Talk:FMovies

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• FMovies Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of keeping the link.

The reason I will keep re-adding the link to the homepage of FMovies is simple. It's educational by providing the correct information to those who want it. It's necessary for those who want to avoid fake links, and Wikipedia is a place where aiming for proper guidance is necessary. This link doesn't directly host any copyrighted content to pirate or download, but rather it's just a homepage similar to what The Pirate Bay has, and yet it's Wikipedia page has had obvious notoriety over the years alongside the fact the link to the main website is still there. Regardless of how you feel about the copyright rules of Wikipedia, it's been very clear with the specifics around direct links to copyrighted content & this homepage doesn't fall under that bracket.

Having a discussion about a website while refusing to include the direct link to it's homepage is absolutely unusual. It's educational for obvious reasons.

Stop censoring the link. QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's edited away again, I have it here:

 

<<Link redacted>>

 

  QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't link to copyright violation, see WP:COPYLINKS. Wikipedia is expressly not a link directory. It is not 'educational' to provide links to such places. Feel free to raise this at the proper noticeboard (that would be something like WP:ELN or WP:ANI), but edit warring over this as you have vowed to do is not a solution - it is obvious disruption. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I support including the URL of the website. Note that WP:COPYLINKS expressly states, that "[i]n articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site." Also see other examples such as Sci-Hub, where the consensus among editors seems to be in favor of including the URL. Eigenbra (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not possible copyright violations somewhere on the site, the whole site is copyvio. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So? The exception still allows this. WP:NOTCENSORED is also relevant here. We link to The Pirate Bay for example; no reason this is different. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I rather think the exception means what it says. Torrent hashes are different in significant ways from embedded video streams. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the exception means what it says. There are copyright violations on the site. It's still acceptable to include a link to the site. Just because there's a lot of copyright violations doesn't mean the exception doesn't apply. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

possible copyright violations somewhere on the site is not nearly as broad as the interpretation you are presenting here. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, the exception is to include the link of copyright violating websites. It does not put a cap on how many violations can be on the website. If it was as narrow as you think, it would be phrased as such (e.g. "a link may be included if there is some violating content").

And if you think about the point of this exception, and the WP:COPYLINK rule, it's clear that the purpose is to prevent us from directly linking to infringing works, not to deprive our readers of relevant information about the articles they're reading. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

And if it were as broad as you think, it would be phrased as such (e.g. "an official link may be included even to sites composed entirely of copyright violations"). Wikipedia expressly isn't a link directory, so the omission of a link here or there is not a problem. "Relevant information" is an especially weak argument. A list links to local plumbers is relevant to the article on plumbing, but we don't include them. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)