Template talk:Unverifiable-external-links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 July 30. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 7. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 TfD nomination of Template:Unverifiable-external-links 2 Explain usage 3 WP:EL 4 If this is going to be kept...

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Unverifiable-external-links

Template:Unverifiable-external-links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explain usage

There should be some more details of proper usage, probably at the top of this Talk page. (SEWilco 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Done via no-includes. See the template. --Barberio 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

I updated the template to comply with WP:EL. It still should never be used because it is redundant to policy, but at least it is now merely redundant rather than inappropriate. 2005 08:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Unless the template has external links in it, then there's no reason for it to 'comply' with WP:EL. This time, tell us exactly what you think should be done to the template to better reflect WP:EL, and make it more useful. --Barberio 10:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the template has to conform with policy. Even though you want to, you can't make policy via template. I changed the template to comply with WP:EL, the wording of which should have satisfied you if you were actually concerned about offering a warning about the verifiability of external links. Changes you made recently make it less dumb, but still in direct contradiction to Wiki policy. If links do not follow WP:EL they should be removed. If they follow WP:EL, then they should not be considered "for replacement". It's bad enough you are trying to your own policy, but the text now doesn't even make sense. The template says to consider finding acceptable links, the usage says the links are acceptable. 2005 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The template still doesn't conform with policy, as currently worded. It is designed to discredit links which are acceptable under WP:EL by claiming that they are not verifiable, which could apply to every site on the net, because no one other than Wikipedia (and often not Wikipedia) uses in line citations to sources that we would consider credible. I propose that it be changed to a template for disputing whether the links are in compliance with WP:EL and that Barberio propose changes to that policy if he thinks it leads to the inclusion of unacceptable links. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If this is going to be kept...

I have a few issues with the template as currently worded (in addition to my meta-issues with its existence):

1. It is grammatically nonsensical. How can an external link not be verifiable? Do you mean the content externally linked to is not verifiable?
2. I oppose linking to WP:V as this policy applies only to content on Wikipedia. Moreover, trying to apply it to externally linked content is nonsensical. On Wikipedia, all WP:V means is that the materially must have previously been published and that the previously published source should be cited. For external content, they are their own source, so to speak. It's hard to imagine any blogs citing sources the way that Wikipedia does. Does this mean that blogs which link to news articles and then comment on them would not merit the use of this template because they cite their sources?
3. The template states that editors should find replacement links which are acceptable under WP:EL, but the guidelines say that this template can be placed alongside links that do meet WP:EL!
4. What is the basis for establishing whether EL are "known to contain errors"? Does that mean that editors engage in lenghty talk page discussions about the correctness of content on externally linked sites, which have little to do with the content of the article in question?

I suggest that the template should only' be used in the following situation:

1. "There is an ongoing credable dispute over if external links may or may not be acceptable under WP:EL."

And that it should be reworded to say:

Thoughts? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense as it stands obviously, and should not be an end run on policy, but a template that addresses what should be the *genuine* reason that this issue come up in the first place could be useful. So two texts that could be useful are:

"A dispute exists over whether the following external links are acceptable under Wikipedia's external links policy."

or

"The Wikipedia does not verify the accuracy of external links./ For information on Wikipedia's external link policy, see WP:EL."

The second is merely stating policy, but could highlight a controversial external links section. The former would state that there is a dispute, and would clearly show that links like on the war article are contentious. "...may not be acceptable" should never be on such a template as it implies the "official" side believes on way or another. A template should simply say there is a dispute over whether they comply, which would be accurate, but not imply one side was more in the right than the other. 2005 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to modify the template to make it appear as a standard cleanup message, both in text and box format (in example, {{External links}}). -- ReyBrujo 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)