Talk:Rogiet

Website

I was reverting links added by a spammer and one was on this article, in which I was reverted, so here I am. The link is http://magorundy.net/. Besides originally being spammed along with several other forums that looked exactly alike but had (usually slightly) different URLs, the link fits our guideline for links to be avoided. #10 of that list includes discussion forums as one of the links to avoid. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, these forums that were being spammed but had slightly different URLs all trace back to the same IP (88.98.24.158), in case there was any question that it was spam. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The http://magorundy.net/ EL was added to Rogiet a year ago and has been uncontroversial since. You appear to have been deleting it from all of the local village WP articles, although I see no evidence for it having been "spammed" to them.

IP is an irrelevance and should not distract us. Good links are good links (&vv.), no matter their hosting. HTTP 1.1 puts both good and bad sites under the same IP.

So is this an appropriate WP:EL. I would claim that it is (and similar links are widespread in WP articles describing communities). The policy is against broad unfocussed chat (and rightly so), not against on-line communites that themselves form a relevant part of the real-world communities being described. I'd appreciate comments from others. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that we're just going to need outside opinions because we seem to just not see things the same. I will note that if I'm found to be wrong and this was not spam, I'll self-revert all of my reverts, but I'm fairly confident that it was spam. See contribs of Pauldack and 194.66.183.221 for the spammers. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've rv'ed the other local villages with a pointer message just to try and encourage a few others to join in and comment. If consensus is that we shouldn't have the link, then please undo my undo. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That'll work. I also feel that discussion forums, especially like these, should not be included because they really don't satisfy the spirit of WP:EL. This link is only aimed at residents and does not teach me (ie, someone not from the area) anything. It's not an official site, so we shouldn't add it based on that. If it's not official and non-educational to most, then I feel it really doesn't belong. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who lives in Chepstow, fairly close to these villages, and has contributed to some of the articles, it seems to me that the http://magorundy.net/ site is entirely benign - that is, not established with any commercial or bad intent - and is more likely than not to provide additional helpful information to the WP reader. Editors more experienced than me in the guidance may correct me, but I fail to see how the site would fall into the WP:ELNO category. My view is that it is not essential for the links to be included in the articles, but that their inclusion may be beneficial (certainly to local residents, many of whom no doubt read WP articles, as well as to readers from other areas); does no harm or damage to WP; and I have not seen any valid arguments so far for removing the links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not fit the criteria of WP:ELYES or even WP:ELMAYBE. It does seem to fit the letter of WP:ELNO #10 as it is a discussion forum. (though it seems that the spirit of it is under question here). It may not do harm exactly (though I still hold that it is WP:LINKSPAM), but I just don't see how it helps anyone not from the area. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So WP readers within the area don't count? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that, I'm saying that the focus should be on everyone, whether they are from the area or not. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

OK, it seems that the discussion may have hit a wall. I'd like to lay out my thoughts more clearly because I think that I may have been all over the place in trying to explain them before. Hopefully, this will help get the ball rolling again. This is a low-traffic article, so I'm afraid that we may be unlikely to get a lot of eyes on it... I think that we may need to set up a RFC for it to get more thoughts on it, especially since this really encompasses several different articles. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

• My point about how the site had been spammed really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. The point was that I wasn't being POINTY and going through arbitrarily removing these links. I found an account and an IP who fit the definition of a SPAMMER and had did nothing other than add external links all with the same IP to a lot of different articles. I went through and removed the links that they added.
• The link does not meet WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. It does meet WP:ELNO. The main exception for ELNO is Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. Obviously, this is not the case. I don't think that the fact that the forum is relevant to the topic should be an exception either. Forums are not encyclopedic, authoritative, or a great source of reliable information. Also, Wikipedia is not a web directory, so showing residents a place where they can discuss things isn't our goal. If they want to find a local forum, they can always use Google. A good directory would be a great thing to add to the article, but, unfortunately, I've been unable to find one.

I hope that this might get the discussion flowing again. I'd also love to see the counterpoints laid out a bit more clearly, because I may not be fully grasping them. Sorry if TL;DR, I tried to be concise while trying to fully explain my thoughts, but conciseness is not one of my better traits :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC on external link to community discussion forum

Is a link to a community discussion forum appropriate? Please see the above section for the previous discussion. I'd like to get wider participation and more views on this. This dispute also involves the same link on the articles Undy and Magor, Monmouthshire, but all discussion has taken place here. Thank you. —Apparition11 (via posting script) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- the community website clearly cannot be cited as a reliable source, unless there really is nothing else available, but I see no reason why a link should not be including in the article as an external link. As an analogy, we have hundreds of articles on schools, and they invariably have a link to the school website, which is certainly not an independent source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I won't argue against your point and don't mean to badger, but I'd like to comment on the analogy. I don't think that the analogy is accurate because WP:EL specifically states that official sites should be listed in both the first point of "What to link" and in the exception given for "Links normally to be avoided", so a school's official website would be appropriate under both sections. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly it would be inappropriate as WP:RS, but the point here is that it's an WP:EL, not WP:RS.

This link is to an external community forum related to the article's locale. As the locale is only a small one, this forum is relatively significant within it (i.e. a similar point regarding Cardiff might not be as relevant). If we see the forum as being a significant aspect of Rogiet today, then that would (IMHO) meet the WP:EL requirement that it's adding something to a wiki article on that community. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Having just said this at another RFC: Non-involved editors will not make RFC comments while the RFC proposer floods the section of the talk page dedicated to the RFC with their own commentary Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)