CorporisPublica:External links/Noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Requesting deletion of Template:TV.com and related templates
TV.com is an entertainment-related web service whose textual content is generated by users and only by users. It fails CorporisPublica's external links policy as it is comprised solely of user-submitted reviews and discussions and offers incentives for the incorporation of self-published original research which in many cases proves questionable. Where it explains what it is, the site states:

Furthermore, TV.com's coverage of many television programs appears to be incomplete and/or incorrect. The site has no editorial staff and thereby, no established fact checking process. For the previously stated reasons, TV.com is not a reliable source for television-related information of any kind. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that CorporisPublica is not a mirror or a repository for links, images, or media files.

Please note that these templates were previously discussed for deletion at the "Templates for discussion" page, which is the inappropriate venue for discussing the deletion of external link templates, such as the TV.com templates, which format over 5,200 links. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, December 2, 2012, 21:50 UTC.
 * Great catch. I would definitely support its deletion. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * CorporisPublica:Templates for discussion is not an inappropriate venue to discuss the future of a template, it's the correct venue. Tv.com was being discussed because it is now deprecated and redundant to the Tv.com show and Tv.com show which were not nominated for deletion. As indicated at the top of this page, "This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy", which is different to discussing the possible deletion of a template. It would be inappropriate for this noticeboard to decide that Tv.com should be deleted and any nomination would have to proceed to CorporisPublica:Templates for discussion. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 23:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't someone once suggested TV.com template deletion in the past and it was refused?--Sd-100 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TV.com does have a staff of writers and given that it is owned by CBS Interactive, I would also assume they have some team of user-content checkers to at least review content added that may be scandlious. Yes, the bulk of the site is user contributed, but I would thus equate that to IMDB in terms of being an EL - rarely appropriate as a cited source (unless its coming from the staff), but certainly acceptable as an EL. Or to put it simply, you have to talk about removing IMDB links in the same breath you talk about removing TV.com, and I really doubt you will get any traction on removing IMDB. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to close this discussion - As I have indicated above, this is not the appropriate venue for proposing deletion of a template. The appropriate venue is CorporisPublica:Templates for discussion where there is already a discussion underway. Ultimately, the fate of Tv.com will be determined there, not here, as this noticeboard is "for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy", not for discussing the deletion of templates. The template does not breach policy and this noticeboard can not make a determination as to the future of the template, only the future use of tv.com as an external link, which is not the purpose of this discussion. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel and World66 replacement


The above domains are owned by Internet Brands, a bunch of proven spammers who sue their own volunteer contributors. The domains have been on XLinkBot for the past two years, and now that we have Wikivoyage, it's time to clean them out. I've replaced about 100 of these over the past week, but there are about 1300 more mainspace links. Links should be replaced with (nothing should show until Wikivoyage exits beta). MER-C 13:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry.com
Is Ancestry.com acceptable as an external link in the "Further reading" section of Richard Tylman? It is a user-generated site that requires paid enrolment, although some information is available free. Here are the specific links:

TFD (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note, this is a perennial discussion continuing since many months after the failed, second AfD nomination by the above editor personally, and the CorporisPublica:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (5th nomination) in total. More internal and external links available at Talk:Richard Tylman with past discussions on the subject held by a number of participants including from CorporisPublica:WikiProject Kent. Thanks, Poeticbent talk  16:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about a different person from the previously deleted article. This Tylman lived in 1500s England, while that Tylman lives in 21st century Canada.  TFD (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

guitargeek.com
I believe that Jetpack66's repeated additions of links to guitar rig diagrams to this site are linkspam. Jetpack66 insists they are a credible source based on interviews. Input by additional editors would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Links to klassik-resampled.de
An issue has arisen today regarding many links to pages at klassik-resampled.de that user Fahl5 has been adding. I've summarized the issue on my talk page, however I would like to: get input from those knowledgeable in such matters, and also to centralize any discussion that might arise here. Accordingly, I've notified those involved. Thanks for any assistance which can be provided. GFHandel &#9836; 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not yet listened to his recordings, but I should point out that his project attracted a lot of commentary (mostly negative) at the well-known piano forum Piano Street. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt quality should eventually be considered, however I'd like to concentrate on things like: self-promotion, self-publication, and lack of secondary sources supporting the efficacy of the links. GFHandel &#9836; 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK lets discuss here the few reason you named in your "summarization".

1)Sorry, but your Alarmbells rang wrong: What the Links offer and promiose are audiofiles and not textual information. It is possible that you don't like my few introductional words. They are neither meant nor promised to be the substance of the linked contribution. It is more likely and obvious that your Alarmbells use those few cited Words just as wrong pretext for your Linkvandalisme, without any substancial reason at all, why the shared and CCC-Licensed Audiofiles should not be linked in WP.

2) Even if there are now not two but now three guys like you (wow did you have that much friends?) are eliminating arbitrarily Links in articles. The Problem is that none of them has yet named even one good reason for. All are just Pretending those Links are "Spam" or contradict "Wikirules" without the faintest proof for those false Pretentions.

3)You Pretend I would Promote my name or my Domain. If you know CCC-License a bit, than you should know that it is quite usual that creative common licensed creative Contents demand the naming of the author. Is this already promotion?? Definitly not! If it were so, than you consequently have to eliminate all Links to content with named Authors which makes nearly all Links everywhere in WP. You know that this would be absolutely nonsense! Yes my site has a domain. Otherwise one would not find it. If Links with URL would contradict to WP Rules, you would not at all be anymore able to have any Link in WP. If you just don't like it named outside the Linktext, than just eliminate the Domainname klassik-resampled. But you eliminated the whole Link! But keep reasonable: neither my personal Name nor my domain is nor has any product or commercial interest or anything alike to promote. It is just necessary to give the Information, who has done this recording and where one can find it. If this would contradicts ans WP-EL-Rule, than nearly every external Link would break this alleged WP-Rule to.

4) You demand I should upload my Content to CorporisPublica. Why should I. What you think are external Links made for. Of course not only to be elimited. Yes the same recordings are also interesting for other Sites shareing open Knowledge as for instance the IMSLP. My Musicsite contains more than 1000 recordings making several Gigabites-of Data to be uploaded. Must I really upload everything twice ore more. Running my own Site, allows me to easily manage and improve all Content I am responsible for. The Time I have to spent for this would be more than doubled, if I really would follow your Idea and upload each correction or improvement for every Website seperatly which might be interested in. So please stay reasonable. The External Links are just the right way for me to share what I can contribute.

5) You cite criticisme on one pianoforum thinking you might judge quality by the Forumcontributions of e few posters there. Look at the statistics of my own site 30-40% of the recordings are already voted. Nearly 90% have best voting - only less than 2 % are voted not so good or bad. You think that the IMSLP, the LexM from the musicological Department of the Hamburg University, the MUGI from the Hochschule for Music Hamburg, The Joseph Haydn-Institute have not the musical Judgment comparable of some shitstorming Posters at pianostreet? If you look more precise, you can also find People there who think quite positive about recordings I have shared there.

6) You ask for secondary sources, study the Informationsection of my site. But for recordings just finished you should be able to wait meanwhile there is also alredy is some friendly reaction of my new Bachrecordings aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahl5 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Still you have not named one single reason, why all WP-Editors in so much Languageversions of WP and why the IMSLP and other online Dictionaries and Websites (LexM, MUGI, Joseph Haydn-Institute Cologne etc.) are in your opinion all wrong in approving and sharing my links. No this is just another unqualified pretext for your Linkvandalisme but no quality arguement.

As far as you are not able to argue more reasonable and proved, please stop your Linkvandalisme and let contributors help to make WP as rich as possible. best Fahl5 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could I remind you that the most productive discussions on WP do not involve personal attacks (such as your "friends" comment above), and you should now read WP:AGF. I have no recollection of ever having worked or communicated with the other two editors who reverted your additions today. Even though I have issues with just about everything you just posted, the most telling is your interpretation of my comment " why don't you consider uploading it to somewhere like Wikimedia Commons" as " You demand I should upload my Content to CorporisPublica".
 * I feel that I have acted in good faith today in trying to protect WP (and my actions are identical to other editors on this issue), and I've certainly made my feelings on this matter plain to all, both on this page and my user page. Accordingly, and because I don't wish to subject myself to the type of attack posted above, I will leave this issue for others to decide here. I will of course adhere to whatever consensus forms. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Fahl5's contributions one can see that he is involved in blatant self-promotion. His links add little or nothing to this project. CorporisPublica is not a platform to promote your website, please see WP:LINKSPAM and WP:COI. Jschnur (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mass global spamming for klassik-resampled.de occuring;
 * de:Special:Contributions/Fahl5
 * en:Special:Contributions/Fahl5
 * it:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.247
 * it:Special:Contributions/79.193.65.156
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.48.31
 * fr:Special:Contributions/79.193.65.156
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.233
 * fr:Special:Contributions/884.144.84.247
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.48.31
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.40.56
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.233
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.247
 * es:Special:Contributions/79.193.65.156
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.40.56
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.68.79
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.6
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.40.56
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.233
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.247
 * es:Special:Contributions/79.193.65.156
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.40.56
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.68.79
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.6
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.68.79
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.84.6
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.56.74
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * More Steffen Fahl Related global spam;
 * de:Special:Contributions/91.38.59.122
 * en:Special:Contributions/91.38.59.122
 * de:Special:Contributions/91.38.61.213
 * en:Special:Contributions/91.38.61.213
 * en:Special:Contributions/91.38.81.146
 * fr:Special:Contributions/91.38.81.146
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.36.186
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.132.181.182
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.132.181.182
 * nl:Special:Contributions/84.132.181.182
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.132.181.182
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.69.56
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.69.56
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.85.56
 * tr:Special:Contributions/84.144.85.56
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.144.47.88
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.47.88
 * nl:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * ru:Special:Contributions/84.144.47.237
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * zh:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * sv:Special:Contributions/91.38.107.165
 * de:Special:Contributions/91.38.107.165
 * This case is a Global example of extreme abuse, self promotion and Widespread exploitation of CorporisPublica--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that.Jschnur (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.144.71.125
 * ru:Special:Contributions/84.144.47.237
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * zh:Special:Contributions/84.144.28.31
 * sv:Special:Contributions/91.38.107.165
 * de:Special:Contributions/91.38.107.165
 * This case is a Global example of extreme abuse, self promotion and Widespread exploitation of CorporisPublica--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that.Jschnur (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * de:Special:Contributions/91.38.107.165
 * This case is a Global example of extreme abuse, self promotion and Widespread exploitation of CorporisPublica--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that.Jschnur (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass additions of Facebook, Google+, and Twitter links
Can someone please take a look at the contributions of User:CaribDigita? I think that virtually of all of his or her recent contributions that merely add social networking sites to various articles are unnecessary and unwelcome. (In fact, I'd love to see those templates deleted entirely as they're more trouble than they're worth.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)