Talk:Folding-book manuscript

Latest comment: 24 days ago by Danial Bass in topic Nothing wrong with including single-objects

Nothing wrong with including single-objects

edit

Hi @Paul 012, I respectully disagree with your stance. Including one object shouldnt be 'against the spirit' of WP:EL. Looking at WP:ELYES it says in number 2:

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.

I see the above as exactly what I am doing, I am taking an example of the object of the article in a site "hosting a legally distributed copy of the work". Really, what is against the spirit? (But yes, I agree with not including the palm-leaf manuscript.)

Anyway, I find this to be quite subjective, I don't really see what your saying as wrong, in fact I understand your point of view (including more objects would be better). But what I also think is that there is no objective answer to this question and I feel what I include is not objectively against the spirit of WP:EL. We may include it or we may not, who really gets to decide? Danial Bass (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's subjective. That point you quoted only means that those links would be appropriate in Wikipedia articles about those specific works, if they existed. But adding them to this article is like adding a link to a work of Shakespeare to the Book article. See WP:ELNO #13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject... --Paul_012 (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well it says "usually", in my opinion I still think its subjective. But its okay, I thought it was interesting to include it, but its not worth the trouble of a back-and-forth. Thanks for the input Danial Bass (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply