Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Alexandra Powers

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. 1. It doesn't appear to meet the requirements of a reliable source, however sincere the writer may be. 2. Note the disclaimer on how short the turnover rate is for Scientology members, including that a majority leave 2 years after initiation. Also note that that particular entry has not been updated since 2008. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Open Source Heroes of Might and Magic Engine

Is it appropriate to link to open source implementations of Heroes of Might and Magic engines in the External links section of the article? My addition to Heroes of Might and Magic III was reverted without explanation.Smallman12q (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It was probably reverted per WP:ELNO #10: "Links to ... discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)". I suspect that many editors revert links that appear to be chat rooms on sight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking internally to other wikipedia sites

What's the best way to do this. On several tennis charts here on English wikipedia when a player's name is listed of course it is also linked back to the particular player's main article. No problem. However many players, especially Spanish and French players, have no English wikipedia page to link back to. They do however have their own articles in the respective Spanish and French wikipedias. I've been linking those names to their foreign language articles. Some have even been linked through google translation first so we can read it here on this English encyclopedia. Is there a better way to lnik these names? I feel the links are important and certainly if someone ever creates a proper English wikipedia article for that person it would be switched to an internal link. An example would be at the article World Covered Court Championships where someone like Irene Bowder Peacock has a perfectly good french wiki article from which to use information. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Interlanguage links#Inline_interlanguage_links, red links are preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read it and that's not quite what it says. It says "if the subject is a good target for a future article here, then in most cases that topic should be red-linked." I'm not so sure these candidates are good targets for articles here. Sort of borderline. But it does have good suggestions that I might try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The standards for athletes aren't very high, so I think we could eventually end up with articles—but you should use your best judgment. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

External Links to Source-Code

At Talk:Particle swarm optimization#External Links to Source-Code there is a dispute about inclusion of links to open source code implementations of the algorithm. A minority faction argues that these links technically don't meet WP:EL requirements, the majority faction believes it is common for Wikipedia technical articles and articles on computer algorithms specifically to have a good selection of such links, which indicates there is general Wikipedia consensus in favor. --Kvng (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this edit re-adds the links which are in question (the next edit removed these). I see both sides and understand these reasons to remove the edit: the subsection headings (Implementations, Other Media) are dubious since they draw undue attention to the section, and invite violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; a general reader does not find helpful information on the topic at the links. On the other hand, a reader who is actually interested in the topic (as opposed to someone who only wants a quick feeling for what the jargon might mean) would need links like these as the next step after reading the article. In programming, only a certain amount of background reading is helpful before one needs to engage with a working program, and a link containing "further research that is accurate and on-topic" (quote from WP:EL) is necessarily going to be precisely like the links in question. I know that if I had time to develop an interest in Particle swarm optimization, as a reader I would want the links. It's likely that Google finds the links (and more) quite readily (so they should be removed), yet it can be very useful to include the most helpful links in the article. My only conclusive feeling is that this article does not warrant a dispute over links (i.e. any WP:EL violation is minor). Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to specific examples in an article about a broader topic (ELNO point 13). I don't see how any of these specific implementations give a reader an encyclopedic understanding of the more general topic of the article. If any of these implementations have an article of their own the links should be in there, but we don't need them in Particle swarm optimization. A directory page containing a bunch of these together would be an acceptable alternative as an EL. ThemFromSpace 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Zea.asf

Zea.asf (talk · contribs)

Please have a look through this user's contributions. I picked up that he/she is adding the same external link (of questionable relevance) to "World Inter-faith Harmony Week" to a few Islam-related articles (. Unfortunately I cannot access his/her user or contribution pages (our filters at work think they are streaming video files because of the .asf in the user's name). I reverted one obvious case (the link was added to a radio station article of all things) but I'd welcome some further eyes on the other cases and possible reverts if necessary. Regards. Zunaid 09:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

truthtree.com

This website has been added as an external link to several articles (see these contributions). The website is a collection of reader contribution essays and discussion forums and I have removed it from articles on the basis of failing WP:ELNO#10. As the original contributor has reversed my edit and accused me of being on a 'mission' to remove these links (see diff1 and diff2), I would appreciate some independent opinions on when this link would be appropriate and when it would not. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely correct here, Fae--that's a self-published site, seems to be a combination of a forum and a blog host. The only place I can see that link being acceptable would be if we had an article on the website itself. Your notes on your talk page also help point out the real problem--that it appears that one of the site principals is the one doing the adding, meaning that xe continues to do so, it could be considered external link spamming and thus blockable. A simpler alternative might be for us to just add the EL to the blacklist, since it seems unlikely that it could ever be a valid EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be using that one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AVIS-IBIS Links to Wiki Bird Articles

I would like to add links to species page and bibliography pages of AVIS-IBIS Portal (http://avis.indianbiodiversity.org) to the articles on Birds on Wikipedia for species found in Indian Region.

AVIS-IBIS is an interactive web-based database and information system on Indian biodiversity. A fundamental prerequisite in the conservation of biological diversity is the availability of adequate and reliable information, which aids in developing conservation strategies. However, much of this data and literature is archived in books and not easily accessible. FES has built upon IBIS so as to enable more people to access and build such information. To start with, all available data on birds of India have been collated and digitised to develop the first phase of the IBIS Portal titled ‘Avian Information System (AVIS)’. In the coming year, IBIS will expand to build similar portals on mammals, reptiles, amphibians and flora involving interested individuals, organisations, researchers and scholars across India. Besides all archival information available at single place, the IBIS is an “open beta version” enabling it to obtain feedback from users, add features and build upon the existing database. The interactive portal uses open-source software and helps the users to contribute data to the portal that would be periodically reviewed by experts. IBIS follows the creative commons licensing policy enabling appropriate attribution to the data provider and collaborators.

Links:

1. Species Profile Pages
2. Species Bibliography Pages
3. Book Excerpts for Individual Species from different books ( These books are in public domain and digitized and hosted on AVIS-IBIS Portal which are linked to latest taxonomy revisions.)
Arpit Deomurari 06:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deomurari (talk • contribs) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you need to add two external links to each article when the biblography one duplicates one of the tabs on the first link. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography tab on species page is limited to latest 100 citations only....full bibliography is located in other page. This is for considering better user experience and download speed.

Arpit Deomurari (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• One link is probably okay. Wikipedia's guidelines for external links support a general principle of non-duplication, so multiple links to the same website are almost never okay. We assume that our readers are smart enough to click on your link to the full bibliography page if that's what they want to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok...So Should I start putting one link to the article.....

Arpit Deomurari (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd say these links are okay if the Wikipedia article is merely a stub and the AVIS-IBIS article has more informatino. But if our article has more information than the AVIS-IBIS page, then it's not really useful to include the website as a link. MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Arpit Deomurari (Deomurari (talk · contribs)), is an affiliate of that website and staff of the AVIS Team. He has spammed over 400 external links in about 250 different bird related articles since december 22. Clearly his contributions are in violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. In addition, Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links"--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This was additionally discussed at WT:BIRDS#Indian_Biodiversity_links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

StatSheet Network Websites

TaylorMitchell21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding many links from StatSheet Network websites to athlete articles. See this edit which added a link to bearball.com. Bearball.com is powered by statsheet.com, which states on its homepage that "The StatSheet Network is a collection of 345 fan-centric sports sites covering every Division I college basketball team in the country." Does this conflict with WP:EL and should these edits be reverted? Cunard (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I felt that these sites would be a good addition for Wikipedia ... just doing top college basketball players in the country and then I was going to be done ... The StatSheet pages offer many statistics that all these other external links do not and I find it very useful. If this is causing a problem I will stop ... I see now that these should be references and include information in the page content as well as links ... Just seems to me that a lot of these player profiles needed updating ... and many do not have the current up to date statistics ... I will find a different way to help wikipedia. Thanks!

TaylorMitchell21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorMitchell21 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided #11 includes:

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.

I do not know whether the StatSheet Network links violates the guideline Wikipedia:External links, so have brought this issue to the external links noticeboard to get more opinions about this website. I ask that you stop adding the external links for now, but if the consensus here is that the StatSheet is acceptable, please continue adding those external links to the article. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statsheet is a very reliable source for college basketball stats back to 1996. At least as reliable as basketball-reference.com, which is used extensively for NBA articles. I don't see the value in changing the links to the team-specific pages that statsheet offers (I have been using their base product as an external link for awhile now), which this user has been doing, but I don't necessarily see a problem with that either. It's the same source, just displayed differently. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to see how adding external links that bring so much to an athletes page can be considered spamming. These player's bio pages on statsheet are loaded with stats and content I can't find anywhere else. The stats on these players current pages are weak and behind, or missing completely ... It is a clear improvement by adding these links. My focus will move past just external links, however, and more towards adding content and references to the articles. Still, I don't think its spamming and the only reason it was brought up is because I did many at one time. User:TaylorMitchell21 —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

I was wary of StatSheet because its website states that it is a collection of "fan-centric sports sites". Since Rikster, who knows more about this website than I states that it is reliable, please continuing adding external links to the StatSheet websites. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statsheet's use of the term "fan-centric" is meaningless. The articles there are computer-generated based on the statistics and game facts. It's a reliable source for statistics, but probably not for analysis or other information. They don't and aren't able to mention non-statistic factors, such as game delays/disruption, notable single plays, reasons for expulsions, etc. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Statsheet (and associated sites) should be treated as a reasonably reliable but not infallible database. cmadler (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Image collection

An anon added http://softword.tumblr.com/tagged/Breast_cancer to National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The link takes the reader to a collection of very nice images related to NBCAM. I'm worried about the copyright status, and I've also done so much work on these articles during the last two months (Breast cancer awareness is now up for DYK!) that I'm not sure I should be the person removing it, since it might seem a little WP:OWNish at this point.

Besides, if it's actually okay, despite the boilerplate disclaimer, then a link to images that we don't want to put into the article is a "unique resource" and might be good for the article. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that page, which is nothing more than 7 images of which at least two are already in the article, would meet wp:ELNO#1. Linking to the commons category on breast cancer awareness gives you a lot more images, as would linking directly to google search (which is not allowed). Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob Couteau

• Rob Couteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robcouteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Figlipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have posted this at both the COI and BLP message board but there are also EL conceerns so as I am a bit short of time I posting it here too. Today I came upon this user Robcouteau (talk · contribs) who is adding external links to his reviews of various authors and books. As I checked the edit history [1] for the article for Mr Couteau it seems to have been created by user Figlipped (talk · contribs) whose only wikipedia edits are to create the RC article. I know that Fig started editing after RC but it looks like the RC article was created solely to have a page to connect his name to the external links that were being added to wikipedia's pages. If you all deem that ththe links being added are okay then that is fine with me but I thought that it needed more eyes than mine to determine their suitability. Thanks for your time in this manner. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also Jackbruce2010 (talk · contribs). Looks like spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)