Hosta

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

other than sister projects of Wikipedia, why should we use other wiki's at all? WP:ELNO#12 says that as long as it has a history of being stable and a substantial amount of members it can be used. but there are so many flaws in that system, because it only asks for amount of members, not amount of 'active' members, and if an article was stable, doesn't mean it makes it anymore reliable to use. and usually they don't have neutrality. thoughts?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood why linking to more specific Wikis is such a big deal. To me, so long as they are at least decently comprehensive, then they are EXACTLY the type of EL we would want on WP. I agree that the criteria is silly, but people WILL often want more info than can be has in WP, so directly them to a place where there's lots of it is a GOOD thing. Yes, there needs to be a bit of quality control, and linking to a very incomplete AND dead WIKI is obviously bad. But linking to stuff like Memory Alpha or even the Final Fantasy Wiki certainly can't be a bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, such sites should not be linked to. They are nothing but fansites. Their being "wikia"s (and thereby related to Wikipedia on some level) does not change nor alter that fact. If they were not wikias, we wouldn't think twice about excluding such links as fansites but somehow the wikia name makes them special or better? I think not. We are not Google nor DMOZ. If people want to find fansites, they can find them without the assistance and endorsement of Wikipedia.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we not link to them? Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are extremely good resources. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 19 February 2010 (GMT)

Memory Alpha's home page, sounds to me like a official website, so that one may be allowed, but as for final fantasy Wiki, i dont think so.

i feel the same way Collectonian, i think this falls almost around the same situation as a forum> plus these wiki's have speculation and trivia, usually don't have any neutrality.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha is not an 'official' website. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 19 February 2010 (GMT)

There's one exception: Memory Alpha is the official website for the Memory Alpha article. For general Star Trek articles, it isn't official. ThemFromSpace 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having a lot of information, doesn't mean it's a good source. they must have found the information from other places, so it's just using another Wiki as a source but without the sources. It's a link of yet another source that resembles Wikipedia. I never even heard of Wookieepedia. It's the same for forums too, if they found an information, we use the source as a ref mroe than the forum itself.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not talking about sources/refs, we're talking about ELs. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open wikis are generally not considered reliable sources under any circumstances. But the External links guideline doesn't care whether something is a reliable source: it cares whether it's a justifiable link. The kind of software used to get the information in front of the reader is not the most important indicator of whether the link is justifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we don't link to fansites is because they often don't reference their materials and even when they do, its a matter of picking out which fansites to represent. Normally, when we do link to fansites they are either mentioned in the article they are about or are considered reliable sources meeting the WP:SPS guidelines and are relevant to the article. I see therefore no reason why any wiki, short of copyuright or BLP violations, cannot be linked if RSes mention it as a credible source.陣内_Jinnai 07:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people use Wikis for their own official websites: Oscar van Dillen, for example. These are (usually) only editable by registered account holders and thus are relatively stable. I suggest they are fine to use with the {{official}} template. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jinnai's first asserted reason for not linking fansites: We don't link to fansites even when they extensively reference authoritative sources (which I've seen), and we cheerfully link to thousands non-fansites that don't mention a single source on any page.

Jubilee, the scenario you describe is a closed wiki, not the "open wiki" that the ELNO rule specifically addresses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnai, the problem is that using a wiki is the same as using Wikipedia. they are editable, which could change information. Plus they aren't always neutral tone. It's pretty hard to justify wiki's even if they appear to have information.

there are differences between fansites and other EL. Wiki's are made up of ordinary people, as for other EL we find that are by legitimate people who know what they are saying or know about the subject, or possibly someone who did there research extensively. Also there's no reason to link a fansite at all or a wiki if they use RSes. We don't have to link the EL just to get to RSes. we can just find the RSes the site has and use them there, instead of using an EL.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, once again, this discussion is about external links, not references. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you could reread my comment, or be more specific. either way, these mirror wikipedia in some way.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are not always made up of ordinary people; I ran across a closed wiki a year or so ago that was exclusively edited by employees in disease-related charities. Additionally, we don't care if the wiki 'might change': any link we post 'might change'. We have linked to Apple.com since the very first version of the page in 2001, and I'm sure nobody objected to the link on the grounds that the website 'might change' in the intervening nine years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but that's different, and i think you know that aswell. theres'a clear difference between an ordinary person changing information on a site that alllows such things, then an official site being change due to updates or better formatting.how about we change the Wiki rule to those that are made up of exclusive members and shows history of stability. Still, i find it very off for wiki to use another wiki as an EL. A wiki that's more exclusive and more reserved, maybe. but the majority of wiki's arent like how you said. Wiki's are very difficult to use when it comes to stuff about fiction. They dont meet WP:ELYES, and they are usualy salvaged by WP:ELMAYBE. Bread Ninja (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really know what "the majority of wikis" do; you really only know what the wikis that you personally have seen do. Wikis are used by thousands of private companies for internal work.

Wikis that are exclusive (closed membership) are treated like any other website by this guideline. The rationale is that if the same X number of employees are generating the content, then it doesn't much matter whether they're using wiki software, hand-coding the HTML, or using Adobe Dreamweaver. Do you object to this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using these as RSes though and shouldn't be holding them to the same standard as a RS.陣内_Jinnai 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for whatamidoing, that's the very reason why i brought up the subject, to see if we can change the rule to being more reserved with wiki's. I know we shouldn't hold them to Rs, but we still need to chosoe carefully what other links wikipedia can also offer instead of this one.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this. Consider the case of Mary the Marketing Director. She needs to create a website for her employer. Are you proposing that whether or not Wikipedia should link to Mary's page should depend on whether she uses Dreamweaver or wiki software to post exactly the same information on the website?

Pay careful attention to this fact: no matter what software she uses, only Mary will be posting content, and the content will be exactly the same no matter what software she uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "Official company site or official company wiki" and "random fanmade wiki anyone can edit". No company in its right head would let just anyone edit their company site, no matter what software its on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, your really missing the point. I wasn't talking about Wiki software, i was talking about how Wiki sites itself. Basically i'm talking about sites that are made by normal people that can edit whatever they want without a source, and basically mirroring wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bread, what you're describing is an open wiki. Many (possibly most) wikis are not open wikis.

This page already discourages links to open wikis; it is silent on non-open wikis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i dont see any rule on it. Just to be safe, should we make it loud and clear?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:ELNO#EL12: "Links to open wikis".

Note that we generally discourage open wikis, but we permit external links (which are different from reliable sources!) to open wikis that meet certain specified standards (standards that mean a particular open wiki has successfully minimized the problems that cause us to generally discourage links to open wikis). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant being more strict with it. Some are even being used as social networks.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want a stricter rule than the one that is already in place. What exactly would you change?

(Remember that all links -- whether wikis or not -- must be justifiable, and that editors are already required to use their best judgment [again, for both wiki links and non-wiki links].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamI doing, you really shift opinion when it comes to something like this. if it's about open wiki's then we are talking only about that. you try to make it sound like non-wiki's are involved. Still, i was hoping something different than substantial ammount of members and history.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Examples usually help to focus discussions that are getting too abstract. Is there a specific site that you believe is falling through a loophole, and needs to be removed entirely from (some/all) article(s)?
2. Do you have specific suggestions for the additional criteria that open-wiki sites should need to meet, in order to warrant an EL link from any article? ("members and stability" are the current criteria). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i do, for example, i see a lot of Wiki sites around articles about fiction and don't meet the criteria.

i was thinking instead of number of members to be removed, i don't see how number of members helps the article be justifiable. I was thinking to have a good tone aswell, not just wiki's that have a tone of a fan and improper grammar. And possibly one that's well organized or having enough info on the page.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bread Ninja is right. What we should be focusing on are quality standards, not number crunching. There is also a state between open and closed wikis-wikiedpia is one such Wiki.陣内_Jinnai 08:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bread Ninja: 1) Do you have a specific example or two? Just saying "about fiction" isn't at all clear. 2) Do you agree that certain open-wikis are justified (when linking in individual instances seems appropriate, ie not to a substub) eg the commonly-used-as-examples MemoryAlpha and Wookieepedia and TardisLibrary, or do you believe that they too should be considered unjustifiable and that we should tighten the guideline to stop them being linked? 3) Please indent when replying to someone, so that conversations are easier to follow! Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for example, the .hack//Wiki which i already removed a while ago. the kingdom hearts wiki i saw a little earlier and even the final fantasy wiki i saw following. they all didn't meet the right criteria of the ELNO rule we have now. And i really don't think open Wikis should be used on another open wiki site, especially if we worry about mirroring. and yeah i usually dont indent due to conversations never lasting so long. so yeah.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bread, here's what I've understood from your comment:

1. Somebody linked a website in violation of the existing rule.
2. Therefore, you conclude, the existing rule needs to be changed so that even more websites are excluded.

Why do you conclude that the problem is with the rule, instead of with the lax enforcement of the rule? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that hardly anyone is seeing the difference if wiki's should be used or not. Those who even know about the rule still claim that it's still appropriate. the problem is that the rule is too vague.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think that the rule is too vague, but how would you clarify it? The current text says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." What do you think it should say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with how it is written. Neutrally and clearly define "substantial history of stability" - different people have ascribed different meanings to it. The same thing with "a substantial number of editors". In far too many discussions on whether a wiki should be included as a link, I see folks saying "well we have 200 IP editors and 20 registered editors, that's substantial." or "its been around a year, no major issues, we have 20 dedicated editors, thats stable." The "exception" is too vague and needs to be made clearly. While I personally think NO open wikis should be used as ELs, if we are going to allow ones like Memory Alpha, we need to make it extremely clear what does and does not qualify for some exception. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's ridiculous to suppress good sources of information where Wikipedia can't have that much detail. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is trying to define "good" sources. I like the comment in another thread, above, "When in doubt, keep it out!" Student7 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about reliable sources. these are just about external links that can be added at the end of the column for further reading. Still, the whole point to this argument is to see if there should really be an exception for open wikis. they really shouldn't be, i can't see how they are justifiable.Bread Ninja (talk)

We don't have an exception that allows open wikis; we have an exception ("ELNO") that prohibits some open wikis. If we take away the existing rule, then all open wikis will be permitted.

You have indicated a desire to prohibit more open wikis than the current rule requires. Please tell me exactly what you think the rule should say.

I'm asking this for very practical reasons: I cannot put 'We've adopted Bread Ninja's opinion about open wikis; good luck guessing what this rule actually is now' in the guideline. We've got to have the precise words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Bread Ninja: In general, they're justifiable if they are a place for readers to find further information - information that we don't currently include, or would not ever include, for various reasons. Eg. Sith vs Sith, or Redshirt (character) vs Redshirt, or Cloud Strife vs Cloud Strife, or Unobtainium vs Unobtainium, or Amsterdam vs Amsterdam, or Angina Pectoris vs Angina Pectoris. etc. (those are just random examples; there are almost certainly higher quality examples for each)

Aside from that, WhatamIdoing's question is key to taking this discussion any further.

Tangentially, from a historical Wikimedia perspective, we started off with just Wikipedia. Then as dictionary-like entries proliferated Wiktionary was started, and as huge lists of quotations were being added Wikiquote was started. Other open wikis can provide a place for content to be moved to, instead of simply being deleted from here. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Directory of alternatives for other examples. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was just about the best way to describe it. Fully agree with the above (if that wasn't obvious). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the instance of open wikis, i think it should be reversed, especially if we demand content be removed from Wikipedia itself and transferred over to another wiki (usually fiction cruft). Instead of demanding an open wiki show substantial number of editors or lengthy period of instability, it should be reversed and require others to show that the site is not maintained. Other factors we have, like copyright restrictions, can limit what we do.

The other issue is that there are semi-editable wikis like Wikipedia which we do not cover. They aren't open wikis, but neither are they closed.

This or we have hard concrete numbers (can be a range) that is indisputable.陣内_Jinnai 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always been considered an open wiki for the purpose of this rule. Anything that does not require advance registration/permission to change the content that the next user sees is an open wiki for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for Whatamidoing...

1. .removing a rule in order to replace it is possible.
2. . the rules starts off open wiki's not 'some' open wikis. it's more of an exception to allowing open wikis.
3. . i think you're over thinking it. I'm not the only one who is against open wikis but it's not like if we change the rule everyone will get confuse and not know what it means.

Jinnai, if they are semi editable, then they are open either way. i dont think we'll ever get a right number for open wikis. it would have to depend on the wiki. still, I'm asking for more strictness. Personally i think we could add a completely new section to this article, a section that tells us what every external link should have (well written, neutral tone, etc.). it's not exactly an ELYES rule or an ELNO, just some rules telling us what is required in every EL. either way, i think it would be incredibly helpful if we added to ELNO #11 to instead say 'most fansites', it would say 'most fansites, or sites resembling fansites'. idk something like this. that way the open wikis about fiction can be controlled easier. but that's jsut something extra that i'm thinking aboutBread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some wikis linked to by wikipedia articles, if this helps to inform the discussion (although it seems any rule is doomed to be vague given the large variety):

Wikitokyo by Megatokyo

comixpedia by Megatokyo and other articles

Wikitravel by Wikitravel and other articles

wikivoyage by Wikivoyage and other articles

tvtropes by TV Tropes and other articles

wikia.com by thousands of articles

-84user (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bread, the actual rule reads: "...one should avoid: 12. Links to open wikis..."

Now would you tell me how "one should avoid links to open wikis" is an exception that allows open wikis? Or perhaps you could explain how removing this rule would ban all open wikis (by making open wikis not mentioned anywhere in the guideline)?

Contrary to your assertion, we know that links to open wikis are supported by the community -- because they're being added and retained by dozens, and even hundreds, of relatively experienced editors.

Changes to ELNO #11 do not affect ELNO #12, but you'll doubtless be glad to hear that we use a simple quack test for fansites: if it looks, sounds, or feels like a fansite, then it is a fansite for the purpose of this guideline.

And, finally, if you want the ELNO #12 rule changed you must propose the precise text you want included so we can figure out what the heck you want. Not "I think there should be a stricter rule", not "I think there should be a new section", but "Here are the exact words that I want to add." If you can't figure out what words you like to add, then I can't either, because mind reading is not in my skill set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're so black and white about this. you really misunderstood many things. read onto the discussion more. i meant removing the rule and replacing it. Changing ELNO#11 was so that fan-open-wiki's would be suppressed. but you claim that wikis are made up of dozens-hundreds amount of experienced editors. Also i did give my thoughts, but i didn't expect you to actually want to hear the exact thing i want to be changed in a way that i have to write the rule. I'm not so good with words and i thought we could discuss what could actually be changed, as in what would the others want changed as well. 1.my first option is simple: change the rule by the example i said before, has to be well written, considerable amount of information, and well organize. or remove them completely due to mirroring Wikipedia. and of course what I've stated before 2. we make a new section that tells us what every single EL needs in order to be justifiable. instead of making ELNO#12 stricter (as in my first example showed). i find this much more suitable for this article and it doesn't just affect. this would affect all EL in ELYES, ELMAYBE and ELNO. i would imagine rules like. #1. Needs to be easy to read. #2 Tone must be neutral, #3 needs to have considerable information (not so sure about this one).etc.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 'new section that tells us what every single EL needs in order to be justifiable': We have that. It took ten sections plus the introduction, but we have that. That is the purpose of the entire page.

Your suggested rules, e.g., easy of reading and neutral tone, are not requirements. In fact, many 'easy to read' pages fail WP:ELNO#EL1, and so are actually prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know what i mean, and the page isn't doing that. the page only tells us which we can use and which ones we should avoid. not what is required for them. And i'm saying that easy to read and/or neutral can be a requirement.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

Does anyone else have a comment in this?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just from the perspective of fiction, I see the negative feeling about some of these sites to be an extension and amplification of the feeling that WP should give minimal coverage to fiction. It seems to be saying that , not only should we give the minimal possible coverage in our articles, but we should avoid linking to places where more coverage can be found; not only shall we prevent people from using our site as a provider of information about fictional characters , but we shall use whatever excuse is available to hinder their seeing links to where they might find such information. Perhaps the way to deal with this is to say affirmatively that the major fansites for a fiction or related topic are a proper and necessary link, official or non-official. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the idea that any fansite, incluing a wiki/wikia is an appropriate link for anything. First, define "major" in a completely neutral fashion. Two, it completely fails WP:EL. Three, the large majority also fail WP:COPYRIGHT and do not provide any actual resource except to feed fan love. Wikipedia is not here for fans. If people want to fine a fansite for a topic, they can do so. Wikipedia is not here to pimp out any specific one and it certainly should not be giving preference to Wikia just because its a sister project (which only feeds the very real criticism that Wikipedia helps wikia profit by sending content over there saying it isn't appropriate here, then linking to it). We don't link to movie star fansites, company fansites, etc and rightly so. Its an NPOV nightmare, and does not add any encyclopedic value to any article. I support the idea that all wikis be banned period, unless it is the actual, and only, official site for a company. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what DGG said, and try again to come up with an actual real argument. Because he's right, and you're wrong. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your remark is helpful how? You don't get to arbitrarily decide anyone is right or wrong in a discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i originally thought so too collectonian, but now, i feel just open wiki's should be out with no exception whatsoever. melodia, can you please collaborate a little more on how collectonian is both right and wrong?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I say official, I mean an actual company wiki that is not an open wiki. And even then, only if it is the only link. So basically, yes, I agree all open wiki's should be excluded. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh then i agree aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ban all open-wikis, that's a discussion for a larger forum (Village Pump). Yes, a couple of editors will agree, but the vast majority will strongly disagree. (I predict, based on every single time this has come up previously. I'd point you towards those past discussions, but "wiki" is a difficult term to search for...! Perhaps someone else can supply links.)

Part of working with a community, is adapting to the perspectives of all the other people, all of which are subjectively valid. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this subject has came up before? can you please show me the archive?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for the subject in the archives box near the top right corner of the page. Click here for one set of search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, when the question is "Should EL prohibit fansites?" then "A link to a fansite completely fails EL" is an illogical response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right now, i don't think fansites should be used, they usually hold information not entirely related to the series, more such as for example, a toy plushie, fan fiction and many other products the fan site created, or so forth. just little media. occasionally they do hold some info, but it coincidentally (or not)matches the same information on Wikipedia, official site, or on the other external links. it's a bit tedious to have external links that have the same information as the other.

and on a more personal note, EL should be more Conservative onto what information. External links should lean towards more official sites like collectonian said. we should be careful to what kind of info (that can only be found on EL) we try to promote.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These problems are already addressed by the existing rules.

Whenever you find external links that contain the same information as the Wikipedia article (or, even worse, less information than the article), please remove them and cite WP:ELNO#EL1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" as the reason for the removal.

If you find links that say the same things as each others, then please remove them (leaving whichever you think is the best one link) and cite WP:External_links#Maintenance_and_review's "duplicative links may be deleted by any editor" as the reason for the removal.

Often, these kinds of mistakes are made innocently, e.g., by someone adding a link without looking at the others. Any editor is able to deal with this sort of basic maintenance task.

(As a hint: If you remove a link, and someone adds it back, don't start an edit war. There are so many links to be reviewed (and removed) that fighting over a single one in a single article isn't the best use of your time. I'd give up on the "one" for a while. You can always come back to it in a month or two, and in the meantime, you can usually clean up ten articles whose editors will be happy to have your help in the time that it would take to argue with a single editor who doesn't understand the guidelines.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i see your point, but really, there are the obvious links that don't belong. to be honest, i try not to get in an edit war, but really, if it needs to go, than it needs to go. sometimes i even have a 3rd party supporting me and they still ignore me and the 3rd party. Also the example seems like two months ignoring is the same as one day trying to fix it. Anyways, whats wrong with the other proposal about asking for requirements within every EL? i think it could even summarize most of this article.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you rather remove five hundred inappropriate links this month, or argue over one?

It's up to you, you know, but I think the encyclopedia is generally better served by having you remove 500 bad links. After all, why should 500 bad links be kept for weeks and weeks while you carry on an argument about one of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, seriously, don't use that over exaggerated example. There hasn't been much lately to do from my scope of articles other than vandalism and other members usually take care of it before i get to. I'm not saying I'll pay attention solely to one article at a time, because clearly i have a watchlist filled with other articles. but anyways, it's not just one article, it happened before on a few other articles. Anyways, what about my second suggestion?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an exaggerated example... unless you only care about "your" articles. See, e.g., Special:LinkSearch/groups.yahoo.com for a single website that likely violates this guideline about 500 times in the mainspace.

I have previously attempted to explain the problems with your other proposal. You do not seem to have understood my explanation, but I will repeat it here:

The requirements for every EL are exactly equal to this entire guideline. There are positive requirements ("must be justifiable according to common sense") and negative requirements ("must not violate copyrights") and conditional requirements ("official links are exempt from ELNO"), but the entire page describes what you are asking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but not in a direct way, still, i do care about my articles, i tihnk thats what most do, and even so, i still have a large scope. it's exaggerated because you assume that if i focus on one, i wont be able to edit other articles in the mean time.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about "blacklists" in the Restrictions on linking section but you don't give any information about what are blacklists and why are they pertinent to Wikipedia. In my opinion, this is almost an office action performed by software. It would be nice to have an explanation of why the Foundation found it necessary to impose such restrictions. See also my comments on the talk page of WP:SPB. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page needs to explain some other page's workings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering what the policy is on these. Official sites are mentioned as OK, and Twitter feeds are mentioned as being avoided. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I don't know. I would think verified Twitter feeds are usable, but maybe not? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  21:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's the same as an open wiki or youtube website that have official videos from the actual companies.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, but I'm not clear if that means: yes, they're ok, or no, they're not. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  22:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask at WP:ELN (this page is to discuss the WP:EL guideline). It's best to provide a specific example (what link at what article). Also see the archive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELN is appropriate for asking about specific links, but to clarify the general guideline: "official" links are typically an exception to any of the WP:ELNO rules. So although Twitter links in general are to be avoided, an "official" Twitter link would be OK (provided the requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL are met). Hope that's more clear. --RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the most important requirement is that an article not be spammed with every possible "official" link. If the regular website has a prominent link to Twitter, then there's really no need to include it in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that unless the Twitter feed is the only official link for the subject, it wouldn't be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors agree with you, at least for the vast majority of articles. However, I'm sure you could imagine a scenario that would be an exception. For example, what if the Twitter link isn't easily found on the main website, but the person or organization has received a lot of media attention for using Twitter?

In the end, editors must use their best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) So the definitive answer is "maybe", haha. Honestly, it makes sense, but might there be a reason to establish consensus and place this into the guideline; so, then there wouldn't continue to be the need to rehash this conversation? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Or, maybe I should learn to read and see that it is basically in the guideline, but it's just not explicit. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  00:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of WP:ELNO says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject," with a link to WP:ELOFFICIAL. What did you have in mind by way of clarification? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear, but the blurry line between "official links are OK" and "too many official links aren't OK" wouldn't seem to be as definite as it possibly could be. That said, I do understand it; it's just, there probably isn't a definitive answer to this question. So, it's probably fine as is. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  01:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this falls in WP:ELNO #4. Doesnt it?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more than any other official link. Official links are generally exempted from ELNO, although editors are still required to use common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do we even consider twiter an "official" link. if it's something like that, then it wouldnt be exactly official. it's sort of like linking a myspace page or a facebook page onto here jut because we might run into some important info on there.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we consider Twitter an official link? If the person has avowed it and uses it, then it's official. If they have an avowed blog, it's an official blog. If they have an avowed mailing list, it's an official mailing list. Twitter doesn't have some reality distortion field around it which negates all officialness. --Gwern (contribs) 18:49 15 April 2010 (GMT)

• Fundamentally, Twitter (of whatever sort) is too ephemeral to be considered a source for an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this page says repeatedly, EL has nothing to do with sources for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Library of Congress To Archive All Public Tweets - Slashdot. So not quite as ephemeral as they were a few days ago. And I've seen them used as sources as recently as today. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Openly Declared twitter page automatically makes it official? One there's no "official" in the name, it' just someones twitter. this discussion has came before and was rejected in the WT:SE page. Twitter, itself is a promotional site just like youtube, does anyone here link official Youtube pages of companies and/or People? it's not an official link unless the link is specifically for Twitter articleBread Ninja (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all "official sites" promotional? -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly defines what is an official link. Yes, a YouTube or Facebook page could be an official link, and so can a Twitter page. I presume most official pages serve promotional purposes, but they still meet the guideline. This has been debated at some length in the past, so a look through the talk archives might be helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, which promotional sites there are. It's an official "twitter page" but not an official "[insert here] page" it's not an official website dedicated to the person, what i mean to say is, Official website, but to what extent? how general are we going to go simply with the word official in it? official youtube pages only promote videos, even though sometimes they are mentioned in the official website of the company/person's official site. it's not a direct official stand-alone site. it's the official "page" of the company/person.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we link to official youtube channels when appropriate. See Stanford University for example. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sense someone changed ELNO, because i am sure it did not say that and it coincidently fell into this arguments favor.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the word "official" in its title is not what makes it an official link. What makes a link an "official" one for the purposes of this guideline is explicitly defined in this guideline. Look for the two numbered items under WP:ELOFFICIAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline has been changed lots of times, but an exception to ELNO for official links has been in the guideline since 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't remember a link to official and the word "page' either way, the second rule to official links is The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable this one i believe needs to be re written because i feel this one could very well be against Twitter, Facebook,Myspace and all that. the only exeption it would be if it's information was based off of what makes the article notable, which is odd, then why would we even need the EL? Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content provision of WP:ELOFFICIAL is intended to limit the linking of pages that wouldn't contain anything relevant for most readers of the article. For example, if Professor A is notable exclusively for his accomplishments in physics, then we would prefer to link to a faculty page or a blog he writes about physics, rather than to a Facebook page where he posts pictures of his kids but says nothing about physics. That doesn't mean Facebook, etc., are completely ruled out from having official links. If Miss B, a notable comedian, uses a Facebook page to post about her tv appearances, tour dates, etc., then that is just as much an "official link" as if she did the same thing using a traditional website. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if this the case, why do we have social networks in ELNO?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:ELOFFICIAL describes an exception to WP:ELNO. As a general rule, social networking sites do not provide the type of content that we would want to link to, so they are discouraged in WP:ELNO, but a subject's own page gets a pass (with some qualifications that are detailed in the guideline). --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate how this policy works due to a few inconsistencies and exceptions seem to happen more than the word implies. We define official on our own, if official section changes then it would affect ELNO. This is a problem i see, so official social network pages of company/person go in . Plus the information is always short-lived. It's up to us on how we consider the twitter pages, so if someone is just talking about how they live and happen to say something company related, it would go in the persons article simply for that? what if he mentions it a few more times and mentions stuff he does everyday. the level of relevance changes.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making this a sound a lot more difficult than it is. In most cases we don't even need to bother putting in ELs for social network pages, because the subjects advertise them on their regular websites that we already link to. Sure there will be gray areas and cases where the content changes, but that happens all the time with other kinds of sites as well. It's a guideline, not magic. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article WP:ELNO#3 presently says: "... or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida." It probably would be helpful to the editors here to include a link to a summary of the pertinent Florida law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]