Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Legacy.com[edit]

I'm wondering if Legacy.com would be worth adding to WP:EL/P#User-submitted contents since its likely more WP:QS than WP:RS. It basically takes obituaries published in various papers an re-published them on its website. The fact that it sometimes charges for such content is not really an RS, but the fact that it doesn't generate its content or seem to have installed any sort of resonsible editorial control probably is. Also, it's not clear whether the original obituary is WP:UGC/WP:SPS (i.e., written by someone connected to the deceased) and underwent editorial vetting when first published in a newspaper, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Seen that some of the entries get quite a number of subheadings, I wonder whether it is worth to have a 'sidebar' on the right (see example at right) in each section with some 'lesser' domains which fall into that category (or even per sub-section), and use the very well known one(s) as the worked out example - we work out twitter, linkedin and facebook, but have in the infobox all the others (myspace, Instagram, youtube-channels, own blogspot blogs, tumblr, linkedin, vimeo channels, soundclouds, weibo, vk, proboard, ameblo blogs, periscope, pinterest, bebo, flickr ....) that typically fall in the same category. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable alternative way of incorporating such information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposed sidebar here, we don't have that many subheadings given the length of the essay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: You prefer that they all just get listed in the headings ('if we are talking about facebook, then the same reasoning goes for periscope - if we are talking about youtube, then the same reasoning goes for vimeo - if we are talking about myspace, the same reasoning goes for soundcloud and proboard ..')? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I had read something you wrote wrong, might have been sleepy. I'm okay with adding sidebars to the different sections, I like the status quo layout though as there aren't that many examples used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some more things I would like to change in the essay:

  • On the social networking sites (linkedin/myspace/facebook/etc.), and on the subsection of YouTube (for the channel), I think we should strongly point to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL (and possibly bolding of only one per said guide). For the social networking sites that is worded on each of the items, and could be put into a lede on that section.
  • On the same group (social networking + YouTube) - Barring some very rare examples where a twitter feed overall is suitable as a primary reference (it's mere existence?), the 'feed'/'channel'/'account' is never suitable as a reference. Only specific tweets, facebook posts, youtube videos are suitable as references.
  • Amazon/Ebay similarly could have a lede explaining why such 'selling sites' are unsuitable.
  • (and then incorporate above discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Discogs[edit]

I have run across Discogs being used as a reliable source. This site is "...a user-built database of music." and therefore is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Otr500 (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Discogs redux[edit]

There is recurring discussions on Discogs concerning reliability so it should be added.
  • As an external link: Nota bene* Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere.
  • As a reliable source: ☒N Generally no.
  • Common issues::
    1. content is user-generated and therefore not generally reliable. Otr500 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding this one as it is debated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Decision to apply ‘Supplement’ template[edit]

Where was the RfC to apply that template? Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites/Archive 2#RfC: Proposal for promotion of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites to a guideline ends w a mention of ‘supplement’ but no discussion specific to that. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you belive the template should be removed and if so why? This was done long ago with no problems and has been linked from the guideline since it's Inception. Lot of community input over a long time on its talk page. There is no need for an RfC to use the template when there was clearly so much input into the page by so many. An RfC is not a requirement for consensus but one tool to determine community norms.--Moxy (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this page as filling a 'gap' — cf. instructions for use of that template: "The noun supplement does not mean "an interpretation" nor just "something added". It means precisely "something added, especially to make up for a deficiency", in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline." Rather it strikes me much more as an application of principles, policies, guidelines to entities external to WP than an interpretation, elaboration, … of the p-p-g. Make sense? Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"Official" Facebook Profile as a source?[edit]

Hello, I'm new here and curious as to the consensus on this, as I couldn't really find a whole lot online about it. But are "official profiles" accepted sources? The way I read it is that sometimes it can be? Say an official webpage for an individual points to their profile, could information found there be used for minor biography information of living persons, such as DOB, high school, etc? Please clarify or point me in the right direction. Thanks!IrishRhino139 (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, I would think not. Facebook has no means of authenticating its users, so anybody can set up an account and claim to be somebody. For example, I could set up an account and claim to be Ivanka Trump. In a specific situation, if there's a strong indication that a Facebook account is genuine and the only source of certain information, I would argue the merits of using that specific page at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But chances are, if it's worth repeating in an encyclopedia article, it's been widely reported by more reliable sources than Facebook users. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What about if they have the verified tag? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly my question. Using the above example, say Ivanka Trump's official website links to her official FB page. Would that not be an indication that the account is genuine? Obviously, Ivanka Trump has been reported about everywhere so that kind of information is readily available elsewhere, but for some, it may not be. I'll post on the other notice board like you suggested. Thanks!IrishRhino139 (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@IrishRhino139: it is as descrubed here, official, verified facebooks and myspaces can sometimes be used as a reliable source, but indeed keep in mind that anything worth mentioning on Wikipedia will likely already be elsewhere, and as we are often dealing with BLPs in case of facebook references, we should use sources with care. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove "as a reliable source"?[edit]

I propose removing the "as a reliable source" information for the websites listed here. That's WP:RSP's business. wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose best we explain both usages here as there's different criteria for both ...no need to make editors go to a different page that's almost unreadable when we can quickly explain things here in a more specific manner for these few sites.--Moxy (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - The information here is the fine the way it is. In my opinion the colors need to be amended on the other table to include "Situational" sources as the red is misleading. Amazon.com for example can be used for release dates, and Youtube for another example can be used if the channel is official. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The main problem with the other page is the main text your supposed to read is mini sized and full of broken-up sentences cuz it's jammed into a little box. Good to see there is some sort of navigational TOC there now to help with the scrolling nightmare. The reason this page works well is because people use the shortcuts to link directly to the site they are referring to in a discussion...( eg. Facebook shortcut usage). .. without the shortcuts it's going to be hard to get people to even use the page... as not too many people are going to link to page hoping people will scroll to find the specific website they're talking about. --Moxy (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)