet Archive that are PD in US but not elsewhere (Things to Come and others) - Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Link_to_films_on_Internet_Archive_that_are_PD_in_US_but_not_elsewhere_(Things_to_Come_and_others)
which states: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
FIRST:I understand wanting to make articles good enough that they don't need external sources.
HOWEVER: Most of the articles in Wikipedia will -never- become Feature articles. (Isn't that clear yet?) Many, many of them need a LOT of improvement. External links that are substantial (but not 'beyond' Feature quality) can be very helpful to improving articles. I suspect a lot of editors add xlinks in hopes of helping future editors. I know I do.
SO: I think that this stipulation is too strong and discourages middlin-good external links. Maybe adding a template to discourage more/most XLinks makes sense once an article is 'B'-class or 'GA', BUT some editors go overboard and add a {{External links}} template to articles that really need the help. Maybe it'd be better to use the time to search for and substitute a better x-link for one that's been found wanting. (No mail on the subject please; just leaving a thought.) Twang (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - This has been discussed before, and the decision is always to retain the item. I have found it particularly useful for getting rid of links that provide distinctly less information than is already in a start-class article, e.g., some Canadian health org's "cool teen" (read: condescending) sexual health website, that says things like "So, what is syphilis anyway?"
- If you want to do more than express your opinion on this point, then you might like to both read the archives and consider the importance of WP:IAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, #1 could be shortened: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains."; the rest is done by the intro of 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.". --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - I support ELNO #1 as written. I think its one of the strongest provisions in the ELNO section and it helps keep the external links relevant to the purposes of the section, which is to link to material which expands outwards in ways that our articles cannot. ThemFromSpace 23:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand Dirk Beetstra's suggestion. The point of #1 is that the article might be weak now, but you still should not add external links that don't contain significant information additional to what the article should contain. For example, if the article is a WP:BLP, linking to a site which has nothing more than a few motherhood statements and a handful of obvious facts like "X was born in <place> on <date>", then the site is probably not suitable for an external link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant was, that if the article is a stub "A is a character", then an external link to a page which says "A is a character" is not a suitable external link. If the external document contains "A is the first character of the Alphabet", then it might be a suitable external link (though the intro clause '.. not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article' would preclude it, it can be used to expand the article. I understand that what it says now precludes also the second example, but the statement is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, if we know what the article would contain when it would be a featured article (or, lets say, a full fetched article) then we would know if it violates #1 .. but we don't know what would .. we know what information is there now, and if it would violate that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Dirk, I am sympathetic to your argument, but the other side is that putting pressure on ELs gets us more refs/proper article development.
- I do expect editors, especially when faced with a stub, to use their very best judgment and some WP:COMMONSENSE. ELNO isn't ELNEVER, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Nutshell The "nutshell" box reads "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.". Shouldn't it be "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." or am I missing something? Grim23★ 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - Yes, I think that is the intention. I've made the change; anyone should feel free to revert if I'm missing something. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? --PBS (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] not references I clarified two section to more firmly indicate that the restriction on language and paid sites do not apply to references. It was already on the page, but people who do not know this keep saying otherwise, so my intent was to make it more conspicuous. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Perhaps we should tag the <ref name=NotRef /> footnote on to each and every one of these statements, so it's easier to keep track of how many times we've said this when we moan about the inability of certain editors to read and retain more than one sentence. We make that statement in at least half a dozen places, including the sentence immediately before your first addition.
- It can't be helped, I suppose: I'd far rather have an annoyingly repetitive document that pounds this simple point through our thick skulls by main force than to have disputes prolonged because I keep assuming that everyone can remember WP:ELPOINTS #1 once they've moved on to the next sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I started to standardize the language of two of the sections because using consistent language might help drive the point home as well. They now start with "Outside of citations,<ref name=NotRef />". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk)
-
-
- The ref was lost in intervening edits. I assume that was an oversight and I have restored it. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia prefers linking to its own content In the process of link cleanup, I regularly substitute external links with the equivalent article link, moving it up to the "See also" section. This practice recently came under scrutiny at ANI. My reasoning, as adapted from an ANI post is as follows:[1] - With respect to converting external links to internal links, I do this on the basis that Wikipedia should give preference and priority to its own content. This is implied with the standard order of appendices: See also, Notes, References, then External links—these give preference to other articles, then verification of the current article, and last and least, content on other websites. Preference for Wikipedia's own content is corroborated by the prohibition of most external links to an organization's main page embedded in the main body of an article (see WP:CITE). I believe an article is improved when a link can be taken out of the "External links" and substituted with the equivalent article in the "See also" section. When that other article is correctly written, the reader can trivially find its associated web page if desired. As a corollary, I believe that if a link is not appropriate in the "See also" section, then neither should its equivalent be in "External links."
This principal was formerly stated in the lead of this this very guideline some time ago. It was removed, not because of any consensus that the principal was not valid, but simply because it appeared in the lead paragraph but was not spelled out in detail later in the article.[2] This principal of "Wikipedia first" is so basic and sensible, and so many articles are cluttered with links that have an equivalent internal article link, that it would be good to bring this back into the guideline. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - It must however be treated with common sense. If it involves the conversion of the external link http://en.wikipedia.org on the article Wikipedia to a "see also" item Wikipedia, then it is not correct. External links are there to lead to more information, so it may be difficult to do this in all cases. I do however agree that edits like this indeed would be preferred, as the external links that were replaced might actually fail WP:ELNO #13 (I would not know if they should be in the see also, though, sometimes they are superfluous in total; might I remark that this article needs external link pruning, this fails WP:NOT and WP:EL!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article Wikipedia links to the main page because it's common practice for official links to link to a site's main page. And per the guideline on self-references, it's an external link instead of an internal link to Main Page so that it will make sense even in the context of mirrors and forks. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have left a supportive comment at WP:ANI#Response.
- As for removing the org spam, ELNO #5 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website") may apply. ELNO #19 seems highly relevant: "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." The two orgs shown in the diff above aren't (yet) incorporated into the article, but they belong under Orthodox Judaism outreach#Outreach_organizations and should follow the same rules as the three orgs currently listed there. Nothing in this guideline can be construed as approving links to dozens of separate charities and religious organizations that reach out to Jewish people. If the link doesn't tell you something about the subject (e.g., details that aren't WP:DUE for inclusion in the article), then it doesn't belong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed guideline change I propose we include another criterion of links normally avoided to handle this case. I'll present a first pass at potential wording: - 20. Links to web pages that are the subject of an existing Wikipedia article. Instead, use the internal link within the article if it is appropriate, because Wikipedia gives priority to directing readers to its own content.
This is an important addition to the ELNO section for several reasons. The practice of linking to sites that have an equivalent article is widespread throughout our article space. Although there is some overlap among the existing criteria, this clearly and unambiguously identifies a whole class of links that up this point can weasel around the existing rules. Currently these types of links can be removed because it is such a common sense rule of thumb, and I believe it is important to document what is common sense to 95% of editors to help out the other 5%. This rule would also shine a light on links that appear to be appropriate, but are actually slightly off-topic. For example, language articles often become large and are broken into sub-articles such as "grammar," "verbs," "nouns," etc. yet the main article will contain long lists of links to articles on those specific topics. So, to repeat myself, this will help editors easily and unambiguously identify a class of links that appear widely but are redundant, while at the same time helping the project by encouraging a preference to our own content and further establish a "Wikipedia first" principle. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) -
- I still think that much of this is covered by #13 already. The subject of the page is not the organisation, it is something that the organisation stands for. These link-lists are hence totally inappropriate, and a WP:SPAMHOLE. We are not an internet directory for finding the organisations. Such sites could be 'listed' using wikilinks in the body of the text (e.g. under a heading 'organisations that "do this"'), the wiki-articles should do the rest. IMHO, the proposed #20 is therefore superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Jon, when you're mopping up this kind of spam, do opposing editors usually approach you out of confusion (e.g., they honestly thought that an uninformative link to the main page of ____ Charity's website was a good link for an article about _____), or out of defensiveness (e.g., they are determined to have their pet organization's link publicized on Wikipedia if at all possible)?
- If you're regularly getting hassled over this, then I'm in favor of ending the hassles. But I suspect that the people spamming the links are doing so out of either ignorance of or indifference to WP:NOTLINKS, and that no addition here is going to make them more familiar with, or more committed to, Wikipedia's voluminous standards.
- If editors usually go along with the deletion (after a short explanation, in some instances), then we don't need to bother with writing this down. It would suggest that such an addition to this guideline might be WP:CREEPy (specifically the "nobody reads the directions" clause).
- I occasionally do a bit of anti-spam work, and my usual protocol is to simply delete inappropriate from a dozen articles, and let them go unwatched. Generally, only one or two will get reverted, and I leave them alone (unless/until I run across it another day anyway). It takes so long to argue with people -- even if there's a firm rule that explicitly rejects the link in question -- that I decided to skip most of the arguments. I can remove a dozen inappropriate links in the length of time it takes to explain a single, simple rule to a single editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There used to be text that said internal links were preferable to external links, even if they are red links. But that has been gone a long time. The above sentence is micromanaging though because, first, external links should not be used in the body of the article. That concept is already in the guideline, but could and should be even stronger. The articles that violate this principal the most, and the most obtusely, are list articles. List articles should only link internally to the article about the entity. If an entity is not notable enough to have an article, then it isn't notable enough to be on list. Simple. So again, if there are no rogue external links in an article, it is impossible to have this issue come into play. We need a simple guideline. There is no problem here is external links are never in the body of an article, and external links in the external links section are only directly on the topic of the article. The guideline already says these concepts but in a too mealy-mouthed way. 2005 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Some clarifications. This is primarily about links in an "External links" section. It isn't so much about spam (intentional promotion of a site), but about links that are not appropriate because we already have an article covering that topic. I don't get a lot of complaints about this or any other aspect of my editing, but I do like to have a solid reason and a principle or guideline to point to.
-
- Beetstra is correct in saying that this is essentially covered by #13, particularly the part that says "a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." There is a subtle problem that arises and I run into it a lot. Take for example an early version of an article on Minnesota. It would rightly link to the very best external site about Fort Snelling. Later "History of Minnesota" is created, and now that link is more properly in the latter article. And finally a "Fort Snelling" article is created and now think link properly belongs there and not in either of the others. In this hypothetical instance, the link is very much appropriate in each case, until a more specific article is created. In a similar vein, the "Chinese language" article would have links to the very best site about grammar and site about Chinese characters, but now that articles on those topics have been created, the links are properly in the more specific article. The difference between a "specific subject" and "general subject" in the current #13 is, well, somewhat subjective. In a very real sense, by the existence of an article on a more specific subject, Wikipedia helps determine where that line can be drawn.
-
- Another area where this will be helpful is by giving cleanup editors a concrete rule of thumb that is fairly easy to apply. I attempt to clean up articles on topics that I don't always understand well enough to know when a link is too specific. But I can look at alquranacademy.com for example and see that it is appropriate in Quran Academy but not the other articles it is in. (This might be a bad example, as it may not even belong in that article, but you get the idea: one can clean up articles you don't fully understand because you know a more specific article already exists).
-
- I would like to see something added to the guideline along these lines, because it shines a light on a fairly widespread issue in a way that is more clear than anything we presently have. Perhaps as a new line item as I have suggested or as a clarification and sharpening of ELNO#13. Is there a way to get there from here? ✤ JonHarder talk 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- User:2005, would you reduce List of ibuprofen brand names to two items? The fact that there are many brand names (and resulting confusion and risk of unintentional overdose) is discussed in multiple reliable sources. Would you recommend that the Featured List List of English words containing Q not followed by U be turned into an incomplete list until someone figures out a way to justify the last handful of words under WP:N? What about List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures)? It's a featured list, and almost nothing under #Treasures has an article about the specific sculpture. It looks like there are articles on the subjects of most of the sculptures, but it'd be like linking to David instead of to David (Michelangelo).
- I think that your idea about removing any item from a list that doesn't have a separate Wikipedia about it is untenable. It also contradicts WP:N's basic rule: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."
- Jon, the "way to get there from here" is to convince editors that you can't do this valuable work without adding this line (or a similar one) to this guideline. My mind's open, but I'm currently at "* Weak oppose". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- List of ibuprofen brand names has two wiki links to Advil and Nurofen, and no external links. Please state more clearly what you think is wrong with that. The same with the other examples. Neither has external links in the body of the article, why is that bad? (And why did you mention the Notability guideline, since I just restated that concept you repeated.) 2005 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I see my comments were not clear above. I didn't mean remove the non-notable item from the list. I meant to not have external links to the non-notable items. Aside from the random linking of countries, List of ibuprofen brand names is how lists should be done... internal links to those things with articles, and zero external links. 2005 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly agree 100% with that. I was going to call you out on your comments above too, as it DOES imply that "only items with articles should be in a list", which is just crazy, though I'm pretty sure I've seen people say that very thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused as to what sites this would directly prohibit that aren't already covered in our other points, particularly ELNO point 13. Can anyone give some examples of where this would be used to a greater effectiveness than our other points? ThemFromSpace 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- The new rule will identify a class of external links that are too specific for a given article and that are ambiguous by the current rules. Here are a couple of examples of how I applied the principle recently. A link to an impressive sounding article by the American Association of Feline Practitioners about cat behavior was removed from Cat because there is a more specific article, Cat behavior where it would be more appropriate.[3] Currently there is disagreement at Outward Bound whether a link to the official site of Outward Bound USA belongs in that article (I don't think it does). Although this case might fall under ELNO#19, a new rule based on article existence would help draw the line. Other examples are in my post several paragraphs above, starting with the paragraph beginning "Beetstra is correct…" ✤ JonHarder talk 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Summary To close this off, I'll summarize what I see as the result of the discussion: - There is no consensus for adding the proposed change because it is adequately covered by existing guidelines, particularly ELNO#13.
- The principle of not using an external link when an equivalent internal link is available was not challenged and can continue to be used in practice.
If editors believe this principle would be a helpful clarification to #13 or elsewhere in the guideline, I am willing to come up with proposed wording. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Bolding the ext link if it is the subject of article Many articles have more than one ext link and when the link to the subject of the article it can disappear amongst the clutter. Also, I am not a fan of the "Official website" label. Is there an unofficial website for a government for instance? The word "website" is always redundant since an ext link is by definition a website. As a solution I like the idea of bolding the ext link that is the subject of the article - just like we do with the first occurrence of the article name - and using the actual article name (which is generally the website name). As an example for the Celebrity Fitness article: - External links
- rather than:
- External links
-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - I would presume that the top EL would be the official site, and I think that is customary. I am used to unbold all external links on sight, their primary use would be to expand knowledge, and which one is then more important then the others? Moreover, the official link is on many pages also in the infobox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Official website is a better way to go normally as it is often the case that there is more ways than one to name the entity, and there is no pint in arguing about it or encouraging COI accounts to either promote or unpromote something. Bolding seems a terrible idea to me. We don't bold internal links why would we bold an external link? 2005 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I usually prefer using the organization's own name in such links, as in your first example, but I wouldn't bother with bolding. IMO the only good use of "official website" is to distinguish it from unofficial ones. This may be a significant concern for orgs (e.g., pop bands) that attract fansites, but probably not for a fitness studio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Official social networking links Are official Facebook and Twitter links okay? The "Official links" section says that they are not okay, but the "Links normally to be avoided" section says that they are. Evil saltine (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - In general, they shouldn't be added as they usually are already linked to from the actual official site, and rarely meet EL in general for providing a resource beyond what an FA-level article would. Social networking isn't content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Sites reported as virus hosts Is there any guidance that applies for how to handle linked sites that get reported as virus infested? In the case of Universe People, the official site has recently been reported by Google as a possible trojan hazard and I am unsure of how to handle the link. On the one hand it is the official site while on the other we probably have a duty to warn the reader that the link is problematic.—Ash (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - We don't do disclaimers. If the official site is suspect then it has to be removed: official sites are usually linked to articles, but this isn't mandatory. Even better would be to find secondary coverage of the virus issue and discuss it in-article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Malware sites go on the meta blacklist without excuse. After that it is best to disable the links to the site to avoid damage to users' computers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- ELNO #3 used to ban malware sites even if they hadn't yet been reported to the blacklist, but other editors seemed to think this was unimportant.
- (The difference is that it's "phyiscally impossible" to add (or keep, if you've edited a page with a preëxitsting link) a blacklisted site: the software won't let you save the page. ELNO is our own rules, not what the software forces us to do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template linking to another wiki I'm unsure whether {{Arborwiki}} runs afoul of the guidelines here. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC) - I would say yes, like most of those other templates that do the same. It doesn't meet WP:EL, so there should be no template encouraging its linking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Spam junk should be deleted. First page I checked that was linked was just a placeholder. 2005 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was expecting/hoping to find an arborist's wiki. Sadly, it's just a low-quality regional wiki with pages like Iggy Pop. I'd endorse a tfd. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#Template:Arborwiki. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Obviously sources that require a subscription are not allowed, but what if they offer part of an article free? Someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#New reliable ref wants to use a site that allows you to read the first paragraph of a article, but requires a subscription to see the rest. I think this still fails EL, but what is the official stance? I won't even get into that the site doesn't produce any original material (it just collects articles from different sites into one location, so editors can and should just use the original source). TJ Spyke 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - It's important to retain the distinction between what is appropriate for use as a cited source vs. what is appropriate for an external link. If the site meets the standards for a reliable source, then it can be used as a source even if it requires a subscription for some or all of its content. Essentially, if the content is reliable and was used to supply information for the article, then we should point readers to it even if it is hard to get to. However, we discourage subscription sites for use as non-source external links, because ELs are supposed to be leading readers to extra information, and it is not a good service to our readers if they can't get to that information. So based on just the information you provided, without any investigation of the link itself, I would shy away from it as an external link unless there is a substantial amount of useful information in the free previews. (By the way, for feedback on particular links, let me encourage the use of the External Links Noticeboard, or for sources the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. This page is primarily for discussion of the linking policy itself.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Please read WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration, paying very careful attention to the first three words, which are in bold-face text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use in external links? From Restrictions on linking: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." Was this intended to include or to exclude copyrighted works used under a fair use defense (17 USC 107 or foreign counterparts)? For example, this policy page links to the video "A Fair(y) Use Tale", which uses snippets of Disney films without permission but under U.S. fair use law. If it was intended to include fair use, is there anything wrong with the following wording? "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as (A) the website has licensed the work or (B) the website's use of the copyrighted work is a fair use." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - WP:EL's obligation here is to summarize the most important issues named at the real page, which is WP:COPYLINK. WP:EL doesn't "own" the issue in question and doesn't need to provide detailed guidance; our primary goal is really just to point editors to the real policy.
- Consequently, I don't think that an expansion is necessary or helpful; in fact, I think that it tends to reduce utility by introducing complications that some editors won't be able to process correctly. However, if you've got an actual dispute on your hands over this, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- After rereading it, I see that it's intended as "if", not "if and only if"; "if licensed then OK" doesn't rule out "if fair use then OK". I'm just having a hard time coming up with a wording that makes this clearer without making it longer. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there is one actual open question directly related to this. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_17#Template:Wikia is currently discussing a promotional template linked to a for-profit series of (mostly) fan site wikis, these wikis in turn are using huge quantities of illustration and plot summary from whichever copyrighted entertainment franchise is being promoted or discussed there. I'd expect that such a widespread use and overuse of "fair use" wouldn't meet with the higher standards applied on Wikipedia itself, but does this mean that we should stop linking to these wikis unless and until they get authorisation from the copyright holders for this stuff? One can only push "fair use" or "fair dealing" so far... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- So... a template that makes for consistency in formatting is a "promotional" tool?
- Beyond that... and bluntly... Wikipedia cannot force its guidelines and policies on other sites.
- Yes, the wikis hosted at Wikia, as well as any other wiki, are more narrowly focused than Wikipidia is. They are also free to decide for themselves what "fair use" entails. And keep in mind, Wikipedia is overly conservative on how much non-free content is acceptable - both from the aspect of images and plot summary. Both of these mean that the articles on those other wikis do provide expanded and additional information that Wikipedia won't include.
- As for waiting for the wikis at Wikia to get what amounts to a licensing agreement - If that is really wanted, then we should systematically strip all external links, images, and summaries currently on Wikipedia for which we don't have such and agreement. Fair is fair. Oh, and it is worth noting that such a license could wind up only being in effect until Wikia pisses off the licenser. And I'm aware of at least one case where they did and an "Official" wiki for a game move off of Wikia.
- Last thing - WP:ELNO #s 11 and 12, which are aimed at a per site/wiki level instead of a domain level, would normally be used on a per article bases for removing these types of like. Operative word - NORMALLY. With the way works of fiction, and elements in those works, have been treated, we, Wikipedia, have be relocating material to other wikis, mostly on Wikia, under the premise that the articles could/should be pointing to where the information was moved to.
- - J Greb (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- To the anon: "Editors might misuse this template to violate a policy" is not generally an accepted reason for deletion. Whether you place a link as a 'spelled out' link (e.g., http: //wikia.com), or use a template to simplify(?) it, you (as the editor placing the link) have exactly the same obligation to determine that the external link complies with all of Wikipedia's requirements. We don't have separate rules for linking to a webpage with a template vs. rules for linking to a webpage without a template. The existence (or non-existence) of a template is absolutely irrelevant to decisions about whether a given page should be linked.
- To J Greb: Wikipedia doesn't impose its standards on anyone. We only say that if a page doesn't meet our standards, then we don't choose to link to it. We have standards for all links, and one rule that specifically applies to open(!) wikis. We don't need, or want, an agreement from any website. We're not trying to be "fair" or to force our guidelines on anyone. We're simply refusing to link sites that don't meet our standards (regardless of how they fail to meet our standards: I believe that more sites fail for providing less information than the article, for providing primarily non-encyclopedic information, or trying to sell things than for fair use concerns). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion re: an external link in city articles A discussion has been started at WT:USCITY#External links clarification regarding the use of a link to an external wiki within city articles. Input at that discussion from those familiar with WP:EL would also be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) |
