Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 18 April 2016

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Women Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Web Address

I've for the third time removed the her Official Website as it's useless - It's only a huge image of the BLP and 4 social media links .... that's it,
Had there been any pages to it (Like "About me", "My songs" etc etc) then I would leave it however it seems stupid to include the site when there's only one picture and 4 links and no other pages....,
Just as a clarification thing - I'm only removing it again as the edit warrer hasn't even raised any valid concerns so if another editor does revert with valid reasons I'll obviously not revert and would be more than happy to discuss it, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - At the least, It connects the page to her genuine social sites. (Mona778 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

I've pared it down to just the Facebook link per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as the other social networking sites are prominently linked from there.--Jezebel's Ponyo 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ponyo's approach seems sensible to me. We don't need lots of different official links if the reader can find the others from just one. It's what the guidelines say too. MPS1992 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but then how would readers know that her social site is genuine, and not mirror? (Mona778 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

I think Facebook deal with that. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Facebook, and Twitter for that matter, adds a blue checkmark beside accounts that have been verified as officially controlled by the subject. The process is described here.--Jezebel's Ponyo 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove the Facebook link, and readmit her official site, so the site can be used as a window to her genuine social sites. (Mona778 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

As there's nothing to the site I don't really see the point in including it as such, Personally I think it was much better with the Facebook & Twitter all linked here, Thanks, –Davey2010 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Either the official website can be used, or one of the social networking sites that also includes all of the links. I have no preference for one over the other (though the guidelines do lean towards the inclusion of the official site). What we don't need is multiple links contrary to WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.--Jezebel's Ponyo 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I know it's generally preferred that if a singer has a website then no links should be included however if they don't have one then all links should be included, Anyway I think your way is actually the best way here, Thanks, –Davey2010 00:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• My conclusion of the above discussion as follows that we should readmit the official site and remove the facebook as admin Ponyo quoted "though the guidelines do lean towards the inclusion of the official site.," is there any one against the motion? (Mona778 (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC))

• I agree with this change. One of the guiding principles behind the external links policy as I understand it, is that we should not pander to internet marketing trends by having many multiple links, instead we should provide whichever one single link appears to be a sensible gateway to whatever other sites the subject has as "official". In this case, as correctly described by Davey2010, the "official" website is that appropriate link -- it is a gateway page to all the various other online sites that the subject has. MPS1992 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm against it - It makes sense to include it in that it links to the 4 social medias, but as I said beyond those links the site is fucking useless to the reader (Many editors would visit the website to check what shows they've been in, more info on the actress/model or even images of the model...... Bar the links the site has none of those mentioned above and so using it only in the end disadvantages the readers here ....., As I said if the site included more content then I wouldn't be here now however as I've said a million times there's nothing except 4 links). –Davey2010 02:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to intimidate me, but this time I won't fall into your trap. By the way, may I know the reason of your sudden obsession to this page? Wasn't it because the day I asked for its protection by some coincidence you were there as well to request for another page's protection, and maybe because I asked for it to be protected indefinitely just like you did for yours, that somehow raised your antenna to follow me here? You know what? I feel so sorry for you, get a life. (Mona778 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC))

• How am I intimating you ? .... I disagree with the website pure and simple...., and I'm sorry but that's utter bollocks, Like any other actress on this site I did come across it by coincidence (I don't even fucking know you nor did I have any idea this was up at RFPP, "I feel so sorry for you, get a life." - I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, Grow the fuck up. –Davey2010 04:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, the link to the official website is what is preferable based on current community consensus (WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL) as well as the consensus here. The official website contains the links to the associated social media websites and therefore should be the link we include in the article, so I will restore it shortly. Davey2010, I have no idea why you feel the need to interject "fucking" and "fuck" repeatedly into the conversation, it certainly doesn't strengthen your argument nor reflect well on your ability to communicate with others. Mona778, please drop the conspiracy theories and your admonishments of Davey2010 regardless of how much you believe them to be true. This is about a single link on an encyclopedia article, there's no reason for anyone to be getting this worked up. --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we include the web address

Should we include the models official website ( http://hazalkaya.com.tr/) in the infobox & external link section? - The website only contains 4 social media sites and nothing more,

(I personally object as as I said above many editors would visit the website to check what programmes/films they've been in, more info on the actress/model or even images of the model...... Except the social media links the site has none of those mentioned above and so using it only in the end disadvantages the readers here ....., As I said above if the site had more content then I wouldn't have an issue however there's nothing except 4 links so IMHO I don't think the site should be included),
Thanks, –Davey2010 02:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I can't understand why you would start this RfC over such a minor matter in which you are the sole person who takes issue with the inclusion of the official link. As noted above, WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that when an official website is available which consolidates links to social networking sites, it should be used in lieu of multiple links within the article. There is no caveat that this only applies to websites with robust content, and your argument is based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT as opposed to any relevant policy or guideline. Opening this RfC when consensus went against you above is just pointy and lame.--Jezebel's Ponyo 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly wasting my fucking time with this bollocks so fuck it, The entire website is fucking useless and shouldn't be included but as I said clearly wasting my fucking time, I honestly ... you know what fuck it wasting my breath. –Davey2010 21:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles