This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Could I get a third opinion on the "YouTube Links" column at Comedy Nights with Kapil#Guests on the show? User:GIZMOFY added them, I removed them as "WP:LINKSTOAVOID #7: does not appear accessible in US. Also generally fails for overlinking to specific items when already have main link for topic". GIZMOFY asked me why and I responded (User talk:DMacks#Comedy Nights with Kapil), then he re-added them without further comment. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be the wrong one to respond here .. I never see reason why episodes have to be linked to their YouTube upload, like I don't see why songs, even when published on YouTube by the performing artist have to be linked (discographies with whole lists of linked songs on YouTube). I find that a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Is the song/episode notable, then it has an own article with information about the song / episode, otherwise it is just listed. People are very light with YouTube, but it still needs software to be installed (which most people have), it takes bandwidth (we don't all have high-speed internet), it is (sometimes) inaccessible to a large number of readers (I have because of my location limited access to YouTube, and sometimes no access whatsoever - now, the first part must also be said of Wikipedia ..). And as you say, some material is even 'locationally locked' (only available in one country, where people in US can see something, and those in the UK or India can not). Then there is the issue that text is universal, and one should be able to use text to write everything down. I know, an image, or a linked video, tells more than 100 words, but they are, often, useless for those who have to rely on text-only (blind people, e.g.) - so the text should be sufficient in itself already, sometimes making the additional media superfluous.

Every now and then this issue comes up, people insist in having everything linked just because it is there and available .. but YouTube links are to be avoided (WP:YOUTUBE, which does not include all info), and under strict inclusion standards.

Yes, the youtube links to every episode of the show are non-encyclopedic... and moreover, the section itself is about to become non-encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR. It is not enough that the guest might be Notable i.e. have a wikipedia page, and that the show might be Notable i.e. have a wikipedia page: the individual episode must be Notable for some reason. .... hang on a minute.... yup, ignore what I just said. Actually, when I look at how wikipedia works in practice, it seems like your exhaustive guest-list is just fine, by community standards if not strictly by policy. The youtube links are probably not fine, however, unless the videos are licensed CC:BY:SA, or GFDL, or somesuch. If the youtube videos are copyrighted, in the USA or India or whatever, then linking to them is a big no-no, especially linking to them in bulk. But if I were you, I would take a look at the other comedic talkshows already on wikipedia, and see what they do. Prolly the editors of those other pages can give you some solid practical tips, beyond just the youtube question. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has removed an external link to that wiki per WP:ELNO, but I made a little research and I think that site falls under the exception of #12: "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". That wiki is a must register site, so it's protected against anonymous edits and vandalism and its administrators seem to keep tabs on recent edits 24/7 and it has had 1,632 editors overall since 2010. Also, that wiki has 1,142 pages. So it provides more detailed information about the series that you can't possibly find on Wikipedia. That should qualify as a extremely helpful external link. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to it, MorrowStravis? I don't know what website you're talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

http://youngjustice.wikia.com --MorrowStravis (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that those statistics don't include User and Talk pages, MorrowStravis? Looking at recent activity, I only see about 2 editors doing actual article editing, and the rest seems to be people chatting via user pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you can see here http://youngjustice.wikia.com?pojem=Special:ListUsers. 1,637 users made at least one edit, and 794 made at least 5 or more. The show was cancelled so there isn't anything left to do, besides reverting vandalism. And there are no stubs. --MorrowStravis (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Liz - any input? --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that "since 2010" is not a long time, and 1600 users is not a large number, and 794 is certainly not. For me, the exceptions for providing wikis as external links are very very narrow, and can probably be met by less than half a dozen wikis in the whole world (the only ones I can even think of off the top of my head are Memory Alpha and Memory Beta, the first of which is notable enough to even have it's own Wikipedia article). So, no, I don't believe that this is enough to overcome our generally tendency to keep out as many external links as possible. But, if others disagree (I know that I'm on the strict side), I wouldn't fight about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm torn. I don't think it has a "substantial history" but I use Wikia.com daily and consider it a reliable source for the topics it covers (like TV shows). It wouldn't meet RS for a reference/citation but I think it's acceptable as an external link. So, that is a pretty weak, "It's okay by me". It's based on my opinion of its value, not WP policy. Sorry I can't supply a more convincing argument on your behalf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Liz and Qwyrxian, what is "substantial history of stability" and why do you say it doesn't have it? From what I can see, vandalism is immediately reverted and anonymous users can't edit, so that reduces the risk of vandalism a lot. Aren't external links supposed to just direct readers to a place where they can find more information about the topic? That would be that wiki. The current external links are to the official site that only has some games and small biographies, the Worlds Finest that only has images and reviews, the IMDb that only has cast and crew stuff and TV.com that only has recaps and everything IMDb has. The wiki has much more than that and adds more to this article that WP policy allows it. I get why so many external links for stub wikis were removed by Nikkimaria but this one I don't. --MorrowStravis (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Support putting the youngjustice link back in. The main prohibitions are to sites that contain malware, flash-only or otherwise not-accessibility-friendly content, paywalls/registrationWalls, affliateLinks/trackingLinks/referralSpam, mapsite/bookstore (use wikipedia sourcing tools instead), advertising/product-sites, manufacturerList/supplierList/customerList, promotion/petition-sites, search result-pages, factually-inaccurate-or-unverifiable info, facebook/twitter/etc, usenet/forums/etc, blogs/homepages/fansites ('except those written by a Notable authority'), wikis ('except those with an incredibly stable community of a gargantuanlly massive number of editors' ... paraphrasing here). In general, to qualify as an exception, the target must be especially notable in some way; a blog by LarryZ99 from Anchorage does not qualify, a blog by Noam Chomsky does qualify. Wikis that are notable enough to have their own dedicated page on wikipedia *might* qualify, maybe. In general, to qualify as an exception, the target must be specifically and directly related to the subject of the wikipedia article (not a bunch of information haphazardly piled together); merely being mentioned in the article is not sufficient. Next, it must be likely to remain that way: if it will soon become a dead link, or a parked domain, then it is not a good candidate. But the key criteria is this: if the wikipedia article were improved to the point where it was a Featured Article, fully fleshed out and polished... would you *still* link to the external site, from that hypothetical super-article? Does the target provide a Unique Resource, beyond what wikipedia-the-repository-of-encyclopedic-content is ever going to contain? If so, and if the target is clearly going to be around for the long term, and is specifically and directly related to the topic of the article in question, put the link back in. You say that the site provides more detailed info than wikipedia -- but that is not enough. It must provide a unique resource, which is to say, info that never *will* be part of some hypothetical *complete* and finished wikipedia. That is a much higher standard. Are there any Notable people (directors/writers/animators/voiceActors/similar) that are editing that wiki? That would help. Anyways, you are probably safe to add the site back... if you think that the current set of editors will stick around for the next five years, keeping out spam and such, and that the domain will not get de-registered. Note that I agree with Qwyrxian that youngjustice.wikia *fails* to qualify as a notable external wiki -- the reason I think it qualifies is because it provides a Unique Resource that will never qualify as encyclopedic content (wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow list of the plotlines of every show in a television series). Of course, I've only read three pages on the target, ever... but if you've thought it over, and decide that the site qualifies as a Unique Resource and/or as a Fansite By Notable People, then go with your best judgement. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I put back the link and Nikkimaria took it out again and said "not supported by discussion". Qwyrxian said he is against but won't mind if others disagree. Liz said she thinks the link is acceptable as external link, User talk:74.192.84.101 supports it and so do I. How is that "not supported by discussion"? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)And Greg Wiseman edits there http://youngjustice.wikia.com?pojem=Message_Wall:Gweisman Doesn't that make it "a notable wiki"? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh, not supported by discussion!  :-)    Sorry about the sarcasm, could not resist. No harm intended, nor any offense. But if I may gently point out, Nikkimaria has not posted here, so quite obviously, no discussion including *them* has supported the controversial reinstatement of the link. In other words, it is not supported by discussion#B, which is not this discussion#A that you and I are having here on this noticeboard page. As for the Greg Wiseman thing, that does not make it a notable wiki, because notability is non-transferrable. If my little brother has their own wikipedia page, that does not make *me* notable. Individual pages of the young justice wiki, which were edited solely by Greg Wiseman, could be used as sources, in support of wikipedia sentences about which Greg Wiseman has expertise. Of course, as I understand it anybody can register and edit the YJW, so in fact only *diffs* of edits made by username-greg-wiseman would be suitable sources for wikipedia articles, and even then, only if nobody challenged the idea that username-greg-wiseman and Notable humanoid Greg Wiseman were in fact one and the same! Short answer: nope, sorry, Wiseman's participation is not relevant, at least, as I grok things. As for the budding edit war over whether the EL belongs or not, I'll try coming over to where NikkiMaria and you are working, and see if I can broker a peace treaty.  :-)   Feel free to ping me on my talkpage if you wish, or if I fail to respond promptly. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't understand most of what you said. What is discussion#B? I messaged Nikkimaria when i started this. There's no other discussion about this. And you asked "Are there any Notable people (directors/writers/animators/voiceActors/similar) that are editing that wiki? That would help.". Weisman edits there. --MorrowStravis (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is still that it doesn't meet the exception for wikis, because I believe that the exception is meant to be read extremely narrowly. But I have no intention of either removing it if added, since I don't care all that much. However, I think that Nikkimaria is correct to remove that link; in the case of a disputed EL, there needs to be a clear, strong consensus to include it; in all other cases (including a split discussion like this) the default must be to keep it out. Since this discussion isn't getting so much traffic, you may want to try an RfC on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I did it now. --MorrowStravis (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my explanation was faulty. I'll try again here, and I'll try to keep it brief. ((Later update: I lied. But I think this longer explanation is more clear.)) When you were reverted by NikkiMaria with 'not supported by discussion' she was implicitly referring to "discussion#B" which is over here now -- Talk:Young_Justice_(TV_series)#RfC:_Should_a_link_to_Young_Justice_Wiki_be_included.3F.

    If anybody *responds* to discussion#B over on the article-talkpage, and says they decline, or says they don't believe it follows policy such-and-such, then discuss the problem with them, and work out something neutral that everybody is happy with. See WP:NPOV which is pillar two. In particular, please DO NOT say, if somebody objects, that you're putting the link in anyways, because one-and-a-half votes in favor beats one vote against, see WP:CONSENSUS, article-content is not decided by voting. On the other hand, hey, if nobody shows up for three days, then go ahead and put the link back in, mentioning in your edit-summary that your addition is "per talkpage consensus and the one-major-fansite exception to WP:LINKFARM policy" which will alert any WikiCops who happen to be passing by that you are following the written and unwritten customs.

    If you do, and somebody deletes you, again, well, no biggie, just leave a personal note on their talkpage, referring them to the article-talkpage, and wait another three days. If all this sounds like it takes forever... sorry, it does. Wikipedia is for the ages. The wheels of WikiJustice grind slow, but they grind fair, and usually they grind fine.

    However, while you are waiting for the discussion#B of your ELNO exception to be finished, feel free to occupy yourself in any way you like. There are plenty of holes in the Young Justice article, that might need help from a subject-expert like yourself. Even me, who knows little about the series, *I* found an obvious bug right off the bat: the wfOnline link in the external link section goes to the main homepage of that site via some redirect, *not* to the young-justice portion where it is supposed to deeplink. But hey, I didn't fix the problem... which is my right per WP:REQUIRED... however which is not my usual technique, but this time, I left it for some budding Wikipedian to fix, and get their username in good with the local elders....  :-) hint hint

    Anyways, MorrowStravis, sorry about my huge walls-of-text, it is a disease. If you don't understand *this* message either, come to my talkpage with your questions, or if you think somebody, ummm, less verbose might be able to give you answers more quickly, you can always use WP:TEAHOUSE, or pick any editor from the list of WP:RETENTION members, or click on the 'Community Portal' button over on the lefthand side, which has links to the Librarians aka refdesk, the Tutors aka helpdesk, and other cool stuff. As I say, though, please feel free to ask me personally, about YoungJustice stuff, or any other concerns. Hope this finds you well, hope your wiki-link will soon be improving the mainspace article, and hope you stick around to become a wikipedian. There are a bunch of rules... but really, there are only five, and I edited wikipedia for *years*, never reading anything except that one page of rules and policies and WikiPolitics... when in doubt, remember pillar five, my friend. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm more clarified, but there was no disscussionB when Nikki undid my edit. I only started it after that. The only discussion was discussionA. So why wasn't my edit supported by that discussion? --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well... the short answer, is that Nikki was specifically-albeit-implicitly meaning to refer to article-talkpage-discussion-with-the-local-elders, which you and I just started (you on the 28th, me with the first comment today, now we give it 3 days since ELNO is potentially-controversial per our good advice from NikkiMaria). There is 'your' edit, just recently, right? But then, there are the many older content-identical edits! For instance, this one, by one of the local elders Jack, who removed *both* the YoungJusticeWikia and the WorldsFinestOnline links, based on the methinks-misguided idea that *no* fansites should be linked. Somebody named 181 reverted Jack's WP:BOLD edit,, and then Jack said to take it to the talkpage... but 181 never did. Hence, just like NikkiMaria says, any similar edit is 'not (yet) supported by (article talkpage) discussion (with Jack and other local elders)'. That was back in 2012, long before you made a similar edit, right? Jack is prolly not correct in removing both, policy says otherwise, and I quoted the relevant one-major-fansite sentence on the article-talkpage. But remember pillar five, WP:IAR, maybe Jack has a good reason for thinking neither one belongs. We ask him... or someone... over on the talkpage. Maybe *both* links belong. WP:IAR, whatever improves wikipedia -- as a reliable neutral encyclopedia -- is not just permitted, it's mandatory.  :-)

Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A linkfarm. I had removed them, but they were restored by an editor who should know better. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure the software is not Notable? I agree the article at the moment looks bad... but are you arguing for deletion, or for a rewrite into more encyclopedic prose? Among the top 25 hits for the software, I find five 'official' sites, six websites about Raghava (presumably one of the scientists involved?), and several outside-of-India websites specifically mentioning that particular module of that particular software, including nih.gov , lib.bioinfo.pl , india.gov.in , and duckduckgo.com/1/c/Open_Source_Bioinformatics_software -- plus a bunch of domain names related to bioinformatics, which may or may not be Notable and/or Reliable Sources (I'm not familiar with the field). Can you give a better explanation of what your desired outcome is, here? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you name some names, please, regarding who you are working with, and who you are working against -- or to put it more delicately, please say whom exactly you believe is currently acting contrary to the goals of wikipedia, perhaps unknowingly? The edit-history of the site is confusing, so I cannot easily grok who is trying to put the "contact me at my website" line back into the body repeatedly. Is it just one person, or more than one? Also, the article talkpage seems to be blank... has this conflict been discussed on userpages? ...or simply not at all? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kurttodoroff, presumably Kurt Todoroff, great-grandson of one of the possible inventors and heir to the throne of the world-famous Michigan hot dog, is adding external links to his company's website3 to the Michigan hot dog article. Straightforward WP:LINKSPAM? Blackguard 18:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my question at Wikipedia talk:External links#Template:UnitedStatesCode regarding the use of templates that link to external sites. In short, is it appropriate to use such templates in article prose, as opposed to references or infoboxes? Depending on the answer to that question, documentation may need to be updated. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There was an external link to an ever-changing list of current crimes in the named community. An editor removed it. Finding that the link adds immeasurably to the understanding of the neighborhood, I restored it. The above editor took it out again. I would like to put it back. The list in question is constantly being updated and so cannot be incorporated into the article. What should be done?GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with removal. What purpose does it serve? The area, according to the article from a quick skim, does not appear to be high crime. Including it seems to imply that it is. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, an editor has raised a question about whether or not this external link is appropriate Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre to be placed on the Battle of Milne Bay article. I would like to invite interested parties to join the discussion on the article's talk page here: Talk:Battle of Milne Bay#Facebook links to reputable organization reverts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Being that "editor" mentioned above I will chime in with my view. Facebook is being used by very reputrable research institutions, museums, libraries (including the Library of Congress for institutional purposes. Since those are generally used as notifications of special events, special exhibits, new findings and change often they should never be used as cites. They are not good references, though many will have links to institutional pages that are. They are excellent follow up or further reading sources for a reader that wants to follow a subject and particularly what is going on in an institution covering such subjects. While an external link to Smithsonian might never be useful as an external link in a particular subject an external link to National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution seems suitable for an article on African Art, or one to Naval History & Heritage Command's Facebook page might be appropriate in some general naval history article as it tends to announce new publications and projects. As AustralianRupert noted on the Talk page: "My understanding of the reasons behind the policy outlined at WP:ELNO is that the concern is that such sites have 'user generated content'. Interestingly, Wikipedia also falls into this category" is pertinent, and qualified, in another way. First, unlike Wikipedia, the pages are monitored, moderated and introductions to sections are written by the professional staff and not random users. Second, if anyone has been following the scandal of a certain U.S. Senator plagiarizing from Wikipedia one will know that for Wikipedia to be "banning" Facebook pages of such as the Library of Congress smacks of pot calling the brass kettle black as most news organizations and politicians make the comment with eyes rolling "Wikipedia, of all things . . ." I also pose this question. Is the intent here to serve those that do read Wikipedia articles, to help them discover more? Or is it really a semi cult of "editors" largely writing for themselves? I have my own doubts about Wikipedia (thus staying largely focused on a narrow and under covered area on the web) but do find it quite useful in one particular respect. Any well done article here contains better links quick to references than many Google searches full of off subject "hits" that must be mined for the gold. Thus I propose Facebook links to recognized institutional pages be acceptable solely for "Further reading" and "External link" sections. Palmeira (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to get some opinions on the following matter involving the website www.patrioticnigras.org. I have made the following points as to why this link shouldn't be acceptable to include in a Wikipedia Article:

• There is content on the website which violates Linden Labs copyrights. For example their Misuse of the name Second Life and directs to software downloads that are created using unauthorized scripts and materials licensed to Linden Labs however PN has used without permission.
  • Question: Doesn't linking this in a Wikipedia article violate the WP:ELNEVER rule?

--Olowe2011 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Context: For more context on this question please see this ongoing RfC and also note that Olowe2011 has been trying to remove this link on and off for about 1 year now. This WP:COPYVIO claim in fact represents Olowe2011's 4th theory of the case (previously he's tried removing the URL under WP:N, WP:V, and WP:ELNO#3) and his 5th venue (discussions have previously taken place at the article talk page, at AfD, at AN/I, and at the above-linked RfC). The current RfC was initially filed based on WP:ELNO#3 (i.e. Olowe2011's personal speculation that the website was being used to hack readers' computers), and when support for his perspective did not emerge he significantly altered the RfC's basis to that of a WP:COPYVIO claim. Now he's again changed forum to come here to EL/N. It is increasingly apparent that these efforts are being made for private/personal reasons, and not due to concern for Linden Labs or Wikipedia's readers. Olowe2011 would do well to review Wikipedia's policy against forum shopping and to drop the stick. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Pokey5945 repeatedly spams the Talk pages of articles related to F. King Alexander with links to the same blog (this one: http://thugthebook.blogspot.com). The current WP:BLP F. King Alexander Talk page Talk:F. King Alexander (not even including the archives) has seven (7) links to the blog posted by User:Pokey5945, and the Talk:Oxford Round Table Oxford Round Table Talk page has two (2) such links to it posted by User:Pokey5945. The link repeatedly posted is to a blog written by a man who sued F. King Alexander named Brian Lane. The blog in question is an endless rant (written in the third person, for some reason, and often veering into writing many paragraphs in ALL CAPS) that attempts to damage the reputations of the entire Alexander family. The Oxford Round Table is just an education conference started by F. King Alexander's father, Kern Alexander. For whatever reasons, perhaps directly related to his being fired from CSU-Long Beach for stealing scholarship funds while F. King Alexander was their university president, Brian Lane is incredibly fixated on F. King Alexander and his entire family. Here are articles related to Brian Lane and his suing Alexander: http://www.daily49er.com/news/2012/09/30/film-professor-appeals-possible-termination/ http://www.presstelegram.com/technology/20130219/cal-state-long-beach-professor-who-allegedly-misused-scholarship-money-to-step-down Here is a link to Brian Lane's Twitter page that is entirely devoted to speaking ill of past and present administrators at California State University-Long Beach, especially those who were present when Lane was fired. The Twitter account also makes hundreds of libelous statements about the Alexander family: https://twitter.com/THUGthebook The blog is clearly the work of an unhinged person, and by their repeatedly spamming that link, one would assume that User:Pokey5945 is somehow directly involved with that blog. User:Pokey5945 is simultaneously external link spamming and violating WP:BLP policy by (repeatedly) moving that link to F. King Alexander's Talk page. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true. Every time Aragorn8392 deleted my Talk page comment containing the link, I restored it. Aragorn is under the bizarre impression that editors are not permitted to discuss the validity of online sources on a talk page, and has repeatedly deleted my comment containing said link. Had Aragorn not deleted my comments, I would not have needed to repost the link. Aragorn's comments about the author of the linked cite seem extreme, but whether true or not is irrelevant, since I already agreed that the cite does not meet RS. My only concern here is that I do not want my comments deleted by a dedicated POV-warrior. I would note that sock puppets editing these articles from Champaign-Urbana were banned in 2008, and Aragorn would appear to be the latest incarnation of the Urbana POV gang.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, User:Pokey5945 and other outside editors have agreed that the blog does not meet RS guidelines and could thus not be used to improve the article, yet User:Pokey5945 spams the Talk page of a BLP with links to the blog anyway.

Speaking of "POV-warrior", User:Pokey5945 constantly attempts to make sneaky edits that are meant to be insinuating and violate NPOV. For instance, on the Oxford Round Table article, Pokey5945 is adamant about providing an overly exhaustive corporate history of the ORT in order to propagate their pet theory. User:Pokey5945 says on the Talk:Oxford Round Table page: "I would object to this edit on the grounds that ORT's corporate status changes frequently between for-profit and non-profit, popping up and then dissolving in one jurisdiction after another, suggesting an ongoing attempt to evade taxation...Re the tax evasion, that's my working hypothesis." As an editor, they are trying to insinuate that the conference is some vehicle for tax evasion, but there are no corroborating sources to suggest such a thing. The only source that strongly holds this POV is the blog of Brian Alan Lane, which pops up when you google something like 'oxford round table tax.'

If you look at the user page of User:Pokey5945, you will see that they have an extensive history of edit warring and not following WP:BRD. That they would make creepy comments assuming another editor's location and affiliations is an example of how User:Pokey5945 heavily monitors all content related to F. King Alexander, quickly doing reversions and trying to lock other editors out of the process of editing these articles.--Aragorn8392 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I do seem to attract the attention of editors who like to make wild and unsubstantiated accusations. I will voluntarily delete the extra links, but somehow I doubt that will satisfy Aragorn. Anyone want to take that bet?Pokey5945 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The link doesn't belong on the Talk page of a BLP at all. That does not actually relate to my personal level of satisfaction, it's just WP:BLP policy. --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Links have been added repeatedly 45678 to International Bank Account Number and Sort Code. The links are to different versions of a site that now offers to take local bank details and provide the IBAN that would be used as the destination code for an international transfer of funds to that account. The sites do not claim to be provided by any bank or banking body and the additions are by a site owner - who has discussed it at Talk:International Bank Account Number9 - so they may fail WP:ELNO and WP:COI. But worse, I see no way to verify the accuracy or bona fides of the sites. Such a site could be used to harvest bank details, but worse it could provide an incorrect IBAN so that funds would not go to the intended account. I and another editor have tried to remove the links at the first article but they have been re-added and updated. I have just now discovered the links at the second article and wonder if there may be more in other articles. I don't know WP policy and practice well enough. Should the editor be persuaded not to add the links? Would a preventative blacklisting of www.iban.net, www.reverseiban.com and www.sortcodes.co.uk be appropriate? NebY (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

why not remove http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Sort_code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure this is an External links Noticeboard issue. The Further reading items I am adding have a link to basic page for Google books 10, the ISBN, WorldCat number, and Library of Congress catalogue listing. The book is published by SAGE and the Cato Institute and is a good tertiary source. The particular articles are written by respected university professors and authors. Maunus seems to be saying "don't put that reference in because it is too specialized and has stuff that is somehow outside the topic of the article". But this sort of material, especially if it lets readers know more about a topic, that should go into a WP:FURTHER reading section. If there are objections to particular articles, they should be brought up on the individual article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

A few months ago I saw WP:WALL mentioned frequently in discussions involving Austrian economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. So I thought I'd try to expand the topic beyond the wall, and provide more links. This particular encyclopedia, it seems to me, helps in that regard. It has well written articles on a variety of subjects. My plan -- I thought I could simply post the reference in a gnomish pattern. And then the intention is to incorporate the material into articles with more relevance and usefulness. (The gnomish entries also helps keep myself busy rather than engaging in some other ongoing disputes.) So I'm getting some grief at this stage. That's fine. I'll stop adding the article references and focus on incorporation. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A): all of the links being removed are to articles on individual people (not collectives). While it is true that not all people on these lists may be living, all of the links removed are on living people (or in one case recently deceased), so WP:BLPEL is the appropriate policy to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement that removal of links was limited to "articles on individual people (not collectives)" is flatly untrue. Your first deletions were of 2 Playmates on the 1967 List, not their individual pages. I questioned it on your talk page (Dec 7) and Brangifer opened the RS/N discussion Dec 8. On Dec 10 you deleted PB Wiki links for the 2 Playmates who had them on the 1990 list, and for all 12 on the 1993 list. On Dec 12, you posted the denial above ("not collectives"). Trying to sound measured and reasonable? The next day you intensified what you had just denied doing, deleting all the PB Wiki links on 13 "collective" pages—Lists of Playmates. The next day, Dec 14, you deleted 13 more. In answer to me on your talk page, you have asserted a "right" to do so without awaiting the outcome of any discussion, but you falsely denied doing so here. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I said to articles, not on articles. The "List of..." pages have links to both PBwiki pages about individuals and the PBwiki's version of "list of"; only the former so far have been removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(B): Playboy Wiki is a fansite, not an official site; ""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (WP:ELOFFICIAL, my emphasis). That there are other links that may need removal is true but not relevant). In particular, I've already explained my reasoning regarding IMDb. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep dismissing the PB Wiki as a "fansite", apparently not having read the descriptions provided regarding its origins and purpose, and its actual function within the network of other official Playboy sites. You cite WP:ELOFFICIAL, but you are reading it very selectively in trying to validate your actions. The very first thing it says is:

"An official link is a link to a website or other internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

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."

Playboy Wiki meets both of these criteria. (1) It and its content are controlled by Playboy (as I described ad nauseum above and in the RS/N discussion), and Playboy is a subject of any "List of Playboy Playmates" article. (2) The Playboy Wiki's content details _where_ Playboy's Playmates can be found _as Playmates_. But you ignore those 2 criteria and skip down to the wording that you quote above: ""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites…" —and here you choose to stop reading. That places it drastically out of context, because if you finish that line it says— "…because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented." Oh. Well given the abundant proofs that Playboy _does_ control what the Playboy Wiki presents, PB Wiki does not meet the definition of a "fansite" for the purpose of that text which you incompletely cite. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I read your explanation; it's simply incorrect. If you have an article or a link about an individual, the individual is the subject, even if you examine the individual within a particular context, even if the individual is only discussed in one section of a list. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(C) is not relevant - while the site may or may not meet point 1 of ELNO, WP:BLPEL's more stringent standards are not met (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it absolutely _is_ relevant (WP:ELNO #1 suggests that an external link should provide a "unique resource"…) PB Wiki qualifies not only because it is "official" but because it provides a relevant and "unique" resource. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, BLPEL overrides ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(D): Again, biographies in a list are still biographies; again, what other sites may or may not meet our standards is not relevant to the question of whether this one does; and again, "Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs". (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your emphasis on "BLP" standards is misplaced, since the subject of "Lists of Playboy Playmates" is an organization's selections, and any individual persons are listed only in that context. But PB Wiki does not even fail the "higher standard" of WP:BLPEL. That excludes "Questionable sources". Playboy in general and the PB Wiki in particular do _not_ have "a poor reputation for checking the facts"—most certainly not with respect to the PB Wiki external links' purpose of detailing _where_ the Playmate can be found as a Playmate—nor does PB Wiki "lack meaningful editorial oversight", given its "Organizers" including "Playboy_Official", and there can be no "apparent conflict of interest" in a Playboy site that simply lists where Playmates can be found as Playmates. The other possibly relevant section, though probably not so, is "Self-published sources". It is highly questionable whether this would apply to Playboy sites publishing about who is a Playmate and when and where. After all, what could possibly be the ultimate source of such info other than Playboy and the sites that it has directly established? Nonetheless, the section that follows provides the common sense that should be applied: WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities." I presume that includes activities like Playboy publishing Playmates. _Not_ that Playboy or Playboy Wiki can be dismissed as questionable or self-published sources, but even if Nikkimaria wants to say they are, she cannot use that as justification to exclude them when the subject is a "List of Playboy Playmates" Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your response here is based on your misinterpretation of both the article and the relevant policies. The subjects here are individuals, not the company; BLP applies to living individuals no matter what context they're found in; PBwiki is considered an SPS, just as Wikipedia is considered an SPS even if it draws information from sources that are not self-published. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

At the time you wrote that, only you, citing reasons, and one other citing none, were telling me this. Two others asked challenging questions, which were answered, and they have not responded as to whether or not they are satisfied. Two others provisionally supported the links unless certain other tests were failed, and evidence was given to show that those tests were met. They have not responded there either. Anyway, it's quite a different story now that others have had time to evaluate the case and respond. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Andrew, I don't think a "List of Playboy Playmates" can be construed primarily as "BLP". But regardless of that, BLP has no relevancy to PB Wiki links in those lists because those links do not concern themselves with anything other than where you can find a particular Playmate _as a Playmate_ on Playboy sites. I have never seen anyone on the PB Wiki allowed to add any sort of biographical content. No boyfriends, marriages, kids, divorces, arrests, Presidential medals, Nobel prizes, or anything else not directly related to their being Playmates. If Playboy has mentioned anything like that, for example in a Playmate's introductory article in the magazine, that may also appear on another Playboy site online and the PB Wiki may link to it. But that content does not originate within the PB Wiki. Users there are not allowed to add any such stuff. PB Wiki is primarily a directory to the contents of all the other Playboy sites. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, here is the criteria for the data accessed via the P.W. external link (http://www.playboywiki.com/PLAYMATES+-+Feature+List#2010) in the Wikipedia list https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013:

What is listed, what is not listed, and why:

• We list mainly the items that had links on their Playmate File pages. Some of that may not survive the Cyber Club, but the Wiki will still archive it.
• Playmates' names link to their main Wiki pages, which all have complete pictorial, video, and Centerfold links. We don't repeat all those links here.
• Playmates of the Year on this list have their month highlighted. PMOY features are the 1st item on their main Wiki pages, so we don't repeat PMOY links here.
• We list the # of pics in the main pictorial ("Portfolio") from each Playmate File. That is the only variable that we can compare for every Playmate.
• "Exclusives" are labeled here as on the Cyber Club pages themselves: Previews. Those posted late by PB+ are "Exclusives". ( Now replaced by weeklies.)
• Similar features appear in the same columns. E.g., "Previews", "Before they were Playmates", and "Test Shots". Rarely, we have to squeeze in "Pre+Test".
• Besides PM Xtras, we note other major exclusive extra pictorials, like "N is for Neriah". There may be several; we only list the "biggest" one here. See their pages.
• We count only videos that are at least 1 minute long, and in which the listed Playmate is a primary focus.

• Several features are accessed via the link titled "extra" in the Cyber Club's Playmate File pages. They are listed here individually ( the 3 columns on the right ).

I would include the actual data, which is in form of a table, but am unable to copy and paste it in w/ the right formatting. Azx2 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Azx2, as I read it where you found this at PB Wiki, the criteria you quote only describe what is included or not _on that particular page_ of PB Wiki. It may not be irrelevant, but Nikkimaria's concern seems to be focused on the links in the "Lists of Playboy Playmates" that list all the places where you can find each Playmate on Playboy's sites. Those are links to each individual Playmate's page at the PB Wiki. The link you describe is a single page that summarizes the coverage of Playmates and links to their individual pages. Wikilister (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

BLPEL was the original reasoning; copyright was cited by another contributor at RSN. I've already explained why I want to remove them: because, regardless of whether they meet ELNO or not, they fail BLPEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify the order in which the objections were raised, Nikkimaria. Are you arguing that the external links in question fail BLPEL because they are "questionable" or because they are "self-published?"

I reviewed one of the lists here https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013, which includes two links to the Playboy Wiki: http://www.playboywiki.com/PLAYMATES+-+Feature+List#2010 plus generic link to the main page http://www.playboywiki.com/. While the data accessible via the former seems at first pass to be valuable and complementary to what's available on Wikipedia (see below), I question the inclusion of the latter. Why is there a link to the specific year's list of Playmates, but also a second link that points at the main page of the Playboy wiki, Wikilister? Is that the case through all of the lists in question on Wikipedia, that there are double-links to the Playboy Wiki? Thanks. Azx2 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well there aren't many PB Wiki links of any kind left after the blitz against them. You seem to be questioning the form of the links, where there is a general link to the source's homepage and a specific link to the relevant section. I was following what seems to be common practice, as I have seen that formula for links elsewhere in Wikipedia. It seemed useful to me in that it identifies the source (Playboy Wiki) and then zeroes in on the directly relevant section. If the link text just said "Playmates of 2013", it would be citing the relevant section but not identifying the source. If the general ID should not itself be a link, I would like to know. It is not an essential part, and could be disposed of, if the PB Wiki links survive at all.

I gave my response to Nikkimaria's emphasis on "BLPEL" above where she challenged part "(D)" of my opening post in this discussion. Wikilister (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There are still over 100 links to the site, Wikilister. Azx2, mostly self-published, although we could argue about whether questionable applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

See WP:EAR#Restrictions on Linking at the PXE page and Talk:Preboot Execution Environment#Restrictions on Linking. An editor (who appears to have a COI and has been blocked twice already for edits to that page) is arguing that the external link to the ERPXE project should be removed because the project offers for download a number of files that (the editor asserts) are copyrighted Microsoft binaries, and that the link should be covered by WP:ELNEVER.

I think the argument is just on this side of meritorious, though I think it's likely they might have a fair use argument, and that we might be okay from that. All that aside, I think the link itself might merit removal simply on WP:ELNO grounds as merely promotional (that WP:SOLUTION language hits that for me in part). But it seems like that argument has been hashed out ad nauseam already at Talk:Preboot Execution Environment/Archive 1. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I removed the link in question because of WP:ELNO. This can probably be archived as moot, unless there's some argument to be made why WP:ELNEVER wouldn't apply in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The ERPXE Project fixed all the issues mentioned above and is now a legal PXE tool. The copyrighted files were packaged by mistake and removed from all packages.

http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Preboot_Execution_Environment#Restrictions_on_Linking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.235.254 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I please get a second opinion on the appropriateness of http://directory.cheapbooks.com/category/education/school/higher-education/financial-aid/college-savings-plans/ this link in the External links section of this article? It looks like spam to me but an unregistered editor connected with that website is edit warring and harassing me offline to retain the link. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Spam. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Spam OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A new editor who has worked on this site has added it to several articles. I have removed it because it appeared to be too promotional. Have I been too hasty? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it does look rather promotional. Do you think that it could be an "official" site (similar to an official Office of Tourism website)? It's at a .gov.au address, and I thought those were only for government agencies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.XXX has been adding this website to Takamura Monogatari again and again. It seems to meet WP:ELNO #11 ("Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority") and WP:SPAM to me. I would like to ask for a second opinion. Thanks. 114.163.237.139 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

<Personal attack/BLP-violation removed>

Okay, I'll stop re-adding the link. I don't really care one way or the other. Cheers. 182.249.240.32 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Hijiri88)

Although I do wonder where else an online copy of the text will be found in either Japanese or English. The link clearly passes WP:ELYES#3 and WP:ELMAYBE#4. Can you suggest any alternatives? Or is this just something personal? 182.249.240.31 (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (Hj88)

<Personal attack/BLP-violation removed>

Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. See WP:ELPOINTS. 114.164.17.243 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now a couple of times removed a linkfarm of official campaign websites on a election page (see e.g. diff). To me, these violate:

• WP:EL - "... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
• WP:ELNO #13 - these are the campaign websites, not the election websites, they are indirect. The one for John Doe would be direct on John Doe's Nebraska gubernatorial election campaign, 2014, and indirect on Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2014. They give information over the campaign, not over the election themselves.
• WP:NOT#LINKFARM - obvious, for larger elections this results in almighty linkfarms
• WP:NOT#SOAPBOX - lists tend to be adapted in time, not always complete (weaker point; though Nebraska_gubernatorial_election,_2014 has 8 declared candidates, 7 campaign external links - what if one does not have a campaign external link? - extra note, one of the sites is dead, 2 are redirects of which one is to a (personal) facebook page).

Moreover, some of the links are already used as references for specific statements (endorsements). Thoughts. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding: about 2 of the 8 declared candidates in the Nebraska_gubernatorial_election,_2014 also carry the link on their 'personal' Wikipedia page, where it is already more direct than on the election page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

the dead link cannot be there per ELNO. are the redirects to facebook campaign sites or to the personal sites? if they are to the personal sites then clearly far too tangential to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the links do not belong and should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about the last point I brought up above, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX - I was considering that in terms of neutrality (instigated by one revert-remark after my removal of the sites - "WP:SOAPBOX doesn't apply, since no apparent discrimination among candidates in list."), but that is not codified in WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, a neutral representation of all sides does not take away the fact that all links are still (self-)promoting single candidates.

I do note, that this seems to be 'standard' throughout - see Category:United States gubernatorial elections, 2014 (and also the other years linked from the top right corner). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask about this, but I keep trying to add this link and it's just not working:

https://www.billboard.com/artist/earthless/chart-history/heatseekers-albums

Here's that in markup so you don't have to click Edit to see it:

{{BillboardURLbyName|artist=earthless|chart=Heatseekers Albums}}

What am I doing wrong? LazyBastardGuy 04:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the external link, it has to do with the template, see the documentation for {{BillboardURLbyName}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That didn't help at all. I still don't understand what is going on and I left a post on that talk page awhile ago, but no one has answered (in fact I'm sure no one even saw it). I didn't know what else to do because I have absolutely no idea what's wrong with the way I'm trying to write this link. I have checked it very thoroughly, and I wrote the artist name exactly as described. It's still not working. LazyBastardGuy 05:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The template has to link to the artist name as on billboard.com, I have tried 'http://www.billboard.com/artist/earthless/chart?f=324 - but that indeed does not get to the intended page, billboard.com apparently disagrees with that link. Since that is wrong, the link is automatically broken by the template. The problem is on the side of billboard.com, which seems highly inconsistent throughout as the documentation of the template describes. I am afraid that you will need to find help from someone on the template side, I am sorry, but this is really not something we can help you with. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I suppose there is nothing I can do but wait for Billboard to catch up. In any case, I suppose it's the thought that counts, so I will continue using the templated link. LazyBastardGuy 16:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

LazyBastardGuy, I fixed this for you by adding Earthless's Billboard id to {{BillboardID/E}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

there has been a proliferation of templates for the Indian film industry such as

• Template:BoxOfficeIndia
• Template:Bollywood Hungama

they seem to me to be just spammy and not valuable - what are others opinions and what would the next steps be? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

TfD? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As we know that on Wikipedia,Box Office India is used as the primary source for boxoffice figures of Bollywood films.On 20 January 2014,Box Office India revamped its website completely.There is separate page of actors ,actress,each Bollywood film on Box Office India. Its on the lines of reliable sources Box Office Mojo and IMDB templates on wikipedia. For Bollywood films,Box Office India template has to kept for Bollywood films -specific details.--Nehapant19 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have both {{Box Office India}} and {{BoxOfficeIndia}}, and also a redirect via {{Template:Box Office India}}? DMacks (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes three of them are just unnecessary. Remove two, keep one. Looks like they've updated their site now with separate dedicated web pages for each film and actor. Soham 04:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The {{Box Office India}} is totally different from {{BoxOfficeIndia}} . {{Box Office India}} is having description of each Bollywood actor/actress detail with list of all his films and its verdict in their entire career. {{BoxOfficeIndia}} is for separate page for each Bollywood film with its verdict,star cast,story,etc. Both these templates are very necessary and this different pages are much better than {{IMDB or Box Office Mojo because these BoxofficeIndia templates are Bollywood films-specific. {{Template:Box Office India}} was created by mistake. so i redirected it to one of the two templates.You can delete only {{Template:Box Office India}} which is unncessary.Other two are very essential.--Nehapant19 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the misnamed one. For the others, it's needlessly confusing to have templates whose content and use are different to differ only by whitespace. For example, if the difference is that one has more details, us the word "detailed" in the name. Note, I am not endorsing keeping both (or even either), but it's important that if we have both, they are clear to others what each is. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the general thought (if not consensus) is that we do not need templates for these things - they only encourage linkfarming (which already seems to have started) - even IMDB often does not ADD anything new to a page, we do not add external links just because they exist. I still think that a general TFD on these is worth considering. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In that way, you will say the no external links should be put,either IMDB or Box Office Mojo. These two {{Box Office India}} and {{BoxOfficeIndia}} are better than IMDB or Boxofficemojo,becasue:

1. They give every detail of Bollywood actors and Bollywoof films with a separate page'
2. Each film is accompanied by its box-office-verdict which is not present in either IMDB ,boxofficemojo or bollywoodhunagama. Important notes are accompained on each film page.
3. First time,Box Office India is providing a complete repository of Bollywood films from 1940 to 2014(till date).No other site provides that much huge data and relevant information about Bollywood films.

--Nehapant19 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nehapant19 - our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. The number of external links should be minimized indeed, our pillars tell us so.

Why is the verdict not something that Wikipedia could tell, if it is so important that we need to link to it in the external links section - apparently that is the only thing that it is adding that others don't? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

and the "verdict"s being talked about: - "flop" , "megablockbuster" HA! what nonsense. AND they are completely arbitrary. In more than one occasion I have seen BOI rate a film that had a higher net AND gross with the lower "verdict". If the "verdict" is the rationale for the templates, thats worse than useless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought we were talking 2 pages of detailed discussion. So basically, if Wikipedia would write somewhere in the body 'According to BOI this movie is a flop', with a reference to the site, then we have covered all of the 'extra data' in a proper way (better than as a mere external link). (not that I am convinced that it is notable to mention that verdict in the prose either). Maybe a 'revert and delete' is in order then - we don't need these links in the external links section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying verdict is the parameter for a template.But since Box Office India is the most credible source of Bollywood films on wikipedia ,same like Box Office Mojo and IMDB, on the new boxoffice india site, detailed information is given about each actor/film on respective pages. A complete repository of data is now avaialable on the new revamped site--Nehapant19 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Its use can vary depending on different different pages,but these templates acts as shortcuts for getting complete information ,if they are included in any article.--Nehapant19 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what we have talkpages for, not the external links section. The external links section is for pages that add info that can NOT be included.

By the way, you are not connected to the site, are you? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, the templates look like an attempt to promote the sites without regard for our policies and guidelines. There are definitely websites like these that have had actions taken to restrict their use on Wikipedia, though I'm not finding them with quick searches at RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not in any way connnected to BoxofficeIndia.com . These templates are for BoxofficeIndia,which even Wikipedia considers as the primary and reliable source for Bollywood films. These are much better than Boxofficemojo or bollywoodhungama templates.What I am saying is that add templates in external section ,which comes from reliable source and for Bollywood films, Boxofficeindia is rated above boxofficemojo and bollywoodhungama in wikipedia. --Nehapant19 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is for use as an external link, not as a reference. As an external link, they rarely if at all are useful, at least that I can see. It would be helpful for someone to provide the best possible examples of where they might actually be useful so we can get some consensus that they shouldn't be outright removed. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If any one dont want to use any of these Box Office India templates,in any specific page dont add it under external links, but what is this unnneccary issue of asking for proposal of deletion. Sometimes IMDB and other templates will not give or create specific page for a film (or) actor ,in that case Box office india templates can be used, because in the new revamped site of boxofficeindia,each film snd actor is entered in the database,and specific dedicated pages have been created. --Nehapant19 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A template suggests that the link it contains is somehow officially approved by the community, and once links are in a template, it is much easier for those wanting to use Wikipedia to promote an external website to add promotional links to articles. Hundreds of sites discuss popular films, and it's like that a dozen of them have content that would interest some readers. Yet an article should not be used as a linkfarm—a place where enthusiasts can add their favorite link. How does this template help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've TfD'd the template - there where a link really adds something, a regular external link will suffice. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Bollywood Hungama}} is not a spammy template, bollywoodhungama.com link takes the celebrities filmography data, See.. http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/films/id/325 And passes in WP:ELYES. This Template:Bollywood Hungama is the shortcut way to using Bollywood celebrities link. :-ChanderForYou 06:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about 'spam', we are talking about whether the links are necessary' on pages (whether they follow our external links guidelines), and whether we need templates 'inviting' those links.

Also, links are not WP:ELYES in general, that has to be determined on a page-by-page basis. And whether the content of the site is spam or not is also not always a factor, other sites can be spammed as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have brought the other box office india template to the TLD board as well Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_2#Template:BoxOfficeIndia -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the external links for Thomas D. Barr, there is a blacklisted link to Computer Business Review. Per the fact that this link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic which might be useful towards expanding this short article, please white-list it. I'll just point out for the benefit of those who might think that a spammer planted this link that this link is in the original edit of this article, so was placed there by its author. Thank you, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.