User talk:Zentek

Re: DharmaFlix.com
Please understand, you are not the first person to use Wikipedia to offer free content through a site, nor will you be the last. Your site, and others, are not spam in the commercial sense, but there is a vested interest in creating traffic for these sites. A very strong rule of thumb that a certain site is being solicited (at least among film articles, my area of expertise) is when they exist across multiple articles. Some editors, including myself, purge the articles of these links for that reason. External links are supposed to provide supplementary content; however, they need to be judged on a case-by-case basis for inclusion (not exclusion) if a link does not appear to be of great prominence. Many people offer fan sites and personal reviews on Wikipedia, but this is not always appropriate. Wikipedia is not a link farm. In regard to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, it is the general consensus of WikiProject Films that these links are appropriate to include (see WikiProject Films/Style guidelines). These sites respectively include cast/crew information and aggregated film reviews -- they meet the supplementary standards of external links.

In addition, at External links, DharmaFlix.com appears to violate #3 (since there is an interest in making it more prominent through Wikipedia) and #12. The pages at DharmaFlix.com also violate the rich media standard of an external link, with several types of embedded rich media that pop up. Lastly, as an owner of the site who is interested in including it on Wikipedia, your petition constitutes a conflict of interest. If you are interested in having your site available to Wikipedia readers and do not believe my judgment to be accurate, I would suggest initiating a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to see how editors of film articles perceive your site as an external link. I hope this answers your questions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The listing of accepted sites at the link I provided were not decided by me, but by other film editors in the past. In addition, they are more prominent than DharmaFlix.com -- see results for All Movie Guide and Metacritic.  These are the results for DharmaFlix.com.  In addition, I have pointed out #12 on "Links normally to be avoided", which mentions open wikis.  You've said yourself that you want to encourage users to write reviews themselves for your site, so the site appears to match #12.  Also, I mentioned that the site seemed to be promoted through Wikipedia because the search results reflected very little presence anywhere else on the Internet.  That's why the "staple links" like AMG and Metacritic are easily accepted -- they have presence.  When it comes to external links on Wikipedia articles, often abused, a case must be made for its inclusion, not for its exclusion.  The rich media argument was not a primary argument of mine, though going to a page like the one for The Matrix seemed to pop up YouTube clips and activate PDF plug-ins without forewarning.  I would suggest going to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, make your proposal, link to both sections of both talk pages, and see what other film editors have to say.  Lastly, please consider that external links are kept to a minimum and expanded on a case-by-case basis to avoid "They have this site listed and mine is similar, why can't I list mine?" arguments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)