Template:Maintained

Indonesia Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An entry from List of gamelan ensembles in the United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 January, 2006.

This comment was moved from the article.

HISTORY OF GAMELAN ENSEMBLES IN THE UNITED STATES (suggest as separate article?)

-- 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Kindly restore the removed references (which are essential to a properly encyclopedic article) prior to such removals. Such prior discussion is only reasonable, and I request the removing editor do so when requested by other long-time editors. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not acceptable references. They are WP:SPAM. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani‎ for discussion of similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not spam. They are useful links to the organizations mentioned on this list. They also help document the information listed, and are a resource for those maintaining the page. I don't see any reason to delete them. If you'd like to turn them into references, I'd have no objection. Deleting them, makes it much harder to turn them into references and serves no purpose. I don't see what the RFC has to do with this. Why do you think they are unacceptable? BTW, there is an entire community of Gamelan organizations and academics that use this page. Let's resolve this before making any more changes. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you think they are unacceptable?" Besides WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOTLINK? We don't add external links to articles in order to "help document the information listed" We provide reliable sources to verify any information that might be contested. Wikipedia is not a venue to provide Gamelan organizations and academics a list of links, nor any other information that fails WP:NOT. If you're unfamiliar with these policies and guidelines, and disagree with my interpretation and application of them, I suggest starting a discussion on a relevant noticeboard or talk page. As is already pointed out in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani‎, Badagnani‎ does not respect these policies and guidelines despite multiple dispute resolution approaches, including WP:THIRD, WP:RSN, and RfCs. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. These were not added as spam. I added the large majority of them myself, so I was not doing it for the benefit of a single organization (though I will admit that I do belong to 3 of the organizations listed). The entire list has a single reliable third party source for the information that is listed. So what is served by removing the external links? I see it as a way to make the list less useful and less easy to maintain while adding no benefit. I've read the policies about link spam, and I don't think they apply to this article. I see this as blind adherence to policies which loose sight of the reason the policies were created. The information is verifiable and nobody is spamming. What is the problem that you think you are solving here? I just don't get it, and I've been around Wikipedia for half a decade, and an admin for several years. I don't see what Badagnani has to do with this page.

Please discuss this without throwing Wiki-abbreviations around. It is unreasonable to expect people to read pages and pages of guidelines to understand why you think they apply here. And after all, they are just guidelines and we should ignore all rules when they go against the pillars of Wikipedia. So explain to me how this list, as it is, is harmful and contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"These were not added as spam." No one said they were. However, I believe that they are best described as spam, specifically links that are promotional in nature rather than reliable, independent sources used for verification or to indicate notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use the best sources possible at all Wikipedia articles, and the removed links, which are the best available, and which serve as sources about each gamelan ensemble, should be restored promptly pending thoughtful and considered discussion. Please refrain from attacking other editors in your posts (as above, "Badagnani does not..."). If it is preferred that the sources be formatted in some other manner, please do so rather than deleting the references. Badagnani (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA. Badagnani's problems are documented in his RfC/U in detail, and are relevant to the disruptions he is causing here with this article. Hence, I bring them up. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo this edit pending thoughtful, considered discussion. All these removed references provide sources and proof of these gamelan ensembles, and are thus crucial to a properly referenced article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if you are providing references, at the very least wrap them in <ref> and </ref> tags instead of using external links on top of the name. Furthermore, while I don't consider it spam, I agree with Ronz in that they are rather... inappropriate external links for content. Some of them are just blatant advertising while others link to sites that don't seem very "professional" for Wikipedia. In addition, it seems half of the content is non-notable. Just offering an opinion here. Eugene2x►^talk 23:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are various ways of doing references, but if references are not to an individual editor's liking, that is not a good reason for eliminating all of those references prior to thoughtful, deliberate, and careful discussion. This is a list of gamelan ensembles in the United States and all of the groups listed are notable, and no editors are using Wikipedia for advertising, but simply to document the gamelan ensembles in the United States in the most thorough and encyclopedic manner possible. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess of an article/list - the links in the names are not WP:MOS and the general list like this should have refs, not embedded links in the article. Hasnt anyone seen this as an embarrassing example of what lists should not be ? SatuSuro 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Eventually, we're going to start discussing the real problems here: whether we can find some way to turn this into a maintainable list, or should it just be deleted as an article without any encyclopedic content. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic has several definitions. I see Wikipedia as a very broad source of verifiable knowledge and information. Others appear to see it as an on-line version of traditional paper encyclopedias. I think far to much useful, verifiable information is being deleted from the project, and by doing so, you are discouraging the very same community that built this wonderful resource (of which I include myself). I do not understand why. You may choose to nominate this for deletion. I've already copied it to my own privately run wiki. If it gets deleted here, I'll just add an external link to the Gamelan outside Indonesia page. What does Wikipedia gain by that course of events? It gets one less useful, verifiable page, while promoting bad will. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - further up you identified yourself as the adder of the links - all you had to do was to follow normal WP MOS and had them as refs - the links in the main text like that are not what wikipedia is about - a simple procedure of abiding by some simple rule regarding the placement of external links would really help the page SatuSuro 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format is great, and we can work together to convert references to whatever format any editor wishes (such as the "reflist" format). That's much better than blanking such references wholesale and without prior discussion, then going on to another article, and really helps to promote and foster our project's collaborative spirit. Badagnani (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I created a featured list (it was even picked as a featured list of the month) that uses external links the same way (See: List of longest suspension bridge spans). In that list, each bridge has an external reference that points to the website of the bridge -- usually the transportation agency that built the bridge. It also has links to third party sites that can be used to confirm the listings. In that case, and this case, neither is spam because there is only one possible external link that could be added to each entry. The real choice is whether to have the one external link or not for each entry. If the guideline is remove them in this case the guideline is wrong. Guidelines are descriptive, and not prescriptive. This and other lists (including the featured one already mentioned) have existed happily on this site for many years. I have yet to hear a single argument that explains what is harmful about these lists, and why they are contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. I wish those looking to remove spam focussed their efforts on pages where the "spam" is actually harmful. Again, I ask, what is harmful about this page? I'm happy to talk about reformatting it, and would not revert any attempts to do so. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's harmful? The page uses external links to promote sites, in violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. The page appears to promote non-notable subjects for unencyclopdic use, violating WP:N and WP:NOT. The links are not references, are verifying absolutely nothing in some cases, and fail WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB.

Sam has already offered to take this project of his to an off-Wikipedia venue. I think that is a good idea given all the problems here. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article and references. The above proposal has no merit. Badagnani (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merit? Does his well-thought out proposal have no merit simply because you have a grudge against him? We're all trying to be as neutral as possible here, but the comment you just posted above is absurd.

Ah well, no point criticizing his actions further as it doesn't really amount to anything but threats. I stand firm on the point that this article needs a bit of cleanup with its internal links and use references for the few parts that warrant any external linking. Eugene2x►^talk 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary removal of a great many references, without consensus, as in this edit, is not constructive, and was reverted. The references verify the existence and other details of each group, and are thus essential to the article. I am not certain how the blanking editor found this article (most likely by following my contributions, as s/he has found so many other articles I have begun over the past few weeks, which is against WP policy, and I ask in all sincerity that s/he stop doing this); your interest in improving it is highly valued, but, as with other articles, this editor has had a problem with removing huge numbers of references without first seeking consensus to do so, even after being asked by long-time editors. We either aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article on this subject or we don't (we do), and the wholesale, summary blanking of references does not assist our users in having the best article possible on this subject. Please stop. Badagnani (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you both please take your disagreements with each other somewhere else? There clearly is not consensus here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not references. If you would like to provide actual references (that are not blatantly advertising/homepage of the group), then go ahead and make them references (not external links as you are doing right now). Until then, your edits are considered to be adding spam, and quite a few admins have already commented about this issue. Eugene2x►^talk 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I strongly recommend that Badagnani read WP:BRD and WP:DRNC. You should discuss when adding dubious information, not when removing, especially when an editor is trying to have an article comply with a policy or guideline. Eugene2x►^talk 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone can stop fighting about this and try to have a reasoned discussion. There is no clear policy that addresses this. There are some guidelines that may or may not apply, and reasoned discussion is necessary to determine if they do apply here.

• First, the policies about linkspam were designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a magnet for spam, and not as a reason to remove useful links from an article or list. If each entry has only one possible link, then there is no danger of this list becoming a spam magnet. I don't think there has been any abuse caused by spammers on this page. I personally added a large marjority of the links, and I am only affiliated with three of the institutions mentioned.
• Second, Wikipedia guidelines and practices have been fairly schizophrenic when it comes to links like this. We do not have any problem with adding a link to the homepage of a corporation in the article about the corporation. If it is alright to add a single link to an article about one institution, why is it problematic to add links to all the institutions mentioned in a list. I created, and worked on bringing List of longest suspension bridge spans to featured status, and most of the bridges listed there have links to the homepages of the bridges listed. This is a useful feature of lists. There is a gray area of notability, where things that might not warrant their own article would never-the-less be included on a comprehensive list. If each of these gamelan organizations had their own article, there would be no problem with having each article linked to their homepages. Why is it a problem if they are collected here?
• Third, I find it objectionable to liberally apply a guideline to delete useful, verifiable information simply by using the rationale of pointing to a Wikipedia guideline. My reading of those guidelines lead to a different conclusion. I also object to the use of essays to justify a deletion. Wikipedia will fail if guidelines get codified into laws that are inflexibly applied. I have yet to see any discussion on this talk page that explains how the links on this list are damaging to the pillars of Wikipedia. Short of that, I will continue to object to their deletion.
• Fourth, if there is some way that these links could remain as references, perhaps we could all be happy? If so, please don't delete them, but instead, reformat them.
• Fifth, I think this battle is being fought mostly by people who have never been on this page before and have no interest in the subject. Please settle your battles elsewhere. This page, (and others like it) has lived happily on Wikipedia for several years, was linked to by WP:DYK without an objection.
• Sixth, This page is a resource for the entire academic Gamelan community. I don't see how it is helps anyone by removing the links. It doesn't help Wikipedia and it makes the page less useful, less verifiable and harder to maintain. It is also alienating to people (like me) who have put a great deal of work into Wikipedia.

-- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the above reasoned and thoughtful discussion. We do aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article possible, and the references do verify the existence of the various gamelan ensembles, their current directors, the Indonesian names of the ensembles, the date the ensemble was established, the particular type of gamelan, etc. Badagnani (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what has been admitted here is that this article is a directory. In that case, it should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]