DO NOT ask about specific external links here! Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link.

	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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

	WikiProject Manual of Style	Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

This guideline has nothing to do with links to sources that are used to support information in an article. Those questions should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard.

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 Sorted by subject: Archive index Workshop: Discussion of 2006 rewrite. YouTube, 2, 3

Contents 1 Link lists 2 Official malware 2.1 Malware update 3 RfC on official links 3.1 Responses 4 Professional reviews 4.1 Professional reviews 2 4.2 Should reviews be specifically considered as external links? 5 YouTube and Flash video 5.1 Edit warring is evil 6 Should we purge all links to YouTube? 7 URL redirection avoidance vs. dead link maintenance 8 Patents inclusion question 9 BLPs 10 COI to /take down/ ELs? 11 Link to films on Internet Archive that are PD in US but not elsewhere (Things to Come and others) 12 Re: Rich Media 13 Linking to an author's syndicated column 14 Subheadings in External Links section

[edit] Link lists

WP:LINKFARM directs editors to this guideline but I am not seeing guidence on how to handle Lists that are a list of External Links (such as the ones found at Star party and Astronomical society) at this guideline or at WP:LIST. It seems to stradle WP:LIST, WP:EL, Wikipedia:Linking, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, WP:SPAM, and the tags {{linkfarm}}, {{Too many links}}, and {{cleanup-spam}} - although they are not technicaly SPAM (unless the editor is promoting their club). Is there some specific guidence I am missing? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not missing any more explicit guidance: AFAIK you've found it all.

Star party is a clear violation: Wikipedia is not a list of local organizations or a directory for events. I've killed that section (and would be happy to have several editors watchlist it for potential edit warring).

Astronomical society is probably okay. These links could reasonably be interpreted as WP:Embedded citations instead of WP:External links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed links to 7 articles that were within that list. See Category:Star parties. They should probably be replaced. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to that, but I'm inclined to kill the entire directory. Wikipedia isn't a directory of local events even when those local events have a Wikipedia article. A See also to Category:Star parties might be in order, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been said here more than once that we shouldn't link to a website for an organization just because we mention it in an article. That's not in the guideline in those words, but perhaps it should be. For the specific cases, I agree Star party article was violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY (and WP:NOTHOWTO in another section), and Astronomical society doesn't seem to be as bad. I don't see any harm in mentioning some specific examples of notable star parties in the Star party article, and wikilinking to the articles for those, but putting it in list format just invites additions of non-notable external links like the ones that were there. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be a bit of spambait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it as ELNO #19 because it keeps coming up over and over. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On the actual question (instead of the examples): Do people think that we should provide a specific piece of advice about lists of the sort seen in Star party? Or is the existing advice, although perhaps somewhat vague, good enough? Personally, I think it's probably good enough, but I am not firmly committed to that view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a coincidence, as I just moved the Astronomical Society article and changed the tags on it without knowledge of this discussion. I removed the linkfarm template from that page because it appears that the external links in that page are there as malformatted references, which is along the lines of what WhatamIdoing said above. ThemFromSpace 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Official malware

At the moment, Wikipedia:External links#Official links exempts official links from compliance with all of WP:ELNO. I'm not entirely sure that we want to do that. At a minimum, shouldn't ELNO #3, "Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware onto a visitor's computer", be kept? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware should be moved to EL:NEVER. 2005 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

EL:NEVER is a good place for Malware links. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Malware was removed from ELNEVER per consensus on this page. Of course nobody supports malware, but ELNEVER is limited to (1) OFFICE said so, and (2) the software won't save the page if you add that link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please point me to the discussion on removing malware from ELNEVER? Thanks. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ELNO #3 was added in August 2007 after a discussion that concluded that it wasn't appropriate to list it under ELNEVER because it's neither a policy nor a technical reason. I believe that at one point after its introduction, someone rearranged the lists, and was reverted, but I don't really want to go searching for the diffs unless you need them.

Of potential interest is the fact that nearly all malware sites are also on the meta-wide blacklist, so in practice, a good deal of malware is already blocked by ELNEVER. Listing it at all is a little WP:BEANSy; I can't recall a single instance of anyone reporting a malware site. (Perhaps they report them to the blacklist folks, which would be more pointful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From the discussion, there was objection to including it in ELNEVER. But it seems they didn't really think through the implications of instead placing it in a section about links "normally to be avoided", implying that sometimes malware is OK. The new caveat for official links further highlights this oversight. As you have explained, malware is effectively covered by ELNEVER #2. I propose that we reword ELNEVER #2 to "Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist of spam and malware sites without being whitelisted." Are we sure that these specific lists contain the malware blocks? I ask because the title of both lists only contains "spam". We should then delete ELNO #3 without renumbering as we'd break half the take pages and edit summaries on Wikipedia. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is quite simple, if there is malware on a site which may damage the computer when the link is followed by a reader, then that link should be blacklisted on meta without question, comment, whatever. For those knowing, reporting it already takes too long. There is no reason for it to be in WP:ELNO, and it then automatically falls under WP:ELNEVER. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fault is in declaring official links to be absolutely, categorically free of every single line in ELNO that's at fault.

I'm not inclined to roll malware into the blacklist, because while such sites should be on the blacklist, new malware sites presumably begin every day, and we shouldn't have to wait for the blacklist process to catch them. Whatever choice we make, I could accept a descriptive note on ELNEVER #2 that mentions malware as one of the reasons sites get blacklisted. One possibility is a new ELNEVER #3, but this would require fundamental changes to the nature of ELNEVER, from a list of rules that editors, in practice, have no control over to a list of some "rules from on high" plus whatever we feel strongly about this time. This seems less desirable to me.

All things considered, I think that fixing the official links description would be simpler, since it would just require undoing only a small bit of copyediting, so that the current "These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking" would revert back to something like the original, which said that "Such links to official websites are exempt from nearly all of this guideline except for Restrictions on linking." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And just what do we mean by "nearly all"? What about the restriction on links in the body? I made the copyedit in the interest of clarity and I think it's good that it has now pointed out a fundamental problem with ELNO #3 that goes beyond official links. I don't think that ELNO #3 has any affect on the number of malware links. Would any editor not immediately remove a malware link just because it's not in ELNO? I proposed a wording change above that would add malware to ELNEVER #2. Is this a good compromise? UncleDouggie (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Malware update

I have implemented my above proposal seeing that everyone either supports it or is OK with it. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Having thought it over, I support the improved description of WP:ELNEVER #2, but the guideline now has a hole: It does not address the acceptability of a malware site that doesn't happen to be blacklisted. I think that we need to restore the "redundant" ELNO #3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this would lead us back to where we started with implying that Official sites can host malware. I can't see anyone claiming that malware is OK if it's not on the blacklist. The items in ELNO should be driven by things that really need to be explained to people. Even the title of "Links normally to be avoided" implies that malware is sometimes OK if we have it in the list. --UncleDouggie (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's wrong with restoring ELNO #3 and revising our "official links" section to prohibit malware? (We could even add a reference to WP:Use common sense while we were at it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on official links

{{rfctag}}

We need input from other editors about whether external links included under the "official links" exemption should have any relationship to the subject's notability, or if links with entirely irrelevant content are recommended, so long as they are controlled by the subject. 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

The major purpose of an official link is to allow our readers to read an unfiltered version of the subject's (e.g., a person, a business, a charitable organization, a music group) own opinion, which may differ substantially from a WP:NPOV-compliant encyclopedia article. When one or more official links exist for a BLP or organization, at least one of them should always be provided to the reader unless it violates copyright. Even websites blacklisted for spamming may be whitelisted for this purpose.

Official links are entirely exempted from practically every normal restriction on external links. For example, we normally avoid external links to MySpace, but if a notable band uses MySpace instead of a normal website, then such links are always permitted under the "official links" exemption. We normally avoid external links to webpages that sell things, but we link http://www.Amazon.com in the article Amazon.com. We normally avoid external links to pages that are factually inaccurate, and to internet chat rooms, but if a WP:FRINGEy group's official website is an internet chat room to discuss their belief that the earth is flat, then we still link to their factually inaccurate website as an "official link" on the page about the Flat Earth Society.

Wikipedia needs a definition of "official link" because almost no official websites actually self-identify as being an official site, and some that do self-identify as official sites do so falsely (e.g., the million "official fan clubs" found by Google, which are not official links for Wikipedia's purpose, even if they are authorized sites).

Recent change that is disputed

The original two-part definition was this:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Last week, User:2005 shortened this definition to a single requirement:

1. An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

Arguments for and against

According to the new definition, any and all websites or other internet links that are controlled by any of the 750,000 bio subjects or the tens of thousands of businesses are definitely "official links" for these articles, even if the content of this website or other link has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the reason that Wikipedia has an article on this person.

Some editors want to restore the original wording, to provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio to our readers. These editors believe that if a person is notable as the CEO of a major high-tech company, then a link to Flickr photos about his dog or his home garden, or to a blog about his grandkids's birthday parties, would generally be unencyclopedic and inappropriate, and therefore should not be entirely exempted from the usual WP:ELNO requirements. (Such websites could still be considered under the usual rules that apply to all websites.)

As discussed above, other editors want to keep the expansive definition, so that any website or other Internet service that is controlled by the subject, regardless of content, the link is always completely exempted from standard restrictions of WP:ELNO, and if it is the only link controlled by the subject, then it is always advertised to readers. For example, they would always link to any website controlled by kidnapping victim Jaycee Lee Dugard, even if it contains only irrelevant information, such as pictures of her dog or a blog about grocery shopping, as her "official" link. Under this scheme, no webpage controlled by the subject would ever be considered irrelevant, unencyclopedic, or personal.

In addition to having zero content/relevance restrictions, at least one editor also believes that there should be no time limit on official links, so that a website created before the person achieved notability, or created decades later, should always be linked as an "official link" that is not subject to the usual rules.

[edit] Responses

(Please keep them brief!)

• Restrictive definition. I think that Wikipedia's readers are best served by evaluating websites that are primarily about something other than the subject's notability to the standard WP:ELNO rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I would prefer a restricted definition, but think it should depend upon individual cases. e.g. If someone is known for writing books, but spends half their life growing cacti, and has an extensive website about this, then why not include it (but note it is about cacti), as this would tell you about that author, and how they define themselves. If however someone is famous for a BLP1E event, and has a website selling cacti, then this should not be included. Martin451 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictive definition If a notable nuclear physicist has a hobby growing cacti, and has a web site on that subject, the site can be added to External links using the normal guidelines, or even WP:IAR for the rare situations where consensus agrees that a bad external link needs to be included for some reason. Any site meeting WP:EL can be added to an article, and there is no reason to exempt a site from the WP:EL rules only on the grounds that it is controlled by the subject (how do we verify that?). In all cases it is vital that there is good reason to believe an official site really is the official site for the subject because the Internet and Wikipedia attract hoaxes, spoofs, parodies and general nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support more restrictive definition, and after the above discussion, would also add - must be the actual official site and not an archive/copy/snapshot to be considered an official site. Anything else should have to follow normal EL guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictive definition per Johnuniq and also agree with additional restriction per Collectonian. Applicable links to a site archive can still be added as citations, or in unusual cases as a regular EL. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Controlled and relevant to the article. Of course! Why would we want anything else? Does this really need a RFC? SilkTork *^YES! 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Original restrictive definition. And if the site is no longer accessible, but relevant/useful content is archived/cached by WebCite or Archive.org, then it should be linked as "Archived copy of official site" (or similar). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest we close this RfC as there has been no opposition. The example cited by Martin can be covered under regular EL criteria without needing to be an additional official link. If it's the only official link, I don't see a problem so long as the author's writing career is well covered. --UncleDouggie (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no comments for about two weeks, I'm turning off the RfC tag. It looks like the changes supported by this RfC were made some time ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Professional reviews

Links to professional reviews should be part of a Response or Critical response section. There may be times when someone hasn't done such a section, so an EL is better than nothing, but some kind of comment would be appropriate.

• Current copy: "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews."
• Suggested copy: "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, reviews should be sourced in the main body, typically in a Responses or Critical responses section, if this is not the case then temporary links to professional review sites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic may be considered."

Thoughts? SilkTork *^YES! 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The links don't need to be temporary. Imagine a situation in which you have a lot of good reviews: You might (and should) use some in the text, but you might not have a justification for using all of them. Any 'unused' reviews could be legitimately demoted to External links.

Would you be satisfied with something like:

• "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews that have not been used to verify article content. (Using such sources to build the article is always preferable to listing them as external links.)

Also, the major point behind this item is that non-professional reviews are unacceptable. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see that it was created after a dispute about whether Amazon.com (or similar) customer reviews should be linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about linking to a body of useful reviews - however, when doing a Critical response section the typical approach is to give an overview of the critical response, linking to sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and complete-review, which collect professional reviews, and then picking on individual critics for detail. Also, if people then add links over and above what is in the text, how many links would we be talking about, and what would be the definition of a good review? I can only really see an EL section to reviews being useful if someone has not already written a response section, and it should be temporary, as once a response section has been written, the links are in place as sources as we don't have sources as references and EL in the same article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO #1, we should not have ELs just because the material has not yet been incorporated into the article. We have discouraged such temporary links in numerous other cases. I don't think we should start now to enshrine their acceptability in the guideline itself. This is a classic dilemma of ref vs. EL. Suppose that a review EL has a highly useful comparison chart of some kind that can't be incorporated due to copyright. Then one day someone uses the conclusion sentence from the review as a source and the whole review has to be moved from an EL to a ref. UncleDouggie (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. EL should not be a collection of sources to use "eventually", those should be put on the talk page if the finder doesn't have time to incorporate them. Links to sites such as RT and MetaCritic should be added only when they add value, which is not always the case, and in which case they should not be temporary. One should only pick specific reviews to cite when there are just too many to cover them all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. So are we saying that we should not have ELs to reviews? That the reviews should be used as sources in the body (or in an infobox, as they frequently are), or listed on the talkpage, but not used in the EL section. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Except where appropriate, RT/MC are the only "reviews" that should be in the EL, and if they are that useful, they should be worked into the article. Also, I can't think of anytime a review should be used as sources in an infobox? The infobox should summarize content in the article, not introduce new facts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can have external links to a review. Or to several, even. Even if they're not from the two suggested sources. What you need to justify such links is this situation:

1. A properly developed article (that is, you've already written a perfectly decent section on the critical response to the book/movie/whatever [read: Nobody could accuse you of being a lazy spammer instead of a good editor])
2. You didn't use this(these) review(s) to WP:Verify any content in the article AND
3. The review still communicates something unique/useful/interesting/not going to waste the readers' time if they click on it.

So it's the combination of ELNO #1, principle of non-duplication, and ELYES #3 that you're aiming for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox album}} has a field for reviews - see Please Please Me as an example. Though neither {{Infobox Book}} nor {{Infobox film}} have such fields. It is quite common in film articles for there to be a decent Response/Critical reception section which appropriately uses professional reviews as sources, and the same reviews/sites to be listed in the EL section - see I Am Legend (film) as an example.

If the EL section is not to be used as a place to temporarily hold links to reviews until someone writes up a Response/Reception section (which I quite understand), then I don't see a valid use for having links to reviews in EL. If a review contains something of value to the reader, then it should be mentioned in the article, and sourced appropriately. Saying that there is a source which contains something of interest which is not mentioned in the article is the same as me saying we should list it temporarily until someone decides to incorporate it. Something of interest or use should be mentioned in the article. SilkTork *^YES! 08:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A typical reason to include an external link is the presence of 'interesting' information that is un-encyclopedic and therefore should not be included, e.g., complete career statistics for a baseball player. In connection with a review, perhaps a suitable link would include a well-told anecdote about the book/movie/etc., or details that go well beyond the 'summary' nature of an encyclopedic article, like a line-by-line exposition of a poem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Professional reviews 2

I've merged "Professional reviews 2" back with "Professional reviews" to aid in others reviewing the discussion and so that the sections will get archived in one piece. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further objection to what has been discussed above I will remove the statement "For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews." from the WP:ELMAYBE section with no replacement. SilkTork *^YES! 09:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are about 100 links to WP:ELMAYBE, so perhaps we should note it as a deleted item and preserve the numbering. --UncleDouggie (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Check what I just did on ELNO #3. Feel free to improve, we should make both look the same. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. There are times when these links are warranted, and the removal leaves us with no statement against nonprofessional reviews, which IMO is the major point behind that sentence. Furthermore, permitting them doesn't actually harm anything.

I'd be willing to compromise with a reminder that the best use of any high-quality source is to build the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In your compromise, would ELMAYBE #1 stay or go? If we want to prohibit unprofessional reviews, ELNO would seem to be the right place. No need to beat around the bush. --UncleDouggie (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with "Repealed. (Professional reviews should instead be cited as sources in a "Reception" section.)" for the time being so people can see there has been a recent change, and after a couple of months, adjusting it to "Professional reviews should only be cited as sources in a "Reception" section."

To address WhatamIdoing's valid concern, it might be worth adding - "non-professional reviews should not be linked or used as sources." SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made an adjustment. Maybe #1 is now "Repealed. See WP:ELNO #20", while I have added "Links to reviews - professional or otherwise. Professional reviews should instead be cited as sources in a "Reception" section." to ELNO as #20. I wasn't sure of the use of the anchor template. SilkTork *^YES! 10:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork, I disagree with these changes because I believe that professional reviews should be considered for inclusion as External links. We need both an injunction against non-professional reviews and a statement that professional reviews should be considered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have "boldly" suggested an alternative that I think is much closer to the community's consensus -- which has, after all, recommended that editors consider these links for several years -- and invited the major WikiProjects affected by this change to add their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of professional reviews in ELMAYBE category. I would even go as far as to say that good quality non-professional reviews may occasionally be appropriate in external links, but that professional English language reviews are preferred when available. I've read some excellent amateur reviews and some lousy professional ones, but there is no objective criterion to differentiate between good and bad reviews, whereas "professional" is relatively straightforward to define. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that most editors would support links to, say, Epinions.com or Amazon.com, which are the archetypcal "non-professional book reviews". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty much back to where we started. My concern is that we haven't really addressed unprofessional reviews. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I am uncomfortable with the situation. I am unclear as to why reviews of films and books gets a special treatment, when some very useful and detailed analysis of architecture would not. "Professional" is vague, and is not the language we normally use in guidelines. We would normally say reliable source or notable as we have clear guidance on such terms. Also I am unclear why reviews to a select few topics are appropriate, while reviews to other topics are not. Why creative works and not wine, restaurants, pubs, architecture, cities, etc. And then, why "reviews" and not deeper analysis, or other forms of commentary? If we open up the language then ELMAYBE 1 becomes: "Links to commentary by reliable sources on anything is allowed." SilkTork *^YES! 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the history of the wording. As far as I can see, the wording was created by User:Siroxo on 6 August 2004 in Wikipedia:External links/temp, which was moved to Wikipedia:External links on 4 March 2005 by User:SimonP.

I have picked up various concerns regarding the inclusion of reviews: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. In these concerns I haven't seen a rationale for linking to reviews - it's more a case that the concerns have not been followed up based on an assumption that there must be a valid reason for the link to reviews being there.

As Wikipdia has developed we have moved away from placing a couple of books and websites at the bottom of the page as our reference sources, and onto inline cites which detail the page of the book so more accurate and reliable tracing of sources is possible.

And that is the case here. I can't really see a valid argument for why a vague bottom of the page link to an online review would be more appropriate than an inline cite. I don't see why a film review should be treated preferentially to a scholarly article in an academic journal. SilkTork *^YES! 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For a while, reviews were included under ELYES #3. Largely in this discussion, they were moved to ELMAYBE. I agree in general with SilkTork's latest point that given how we handle sources today, there isn't much of a need for ELs to reviews. They could still be justified under the current version of ELYES #3 in limited cases. I suggest that folks post some examples of articles that would be affected by this change, both for good and bad. --UncleDouggie (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that ELYES #3 covers appropriate circumstances for linking to helpful commentary, including film, music, book reviews, that may not already be included in the main body of the article. As such, specific mention of reviews in the guideline (with an unspoken assumption that such reviews may contain useful material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons) is not needed. SilkTork *^YES! 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork,

This guidelines does not say that "a film review should be treated preferentially to a scholarly article in an academic journal". (It makes no comparison between the two.) It also does not say that "a vague bottom of the page link to an online review [is] more appropriate than an inline cite". (It actually says the opposite.)

It says that editors should "consider" adding links to reviews that have not been (ELMAYBE #3), and can not reasonably be (ELNO #1), used to build the article. If the music is, e.g., a well-known classical symphony for which dozens of much better options are available, the editor is entirely free to "consider" such a link to be "a bad idea". This is ELMAYBE: something to think about, not something to always add.

Your current argument appears to be that this line might be redundant, if only editors carefully thought through the implicates of ELYES #3. This guideline is written to be useful to busy editors. It is, consequently, deliberately redundant on occasion. We include all kinds of things that ought to be obvious to the editor who carefully thinks it through -- including, well, practically every line in ELNO. This is not, IMO, a valid reason for deleting any and all direct reference to the community's long-standing recommendation of links to reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are quite addressing each others concerns, and may need to take this discussion to the community for a consensus view.

• My concern is that I do not understand why reviews have been picked out to be considered as external links. I am not convinced of their special significance.
• Your concern appears to be that the comment has been there a long time, therefore it has assumed consensus.

I have looked back at the history of the comment and it has been challenged several times, without an adequate defence. It appears to remain there though lack of examination of its credentials, rather than through force of logic. Also, consensus can change.

Would you have an explanation, not covered by WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, as to why specifically reviews are to be considered? If there is no specific reason, then the comment should be removed as misleading. SilkTork *^YES! 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should reviews be specifically considered as external links?

[edit] YouTube and Flash video

I removed the part saying that Flash is required to play YouTube videos. Research from Adobe published in September 2009 shows that Flash video is available on 99% of browsers in the English speaking world [9], and accounts for around 75% of all online video [10]. Flash video was new five years ago but today it is mainstream, so it can be taken as read that a browser will play Flash videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. CpiralCpiral 16:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we are talking about an independent source. I will revert, and would like it to be discussed here. However, even if it is installed by most users, and even if it is free, it still needs to be installed, and hence is a valid line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, 75% is still 25% of other videos. Still, you also removed "Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content.", which has nothing to do with Flash, Flash was just an example. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about Flash being required to play YouTube videos is bordering on classic pedantry. As far as I can see, none of the YouTube links on Wikipedia say "Flash is required to play this video" because a) it is a statement of the obvious and b) it is extremely rare to find a browser nowadays that cannot play Flash videos. Things become more complicated when formats like QuickTime are involved, but the Flash explanation is largely superfluous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rare, in America and in Western Europe. But there might indeed be a better example than Flash/YouTube, that sentence would be better with another example, any site that is known to use QuickTime a lot? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way 'As far as I can see, none of the YouTube links on Wikipedia say "Flash is required to play this video"' might as well be a problem that people who add the video format don't bother to link. However, {{youtube}} does include the statement. Though I agree, also there it seems a bit superfluous, but I would not use it as an argument. On the other hand, .pdf files get automatically a correct icon, IIRC. There would be nothing wrong with just being complete, and including that Flash is needed. There will still be people out there which do not want Flash installed, and 99% still accounts for a huge number of computer users. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it was launched, Flash video has largely eliminated the opposition. Back in the 1990s, online videos were a mixture of Windows Media Player, QuickTime and RealPlayer, and a computer user often had to install all three pieces of software. Nowadays all the main video sharing sites are Flash based (eg YouTube, DailyMotion, Vimeo, Metacafe) and when a computer user clicks to watch a video it will probably be Flash. There are some exceptions, and QuickTime is popular for HD movie trailers, eg on Apple's website.[11] It might be better to use a non-Flash example such as QuickTime, because Flash support is pretty much universal on today's browsers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Confusion edited-out; sorry)

To expedite content debate will probably require another discussion focused on that particular rule. See the topmost banner on the content page. (See also about indention. Thanks. )

CpiralCpiral 18:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Er yes, at the risk of another hasty remark, it would help if some of the above was expressed in plain English. Hopefully the article is now more suitably worded. If not, back to the drawing board.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about this as well. I mean, if we're this strict, that's fine by me. But shouldn't countless links to official websites also have the "requires flash"-notice then? What about links to software? "This software requires windows/linux to run" would be necessary there, too. What about websites that require certain browsers? What I'm trying to say is.. yes, flash needs to be installed. Just like an operating system, a browser, or Java. Requiring a note because 1% (or less) of users don't have flash seems a bit over the top to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Operating systems, web browsers, and Java virtual machines are distributed as free software in the United States, Wikimedia's home territory. Programs that view FLV or most QuickTime codecs are not, due to video codec patents. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that whether software is open source or not has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. And I'm also pretty sure that the most used operating systems and browsers are most definitely not open source, so that argument wouldn't hold any water anyways. --Conti|✉ 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If a person clicks on a link to a YouTube video and does not have Flash installed, they will automatically receive a message telling them this, and asking if they want to install the Flash plugin from Adobe. This does not really need to be in the article because of the WP:NOTHOWTO issue. WP:EL is mainly about the suitability of links as reliable sources, rather than a tech forum giving advice. For the tech minded, Flash and QuickTime have to be installed separately because of the patents on technology like MPEG-4 AVC. Wikipedia articles occasionally have Ogg Theora videos, which are open source.[12] All very interesting, but the main issue when someone adds a YouTube video to a Wikipedia article is whether it is a copyright violation, not what codec it uses. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)With this I disagree ianmacm. Yes, they get a message that will ask them to install the plugin. Knowing it beforehand takes away the necessity to have to cancel an unwanted install (yes, there are still people that don't want it, and there will also be people who can't install it anyway, not everyone has a modern Windows XP or up-to-date linux install, there are also still users on older or less common operating systems), people know that they should not click on this interesting link, when they don't see beforehand that it is a YouTube video. Readers may know wikipedia, they may know youtube, they may not know Vimeo (I do not know it), having a text 'requires this or that' with a wikilink might make me think, oh, I don't want to follow that, it is fine with me. Moreover, we do have a section on 'how to link'. I, for one, think that it is very useful to see that one is linking to a pdf file, a music video, a sound file, or whatever, especially for the people who are not behind a fast internet connection (who unknowingly click a youtube video, after which the computer becomes slow because it is buffering), who are using alternative ways of viewing webpages (following a link to a video can be regarded less useful for the readers (and editors!) who depend on a screen reader to use the internet, &c. &c. I know that youtube videos can be informative and useful here and there, but there is nothing wrong with giving the reader some information on what they can expect at the other end. Flash was not an optimal example, as that is indeed almost everywhere installed, still it should be mentioned that YouTube links require Flash (as, as I said before, even though it is installed on 99% of the PC's in English speaking countries (I wonder how many people in countries that do not have English as a main language still use the English Wikipedia as it is the biggest one ...), it still needs to be installed; installed computers may have it already, but users who install their Windows separately do not standard have it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "... the United States, Wikimedia's home territory." .. true, but that does not mean that Wikipedia does not get used outside of the US, or that, since the US has everything in a certain way, that we then have to expect that that is also true for all countries outside that. High speed internet is a commodity in many areas, but there are still quite some users behind a dial-in modem. Flash works, sure, video's can still be seen, but it becomes less useful for those users. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see harm (to a small number of users) in refusing to provide this information, and no harm in providing it. The argument against seems to be "people with nice computers and great internet connections like me don't need this information". I therefore oppose removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add: I have a lovely Mac and a great internet connection, and I personally find those labels useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

When taken to the logical conclusion, it would be necessary to add "a broadband connection will be required to view a YouTube video". Nobody with a dial-up connection can view YouTube videos in streaming format, should we mention this as well? All that I have done here is to suggest the removal of WP:NOTHOWTO information that would be of little relevance to the average reader. It is worth pointing out that some external content requires software that is not installed on all computers, eg QuickTime or RealPlayer. Flash is not the best example because most computers play it, and without it access to online videos would be very difficult.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if WP:NOTHOWTO applies to guideline and policy pages. If so, then we would have to delete WP:MOS, as it is quite a prototypical how-to, isn't it? added after reading WP:NOTHOWTOIt does indeed not apply to policy and guideline, but only "Wikipedia articles should not read like:". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

People with a dial in can view You Tube movies, no problem at all. They slow down, framerates become very low, but it is not impossible (if that was the case, then I would say that ELNO #7 applies, and it is a reason to more strictly remove any video links). It would be nice if they knew that they were going to need Flash for the external site (which is not only true for youtube, by the way), and for those it is just a service.

There is nothing wrong with specifying it, ianmacm, even if it is just for those couple of 10's of thousands of editors who have this situation. USA has 300.000.000 inhabitants, 1% is 3.000.000 inhabitants. Now they are not all going to have internet, but it is a significant number, isn't it? And now I only did this calculation for the USA, if I include the UK, Australia, India, and all the other countries who have English as a major language, and all the other people who use the English Wikipedia as it is the biggest and they generally do speak good English (quite some countries in Europe), then I think that providing that service is warranted.

It is a service to those people (and that is why most of us are editing here), and I can't imagine that the other 99% of the users finds it annoying it is noted here. The guideline says 'should', not 'must', and that is exactly proper wording. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that all the main user submitted video sites use Flash. It is also OK to point out that Flash is required to view this type of content. The only other issue is whether this policy on Wikipedia is actively enforced. Five years ago it would have made sense to say "Flash required" when clicking on this type of link, because it was considerably less common then. Today it is more or less taken for granted. Ideally, Flash video should have its own icon, like PDF documents do when they are cited. It would be rather clunky to say "Flash required" every time a YouTube video is cited.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Flash is installed on all of my browsers on my many computers. And I frequently disable it so I don't see all those highly annoying ads. Some browsers support better ad blockers than others, but that will always be an arms race. The trend to disable flash is increasing as websites get more distracting all the time. Please don't believe Adobe's partisan research that ignores grassroots push-back against their product. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dirk Beetstra and IanMacM - links to PDF files automatically gain an icon (red curly thing), so since this and Flash both come from Adobe, there ought also to be an icon denoting "Flash video"? If there is one for Flash, use of that icon next to such links should eliminate the need for any "Flash player required" text as well as giving a hint as to what you're about to surf to. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of raising this issue was not to be an advertising agency for Adobe Flash Player. Most computers in the English speaking world can play this format, even though it is not universal. The patents on Adobe formats require $ to be paid, but without this Wikipedia users would not be able to play Flash videos with H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos. There are freeware alternatives to Acrobat Reader (eg Foxit Reader), but Flash video requires the Adobe plugin to be installed. To keep everyone happy, the best solution would be to have an icon in Wikipedia articles for Flash video, like the one for PDF documents, which are also in Adobe format.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an icon would be an elegant way to convey the information. I also think that it should be conveyed, despite the prevalence of Flash, both for users who don't have it and because of users who actively disable the capability in order to block ads. Finally, I note that for YouTube in particular, the much-maligned Template:YouTube automatically includes text about the Flash requirement. If an icon is provided, it could be updated to display that instead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also be happy if it were possible for links to automatically signal the video format, a la pdf. Until such a time as the wiki software can figure out that an ostensibly HTML page actually requires Adobe Flash software to see the primary content, then this won't be possible.

In the meantime, manually including an unobtrusive note that the page contains Flash video (or QuickTime video, or mp3 audio, or whatever) is the Right Thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An icon like or  ? Could those be used at {{Google video}} and {{Youtube}} instead of the text?

Note that {{PDFlink}} (and the autodetecting system that we use to add the icon) does not actually contain any kind of link to Adobe Acrobat or Portable Document Format. Is that on purpose? Should that be copied for flash video, or corrected for pdfs? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Wikimedia software does not allow us to link icons to articles. Clicking on an image must always take the reader to the image page. Consequently, I don't think that using icons would be a good choice. Many editors won't recognize the icons. (And it would be the first icon, not the second, that is the correct one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful about this. The PDF icon is currently up for deletion because it's not a free image. We would have the same problem with the flash icon and I'm not about to write a fair-use rationale for every page that has a YouTube link. I doubt we can find any icon that suitably conveys the information without copyright restrictions. If we do use an icon, I suggest the second one without the red box border that shows in my browser for some reason. Still, I think it will be an overpowering red box in articles. We're not here to advertise flash. WhatamIdoing: Why do you say the first icon? It's not free either. I like the second because it displays well at small size and is very recognizable. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If the paragraph (from WhatamIdoing at 21:38) is true, how does the PDF icon work? Clicking that takes you to the PDF file just as if you had clicked the text which precedes the icon. To see this at work in a real article (as opposed to the demo in {{PDFlink}}, try Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway#References. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) We can link to pages with this syntax: ( [[File:FlashVideo.png|16px|link=Flash video]] ) As found at the now deprecated {{Click}}. I'm not sure about the legality of that though. (but that goes for the pdf icon too) -- [I've corrected your link to the deletion discussion, UD]

We're currently assuming the readers will recognize the pdf icon in http://www.example.org/foo.pdf (though I admit that is a safer assumption to make).

UncleDouggie: the 1st icon is for the actual file format, the 2nd icon is for the Flash software as a whole. I agree that the 2nd is more legible (that's why I included it), but the 1st is more precise. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clicking the PDF icon takes you to the PDF document, not to the article on PDF or adobe.com to download the software. Wikimedia is just tacking the icon onto the end of the document hyperlink. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the article link syntax also fixes the extra red border that I was seeing: . This icon is 14pt and still legible. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The logo of Flash Player is a florin sign on a red background, presumably ineligible for copyright as a text logo: --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we only have a trademark issue instead of a copyright and trademark issue. At least this icon doesn't have the border problem either despite the lack of an article link. Nice observation Damian. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The first icon is correct because it represents the file format instead of the software needed to use it. It's the difference between saying "This file is in the ASCII text format" and "You need vi to be able to read this file" (or EMACS: I don't have a dog in that fight). There might someday be a non-Adobe Flash option for viewing Flash videos, but Flash videos will always (by definition) be in the file format.

BTW, that's what we already do with pdfs: the icon is "Portable Document Format", not "Adobe Acrobat".

(I'd never thought about it, but that icon may run afoul of Wikicommons' rules (because it's certainly trademarked). Well, here's hoping that they'll automatically add "(pdf)" instead of leaving the user in the dark about the file format.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also potentially relevant: Adobe gives permission for the PDF icon's use, but not for the FLV icon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Very relevant indeed. I believe this is the nail in flash video icon coffin. I understand that the first icon is technically better, but it's unreadable at small size so it may as well not exist. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Commons have anything against trademarks? See commons:Template:PD-textlogo and commons:Template:Trademarked. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because Commons lets a trademark be hosted there doesn't mean that it's legal to use it in all situations. For some legal background, see trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Also see Adobe's full licensing statement. My summary of all this is that we can use the non-copyrighted icon for content actually produced by an Adobe product. This is a very important distinction and I believe we have many non-compliant PDF links today. MediaWiki automatically applies the PDF icon to all PDF links. However, there are many non-Adobe PDF writing programs available and applying the icon to such a link is infringement. Even for Flash, there are non-Adobe components available today. Applying the icon to a link produced with such components may be infringement. In the future, completely non-Adobe products may become available that support the flash file format. So it's probably better if we stay away from the whole mess. If we really want to use an icon, we should make our own to reference the file format. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by that doc linked above by UncleDouggie, we're using the wrong icon for a PDF file. This is on page 7 (of 13), according to the menu bar; however page 6 is shown lower right of the page concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're using the wrong icon. However, changing it may put us in a worse position for links to PDF files not produced by an Adobe product. I suppose someone could write a bot to scan all externally linked PDFs and determine what software was used to generate them. But what a maintenance headache that would be. We really should make our own icon, just like we seem to be settling on for Flash. --UncleDouggie (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, although getting a bit off topic, I created an alternate PDF icon to consider. It's not legible at 16px, but 24px looks OK: 32px is of course nice: I've posted this at the deletion discussion for the current PDF icon. --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← Dedenting

The logo for "Adobe Flash" is a dark gray "Fl" in a red square. The florin logos are used for Adobe Flash Player, which I'm pretty sure most people will actually be using to watch SWF objects and FLV videos, apart from a small minority who use Gnash. PDF, on the other hand, doesn't have such an Adobe monopoly: Foxit Reader is fairly mature and widespread, as are Preview and Evince. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re icon for Flash: Using Noscript in Firefox, I see an icon instead of a Flash video (and I also do not have a Flash player on my main machine for reasons explained by security mailing lists). The Noscript Flash icon (if reduced in size) would be much better than the suggestions above; it consists of a red 'f' in a circle which I suspect would be a lot less ugly than the in-your-face white 'f' on red background. I have no idea where the icon comes from. An icon should only be used if it does not destroy the look of the page (i.e. the icon would need to be very sedate, which rules out the above examples). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I've cropped it and uploaded to commons. Full res: 16 pt: --UncleDouggie (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is that PDF icon coming from anyway? The HTML source generated by http://www.example.org/foo.pdf shows as:

<a href="http://www.example.org/foo.pdf" class="external free" rel="nofollow">http://www.example.org/foo.pdf</a>

When I put the same wiki source on Commons, I get a generic icon with some blue lines. Is there some CSS magic going on for Wikipedia only? --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to this thread, if you use popups, this page now comes up with an icon for Flash! Here's a deliberate self reference so you can see it. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring is evil

IanMacM,

It may have escaped your notice, but:

• The paragraph that you've been changing, most recently to talk about QuickTime, is reached by the shortcut WP:YOUTUBE. It's silly to have the "YouTube" paragraph give, as an example, a file format that is not present anywhere on that website.
• Your repeated efforts to remove the relevant file format from this paragraph are opposed by multiple editors. I've reverted your anti-consensus changes. Please don't restore them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that it's low down, dirty, and maybe even disgusting. But evil? It's not like he deleted the page and wiped out all our backup copies. :) --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that IanMacM would agree with the sentiment as expressed -- but probably not that his (two) (somewhat different) changes actually rose to the level of edit warring (at least, not yet). I would not consider his position actually unreasonable.

I chose that perhaps excessively flippant header partly as a statement that we didn't need to reach that undesirable point, and partly because using ===break=== all the time results in many non-unique headings in the archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been an open discussion here and two edits are not edit warring. However, I do agree that QuickTime is not the best example since user submitted video sites are based on Flash technology. The consensus that has emerged from all of this is that it would be helpful to have an icon for Flash videos, like the one for PDF documents. BTW, please assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should we purge all links to YouTube?

Per Wikipedia:ELNO#Links normally to be avoided #8 it would appear that YouTube links are now deprecated. If that is consensus I suppose {{YouTube}} should be nominated for deletion. __meco (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From ELNO 8: "unless the article is about such rich media". If an article or section is about a work, and the work or an excerpt is lawfully available on YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, or another video host, the link falls under WP:ELYES. Likewise, in an article or section about an author of video, the author's own channel would appear to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL if the author doesn't have a proper web site elsewhere. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely, disqualification on technical grounds as is the case with ELNO8 overrides these other guidelines which focus on information content? __meco (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, we should disallow any links to any kind of video, since you either need to install Flash, Quicktime or something like it, or download it and watch the video with a player which you have to install first, too. And anyhow, don't we regularly link to .pdf files? --Conti|✉ 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would seem to be a logical next focus in correspondence with this doctrine. __meco (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In a way, yes. I'd rather we focus on the "doctrine" itself and its purpose, tho, before we follow it mechanically. The point of it is - I think - to discourage users to use such links, but not to disallow it entirely. I'm pretty sure that it does not mean that links to YouTube (or Quicktime videos, or pdf files) are now (why "now", anyhow?) deprecated. One should simply think twice before linking to such files/sites (not only for the reason cited here). --Conti|✉ 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. That rule specifically addresses "Direct links to documents that require external applications...". This means that it's okay to link to "www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAYVa1cKC8k" (an HTML page) is okay, but that "s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch_v8-vfl126580.swf" (a Flash video file) is not.

Also, if this document universally deprecated YouTube links, that would be plainly stated at the WP:YOUTUBE section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't what the guideline actually says, although I'll admit that it is somewhat inconsistent. ELNO #8 states: "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media." The note about "relevant content" implies that an HTML page with nothing more than embedded rich media is not permitted. However, this is contradicted by Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media. Also, the caveat "unless the article is about such rich media" implies that such a link is only acceptable if it is an official link and that the wikilink to the rich media section doesn't apply for a non-official link. Just what do we really want to say? I believe that the rich media section should apply to all links to rich media and that truly direct links should be permitted only for links about the rich media file format itself. No need to fret over official links since they are already exempt from ELNO. --UncleDouggie (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your complaint is due to a simple "editing only part of the sentence" issue. You can seen the change, which was made in July 2006. Once upon a time, Wikipedia had much more restrictive rules for External links, and this is an artifact of that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the page per my understanding of the consensus. --UncleDouggie (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about those ogg files we put in our articles. Ban those too? Kill the whole WP:Featured sounds section? File:John F. Kennedy Inauguration Speech.ogv and File:January 2009 ISS tour.ogg are useless? No.

Oppose. Idealism must be balanced with realism. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Those files aren't "External links" for the purpose of this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE already sets strict standards, and anything that is clearly a copyright violation is unacceptable. However, there may be occasions when a YouTube video meets all of the requirements of WP:EL, so there is no need for an outright ban. The current wording is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How are "YouTube links […] now deprecated"? (my emphasis) As for the suggestion to nominate {{YouTube}} for deletion: the template has been considered for deletion twice, last in March/April this year. What has changed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated is certainly different from banned. Unless the links are banned, I see no reason to delete {{YouTube}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] URL redirection avoidance vs. dead link maintenance

From WP:EL#Redirection sites:

It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link. For instance, if example.com is an automatic redirect to tripod.com/example, it is better to link to the exact page, even if the webmaster considers the redirect address to be more official.

This appears to contradict WP:EL#Longevity of links and established practice for status codes 302 and especially 307. The page on Tripod is likely to become dead more quickly. So to what page do we link if, say, example.com points to a different URL every day? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is caught by the 'generally preferred' in that sentence in the guideline. Or if longevity of such links is a serious problem, one could consider that maybe this is not such a suitable external link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you're assuming (I think) that both example.com and tripod.com/example showed the same page on the day that the editor placed the 'specific' link. What we don't want is to have a very specific deeplink to a particular page, and have that replaced with "well, it's probably somewhere on this website". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is yet another way that "official links" should be treated differently. Imagine a free software project that moves from college hosting to ad-supported blog hosting to SourceForge to Google Code, but the redirector remains accurate throughout. Is it that beneficial to link to whatever hosting provider is giving the project a subdomain at the moment and then fix the dead link every time the project moves, as opposed to linking to the official site? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But the opposite happens as well: A site is on one place, with a redirector because it's expected to move -- but then it never moves, and they decide to quit paying for the unnecessary redirector... and perhaps the expired redirector domain will then get picked up by a spam or malware site. There's no perfect solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patents inclusion question

I'm looking at an article (Toroid (geometry)) that has a section called Patents consisting of a couple of links to Google patents. This just seems wrong to me but I'm having a hard time seeing how the ELNO section would prevent it. It's not really advertising, the patents are related to the subject though they really do nothing to enhance understanding of it, and they're not really being used a references. Not sure that this occurs frequently enough that guideline needs to be amended but it would be nice to have a second opinion before removing the section. FYI, there is an earlier discussion of patents in archive 14.--RDBury (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I made it a further reading section, could be useful as references (don't know, did not check). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL does not ban the use of WP:COMMONSENSE. If editors don't believe that the links provide value to the reader, then they should be removed. This page requires a justification for adding links, not for removing links of dubious value. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BLPs

"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles." How about deleting the text I have placed in italics? Seems superfluous. Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus possibly leaving editors thinking that medium quality is good enough? I'm not sure that we gain anything with this proposed change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's superfluous since it also has "judged by a higher standard". On the other hand it's fairly harmless and there are more important things to worry about.--RDBury (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both points taken. The sentence still rankles a little for me. I will try to come up with a better construction. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] COI to /take down/ ELs?

So I ran into a curious case. Someone took away an EL because, apparently, he was the page owner and took page itself down (but just said "link no longer exists"). Now, figuring it was just a case of someone clicking and finding a broken link, I put a Wayback machine link to replace it. Then person comes and removes it again, saying that they took down the page. Now, in this case it wasn't THAT great a link, but I wonder in a general sense if we should take down good ELs because the page owner doesn't want it there? What about in cases like this where only an archived copy is left? Thoughts? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If person is determined that nobody be able to access the site, ask person to ask Internet Archive to take the site out of Wayback Machine. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-great links probably don't meet my threshold for including anyway.

Asking the archive to suppress the page is a good idea, but since it doesn't work reliably, that's probably not a sufficient answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive effectively operates on an "opt-out" approach to copyright permissions: If you don't block them from your site or ask for material to be removed, they assume they have permission to keep a copy. Whatever one thinks of that model, it sounds like this particular site owner does not want his material archived. So while I agree that he should go through the steps to get the archive taken down, in the meantime we should avoid abetting any potential copyright violation by not linking to the disapproved archive. (Assuming, of course, that there is good reason to believe the person editing here really is the owner of the material in question.) Note that this is an entirely different situation from a site owner who is keeping live material accessible to the internet, but for some reason doesn't want Wikipedia to link to it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my question wasn't so much about the archive -- that was how it came out -- but think about it this way: Since someone who wants to add "their site" may get reverted for it not being good enough, if consensus decides a site IS good enough, could the person whose site it is over ride that? And as far as this site being the user's, well the original link had the name of the site's owner being very similar to the username that look the link down. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Re: Rich Media

Given that Flash and Java have become more and more standard to modern browsers and that it's virtually impossible to reasonably navigate the internet without them nowadays, I suggest we establish a discussion and revisit the 'Rich Media Links' policy.
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please go read the archives. We've been over this at least three times just this year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please go read which of the 27 pages of archives? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using the search box to look for "youtube" and "rich media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I searched the archives and saw that Graham87 brought it up here a couple years ago. But beyond his opening statement, the discussion quickly derailed into copyright and Youtube related nonsense.

The issue, even more significant now than it was two years ago, is the wording of the policy regarding Java and particularly Flash-based links. As standard as these formats are in browsing now, it seems archaic for policy to state links to pages using them 'should be avoided'. For the time being, I don't think it's unreasonable to retain the requirement of 'explicitly indicating the technology required to view the relevant content', but even that may warrant reassessment in a couple years.
-K10wnsta (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This guideline does not say that links to (HTML) pages containing Java or Flash video "should be avoided".

There have been several conversations this year about this issue. Please do the search again, and pay particular attention to discussions in 2009. Note that I have recommended "Search", not "click on the oldest archive that is labeled YouTube". You might choose to use "2009" as a search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to an author's syndicated column

When are external links to an person's syndicated column appropriate for the External links section of the person's Wikipedia biography? example

While cleaning up the spamming of by Chilangringo  (talk · contribs), Projectsyndicate  (talk · contribs), and 195.250.138.178 (talk · contribs) I encountered a discussion here on the links added by Chilangringo. Spamming aside, there's the question of how useful and appropriate such links are for biographies. One editor brought up ELNO#11, but I don't think applies because the external link is to a work by the subject of the biography, rather than about the person. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that these links would qualify easily as either WP:ELYES #1 (WP:ELOFFICIAL) or #2 (links to media described in the article).

You can ask about the specific links in question at the external links noticeboard, if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Taking it to WP:ELN per your advise, where I mention why I don't think ELYES #1 and #2 apply. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interested people are invited to comment here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings in External Links section

Some articles break down the External Links section into subsections, and it seems that it is a common practice to use bold text in place of true subheaders. I presume this is to prevent cluttering the table of contents with additional headings, and would absolutely agree with this rationale. However, following a few edit requests from an IP user, who wanted the bold text replaced with third and fourth level headings, I found I was unable to point him to style guideline to support the use of bold text. I checked the places where I would most likely expect such a guideline, namely this page and MOS:HEAD.

Therefore, assuming I've not overlooked it elsewhere, I would like to propose such a guideline is added to this page (or if it is deemed preferable, MOS:HEAD) and seek the opinions of other editors. Regards, AJCham 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it makes sense to me to use bold text instead of headings in these cases, and can't see any reason not to add it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We should take care that this guideline not appear to endorse sectioning External links at all by any method; quite often, when that occurs, an External link farm is the problem, or sections are used to bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See the first bit of MOS:APPENDIX for the formal advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good-- I think that covers it well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic! That's exactly what I was looking for. AJCham 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)