Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 20

Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Minimum removal

In December, the page was changed from saying 'a minimum of links' to its current version of 'restricted to'. Was there a discussion somewhere? The new version is ambiguous to allow for a lot of links, as long as they're relevant, while the previous explicitly urged a small number. I prefer the old version, or a more explicit discussion that it should be a minimum, but would generally like some clarity. Anyone got a link? WLU (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User making the changes was Leranedo, with less than 2K of edits, and is now apparently dead, and there seems to have been no discussion. Anyone object to me turning it back? WLU (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis

Requesting comments for a new style proposal for wikis listed in the EL section is at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Style guideline for official websites

Official websites fall under What should be linked, but there is currently no style guideline on this page for linking to official websites. For example, I've seen (and have probably used at one time or another):

Is there any consensus for establishing a consistent style of linking to official sites across Wikipedia? Should there be a consistent style or template added to the style guidelines? I would think that consistency would only make the encyclopedia easier to navigate. dissolvetalk 10:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

While a standard may be a good idea, we have such a massive amount of variation now it seems like almost masochistic to try to 1) come to agreement and 2) then get everybody to do it that way in the future, 3) then fix all the existing ones. 2005 (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

In the Links to normally be avoided section on the subject of other Wikis it states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.". What is the definition of both occurrences of "substantial" in the sentence? - X201 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no set definition - editors need to use common sense and good judgment. The main point is to ensure we only send readers to Wikis that we have good reason for thinking provide high quality, NPOV information that is likely to be accurate and remain so over time. The definition of substantial will depend to a large extent on the subject area - for instance an area that has a lot of practitioners/interest/study around it would need a larger number of supporters than one which is a very niche area. But some subjects may just not have enough critical mass to develop a suitable site as an open wiki. -- SiobhanHansa 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at {{externalimage}}, {{externalvideo}} and {{externalaudio}} and how they are being used in articles. If these uses seem incompatible with the current wording of WP:EL, please invite further discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This page Wikipedia: External links implies (in the top template) that "wp:links" is a shortcut that redirects to this page. But that shortcut actually redirects elsewhere.

Should we fix the redirect so it actually does link here? Or remove the mention of "wp:links" in the template on this page? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKS (all capitalized) forwards here, while WP:Links (not capitalized) doesn't. While I don't think this is ideal, it's in the nature of a system that finds capitalization important. Personally I believe it is more useful to educate users to pay attention to capitalization (assuming we aren't going to change the software to ignore capitalization in most cases) than to ensure every possible combination points to the same place. -- SiobhanHansa 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, is there any reason why WP:XL doesn't redirect here? I've used "xl" as an abbreviation for "external link" in edit summaries for some time and I must have picked it up from somewhere, so I was rather surprised that it didn't work as a shortcut.  —SMALLJIM  10:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about criteria 4

In number 4 of what should be linked, it says 'reviews and interviews.' Interviews are in as far as I'm concerned, inherently notable and if not reliable, then a definite candidate. However, for reviews, there's an ongoing discussion at WP:NOVEL style guidelines about the comparative reliability and notability of reviews. I am of the opinion that the reviews should be ones in reliable sources - Time, Newsweek, national newspapers and other sources considered reliable. Several other editors has made the case that any review is better than none, even if not professional. Accordingly, I wonder about a) an opinion that my standard is excessive, or b) if the community agrees, the wording adjusted to say "interviews and professional reviews". Any thoughts? WLU (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, we've not been talking about reviews from such sources at Amazon or Epinions, etc. We're specifically talking about reviews from FantasyLiterature.net which is my own review site. I have invited reviewers who I consider excellent -- one is a "professional" (paid by genre magazines) and others are writers (some award-winning), a student who is finishing her master's in literature and plans to be a critic, etc. I have a Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience, have been published in scientific journals, and teach research methods and scientific writing at my university (the point is that I care about facts and excellent writing). Kahooper (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper
The 'genre' professional - is the genre fantasy? Have they been published in major newspapers or magazines? How would answers to these questions line up with the links to be included/considered? I see it as excluded but others have disagreed. FL.net also advertises, and profits from, traffic on the site (though kahooper has said it's been changed to minimal). I'm also interested in a broader input here, not just this one external page. WLU (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fantasy genre magazines: Blackgate, Mytholog, Dragons, Knights, and Angels, and also non-genres like Rosebud Magazine. Rob Rhodes is also co-author of the forthcoming "The Sword in the Mirror: A Century of Sword & Sorcery" and has a story coming out in a fantasy anthology.

I realize that you're interested in the broader issue of what could be linked, but I did want to distinguish us from Amazon, etc.

About profit: professional reviewers (who you say should be linked) do profit. WE DO NOT PROFIT. We might off-set expenses with any Amazon kickbacks. If we were in it to profit, we would give all good reviews, wouldn't we?? Kahooper (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

I think what I see as your general intent with this wording - that not all reviews are good enough is appropriate, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and generally accepted practice. But I'm not sure changing the wording here is the way to handle this. We already talk about wanting all links to be reliable and from knowledgeable sources. And we talk about avoiding Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
Personally I think WikiProjects may be the best places to really come up with appropriate guidelines for what works within the area they concentrate on. A more general guideline focused on reviews could be very difficult to word such that it can be applied appropriately to different genres. At WP:WikiProject Albums, for instance, they require professional, independent reviews, though "professional" for them explicitly includes volunteer staffed productions. This may be a very different standard than is appropriate in other arts. At the very least I think it would be a mistake to develop additional wording for this guideline without soliciting comment from all the active Wikiprojects who work on subject areas that use reviews. -- SiobhanHansa 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a WP:EL-related discussion starting up at Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link that may be of interest to editors here. Additional input is welcome. --Muchness (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Imdb/.com sites

I am sure this has been discussed before, but since imdb is a .com site, should we be using it in external links? If not, why do we have Wikipedia:IMDb templates? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no prohibition against .com sites. They are as welcome as any other in the external links section. imdb seems to have pretty broad community consensus for certain uses, so the template is an easy way for editors to include it in a standardized fashion. -- SiobhanHansa 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, even though all .com sites are indeed selling something (irrelevant to the Wikipedia article) in order to keep themselves alive? Student7 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're focusing on the top level domain. .com sites can be registered by anyone and host any web content - from a multinational company selling books to an individual's blog. And I think you may have cottoned on to an anti-commercial feeling because there are so many poor links added that many are simply deleted with an edit summary like "Delete - commercial site". But that's frequently a short hand for saying the site is just selling/promoting things and adds no encyclopedic value.
Virtually all websites useful to Wikipedia engage in commerce. To run a decent website costs money and generally the owners need to generate revenue one way or another. Sites like the New York Times uses advertising; scientific journals use subscriptions (and sometimes advertising too); many companies sell things; celebrities' official sites are selling themselves (promoting the celebrity in order to make them a more valuable commodity); even websites for nonprofits normally solicit donations, use forms of advertising (from google ads to "sponsorships" or "key suporter" pages), or have an online store. The few exceptions to this are generally websites owned by individuals that do not receive a lot of traffic (such websites would generally be inappropriate for an encyclopedia since they are rarely reliable or authoritative), or websites owned by very rich organizations or individuals. If we limited ourselves to sites that provided information without trying to generate revenue we would have a hard time providing NPOV links. Pretty much the only sites we could link to would be advocacy sites from people with a lot of money.
Such a situation isn't conducive to developing an external links section that is good for our readers, but at the same time it isn't particularly good to send people to crappy websites or to a page that is simply selling a product. So there is a clause in this guideline against sites that use objectionable amounts of advertising. And another against sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. What is objectionable is a judgment call but most editors that I have seen comment on it seem to think it's a balance between the amount and quality of information presented and the quantity and intrusiveness of the ads (flashing/animated ads and popup/popunder seem to draw the most ire). The primarily exists clause tends to be interpreted as not linking to a page directly selling a product (particularly the product linked to the subject of the article) as its primary focus.
At least that's how I see it. I'm curious why you picked imdb out of the many .com links on Wikipedia? Was there a particular incidence of it that made you look twice? It may be that your instinct was right in the one case - but that in the general case it is used appropriately. -- SiobhanHansa 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation request

Could someone explain to me External_links#How_to_link? Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That section is a set of illustrations of the code to type in to make links look like the given examples. Which bit of it do you find needs clarification? -- SiobhanHansa 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The way text is added to links to describe the site. I would have thought that a referencing system would be used as part of the recommended Harvard system, or a similar system of referencing online sources. In stead this bit of content is seemingly left to the editor with the results that the site is not described as the owners intended.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that can be an issue. There are a lot of very poorly described links out there. I don't think we would always want to describe a site the way the owner intended. For external links I think a summary or description of the type of content is often more useful than things like the page title, but it would be nice if editors made it clear to readers what they were about to browse and who has published it. I don't think there is even the beginnings of community consensus on what a standard should be though. -- SiobhanHansa 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean there is no consensus? Harvard system is widely accepted across projects. However for some reason it has only been adopted in the guidelines for printed works only. I find this kind of strange for an online encyclopaedia which will in future increasingly cite works found online. Then again, I was just told that I am "exhausting the patience of the community and being disruptive" for insisting that the English alphabet has 26 letters, so nothing will surprise me now.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm new to this. I'm a volunteer worker in Shaftesbury and have found the www.shaftesburydorset.com website to be up-to-date and useful. Many people I have spoken to have said they have seen it mentioned on other sites (Google and Tripadvisor) but not Wikipedia. As it is the Official Town Website, owned wholly by the Town Council, it seemed sensible to add it as a link. I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest beyond my understanding. The link was arbitrarily removed by another user. I asked Editors through wikipedia-en-help for advice and was told the link met aproved standards as it is the official town website. It does sell some cheap advertising (£2 a month) to partially fund the site to save taxpayers' money but it is not profit-making.

I sought third-party advice which was for me to refrain from submitting the link and put it instead to Editors through this facility, which I now do. Personally I have no axe to grind but believe - as per Wikipedia's own guidelines - that "1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I see no harm in offering visitors to Wikipedia a choice of external links and do not wish to delete anyone else's suggestion.

Anyway, your views are welcome. You can see the discussion so far here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaftesbury Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgts (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I referred Sgts here after discussion on Talk:Shaftesbury#Town Website www.shaftesburydorset.com and questions on User talk:Athaenara#Advice please? about it. If one of you know of a better project page for him to ask, could you post here what it is? Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This project and WP:WikiProject UK geography would appear to be the most appropriate for the original request, though with the apparent conflict of interest and the constant additions by single purpose accounts WP:WikiProject Spam may be the way to go. -- SiobhanHansa 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems so, especially since 86.130.11.251 was blocked for identical edits. I asked Sgts about it on User talk:Sgts#Question about 86.130.11.251. — Athaenara ✉ 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Filmsite.org

I just ran across this site being spammed, and thought it questionable per WP:EL, even when not spammed. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Another_perspective_on_http:.2F.2Fspam.Filmsite.org.3F. I don't see these as professional reviews, but I don't see them as fitting any of the "Links normally to be avoided" either. Basically, I see this is the type of link that might be useful in a poorly-sourced article, but doesn't belong otherwise. Other thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Filmsite.org is one of the most authoritative film sites out there and a reliable source by any definition. It's a perfect example of what external links should be, most of the time. 2005 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Reliable source? Is the author a professional reviewer? Is the site fact-checked? --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The site is referenced by literally hundreds of film websites. It obviously qualifies as an external link, and in some circumstances as a reliable source. It's clearly an expert website. I don't know what your objection to it is, but you should undertake a little research, especially before erroneously saying it has been spammed. 2005 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It was spammed. If you have concerns about it being spammed, take it up with that discussion.
I've no objection, beyond what I've already said. I'm guessing that he's not a professional reviewer, nor is the site fact-checked. I couldn't find any information to the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The example you posted FROM FIVE YEARS AGO was obviously not spam, but rather an addition from a good faith editor who has been editing for all the years since 2003. My goodness, you might want to find something to object to that has not been linked on an article (with dozens of edits) since the second edit to the article in April 2003! 2005 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Take the spam discussion to that page. You're misreading what I wrote. I'll do my best to clarify. I hope you'll retract your statements here. --Ronz (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, back to my concerns: Is the site useful for anything other than poorly-sourced articles? Is the author a professional reviewer? --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy has 300 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger Ebert calls him a "critic". Literally hundreds of websites including edu film programs and film festivals reference his work, some use his film glossary. What "concerns" you about one of the most popular, most respected film websites and critics on the internet? 2005 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've listed my concerns. I'd appreciate you retracting your statements. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You can retract your statements any time you want. You don't need me to do anything about it. There was no spam here. The domain is notable, has well-regarded professional reviews and is an excellent link. If you have withdrawn your previous comments any time and we can move on. 2005 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to cooperate, then I'll just wait for others to respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
??? 2005 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently has around 300,000 articles with geographical coordinates, which all link to a Wikipedia edited list of map services available for those locations. In addition, Wikipedia articles have 18,000 external links to specific map services. These numbers are big enough to have a guideline on what kind of external links location related topics should have.

I assume most of the external map service links are trying to give readers a helpful way to see where the location is. Such links don't however give any information of the location on their own, they're printable only to tell that the online link may have useful information, and they make Wikipedia articles dependent on external services. This is not the case with coordinates, which are general information usable anywhere. Discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates may provide further information.

The Wikipedia page the coordinates link to, Template:GeoTemplate, links to over 100 different map services. In addition, next to all coordinates is a link to an entirely free Wikimedia map service. Should Wikipedia articles then have additional links to any external map services? This is also related to the recent guideline change from "Links should be kept to a minimum" to "Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful". In light of WP:USEFUL, the change might be a problem. --Para (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I haven't thought about this much and I'm no expert in mapping services. But for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps (though a special link, or free map on the page might be appropriate if there is some special reason why the geo template is inadequate and that particular map has to be used). Ideally they could set something up in their browser or wikipedia cookie to indicate a preference of one service or another, which could be launched directly from the template as it displays on the page, but that's getting fancy. (all just my opinion, of course) Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. The only reason I can think of to include a direct external map link is when the service has unique data that is known to remain static, ie. when the link points to data from a certain date. Another reason could be unique satellite imagery that shows some very specific feature not visible in other services, but the problem with such links is that the contents of the external map services can change at any time without notice, often within months, leading to link rot that can't be detected without human review. There's been discussion on finding and converting the articles that link directly to an editor chosen map service, so if we can agree on a guideline for linking to external map services and the existing links are converted to coordinates, it would be possible to have a bot convert all new map service links to coordinates, with possibly a special template for the links that should not be converted. The idea to have a user set map service preference feature in the tool that shows the link page (currently called GeoHack) is a good one and I think entirely possible. --Para (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There also is discussion about multiple links to map services at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Geolinks-cityscale. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for having split the discussion here, but I felt it was necessary to have some general opinion from people unrelated to WP:GEO, since some have expressed concerns that a single Wikiproject is dictating policy. It would also be good to be able to consider this issue outside the "it's useful" aspect, and ignore the fact that they're map links. --Para (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on converting individual map links in articles to coordinates and/or removing them when the article has coordinates already. It's a bit of a big project on my own though, so everyone please take care of a few. More details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Map link conversion to coordinates. --Para (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it would have been a good idea to get wider agreement before making wholesale changes. As someone who has created hundreds - and maintains thousands - of geo-articles I think that when a reader clicks on a map location they want to see a map, not a confusing selection of hundreds of options on an ugly page. If the Wiki map is good then standardise to that. First priority is ease of navigation for the casual reader; there is no other "great principle" at stake. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
Removing external map links from articles has been discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates; over half of the page is about getting rid of all the geolinks. It was announced on everything related to coordinates and the village pump, at least. If you have general comments about external links to services that have dozens of alternatives that can be linked to using the same identifier (coordinates, here), then comment here, but otherwise please read up on the previous WP:GEO discussion and participate there. Wikipedia's first priority is the dissemination of information, and limiting readers to a single or even a few services that may not even work for them is not helpful. Editors should not be making the decision on which advertising supported commercial map service to make available for people reading Wikipedia. They can't all be included in articles, so yes, that one extra mouse click is needed. Anyway, more there. --Para (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If we direct to Wikimapia it isn't advertising. And one extra click to a confusing page is not reader friendly. Never been to the village pump but I reckon I'll decide for myself what to read before commenting here. Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't have chosen a better example of just how wrong it is to make Wikipedia support general use external services by linking articles directly to them. WikiMapia is a site that lives on pay per click advertisements using Google's AdSense. Every time a user clicks on one of the fascinating rectangles overlayed on their map, an advertisement is served where it can best be seen: right in the middle of the screen. All they have to do is to somehow have people come to their site and click. Enter Wikipedia, a global top 10 site with topics matching theirs and thereby making click-through more likely. Some people believe that WikiMapia shares Wikipedia's ideology by serving community contributed material, but their users' contributions are not available for download and reuse in bulk, making it actually very different from Wikipedia. Still, under this misconception, many articles have a prominent link to WikiMapia, sometimes being the only external link at the end of the article. I can't think of any better way for such a site to profit. --Para (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
One extra mouse click? If only! :( The useability of those systems is very poor, and this proposal puts the cart before the horse.
I just tested this on Ballyporeen, and when I tried following the links from the co-ordinates, I was presented there with no less than thirteen screenfuls of links. As a reader, that's simply a pain-in-the-neck, and it's depressingly similar to what happens when I follow an ISBN link such as this one.
The effect of all this is that as a reader, I simply don't bother with these links. It's quicker and easier to just copy-and-paste the ISBN number or co-ordinates into one of my favourite mapping services or book catalogues.
I fully support the principle of channeling the geographical links through a centralised system, but unless and until the useability of that system is improved (e.g. by allowing readers to set a preferred map service as a continuing preference), then forcing readers onto that list of hundreds of links is not a satisfactory replacement for a direct link to a map.
The GeoHack system is a great idea, but it's still a bit raw. Hopefully in future it will evolve into something more user-friendly, but isn't there yet. In the meantime it is grossly premature to force the removal of direct links to relevant maps unless and until the generic system is improved to avoid directing the reader to what Sarah777 rightly describes above as a "confusing selection of hundreds of options on an ugly page". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You happened to choose a place in Ireland, for which there is no specialized entry, so you didn't get to notice that the info for many countries pops up to the top of the GeoHack page. But, yes, the GeoHack solution is similar to that for ISBNs. Maybe User Preferences should have geo and ISBN preferences. But that's outside the ability of the present tools. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently Wikipedia users don't have the option for external map service preferences in articles or other lists, so moving from an arbitrary editor chosen service link or a list of links to a list of all available links shouldn't be a problem. If you believe there is a usability issue, please report what it is and let's fix it. People seem to accept that it wouldn't be right for Wikipedia to have links in all book articles to Amazon for example, but can't relate this to other situations where the same services are available from a number of sources. Why is this? --Para (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, please read what I wrote above, about thr useability nightmare of a 13-screen list if links when I just want one map.
The comparison with amazon is a red herring: Amazon is trying to sell me the book, but google or yahoo is not trying to sell me the map. And as above, the book finding system stinks too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have a specific issue with usability in mind, please say what it is and we'll see what we can do. Are there any Irish map services you would like to see added, for example? Have you ever actually tried accessing a map service through the list, and which service were you looking for? The top global ones are already at the top of the list without any scrolling needed at all. If there are any applicable local services, they are shown before. Hardly anyone needs to scroll down more than maybe one page to find what they're after, so this change really adds just a single additional mouse click. The reason why the other services are still kept on the list is that a service listed for one region may work for another too, especially near the borders, and while we have no way to map the coverage of all services, we have to give the users the chance to go to the service they feel is best. All of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, or some other advertisement supported book database profit from incoming links, from advertisers or by selling products. Wikipedia can't support them selectively. --Para (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the Yahoo! maps are the clearest - do THEY (shock, horror) make money when someone clicks a link? If we had a template/format that allows the reader to choose a map or a maze - surely that would do? It would keep the socialists and cartographers happy without punishing the pundit. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes, they display ads as well. Even if they didn't, there are many editors who prefer using some other service, and even more readers with varying preferences. If all those links or even just the top ones on some undefined metric were included in articles directly, many articles would use less screen space for content than external links. So surely we have to let the readers choose themselves by showing them a list of all available services elsewhere, after the click. GeoHack is a tool that fills the map service list Template:GeoTemplate with the given coordinates, creating map links to all available services. Anyone can edit the template to improve it, and more complicated improvements can be discussed on the talk page. The only problem with this is for editors who are so used to seeing the direct links that the resistance to change can be overwhelming. But that'll pass. --Para (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What on earth makes you think that users will start to enjoy the nightmare of thirteen screenfuls of links rather than one direct link? This is not about resistsance to change: it is about resistance to change to a ssytem which is useability disaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment above at 00:36: hardly anyone needs to scroll more than one page, and there is an easy table of contents for those who do. If the many pages really are the only issue, then this still seems to me like resistance to change coming from someone who has never tried using the system. --Para (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, you really ought to assume good faith. I have tried the new sytem, many times, and I hve described above why it is a complete pain-in-the-neck to use, and it is exceptionally rude of you to simply dismissd my objections on the basis of your entirely false assumption that I have not tried it.
Yes, there are often links to apropriate mapping services the first screenful, but there are dozens of them, and yes, there is atable of contents. My objection is to the extra hasle of having to select from all those options rather than a direct link.
If you don't see thr advantage of a direct link, let me put it this way: why link to any article when there is a search box at the side of the page you are reading? Because it's a lot easier for the reader to click on one link and get the page they want rather than have to choose from a long list of alternatives. The same applies to maps: being forced to make a selection from a 13-screen list is a giant leap bcakwards in useability, no matter how carefully that list is arranged. If you don't understand that this a useability problem, then please have the good manners to accept that other users genuinely do find it a problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think the problem is in my understanding, please try to explain the problem more clearly, because I still don't see where there would be any hassle and can't believe that you would have tried the system. Nobody needs to scroll 13 screens. It would be possible to make it just a couple of pages or even a single one if it's in columns, if we ignore the possibility of cross-region services being necessary, but such a change wouldn't significantly improve the usability. Please write in complete detail where all you have to click and which part of doing that makes it hard to find the service you need. When I click on your GeoHack link above, I get links to 12 different map services on the first screen without scrolling anywhere, and all of them seem to have more information on the location. What is the hassle in just clicking the first one? It might be easier for a reader not to have to do that single additional click, and have a direct link to some random service in the article, but what makes it impossible is that people have different preferences and everyone won't be happy using the service some editor happened to choose. That's forcing your own preferences to everyone reading Wikipedia, and doesn't follow the neutrality and free content principles we should base our work on here. If some people don't care which service they end up in, they can use the entirely Wikimedia run WikiMiniAtlas service, available from the globe icon next to all coordinates. Otherwise, we need to let people make their own choice. The analogy to Wikipedia is flawed, because an encyclopedia article is only related to the topics discussed in it, while with a location and map services the location is related to all the available global and local services. Furthermore, hyperlinks allow Wikipedia articles to be linked to each other without having to use any additional screen space, whereas all the map links need something additional to link from, and such interface elements wouldn't belong in articles. --Para (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The big list of map services is needed for the same reason the big list is needed in ISBN 0-8070-3253-0. Or should an ISBN just link to a specific bookseller or library? The list gives readers several options. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The list does not "give readers several options"; it gives them hundreds of options, when all they want is a map. The ISBN interface is broken for exactly the same reason: it offers the reafer too many options to be useful. The principle is great, but the implementation is awful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In reply to para, the first time I tried this for an Irish location, I got sent to this page with zillions of links, and spent more than 30 seconds studying it to figure out what on earth it was all about. Then I went to the list for Europe, but there was no links to the sub-sections, so I scrolled down looking for Ireland, but didn't find an an entry, so I scrolled up and down again a few times in case it was wrongly sorted. Nothing, so I gave up and threw to location name into google maps.
After all that nonsense, I simply didn't bother with the system again for months, until I tried it again. Same palahver, nothing useful, so I scrolled my way back up to the top of the page to see what all this mess was about. After another chunk of reading, I saw a list of map services, tried a few which gave me nothing useful, and went back to manually using Google maps.
I tried it again, after a further break, and this time went straight to the google maps at the top of the list, which was fine.
This system fails the basic test of useability: it should be obvious and simple to use, but it isn't, and most readers simply don't hang around long enough to try to figure out a complex way of achieving a simple task. The defences offered here all the classic defences offered by people who create an interface; they know how the sytem shoukd work, and to them it's logical. The problem is that the refer approaches a system such a GeoHack without the benefit of all that prior know;edge of what the page is trying to do and why it is designed as it is, and in most cases without the aptiejnces tp spend time figuring it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Nielsen, users don't scroll, or only 10% of users bother to scroll. That may have changed since then, and with more sources for just about anything nowadays, the percentage is probably even less now. Why do you scroll? It seems that you are thinking of this from the perspective of someone who just wants one map link, any map link, so why not click on the first "Map" link on the first screen? When it's under a section called "Global", is it not obvious that the service is expected to work globally? If you somehow found a global service that didn't give you anything useful, then such incomplete services should be moved to local sections, but the usefulness depends on the context and you have not said what information you were after. Maybe your perspective wasn't to get any map link after all, but you were expecting to see localised map services after having noticed the table of contents? Would an empty local section for all major regions be helpful for users like you? You should note that the mapsources page has had much more work put into it than the book sources page in terms of functionality and interface design, and so dismissing one based on the usability of the other is counterproductive. --Para (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, your response is a classic interface-designer's response: that it's had lots of work put into it, so it must be good. That's an entirely false assumption: what matters is outcomes, not inputs, and both systems retain the same fundamental flaw of offering far too many choices with too little explanation of how they should be used.
You also have not read what I wrote; please re-read it. I did not just start scrolling: I started reading, and followed the most specific link available from the section heading at the top, choosing the one labelled "Europe A-M". I then started scrolling because Europe A-M offered no link to Ireland.
You may think that it should be obvious that "global" will cover everything, but I took it to mean services looking at the globe as a whole rather than detailed maps. if the intention is that "global" should be the default starting point, then the page needs to say so ... but it doesn't.
I was not expecting that following the link to Europe would give me a "localised map"; I was expecting that it would give me a map. Instead it gave me nothing, not even an indication that I should return to the "global section".
You now seem to be asking me to come with a quick solution to all the problems, which I absolutely refuse to try to do now. These things need to be done more systematically: start with proper testing by observing a range of users, then try to redesign the interface to cope with how users respond to it, and test again the various alternatives. One user's solution is always going to be inadequate for the generality ... and most importantly, this discussion is about whether this system should be forced on all users by replacing all other map links. It's not ready for that, and this page should not be used as a device for cobbling together out a few quick-and-dirty fixes. The system is not ready, so set up proper procedures to start fixing it rather than just insisting that it must be used to replace all alternatives.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Classic resistance to change; any proposed solution to alleged problems is going to be unacceptable. Despite your opinionated and counterproductive feedback and unwillingness to answer direct questions, I will act on your feedback and add empty sections for regions that have many coordinates on Wikipedia but no local services. This will solve the reported usability issues and tell users that there are no local services for the region, and they won't go wandering to sections for other regions unless they know that there is a useful service that happens to work for the requested location. --Para (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Should an empty region say something like "No map services for this region, use global services"? Or is that instruction awkward or rudely obvious? -- SEWilco (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The second part is painstakingly obvious when the global services are right next to the local section and it doesn't need to be looked up somewhere else. I think "No local map services for this region" is adequate. But is the term "Global systems" (services, sources) really ambiguous? Does it require knowledge on what type of services the first ones on the list are? If so, does it need a heading at all? --Para (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
To summarise the above thread, there is support for centralising the links to external map services on a single page, but some editors accustomed to seeing direct links in articles may feel overwhelmed by the amount of alternatives, and will have to use a couple more seconds to choose one of the first links on the list page. Perhaps a Javascript tool can be created for them to get over the worst resistance to change, and rewrite locally the external links that are being deleted. --Para (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not an accurate summary, and after all my repeated explanations to explain the problems, it is quite dishonest of you to continue to characterise the objections as "resistance to change".
It's not a matter of a "couple of seconds": the first time I tried it, I gave up after over a minute, and if you look at user observation exercises such as those conducted by Nielsen show that readers give up after a few seconds if a page isn't helpful.
The objections, are not about resistance to change, as you repeatedly describe it; the objections are to a system which is great in principle but whose useability stinks, and which will continue to stink until there is some system by which a reader can set preferences to avoid encountering that huge index page unless they choose to go there.
The problem, para, is that you continue to describe the system from the perspective of someone who is used to it, and that's the wrong starting point. The real issue is how it works for someone who has not learnt their way around it, and for those users, it's useless.
Don't get me wrong, this system is a great idea; it's just that it still has such poor useability that it is grossly premature to force its use to the exclusion of all other methods. Javascript tools and other such widgets may indeed help, as you suggest, but don't go enforcing this mess on every article until those tools are in place and have had some decent useability testing (i.e testing by users unfamiliar with the system). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BrownHairedGirl's comment about usability. If it is considered important to give users a choice of map, why not have a default map that should work for most people, and then a monobook feature to replace it with another map service if and when it is desired. (If this arrangement were offered, my guess is that 95% of users would just accept the default). EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is already a default map link next to all coordinates, try clicking on the globe icon. It gives most people an idea of the location of the article's topic, and from that perspective serves everyone whose browser supports the map view. Anyone not content with it can access the full list of external links, so most of your suggested arrangement is already in place. On the monobook feature: Wikipedia has less editors than readers, and less monobook editors than article editors. Any Javascript solutions that require registration, changing preferences and/or editing javascript, are only for a very specific audience, which in most cases is only a small part of who Wikipedia is for. --Para (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl's trials seem to represent a very minor viewpoint, when they contain such pearls as having to scroll through 13 pages to find any map link, which of course is utter nonsense as the most appropriate links are on the first screen. She's going to have a hard time finding usability testing where more attention is given to scanning the entire length of the page, instead of just the first screen.
The map sources list and its software is by no means a new system: it has been in use for about three years already, and it's the number one manually accessed service on the Wikimedia Toolserver. There have been surprisingly few complaints of its usability, despite having had the usual discussion link at the top of the page. That may have been a result of users having been forced to use single editor chosen services, I can't say. Usability is an important aspect to think about when making such a highly used page, and nobody who has followed its development could say that no thought has been put into its usability or that the usability "stinks". Resistance to change.
I have been considering this external links issue from the perspective of all users; those who don't care which service they use, those who always choose the most popular global service, those who always want some other specific service, those who prefer using a service local to a region, those who just want to see the general location of the point of interest, those who want to see detailed imagery, those who are after geographical information different from a simple street map, and many others who aren't served by a single or a couple of subjectively chosen map links in an article directly. --Para (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again Para, you are describing the system from the perspective of some who knows how the designers intended it to to be used, rather from the perspective of the user who encounters it. And you continue to make the arrogant assumption that the interface is right, but the user is wrong. If that's the approach followed by those who created the GeoHack system, no wonder its usability is so poor that the only feedback you are getting in this discussion is negative.
Rather than rudely dismissing how I found the usability of the system as "utter nonsense", please have the courtesy to stop and actually read what I wrote about how I used it. (You asked me to describe it, so I did, so read it and comment on what I actually wrote rather than on your first impression of it). I did not just start reading the whole page; I started by following what appeared to be the most specific relevant link, which turned out to be a dead-end. There is not even any link at the top of the page which would take me to a succinct explantion of the designers intend the page to be used :(
Again, you continue to focus on the page's development rather than the outcome: the current interface may be the result of thousands of hours conscientious work, but huge inputs do not mean that doesn't mean that an interface is good — remember Microsoft Bob? — what matters is the user's subjective experience, and in this case you are simply refusing to listen to the user feedback you are getting. It's not just from me: you have on this page three users (me, Sarah777 and EdJohnston) all telling you that the geohack system currently has poor usability, but you dismiss them all even though there is nobody supporting your view.
I'll give you one further example of the mistaken assumptions you make. You mention above that "there is already a default map link next to all coordinates, try clicking on the globe icon" ... and sure enough, there is, except that I never knew that. The overwhelming majority of images on wikipedia articles are a link only to the image, not to any content, so I assumed that this was the same: text links bring you to content, but clicking on an image brings you only to a larger version of that image. I had no reason to think that the globe beside the co-ordinates was anything other than decoration like the flagicon beside country names, so I never even bothered to mouseover to see the tooltip explanation. The default map which comes up when clicking on the globe for Ballyporeen is not at all bad, and in many ways the result of that is exactly what a system like this should be doing: producing a quick and easy one-click link to a map, except that it's fatally undermined by the absence of any visible indication that it has a function rather than being mere decoration. Once again, a good system with the fatal flaw that the designers continue to assume that users will know how it is intended to be used ... which would be a perfectly reasonable understandable mistake if it was not for Para's repeated dismissal here of all accounts of the difficulties experienced by users as "utter nonsense".
I have been quite forceful here, because I am appalled by the arrogance with which all critical user feedback is dismissed is "utter nonsense" ... but I do want to repeat that in essence I think that the idea behind GeoHack (of centralising and automating links to a huge range of geographical services) is a really good one, and that it already contains a lot of excellent functionality. My objection is simply to the attempt to enforce it as the only mapping system before usability problems have been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am relieved to see this discussion. Like BrownHairedGirl, I perceive numerous useability issues with the geo-links, but I was not prepared to undertake a comprehensive critique of the problem. For starters, I don't think the average user is even aware that clicking on a set of latitude-longitude coordinates (much less on the little globe icon next to those latitude-longitude coordinates) is supposed to bring up a map link. The only reason I am aware of this feature is that I have contributed to articles in which it has been implemented; if I were not a contributor I probably would not even notice the tiny geographic links at the top and/or bottom of many articles. For this and other reasons (many of which have been nicely articulated by BrownHairedGirl), this is a sophisticated technical feature with a lot of wonderful potential that is probably lost on 99% of Wikipedia users. --160.91.24.33 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What are the "numerous useability issues"? --Para (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Of for for goodness sake, Patra, this is getting ridiculous. After screenfuls of explanations of the usability problems, asking that question is silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl is incorrect in insinuating that I would be the developer or designer of the proposed system, and saying that I don't care of the outcome couldn't be further from the truth. Most of the recent developments are indeed a result of my suggestions after trying to use the system, listening to people's opinions about them, and the community's acceptance of the changes, but I do not maintain it and have had very little to do with the software. I have no idea how it was intended to be used, but half a year ago saw that improvements could be made and since then I have successfully managed to have people implement the requested changes.
Wikipedia doesn't often use icons, but they're not inexistant. Icons are used on many computer applications and websites. When Wikipedia uses images, they are most often in frames, while icons are not. See for example Wikipedia:Reference desk where they work fine. This shows again how a habituated Wikipedia editor such as BrownHairedGirl cannot think from a general perspective, but speaks from her own minor viewpoint only. --Para (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, I didn't insinuate that you are the developer; I stated that you are approaching the GeoHack system from the perspective of a developer, by starting from the position of someone who knows how the system is intended to work and is frustrated that ordinary users don't see the problem the same way.
And now you are at it again, dismissing the point about icons with your customary refusal to listen. I can think of no other case where there is an icon on articles in mainspace; there may well be some, but the fact remains that they are a rare exception. Yes, of course icons are widely used elsewhere in computing, but one of the first things a reader learns when using wikipedia is that images are always linked to a larger version of the image, and that clicking on them is pointless unless you want to see a larger version of the image.
Someone who was actually interested in improving the geohack system would now be looking at ways of resolving this problem of the icon's inconsistency with the fest of the wikipedia interface, but all that you seem to be interested in doing is telling the reader that the reader is wrong. Para, try listening for a change and you might start to understand why you are not getting any support for your impose-geohack-now plan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Again to repeat, I am approaching the GeoHack system from the perspective of all the users, by thinking of all the possible uses for geographical information, and making sure the system is usable in most of those cases.
If you feel there is a problem with how the WikiMiniAtlas is displayed in articles, I suggest that you contact its developers who have added the icons to Wikipedia. Again, I have had nothing to do with it, but the fact remains that all Wikipedia articles already have a default map. It could be made more visible, but that's not a concern in light of all the other alternatives. Coordinates are easy to recognise because they are always in the same place at the top right of articles, there's a descriptive icon of what the numbers are related to, there's wikilinked text next to them saying that they're coordinates, and a tooltip that tells the user what's behind the link. If people feel it's necessary, a note could be added to Wikipedia's Help / Getting started / Basic navigation as kind of a key for the page layout, often used in encyclopedias.
Otherwise, people's personal preferences and opinions are of course listened when developing a system, but when they don't block its usage, they should not block the improvement. --Para (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, you are listening to only one preference here, namely yours. Nobody is talking of "blocking an improvement"; you and others are quite free to improve geohack and roll it out further, but this discussion is about the something very different, namely your desire to remove alternatives to your preferred system. And the clear consensus here is that at this stage of geohack's development, it would be wrong to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The improvement here is the consolidation and standardisation of Wikipedia's linking to external map services. At the moment it's a mess, but we have been working on improving the situation and that's what you're involved in now. The impartial system has been in use for three years, and has been usable throughout that time, though recently more so. When usability concerns are not major and possible resolution won't require major changes, they are irrelevant for the change and can be worked on later. The book sources list is in use now, has been for a long time, and such commercial links from articles are not allowed. Whatever a small minority of editors think of the list, it's only their opinion, but participation in the Wikipedia project depends on all users respecting the basic guidelines of the project. The minority not fond of the change seems to be ignoring those over personal preferences. --Para (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, your arrogance and refusal to listen is astonishing, as your latest falsehood of referring to a "minority not fond of the change". In this discussion, there is a large majority opposed to it.
As has been repeatedly said to you by every other contributor to this page, the objection is not about "personal preference" — it is about the usability disaster of the GeoHack system. Ypu didn't agree with that, and asked me to describe in detail why it is a disaster, and I did that ... but you simply dismissed it all as "nonsense".
As to the basic guidelines of the project, you are simply wrong. There is no ban on an article including a limited number of relevant links to external sites, even if they carry advertising. For example, there are squillions of links to newspaper websites, nearly all of which carry advertising, and the test is relevancy.
I can see many advantages in a generalised map link system such as geohack, but only if it has some reasonable degree of usability, and if usability problems are taken seriously. However the persistent refusal of its leading advocate to accept genuine reports of difficulties makes me wonder what on earth this plan is all about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your stubbornness is astonishing. How can the concepts of information, neutrality, free content and accessibility be so hard to understand and relate to Wikipedia content? Map links will get the same treatment as book source links did, mostly for the same reasons and regardless of any possible further link page developments, whether you like it or not.
If relevance was the only criteria for map link inclusion in articles, we would have to answer everyone's personal needs and preferences, and include all the global and appropriate local links in all the location related articles, because they are all relevant. As you have repeatedly said already, such a list would be unacceptable, especially in articles. On the other end we have the current situation, where single editors are allowed to insert their preferred map service link to be offered to all readers of the article. Luckily the advocates for any single map service aren't aware of this preference, because otherwise we would see edit warring on whose commercial service this top10 website links to. The current situation cannot continue, and we must work on making all map related links on Wikipedia follow the same pattern.
If you had paid any attention to what you are commenting, you would have noticed that the table of contents you were so attracted to has been moved below the fold, following your explanation of the use experience. No other issues have been reported, except your inability to understand the meaning of the word global. Is common sense too much to ask? If the same report comes from multiple users, related to something specific as opposed to a general feeling of having to use something different than before, then it can be given attention and ideas requested for alternative options. Others are dismissed as resistance to change.
The analogy to newspaper websites is flawed, as the sources the encyclopedia gets the information from are irrelevant as long as they are reliable. Map services however have quite distinct user interfaces which people get accustomed to, the data and additional features vary, and with your logic you'd have no basis to stop someone from adding yet another map link to an article. If the distinction is lost on you and you are content with whichever service is provided (first link that says "Map", hello?), I'd recommend for you to abstain from commenting on this any further. --Para (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, first of all you say that the system is fine, yet now you say that it is being tweaked it as we talk, and that it's all my fault for not checking every few minutes to see how many improvements have been made. Make up your mind.
You came here to seek consensus for a mass deletion of references, and the clear consensus is that your system is not ready to serve as a replacement for everything. If you were to ask people to volunteer to help in improving the sytem, I am sure that you would find plenty of people ready to offer their time ... but that is a different issue to the question of whether the system is ready now, and it isn't ready. Go do your usability improvements, and come back to seek support, but don't try blaming the objectors for not doing the work of improving the which system you alone want to impose against consensus.
You evidently don't spend much time reading newspapers: the same story can be covered very differently in difft newspapers, and which source is used can be important. Same goes with maps, there are reasons to prefer one over the other in difft situations ... but I would much prefer quick access to any map than an obscure and misleading 13-screenful page of links. It doesn't have to be the ideal map: just give the user a clearly-labelled link to one map. I don't need or want a choice: I just want a map that will let me see roughly where the place is. That's all: just a map, any map, not a choice of hundreds of them. (By all means, also offer me a choice to view a clearly-labelled "list of available map services", but don't confront me with a 13-screenful menu by default when all I want is a map).
(I went to put petrol in my car yesterday. I pulled up at the pump labelled petrol, grabbed the nozzle, put the stuff in, paid and left. I know that there are many many difft ways of formulating petrol, with various permutations of octane ratings and additives such as detergents, but I don't care: I just want petrol that will make my car go ... so it suits me just fine that there is only one petrol pump. If they started offering me a huge menu of difft types of petrol, I'd go somewhere else — heck, I even stopped using a garage when they introduced one new type of petrol and couldn't explain what the new stuff did differently.)
You also refer to my "inability to understand the meaning of the word global". Once again, your rudeness is exceeded only by your failure to read: if you read what I wrote (which are astonishingly reluctant to do), you will see that the problem is that there is more than one possible way of interpreting what the label "global" means in that context. This goes to the core of the problem you have in understanding the objections to your beloved system: every time a reader reports that the interface does not have the meaning you intend, you blame the reader for not guessing the intended meaning. That's a textbook case of how bad interfaces are designed, by blaming the reader rather than trying to develop the interface to clarify the functionality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to map services - summary

In the discussion so far, the GeoHack system has been vigorously defended by Para, but and the principle of centralising links has been supported by Wikidemo. However the the only comment from other users has been critical of the usability pf the GeoHack system at this point in its development, so there is no consensus for Para's initial proposal that all other links to map services should be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed my support of centralizing links, but the stumbling phrasing "but and the principle" suggests an editing problem so you might have misplaced part of your paragraph. Check your draft or notes for whatever else got overlooked. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving 300,000 Wikipedia articles free for ad-hoc adding of links to external advertising supported services is out of question; the change must be done despite the minor discordant notes. We need to be consistent on our linking to map services, as such a high number of location related articles makes map links almost part of the Wikipedia interface. The book sources list with ISBNs and external links was taken into use for principled and practical reasons, so coordinates and map service links should be handled the same way. There is no other possible alternative to the centralised list of links, and single external map service links cannot be used for the following reasons:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the dissemination of information.
    • An external map service link is only information that a single external resource may at some point have had information about the topic, whereas coordinates are information by themselves, usable in any online or offline service.
    • There are very few location related articles that require a direct link to a specific map service, instead of the general coordinate information about the location.
    • External map links are a result of lazy editing: Instead of doing what an editor should do and processing the link into encyclopedic information, it's just inserted to the article as such without bothering to generalise.
  • Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is free content.
    • The selection of map services is a reader choice and editors cannot objectively make that choice for people.
    • Direct links in articles supports the preferences of very few people only.
    • Wikipedia does not sponsor certain advertisement supported commercial map services over all the others.
    • Wikipedia does not depend on external services, which consistent external map links in articles would cause.
  • Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience.
    • Links chosen by single editors reflect their personal preferences, and they may not include accessible external services.
    • Direct links break geographical information into unusable snippets that can only be used online with a modern web browser, unlike coordinates and a full list of services.
    • A single or a couple of external map service links ignore the users' needs, maybe without even the user knowing that other services with data for the location exist. We can't know why people go to geographical information services and which ones they use.

--Para (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Para, you're still doing the same thing as you have done throughout this thread. You are restating the case you make for your objective, and dismissing the consensus that the system you advocate is not yet sufficiently mature to justify the mass removal of other links.
That's all. You have made your case, and there is no consenus for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. There is no consensus one way or the other on this page, so we can just make a decision based on fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I mentioned above. If BrownHairedGirl's little revert warring friend asks to support her position when she is incapable of doing it herself, it is not a separate independent opinion. EdJohnston also made no comment of the usability, it's BrownHairedGirl together with the ip user complaining about changing the status quo, here on an page inappropriate for that purpose. But all that is irrelevant: editors' ignorance of Wikipedia policies is not a reason to stop improvements because of minor usability concerns. This is a matter of principle, and external links to map services other than in the references section must be removed, simple as that. --Para (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, you are the only advocate of imposing geohack, and Para's view != consensus. I strongly resent the suggestion that I am not taking an independent view: I frequently disagree with Sarah777. But take a look at this page, and you will see that there are four editors opposing your proposal, which amounts to a consensus against.
As to wikipedia policies, there is no policy which requires the removal of a limited number of relevant external links, and there is no policy which requires the reader to be deprived of useful links to information in favour of a well-intentioned but system with atrocioius usability, whose advocates dismiss all objections as "nonsense". You consistently refuse to listen to any of the criticism of the system, and wilfully misrepresent objections — most recently with ip contributor who wrote of "numerous useability issues with the geo-links", but who you falsely claim was merely "complaining about changing the status quo".
That's all: you floated a proposal, and the consensus is against you. Of course, if and when the GeoHack system is improved, the consensus may change — and in principle I'd be delighted to support something like this if it was not such a usability nightmare — but that's in the future. Right now, with GeoHack as it is, the consensus is "no".
Given the consensus in this discussion against your proposal, I will revert as vandalism any attempt to enforce the removal of all map links except the GeoHack system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any proposal of a dual system yet, that allows two clickable links on each article: (1) a link that goes to a standard map, possibly one hosted by a commercial provider, like Google Maps, (2) a link that goes to GeoHack. This might be tried out on a small number of articles. It would certainly give free choice to our readers. I agree with BHG that there is no consensus for a global switch to GeoHack as the only permitted option. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's mentioned in the above summary of points related to Wikipedia policies, mostly related to neutrality. Looking at how many popular services are on the map sources list, and how many different users have inserted them, the variety of preferred map services is too much for them to be linked in articles directly. It was tried for some time with the geolinks templates, but dismissed as too partial and impossible to maintain. In proportion, such a list would take too much screen space from articles, and would make Wikipedia more dependant on the editor chosen services. We just can't make that choice for the reader. --Para (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a common problem in the wiki discussion format that people are reluctant to participate when the activity seems high and participation would require reading the entire discussion. Anyone who bothers to do that and wants to act as part of the community will naturally agree that external map links are against Wikipedia policies. You can find more views from the discussions on WP:GEO from both sides, though the people opposing the change were in a minority, and had no basis other than being used to the "useful" status quo. All reports of usability have been listened to and for the most part acted upon.
The Wikipedia policies I mentioned above came from Wikipedia:Five pillars. If you revert removal of external map links, you will be reverted in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policies. --Para (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The objection to specific map services sounds ideological to me. I'd prefer to consider a small experiment, where we would actually collect data on how satisfied our readers were with the provided options. For this to work, somebody would have to propose a small set of articles where we would try out some alternatives. They could even be featured articles, such as New York City. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's ideological! Wikipedia itself is a very ideological project, and we have to hold on to those ideas and possibilities to keep the project on track. A user test would unfortunately be impossible to arrange on our own without severely biased results, because we can't require everyone to answer. The geolinks experiment ran for quite a long time, so many Wikipedia regulars got used to seeing those links at the bottom of articles, without considering how they fit to Wikipedia as a whole. Since people used to editing Wikipedia would then be more likely to answer any questions, we would mostly get answers from those people. The activity on this page is just resistance to change from bad practices, and it'll pass. --Para (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I sense this is covering the same ground as the ISBN debate, from more than a year ago, where we heard about the wickedness of linking to any site that used advertising, such as Amazon. A particularly useful ISBN-validity-checking service known as http://www.isbn-check.com even got put on the blacklist, due to to the evil fact that one of its screens included links to Amazon. (The site was actually used by a Wiki project that was trying to fix invalid ISBNs). Finally that decision was reversed. A well-functioning discussion thread should elicit better and better ideas from both sides, but I'm not sensing any improvement from your side of the discussion. Whether you think an experiment is a good idea, of course, is up to you. Maybe you might consider a different experiment if you don't like what I proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right. When there's a general identifier such as an ISBN or geographical coordinates that can be used in a number of similar services, and the number is significant enough for a list to be separated from external links sections, then all such links should be removed from articles to eliminate redundancy and leave the choice for the users, especially when the links are commercial in nature. It's no doubt slightly easier for a user to click on a single direct link than click twice, but when only one identifiable link is offered, most will probably click on that and then Wikipedia is seen as supporting a single external advertising supported commercial service over all the others. I'm not sure what happened with that particular ISBN checking service, but it seems to have been abolished from Wikipedia entirely, since there are no usable links to it, not even on the book sources page. Anyhow, during the course of this and other discussions about the use of map links, the map sources page has seen numerous improvements, and its discussion page is where any ideas and reports should be written. An experiment would be great, but unfortunately impossible with the financial resources we have to test Wikipedia's usability. --Para (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, what's all this about only offering one link on an article? The only person proposing that is you, with your determination to remove all other map links. Nobody here is objecting to having a geohack link on an article — the objection is solely to your obsession with removing any alternatives.
As to redundancy, you nearly made me die of laughter. I have seen few things with more redundancy than your beloved GeoHack page of 13 screenfuls of links, most of which have absolutely no relevance to the place being mapped.
I don't consider the list to the map sources page a map link itself. Therefore if a page has coordinates inserted using one of the community approved templates, and in addition someone goes to add a direct external map link following their personal preferences, that direct link is then redundant and must be removed. Good for you to keep repeating the ridiculous 13 page argument, it reduces the weight of anything else you have to say. --Para (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you continue to repeat your lie about "two clicks". (And I call it a lie, because while I tried to assume good faith, your continued refusal to listen to other experiences makes that assumption impossible to sustain). Yes, it is possible to use GeoHack to access some map services with only two clicks, but only if they happen to be the ones listed in the first screenfull and the user knows that they should ignore the useless links to "Europe A-M" etc. Unless the user has somehow managed to figure the completely opaque intentions of the page's designers, then the experience is more likely to be twenty clicks before giving up in frustration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite your unwillingness to cooperate, you should note that all your comments get due attention, and as such changes are possible at any time. Please check the page before commenting. These "useless links" are no longer as visible as they were when you first mentioned them, so people's attention will be drawn to what the heading on the page says, the content of the page, and not on navigating the page further. But this is all irrelevant and off topic here, as the map sources page is not only as usable as the book sources page, which alone is enough to continue with the change, but it is actually better, since most of the popular and appropriate links fit on a single screen. Please place any further comments about usability on Template talk:GeoTemplate. --Para (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Maybe everyone should take a little chill. This issue isn't new and it's not getting resolved soon, so no emergency worth getting personal over. I don't think it's a good idea to link directly to map services, and I would probably remove such a link if it appeared for no good reason in an article I was working on. At the same time we have 300,000 and it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place. The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots. We could even give people some notice and warning time so they can put a "do not convert" flag somewhere for the bots, if they strongly feel that a particular external link to a mapping service should remain. Of course they could always just revert the bot too...Wikidemo (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The 300,000 mentioned in the beginning of this topic was actually the number of articles with recognisable geographical coordinates, not the number of external map service links. At the time there were 18,000 external links to the services listed on the map sources page, but it has since come down. Unfortunately I can't give current numbers as the toolserver database for the English Wikipedia is down this week. Wikipedia has had rampant external map links in articles for such a long time that that's what many people willing to comment are used to, and seeing the disregard of Wikipedia policy on this page already, I doubt waiting for the love is the way to go. What we need is mass review and possible conversion and removal of the remaining external links, or tagging as unique to be kept and guidelines for which types deserve that treatment. It shouldn't be done with a bot to make sure that the automatically generated links give the same location and similar results as the editor inserted external link, and that it's indeed the location of the article's topic. The majority will not be reverted, and the ones that are will just end up for review again for someone else. Geographical coordinates and map service links are such a minor detail in articles that most people just aren't going to pay any attention if they are notified of an upcoming change, as was seen in the geolinks change on WP:GEO. The best solution is to just go for it and then see about the comments. Meanwhile, to keep the convenience seeking editors happy, people can work on Javascript solutions to have direct links to services. I wrote commons:User:Para/Google Maps Love.js once for this very purpose, and it works with coordinates here on the English Wikipedia too. --Para (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As above, Para: there is a clear consensus against proceeding with your proposal at this stage.
To implement it against consensus would amount to tendentious and disruptive editing at best, and could be construed as vandalism, and should earn you an instant block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been converting and removing external map links for months now and the only one to revert me has been Sarah77, who then directed BrownHairedGirl here. This 3-3 discussion where the opposing viewpoint completely disregards policy won't stop anyone from improving Wikipedia and removing the editor chosen external map links from articles. Any attempt to interfere with it by empty threats, abusing admin tools, tendentious editing ("editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view", such as direct external map links) or disruptive editing ("people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research", such as enforcing personal map service preferences on others) is a violation of all the mentioned Wikipedia policies. There is absolutely nothing to back you up. --Para (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Para, there is no consensus for your changes, and the relevant guideline (note guideline, not policy) does not prohibit direct links to map services. You are clearly in live with the GeoHack system, but that does notmean that it is wikipedia policy to prohibit appropriate direct links to map services, and you have not offered any clear evidence of a policy to support mass removals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the 3-3 include ScottHatton, JRG, myself and the others who have commented the same way on WT:GEO, or only the ones who have contributed here? Orderinchaos 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, BrownHairedGirl and yourself have repeatedly belittled the role of WP:GEO as a place to discuss this topic, along with the consensus achieved there, so the count does not include people such as Dschwen, Docu, Geonick and others who have supported removal but have not joined the discussion here. --Para (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Massive threadage. I'm just here saying that I _like_ clicking co-ordinates and being given a selection of mapping services to chose from. It's obviously contentious, so I'm not going to start editing them in. I guess existing links to mapping services shouldn't be removed yet, but that leads to the weird situation of links to maps and links to "map disambigs". About the usability / interface design: what would help? Different wording, bigger fontage for the first few links, horizontal rules? Dan Beale-Cocks 20:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support adding the GeoHack links to articles, because there clearly are users such as Dan who have figured them out and like using them ... and don't see that adding those GeoHack links is contentious. The contentious point is the removal of direct links to maps, and I think it is important to separate those two issues.
I have several idea about how GeoHack could be improved, but I'm not going to waste time discussing them with Para, who has persistently dismissed all concerns as "nonsense". If there is anyone else involved with GeoHack who is prepared to actually discuss usability problems and to seek solutions (rather than Para's zealot-like approach of telling users that the syystem is fine, it's the users who are wrong), then I'd be happy to help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to have a single consistent standard for linking to external map services, and the coordinate links are the only existing neutral way to do that. If direct links to Google Maps for example were added in addition to the coordinate links, then those are what people would most likely click on because the brand name is more recognisable than anything Wikipedia can offer. Wikipedia should not promote any advertising-supported commercial service over another. Anyone who has concerns on usability should report them on Template talk:GeoTemplate and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. --Para (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am in much the same situation as BrownHairedGirl. I've been having this discussion for over a month at WT:GEO but to no avail - it seems that those who wish to make the changes will do so whether we like it or not, and have no respect for consensus as a model for getting changes through. I personally think ultimately this is going to end up at dispute resolution, which is from a scale-of-problem point of view so unnecessary given we're only talking about the behaviour of two users who could act in a more appropriate manner and put this matter to rest by simply talking to and dealing with their opponents in good faith instead of antagonising them unnecessarily. Orderinchaos 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(drama break) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has started reverting removal of map service links. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing. --Para (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the people who are committed to promoting Geohacks as the single one-solution-for-all way to display geographic links can provide a tutorial for those of us who are unable to figure out how to make it generate maps that meet the needs of particular articles. Here's an example of an article where I find this tool frustrating: Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, which has a land area of 1,364-acre (6 km²), making it comparable to an airport. On Google Maps, the ideal map scale for this entity would be the one generated by z=12. I cannot get the Geohacks tool to generate this map scale. When the 1:10000 scale is specified in the coord template, the resulting Google Map is the one generated by z=15 (much too large a scale). However, when the "airport" scale (1:30000) is specified, the resulting map is the one generated by z=10 (too small of a scale to illustrate what I want the article to illustrate). Perhaps I have not yet spent enough hours reading documentation of Geohacks, but I have pretty well concluded that the tool is not capable of providing the map I want, so it's not worth my time to fool with it.
At least the scale of those Google Maps is more useful than some of the links that Geohacks serves up. When the largest (1:10000) scale is specified, the Shaded Relief map that is generated is about 200 km across; the NASA/MSFC GOES satellite image that is generated is one that covers a region about 1000 km across; and Geohacks serves up the Degree Confluence Project page for a location that is not even the nearest degree confluence point. (The actual nearest degree confluence is this one -- but how many people who follow the map link in an article are actually interesting in photos at a degree confluence?)
--Orlady (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This would have been best asked on WP:GEO, but I'll answer here just to demonstrate how versatile and reusable coordinates and the related information about them is. Reading the documentation of coordinates, the type parameter categorises the object into a class that can later be used for visualisation of the information as icons for example. It additionally sets a default scale for the object, and most objects of that type will be visible with the default. If however they are not, the scale parameter can be used to set the correct scale. Assigning the coordinates of a proposed power plant an airport type would be wrong; it's a landmark at best. It's hard to say which scale value would be suitable, and the easiest way to find one is trial and error, by changing the scale parameter in the GeoHack url or in the coordinate template until you get a map at a scale that contains the entire object. type:landmark_scale:50000 in 35°53′49″N 84°22′41″W / 35.897°N 84.378°W / 35.897; -84.378 (Clinch River Breeder Reactor) might be appropriate. You should then be able to change between map services and get approximately the same view with all of them. Shaded Relief and NASA/MSFC GOES don't seem to have imagery at the requested scale, so they give the best they have. You might want to try ACME Mapper, which has similar data at a larger scale. --Para (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the above discussion is not necessary for participation in this discussion: this section is an attempt at a summary.{{sofixit}}

The issues related to the inclusion or removal of external map service links in articles directly needs to be discussed, without letting personal preferences affect what will eventually be a guideline on what all Wikipedia editors should be doing, be it to keep on adding them or remove them. The proposed alternative to direct external links is a link to a map service list page, linked in a way similar to what is now used in the Alexandria article. Below I have presented relevant issues based on Wikipedia:Five pillars. They were already mentioned above, but have not been discussed, so that's what we should do to be able to close this. Please add any other issues as new sections, add counterarguments between the existing ones, and try to keep them short enough for most people to read. Note that this is not a vote, but a discussion with the objective of getting concise arguments that will help with later decision making. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the dissemination of information

  • An external map service link is only information that a single external resource may at some point have had information about the topic, whereas coordinates are information by themselves, usable in any online or offline service. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Most location related articles do not require a direct link to a specific map service, as similar maps and other data is available from a number of services accessible with the general coordinate information about the location. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • External map links are a result of lazy editing: Instead of doing what an editor should do and processing the link into encyclopedic information, it's just inserted to the article as such without bothering to generalise. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The phrase "a picture tells a thousand words" comes to mind. If the above contentions were indeed true, GeoHack should cease to exist. Orderinchaos 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maps are indeed information, but the links to them are not, and as is mentioned at the first point in this section, they serve no purpose other than to tell that some have existed of the location. Imagine printing such a link. A statement saying that maps exist of the location does the same, without linking to any specific map, and that's what GeoHack does. Since the data is dynamic especially with satellite imagery, there is no guarantee that a link to a specific service will always give the same results. See Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. --Para (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a situation with copyright over the maps (very, very few maps are available under GFDL/CC). Were we able to display maps from such providers, we probably would. However, the next best thing is providing the links. Orderinchaos 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OpenStreetMap is one such resource. For example, the map of Perth, Western Australia looks quite nice to me, and could very well use a few more Wikipedia links. Comte0 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is free content

  • The selection of map services is a reader choice and editors cannot objectively make that choice for all readers from a neutral point of view, because the needs and preferences of most readers are not known and an editor choice reflects the editor's personal preferences. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how any of these issues relate to the current debate. Streetmap.co.uk and Street-directory.com.au, to cite two examples, give users exactly what they would get if they bought a published street directory off the shelf. Google is pretty uncontroversial, especially since they updated their maps about 2 years ago. A satellite picture is a satellite picture no matter on whose site it appears. This doesn't appear to me to be an NPOV issue. Orderinchaos 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • By linking to those sites only, you take the position that readers only want to see street maps as they are when bought off the shelf, or satellite images as Google provides them. What if they want to see topographic maps or oblique imagery, or other information that is easily available with the coordinates? Most services for geographical information give similar material, but it is not the same. Satellite imagery from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Ask.com, TerraServer, MapQuest, MultiMap, etc is mostly from different sources, and they are often from different dates. This can easily be compared with the Flash Earth service for example. If an editor chooses the type and source of data to offer to readers, that is a strong POV. --Para (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying abolish the link to GeoHack - I certainly never have. Some people find a great use for it. I simply hold the view that people shouldn't be *forced* to do so. That in itself is a strong POV (and also one which is quite insulting to our users). Orderinchaos 22:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If articles have prominent direct links to Google Maps for example and none of the other alternatives, then those are what people looking for maps would most likely click on because the brand name is more recognisable than anything else Wikipedia can offer. That's a clear sign of Wikipedia promoting that particular service. This should probably be noted as its own point as it's likely to come up elsewhere as well. Why would it be insulting to make people choose? --Para (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a primary argument against ad-hoc linking, although there's a terminology issue. It's not NPOV as in article neutrality, but neutrality as among web services so as not to be arbitrary. If there are multiple services that all achieve the same thing we shouldn't favor one or the other. And it's not free as in "libre" but free as in noncommercial. We should not be favoring one commercial service in particular, although individual users should be able to choose a service if they wish. Wikidemo (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Think of a service that shows outdated maps without recognising some new country that has existed for years, or a service that is known to provide imagery censored from sensitive locations. If all location related articles link to such a service as an only resource for more geographical information, that's a POV that takes some neutrality away from articles. --Para (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience

  • Direct links break geographical information into unusable snippets that can only be used online with a modern web browser, unlike coordinates and a full list of services. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A single or a couple of external map service links ignore the users' needs, maybe without even the user knowing that other services with data for the location exist. We can't know why people go to geographical information services and which ones they use. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement is unusable for most editors with a modern web browser, because it makes assumptions about their understanding of the technology which are in many cases false. Users presented with a sea of links are simply going to abandon ship, rather than get the information they want. Look at this site for a counterexample of how another big organisation does it - it lists a few key stories and then has "Click here for more" - this site does exactly the same, as does this one. These approaches, which is basically what we were doing until late last year, would address the entire third concern. This is in my view why editors should develop consensus as to which sites are appropriate for a region, and then employ across the affected range of articles. Sites which would fail EL more generally can be excluded, as we've done in the past. Orderinchaos 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What assumptions does this arrangement make? Why wouldn't users click on the first or any of the links that say "Map"? The difference between Wikipedia and several news organisations is that Wikipedia attempts to be "the sum of all human knowledge", with information and links to all relevant reliable resources. Most news organisations however only link to other content in their own organisation. We have no criteria on "best" services, see #Wikipedia articles can link to relevant resources. --Para (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We're not saying any service is better or worse simply by providing a collection of standard links. Doesn't GeoHack exhibit the same problems with ordering? For example, if something is near the top of the list, are we saying it is better than something near the bottom? In history articles we link to or cite particular books or sources. Are we saying that we are favouring or promoting those sources over alternative sources which may exist and someone somewhere may prefer? This could go on all year. Orderinchaos 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation sourcing isn't analogous to map linking. A citation establishes verifiability, so as long as it is good enough it does not matter which one we choose. There have been some longstanding attempts to specify which citation to use (or when multiple citations are appropriate) when they all do the same thing: the one that's most reliable, most accessible, most authoritative, most informative, and so on. But those efforts all stalled out. With source citations, each link is different and depends on context. With maps, we're in a situation where nearly every single external link uses all the same mapping services in the same way. Hence the choice among them is pretty much arbitrary, and the practice is much easier to make uniform. Perhaps a better analogy would be, say, the way we link to logos, stock price quotations, financial reports, and so on, for companies. That one is only partly uniform, possibly because nobody has made the effort yet. Another analogy would be case citations for lawsuits. If we had a legal research tool as good as geohack I think it would be the same issue as here that we would like to that rather than random pages where a judicial opinion is reprinted. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What would the criteria for providing in-article links be then, if it's not the editors' subjective idea of "best" links? Most map services are dynamic and have a user interface you can do various things with and not just have a static image (or text) file dumped on the screen like with citations usually. I think you can draw some conclusions from the order of the listed services both in geolinks and geotemplate, though I've never noticed people zealously moving them around. I tried looking once at Google Pageranks and Alexa data for a solid source for ordering them, but couldn't get anything conclusive for the map pages only. Being restricted to a two dimensional interface and a culture where information is mostly handled left to right and top to bottom, there isn't much we can do to avoid the ordering issue. Commons Picture of the Year competition for example had Javascript shuffling the candidates to a random order every time the page was loaded, but that would be silly for an interface that people may get used to and things are expected to stay static. I proposed the idea once[1] that the service list should allow each user to move the services to their preferred order with Javascript, and keep the changes for later. That shouldn't be too hard to implement. --Para (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All map services are relevant, useful, helpful, informative and factual. All of them placed in articles would take too much space. There are no "most relevant" map services, because of readers' varying needs and preferences. --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not true. Elsewhere I have used the example of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project. I contend that, for readers of that article, several of the map service links found on the first screen of the Geohacks page, such as the US Census map and regional weather satellite images, and the link to the degree confluence project are totally irrelevant (not to mention the fact that the Degree Confluence Project returns a link to the wrong degree confluence because it rounds fractional coordinates down to the nearest whole degree). Furthermore, the small-scale maps served up on that first page, such as the one from the Shaded Relief Map of the World are far less likely to be helpful to readers than maps that can be used to show closer-in details. After the first screen, almost all of the Geohacks information is totally irrelevant, since a person who wants to see a map of this particular site is not looking for general information on online maps or a tutorial on how to download Google Earth, and definitely does not want to look at maps of Austria, Bulgaria, Australia, China, or the other world locations found farther down the page. On that page and many others, one or two very specific map references (for that article, I would probably choose Google Maps and Topozone) would be far more relevant than the smorgasbord of geographic information supplied by the Geohacks page. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so some services are less useful than others. That should've then been "Most map services are relevant, ...". The services for other regions may be helpful near region borders, but I'm sure they can be hidden or even removed from the default view if enough people feel that they're mostly useless. Otherwise the usefulness of services that really are for the region is not really for any of us to say, you don't know why someone is interested of the reactor project article for example, and it seems some people do like the census maps enough to insert them in articles and link to them. Everyone isn't looking for close-up detail. --Para (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the vast majority of the links and other information provided on Geohacks are irrelevant to any given article. Which small fraction is relevant depends on the article. Census maps can be very useful, but they are not relevant for the particular example I provided because the site of interest happens to be 1,364-acre (6 km²) of US-government-owned land where there are no buildings and no people. If the Geohacks content could truly be tailored so it would provide only what's relevant to a particular article, I'd be happier about pointing to it. As it is, the reader of that particular article is served a 94-KB menu of mostly irrelevant material, without guidance on how to select a map link to click on. In effect, you are handing readers a giant haystack and telling them to find a needle in it, and you are insisting that every reader must be given that same haystack because you can't assume that they actually want a needle. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Census maps still show landforms, borders and roads, and they're public domain so they're quite relevant for Wikipedia goals, and yes even for this article of yours. What kind of guidance do you think needs to be given for the services? It needs to be something that can be said for all the services for all the regions, like the service type is now, and it needs to be manageable information that won't be out of date the next day. I have removed dozens of map links that only give a gray screen; they may have worked with the requested scale at some point, but nobody cares to keep them working because it's such an immense amount of work to constantly keep checking all available services without any possibility for automatic verification. More organised efforts for large regions have failed as well, see the inconsistency in the coverage of geolinks templates (open the pulldown table), which tried to offer services relevant for the article editors, but couldn't even among themselves agree on what would be relevant to the region. --Para (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles containing geographical information should be referenced

  • Ease of use is important, but it is not Wikipedia's ultimate goal at expense of the above points. How has usability of different features in Wikipedia been evaluated in the past, and how has it affected their introduction? --Para (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is in fact my key ground of objection to the changes being rammed through - First point, information about a topic should be on that topic's page. This is a principle held to in article text, I don't see why it should be any different for templates. On the second point, we have people who do not speak English, people who are disabled or otherwise impaired, people with learning difficulties etc using our site and I have no wish to exclude any of them from obtaining the full value possible from Wikipedia. The changes to GeoHack are an improvement, but the ugly-looking one line template that Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale and others like it have been reduced to gives no indication what to expect when one clicks on the link, and I still believe that there should be some kind of links on the page. Most people who have contacted me complaining believe the links have been entirely removed. Until January of this year, GeoHack was completely unusable, and while significantly improved now (I can actually use it now), it is still a bewildering array of links and quite confusing to the novice user. Orderinchaos 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Try asking someone who is vision impaired what they think about having to wade through software-formatted tables to find a simple link. The more barriers we put up, the further we get away from our goal. I think the saying is "cutting off the hand to spite the face". Orderinchaos 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From my reading of the HTML standard the new geohack page is far more accessible then what we had. It should read correctly as far as I know, if you have evidence to the contrary please tell. — Dispenser 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between software formatted and human formatted, when both are designed and controlled by people? I've understood that many people with visual impairments can use browser features to help make pages easier to read, such as font size and colour changes, alternating row colours, more spacing between letters and rows, magnifiers, and for really difficult cases choosing the sequential order of aural or braille reading between the visual screen order and the order within each element. The tables used in GeoTemplate are only for layout purposes without any semantic ordering, and all column names are repeated throughout the cells, so these interfaces should handle the page well. Is there a checklist somewhere that we could use to test with? --Para (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now this might be crystal, but using the {{coord}} templates instead of external links might actually help vision impaired people as more browsers become able to independently process the informations contained in microformats. They are also impervious to tool server down time. And the plugins can be user-configured to list the map services of their liking. --Qyd (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be consistent, not arbitrary

  • When the same thing is done again and again we should choose a single method of dealing with it so as to be consistent and predictable. This is why we have style guidelines. It makes our content more encyclopedic, and in the case of external links, prevents accumulation of unnecessary excess links. There is no reason to have multiple mapping links so we should settle on a single method for all articles (with exceptions as needed of course). Geohack is the best method available so we should choose that one.Wikidemo (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the main goals of WP:GEO as well, and the same principle goes for any Wikipedia content. --Para (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses

Pardon for seeming somewhat confused, but reading through the discussion didn't help me to understand too much except that there are heated feelings flying here. My opinion is that the use of the GeoHack page is not a violation of Wikipedia standards, and the listing of multiple external mapping links is not a violation of Wikipedia standards — I find it much more of an issue of convenience. My primary focus in Wikipedia is US geography, so I'm always encountering these links. I always replace external mapping links with {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}} when I find them: not because I find it more acceptable under official policy, but because the use of this template, as formatted by the WikiProject Geographical coordinates, is required by the guidelines for US places. You can see that a previous version of the Geolinks, instead of using Geohack, contained multiple external mapping links; it has been changed by conensus of the geographical coordinates wikiproject. As I said, I really don't care strongly; it's quicker to find maps with the multiple-links, but the geohack is much more comprehensive, and thus I'm somewhat more pleased with it. The big issue for me is that things should be standardised: since the geolinks template is so useful (regardless of its format), I believe that it should be used in place of specific external links, and the question of geohack vs. various ELs is properly applied to the question of the content of the geolinks template. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion all the way from #Links to map services did get a bit heated, so I thought listing the issues in a neutral manner would resolve the situation, and people could start reading from #Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links. I'd like to see that entire section edited and counterarguments added. For example, I think #Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is free content is fundamental Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) and is strongly related to Wikipedia promoting certain external advertisement supported commercial services, but everyone may not agree on the following arguments, and I would like to establish a consensus on which way people are leaning. A simple threaded discussion did not seem to be the right way to do it, so please let's try not to continue it here in Responses. --Para (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I had initially raised objections similar to some of the objections being raised now on a different talk page. At the time, I opposed removing the more specific geolinks because the usability of the tools page was a mess. However, I have changed my opinion completely. The tools page is much better organized now and makes it quite easy to find appropriate maps. I think Para and SEWilco should be commended for persistence in pushing these improvements through. older ≠ wiser 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this looks like material for the #Wikipedia should have related information available as easily as possible section on the current usability of the proposed link page. Can you add it there, or another new section, so that it doesn't look like my monologue? --Para (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Map links seem like a good idea, but they pose a huge potential COI: Which one do we go with? Google Maps, Mapquest, or maps.live.com? Linking to all three would be redundant and ugly. Linking to just one would be contentious and a COI, since it's not really fair for us to give Google ad revenue over Microsoft or Mapquest. This doesn't really seem critical. It seems rather silly to push so passionately for it, as if it were some kind of critical feature desperately needed for encyclopedic article content. Since it is not, the argument ultimate relies on the arguments to avoid "its useful" or "its interesting." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions

Moving on; there doesn't seem to be any solid argument for keeping external map service links generally, but what about exceptional cases?

  • Reference use, as mentioned in #Wikipedia articles containing geographical information should be referenced, and recognisable without manual review using the ref tags. Can be kept.
  • Links that provide more information of a feature discussed in an article, the data is known to remain static, and it's not available in other services, ie. they're links to data from a specific source and date. Can be kept.
  • Links that use a feature other than just pinpointing a location, such as plotting a route or a border through many given points. Those can be kept, and need to be tagged somehow to help manage all external map links. Ideas? The tagging information could be on the toolserver or somewhere similar external location, but for the benefit of all reuse it'd be best on wiki.
  • What about links to services with dynamic data, for example a satellite image of an object temporarily at the location? Should a direct link be provided, or should it be edited like "as of date, service shows object at coordinates" and users would then have to click on the coordinates and go to the mentioned service, and possibly look on others if the editor hasn't?
  • External map links in article bodies for addresses and other minor locations without a Wikipedia article. Such links should either be converted to coordinates or removed. Generally, if coordinates are irrelevant information to put in an article inline or hidden somewhere in the end, then so are map links.

Any others? --Para (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these may have been mentioned in other parts of this Talk page, but here are other External Map Link examples to consider for inclusion in the Exception group:
  • Older map with different names or boundaries.
  • Map depicting movement (i.e. animal migration, battles)
  • Political map (i.e. red states, blue states)
  • Public place map (i.e. university, zoo, state park)
  • Weather map
  • Map related to a news story (i.e. areas burned in a fire)
  • Map depicting geological features (i.e. Churchill craton)
  • Special region map (i.e. wine regions of California, amusement parks in Florida, school district boundaries)
  • Nautical and aeronautical charts Rosiestephenson (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
External map links and external map service links are separate things, and this section has until now only covered the services. There are indeed many articles with links to static maps that provide more information than the general services do, and with popular articles such links have been replaced with free images created by Wikipedians based on those maps and other sources. This process will however take a considerable amount of time, and I doubt any guidelines can be formed there.
One of the issues with both static maps and dynamic map services is that so much data on so many topics is related to locations, that the amount of possible visualisations and services is endless. Inclusion of links to specialised services may need to be looked at on their relevance to the article, but is it possible to draw a line somewhere, or can we rely on common sense? For example, a link to a weather service would not be relevant in an article about a location, but in an article about the weather in the location it might, and perhaps also in an article related to both the location and weather, like with a natural disaster in the location. But there too we end up with the same problem as with general map services: there are so many good and relevant weather services. How many links is too many? --Para (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't really read all of what was being discussed, but isn't there a cord template made for this reason? You use the cord template and it generates links from the software for map services. There really isn't a need to manually point a map link on an article for a specific service. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Point. I wikified coordinates. --Para (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic continued at #Edit warring again on external links to map services. --Para (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article Where Troy Once Stood I added a link to a Yahoo Group mailing list where, outside Usenet, is the only place this book has been seriously discussed. The link was removed. I see the same problem at David Rohly where two links to groups discussing Rohl's work get added and removed regularly. Is there any consensus on this? The only discussion I can find is about mailing lists as sources, a slightly different topic, at WT:V Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo groups and the like fall into #11 of our Links normally to be avoided - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. Discussions and forums are generally not considered reliable and so not really encyclopedic.
If you think this is an exception to the general rule then suggest it on the article's talk page and see if you can gain the agreement of other editors. A talk page consensus that a link improves an article trumps these guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

News Sections and Press Releases

I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but I can't find any comment on this. At Location hypotheses of Atlantis there is a News Section with some old and in some cases obsolete news, plus some Press Releases which have now been given their own section. Are either of these appropriate? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

News articles are frequently included in external links sections when they are about particularly populist aspects of the subject. I personally think they're often overdone but lots of editors think they add significant value. Press releases are normally less appropriate unless they are particularly informative - that might be the case in this article though a better treatment would probably be to cover the content in the article itself and use them as sources. That external links section looks a bit long and unfocused and could probably benefit from trimming. You can be bold and delete them and see if others object or suggest the ones you want to remove on the talk page to get input from other editors first. -- SiobhanHansa 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External links should not be used in the body of an article

I disagree with this statement:

External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.

There are time when it is appropriate to place external links in the body of an article. This occurs when a list exists within an article that links to primary sources. It does not make sense in such a case to place the external link in a citation as it would need a reader to click on the internal link only to have to click on an external link and in such cases all one has is a duplicated list in the footnote section. The sentence needs to be reconstructed to take account of such lists. See for example List of digital library projects (mentioned knowing that I and putting a bean up my nose)

I suggest that the wording is changed to

External links should not normally be used in the body of an article...

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is meant to refer to links like [www.hotmanchowder.com Company's website]. I believe you're talking about the use of a reference to justify information like this: The quick fox jumped over the lazy dog.[www.quickfoxes.com] That's OK, when embedding information, see here. WLU (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
They should not be used as [www.hotmanchowder.com Company's website], The other uses are a mater of WP:CITE.--Hu12 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking over List of digital library projects , I'd do two things: First, remove all the links that Philip Baird Shearer is claiming are acceptable. My rationale being that it's a linkfarm. Second, I'd remove all the list entries that don't have their own article, per WP:LIST. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No Hu12 I am talking about inline citations I talking about descriptive links to primary sources embedded in the text. I could give better example than I have but as I do not want to get into a revert war with Ronz I am not going to. But to give a hypothetical case take a well known civil war pamphleteer some of who's pamphlets are available on the web. If there is a Biography section where some the pamphlets are listed and those online are linked, then I do not see any point in placing them in citations only to duplicate the same information in the citations and have it appear in the footnote section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a hundred percent sure I'm clear on what you mean, but I think you mean:
It should be OK to put in the body of the article "Breer's war pamphlets were published in 1934 under the title War's Great." rather than something like "Breer's war pamphlets were published in 1934 under the title War's great.[1]" with a foot note of "[1] W. D. Breer, War's Great, National Propaganda Office, August 1934. Courtesy link from the Well Respected National Museum of War Stuff, retrieved September 9 2007. And then a link in the external links section Breer's war pamphlets from Well Respected National Museum of War Stuff.
I which case I don't really agree. Embedded links that don't go to footnotes don't contain the sort of detail required for a citation, so it would be necessary to include the detail in the footnote anyway. And you'd probably want to have the link in the external links section as well anyway, because regular readers of the encyclopedia who know what they are looking for will likely automatically go to that section to find the external links. (If I've misunderstood your explanation please let me know and I'll scratch the above!). In general I don't think embedded links in the body of the text is a great idea because we rarely link out to encyclopedic treatment of subjects, and I don't think it's appropriate to mix up our approach with less NPOV ones (I personally even have some misgivings about linking out to sister projects within the main text, but not as much as linking out to non-connected sites). -- SiobhanHansa 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
"And you'd probably want to have the link in the external links section as well anyway". Not necessarily let me give you an example. suppose there is a page on a prolific 16th century pamphleteer. It may well have a list of the pamphlets that the pamphleteer published in a biography section. There is little point placing a footnote after each listed pamphlet because it is only recreating the list of pamphlets in the footnote section and causing the reader the inconvenience of having to click on an indirect link each time they wish to read the original source of the pamphlet. Equally it seems ridiculous to recreate the list again in an external links section and if the bibliography section is put as a subsection of external links that is just a work around for not altering the wording from External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox. to External links should not normally be used in the body of an article... user:Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still having some difficulty picturing your example so correct me if I've misread. But if you mean a link to a freely available copy of a text in the bibliography section of a bio then I think that's a reasonable exception. The stuff is all grouped together so it's easy to find and they are links you'd want to have anyway. Further reading sections often do the same thing when a good book is available on Project Gutenberg or something, bibliography sections seem fairly similar. Has the external links guideline been used to insist such links are moved to the EL section? -- SiobhanHansa 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I could list more examples where information is listed in this way but I do not want to (bean up the nose). It is not if this guideline has been used this way, it may well have been I don't know, but if the wording can be used that way it will be -- I've been around here long enough to know how the letter of guidelines are used to abuse the spirit of them -- so I think that my proposed modification would help reduce a potential abuse of a guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just ran across an aticle on New England towns. Each section, by state, has an "External links" subsection. While it startled me, I didn't change it (and merge all of them at the bottom) because it seemed so useful to the reader to have links by state instead of confabulated in a pile at the bottom and having to sort that out. So I think that it one legitimate exception. Student7 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen similar approaches in a few articles and in all but one case it's seemed like a good exception to me. This still keeps the links within clearly defined sections so it is obvious what is going to be on our site and what is elsewhere. Do you think it's a general enough circumstance to alter the guideline for though? Editors are always supposed to apply guidelines with commonsense and an eye to what makes the best GFDL encyclopedia for our readers, and the longer the guideline is, the less likely it is it will be useful to people when they need it. -- SiobhanHansa 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MIRROR LINK BY AN UNKNOWN UNVERIFIABLE SOURCE

RE: Wikipedia External Links for webpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdo_MacDonald-Bayne


In External Links:

This is the copy of closely identical text on two similar websites (see [A] and [B] ) in which one webmaster is identified and the other is not identified and therefore the unknown source is considered to be a mirror site of one and the same webmaster, i.e. Mystica in NZ, which is the known source.

NOTE: Since only ONE source is permitted per link in External Links of Wikipedia, the unknown and unidentified site of NZ/Aeotearoa is regarded as a “Feeder Link” to the site of Mystica, and as such is NOT acceptable and thus should be deleted.

A] The unknown, not verifiable (webmaster) source with direct e-mail link to Mystica in NZ:

http://www.murdomacdonald-bayne.com/

Welcome friends to the New Zealand/Aotearoa Murdo MacDonald-Bayne website.

(sample text):

Dr Murdo MacDonald-Bayne was born in Scotland in 1887. During his lifetime he travelled throughout the world healing thousands of people of all kinds of diseases and taught the Truth of the Law of Being to many thousands more. Murdo MacDonald-Bayne was fondly referred to as “Dr. Mac” by his students who often spoke of seeing him overshadowed by a higher being during his lectures.

It is said that he journeyed several times into India and Tibet where he spent long periods (recounted in “Beyond the Himalayas” and it's sequel “The Yoga of the Christ”) in the company of true Masters of the Tibetan Himalayas. There his powers to heal were strengthened and he received greater enlightenment for his mission to reveal those profound teachings to the outside world. The developed spiritual power and wisdom he acquired is reflected in the writings of his first books, “The Higher Power You Can Use” and “I Am the Life”.

After establishing spiritual centres in several countries, Murdo MacDonald-Bayne lived in New Zealand/Aotearoa and Australia during the early 1940s and by 1944 he settled in South Africa where he continued to heal and give lectures twice a week, some of which are recorded. He also produced during this period (Heal Yourself, Spiritual & Mental Healing, What is Mine is Thine I & II, How to Relax and Revitalise Yourself, Your Life Renewed Every Day). During a visit to England he passed over suddenly in London, February 1955.

B] The known, verifiable source:

http://www.mystica.co.nz/catalogue_drm_bio.html

. . . . (sample text):

Dr. MacDonald-Bayne was born in Scotland in 1887. During his lifetime he travelled throughout the world healing thousands of people of all kinds of diseases and taught the Truth of the Law of Being to many thousands more. He was fondly referred to as "Dr. Mac" by his students who often spoke of seeing him overshadowed by a higher being during his lectures.

It is said that he journeyed several times into India and Tibet where he spent long periods (recounted in "Beyond the Himalayas" and it's sequel "The Yoga of the Christ") in the company of true Masters of the Tibetan Himalayas. There his powers to heal were strengthened and he received greater enlightenment for his mission to reveal those profound teachings to the outside world. The developed spiritual power and wisdom he acquired is reflected in the writings of his first books, "The Higher Power You Can Use" and "I Am the Life".

After establishing spiritual centres in several countries, Dr. Mac lived in New Zealand and Australia during the early 1940s and by 1944 he settled in South Africa where he continued to heal and give lectures twice a week, some of which are recorded. He also produced during this period (Heal Yourself, Spiritual & Mental Healing, What is Mine is Thine I & II, How to Relax and Revitalise Yourself, Your Life Renewed Every Day). During a visit to England he passed over suddenly in London, February 1955.

--Mmb2006 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into this. There appears to be an edit war going on at Murdo MacDonald-Bayne over external links. I've started a new thread on the talk page to discuss which if any links should be included. All the involved editors appear to edit only this article so comments from other editors with a broader understanding of Wikipedia's standards could be useful. -- SiobhanHansa 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Mmb2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (24hours) for excessive spamming (macdonaldbayne.homestead.com and macdonaldbayne.zoomshare.com) of that page ([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]) and long term edit warring--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Right at the top of this guideline should be a copy of the text and a link to official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a directory. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have three editors (so far) warring over whether to generally prohibit external links to mapping services.

The problem

A couple weeks ago one editor inserted a new item in the list of "links normally to be avoided": links to external map services where similar information is available on many other sites.[40] This came after a long and rather bitter discussion between him and another editor on the subject, that spilled over into an edit war/mass-reversion and AN/I report in late January (here). Yesterday the change was reverted three times in six hours by its primary opponent and by another editor with whom she often collaborates (and obviously, reinstated twice).

The proponent of the change claims it's already consensus and policy that all geographic locations should be geocoded, and external map link services generally avoided. The opponents say that no agreement has been reached on this page. Both sides argue substantive reasons why external map service links should or should not be avoided.

My opinion and analysis

Consensus

It appears that in a broad sense, there is consensus on Wikipedia as a whole that articles about geographic locations should be geocoded using a template that links to the "GeoHack" service. Nearly all of the 300,000 mapped locations on Wikipedia use this feature, so that when a user clicks on the coordinates in the upper left of the screen (for example, Moai), it pulls up Wikipedia's "GeoHack" map service.[41] The exceptions are very few, generally stub and brand new articles created by inexperienced editors, or old articles created before the GeoHack service was available and that have not yet been updated.

There appears to be a consensus nearly as broad that external map links should be avoided. Of the 300,000 articles, only 12,000 contain external map links. Of these perhaps half have a specific (ostensibly) encyclopedic reason for an external map link, for example Fruitland, New Mexico, which links to a census map and Mapquest to show a disparity of naming, or Intercourse, Pennsylvania, where a specific terraserver map link and scale is chosen to illustrate that the small village is "surrounded by farmland." The other 6,000-odd map sevice links seem to have no special purpose, e.g. Great Stirrup Cay or Maudslay State park.

It is not clear whether there is a consensus on this page for or against discouraging external map service links. The recent discussion was long, disorderly, and contentious to the point of incivility, without many participants. I don't think any meaningful conclusion can be drawn from it. Over at WP:GEO, the project that deals with such things, the consensus appears to be to delete external map service links and to insert GeoHack coordinates in their place. They have done this with more than 50,000 articles in the past several months.

Substance

I don't see the advantage of allowing specific map service links as a general matter. There are plenty of disadvantages, the main one being lack of consistency and predictability. If I happen to like google maps or topo maps, I should expect that any geographic article lets me click in the upper right hand corner, then click down somewhere on the page, to display my map (in the future, GeoHack could set this up as a matter of user preferences as well). Another reason to avoid them is to avoid becoming a link farm. We can't link to every single major service (and even doing that would be a bias against the minor ones), and the more links we add the more we clutter up the external link section, which is supposed to be kept short and manageable. I also don't like the favoritism of directing dollars to one commercial enterprise over another - when people visit a map service it gets traffic that turns into revenue from their targeted ads. The services also use cookies to track visitors so they can target ads to them.

There is little to no advantage for the article's editor to hand-pick a single map service to display. Most of the examples I give where there is some reason (e.g. showing that there are farm fields around Intercourse, PA or that the government and commercial map services use different names for a feature) or saw (showing route maps, showing that a local road is closed) are not cited properly in the article for the claims and constitute original research citations to primary map sources. In addition many of those claims would be equally possible to illustrate with any map service. In the few cases where there is a good reason to use a map service, the language change does not apply. The entire section says that there are links normally to be avoided. One can always add an external link that actually has encyclopedic value, and specify on the talk page, article page, or in a comment that there's a special reason. Even allowing that there might be 6,000 legitimate external map links out of 300,000, that's well within the language of "normally" avoiding them.

If we don't tell people that external map links are generally discouraged, the harm is that new and inexperienced editors will add them, and it becomes a maintenance problem that people must constantly work on. With a statement here on WP:EL that reflects the reality of the Wikipedia practices, those editors might notice, and if they do not it is easy to point them to the guideline rule. The only harm to adding it is that a few people might misunderstand the rule as a blanket prohibition, so people wanting to add these links will have to do some extra work to justify themselves (which they ought to do anyway).

Looking at analogous situations, we generally do not allow links to external reference sources where there are many different sources for the same information and choosing one link would favor one over the other. We tell people they can use google or their other favorite search engine. Where there is a universally recognized meta-service (e.g. for films, metacritic, rottentomatoes, or imdb) or a feature within Wikipedia (wiktionary, for word definitions) we refer people to that rather than choosing specific for-profit sites (New York Times reviews, Meriam-Webster dictionary, etc). That system works just fine, even though there are occasional reasons to include these links that we normally avoid. It will work fine here too.

A final note on consensus. I think this is already consensus. We don't need to reach a consensus agreement here on this page to recognize something that is already consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia. Guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, only seldom to actually create consensus. It's a little much to think a few contentious edit warring editors here should shape the rules for 300,000 articles rather than the editors involved and the main wikiproject. The only issue here ought to be to figure out what consensus actually is, not to reach an agreement on the subject.

- Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I have almost no opinion about the substance of the disagreement. 2) Para's insistence on adding this text is inappropriate since, to say the least, there has been no consensus on this page to do so. 3) The wording suggested speaks in the negative rather than the positive. Saying a link to a geo-hack map or whatever it is called is appropriate, that is the way to go, NOT to say the other links are inapproriate, since in some cases there are as Wikidemo has stated. Other types of map services should provide something of merit the generic thing does not. if they don't, they are redundant to the generic thing, and like we sometimes use a dmoz link when there are tons of similar choices, then the individual services should not be used strictly because they add nothing. Another way to look at it is we say official sites are good links. if some other site has the exact same info as another site, it would not add anything and should not be linked. So, by stating the generic thing as a positive, we limit links to specific maps that offer unique info for some location. 2005 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying (sorry if I'm being dense here), would you favor a positive statement about map links that says the that the GeoHack link should be included and that specific map services may be included as well if they add something that the generic version does not? That makes sense too and perhaps that could satisfy all parties. Wikidemo (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what the Geohack thing is, I don't want to comment more on that specifically, but it sounds like a line could be added to what should be linked to say a generic geohack link. This then does not prevent a more specific map service that adds more "amount of detail". 2005 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
At one time the geohack-like tools linked to pages that had five or ten location-specific links to map services; I don't believe those were controversial. Currently, however, the "Geohack thing" provides links to pages like this one (a small town in the United States), this one (Vienna), and this other one (a small park in the United States), which present a comprehensive but bewildering array of links to geographic information sites all over the Internet. In addition to the "standard" map/imagery sites for the world and the particular geographic area, it includes many links to derivatives of those "standard" map/imagery sites, various Google Earth applications, non-map geographic sites such as the Degree Confluence Project. Much of the page lists links specific to one part of the world, meaning that most of them will be irrelevant to any given location, and at any given time at least some of the allegedly global links do not serve information specific to the requested location. GeoHacks is amazing, but for the vast majority of users it is likely be received as Information Overload. (I suspect that most users who visit Geohacks will simply click on the first Google Maps link.) The pushback on its use comes from editors who want to provide smaller focused collections of map links that are specifically relevant to the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The example I provided kind of proves the point:
It's an article about the Easter Island statutes. Most of the geohack links are useless because the services don't cover this part of the world in any detail. After lots of clicking you find one that actually has good map detail only to find the link goes to the geographic center of the island, not an aerial view or map of the statue locations. It would great in this particular case to guide the reader to a pre-chosen viewpoint or map if there is one. There's probably a way you could trick out GeoHack to do this (let the article editor choose a default view). You could also trick it out to let each user choose their favorite map view (e.g. Google hybrid, zoomed to maximum resolution) and have that come up as the default view. But so far, no. Wikidemo (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The map provided in that Moai article is infinitely more useful than any of the Geohacks links. If I were involved with that article, I might be tempted to delete the link to the geohacks page, but it's likely that some helpful 'bot would restore it. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I just lost an hour of my life playing around trying to find the Moai by satellite...but remember that the geohacks link is just a templated geographic coordinate. So it's worth having that coordinate information in that template, even if someday we change the way it gets displayed. The issue here is it's not really a single point location, so it ends up pointing nowhere special on the island. Some locations maybe ought to convey size or shape, e.g. the Las Vegas Strip is a couple miles long, or the Mississippi River is a couple thousand. Both of those have some really cool maps, but map links to specialized maps or even map services that have been set up with the right scale and view could be helpful. Wikidemo (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How can we discourage people from adding links to their favourite map services with a positive statement? Nobody has argued that the general link shouldn't be included, but that one or more of the services behind the general link should be chosen subjectively and linked from articles directly. The 16 (or now 15) items in the section "links normally to be avoided" on the guideline page does not make an absolute ban on those links, but as the page says, "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines". (Let's just talk about linked coordinates from now on instead of GeoHack, that's more descriptive than the name of the piece of software that shows map sources for a location.) --Para (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
How does it not? I explained it, and the point is rather obvious, so what do you have a problem with? I suspect your issue here is you are unfamiliar with this guideline. The bottom line is the guideline says you can't just add links because you want to. they have to go over and above what is in the article, or the official site. So it is quite obvious that an instruction for a generic map link makes it a violation of the guideline to link to specific maps in most cases, since the specific map will add nothing over and above. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The people supporting linking of their favourite map service from articles directly are opposing removal because of "ease of use", which in their mind adds to articles because the maps behind the links are additional information and related to the article, regardless of all the issues with such a practice and the availability of the same link behind the general link. See for example this revert. It would be very difficult to discourage such convenience links with a positive statement. --Para (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read this guideline. "ease of use" is not a criteria, so again your comment just avoids the issue. A positive statement quite obviously can cover the issue, and easily in fact. Your insistence that black is white does not help your cause. At this point your own insistence that neither existing guidelines and opinions of other matter in contrast to your assertion is what is keeping this rather easy to handle molehill into a moutain. 2005 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand we have BrownHairedGirl insisting that the external link redundancy with services already linked on the map sources list must not be eliminated, mainly because of "ease of use", but supported by EL's "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)" and "each link should be considered on its merits". On the other hand there's you suggesting that the very same points already discourage such redundancy. Where is the guideline or discussion that defines "something of merit" and leads to these completely opposite conclusions? Is there something else than #Wikipedia articles can link to relevant resources? --Para (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
THIS is the document. It's the external links guideline. I suggested wording that clarifies things even more, but you just ignored it. I'm sorry, but how is not obvious that, just like with the crappy ISBN interface, once the generic thing is added then it makes it harder to add other maps? At the same time, an external map of the Battle of 1812 with detail on battlements, where Generals were killed, etc, would meet the criteria of being over and above what the generic thing with virtually unrelated links like a Google map. Currently "ease of use" is no crieria for external linking, so if that is the only justification for a link, it can be removed on site. It seems to me you should be thinking about coming up with wording that will achieve a consensus here, rather than just trying to force your idea that has essentially no support, even if the basic goal does. If a link to the geohack is encouraged, that immediately renders most (but not all, like the 1812 example) redundant and not meeting the criteria for linking. 2005 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point: "merit" used by this guideline is still not defined anywhere, and it can be claimed on any subjective editor opinion. Your suggestion about a positive guideline does nothing to clarify that. It seems that since you've joined the discussion in midstream, you're not aware that there is disagreement on if any external map service links in articles should be discouraged, not how it should be done. Anyway, I've started a new section on the wording, we're getting lost in threads here. --Para (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep missing the point then continually going down this dead end street. "Merit" is defined by every dictionary in the world. Look it up. And yes it IS subjective. This is guideline, not a policy. It guides, but good faith editors make subjective choices with the best interests of users in mind. You tried to add a bit of unhelpful rigidity not in tune with this guideline or common sense. And as for the how, seriously read Wikipedia:Consensus. Instead of going on and on with your fighting with one person, and ignoring her opinion, instead craft wording that has widespread support... which means, just because one person doesn't agree that doesn't invalidate the broad consensus. Merit is the only topic of discussion that matters here. If the geohack has no merit, it shouldn't be an external link. If a map has no merit beyond the geohack, editors can remove such links. But as with thousands of other types of external links, sometimes editors subjectively disagree. 2005 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would a consensus on this page be needed, when there is already consensus that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the dissemination of information, that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and is free content, that Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience, and that Wikipedia content should be consistent, not arbitrary. I have claimed that those points are against direct inclusion of external map links in articles, and nobody has justified why they would not be relevant or sufficient. The only argument against all that was that Wikipedia should have related information available as easily as possible, which was shown not to have limited external links cleaning in Wikipedia previously, so it shouldn't now either. Since most of the community is reluctant to participate in discussion, should we start counting how many people have removed external map links and how many of those have been reverted? --Para (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that if the matter has been specifically considered before, or elsewhere, or is clearly the common practice, then we know there is consensus. However, it is not consensus to say that a certain result follows from policy, based on your interpretation of policy, when other people disagree. Interpreting policy takes consensus. As to your rhetorical question, you could try to say as specifically what you mean and see if that can go in the guideline or commentary, something like: "don't add a link to a mapping service simply because it is your favorite; to justify a link to a mapping service, that specific link must have some special encyclopedic value." Wikidemo (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
People may disagree, but their interpretation needs justification as well. The disagreement to the above points came down to idontlikeit. If nobody can substantiate why an interpretation of policy would not be accordant with that policy and there are not enough contributors to show a numeric consensus, then the interpretation is clearly a clarification of that policy. I added a section to demonstrate the prevailing consensus. --Para (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No they don't, and you are just being dismissive about this anyway. Before the past day or so only three people really commented on this, and the person opposing you has written essays in opposing. You want to add something. You need a consensus to add it, period. There has not been one. 2005 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Para, you are quite single-minded in your views on this, and that's fine, but the fact that you disagree with other editors over policy does not give you the right to unilaterally declare a consensus. It's exceptionally tedious to have you continue to claim that this discussion amounts to a consensus in your favour, when all it amounts to you is you dismissing the views of everyone who disagrees with you. You can open an RfC/policy if you want to get a broader view on things, but for now it would be much more productive to concentrate on the points where there is agreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see #Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links. Nobody showed reason to dismiss my interpretation, and all claims to the contrary are therefore entirely false. You cannot dismiss a justified interpretation with a simple "no". The opposing person is indeed quite verbose with her personal opinion, but the single concern she has doesn't become any stronger with that method, and it was already shown not to have been a problem on Wikipedia before, therefore not blocking the originally proposed guideline. --Para (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Para, there are plenty of things that could be said about that, but I for one am not prepared to try to waste time discussing the substance of these points with you ... because I tried at great length to do so on useability issues, and it was one of the least productive discussions I have ever had on wikipedia. You firstly claimed that my concerns didn't make sense and needed expansion, so I put in a lot of time explaining them in great detail, only to find you simply dismissing them as "false" or "nonsense". We then got into a bizarre situation where you claimed that you were nothing to do with the development of the GeoHack, then chided me for not having noticed some recent tweaks to the GeoHack system, which it turned out had been done by you ... and you then proclaimed that the problems identified had been "resolved" without bothering to listen to any input from the people who had described the problems, let alone having the courtesy to ask whether the changes had helped.
Your interpretation of policy involves stringing together a long list of policies to reach a conclusion not stated in any of the individual policies. It's up to you to find support for that synthesis, not to dismiss objections simply because other editors are not prepared to devote hours of their time to explaining the logical flaws to someone whose modus operandi is to simply to dismiss all objections as wrong and then unilaterally proclaim a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl has a problem with the interface, yes, that's quite clear by now and we can put the mention to rest. She is free to work on her issues somewhere else with someone else who doesn't mind listening to repeated hyperbole about having to scroll 13 screens. This is however not the place. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the issues she has with the interface were not a problem with the external link list interface for information about books, which set a precedent to follow with other topics where general links are possible, such as external links to map services. If a contributor has no time to get involved in discussion, it's better to opt out altogether rather than make uninformed comments. Unilateral opposition of link removal based on nothing but personal preferences can and should be ignored. --Para (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Para, you have a breathtakingly arrogant tendency to simply dismiss anything said by anyone else, then add in a few red herrings, top it all off with your own interpretation of a string of largely unrelated policies, and then pronounce that Para's personal obsession with eliminating everything except GeoHack is an eternal truth and that everything else is just "personal preference".
As I have noted below, the ISBN issue is a rather different one in many ways ... and I suspect that the only reason its atrocious useability has not raised more complaints is because so few readers have cause to use it. As a user interface, the ISBN system is an absolute disaster: massive, absurd information overload which overwhelms the reader, and I have no idea how anyone with a grasp of the basics of useability could defend it as anything other than a necessary evil.
It's also a straightforward lie for you to claim my opposition is "unillateral": anyone with the time can just read this page and find several other editors expressing serious objections. I don't know why you think that claiming black is white will help you win your case, but it is breathtaking to watch. Please stop telling lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In extensive discussions on this page, there has clearly been no consensus to change the guideline to deprecate direct links to map services. Even Para (talk · contribs), who made the change merely claims that there "there were no valid reasons for ignoring existing policy" ... but that is based on Para's interpretation of a group of of policies, and that interpretation does not have consensus. If Para wants to push the point, then a policy RFC would be in order.

If I was trying push my take on the issue, I would add something to the guidelines to the effect that despite the claims of a few editors involved in its maintenance, the useability of GeoHack is still very poor, and that the policy concerns are grossly overstated, so direct map links may be added if an editor feels that they are particularly helpful. However, I don't think that would be at all helpful; it would merely be an inverse of Para's attempts to impose his POV, and since neither view has consensus, we shouldn't be amending the guidelines as if there was.

Most of the discussion to date has focused on the pints of (often heated) disagreement. I suggest that it would be helpful for us to try approaching things from the other angle, by first updating the guidelines to reflect the points where there is already agreement.

If other editors are willing to try that approach, I suggest that one way to do this would be to start drafting a small sub-section of the guidelines which would be solely about map services, something which would uncontroversially note the issues agreed in the discussion so far, something in the spirit of the following quick draft:

  • On geographical articles, links to external map services should be provided through the GeoHack system, which provides a comprehensive and standardised list of links to many different mapping and imaging services
  • There is no consensus as to whether it is also appropriate to add other links to external map services. However, the general principle of this guideline applies: that they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article

What I have tried to do in those two points is not impose one side of an argument, but focus on the points on which I think that there actually is agreement. (Sorry if I got that wrong)

The above wording is only a quick and rough draft, and would obviously need polishing if we were to try using it. We have debated the substance at huge length, and I don't see nay chance of an immediate resolution to the disagreement, so rather than get stuck straight back in to a debate about the substance, I have tried to focus on the points where I think that there actually is a clear consensus. I hope that those two points interpret other views correctly, and would welcome correction if I haven't got things right.

May I ask other editors to please consider this suggestion in the spirit in which I have intended it, of a compromise suggestion for a way forward by placing the initial focus on the areas where there is agreement, and leaving the disputed issues for later? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Perhaps we can phrase the "no consensus" thing positively, instead of saying there is no consensus to include or exclude, we can say that there is consensus that there is no absolute rule. Meaning, something like "Links to external mapping and imagery services, if any, should kept to a minimum and limited to those that are accessible and add to the encyclopedic coverage of the subject matter." (I tried to define what "meritable and "appropriate" might mean, without getting too specific). Also, I don't know if we need to say it but it would be good if map and image links could all be kept together in a predictable place, perhaps even with a template (we could have a google map template, for example), rather than scattered randomly throughout the external links section. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the desired outcome of stating on a guideline page the current inconsistent status of map links? How does it guide people who have come to read about Wikipedia's external links? Why would they bother generalising the location information when they already have a link to the map service they are most comfortable with? --Para (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to Para, the purpose is to set out the current state of play, so that anyone looking for guidance knows what the current consensus approach is, and where there are disputed issues. As to why bother generalising, I'm a little surprised that you question that! The purpose is to offer a choice to readers who want a choice, and/or may be familiar with the geohack style of links ... and also to make it clear that there is a consensus (so far as I can see) that geohack links should be included (distinguishing the consensus on that point from the lack of consensus on the removal of other links).
In response to Wikidemo, yes, I like the idea of rephrasing the lack of consensus in a positive sense as "no absolute rule". I deliberately took the "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" language as a direct copy of the text at the top of the page, presuming that language already had consensus. I think that idea of a more specific wording is a good one, and I like your phrasing "Links to external mapping and imagery services, if any, should kept to a minimum and limited to those that are accessible and add to the encyclopedic coverage of the subject matter."
The idea of a template for direct links to specific map services sounds to me like a good one, but I'm not so sure about the idea of centralising the other links. It's good in principle, but I struggle to think of cases where there would be more than one or two of them, or maybe three as an absolute maximum, and I'm wary of anything which might encourage editors to create a "Map and image links" section, which I fear would have a tendency to grow. Have you any thoughts on how the idea of keeping these links together might work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We should probably table the question of exactly where the links go, because that's adding another open question in something that may be difficult to resolve to begin with. It's really a question of how we organize external links, something nobody's really addressed. Wikidemo (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
On both those points, isn't there a danger here of being over-specific, and generating instruction creep? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in WT:GEO, where external map links through templates have been used for years, and the removal discussed for about half a year now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Geolinks coverage shows how badly the template experiment failed, and the related consensus resulted in the removal of all external map links from templates. --Para (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That discussion is about something else, namely an attempt to add specific links through GeoHack, which is problematic because it can't be effectively globalised. That's a rather different issue to what Wikidemo is proposing, which is a template for a specific direct link to a specific map service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read the linked page more carefully. In all the discussions on that page, "Geolinks" refers to a set of templates with map service links chosen by a handful of editors, and placed in various location related articles. After years of narrowly maintained linksets, the templates and their use was inconsistent in just about every possible way, in addition to all the issues with such linking. It's impossible to standardise such a scheme to all location related Wikipedia articles when nobody is maintaining the localised and scale dependent linkset to work with all those articles. Multiple templates for single services are better than plain links only visually, and are contrary to all other efforts in standardisation and consolidation of Wikipedia's external linking. Wikipedia content should be consistent, not arbitrary. --Para (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked through some recent changes on external map service links, and found the following edits:

External map link removals Reversions of removals

As Wikidemo pointed out above, if there is a clear common practice, then we know there is consensus. It's pointless to rehash the dispute endlessly on this page when the common practice is obvious, so we should just reinstate the removed guideline to hopefully reduce the amount of work on link removal. --Para (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Para, selective list-making can be an interesting way of passing the time, but it doesn't demonstrate a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the list if you think I haven't found all related edits. --Para (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This list adds nothing to the discussion here. It's not even on the topic really, which is the phrasing of encouraging appropriate map links while discouraging inappropriate ones. 2005 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It shows clearly how the well informed Wikipedia community handles external map service links, and is in contradiction with the newly proposed "guideline" of inconsistent status quo. The prevailing well justified practices are to be followed, and alternate personal practices discouraged. --Para (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any dispute that there are 300,000 or so articles with map links, of which 12,000 or so link to map services, right? So we don't need to prove that the ratio is 25 to 1. The question, to me, is whether the 24 out of 25 ought to be stated as the general rule, and whether the 1 in 25 (or whatever the ideal number might be) is worth calling out so that people don't take the rule as absolute. And if we do call it out, how and in what level of detail? 1 in 25 is a small percentage, but 12,000 is a lot of articles (as is 50,000, the number that were apparently edited recently). Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact many editors think many links to external map services don't merit linking is not relevant to the discussion. Pretending it does is just time wasting. The issue is forumulating a consensus wording to guide editors, particularly those editors not highly focused on this issue. You are taking the rather absurd position that because some editors remove externaal map links that YOU can add any wording to this document YOU want! C'mon. 2005 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between noting that X is widespread practice and then insisting that X must therefore become standard practice. Even if Para's report is an accurate and sufficiently comprehensive picture of recent practice (and given the way Para simply dismissed all useability problems, I wouldn't trust Para as a source), that may just indicate that a team of GeoHack fanatics have been busy nuking other map links; it doesn't indicate a wider support of their efforts, and it's a long long way from being a reason for a guideline to insist that anything except GeoHack be systematically eliminated. (If a large majority of wikipedia editors did not have userboxes on their userpages, does that mean that the guidelines should deprecate them?) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ISBN similarity

In scattered discussions about GeoHack, aka {{coord}}, when compared to an article link such as "Click to see location in Google Maps", it has been pointed out that the GeoHack page serves a similar purpose as the WP:ISBN list produced by clicking on an ISBN. Linking to a commercial book selling site is discouraged in WP:EL, with an ISBN being permitted. Cellulose man argument: I notice that EL does not forbid linking directly to a specific library's entry for a book; would it be acceptable for articles to include "Click to see Library of Congress data" and "Click to see Springfield Public Library data" links? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Noted exception: EL does allow linking to media, so an article on The Battle of New Orleans might link to a map of the battle, or to a public domain copy of a book on the battle. That is different from the more general task of finding the location of the battle. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Like GeoHack, the useability of the ISBN links is also pretty atrocious; it's so bad that I don't use it, because it's much easier to simply copy-paste the ISBN number into the search engine of a major library.
There is a very good reason for not allowing direct links to sites such as Amazon which exist to sell books, because that is inviting the reader to hand over their cash to a particular bookseller. The same doesn't apply to the free map services, where the reader is not being asked to fork out.
So the way I see it is this: the ugly information overload of the isbn linking system is a neccessary evil, partly because of the predominance of booksales sites, and partly because its major use is in references such such as {{cite book}}, which already form a generic template solution, making specific links impractical.
Also, I can see very little benefit in an direct link with an ISBN number, because they only need to be consulted if the reader is checking references; the casual reader of a wikipedia article is highly unlikely to want look up the ISBN number of a reference, and I for one have only ever used the ISBN number off a wikipedaia article to check a reference. On the other hand, a map link offers a lot to the casual reader of a geographical article, who can use maps and imaging services to learn a lot more about the subject of the article.
So the two situations appear similar only if one starts by focusing on the technology of GeoHack or the ISBN lookup system. Unlike ISBN lookup, map links are of direct benefit to even the casual reader, and unlike ISBN links to amazon, most of the map services liked to are not trying to extract money from the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
ISBNs aren't linked only to allow people to buy the books, but also to get information about them, or with some sites see excerpts. Many external map services show advertisements to all viewers. Book selling sites are an advertisement themselves. Interface quality is irrelevant, as linking to them directly is discouraged. --Para (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are all EL allowed when no money is involved? Is it OK for articles to include "Click to see Library of Congress catalog data" and "Click to see Springfield Public Library catalog data" links? Many of the ISBN links are not to booksellers, but to free data. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

People have been discussing above whether articles should have external links to map services directly, instead of using the coordinates of the location and choosing a service from the centralised service list. The phrasing has also been disputed, so let's focus on just the phrasing here.

About book sites the guideline says specifically:

Links normally to be avoided: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

My guideline proposal for discouraging external links to map services was:

Links normally to be avoided: Links to external map services when similar information is available on many other sites with the coordinates of the location.

User:2005 has suggested a positive statement along the lines of:

What should be linked: External map services using the linked coordinates of the location or direct links when the content isn't linked from the list of services.

If "proper in the context of the article" and "merit" was defined in the guideline, the only difference between the two would be that the positive statement encourages Wikipedia to rely on external services, instead of discouraging editors from doing that and trying to provide free content themselves. Information (the coordinates themselves or a map image that can be included in an article) is of course always encouraged and we should promote free content whenever possible. --Para (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything like that. Why would you say that? I said the geohack should be linked. Saying that means that any map service that is redundant to the geohack should not be linked, but it says nothing to prevent maps like the 1812 example. 2005 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For the purpose of this guideline, the following is roughly true: GeoHack = GeoTemplate = Map sources = list of external links = {{coord}} = linked coordinates. Outside commentary, GeoHack should never be linked directly with the external link syntax, as such information is not reusable and the address of the tool can change at any time. The name of the piece of software that runs the map sources page is not important and is in fact confusing as we've seen here. If the second part in "your" proposal is not necessary, are editors expected to understand to avoid redundancy with common sense? --Para (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Should the phrasing be more general so it indicates a preference for "Wikipedia sourcing tools", such as Wikipedia:Book sources and {{coord}} (aka GeoHack), over "external links to similar services"? This obviously only applies to cases where such tools exist; Wikipedia doesn't have a tool for finding catalog info for old books which have no ISBN. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The guideline mentioned above about books is an example of how to avoid a specific external link with books, so we could combine the example into such a generalisation guideline. Would it apply if the aggregate page was outside Wikimedia projects? --Para (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's so easy to make those kind of services should a need for another one arise, that it's probably best to keep them in Wikipedians' control. So, how about something like this? "Links normally to be avoided: Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools, such as Wikipedia:Book sources with ISBNs and Wikipedia:Map sources with geographical coordinates." --Para (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good improvement. (And just for posterity's sake, the above language would not prohibit historical or otherwise unique maps.) 2005 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Are there still any other concerns it should address or address differently? I just read through the discussions on this page and couldn't find anything else. --Para (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems OK. Specifically inclusive and not mandatorily phrased. Obvious duplicate links are discouraged. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is in effect just a rewrite of Para's earlier attempts to force the removal of everything except the hideously bloated and unusable GeoHack system.
A positive statement encouraging the use of GeoHack does have consensus, but Para's protracted efforts to repeatedly push for deprecation of everything else are starting to look like a campaign of attrition, hoping that if kept up for long enough those opposed will get worn out and go away. This is not how consensus works: grinding down your opponents by repeatedly re-hashing rejected proposals is downright disruptive and is swamping this discussion page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Following BrownHairedGirl's highly respected administrator opinion about the number of people necessary to demonstrate consensus, we now have a clear 75% majority supporting the above proposed guideline. We also have evidence of prevailing practices (per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of Wikipedia policy 1), we have consensus from WP:GEO to remove external map service links, we have a precedent (WP:ISBN) that has passed the test of time, and we have unrefuted points supporting the proposed guideline, derived from existing policies and guidelines. Since "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons", I have added the proposed guideline to WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. --Para (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Para, I have reverted your change to the guideline. There have been plenty of objections on this page to your attempt to ban non-GeoHack map links. However, you have persisted for over a month with a campaign of calling objections "nonsense", declaring objections "invalid" because they didn't fit your interpretation of a synthesis of policy, and not all those contributors have had the energy or persistence to hang around while you repeatedly claim that black is white.

As I wrote above, this is not how consensus works: grinding down your opponents by repeatedly re-hashing rejected proposals is downright disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When the positive guideline was discussed, for which BrownHairedGirl claims there was consensus, there were 3 people for it and 1 against. When I developed the guideline further, there was again 3 people for it and 1 against, with mostly the same people participating, except this time the lonely opponent was BrownHairedGirl. So in her opinion 75% is consensus when it's according to her personal opinions, but not when she's in the minority. How convenient a view from an administrator, eh? Unfortunately topics related to geo things never manage to get more than about four people participating at any given time even with an RfC going, so with the quote above from WP:CONSENSUS this is pretty much all we'll ever get. Unless there's something new to add to support BrownHairedGirl's tendentious revert warring to support redundancy in Wikipedia articles, she'll just be reverted again. --Para (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, it's hardly surprising that people that people don't hang around in discussion of geo issues when you go such lengths to drive them away, and when you repeatedly tell lies about what other people have said.
I am not aware of having claimed that 3 to 1 amounted to consensus wrt to positive guideline; if you read back, you will see that my proposal was "to focus on the points where I think that there actually is a clear consensus. I hope that those two points interpret other views correctly, and would welcome correction if I haven't got things right."
I wasn't trying to count the few hedas left standing, I was trying to identify the points which were actually agreed by all the participants in this discussion, and I closed by asking "May I ask other editors to please consider this suggestion in the spirit in which I have intended it, of a compromise suggestion for a way forward by placing the initial focus on the areas where there is agreement, and leaving the disputed issues for later?"
And you didn't "developed the guideline further", you replaced a positive statement with a prohibition. That's inverting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't try to equivocate now, you just said above that "A positive statement encouraging the use of GeoHack does have consensus"[106]. Other editors considered your proposal, proposed another one, and agreed with that one, thereby dismissing previous proposals. I note you have nothing new to offer, and your single interface gripe was shown to be irrelevant in light of the ISBN precedent and everything else I just mentioned above. Reverted. --Para (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, I am not aware of point having anyone objected to such a positive statement; the dispute is about whether the prohibitions you seek should be added to that point. Do you disagree that the use of GeoHack should be encouraged? Does anyone? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read the discussion, you will notice how I mentioned that Wikipedia should not encourage people to link to external services but to provide information themselves. Fortunately the method guided by the manual of style also creates a link to the map sources page for those who need external maps. Providing information is Wikipedia's purpose already and doesn't need to be mentioned with every minor detail, so the positive thing is an empty proposal. --Para (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest starting a new section at the bottom of the page with only the suggested change and a link to the discussion up here, specifically to collect opinions about the change? There is a lot in the accumulated discussion up here, so it may be helpful to get opinions about the resulting phrasing as a proposed change. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, so long as the people who participated in the earlier phases of this discussion are notified. It would also be helpful if care was taken to make sure that the new section is neutrally-worded, and notes that there has been a huge amount of discussion in which many objections have been made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A link here would be fine to hopefully get more opinions, but having to rehash everything all over again wouldn't make much sense. --Para (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, please stop unilaterally inserting your preferred text into the guidelines. There has been lengthy discussion on this page, but of the dozen-or-more editors who participated, only three support your proposed change. Two of the 4 editors in this thread want more input, and at this point it is appropriate to test whether a change relating to an issue which has been do hotly debated does actually have wider support. If you want to pursue this, please seek that support and stop trying to just bypass the consensus-building process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." You have none. You can continue advocating for redundancy in Wikipedia articles, but for guidelines you'll need more justification than you've provided so far. --Para (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, your view is that any objections are invalid. However, that's only your view, and it does not make for a consensus. You have now breached 3RR by reverting 4 times today.
If you are so convinced that the objections are "invalid", what's your problem in seeking wider input to support that view? Your strategy of trying to grind down objectors by posting huge screeds of denunciations of their concerns as "nonsense" or "invalid" has succeeded in draining many editors away from this discussion, but it does not invalidate their objections.
You are the one who wants to change the guideline. Note that Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice says "It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue" .. and then "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one."
Wikipedia:CONSENSUS is a core policy. Now, please stop trying to claim that your persistence invalidates objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, he has not broken 3RR. I think that's been addressed already. Moreschi (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want guidelines and thereby common practice changed, I suggest you start from overturning the use of ISBNs as links to sources of information for books. Or was it again you alone thinking that it's different from this? --Para (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct about 3RR: I misread the 4th edit, though hadn't spotted that when I posted here. However, Para has been pushing the same change for over a month, simply in the basis that he belkives all objections are invalid:
Is this consensus really supposed to work as a process of attrition? That a persistent editor can just keep on reinstating a change by dismissing all objections until there is hardly anyone left standing, and by dismissing calls for more input even by those who agree with the change?
Para, if you really believe that no-one else shares my concerns, you have no reason to avoid putting that to the test by asking for more input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody else has had a problem with the guideline but you. After you started disrupting over 220 articles by reverting my edits to them[107] though you had never touched the articles before, and were subsequently reverted as your actions were nothing but a last resort after having run out of arguments, nobody objected to the link removal. You have been trying to outvoice everyone with your personal opinion for months now. How about some self assessment before accusing others of attrition? --Para (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, do you think that repeating a lie often enough somehow makes it true? As you well know, there have plenty of editors participating in these discussions who have objected to your obsession with removing direct links to maps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Folks I realize this been frustrating for you but this discussion has deteriorated into sniping back and forth at each other and there seems to be no assumption of good faith. Which given the fact that you're both respected editors is really unjustified. Since the page is protected now there's no way for this to get sorted out without actually focusing on getting a more clearly stated consensus. So how about following up on the suggestion to post a summary below - perhaps if the two of you can work on developing a summary of the conversation so far that you both feel represents each side fairly we'll have a starting place for other people to comment from. -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a summary some time ago at #Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links but BrownHairedGirl refused to work on it. I'm not sure I know a more compact way to summarise everything that's related. --Para (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that comment illustrates very neatly why I have found Para's conduct so exasperatingly dishonest. What Para posted at Wikipedia talk:External_links#Issues_with_inclusion_or_exclusion_of_map_service_links was not a summary of the issues; it was yet another exceptionally verbose restatement of Para's arguments, with no acknowledgement of the concerns expressed at great lengths by objectors.
The "summary" opens by saying "Reading the above discussion is not necessary for participation in this discussion: this section is an attempt at a summary" ... yet Para's only mention of the usability concerns is to say "Ease of use is important, but it is not Wikipedia's ultimate goal at expense of the above points. How has usability of different features in Wikipedia been evaluated in the past, and how has it affected their introduction?". Anyone reading that would have no idea that there had been a huge discussion in which many users objected vociferously to the atrocious usability of GeoHack.
This is a highly manipulative conduct. First Para specfically invites readers not to read the earlier discussions, then omits any mentions of the many screenfuls of serious objections to the useability of GeoHack.
Trying to discus these issues with Para is next to impossible, because of this persistent dishonesty. In earlier threads it included Para dismissing all the objections as invalid, because they didn't accord with his interpretation of policy, and then declaring that there was a "consensus".
This situation will not be resolved without external intervention unless Para can agree to stop his efforts to misrepresent the debates, and to mislead other potential contributors by pretending that objections don't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with...Links used in existing Wikipedia sourcing tools .. then create a catagory with all the tools and use that as an example? There are to many to selective link a few, and should apply to all.--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The intent with that would be ok, but it would make the guideline unnecessarily complicated, since there are currently only two such pages that can link to multiple services using the same identifier. A category for any real use would be a bit overkill, when the pages can just be mentioned directly like they are now. There may be some templates for similar purposes where the identifier needs less processing to be usable and can be done with parserfunctions, but since they haven't been brought up here there's probably no objections to such linking. If a need for other similar pages arises and tools or extensions are created for them, then by no means. I think the limit to force readers go through an intermediary page could be somewhere around three or four, but that's probably been discussed further somewhere, related to linkfarms. --Para (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Category:External link templates is a perfectly reasonable example. 600+ are included, with the exception of the above, and most seem to have been peer reviewed to some extent and have consensus for inclusion in their respective project areas. No one project is more important than the other, but all must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see how there should be a guideline for using the templates in that category, but that guideline wouldn't be related to what we're discussing here. Most of the templates in the category are for single links to keep the links visually consistent and easy to change when changes are necessary. Wikipedia:Book sources and Wikipedia:Map sources are however not ment to be transcluded in articles the way all those 600+ templates are, but used as separate pages for link collections. In the end the purpose is the same, to link to external services, but the way they're used from articles is quite different as the linking effect of the templates that link to these "sourcing tools" is secondary. The question such a guideline would answer with those templates is "how to link to single services" and not "how to avoid linking to single services", which is what the guideline added from this section answers. --Para (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is hard to follow the flow from the top level section to the proposal. Should a new top-level section be started as an RFC on the specific proposed phrasing? Then also point at the RFC on WP:VPP to invite the policy followers to review it. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Good suggestion!--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd really rather not rehash everything all over again just because of objections from a single disruptive editor, but if others are willing to do it then go right ahead. Unless I can just copy and paste previous sections, could someone not involved in the dispute try to summarise everything for others to go through? --Para (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this even a problem that needs fixing? -- Ned Scott 10:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I just joined, and made my first edit, and I'm already in trouble. I was simply adding a name to the performers list on the page about the (now defunct Austin music club) Armadillo World Headquarters. It was my understanding that along with the actual edit, we are also supposed to provide some kind of documentation, proving it's true. I looked and looked for a specific place to enter that documentation, but nothing. So all I could figure out to do was to list it right after the name I was submitting. I added: "["Documentation:" followed by a youtube link, to a video where the artist introduced a song by SAYING he'd been there.]

I got a return EMail that the Wiki police are not allowing my edit because of all the rules about links, blah, blah. I was not trying to have the link added to the page, I was just trying to submit the PROOF to the screeners, as I understand they want, in the only place I could figure out to do so. Anyway, we are not off to a great start here, speaking of not biting the newcomers. Anyone have any advice? Is documentation really NOT required? And if so, where in the heck are you supposed to put it!!

This is not important enuf for me to waste much time on, but it's also highly unlikely I'll stick around long, based on my maiden voyage. Grrr Adiejoan (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Hope it explains sufficiently. -- SiobhanHansa 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

I've added in a shortcut template to the links to avoid section (and a new shorter shortcut). Because I'm always trying to link there in edit summaries and thought it might be helpful. I didn't see this as controversial but given that we've just come out of edit protection I thought it advisable to make a premeptive post to allow for discussion if anyone objects. Please feel free to revert or leave your objection here and I'll self revert until we get a consensus. -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently added an external link to an image gallery of a band that doesn't have any advertising and it appears not be a copyright violation [108]. I don't see any specific text in this guideline suggesting to not linking to something like this. Although Wikipedia doesn't have a picture of the band at this time, I don't think that this link should be kept. Should the guideline be changed to mention situations like this? Royalbroil 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that the contributor was link spamming that website, so I removed them all and warned them. My question is still valid. Royalbroil 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
External links should be accepted on the basis that they give information that is outside the article possibilities. Free images can be obtained, and therefore should not be linked. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, that's why I listed it here. Should links to external image pages be specifically mentioned in the guideline? Royalbroil 16:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2 more (minor?) changes in WP:LINKSTOAVOID

Glad to see the edit war and protection have ended. I want to propose 2 more changes to the section: 1) there is a redundancy between 5. and 16. related to the ISBNs. I want to eliminate that, by putting all of the talk of ISBNs into 16. This will also allow a merge of 5. and 6., which are closely related. 2) I want to clarify the language of 10.; not everyone knows what aggregators are. Any objections to either change? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On 1) I think the points of the two items mentioned are very different. One is an example of a way to avoid common use of commercial websites; the other is about redundancy in links. I think the focus on the fact that ISBN is used twice is not the way to be looking at it. The question is - how do we best illustrate each of these two points. -- SiobhanHansa 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am going to take a crack at it; further edits of course welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On 2) It wasn't until I saw the recent changes that I realized we were just linking to an article on search aggregators. I'd always thought of the item as including all sorts of aggregators (such as news aggregators) not just search. So I think we should work out what the guideline means and make sure the language and links are clear. Equally are we just recommending avoiding search engine results or do we mean to exclude links to the home page of topic specific search engines too? -- SiobhanHansa 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
#10 Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
The wording intends to cover (search engine results of course) but also news "feed" aggregated sites, not just "search aggregators". Can the wording encompase clarifying that fact? I'm not sure this is particularly confusing as it is or needs change?. Agree with proposed change in redundancy between 5. and 16.--Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
At a minimum, I think the piped link is confusing, so I am going to de-pipe it and attempt to add the "feed" concept. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So it says "External links" is the section title, even if there is just one. But why on earth? That only helps machine-readability, and the readers are mostly humans. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributors went wild when that became allowed. Some people wasted many bot edits changing double to singular and then others reverted it all back. Royalbroil 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Google page ranking

Do you think that ranking of pages by google on the basis of external links is correct? [[109]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurbindersingh94 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WP:EL? --Yamla (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on including personal blog in the article on intelligence

See Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

how-tos

Hi. So does that mean how-tos of any kind should not be allowed in an article (ie. astrophotography)? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article, or linked in the article? -- Ned Scott 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about this, right? I agree with your revert. The (person behind the) IP apparently didn't understand the difference you correctly mentioned in your edit summary. Explanatory links to how-to material can be very much in order imo. Dorftrottel (harass) 13:07, March 24, 2008
The qusestion came up over an added external link added at Astrophotography that I rm'ed[110]. "how-to" links seem to be added alot in articles of that sort (in fact that article and a few other amateur astronomy related article were nothing but "how-to's" up till recently) We have had an ongoing discussion on our relative talk pages[111][112]. Should Wikipedia articles have External Links to "how-to" websites? "Links normally to be avoided" Item #1 seems to say flat out "no", a Featured Article would never contain a "how-to" so External Links should not contain "how-to's". That was based on my interpertation of Item #1 but that sentance is a little confusing (That sentance is a real "Don't do as Donny Dont does", anyone think that should be re-worded?). Item #13 also seems to preclude "how-to" External Links, "how-to's" are only indirectly related to the article's subject, they never have encyclopedic description, just instructions on "how to do something". MrFloatingIP72.184.196.222 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the link mentioned above. I do not see how "how to" links can be "Explanatory" since they "explain" nothing useful or encyclopedic, they simple tell you how to do something. "how to do something" or "instruction" has been deemed to be un-encyclopedic by consensus and comes under WP:ELNO #1 (a Featured article would contain no part of a "how to"). The removed link also suffered from WP:NOT#NEWS since it covered how to photograph a specific event, and also brings up WP:LINKFARM problems (have a look at Talk:Astrophotography#The "how to" corral for a list off all the "how to" links that have been removed from this article). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on these particular links I'd just like to mention that you seem to be misinterpreting WP:ELNO #1 - that guideline is supposed to discourage links to material that would be included. In general if something could go into a good article it should go in - including article appropriate material via an external link is discouraged. External links should point to material that (while still adding to an encyclopedic understanding of a subject) could not reasonably be included in an article on Wikipedia. -- SiobhanHansa 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If we are talking about confusion (It could be I am miss interperating it) it points to some really bad wording:
  • (avoid linking)any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
Try diagramming the double negatives in that sucker and tell me what you get ;). On the face of it it seems to be saying "don't link non-encyclopedic content". If it means "(avoid linking) encyclopedic material, instead consider adding the material to the article, using the link as a reference (see WP:CITE)" then it should say that. Maybe this should be opened under a new discussion below so that editors can try to get a handle on that sentence. As for "how to" links, it still looks like the general gist you note, "External links should point to material that (while still adding to an encyclopedic understanding of a subject) could not reasonably be included in an article on Wikipedia", and also WP:ELNO#13 seem to cover them, they, in general, are neither "encyclopedic" or "directly related". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Place for 3rd Party Opinions on External Links?

Is there a place I can go to for a 3rd party opinion on an external link? I keep on removing the link on Clown walk [113] and anon IP's keep on adding it back. I don't feel comfortable edit warring as it's not obvious spam. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly spam. The same IPs are also adding links to the related icandyclothing.com online store. I see the page has now been semi-protected but if the efforts continue after the protection is lifted you might want to take this to WikiProject SPAM. In general to get opinions on links you can start a discussion on the article's talk page about the link you are concerned about and then solicit comments through an RFC or (perhaps better for a quick informed opinion) by posting a request on the talk page of any active WikiProject that claims to be interested in the article. Requests here sometimes get good feedback too - but people are less likely to be knowledgeable about the particular subject area. -- SiobhanHansa 14:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the protection is up in six days so we'll see what happens then. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why hide site address???

I don't understand why the normal practice would be to add link text rather than reveal the web address. ???? I can imagine maybe there are cases where there are multiple links to different pages on the same site, redundant addresses could be hidden. But many of the problems that are presented here including site hijacking, ads and spam, dead links, moved sites, etc., might be easier to handle. It might also give users some warning about what kind of site their entering- blog, news, .org or .edu education sites. Other than looking nice, why obscure external weblink addresses? Cuvtixo (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to use a description that lets the user know what sort of information they are getting (e.g. Interview with Blah in the New York Times). I don't personally think URLs are generally that informative. I don't really see how having the URL show would protect against most of the issues you mention - especially since anyone can add a deceptive description that looks just like anther URL. It would make cases where someone blithely changes a good url for a "bad" one more obvious for those looking at the history - to me this isn't worth the visual clutter that urls generally give. -- SiobhanHansa 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you've given a more specific issues to focus on. It makes cases where someone blithely (or otherwise clumsily) changes a good url for an obvious bad one - to me this does seem is worth the visual clutter! Especially in cases of only one or two links! The issue of visual clutter is legitimate, but wouldn't it be more prudent to default to url "transparency," and address url clutter as it comes up in each article's External Links section?Cuvtixo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that this issue been discussed or otherwise thought through? That is more worrisome than the issue itself, partly because it could easily become a much bigger problem in the future, if not addressed now. Cuvtixo (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

On the issue of reliability of external links, the page says two things:

Links to be considered: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Thus seems to suggest that unreliable links should be considered.

Links to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

This suggests that unreliable links best be avoided. There seems to be a contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If you have a website that's promoting something that you know (from other, reliable sources) is nonsense, then you can reject it under the factually inaccurate clause. If you have a website that has information that you know (from other, reliable sources) is good, but you otherwise don't know anything about them (say, enough to make them a reliable source), then you can include the link. I think that normal editor judgment will be able to resolve any apparent contradictions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan site?

A user has removed a link here from Tyrone_Power#External_links. It has been there for years. When I asked her about it, she stated that it must be removed because it is a fan site and cannot be re-added unless approved by an administrator. This site is one of the most comprehensive quality resources on the internet for this actor. If a site is made by a fan does it really mean that we must in no circumstances link to it? If that isn't the case can we make it clear what we mean by fansites so that good links aren't removed? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just nonsense, on several levels. And even more bizarre, the editor ADDED a fansite link at the same time. I haven't looked at the site in question but just re-add it, and if someone has a problem with it have them cite a non-nonsense reason for removal. 2005 (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Many music and band sites have {{MySpace-music}} which is a redir to {{MySpace}}. This template has been fought over numerous times and has normally resulted in week support for keeping it. The music link was usually overlooked for among other reasons it was difficult to tell whether a MySpace site was the actual band's site or made by a fanboy.

However, things have recently changed. MySpace has teamed up with some major record labels and announced that they will be competing with iTunes.(WallStreetJournal—MySpace Unveils Music Service, Partners With Record LabelsUSAToday—MySpace Music will launch soon) The MySpace Music site now is being upgraded to be complete with streaming audio prefaced by directed advertising and many other anti-wiki features.

Note that as Wiki doesn't allow links to iTunes portal and I feel this would be very similar. Therefore, I think that policy for WP:EL needs to be updated so that ALL links to MySpace from music/band pages should be declared verboten and a bot-run to eliminate all the links. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see what the folks at Wikipedia talk:Spam say about this proposal. That group probably understands the various issues better than the average editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
How is that any different than linking to a band's independently hosted website, which usually also contain similar advertising of their records? --erachima talk 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam--Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Looking at this EL section, my reaction is that it is a terrible linkfarm. Could someone else look at it and tell me if I'm just being mean? Murderbike (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're just being mean. All of the sections seem to be haphazardly filled at best and a couple of the sections most of the links seem like they ought to go. -- SiobhanHansa 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That whole article had major violations of WP:EL -- external links in body, web directory-style links to anything and everything in the area, etc. -- I yanked most of that out. DreamGuy (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we feel about Recipes as External Links?

I found an IP who was spamming every vaguely lobster-related article with his website offering lobster recipes. I am in the process of removing his obvious spam links, but while doing so I found lots of other links that I question. For instance, Lobster roll has a link to a lobster roll recipe on foodnetwork.com. While I recognize there being some value in having a recipe EL in articles about prepared food items, I don't feel really good about choosing one commercial recipe provider over another. Is it any better that foodnetwork.com gets extra page views every time someone clicks on that EL as opposed to the spammer I just smacked down?

Ideally the links would all be to non-commercial recipe sites, but that may not be an option. What is our standard? Do we blank the recipes altogether? Do we say, you have to already be a notable site (like foodnetwork.com) and then we will link to you? Or do we have to find a non-commercial site? Or what??? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a recipe textbook (4). Delete all links to recipe websites, period. Royalbroil 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm going to try and find somewhere in WP:EL to reference that aspect of WP:NOT#TEXT, so if other people come looking here rather than WP:NOT they'll find the info. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually... I don't interpret WP:NOT#TEXT that way. I am not saying I don't agree that all ELs to recipes should be deleted, but I don't think WP:NOT#TEXT says that. I think it is saying that the article should not be a textbook or a recipe book, but it doesn't say anything about linking to a recipe book. By way of analogy, while Wikipedia is not a textbook, it does reference many, many, many textbooks (and rightly so). I don't feel 100% comfortable wielding WP:NOT#TEXT to delete recipe links. I would really rather there be something specifically addressing external links, as opposed to article content...---Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a link to a recipe wiki, but the only one I could find was wiki-recipe, which is ad-suported, apparently a big no-no here --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think they should more go per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, we are not a directory of recipes. Such links may make good references, but I think they do not tell more about the dish (or whatever), they tend to tell how to make it, not giving more information. Moreover, they tend to be spam-magnets (in all their forms, including conflict of interest), and such list tend to turn into linkfarms. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable applying WP:NOT#DIR to justify the removal. I still wish there was something in WP:EL that applied... I suppose WP:ELNO #5 could arguable be applied to Foodnetwork.com as "objectionable amount of advertising"... On the other hand, I could argue to include one link to a recipe for a prepared food item under WP:EL#What should be linked #3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues."
Bah! Well, if other people want to remove it, there is still at least one recipe link in Lobster roll. I think I'm just going to leave it alone for now, myself, as I can't bring myself to unequivocally decide that a link to one recipe is bad. (Absolutely a list of links to recipes would violate WP:NOT#DIR, but I don't feel great about applying it to one link to a recipe) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I argued against adding the recipe links as external links. I do think that they are appropriate for references in most cases. Maybe I'm jaded because I've removed so much external linkspam. Haven't we all! In general, I see very few reasons to keep most external links besides official links like websites, myspace accounts, etc. Royalbroil 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"I see very few reasons to keep most external links besides official links." I've been rolling this around in my head since you posted it, and I think I agree. How lovely it would be if WP:EL was so concise and unambiguous! I think there are some other clear exceptions, e.g. like an article about a public domain text or other work of art should ideally link to the text or a representation of the work of art (which is explicitly covered in WP:EL). But I'm starting to think I should cut much deeper on external links than I already have been. I removed the suspect links from Lobster roll, and I'm off to do more EL chopping.
Anyway, well-put. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The point of ELs is to extent material that is of value to the users but not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Recipes are a good example of this, if there is a suitable source for them. By using the ELS we keep the how to do it information out of WP, referring instead to the external websites where it is to be appropriately found. There are relatively reliable external sourcesfor this material, and the best one or two can be linked to. ELsarea matter of judgment, like all editing.DGG (talk)
I'm torn over whether linking to recipes (other than some sort of official one in the few cases where such is appropriate) is a good idea or not. My general inclination is towards encouraging editors to be proactive and exercise editorial judgment so I would normally agree with DGG. However the prevalence of spamming and the clutter we get with people's "favorites" being added make me wonder if it's worth having them at all and there are also localization issues that make me think it's the sort of thing people ought to search for on the web using their own preferences/engines geared towards their needs. Given Wikipedia's mission to encourage free content I certainly feel this is an area where GFDL and appropriate Creative Commons licensed sites should be favored over others. This is all my opinion though rather than a community norm - I don't think there is enough of a general practice to put something in the guideline. -- SiobhanHansa 13:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree it isn't needed in the guideline and like other links they need careful and skeptical evaluation--there are relatively widely known good sources--and others. DGG (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When the relevant topic-page exists, linking to Wikibooks:Cookbook would be best. If it doesn't (there's nothing there on lobster rolls currently), I'm with DGG, in that 1 or 2 ELs to the most reliable sites, are worthwhile – ideally sites that could be both recipe-info and citable-historical-source-info, thereby letting them be placed in the references section. Just removing all the links completely is too Exclusionist for my taste. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)