Talk:Dividing the Light

"See also" ext link - legitimate article source arbitrarily removed
I have to take exception to Sdkb's arbitrary removal of the official source I added, Public Art in Public Place's data on the public artwork Skyspace: Dividing the Light. Sdkb provides no justification for this removal and merely claims they think just it is not official. Sdkb seems to think that an in-text reference can't also be an External Reference in a list, which it of course can. This source is a) official, as a non-profit online database containing free and accessible archival data on thousands of public artworks; it is informative and factual, containing technical, descriptive, visual data that is relevant to the subject (but too detailed for the article). These W:EL criteria are more than satisfied, thus I argue this external link to an official source should remain. TashaB 21:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for opening the talk page discussion. Since you are the major contributor to Public Art in Public Places (which is currently tagged for notability concerns), if you are affiliated with that organization, please be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. Regarding the external link's applicability here, it is not official in the sense that it is not affiliated with the work itself, unlike the Turrell page or the Pomona page. It's more akin to the Google Art Project, and while I appreciate the page PAPP has put together, I don't think it has any substantial pieces of information beyond what should be at this page itself. Thus my preference for it to be used as a reference but not an external link. If you still disagree, you may wish to ask for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you again reinstated your edit just before I hit publish on my reply above, your third attempt to alter the status quo in the past few days. Per WP:BRD, please self-revert yourself until consensus is established here to add the link. Edit warring will not help you to introduce the link, but it will likely result in a block if you continue. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and thank you for your opinion. I am very concerned with your repeated reversions and believe you may be creating an unfair EDIT WAR to preserve an article you are over-invested in (i.e., wrote) and may feel you "own".  I would like to caution you against asserting only your opinion to justify removing an external link to a legitimate source. [N.B.: I strictly follow W:COI & am not "affiliated" with this non-profit public art organization, but its public-spirited mission is exemplary and highly useful to WP.]
 * Since you do not dispute the WP:EL criteria that I already presented as satisfied, and you give only your personal opinion (not the Wikipedia way), this EL remains until consensus to the contrary. THIS is the Wikipedia way. If you "revert" a 3rd time to remove it, you may be flagged against such.
 * Respectfully, TashaB 23:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)

3O Response: If this link is already used as a reference, use as an EL also is unneeded and rather borders on linkspam. Also, there seems to be a misconception here: If one makes a change to an article, and it is objected to, the status quo ante should remain in place unless consensus is developed in favor of the change. In this instance, the status quo is the link not being included as an EL, so it should remain out during any such discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * [[WP:EL] To Seraphimblade et al.: Please review the specific WP:EL section "References and Citations".  This section explains a valid exception: "websites that can be both references and external links", which this website clearly serves as: 1) this website serves as BOTH an in-text reference (support for a specific point or claim) and 2) this website also serves as an official source external link "specifically devoted to the topic" [per WP], which includes additional relevant detail [per WP] (technical data: dimensions, images, etc.) that "are too detailed for the article" [per WP:EL Reference and Citations]. The external link thus qualifies under this WP:EL exception and is a legitimate and relevant enhancement/contribution to this article.  I take exception to the "spam" claim above.  The external link should remain.  Respectfully, TashaB 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)