Wikipedia talk:External links

Spam links becoming standard practice

For most A7 bands, external links are filled with MySpace, Twitter, Soundforge, ReverbNation, Facebook, and the like. Since these articles are quickly deleted, there is very little harm done. However, it seems that there are many, many bands (random example) and other articles that link to Twitter or similar sites. With rare exception, I can see no purpose to these links except to provide advertising. So why are they allowed? What purpose does it serve other than to get someone to go and buy something? (Not twitter, obviously, but certainly links like Allmusic, Discogs, Myspace, etc.)

It really seems like we're crossing the line from a relevant external linking process to something that is advertising. Templates like {{MySpace}}, {{Twitter}} and {{Facebook}} just seem to exacerbate this problem. — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll also point out WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which makes the existence of those templates quite wrong! — Timneu22 · talk 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I mostly agree that that these should never be used as references in some cases I am ok with it being used as an External link if it is an official site of the band or performer. Since Facebook and the like are free and very very popular many bands and performers are opting to use that as an official site than having expensive elaborate webpages. I would say that Allmusic and the like that actually sell merchandise should be banned (unless there is some compelling reason not too), in the cases of Facebook, myspace, twitter and the like I would say generally delete them but it depends on whats there. --Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Take them to deletion? Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Take what? Those three templates? — Timneu22 · talk 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of these templates I would recommend combining them into 1 and calling it social media (or something) that allows you to link to all three (and potentially others if needed) in one template. It would be rather easy to make and I think would be better than having a handfull of independant ones if we keep them at all which unfortunately I think we probably will need to do. --Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying the links are spam; I don't want to create a template that makes it EASIER for people to add them! This discussion is about the links themselves, and only part of the discussion is related to the templates. — Timneu22 · talk 18:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If a band has an official web site, that site will likely have links to their social network pages, and thus those additional links can be deleted. There are probably cases, however, where a band uses their Facebook or equivalent page as their official page, and if that's the case, the "official" page should be kept and all other social networking site links removed. Basically, barring other circumstances, there should be one and only one official band "link", anything else is extraneous. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine and I agree, but do we need these templates at all? Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely no more harmful than ones like {{official}} or the like. If anything, Twitter may be unnecessary since I can't think how that would be an "official site". --MASEM (t) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter accounts of celebrities are often verified and thus a very relevant source of info and great site of interest to readers. It's nonsensical to regard all social networking sites utilized by those in the public eye as spam and unnecessary here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, its most likely the celebrity has an official site or even a Facebook that will include the Twitter link. It's not necessary for us to define all social networks that a person may be on, simply one external link where they can learn more, that being the official site. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the templates, per se, but we need to be very deliberate about killing all external links except the one "Official" website. Wikipedia has no obligation to make it easy for people to "follow" their favorite bands/companies/celebrities/whatevers. Link to the one official website; if the company or band wants people to follow them on Twitter, then the company or band can publish information about Twitter on their own websites. Its not our job to promote these entities. External links for a band should probably not contain more than 2-3 links AT MOST, and most likely should only have a single link, as a matter of common practice. --Jayron32 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about promotion - it's about being thorough and facilitating people's access to information. Who cares if the official site may have a link to twitter? By that logic, let's just list Google.com for everyone's external links, because they'll have links to everything else.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, its about finding a balance between what is worthwhile content for an encyclopedia and not reducing the quality of our articles which turns them into unreadible lists of trivia "facts" and writing quality prose. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Access to a twitter feed provides zero content which is worthwhile for the text of an article. By the logic of my arguement, we link to the official website, period. All else is superfluous. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of stuff someone might find "useful" or "interesting". They are about making editorial decisions over the quality of text, from the first letter to the last letter, on every article. Having massive, unregulated linkfarms at the end of articles degrades their quality. Insofar as we have to draw the line somewhere, the line should be drawn at one official website, no more. --Jayron32 19:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP as an encyclopedia is not meant to be thorough, it is meant to be a tertiary, summarizing source. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron's point about linkfarms is exactly what I'm talking about. It's no wonder that lots of A7 bands say "why can't I have my page?" when many existing band articles (especially the borderline ones) have external link sections that appear to be little more than advertising. The only difference between say, Therion (band) and Some Awful Garage Band is that Therion has some coverage from better sources, but people trying to create new pages see all the advertising links and wonder why they cannot do the same thing for themselves. Again, Therion is a random example. — Timneu22 · talk 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may. We could argue the symantics of what WP is and isn't supposed to be but the bottom line is that we are not going to get a concensus for completely eliminating these links so we need to plan on how to deal with them accordingly. Wether that is using 1 template for all or separate ones for each. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The question if we should delete the templates (or not) is different from the question being asked, whether such links should be included. The templates are simple means of having a quick way to format ELs to standard sites in a consistent manner. Just because they allow links to Facebook or Twitter doesn't make them bad. It's whether the links (templated or just bracketed in) are appropriate. If we find that it's never appropriate to include, say, Twitter, then there's no need for the template. On the other hand, if we discourage using Facebook pages when official web sites are available, that doesn't make the template useless. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. See WP:ELPEREN for the usual arguments.
2. Just because something is not normally a valuable link does not mean that it is never a valuable or appropriate link. For example: Shouldn't we provide a link to a Twitter feed when it is the only WP:ELOFFICIAL link?
3. Any editor who sees a patently inappropriate inclusion of a Twitter link should feel free to remove it. Whingeing here about it is neither necessary nor helpful. Just fix it and move on.
4. No amount of talking here will delete any templates. If you want to waste your time by losing a deletion discussion, then go to WP:TFD and nominate the Twitter template. But you've been warned: At this time, the community isn't going to support deletion, so it will be a waste of your time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In order: Good link, well put, absolutely, damn skippy. --Jayron32 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"What purpose does it serve other than to get someone to go and buy something?". Gee, let's see: so people can listen to the music of the band, or watch their music videos, or read their blog, or find their gig listing, or see pictures of them, etc. etc. If all the link does is sell something, it's spam. If it does something more and is operated by the band, it may well be useful. This argument that all social media is spam is simply not true (who sells stuff on Twitter?). Fences&Windows 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I already said there's not really selling on twitter. But re so people can listen to the music of the band, or watch their music videos, or read their blog, or find their gig listing, or see pictures of them... that's all promotional. A single link to the official site should suffice. Getting a user to watch their video or find a list of gigs... not the purpose of WP. — Timneu22 · talk 13:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that having these templates only exacerbates the situation, as their presense implies that these links are acceptable when in practice only a small minority of them are (as opposed to the IMDB and DMOZ templates where a link there is generally beneficial). The problem with these isn't spam per se, its that they are mostly just unencyclopedic. Twitter links are especially unwelcome as they are volatile and contain little vital information. Myspace can count as an official site in situations where no better one is allowed, but it should be used sparingly. Facebook can be appropriate as an "official" link in articles about Facebook groups/phenomena, etc (but should be avoided in biographies, where most of the links currently reside). ThemFromSpace 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say something like that, but you put it better than I could have. I'd also submit that there can be issues with people's Facebook accounts getting hacked and posting things like 419 scams and advertisements to shock sites all over the place (as is what happened to my uncle once), and we really don't want to have links to a person's account when something like that has happened. Basically, I'm with ThemFromSpace here; do MySpace and Facebook when we absolutely must, but only when we absolutely must (and not in biographies), and dump Twitter altogether because it doesn't really add much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a perennial discussion. Simply: if there is an official site (www.band.com), then all of myspace.com/band, facebook.com/band, twitter.com/band generally become superfluous. We are not a linkfarm, we do not link to all possible external sites of a band (see the often ignored intro of WP:EL). But yes, for some bands the myspace is the official site, and there may even be bands who have as only official site the twitter (one can then argue, what does the twitter actually tell about the band, and do we really need this external link - see again the often ignored intro of WP:EL, stating that not having an external link is not a reason to add it, and that it still needs to add something that the Wikipedia page can't tell - I do not think that WP:ELOFFICIAL will trump that).

XLinkBot reverts (non-templated) myspace links - Quite some time ago I checked 30 consecutive removals by XLinkBot. IIRC, about 19 were plainly violations (not working, not remotely related to the subject, plain spam, placed on disambig pages, placed on page with same name but about completely different subject, inappropriate per WP:MOS, or random additions), the other ones were often not directly linked to the subject (as in, on the page of the band, myspace pages of the members of the band were added - in some cases the members were notable enough for own Wikipedia pages, where the myspace would have been more proper, or actually fansites, etc.). In the end, there was one sure left, where I personally would not have reverted, the page contained one external link to the official band-page, and the addition was of one second link, the myspace. That one is arguably not a violation of WP:EL, but one could call it superfluous, and 4-5 little 'maybes'.

Regarding Twitter specifically - In one earlier discussion the twitter of Britney Spears was discussed. When I at that moment went to that feed, I was kindly informed that Britney just told her father via Twitter that she was coming home to eat his birthday cake - now WHAT exactly do twitter feeds ADD to Wikipedia pages if the information is volatile, non-encyclopaedic, etc. (not saying that it is never encyclopaedic, but the chances are IMHO very small).

In short, if there is an official link, remove all the rest (except if e.g. the myspace is giving significant MORE info than the official homepage which can not be included in the Wikipedia page - which will be extremely rare). If MySpace is the official one, then the rest can go and MySpace stays. One can strictly apply WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY to these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any MySpace/Facebook/Twitter ELs at all, they pop up in searches almost as easily as Wikipedia. They are also popular sites and if you love the band so much, you'll find their blog. But I agree, in the meantime and without a larger consensus, the best thing is to just have one official EL.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's my rule of thumb. If a band's primary website is Myspace, Facebook or Twitter, they most likely are not a notable band. Every notable band I can think of has a specific, unique domain as their primary website. I am sure there are a few exceptions, but I don't know of them. So, if the band's official site is via Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, or the like, the links should be removed from the article. However, if the Myspace, Facebook, Twitter sites are secondary or supplementary *and* official (such as The Beatles official site on Facebook), then the external links should remain. As for using these sites as references, I would only use press release information posted on these sites that cannot be found elsewhere. Most of what would be posted at the Beatles' facebook page would count as a primary source, and primary sources are not to be used in articles. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is unfortunately completely incorrect. I have noted with great chagrin a growing tendency for notable artists to make, at best, a placeholder website which says "See our MySpace", with absolutely zero website content. Others simply have no other website but a social network site. It's dreadful, and while these bands are not in the majority, it seems to be a new reality. Sure, it can be a sign to check to see if the band are nobodies, but to proceed like it's a rule is completely flawed. It's also pretty biased to assume you are a reasonable arbiter of what is or is not an acceptable official medium. If the link is useful and official, leave it. To those who think that links are "spam" need to remember that some people add them to be helpful and informative, not to spam other readers, and that some readers come here for information you may not find interesting. - BalthCat (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Professional reviews

In WP:ELMAYBE, #1 (regarding professional reviews of creative works) was repealed in 2009. The current writeup for #1 has existed throughout 2010 into 2011. I referenced #1 in the removal of review spam, and someone got the wrong impression of this (that the repeal was repealed). Would it be worthwhile to move WP:ELMAYBE #1 to the end of the "Links normally to be avoided" section? I was going to be bold and do it myself, but I was not sure how the anchor links would be impacted. The original criteria is a bit in the past now. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't want to see it moved and I don't read the current version as you do. Not every review link under external llinks is automatically link spam. The point here is to encourage readers in incorporate those reviews into a reception section rather than just adding them under external links. However without a significant reception section already in place it can be beneficial to add a reputable review (temporarily) under external links to provide readers with some external review information for the time being at least and to provide material that another author might incorporate into the article later on.

There is a difference between not encouraging something (the encouraging of adding/collecting review links was repealed) and disallowing it altogether.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right that not all professional reviews under external links are linkspam. While some editors with a COI will solicit their film reviews, other editors will want to share Ebert's reviews across articles. I do not see the same middle ground as you, though. If we no longer encourage adding professional reviews and instead encourage for them to be added into the article body, this seems to me to mean that we should normally avoid adding reviews. Hence my suggestion to move the item to the appropriately titled section. Your logic can still apply in the occasional cases of using them, though I would prefer putting reviews for potential use on the article's talk page. It would help to update the guidelines; it seems strange to keep a "Repealed" statement for more than a year. It's like a red mark on a paper, and we should address that mark. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we essentially agree. However while I also agree that the "repealed" looks a bit odd I'm still not really comfortable with moving it. Even if you emphasize the "normally avoided" there is also a difference between not encouraging(now) and discouraging (after the move). Plus in practice (at least in my experience) WP:LINKSTOAVOID is often used as a much sharper sword and engaged/opinionated (quality control) editors all to often ignore the "normally".

I suggest for now, that we just wait for some additional input by others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is currently, it's confusing. Three possibilities: encouraging, not encouraging or neutral. IMO select quality professional reviews have a place in External Links as a courtesy to readers. EL and Footnotes are not mutually exclusive, the same link can be contained in both, when an emphasis on that link is desired or significant to the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite WP:ELMAYBE #1 so it is clear that the recommendation was repealed. We will do not have to move anything to WP:ELNO since that discussion would be a new can of worms. Let me know if it reads okay. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Use in the body

Could there be some clarification on acceptable uses of external links in the body? This guideline reads, "they should not normally be used in the body of an article." However, no examples of valid cases are given, making it difficult to resolve disputes, such as this. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And this. This debate has being going on for a while (starting here) and it's getting a little ugly. Both articles are lists of web videos, and initially featured direct links to external websites (like Youtube) where the links could be watched. These links were small and unintrusive - for example, episode six of the Nostalgia Critic was linked like this: (6) - it was not a bare URL.

Essentially, those against the links are quoting the external links policy, while those for the links argue that it's a list of episodes (i.e. not a "normal" article) and removing them makes the page less useful. Those against the links argue that Wikipedia isn't about usefulness, it's about being encyclopedic. Without wanting to give my position on the debate away... those for the links think this is a rather odd argument to make... 60.226.67.88 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Gosh, I'm so glad you're here to tell us these things. Seriously though, I realise that every page on Wikpedia is an "article", Duffers, but to Joe Public a "list" article is not a normal, encyclopedic article (i.e. it's not the kind of thing that you'd see in a paper encyclopedia). I did put normal in brackets, you know... 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true: This page, for example is in Wikipedia but not an "article". More pointfully, disambiguation pages and redirects are in the main namespace, but are not considered articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to a bit of an artificial question, since you can always use footnotes/inline citations for those external links. This way you can keep the links (assuming they do indeed source/confirm article content at all) but you don't have them in the article's text body.

As far as the video nerd game thing is concerned that seems to be a bit tricky. You certainly could argue that an exception from the general rule is acceptable here, because those links are clearly useful/beneficial to readers and I don't really see a conflict to being encyclopedic. The list doesn't become more or less encyclopedic in dependence of those links. So far so good. There might be however a potential issue with such links from the perspective of the bigger picture. While you can argue those links are acceptable in the list of angry video nerd episodes, they would have been unacceptable in the angry video nerd article itsself. So there might be some "smart spamming" ahead by simply creating lists in wikipedia and using them as a backdoor for having linkfarms.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On the video nerd game thing, it's not just the policy of external links, it also goes against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a directory. And I disagree that their is no conflict to being encyclopedic. It makes it more a fan site and directory and less an encyclopedia page. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends how you read those. You can argue they are not really violated. For example yes we don't want link farms, but an article containing a lot of links is not automatically a link farm. For instance you might think of a long article which primarily using sources that are available online (inline citations), such an article might contain a rather large number of links, but it is obviously no link farm. So it depends on the purpose those links serve. Now in the case in question, you could argue, that those video links can be seen as links to primary sources (i.e. the original episodes) and hence they are not seen as a link farm. Furthermore there is nothing unecyclopedic with providing references or links to (primary) sources of articles subject. In articles on cultural subjects, we of course provide links to an online copy of the subject provided it's legal. If you wrote an article about a book, a movie, a painting, a sculpture then of course you would provide links to free online copies of the book, movie, painting sculpture, etc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There already is some clarification in the guideline. Did you read the first footnote?

In the specific example, the Gibson book should either be a properly formatted citation (a WP:PRIMARY source for the fact that such a book exists) or a properly formatted external link in the proper section.

Lists are a special case. It would be silly to have a list of fifty items followed by a separate list labeled ==External links== that repeats all fifty items, but this time with fifty external links, just so we can say that all the external links were corralled in the "correct" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest we hold off on the debate on this page until it's resolved on The Angry Video Game Nerd's Discussion Page. It seems silly to have (essentially) the same argument on two pages. I brought this to the attention of this page because things were getting a little ugly on the Nerd's page, but things seemed to have cooled down there and they're asking for comments/votes. 60.226.67.88 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of changes to this content guideline or whether a pattern of linking conforms to this guideline needs to occur here, not on a project's talk page. -- Donald Albury 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, by all means, continue the discussion. I would never dream of ordering people around. It's just that I brought the debate here so we could get a neutral point of view on the subject, but now that people who have strong feelings on the debate (particuarly duffbeerforme) have weighed in, we're just repeating ourselves. I just thought once the discussion on The Nerd's page was over we could use it as a precedent when discussing when ELs are appropriate in the body. Again, I would never dream of ordering people around, but perhaps this debate should stick to a general discussion on when an EL is appropriate in the body? In other words, let's try not to discuss The Nerd's page in particular? 60.226.67.88 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is good example of how not to add external links, none of the links in that article are appropriate for the article body. The exception is for things like Template:New York Stock Exchange certainly not for adding links to youtube videos. Refer to note 1 on the EL page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with MilborneOne. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if the main (only?) issue is the article body and and article body links should be internal, then he could put the links to the episodes in footnotes to resolve that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

URLs that do not support article content should not be placed with the citations that do. For example, if the sentence says "Apple, Inc. said today that...", then putting http://apple.com in the citations is always wrong. (A link to a press release in which they say "that" would be correct.)

Lists are sometimes awkward for citations. Personally, if I were worried about it, I'd go find a friend at WP:FL and ask for advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

yes but we have here the analogon to a the press release links. If i'm not mistaken the links point to the original episodes on youtube. Not you generic website or video for the show itself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On self referencing external links

I think there should be mention somewhere, or at least a link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(self-references_to_avoid), specifically WP:CLICKHERE, but I'm not sure where or how best to integrate it. When linking to external sites it's important that users don't use phrases like "click here". -- œ^™ 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is easy: The answer is WP:EL#How_to_link.

How to phrase it is harder. Perhaps someone would like to make a bold effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Boldly attempted with the edit shown in this link. :) --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blanket ban on Youtube links?

I was wondering whether there is now a blanket ban on YouTube links, since User:XLinkBot reverts the addition of Youtube links automatically. If so, I strongly oppose this. There are a large number of people/events who draw their notability from Youtube videos (both by them or about them), like Antoine Dodson, Ted Williams, or Asmaa Mahfouz. These articles have to have the links to their respective Youtube clips in the "external links" section. A bot automatically reverting the addition of these videos is not helpful. --bender235 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No there is not a ban on YT links - but that said the average link that is added by editors to WP from YouTube fails WP:EL for relevancy or being a straight-up copyvio. If you believe the link is not one of these, and XLinkBot reverts the addition, you can undo it and XLinkBot will not do anything else. But be aware: many videos from which YT personalities have been derived are copyvios and we should not be linking to them; we can link to other sites or articles that subsequently link to them (it's not skin off our back) or better yet use those articles as references in the work. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The following are previous discussions and a summary which may help in understanding the background:

• Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube
• Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 2
• Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 3

• Conclusion at EL Perennials
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to notice (in particular for bot operators), that while there are still a lot of copyvio and other unwanted or unsuitable material on youtube, there is also in increasing amount of legal and suitable material on youtube. This mainly due to the fact tham various news agency and TV broadcasters have started to maintain their own public youtube channels over the recent years. A similar trend can be seen with many artists/musicians providing samples of their won work on youtube. also a lot educational material is uploaded from universities and various institutes. All those cases provoded suitable links for WP either as references or as external links or even in a separate video dodument section if one exists. So while in the early years much of the youtibe material had not suitable for WP, there was a shift in recent years towards more suitable material.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kmhkmh, we know. By far the most of the material on YouTube is not a copyvio, that is absolutely true. Then added, there are an increasing number of official uploaders, which makes these video's even reliable sources! However, YouTube video's still are very, very often unsuitable as an external link. That, say, the BBC uploads a news item themselves does not necessarily mean that we have to link to it in external links sections. We are not a linkfarm (use it as a reference, see intro WP:EL). Added to that, much of the info that is linked, is often indirectly related to the subject, or superfluous as the info is already in the article. Then still, one needs to install software for it, it is NOT accessible to a large number of readers, and it still requires reasonable bandwidth to be really useful. That are a LOT of WP:ELNO things (not to mention the intro and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. True, there will be mistakes by bots reverting YouTube (but that is true for any process .. even for human editors removing links), but XLinkBot is extremely soft and friendly, one can always revert the bot (as suggested by it), etc. etc. But seen that quite some reverts are reversions of copyvio material, inappropriate video's, even plain spam (yes, one can earn money on YouTube), and hey, then the other WP:ELNO things, I still believe that the mistakes by bots will be very, very occasional. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we never have to link to anything (other than an official website maybe) and nobody suggested something like that. The topic of the discussion is a "blanket ban on youtube link" and the point here is imho that we have to link to suitable youtube videos (of course not) but that (yes) we can :-). Whether we actually do or not is up to the authors writing the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with the claim that By far the most of the material on YouTube is not a copyvio, that is absolutely true." but otherwise agree with your statements. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess most of the material is private video's uploaded by the creator .. movies of grandma's birthday, the first bicycle ride of the daughter, babies doing their first steps, you name it .. all perfectly non-copyvio .. and all perfectly totally unsuitable as an external link too. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

YouTube links can be used perfectly well and consensus on various noticeboards, articles, and policy pages means that the community agrees (I wrote an essay: WP:VIDEOLINK). The bot is being misused and needs to be shut off until it functions in accordance with the community's wishes. I do not see how it could be possible to code it in a way that lets the acceptable ones stay but might be something to test out.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your claims about a pro-You Tube consensus are simply not true. You can write an essay all you want, but official policy trumps your own personal opinions. It is very rare for any YouTube link to pass our copyright policies or External link policies. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not "rae" unless you talk about the percentage of suitable youtube video compared to the total amount of youtube videos. That would be correct but it is entirely pointless statement. I mean you wouldn't argue we shouldn't reference books just because the majority of books us not suitable. As I understand it the current consensus is a decision on a case by case basis. This means we shouldn't frantically add masses of youtube links just because we can, however we shouldn't have bots routinely removing arbitrary youtube links either (at least not without a close supervision and/or a case by case inspection).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus trumping WP:EL? YouTube needs software installed, YouTube is inaccessible to quite a number of readers .. etc. I think I clearly stated that there ARE good YouTube links, but that they are rare. A LOT of it is unsuitable for linking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well they re not rare (see above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the essay - I think that sums up pretty much why YouTube is hardly ever suitable, and hence, under a strict set of conditions, reverted automatically by XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually what criteria for youtube links does the XLinkbot currently use?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a youtube link, it removes it, but does not attempt to remove it again if its change is reverted. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no additional criteria. It just removes any youtube link in the external links section of any article?--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

We know there is not a blanket ban on youtube videos. However, XLinkBot operates by community consensus because it is rarely wrong, and because it leaves a polite and informative message on the reverted user's talk page which includes "If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert." I have taken an interest in checking external links for quite some time and I frequently find that XLinkBot has correctly reverted a link addition by an unconfirmed user before any human had to worry about it. In an ideal world, no one would ever be reverted without deep thought and possibly a discussion, but in practice it would not be productive to have a bot flag hundreds of edits for human inspection, and then have pointless human activity. The real advantage of XLinkBot is that by reverting a user, a small problem (dubious links added to a couple of articles) does not become a large problem (dubious links added to tens or even hundreds of articles). That is because the new user who is adding the links is quickly informed that their edits are being noticed, and that there are guidelines covering what is reasonable. Yes, it would be possible to find errors that XLinkBot has made—however one can peruse ANI, for example, and find many much more serious cases where misguided editors have bitten lots of new users: problems cannot be totally avoided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object against using XLinkBot for removing (mostly) unwanted youtube links, but i still fail to understand how it works in detail. How does an article or a user edit get selected for a youtube removal?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

XLinkBot only pays attention to IPs and brand-new editors (first ten edits to accounts less than four days old). So every person in this discussion can easily add YouTube links all day long, but if a total newbie does it, XLinkBot reverts it (once).

XLinkBot is always playing the odds. The odds are very high that links to YouTube, groups.yahoo.com, *.blogspot, etc., when added by a newbie are inappropriate. Several people have gone through its contributions to verify its accuracy, and typically report that >95% of what it reverts probably needed to be reverted. You can have a look yourself if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

When a celebrity's .com domain redirects to her Facebook

The case in point is Allison Iraheta. The official website per the article is http://www.allisoniraheta.com/. As of today, that redirects to her Facebook page, facebook.com/AllisonIraheta.

Should the infobox and External links sections still show the AllisonIraheta.com domain, or should they be changed to the Facebook page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would change both links to www.allisoniraheta.com (lowercase)—the EL link is different. That official page currently redirects to FaceBook, but that is not our concern. For one thing, by using the official link we are removing any confusion concerning whether it is our opinion that FB is the official page. Also, it may change in the future and again that is not our problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)