Talk:FMovies

This page was proposed for deletion by Hugsyrup (talk · contribs) on 23 May 2019.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

<<Link redacted>>

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 of 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)[reply]

But "possible copyright violations somewhere on the site" covers that! You also haven't responded to my point at all about why the rule is there, which can help with understanding if the text is ambiguous. Nor to my point about how the status quo is inclusion at almost every other relevant page, so clearly my interpretation is the one editors are using in practice. Nor my point about how my interpretation is more in line with WP:NOTCENSORED. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you really arguing that a link to a website isn't relevant to our article on that website? C'mon. This is included on nearly every article we have on websites because it's obviously relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "possible copyright violations somewhere on the site" covers that! So you've said, but the plain reading of those words indicates that there is some level of copyright violation that is unacceptable. I do not agree with your interpretation of why the exception is there, of course. I rather think it is there so we can link to sites hosting user generated content and the like, which may occasionally contain copyvio without being the focus of the site in question. Also are you really arguing that a link to a website isn't relevant to our article on that website? No, I am arguing that many sorts of relevant information are not included on Wikipedia for various reasons. The encyclopedia isn't indiscriminate, so the mere fact that something is relevant does not mean it must be included. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the plain reading of those words indicates that there is some level of copyright violation that is unacceptable

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't.

The encyclopedia isn't indiscriminate, so the mere fact that something is relevant does not mean it must be included.

Sure, but you haven't presented a good case for exclusion. Does removing this link benefit our readers? No. It makes this article unambiguously worse. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flat denials and 'you haven't presented a good case' aren't much of an argument. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor to my point about how the status quo is inclusion at almost every other relevant page WP:OTHERSTUFF. MrOllie (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes because this is a... AfD discussion? OSE isn't relevant here, and common practice on the site is relevant for indicating some level of consensus. Clearly other people do not share your view on COPYLINK, or the status quo wouldn't be inclusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that the principle applies in general. MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't. You're just wrong. Maybe read WP:SSE, which rejects your view on this. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]