This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mona.N (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 16 April 2016 (→Web Address). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:24, 16 April 2016 by Mona.N (talk | contribs) (→Web Address)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
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 intimate 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))
Should we include the web address
 |
|
Should we include the models web address http://hazalkaya.com.tr/ - The website only contains 4 social media websites 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...... Bar 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 if the site had more content then I wouldn't have an issue however there's nothing except 4 links so IMHO I believe the website to be useless),
Thanks, –Davey2010 02:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)