Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

List of webcomic awards

Would like some opinions on the external link use in this article. The links to the individual websites seem pretty excessive since (1) many of the entries have their own stand-alone articles where the links are (or should) be added instead and (2) it sort has a WP:NOTLINKFARM or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, especially since many of the entries are supported by citations. I was under the impression this type of external links use was not allowed in lists/tables, because it's essentially seems to serve the same purpose as an embedded external link even though it's technically not formatted as such. The links aren't really intended to be WP:INCITEs, but function sort of like a quasi-WP:ECITE, which is a citation style which has been deprecated. Anyway, after looking at WP:ELLIST, it appears that things might not be so clear since it does now give an example of some "official links" being used in tables; it's not clear (at least not to me), however, whether the example given is referring to links used more for citation purposes (just as ECITES) than simply links to the each entry's official website. The last part of ELLIST appears to have been recently added per Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39#List and table formatting, but I'm wondering whether this is what they had in mind when making that change. Pinging WhatamIdoing, MilborneOne, Beetstra, and Walter Görlitz (in no particular order) since they participated in the WT:EL discussion and may be able to clarify how or if it applies to this particular article. Just for reference, I'm not advocating that the recent addition be removed per se; just would like to know how it applies to this particular article. In addition, whether it now means that the removal of such links (prior to the revision of ELLIST) from other articles should be revisited and reassessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that including the names of the websites is allowable in that article, because the subject of the article is the web content.
It's not an embedded external link in the sense intended by that footnote. What's present is something like this:
2008 | Girl Genius | Phil Foglio and Kaja Foglio | girlgenius.net | [1]
That's probably okay (although this particular webcomic seems to be located at http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/ these days), given that the whole point of the list is to talk about the web content. It is somewhat more typical (but not required) to simply link the website like [1]; this might be because it takes up less space. However, I notice that about nine of the domain names are linked to the Internet Archives, and that several others aren't linked because the website is offline. That suggests that the domain name might serve as identifying information rather than purely to get people to the web content.
I don't think that it is necessary to systematically re-visit previous decisions, unless you particularly want to WP:VOLUNTEER to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It's an odd situation. The reference should really be the place where the link to the site should exist, but since the table is about the awarded site, it makes some sense to offer a direct link to that site. The guideline focuses primarily on the EL section, not links like this. In-line links would be unacceptable in prose ("[https://www.xkcd.com/ XKCD] is the most-awarded web Weblog") but in the table, appears to be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that this is actually quite a good list. If now ALL of the webcomics had an article (and why would they not?) then one could argue that the link is unneeded (it will be in the article), but even then, the list focusses on the subject (first column), not on the EL. Even if this was not webcontent this would not trigger my cruft-radar. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took a look. I'm not sure if I totally agree with some of the things posted and I don't really think there's much difference between https://www.example.com, [2] and Example.com when it comes to WP:ELLIST (before the recent addition about official links), WP:EL#cite_note-7 or WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, at least not in the spirit of what they seem(ed) to be trying to avoid. A list article or embedded list is primarily supposed to only include entries which are Wikipedia notable in their own right (i.e. have their own stand-alone articles), and it seems that it's in the "External links" section of such articles where links like these should be found, at least in my opinion. Maybe this is an exceptional case, but permitting this type of usage overall seems to be just an invitation for link spam or other problems, but perhaps that an overly pessimistic assessment of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, things do not have to be notable in their own right per sé, but "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence" (WP:LSC). For these lists, references are there for items that are not notable by themselves (you can show that they received an award), and in this case, removing those items that are not notable in themselves would make the list incomplete. Here there is no reason for spam - you cannot just add your own random webcomic to the list as you would fail the award-criterion. For a list of random subjects ('pieces of software that do X') the criteria for inclusion should be indeed more stringent, and there having the links certainly is an invitation to spam your own.
I see some point in removing the external link column, but as many of them do not have an article then that information would get lost. If by far most would be having their own articles, then that column becomes more obsolete as they are in the own article. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point about LSC which is why I used the word "primarily" in my post. I also understand the concerns about creating an incomplete list by removing some items, and wasn't really suggesting that. There just seems ot be quite a bit of redundancy in that some of the links used as citations in the article also seem to contain links to the same official websites given for the individual comic; for example, it looks like all of the citations for the entries in List of webcomic awards#Ursa Major Awards (such as List of webcomic awards#cite_note-87 through List of webcomic awards#cite_note-102) lead to pages which contain links to the comic's official website and removing the external link from the table is really more of a loss of convenience than encyclopedic information. In addition, in many sections, there are comics which have received same award multiple times (one comic apparently won the same award nine years in a row and has the same external link given nine times). It's also odd that multiple Wikilinks to the same stand-alone articles aren't really considered OK per WP:OVERLINK for comics listed more than once, but multiple external links are OK. Of course, there might be ways to mitigate some of these things by spanning/combining columns or rows of the tables, but that might not resolve all cases when there are gaps between multiple listings. I think one of the problems of allowing this type of external link use is that lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy. This is something often seen in lists/tables where there is a column for images, and seems to be the case when there is a column for websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, if "lots of editors are going to want to add content", then we should rejoice. We need more editors.
I think that your understanding of embedded lists is not quite right. They are not "primarily" used for notable objects. They are primarily used for short lists within larger articles. Look at the embedded lists in Featured Articles such as Schizophrenia#Subtypes, Coeliac disease#Malabsorption-related, Chagas disease#Prevention, and Acute myeloid leukemia#World Health Organization. None of those bulleted lists are lists of notable objects. Embedded lists of non-notable publications are typical for academics, such as Golding Bird#Journal articles or Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.#Selected list of works. It's really only lists of people and consumer products (i.e., lists with high potential for spam and self-promotion) that follow the "notable" or "blue link" standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Please don't cherry pick or misquote me, I posted lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing [so] complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy which is about adding certain content in certain ways; I didn't say or imply there was anything wrong about editors adding content to articles in a general context. In addition, my use of the word "primarily" was not just related to embedded lists, but was also used in reference to SALs; if that was unclear, then my apologies. Even in an embeded list, however, the "most basic" common selection criterion seems to be that the individual entries have their own stand-alone article; of course, this doesn't mean every entry needs to have a stand-alone article, but it's a good place to start assessing whether something should be mentioned.
I was never advocating that any of the individual entries from this article be removed; if that's wasn't clear from my previous posts, then again my apologies for the confusion. I was only asking whether the column for website links was really something warranted because most of the entries do have stand-alone articles where the same links can be found in their respective EL sections and because there seems to be quite a bit of redundancy both with respect to the some of the same links be available in the citations cited in support as well as the same links being listed multiple times when the same entry is listed multiple times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add the word "not" (underlined to indicate where) since it affects the meaning of the sentence. -- 05:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)]
I'd certainly remove the "Website" column.
The article needs clear inclusion criteria. We should not be assuming that all awards are noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, you're still quoting Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists to make claims about what belongs in a list that is not a stand-alone list. CSC does not apply to embedded lists.
Yes, I know that your comment about attracting editors was meant to imply that their edits wouldn't be as valuable as experienced editors'. Well, I screwed up some of my early edits, and I'll bet that every regular contributor to this noticeboard did so as well. That's okay. We need new editors, even if the only thing they want to do is to add a picture to a list. They can learn the details about exactly when it's useful to add those pictures later, just like the rest of us did.
User:Ronz, that page specifies the inclusion criteria in the lead. Awards are eligible for inclusion in the list if the award is Wikipedia:Notable and it is an award "specifically for webcomics, or which focus mainly on webcomics". Writing it out like this, in reader-friendly prose and without self-references, is considered the best practice.
Other lists post their selection criteria on the talk page in a blunter, less elegant way. If these editors had decided to do that, it would probably say something like "Do not add any award to this page unless the award itself (not just the winner) qualifies for a separate article on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Notability (awards) rules AND the award is primarily about webcomics (not just happens to have given the award to a webcomic once or occasionally). Red-linked notable awards are okay, but please consider creating at least a stub as soon as possible." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the criteria in the first sentence. I noticed what are apparently non-notable awards and expected inclusion criteria to be spelled out in the last sentence before the list. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I'm not sure what you mean by Yes, I know that your comment about attracting editors was meant to imply that their edits wouldn't be as valuable as experienced editors'., but that's neither what I posted nor what I meant; so, once again please stop trying to misquote or incorrectly attribute something to me. My comment was once again lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing [so] complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy, which is my opinion based upon things I've observed as an a editor. I made no mention of new vs. experienced editors, or attracting vs. driving away editors; so, I'm not sure why you seem to be keep trying to turn (spin?) my comment into something it isn't. FWIW, I'm all for WP:WER and do all I can to try and help and encourage it. My comment was only intended to mean lots of people (editors) don't seem to like empty fields in a table and when they see one they try to fill it regardless of whether doing so is in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines. This doesn't mean (or isn't intended to mean) that I automatically think they're doing so to be disruptive and need to be stopped at all costs; the table seems "incomplete" to them and they most likely see "completing" it as an improvement: they might just be unaware of the relevant policy and deadline. The question (at least to me) is really whether there should be such a column (for example,a column such as "websites" ) in the first place, at least in this article. If the only argument for doing so is that it might attract people to edit and encourage to stay, then that doesn't seem (at least to me) to be a very good reason.
As for the CSC, let me try to clarify. What we are discussing here is a WP:SAL and the very first sentence of WP:SAL states "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." This article is essentially a list of smaller lists combined together (i.e. "embedded") into to one big list (i.e. a "SAL"); so, if the there are CSC for the one big list, there are also CSC for each of the smaller lists. These CSC don't necessarily need to be the same which is why I posted of course, this doesn't mean every entry needs to have a stand-alone article, but it's a good place to start assessing whether something should be mentioned as clarification to Even in an embeded list, however, the "most basic" common selection criterion seems to be that the individual entries have their own stand-alone article, and once again I'm not advocating for the removal or any individual sections or individual entries of sections be removed. My use of the term "embedded lists" may be confusing in that I'm not referring to type of embedded lists given as an example in WP:EMBED, but rather mini-lists (formatted like mini-SALs) like the ones "embedded" into this particular article. My question only has to do with whether a column of external links to official website is really appropriate given there does appear to be quite a bit of redundancy in that the some links are listed multiple times throughout the article, are also provided in sources cited in support of some entries, or are listed in the stand-alone articles for individual entries (when such articles exist) or other related articles. Perhaps the example I gave above about citations 87 to 102 was unclear so I'll try to give some more specific ones.
Example 1: In List of webcomic awards#Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, the webcomic The Perry Bible Fellowship won the award for 2007. The external link provided for the webcomic can also be found in its stand-alone article, which makes it seem somewhat redundant to me. The Perry Bible Fellowship also won the same award for 2008; the article isn't wikilinked (most likely due to WP:OVERLINK), but the same external link to the website is listed, which now seems more redundant. The same comic also won the List of webcomic awards#Harvey Awards and the List of webcomic awards#Ignatz Awards for 2007 and 2008 and the links to it's official website are provided each time; so, that's the same external link being provided six times when it can be found in the external link section of its stand-alone article. Similar examples of this are the entries for American Elf, Battlepug, Hark! A Vagrant, PvP, but there are a few more as well which have won multiple awards and are listed multiple times.
Example 2: The entries for Bandette in List of webcomic awards#Eisner Award; one links wikilinks to ComiXology, but the other contains the same wikilink and an external link to ComiXology's website (a subpage on the website).
Example 3: The entries in List of webcomic awards#Ursa Major Awards; each entry has an external link provided (the same link is provided nine times for Housepets!), but the same external links are also provided in the citations for each entry (e.g. the citation for Housepets! in 2009 is ursamajorawards.org/UMA_2009.htm).
Example 4: Most of the sections of the "List of webcomic awards" contain hat notes to other related articles or sections of articles. Some of the target pages/sections of these hat notes show external links being used in a similar manner; for example, List of Harvey Award winners#Best Online Comics Work seems to be contrary to WP:ELLIST and the external links seem to be embedded, at least in my opinion. This seems once again a kind of redundancy since the same external links given the entries in "List of webcomic awards#Harvey Awards" can also be found in the hat note articles.
All of these things seem redundant to me and something which should be discussed and not just automatically assumed to be OK. Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, but my main concerns are the redundancy of many of the external links within the list article itself and across multiple articles and it would help clarify things for me if someone could address that redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think ELLIST needs to be readdressed. External links in lists should at least be strongly discouraged.
If the "Websites" column were removed, what redundancies remain?--Ronz (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz: I waited a bit to see if someone else would respond to your post, but nobody has. I think removing the column would eliminate all redundancy, at least that which is related to external links. The MOS tells us to try and avoid WP:OVERLINK as much as possible with respect to internal links, and that seems to be what's been done in throughout that article. It seems logical (at least to me) that we should try and do the same with respect to external links.
A webcomic which has won the same award multiple years in a row doesn't need to have the same external link added for each entry, particularly when it has its own stand-alone article where the same link can be found (and is only given once) and when the comic is only Wikilinked once in the relevant section about the award. Similarly, if the citation supporting an entry contains the same EL found in the table, then that EL seems unnecessary. So, if the consensus is that removing the entire column is not the thing to do, then perhaps selectively trying to minimize the external links is a better approach. Rows of tables can be "spanned" to cover multiple redundant entries which means an EL given multiple times in the same table might only really need to be given once. Likewise, columns for a particular table can be removed or "spanned" to cover both "website" and "references" when there's redundancy between the two. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. I'm tending toward remove the column, and see what happens.
Again, I think ELLIST needs to be readdressed. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a clear copyright violation to me - a CBS News segment uploaded by a random LiveLeak user with no evidence of permission. I removed it but it has been reverted by two IPs. Guy (help!) 19:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. Seems like this shouldn’t be added per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. The news report may, however, be a RS in some context since CBS News as a source seems quite reliable in most cases, but it can be cited without providing a link to it per WP:SAYWHERE. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, as a source, CBS would be fine and would not require a link. This is an EL only so unless we can find a clean upload of the original CBS content it can't be used. Guy (help!) 10:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy, do copyvios seem typical for that site? If so, then the whole site needs to go off to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, See WP:RSN#LiveLeak. Yes, it's common. Guy (help!) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

railfan.net personal websites

Preface: http://railfan.net/ is like Wix or FreeWebs of rail fan personal page where each site owner has full and total control of contents just as any personal sites.

On the article ALCO PA, I removed the two external links:

Discussion consulted: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Best_Student_Council

Another editor reinserted the site arguing "you've been told that you don't understand ELNO".

My reasoning that these sites should not be there: ELNO #11 which disallows most fan sites. I don't see how these sites are different from "most sites" to be exceptions. Anyone can present themselves as an expert. The captions and descriptions in the photo could be completely full of wrong and I don't see any basis to simply classify fancruft sites as "useful" or "knowledgeable". While doesn't require the sources to adhere to WP:RS standards, it also discourages fan sites and in my opinion these sites are fancruft that are of limited interest and we can't necessarily assume people that posts train pictures and writes caption are "knowledgeable sources." and allowing this creates a milestone inserting whatever fan personal websites into Wikipedia.

I consider these fancruft, because these are sites of unknown accuracy and knowledgeableness and in my opinion, are of interest to fans only.

Am I understanding ELNO incorrectly? Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:, Would you happen to have links to archive discussions condoning personal websites and fan sites in external links indicating #11 has turned obsolete? That would be most helpful. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that #11 is obsolete. Everyone is saying that Graywalls misreads it, possibly forgetting that the N in ELNO stands for "normally" and that saying "most fansites" is not equivalent to saying "all sites that anybody declares to be a fansite." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange:, appreciate your prompt response. So, hence my statement: "I don't see how these sites are different from "most sites" to be exceptions". What makes contents "Hi, I'm Rolf Stumpf, an Alcophile from Germany. Enjoy my worldwide compilation of ALCos, MLWs and licensee ALCo power. Welcome, ALCo addict no. since June, 3rd 1996. Established January 1996." hosted on railfan.net which is equivalent of rail fan catered Wix/Weebly/Freewebs different from "most" fan sites? Some dude shows pictures of things they like, writes caption, talk about it. Written by and for fans. Isn't that by definition what defines "fan sites" for the most part? I think so. Accuracy? who knows. I honestly don't see how this is or NKP190 source is OTHER THAN typical fandom sites. Could you explain why these are DIFFERENT?, Thank you Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You're here looking for a general rule against specific sites, or maybe a whole category of sites, on the basis of ELNO #11. Multiple people are telling you that ELNO doesn't work that way. Is that an endorsement of a specific site in a specific article? Not necessarily. My concern is that you think the reverse: if I remove this site from this article, then that's carte blanche to remove it and semi-related sites from other articles (again, despite the fact that you've had very specific pushback here and elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Some scattered answers:
  • What's the difference between a railfan site and "most" fan sites? Well, for one thing, it's not about BLPs or pop culture. (Most fan sites are.)
  • How are you supposed to know whether it's accurate? Well, if you don't, then leave it to someone who does. You can probably find them at a relevant WikiProject. Or just switch a subject area that you know more about in general.
  • What's ELNO stand for? "External links – no". There is a series on the page that runs ELYES, ELMAYBE, ELNO, and ELNEVER. But HouseOfChange is correct that the word "normally" is highly relevant. We usually say that "ELNO isn't ELNEVER". The shortcuts are handy, but they're not the guidelines. If we needed to make them accurate, we'd have to rename them to ELYES to "ELPROBABLY" and ELNO to "ELNOTUSUALLY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for my mistake, and thanks to WhatamIdoing for setting me right. What I should have said is that WP:ELNO links directly to a section whose title is "Links normally to be avoided" (emphasis mine.) HouseOfChange (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to a video on how to tie a knot

There is a discussion at Talk:Surgeon's knot#You-tube videos about the appropriateness of linking in the External links section to a German language You-tube video showing how to tie a surgeon's knot. Other opinions would be welcome. - Donald Albury 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?

Hello! I would like to ask if the Forgotten Realms Wiki would count as an exception to the rule no. 12 of WP:ELNO of not using external links to open wikis except...

The Forgotten Realms Wiki has been alive and kicking since 2005, has 30,000+ articles, a number of active users and a steadily high acitivity, being currently rank no. 89 at Wikia with a WAM score of 97.05 (whatever that means). In my biased opinion as a contributor the average quality of article is also relatively high.

As further background why I think having that link(s) at appropriate page(s) would be good: Recently a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles have been deleted on the grounds that their content belongs to fandom wikis rather than Wikipedia. I assume some reader come to Wikipedia with the same naive notion then me, that you can more or less find all knowledge here. For these people, being pointed to where that content is, that does not actually fit in here, would be helpful. The Forgotten Realms Wiki is by far the largest and most successful wiki dealing with D&D Canon. Thank you very much for your input! Daranios (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Daranios, this wiki probably does not have enough active users (=people who made an edit during the last 30 days) to meet the usual standard for an exception. About 60 registered editors made an edit there during the last month. We are usually looking for something more like 100 or even 150. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should definitely be included as an external link. First of all, the guidelines listed here, are just guidelines. They are not definitive or literal rules of absolutism. They can all be discussed, debated and weighed, depending on each case. And in this case, the Fandom Wiki should be kept for several good reasons.
The guideline referred to says this:
Links normally to be avoided
12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
Forgotten Realms Fandom is indeed stable. The term "substantial" can be debated. Mainly because it would be relative and depend on the subject at hand. "Forgotten Realms" as such is not the most popular or broadly known subject, its quite nerdy, and it is rather specific too. Considering that, 60 active editors would be considered quite high. For these reason guideline 12 does not disqualify this Fandom.
Apart from discussing this guideline 12, there are a bunch of good reasons to keep the Fandom Wiki. Daranios mentioned some, but maybe the most important reason is that Fandom was launched by Wikia in 2016 as specific fan-driven wikis for pop-culture. Wikia is an off-spring of Wikipedia, and as such it is fair to consider Fandom wikis as highly relevant for Wikipedias articles on pop-culture. Especially Fandom wikis which are substantial, well maintained, has a high number of visitors, are stable and actively edited. RhinoMind (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikia is not an offspring of Wikipedia, it's a separate entity. Wikia/Fandom wikis do not and should not get special consideration compared to other wikis. Additionally there is no relativity written into the guideline - a wiki on a specific "nerdy" topic is treated the same as a wiki on a more "popular" topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I see, but is the "substantial number of editors" strictly defined as "at least 100"? With all due respect for Nikkimaria and WhatamIdoing, I still am convinced that having the link at least would be useful for the readers of Wikipedia (which should be the main goal), because it is a valuable resource for people interested in the topic of "Forgotten Realms" and perfectly complementary to the topic's treatment at Wikipedia. (Forgotten Realms Wiki has the same emphasis on correct sourcing - albeit with primary sources - and covers everything that goes beyond Wikipedia's notability scope.) Or should this discussion be shifted back to the Forgotten Realms talk page to achieve an individual rather than a global decision if such a link may be benefical to have? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Wikia is an offspring to Wikipedia. And Fandom was created with the purpose of porting pop-culture stuff there. Please read up on this. I have wiki-linked in my comment, although the Wikipedia article is rather poorly written and lacks some information, it might serve as a starting point at least. Also "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is as relative as any guideline can get.
This issue concerns all use of Fandom wikis and I think it is relevant to find a way of how to deal with Fandom Wikis in general here on Wikipedia. If no consensus has been reached on that subject already, that is. RhinoMind (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Our way of dealing with open wikis, including Fandom wikis, is the guideline you've quoted. We don't give Wikia/Fandom wikis any special consideration in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is correct. The point of requiring a substantial number of editors is to reduce the likelihood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. The same "substantial number" is required for every open wiki, regardless of subject or popularity.
Daranios, "substantial number of editors" has not been strictly defined as a single number. (If it had been, I'd have just put that number in the guideline and saved you the trouble of asking.) The usual rule of thumb is that anything with more editors than Memory Alpha is okay. Sites that are a little smaller can be discussed. Sites that are significantly smaller are removed.
As for the "local consensus" idea... the fact is that the ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere. If nobody at that article is complaining, then you're unlikely to run into problems. However, there are some editors whose favorite kind of work is "weeding link farms", and if one of them sees it, they may object. As always, whenever a link is disputed, WP:ELBURDEN applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the enlightenment, I was wondering about the rationale behind the "significant number of editors". I would argue in this case that the 15 years of history, and the effective acitivity of the admins shown in that time, means a very small likelyhood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. So in conclusion I feel strongly enough to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations, and already apologize for taking up some of your time at a third place. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: I am among the editors WhatamIdoing mentioned "ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere." and my "work is "weeding link farms". I have been working in "External links" almost as long as I have been an editor. If links have grown excessively (my range is generally more than 4) I will look at trimming. I would not be considered a "fan" of open Wikis but certainly if the list needs trimming the relevance of importance would have to be weighed against the others in the list. I usually leave a talk page message and see if local editors will trim. If not I have been known to do so per policies and guidelines. I haven't used Wiki links as a reason that I am aware of. I have no idea the history of ELNO #12 but like with all other reasoning I don't agree that any WP:SILENCE is justification giving a blanket exception such as "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". If I ran across this during trimming I might have to consider if the site is just being advertised on Wikipedia. This might include if the editor that added the link is also an editor there. A site can have 100 editors but the particular link provided could be by the adding editor so maybe WP:OR and could be seen as a way of advancing that information on Wikipedia in an unconventional way. That is normally too deep for what I do (culling link farms) so hasn't come up, I am just giving my points of view.
I will state that I do NOT find it disrupting for an editor to continue examining things. I would have a problem with any "precedent where niche/special interest group first publishes things they want to have on Wikipedia, then citing that web source to circumvent no original research policy.". It is just as important as "to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations", as that is not only how Wikipedia evolves it is also how those that perform maintenance can operate. This is what I do a lot of so if I run across an article an editor here is involved with, and there are too many "External links", we may have a discussion about trimming. If your "Wiki" is among them then just cut some of the others and I will likely leave it at that. Some may choose to dig a little deeper and it should not be considered "disruptive" as I am sure all are aware that consensus can change even on things with a long history. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Internet Archive#Links to in-copyright books hosted on archive.org for details. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Percy Grainger

I left comments at Talk:Percy Grainger#External links (a featured article) concerning a review because eight "External links" could be considered link farming. Local consensus is that not only was eight acceptable but one was missed so added making nine. If some would be so kind as to take a look at this from a more broad Wikipedia perspective and policy, especially since it is a featured article that could end up demoted on a review, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: Linkfarming is not a specific number, and a local consensus would not necessarily trump the local policies and guidelines about what is acceptable. Some articles are not linkfarming with 25 links, others are linkfarming with 3.
Looking at the article:
  • I believe that the two societies are both not directly linked to the subject of the article: they are the websites of the societies not of the subject. Moreover, only one has a fleeting mention in the article itself. If those societies are of importance, then they should at least have a significant mention in the article itself.
  • Then there is "Country Gardens": Performance by Grainger on pianola, 1919 which is completely cherry-picked, why this one work.
  • The museum is indirect as well, that is covered by Grainger Museum.
This is plain old linkfarming. I suggest to re-start the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Eight is more than average, but not necessarily unreasonable. I notice that the last one is a link to search results, which is not generally considered an appropriate type of link (as documented at WP:ELNO#EL9) ...except that we do want to link to lists of works by an author, which I suppose could sometimes be done via a search tool. If the results are useful/usable, I'd probably keep it; if it's hit-or-miss, I'd kill it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions linking Europeana and en:Wikipedia

please comment see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editor_consensus_regarding_Europeana_and_Wikidata_Property_7704 - Salgo60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fraternity website; Fraternity FB; Fraternity Instagram

For a Greek Letter Organization (social/professional/honorary), I often see National Website, National Facebook page and National Instagram as the External Links:

  1. ) Should the FB and Instagram links be there?
  2. ) What other EL are reasonable? the only ones that jumps to mind is a location for an archive of the fraternity magazine/journal and if the alumni have a separate nationwide website.Naraht (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This sounds related to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL in which generally only one "official link" is given for an organization, particularly if links to an organization's other "official websites" can be easily found on its primary website. There may be exceptions to this, but generally one is considered to be sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Naraht: I would drastically clear those out. There should, indeed per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, be only one official website with very very few exceptions. That should then probably be their main outlet, which could be their facebook or twitter (but not both, and certainly not all of them). Some do have an official website themselves ('<subject>.com', as practically every reasonable organisation has). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Meeting

As a meeting of one of the senior international parliamentary bodies, the relevance of this Security Council meeting to the article on the Douma chemical attack is self-evident. It is thus far the only Security Council meeting from the UN with specific bearing on the subject, rather than the more general subject of Syrian government chemical disarmament. Furthermore, the meeting is mentioned in the article itself.

The meeting includes representations made from multiple member states, including all permanent members of the Security Council (despite there being no obligation on member states to attend), and is the only meeting with specific reference to the subject thus far available. In my view it passes WP:ELYES to "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" but that cannot be integrated due to the amount of detail and format of the content.

The suggestion has been made, per WP:ELNO, that a link to the United Nations' own video record of this meeting "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material" and that it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" if it were featured.

The relevance of these guideline points is tenuous at best. On the second point, the meeting extends over three hours, and includes representations by all permanent members of the security council. The notion that the content of those representations could or should be included in the text of the article, and therefore the video should not be, does not seem sensible. On the first point, the inclusion of the video is as a record of the views of member states, and the idea that it does not accurately portray those views is far-fetched to say the least, and is suggestive of a rather crass attempt at censorship. Views please. Cambial Yellowing❧ 12:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is imperialist propaganda. More seriously, if a source is covered in references don't put it in an EL. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's centralize the question of whether a video of a UN meeting about this event should be linked in the article at Talk:Douma chemical attack#External Links - page blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Denomination-specific link on general Bible history page

Regarding Development of the Christian biblical canon External Links section:

Is it really necessary or appropriate to include a link to one extremely small (less than 500,000 members) sect of one particular Christian denomination for its "perspective" on the article's subject? The criteria for normally permissible links reads in part "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject[...]" -- linked article is definitely not neutral or encyclopedic in nature.

External link in question: WELS Topical Q&A: Canon - 66 Books in the Bible, by Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Confessional Lutheran perspective)

rothko (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Rothko999

External links are never necessary in any article. Is this link appropriate in this case? Probably.
What exactly in that link do you disagree with? (I'm assuming that "definitely not neutral" means that you don't agree with something in it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, it's sorta like if a page on the US Constitution included an external link to a site detailing a fringe political party's perspective on how the Constitution was written, who wrote it, etc. Not necessary to a basic understanding of the concept. rothko (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)rothko999
rothko, can you quote for me a specific example from that page that you think is representative of a fringe position? This website belongs to a Lutheran organization, and I don't think I've ever heard someone say that the Lutherans are a fringe group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was removing: Accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net and palikanon.com from some Wikipedia articles where they have been spammed unncessarily. But I got reverted by Farang Rak Tham who appears to have went as far as misrepresenting one of these spam links to be scholarly.[3]

Accesstoinsight.org is not a reliable source per the admission of the website creator himself, who says that "Some biases, however, inevitably intrude, owing to the editorial choices I've made and to the summaries and short introductory essays that I've written here and there to give some context to the material being presented."[4]

Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources and have been spammed. Instead of naming unreliable sources as "scholarly" one would need to read the definition of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which first requires a scholarly publication since scholarly publishers are better at fact-checking than the WP:SELFPUB websites that have admitted to having hosted errors. Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts. Neither these websites contained what would be helpful for the readers. If preserving 'translations' is the aim then nonetheless, Wikipedia is not WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Generally a source which is not WP:RS should not be spammed across other articles. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of numbering the points you mention:
  1. I did not misrepresent the sources. See point 3 below.
  2. That link does not appear not be part of the original website accesstoinsight.org. Please post a correct, direct page with the content quoted. Even if that quote does originally come from accesstoinsight.org, Access to Insight is a collection of books and articles about Buddhism from different authors and publishers, which need to be considered for reliability on a case-per-case basis. Per comparison, just because a library is not in a university campus, doesn't mean the books in it aren't scholarly.
  3. Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources Please provide an explanation why you think that is the case. Palikanon.com, for example, hosts translations by Karl Eugen Neumann and a full version of the Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names by G P Malalasekera, both of which are examples of notable and widely recognized scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I did not add the external links in question, but I am a concerned fellow editor who believes deletion of these non-commercial translations is unwarranted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What matters is the statement of the accesstoinsight.org's owner. He agrees that the source is faulty. How it can be deemed WP:RS, let alone scholarly? I have explained other sources BTW, I would note that you notified Buddhist noticeboard about this discussion. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No, the owner does not say that his website is faulty. The owner engages in a ritual expression of humility and gentle self-deprecation. The world's best scholars have done the same, since at least the time of René Descartes, who was perfectly willing to admit that he was capable of making unintentional errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with Shashank5988's characterization of these links. The translations and resources hosted by these websites are the product of leading scholars in the translation of Pali, as well as hosting publications by notable groups in terms of the history of English-language Theravada studies (Access to Insight publishes material from the archives of the Buddhist Publication Society, for instance). These aren't personal websites or blogs, but rather are non-profit groups- ATI is hosted by the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, Sutta Central is operated by an Australian non-profit trust. Palikanon is individually operated, but publishes work from the Vipassana Research Institute and Pali Text Society. Links to these sites are common on Wikipedia because they are the largest and best organized archives of these primary source materials and translations available on the web. The statement from ATI is simply an indication of editorial self-awareness, and may refer to a decision made relatively early in the sites life to focus on carrying content related to the Sutta portion of the canon rather than Vinaya and other texts (which are hosted on Sutta Central), not to the quality of the content within individual pages, which is sourced from notable scholars and organizations. Providing links to a primary source when it is available is a good practice in external links, since it allows the reader to verify what they have read, and Sutta Central particularly has the advantage of also frequently providing the source text in the original language. I see no reason to remove these links or regard them as spam unless they can be replaced by links to comparable sources for the original text and translations of the material in question. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Spasemunki on this. These websites are suitable for external links on certain pages. These are not random people providing these translations, a lot of the names on these sites have big name Pali scholar's credited in their translations, I've seen published print works use these same translations of the primary sources. Plus, as Spasemunki stated, the websites mentioned are run by or publish work from reputable orgs, not random people. I don't think these can justifibly be called personal blogs. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
External links are external links, not sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Translations or articles from these websites may sometimes be useful in an EL section. I agree with Farang Rak Tham, the addition should be considered on a case-per-case basis. We should follow WP:EL (complex); [5] may be relevant. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Shashank5988, I'm going to guess here that your personal experience with scholarly publishing is minimal. Stating that all errors are mine is a commonplace courtesy in some academic fields. First you thank the people who helped you with your research, and then you remind the reader to blame you, and not them, if the reader disagrees with your article. This appears in thousands of articles in scholarly journals.
More relevantly, the author does not admit to errors. The author admits to being slightly biased, (i.e., human). Thinking that Paper #1 is more important and worth linking that Paper #2, or emphasizing the third point in Paper #3 rather than others is what makes biases intrude. You do not need "errors" to have "biases". If you won a Nobel prize for work in your specific sub-field, and you post a list of articles that you think do a particularly good job of explaining something in the terms of your specialty, then you are "biased" (against all the other sub-fields) but you are not wrong, and there need be no errors involved.
A source can be biased and still 100% reliable (see the WP:BIASED section of WP:RS). Which would be very interesting, of course, if ==External links== needed to be reliable sources, except that they don't. It doesn't actually matter whether those websites are reliable, so long as they're external links and not Wikipedia:General references that are supposed to be supporting article content. Your belief that "Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts" is entirely mistaken. See, in particular, WP:ELMAYBE #4, which explicitly accepts "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
These are not scholarly sites. They are personal blogs and admit they are not accurate. Above suggestions came after a notification was dropped on Buddhist noticeboard[6] with mainly those editors telling things who have never edited this page before. This definition would allow the inclusion of just every single website in external links section. Non-profit organizations with no scholarly fact-checking are indeed unreliable sources and thus not qualified enough for WP:EL. I am sure there are tons of Buddhist organizations and their websites but do you really think that we need to include links of each of them on Wikipedia? Shashank5988 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You've simply repeated what you said before without addressing any of the points raised by other editors. This and your remark regarding sites that 'admit they are not accurate' suggests WP:NOTGETTINGIT. There is no problem with removing marginally related or commercial links to Buddhist organizations (as I did here earlier today), but WP:ELYES #2 specifically states that an article on a text ought to link to a free, legally distributed copy of the work in question. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
If #2 is your only point, then only 2/3 sites may happen to pass the guideline, but not suttacentral since it is being used for information. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Suttacentral hosts translations and material in the original language. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make. --Spasemunki (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Shashank5988, your insistence that "some biases" means "not accurate" makes me doubt everything you say. But if, when you say that the website "is being used for information" you mean "it is placed at the end of a sentence between ref tags, in an effort to prove that the sentence is verifiable", then please take your complaint to the proper noticeboard. One thing that has indubitably been spammed, by me, is notices all over Wikipedia:External links to tell people that it does not apply to any website that is used to support article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Suttacentral and its translations. These are proper translations by a learned scholar, even if they are not published in a scholarly journal. In support of this, I submit that one of the publications of Sujato (and his colleague Brahmali) has been published by the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. Sujato's work is also cited by other scholars in the field and they engage with his work seriously. For example, Eviatar Shulman in his "Rethinking the Buddha: Early Buddhist Philosophy as Meditative Perception" (2014, Cambridge University Press) discusses Sujato's work in page 133-34. So, I think that suttacentral and Bhikkhu Sujato's work is scholarly. I think these two examples, and the quality of his work, are enough to prove this. The fact that something is not published in an academic source is not enough to prove something is not a scholarly work. One must look at further context. Javierfv1212 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that pretty much all of suttacentral's translations credit a notable scholar in translating the text and many of the translations can be found in scholarly journals. I agree that marginally relavent sites should be removed, but the three sites in question are relavent to some articles on a case by case basis, including the example ShaShank cited at the beginning of the thread. I don't see a justification for a blanket ban on using these three sites on any pages as External links. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist

There is a request for comment on adding generally reliable sources from the perennial sources list to the CAPTCHA whitelist, which allows new and anonymous users to cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to an En Vogue music video

In the article section Something_He_Can_Feel#En_Vogue_version, specifically in the infobox for the song, would it be acceptable on copyright grounds to include a link to this music video (possibly via the template {{External music video}})?

On YouTube, there is the concept of an "Official Artist Channel". In particular, YouTube mentions the use of a musical note icon to identify Official Artist Channels in such places as the YouTube page for a channel. The linked music video is included in a YouTube channel that may well be an Official Artist Channel. A possible complicating factor is that I remember the site http://www.envoguemusic.com/ as having had at least two links that lead to a different YouTube presence (EnVogueVEVO). The Vevo article mentions that Vevo is associated with certain large record companies. --Elegie (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Elegie, if you are sure that it is an official music video, then you can link to it. But be aware that the bar for linking to youtube is rather high, our external links guidelines discourages it in mutliple ways. If it is 'needed' to understand the subject further (which also means that there needs to be substantive coverage in our article, not a fleeting mention) then it can be warranted to have a link. Note that some artists/organisations have an actual page on a subject, where the YouTube video is embedded - that is often a better target than a direct link to the YouTube video. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Equifax

In this edit, User:Glopread changed the link for Equifax from equifax.com to a hidden link to equifax.cf that appears to be to equifax.com. Looking at their userpage, it has a lot of seemingly false information, since the account was created on 14 March 2020 but the information refers to awards received a while ago and a lot of pages that were presumably not created by this account.

I reverted that original edit in this edit, but then it was restored in this edit, which I reverted again in this final edit. Before it gets into real edit war territory, I wanted to report it here. (Is there somewhere better I should have reported it?)

I added a couple warnings to their user talk page, but I doubt that anything will come of those, seeing as this account is fairly clearly malicious. Gbear605 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

.cf is the South African (country) domain. It may take the user to the same place in the end, but it's not the best link.
It's very odd that the user has copied User:Onel5969's userpage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This type of behaviour is often a concern for spamming. It seems genuine, but sometimes the 'new' domain is a redirect service on a pay-per-click service or to get customer/visitor data, where in the end you directly to the original domain anyway. I asked COIBot to generate reports, lets see what it says. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Here are some other articles that I've seen this on:
I believe a lot of this to be a single person or firm as there is a lot of consistent behavior, such as quickly creating user page and user talk page (sometimes impersonating another editor), sometimes making gnome-like edits to a few other articles before spamming, making a gnome edit right after spamming, etc. I made an alternative watchlist that shows a lot of the activity. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Special:LinkSearch/*.cf finds 133 links, and Special:LinkSearch for the https:// equivalent finds 58 more. I wonder how many of them have the same problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like some input on Ezra Taft Benson#cite_note-39 with respect to WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER. The citation appears to be a link to an archived version of the complete text of the book The Black Hammer and there's a copyright notice for the book prominently displayed mid-way down the first page of the online version, but there's no indication of any license or any other statement granting permission for reproducing the book online. The citation description states "Quinn, D. M. (2017). The Mormon hierarchy: extensions of power. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates. e-book location 4001 of 29417", but that appears to be a different book that the one being linked to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, in case of doubt, just remove the link, and make it a plain-text reference. You don't have to prove it is a copyvio, you just need to reasonably suspect it and you appear to have passed that threshold. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Dirk Beetstra. The problem is also that the citation itself doesn't seem support what it's supposed to be supporting; so, I was going to add {{failed verification}} to it, but not sure if that's appropriate if the link is a copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly .. take it out and move it to the talkpage until it is resolved? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

electronics-notes & radio-electronics

There are tons of links to elctronics-notes.com and radio-electronics.com

A few of the IPs that have posted these links:

(excerpt of IPs who have added these links from COIBot reports)

81.157.247.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Links to these sites seem to have been added to practically every electronics-related article. I don't think these links meet WP:EL, but I wanted to get some feedback before I go through and purge them all. -drt1245 (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

drt1245, thanks for this note. Please don't purge these links. First of all, these are not Wikipedia:External links. These webpages are being WP:CITED as Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support article content. Some of them appear to be dead links (e.g., the one added in this 2010 edit). The procedure for processing dead links that are being used to support article content (such as these) is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links.
In general, I recommend against assuming that IPs are spammers or otherwise bad editors, especially when the edits were made years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused. You say that these are not external links, but practically all of them are listed under the 'External Links' section, and very few of them are used as citations. Additionally, I am not assuming that IPs are spammers. However, when I see an IP whose only contributions are external links, and those IPs geolocate to the same location as the linked website, I suspect that these IPs are more interested in promoting a blog than building an encyclopedia. -drt1245 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
You're right. Some of them are ==External links== and some of them are not. In terms of the ==External links==, what exactly is it that makes you think these are inappropriate links? Feel free to pick an example or two, if you don't want to make sweeping generalizations about them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this IP, for example, we can see that this IP was active for nearly 1 month, and during that time, made 6 contributions. Every single one of these contributions was to add a link to eletronics-notes.com (or a site that forwards to electronics-notes.com). No actual article content was added, just links to the same site. To me, this seem like the work of a WP:SPA engaging in WP:LINKSPAM. Additionally, the site in question does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RELIABLE. It looks like a self-published blog to me. While self-published sources may be acceptable if the author is an established expert, I see no evidence that that is the case. I Googled the apparent author, and found no evidence that he is an established expert. -drt1245 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: Apparently, the author has written a number of books, which probably qualifies him as a domain expert. However, my concerns about WP:LINKSPAM still stand. -drt1245 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
drt1245, could I encourage you to Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor? I know it's old-fashioned of me, but imagine for a moment that I actually didn't care about the bureaucratic points nearly as much as I cared about what the reader sees. Is having those links there a good thing for the reader, or a bad thing for the reader? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: the article you linked to (Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor) redirects to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I do not believe that I have made any personal attacks, so I do not see the relevance. If you believe that I have made personal attacks, please let me know, and I will try to improve on that. In fact, that page states arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. I know nothing about the editor in question, and do not think I have made comments about them. However, their actions were to add a bunch of links to a single website while contributing zero content. By bringing this up, I believe that I am in full compliance with your suggested guideline. On the other hand, I believe that WP:LINKSPAM is extremely relevant. It says Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. This seems like a textbook case of that. Do you disagree? If so, can you please explain why? -drt1245 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I care about a lot of different things. But I still want to know whether, from the exclusive perspective of someone who would read those articles, whether it's better to have those links or to omit those links. You seem stuck in this mode of wanting to root out decade-old (in some, possibly most, cases) possible spam. Discouraging spammers is usually a good thing to do, but it's not the only consideration. So I'm asking again: Do these links benefit THE READER (the reader of each separate, specific article), or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

open.spotify.com

There are about 260 articles with links to open.spotify.com, possibly maybe inspired by MUSICSTREAM. The issue popped up in a teahouse question recently, and I tested the concept today as planned three weeks ago. All power to the artist (as her fan), but I dislike DRM.[15] At least I want the issue noted in the EL/N archives, one 2018 discussion did not directly address WP:MUSICSTREAM + Spotify. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of DRM, it seems that any content on open.spotify.com can only be listened to by Spotify account holders, which means that these links violate WP:ELREG and do not have a place in the External links section. (They might sometimes be appropriate in citations though.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
^.^b My teahouse intuition was sound, if there is no template such as {{openhub}} it cannot be okay. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I would indeed say that these links have no place in external links sections (but I think that a link to an official video on YouTube is already borderline). Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The MUSICSTREAM info was updated by Koavf. If Villains had an "official YT playlist" I'd use it in a reference, EL2REF is one of my standard edit summaries. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, you get a 30-second preview of any song you attempt to stream when not in an account. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 09:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It depends on how you arrive. If you don't have a "free" account, you get nothing. If you have a free account and arrive using a mobile phone app, you get a preview. If you have a free account and arrive using a any other platform—iPadOS, desktop—you get songs with ads. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And if registration is required, then WP:ELNO#EL6 and WP:ELREG apply, and these are therefore inappropriate as ==External links==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Riz Mokal

I came across this article for a SPER. I saw the first paragraph and it was full of external links that in my judgement, violates the guidelines for external links. First, it's inline, and second, it's probably advertising. It's probably to substitube for an article, but they aren't titles for articles, in which I have reason to believe the guideline violations weren't intentional since the only article wikilink is United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which relates to the external links according to the article as worded. So overall, I just don't know if these external links are allowed in the external links section, or remove right away. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, I suspect that the first link in that article is meant to be a link to http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/557581467990960136/Principles-for-effective-insolvency-and-creditor-debtor-rights-systems and has just been a victim of Wikipedia:Link rot. I don't think that it's advertising (the World Bank is not a commercial organization).
I think that the best thing to do, if you'd like to improve the article, would be to find current/non-broken links to those documents, and cite them as sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Linking directly to WikiLeaks

Wikipedia:COPYVIOEL expressly mentions WikiLeaks as a website we are not supposed to link to. That is being questioned at Talk:WikiLeaks#External links. The WP:EL archives have mentioned WikiLeaks here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

List of music festivals in Italy

I came across List of music festivals in Italy while trying to find a particular festival; its essentially a list of external links-it even says so in the explanatory note under the title, in what seems to be in contradiction to WP:ELLIST. I was hesitant to clean it up, without asking here first, because it seems to have been that way for years. Curdle (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If the festival is notable it should have an article, and we can link to that article in such a page. However a page which is, lets face it, just a spam collection coatrack, shouldn't be allowed. It's a dropping point for random links to random little festivals. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that ! I thought so. Its an open invitation to "insert link here" which isn't exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. A few on the list seem to have articles here and there may be some others that do now...should be put in some sort of order as well. Curdle (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I think WP:LINKFARM is the specific policy. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: 1 External links" Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Curdle, while I think you're on the right track overall, as a result of your edits, there are no longer any inline citations on the page. (An external link can be an inline citation, even if it's not the right way to format it.) I'm also concerned that you may have removed WP:Notable festivals that nobody has yet gotten around to creating. Editors can choose "blue links only" as the Wikipedia:List selection criteria (which would ideally be documented somewhere), but that's normally used only for quite long lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
They were all just external links to the homepage of the festival; it appears the list was designed as a linkfarm back in 2006. The homepages were not suitable to be used as references, as they were just "buy tickets now", dead links, pretty pictures, or in some cases "cancelled to to Coivid19". It now has 17 inline citations to independent sources that support the information in each entry, and I am working on the rest. Feel free to restore any non blue linked Festival if you think its notable, i was working on the presumed notable ones first. Curdle (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with Legisworks

Legisworks (legisworks.org) seems to have gone defunct ("The domain legisworks.org is for sale. To purchase, call [...]"). The website is widely used in US legal articles (see LinkSearch results), particularly in infoboxes. I'm going to try to chip away at this but replacing the links with other resources will be a great deal of work and I would be grateful for help or advice with replacing Legisworks in articles. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 19:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a difficult project, especially if you don't know much about US law. I tried to find a replacement for Ensign of the United States#cite note-11 but failed. Kevin/User:L235, you might want to publicize this need at the village pumps and Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, if you haven't already.
In terms of link support, User:Ocaasi could probably tell us whether the Internet Archive has copies of some of these (I can't remember whether they did PDFs at all), and we could probably get a bot to run round and tag all of them (in the hope that someone might notice and feel like searching for a replacement, at least in a few articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Internet Archive does do PDFs (YMMV on which). Summoning GreenC. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It's about 250 links in 83 articles according to IABot. I set the domain to dead and it is batched to convert them to archive URLs in the next hour or so. example -- GreenC 19:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, GreenC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

After a question from an IP on User_talk:XLinkBot#Links_to_hymns_by_choirs, I would like an independent review on the youtube links in the external links sections in e.g. A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, and All Glory, Laud and Honour. On some of the pages already there are several versions included in the text, as well that there are multiple examples in the external links section (e.g. A Mighty Fortress Is Our God - 3 versions in the text, 2 youtube and an mp3 linked in the external links section). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is that WP:EL is, or at least, seems, rather clear that articles about a musical work "should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work", especially since that brings to the non-knowledgeable viewer some relevant information which he would normally not have. That also seems to be (for better or for worse) the general situation at many pages about musical works. In the case of hymns, I think that in the spirit of providing informative and tasteful content, there's no reason we should not try to get high-quality audio versions which include both music and words; and if those versions happen to be on Youtube then that's an inconvenience but I don't see why we should avoid them like the plague, especially when due care is taken to ensure that they are properly licensed and to limit the number of links (as I have been doing, example All Glory, Laud and Honour). Of course, not to say that versions which we can have directly in the article are not preferable (for instance, such a fine example here, or here), but sometimes we can't have that because of various issues so we should settle with providing a link to it instead.
As for the particular case of 'Ein feste Burg' which you mention; that one might be an exception (for the large number of examples) as the hymn is well-known (and discussed, albeit briefly, as such in the article) in both its German and English versions, thus it would be illogical to not have a version for each language (and, to repeat myself again, the vocal versions in the article, no ill-will intended towards those who volunteered to provide them, are of dubious quality); and in fact if the point of the audio was not illustrating the combination of words and music (since, I feel, it would be rather pointless talking of a piece of music if the reader has never heard it and we don't provide a link to a representative version) then I'd probably have removed some more of them and instead produced a lilypond score (as done, say, at Old 100th, or at Cranbrook (hymn tune) where there is no too strong association between the tune and specific words).
To get back on the specific topic of Youtube, it is true that a significant portion of the content on it might not be properly distributed from the copyright point of view, but as long as care is taken to avoid such content (which, arguably, might be too difficult for some people, but then we can't do too much about that), I don't see a problem with using it. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Of further interest might also be WP:MUSICSTREAM; whose presence suggests that (although for an altogether different kind of music; but again with the same care taken to avoid copyright issues) this is something already (commonly?) done. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that a link to a free (gratis) recording is a good idea, and that there is room for more than one when the song is in multiple languages, or there are multiple significant styles worth highlighting, or similar circumstances attain. One could imagine a national anthem sung by a large choir plus a link to a performance by a notable soloist, or a historic recording plus a modern one, or one done in a classical style contrasted with one done in modern popular style. Usually, I expect one link to be enough, and if a second is added, then I think the practical difference should be described, and not merely with "Sung by Alice" and "Sung by Bob" (even though Alice and Bob are famous celebrities). The descriptions ought to say things like "Oldest known choral recording, from 1926" or Aretha Franklin's 1972 solo rendition of "Amazing Grace" (which is ten minutes long).
We should also give some thought to linking to websites that compile multiple versions, and to "instructional" videos that show the different styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Many hymns contained in the current n organGerman Catholic hymnal Gotteslob come with a recording, typically of a prelude and the first stanza, sung by a youth choir, called Gotteslobvideo. They should serve the purpose. Example: Meine engen Grenzen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

List of FLOSS Weekly episodes

There is currently some dispute about link additions to List of FLOSS Weekly episodes (removed with this edit). Rather than rehashing all arguments or possibly misinterpreting the other editors' points, the discussion can be found at Talk:List_of_FLOSS_Weekly_episodes#Agree,_links_here_are_MANDATORY. Just for clarity, I am not necessarily disputing the links to the show (even though these are also problematic), the primary issue are the links to the home websites of the covered products, companies and open source projects. External links in lists have often been a controversial issue, so I would greatly appreciate additional feedback from other editors to clarify the current guideline and to find a consensus.GermanJoe (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GermanJoe, you did not do enough :-) .. the links to the episodes have to go as well. And why is this whole page collapsed, that does not make any sense. This is now a list of collapsed boxes. I have further cleaned out, the tables need now a bit of reformatting Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Y-axis.com

This editor appears to be adding spam links to www.y-axis.com/ to articles about immigration. I've reverted some, but could do with help identifying and removing other spam links to this site. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Further investigation uncovered a small sockfarm, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnanthSV. Request to add the site to XLinkBot's list made at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#Y-axis.com. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I get some feedback on the links at Mary Tyler Moore#External links? I think we should remove the last three linked here as they are more-or-less arbitrary instances of the many dozens of media appearances and interviews that she did in her life. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: Thanks.

Looking at that, I'm thinking that all the rest needs to be re-thought. I'd rather have any of those "arbitrary" links than the Find-a-Grave link. I wonder whether there should be something standardized and similar to {{Medical condition classification and resources}} for entertainers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd move them to the talkpage, so if anyone wants to use them in the future for inline cites, they can. I do this from time-to-time, such as removing this list from Šarūnas Bartas' page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Lugnuts about putting them on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the interviews (or other similar links) might be more valuable and interesting to readers than the rather boring database-y links above them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The question to ask about an EL is if it can be incorporated into the article body. Consider WP:ELNO #1. Reviews don't belong per WP:ELMAYBE #1. As for interviews, it depends on whether or not the interview is extensive enough to be a unique resource even if one tries their best to implement it into the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I see that Koavf brought this here because he was unable to get a consensus for his edit on the article talk page. He's also used this discussion as "consensus" for removing the links. [16] This is WP:gaming the system, since he did not inform the only other participant in the talk page discussion (me) that he had opened this discussion, therefore giving his viewpoint an advantage.
My opinion is that the two links are interesting enough, and totally innocuous enough (i.e. no copyright violations or other violations), that including them is worthwhile to the reader. Therefore the links should remain. (Although I see that Koafv has reverted me again). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I also note that Koavf did not even reference the consensus discussion on the talk page when he opened up this discussion. This, therefore, is WP:Forum shopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, You explicitly asked me to get consensus and also said that you wouldn't discuss it any further, so I did this per your request. What would you propose I have done differently? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You get consensus ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE, and you know that - and if consensus can not be reached there and the question needs to be taken elsewhere YOU INFORM EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE ARTICLE TAKE PAGE DISCUSSION OF THE NEW DISCUSSION. You've been here a long time, qand these are things you definitely know, so the only explanatuion for your behavior is that you were doing whatever was necessary in order to WIN the discussion i,e, WP:Battleground behavior.
Considering the circumstances under which you opened this discussion, I do not consider it to be a legitimate consensus discussion. Anyone who wishes to get involved should go to the proper venue, the article talk page. This discussion should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, There was an attempt to get consensus on the talk page and consensus was not reached. You wrote explicitly to get consensus and also that you were not interested in discussing it any further. I was not trying to cut you out of the conversation: please feel free to add whatever you want here to justify these links. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This noticeboard is the correct place to ask questions and seek additional views about external links. This is one of the correct places to form a consensus. There is no written rule that requires someone who asks for help here to inform everyone involved. However, I agree that it is the normal practice and that it is normally helpful.
Beyond My Ken, please review WP:ELBURDEN. If there is a lack of consensus to include the links, then the links go out. No consensus = no links. If you want to include them, then you have to prove that there is a positive consensus for inclusion – not merely that inclusion is "status quo". This is different from the approach taken to article content, and it sometimes surprises even highly experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, Lugnuts, and Erik: Per above. The other user who commented at Talk:Mary Tyler Moore was not informed that this discussion was occurring (per my reasoning above), so in an effort to get good faith consensus, I'm pinging you that he is writing here as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Seen we have an article with 112 references and ~5 pages widescreen prose I am going to ask: can someone explain what these interviews add over what is already in the prose? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, the last one seems to be a video interview of her talking about how she delivered a particular catchphrase in a show. That qualifies as a "unique resource" as far as ELNO #1 is concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      WhatamIdoing, wow .. she delivered a particular catchphrase in a show? That seems like good article content and hence material that should be in the article. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      The article can, and probably should, contain some text about it. But for copyright reasons, the sound of the delivery is probably going to have to come from an external link to a video. It's true that there are ways of some specialized ways of recording pronunciation, rhythm, pitch, and even facial expression in text, but that won't do most of us any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      WhatamIdoing, there is nothing wrong with a reference to a voice recording (or video) to make the point. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
      That'd be a non-independent primary source, which is less than ideal. In a perfect world, we'd support such content to something like ISBN 9781683309697, have a free license for the video, and put the video straight in the article as an illustration. But since we don't currently live in an ideal world, it would be normal to put the video in either ==External links== or in Template:External media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
      WhatamIdoing, we’re getting in a strange discussion then ... so no-one else cares about it, therefore we dump it in the EL. Some minor fact. So we get back to my initial comment, what does this significantly add over 5 pages of widescreen prose and 112 other references. See intro of WP:EL.
      I am can live with a couple of well-chosen interviews if there is a reasonable defense (and I see your point above, just playing devil’s advocate). I am much more interested in the standard dump of imdb and findagrave in EL sections, do these really add here (and I am afraid that is a more general question)? —Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
      I do think that the "standard dump" is a more general question. If they're sufficiently standard, then why aren't we dumping them in Template:Authority control or in something like Template:Medical resources? I'd rather see a few reasonably defensible, specifically hand-chosen "special" links in an ==External links== section than a "standard dump" of the same four links in every single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
      On the question of "what this adds over five pages of text", it adds the ability to hear the actress's intonation. Even if there were a hundred pages of text and a thousand refs, that would not substitute for being able to hear the actress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the links; three are not excessive. They are relevant and certainly more useful than FindaGrave, IMDB, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    K.e.coffman, to that I would agree as well .. I have a feeling that the imdb and findagrave links are just added because .. well ... I don't know .. because we don't disallow them sufficiently. I guess we should re-assess imdb and findagrave and determine that they should not just standard be added, but only if they actually add more info, and then prune the rest. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:External links#RFC on how to format external links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bibliographic information and photographs of fiction and non-fiction works/books

If personal websites contain tons of bibliographic info and images that are not on Wikipedia, but personal websites are not allowed to be added to Wikipedia as external links, how do we help users access such info if we cannot point them to a website that is more in depth than Wikipedia? Do we place more info on Wikipedia? I have often found better and more comprehensive info on websites other than Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia want to replace such websites? Thanks in advance for your answers and thoughts. Pawabu talk 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This[17] is the website in question, a personal website by a non-expert which is why I reverted it (and I don't think it meets ELNO 1 either). Doug Weller talk 08:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the website homepage was NOT linked to or reverted. Instead, it was this webpage [18] for the famous novel KING SOLOMON'S MINES. I am particularly interested in all of the bibliographic information contained on this website's individual webpages for myriad novels and non-fiction works, and the vast number of images of hundreds of books. Is Wikipedia at all interested in assisting its users with finding webpages such as this one? Or, instead is Wikipedia wanting to get bigger and become an amalgamation of such webpages, so such webpages don't need to exist? Or, ought Wikipedia instead link to such webpages? What is Wikipedia's aim, intent, goal? Also, who determines if someone is an expert? How does a webpage get deemed a webpage by an expert? Seems to me this is highly arbitrary and subject to opinion. Pawabu talk 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The edit in question said:
As a general rule, a link to a page with 30–40 photos of different parts of the original edition of a 19th-century book would be an acceptable link for an article about that book.
Whether the site is maintained by an amateur, a professional, a for-profit business, or a non-profit organization is irrelevant. WP:EL has never made such a distinction, and all such proposals have been rejected.
Doug Weller, could you explain how you would incorporate a large number of photos of the books in the article? I don't think that it would be a favored option under WP:GALLERY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller Are you planning to reply to the above? Pawabu talk 30 July 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing Since Doug Weller is not explaining why a webpage that has numerous photographs a book is not allowed as an External Link, am I free to again include the external link? Pawabu 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Pawabu, perhaps it would be best to post your suggested link on the article's talk page, and see whether anyone there has an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

whattime.is

Delphir (talk · contribs) has been adding links to whattime.is in various articles since May 2020. Consistently, they are adding them as the top external link in the article [19], [20] which is ludicrous. They left a post on my talk page [21] calling the site "important". Rather than revert, I'd like some additional thoughts on this as an external link for Wikipedia articles. For the city articles, I don't think it meets WP:ELYES. For the time articles [22], there's a very, very, very small chance - I don't think so, so outside thoughts would be nice. Ravensfire (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


Just wanna say my position on this. All of the mentioned links are a valuable content, directly connected to the wiki-page's content (city pages) they are published on. While Ravensfire (talk · contribs) reverted all of them with "spam" reason what is a total contradiction with linked content. I would also appreciate if someone will review this (and for sure I'm ready to accept any criticism) so we can finally close this discussion. Delphir (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not an encyclopaedic link. Knowing the current time in a city or area, something anyone can figure out since they already know where it is, doesn't add any encyclopaedic information to understanding the topic. Just the same as links to the current weather in a location are not encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs) lets say you are going to travel into Malaga (Spain) across half of the planet, and you are reading articles about the city. I think it is very important to know the fact that Malaga time will be different from your local time (for many reasons; planning a travel time, asking someone to meet you and so on). And for sure the timedifference if different for every single user. And many are same as you... thinking that a whole world is sitting in the same timezone, so the best solution is to provide a user with a tool to know the actual time difference. I would embed it as a life-updating string into wiki if it would support scripting, but unfortunately for now ExternalLink it is the only possible solution.
Excuse me, that's awfully close to a personal attack making the claim that I think the whole world is in one timezone. I never made anything close to such a claim. Moving onto the link and your example, Malaga already states quite clearly in the article, as does most cities/countries etc on Wikipedia, what time zone it is in. I can also pretty much guarantee you that in no one's case is there a use case where someone is coming to Wikipedia, navigating to a town or country, and then looking for an external link to tell them what time it is there. Google or any other search engine, any phone, most computers etc can tell you that instantly. And external links have nothing to do with usefulness, they are purely about adding additional encyclopaedic information about the article subject, not general links that may be useful to 1 in 100,000 readers. Knowing the exact time in a city/country right now isn't something that's encyclopaedically useful, especially when the timezone and therefore the ability to know the time, is already in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, your personal opinion and experience in the subject is pretty clear now. I'm not going to waste my and anyone's time here anymore, you are free to revert whatever you want. Keep your job going. Delphir (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
One final thing, what is your personal connection to this website? Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I just like it. If you know a better one where time can be compared across multiple locations - please let me know.Delphir (talk)
Not remotely an encyclopedic link. If I had run across this I probably would've removed the links and given the user a template linkspam warning. - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie, Pretty much did that, and saw the edit-war starting from their comments. Just wasn't in the mood to take it to ANI so brought it here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I could imagine Wikivoyage wanting links to timezones (except that they don't like general external links), but I don't feel like this gives readers additional encyclopedic information. If we thought that readers wanted timezone conversions, I think we'd do that in an infobox, or put it in the article in the context of several other locations (e.g., "During the summer months, when it's 12 noon in Málaga and the rest of central Europe, it is 6:00 a.m. earlier that morning in New York City and 6:00 p.m. later that day in China" – the point being that most of the literate world could probably orient themselves to one of those timezones). Or, alternatively, we'd stick a link/button in the infobox to let readers convert it to their own timezone, if they wanted. I don't think a link in the ==External links== section is expected or would make much sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
We already put the timezones in most locations infoboxes, at least major cities and countries etc. Reader can extrapolate from there. Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Common rooms in colleges

XLinkBot reverted a link on Lincoln College, Oxford relating to the 'common rooms' of the college. These links are not the official links of the college, they are the links for the common rooms. To me, they fail WP:ELOFFICIAL ("The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article; The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.") and WP:ELNO #13 ("a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject")

It now turns out that this is a common external link throughout these colleges, included because they are commonly included and hence a consent by silence. Of course, such a consent is not overriding policy/guideline. I'd like to gauge how these links are or are not appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

They exist on many college pages but not all. They clearly don't meet WP:ELOFFICIAL as while the common rooms are supported and partly regulated by the colleges they are fundamentally combination Students' unions and social clubs. My own view on WP:ELNO is that it's marginal, but it's hard to make a strong case that they really should be there. There is often some sort of link to these sites through references earlier in the article, and that may be a more appropriate solution.
Related to this, but more clear cut, is the presence of links to college boat clubs in the infoboxes. This seems to me clearly excessive, though obviously they do belong in the separate articles for the boat clubs where these exist, such as Brasenose College Boat Club. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
If the link should be there, it should be the current link, and not a link to an archived page (which is what XLinkBot gave us). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, the question I posed here is whether these links should be here in the first place. The XLinkBot edit was indeed a false positive on the weebly in this case. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. It's not unreasonable, but it seems a little unnecessary. I don't know enough about the culture of these institutions to have a firm opinion either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, why single out the common rooms? Why not also the college newspapers, alumni groups, library, sports groups (which is more an American thing), and then also their twitter, facebook, instagram, youtube channel, etc.? Those are all links that people who want to go there (or who are there, or were there) find useful. Because for that whole group of links we decided that they are indirect and not the main official site of the subject and should be removed. What do these links add? Moreover, they are all linked from the already listed official site. For above College, go to the official page, hover over 'Student life' and click 'Common rooms' - they are rather prominently linked from the top level page of the College. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
When major student organizations are linked on the official site, then I think they're redundant and should likely be removed. I might be inclined to link a college newspaper (if it's not redundant/on the official website).
The main thing isn't "usefulness", but whether looking at it might tell you something about the subject. In the case of a university, I think there's value in contrasting the official organizational view with a (typical/mainstream) student perspective. However, since that perspective is easily available in this case, then one link is probably sufficient for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, in fact ... we have quite a paragraph in the article. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
So how do these common room links enhance the encyclopaedic knowledge of the reader of the college's article to help them understand the article on the college better? That a bunch of people fill a bunch of positions, and they spent X amount on their budget last year doesn't help me as a reader understand the article subject better. The target reader of the audience isn't students that go to the college, so while they may be useful to them, they're not useful to anyone else and we should be considering our reader as coming from anywhere in the world and are not intimately acquainted with the article subject. Canterbury Tail talk 17:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ksb-report.com

The Kwasizabantu article has been experiencing some edit warring recently, especially around recent controversy following a news report alleging the church of being a cult. I've been trying to keep an eye on the article and help editors note the WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. I believe I am a reasonably neutral editor for this article because I have no affiliation with Kwasizabantu and only learned about it recently through patrolling recent changes.

An external link to ksb-report.com has been posted and reverted a few times. I believe it doesn't meet the criteria for an acceptable external link because it is not neutral (it is very much anti-Kwasizabantu) and doesn't contain substantial information that hasn't been mentioned or cited in the article.

I'd like to find consensus on this external link one way or another as a way to hopeful help defuse the edit warring. Thanks!

Ping @TruthFearsNoQuestion, the latest editor to post the link. — motevets (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Motevets, I think the first thing you all need to know is that WP:ELBURDEN is strict: disputed links are out, unless and until there is agreement ("consensus") to include them. There are no exceptions to this standard. No external link is ever so important than we need to edit war over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for pointing me to that policy. I've removed the external link for now from the article.— motevets (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa

It has been suggested at the talk page to bring the discussion here to discuss the suitability of including the link https://brightonantifascists.com/2020/02/24/exclusive-interview-with-the-amazing-rose-city-antifa/ .The proponent is suggesting it could be used per WP:ELMAYBE. I think it shouldn't be per WP:ELNO #1, 2, and 11. It is a text conversation that goes back and forth in an interview transcript format. It is purportedly an exchange between people who operate that website and people who are said to be from Rose City Antifa. Graywalls (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • KEEP @Graywalls: I don't see anything on the page that indicates that this is a text conversation, and even if it was, I don't think that, by itself, would be enough to disregard the link. (These are underrepresented social distancing COVID times after all.) Regarding the ELNO points: this doesn't fail #1 because the site does provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains. It doesn't fail #2 because it is not trying to mislead the reader. The interview is very likely legitimate despite Antifa organizations being mostly anonymous because both organizations have interacted with each other on social media, so it would stand to reason that Rose City Antifa would have said something if the interview wasn't legitimate (which they haven't as far as I can see). Lastly, this doesn't fail #11 because this isn't a blog, personal web page, or fansite. It is the official website of the Brighton Antifascists. While this site likely does not pass muster as a reliable source, it does have sufficient notoriety to have an external link. Cheers! motevets (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean text as in SMS, but rather typed out dialogue. It's a self published page. Anyone can write anything. One could fabricate it and write it all up too. There is no independent editorial oversight whatsoever. Graywalls (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: you're right that there's no editorial oversight (that we know of) which is why we can't use it as a reliable source. But we have little to no reason to believe that this isn't published by the organization, Brighton Antifascists, an organization of notoriety in their own right or that the interview was fabricated, and given that they were interviewing the subject of the article, it is a resource that the reader would likely be interested in to supplement the article. Now, if Rose City Antifa announced that this interview was fabricated, then we should definitely question whether or not to include this link. My opinion is that there is no problem using this as an external link. -- motevets (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Motevets:, you know, people could setup interview with commissioners. So, if some person has an interview with Chloe Eudaly, then they type out the supposed transcript of the interview and toss it up into the cloud, then is it appropriate to add it as external link in her article? If not, why is this any different? Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I'm not sure what you mean by "setup interview with commissioners," but I believe the hypothetical you drew is different from the external link in question. The organisation that conducted and published the interview, Brighton Antifascists, is notable and have a prior relationship with Rose City Antifa. This isn't some random person with a blog on the internet who nobody has ever heard of publishing an alleged interview with a notable person. This is one notable organisation interviewing another one, and publishing it on their official website. Unless you can find a post on Rose City Antifia website or official social media discrediting the interview, then I don't think you'll change my mind. -- motevets (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, almost all websites are self-published with no independent editorial oversight whatsoever. (Think about it: Who exactly do you think is publishing say, Coca-Cola, Inc.'s website? Only people whose paychecks depend on them keeping Coca-Cola happy with their work, right? There's no "independent editorial oversight" there, but we still link to it, and to tens of thousands of websites like it, anyway.) That is, therefore, an irrelevant consideration for the ==External links== section.
Generally speaking, "interview transcripts" are named in WP:ELYES as a desirable type of link. Speaking specifically about this link, I'm not quite sure that it counts as "neutral" for that purpose – it's a bit self-promotional – but it is still a link to consider. Looking at the talk page, it seems that there is considerable support for inclusion. Unless that changes, I think the link should be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of embedded external links in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#Interviews and Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#Speeches which seem a bit sketchy per WP:EL (more specifically WP:ELLIST, WP:EL#cite_note-7, WP:CS:EMBED and maybe even WP:LINKFARM). There also seem to be WP:ELMINOFFICIAL issues in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#External links.

I guess it would be possible to treat the interviews and speeches sections as a quasi WP:FURTHERREADING section, but that's still quite a lot of links and maybe it's possible to reduce them if they are also being linked to from one of the official websites listed. I'm also not sure if simply moving them all to the "External links" resolves anything since that would seem to just be bloating the EL section unnecessarily. Some of the more siginficant interviews and speeches could perhaps be incorporated into the body of the article with the interview or speech cited as a source, but I'm not sure every interview and every speech given by Elbegdorj needs to be linked to yet alone even mentioned in the article.

Anyway, I'm just curious what some others might think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I find it excessive. Some carefully selected interviews and documentaries are suitable as 'further reading' (where I have now wholesale moved the ==Interviews== and ==Speeches== sections) but this is too much. I am tempted to wholesale move the stuff to the talkpage so they can be cleaned out.
I have brought the external links section in line with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dirk Beetstra for taking a look at this and trying to clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

8chan

A discussion at Talk:8chan#Inclusion of the link to 8chan was mentioned at WP:ANI. The discussion asks whether the article should include a link to 8chan (yes: official link; no: possible illegal content). Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, the answer generally is that we link to a neutral landing page on the subject page. If that does not exist then we should make the exception to WP:ELOFFICIAL (which does happen). Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: There is a question over whether it is helpful (in regards to WP:EL and WP:NOTDIR) to add, to the External links section, links to Wayback Machine archives of previous domains of a subject that still exists.

I typically add these to such articles if the URL domain has changed in some way. For example, Northern Virginia Community College currently uses the URL nvcc.edu, but used nv.cc.va.us in its early years.

My opinion: I am aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory and that external links sections should be pared down to only a handful of necessary links.

However I support the inclusion for two reasons:

  • 1. Researchers may get educational and academic value from finding historical information (1996 onwards) on a subject, and they may not be able to know what the older URL is unless someone digs into Google Books and finds it, or unless the older URL is provided right there in the article for people to see. This should mean the EL would have value, and that the links would not be indiscriminate directories against NOTDIR.
  • 2. Additionally I have found utility from archives of official websites in citing material for Wikipedia: For example the City of Houston FAQ on the annexation of Kingwood from 1996 can be used to explicitly cite that the mailing addresses of Kingwood, Houston were not changed after annexation and that USPS postal "city names" do not necessarily correspond with jurisdictional boundaries (useful for clarifying actual locations of places in the US). There also have been cases where a U.S. school district or school had a "history" section in an earlier version of its site, but that info is absent from the current website. (I don't have specific examples on hand right now but I recall it had to do with schools in Iowa). Thirdly I've used such archives to get lists of schools which have (post-1996) closed (but were operated by school districts/agencies that still exist), and added these schools to articles about U.S. school districts or lists of U.S. Catholic schools operated by dioceses.

Previous discussions (about ELs of subjects which are defunct):

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think these are helpful to the vast majority of readers and thus aren't appropriate in most articles. We write for a general audience, not researchers.
Linking to archives of specific webpages or documents in reference templates is, of course, a different issue altogether; I have no objection to that. ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
There are some article which draw more interest from academics than from the general public (academic journals and certain subjects generally pertaining to academia) but I've typically provided these websites for educational institution articles (schools and universities) which would indeed primarily concern the general public.
Another point: When I tried to update the official site of an entry on Wikidata I found that it explicitly instructed me not to outright remove an official site, and instead to add the new site and update when the old official site no longer worked. It seems Wikidata is explicitly documenting the former official sites of subjects. Therefore I wonder if these can be moved to Wikidata entries.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about Wikidata but what little bit I do know makes this sound like a very good idea. It would certainly be more appropriate to record old URLs in Wikidata than Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I could start doing that soon with some of these URLs. I might add the wayback machine links specifically to Wikidata so people know the content still exists. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, I think we generally should only link to the website that a subject currently recognizes as their official website as defined in WP:ELOFFICIAL. For defunct organisations that are notable I would (only) link to the archive of the last version of the official website (also because domains are sometimes taken over).
The examples that you seem to give are cases which are then additional sources where additional information is, which could be permissible per the lede of WP:EL, as they provide a lot of extra info. I would then consider to add them, even if that is to wayback or archive, but with a description that justifies their addition: ‘archive of website containing specific historical data, ....’ (one could consider to link deeper to the specific information, but that is case-by-case). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
In other words if one wants to link to historical sites in the External Links section, one should have an explanation on which historic data (not present on the current website) it contains, right? For American K-12 school districts I could explain that information on previous campuses, previous attendance boundary maps (these determine which neighborhoods/communities/municipalities are assigned to which schools), and previous demographic data are located in these links. For universities/community colleges they may have information on previous campuses and information on the previous chief administrators.
As for which websites to link for defunct subjects, there may be some cases where a defunct subject has a URL at a certain location for most of its existence but then changes its URL a relatively short time before its dissolution.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there should be an explicit explanation if you think we should link to multiple versions of a subject's official website. Without that explanation, linking to different official websites is likely to be very confusing for readers (and editors!). ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable! At Northern Virginia Community College I added the explanation "(includes historic information on the college administration, college operations, and campus locations)". I would like to include a year range too, although in some cases captures are directs, so I'd have to see exactly which year everything switched over to the new domain. In the case of North Forest Independent School District (defunct) there were about three official website URL domains with roughly the same year range. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that archive links are usually a bad idea, and coincidentally, I was talking to User talk:Cyberpower678#External links section about this problem over the weekend. A link to an archive page that doesn't contain the content (e.g., photos on a link whose primary purpose is to provide photos) is worse than useless. A link to an archive page that contains information that is highly relevant to the article and obviously interesting to the general, non-academic researcher but that can't be found anywhere else might be okay, but it's a decision that needs to be made by a human. As an example, I'm imagining a link to a defunct website in an article about that website.
Related to this, WP:VPT worked out this search string for me last week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=treatment+insource%3A%2FExternal+links%5C%3D%5C%3D.%2A%5C%2A%5C%7B%5C%7Bcite+w%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 You can change treatment to anything you want or to add something like prefix:A to it, but it won't run if you don't limit it to some subset of all articles. ("Treatment" is my guess at a word that appears disproportionately in medicine-related articles; try film if you're interested in film, score if you're interested in sports, etc.) It should be possible to adapt this search string to find archive.org links specifically in the ==External links== section so they can be reviewed. User:InternetArchiveBot has apparently been replacing dead ==External links== with archived pages since 2016, which explains why I've been seeing so many violations of WP:ELDEAD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It is true that there are cases where an archive page has little content (for example the photos meant to be displayed were never captured). Usually the Wayback Machine does a good job capturing text (and sometimes i've noticed there are cases where it displays as white text on a white background). Usually for article citation purposes I rely on text WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the value is usually different for citations to reliable sources. So far, I've seen very few archived links in the ==External links== section that were better than having no link at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I think if the archived website preserves enough of the information that the user can access, it should have the proper utility that allows somebody to get information from it. There are occasions where the archive does not go well and the content is truly inaccessible though. In any event Wikidata actively encourages people to put all previous URLs, not only the current one, in the URL field, so I suspect many of these could be migrated to Wikidata. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there examples of good external links that are archived but are no longer available on the internet? Failing that, how about examples that should be archived in case they disappear? Wikipedia has enough trouble controlling the relentless spread of external links (aka promotions/spam) and archiving would mean that an EL entry would never be removed: the section would grow forever. It is not Wikipedia's job to provide a resource for researchers and there is no encyclopedic value in providing a history of pages on the internet. Researchers should find a way to search for archived pages if they want to know what a website looked like before it disappeared. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I have always argued that external links in general do not get an archive link ‘in case they disappear’. I would only agree to add (or better: replace) it when the official website becomes defunct (and that is what our bots do). External links are supposed to be ‘living’, current, not some archive locked in time, and that is a distinct difference with references.
IF, and only IF, a previous now-defunct official site of a subject has relevant info that is now not anymore available, then an old archive can be added as a supplementary EL. We do that already, geocities archives e.g., maybe MySpace?
I would like some examples as well to give a better judgement. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq, as for "and archiving would mean that an EL entry would never be removed" I believe that if the number of total external links exceeds about five, then one can be selective on which links, archive ones included, could be kept. Many "dense" topics that are highly trafficked should be selective, with archive links perhaps relegated to Wikidata. As for "Researchers should find a way to search" the reason I wanted to include those archive links on Wikipedia was so the researchers would have that stuff handed to them on a silver platter instead of having to devote minutes or hours searching through Google Books links or the Wayback Machine, and that's if they are aware of those resources. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, I’m sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to cater for everyone. We are writing for the readers and not for what some niche researcher needs: Wikipedia is utterly useless for me as a researcher (it even lacks molecular weights and even molecules I make), maybe you should include more links to facilitate the research I am doing then as well? (I am being sarcastic). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I've written articles on academic books (as in scholarly books written for academics, notable thanks to GNG) and those topics really only interest people in the field. It really makes sense to cater to researchers for those articles while keeping the writing style as broad as possible (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable). But an article like Barack Obama, which is a broad subject of interest to the general public, should be written for average Joe readers as it is a topic that gets interest from the general public (also it's impossible to include every academic article on Obama in an article like that). Anyway it's clear Wikidata explicitly wants those old URLs to be catalogued so what I'll do is begin putting them on Wikidata instead. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, the question isn't just "is the archived link useful?" The question is also "Do we really have to send somebody off to an archived copy of a dead website?" There's sometimes a case for an archived link to a dead official website, but when the link is, I dunno, how to convert shoe sizes between US, UK, and EU sizes, then we should not send people to the archives. We should send them to one of the hundreds of live websites that contains that information. (I checked after writing that: Shoe size does indeed contain a link to a website that tells the length and width in both inches and centimeters for various adult shoe sizing systems. That's an appropriate external link, but not one that is so unique that it needs to be archived forever.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I wrote articles about Iowa school districts because I was interested in the process of rural flight: not only did schools close but entire school districts closed too. I used both archives of official sites and newspaper articles as sources. Info about schools that don't exist anymore typically gets taken off of the school district websites. If one wants to look at what the official site formerly said about schools that no longer exist within a district (that does still exist), the archived links become the only way to view the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Or the local library or history society. The former official websites may be useful or interesting to a small number of people, but most external links aren't official websites for defunct government agencies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CarolBendy has added links like this one to dozens of articles. Are they appropriate? They link to scans of original documents (letters, in the ones I looked at) in an Italian archive. I have my doubts; Tim riley, would you care to weigh in, please? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • User:CarolBendy states on her page that she is an intern at Ricordi. She therefore should declare an interest; and any of her edits of this sort should be reverted.--Smerus (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yup, seems clear she's being paid to add the links to the site on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Doesn't mean the links themselves are devoid of value, of course, and that's what I'm actually more interested in--if they add value to the article, we should have them. And they can always suggest a link on the talk page--CarolBendy, I don't know if you were told to do this, but here is the opportunity for you to learn a bit about how this works. I hope you're reading all this. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Agree. They should not be first, but they seem to have value. I can't imagine how the linked primary sources would be included in the articles they're placed on. They seem valuable, but WP:COI guidelines should be followed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Smerus, if she's put a note on her userpage saying that she works there, then she has already declared an interest.
    As for the links, I'd rather have them evaluated on the basis of of whether they are appropriate and desirable. Posting requested edits is not free from the POV of the editors who process those requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Declarations of interest must be made on tne page edited.--Smerus (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Smerus, no, you can have it on your userpage. But having a conflict of interest declaration is not a free pass to post your links wherever you feel fit. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. And paid editors should edit only via edit requests.--Smerus (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I am sincerely sorry about this all operation I attempted to do, I was just trying to accomplish a given task and surely the biggest mistake was not knowing about this "Conflict of Interest" policy. This whole operation will not be attempted again, definitely not by me. And if by any chance I will decide to keep contributing to the project I will as a volunteer and by following all the wikipedia policies and rules. Thank you for pointing out what I was doing wrong and for understanding. CarolBendy (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your very clear and professional reply, CarolBendy. I hope we'll see you around in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve

An IP added links to a website, https://santuariomariposamonarca.com.mx/en/monarch-butterflies-in-mexico/ as references: [23][24][25]. I converted the references in one article to a link in the infobox and a prominent external link in another before removing them outright. The third I removed immediately. I am concerned that the website a commercial site (.com.mx) designed to capture tourist traffic. There is no link listed at the UNESCO page and a search did not turn up an obvious official link. I could use more eyes to determine if this is an official site. My suspicion level is fairly high, but my Spanish is abysmal, so I'm unwilling to commit to it being spam. While loggers, not tourism interests are suspected, the deaths of a guide and an activist might raise the stakes to WP:REVDEL level. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

BiologicalMe, I think that https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/acciones-y-programas/santuario-de-la-mariposa-monarca is the "most official" webpage.
https://santuariomariposamonarca.com.mx/aviso-legal/ indicates that the ".com.mx" site is owned by a private individual. This does not mean that it is an unreliable source or prohibited as an external link, but it should be evaluated like any other unofficial website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I hate when I start some edits that seem simple and then realize I'm in over my head. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
You're very welcome, BiologicalMe. It was fun to see how much of that I could figure out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a false advertisement website on woodfest wales

Woodfest wales does not link in to the correct website. There is an incorrect link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.232.152 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the inaccurate link from the article's infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio material used as references

Per WP:COPYVIOEL, Wikipedia should not link to material that violates the copyrights of others.

If we search for external links to *.americanradiohistory.com, we find almost 14,000 links to that website. They're all links to PDF files. The PDF files are re-published scans of various materials; mostly, Billboard Magazine and The Broadcasting Yearbooks. There are many 404 links, too. (Sorry, I'm not a bot, and can't summarize quantities without writing some code ...)

What's the right way to address this problem? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikeblas, we should never link to copyvio material. If this is all linking to copyvio material then the links have to be adapted and it is probably best to blacklist the site to avoid new links to come in. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mikeblas, their FAQ at https://worldradiohistory.com/American-Radio-History-FAQ.htm says that some content is hosted with the copyright owner's permission. Some of it also goes back far enough in history (e.g., the 1930s) that it may not be covered by copyright any longer. I don't think we can ban the site entirely, but figuring out which are okay might be painful and time-consuming. (How did we end up with that many in the first place?!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I don't think we can put any trust in the site's own claim that it has permission. Even if we stipulated that, we don't know which specific (parts of which specific?) documents were or weren't copyvio. I think the right thing to do here is remove all the links, leaving behind references to the publication directly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Their FAQ says that they have implemented some Digital rights management technology on some PDFs (e.g., to prevent people from copying from their PDFs) at the request of the copyright owners. I think it is fair to assume (a) that they aren't lying, and (b) that any PDF with DRM restrictions is hosted with permission. For the ones without evidence of DRMs, I would be certainly wary of anything with an original publication date after the Copyright Act of 1976, but the rules for (especially) pre-1964 copyrights are much more dependent upon who did what when, and it is not unreasonable to believe that the contents of an older magazine, e.g., that existed in the 1930s but was defunct by the 1960s, might not have properly renewed its copyright status in the United States, which would make it be in the public domain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they're not lying -- maybe they've just made a mistake or misunderstood the law. They seem to be typical of re-publishers: the FAQ also explains that they can be contacted for takedown, which just means they'll re-publish things until someone finds it and complains. The "DRM" they mention appears to be locking the PDF so it can't be printed or edited; it can still be readily copied and redistributed, so the "management" part is minimal. But I'd like to learn how they've earned your trust. Did you find some note from Billboard magazine, for example, that says they're free to offer complete digital scans of the magazine for download?
I think the right thing to do is to remove the links, leaving behind regular bibliographic references like those that appear in any other article. The Wikipedia reference still gives that reference, perhaps as "Fooey Magazine, December 1998, Page 35: Top Ten Radio Stations in Bentonville", for example -- but no longer directly links to a live copy of the questionable material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
They write "Some documents are used with the owner's permission and consent." This does not sound to me like something that requires a law degree to understand. "With the owner's permission and consent" == no copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In Baden-Powell grave, @Nikkimaria: stripped two findagrave URLs being used as references as the are not reliable. Fine, so I added them to the EL section, and Nikkimaria is now edit warring over this. Please tell me why the two links directly related to the article can't be used? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Kit and Morgan Benson. "Olave St. Clair Baden-Powell". Find a Grave. Retrieved 2019-04-02.
  • Kit and Morgan Benson. "Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell". Find a Grave. Retrieved 2019-06-11.
Evrik, what do they add? We don’t just link to everything that has the same subject. Remember the onus is on you to show that they are useful.
I have found FindAGrave links problematic for a long time. They are dumped everywhere without adding significant information, and most information there that is reliable can be added here as well, making them superfluous. For me, many should be cleaned out. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel they contain zero encyclopaedic info, so shouldn't be linked at all. Half the time there's no support that it's even the correct grave. It's a fansite really, user generated. It's effectively just a wiki. And other than a photo it usually has nothing not already in the article and we're not a travel guide, as the location isn't particularly encyclopaedic in most cases. And those two links add zero that's not already in the article, or in their respective Wikipedia articles. So it adds zero. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:ELPEREN's extry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • First, this is an article on a grave ... but simply, the graves are pilgrimage sites. Linking to FindAGrave may offer people sources not available on wikipedia. --evrik (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopaedia, not a grave guide or here to help people find spiritual guidance. And I personally, personally, think the idea of going to strangers graves for spiritual guidance to be super odd and inappropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Evrik, may .. IF there is substantial info there then they can be linked (but better, incorporate that data here, if you can find references). In by far the most cases the findagrave page does not add anything, and it is up to you to show that it merits linking for each specific case, so you should check. And if it gets challenged, like for the Baden-Powell grave, they go out until there is consensus. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The subject of the article is the grave. The website is findagrave. --evrik (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What do the links add that isn't already in the article? Do the links add any encyclopaedic information that isn't already included in the articles? I contend they do not add anything. Links must add extra information or purpose, not just exist because they're connected. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Evrik, findagrave is never the official website of a grave. And yes, they share he same topic, but we do not link to everything that has the same topic in external links sections, we are very selective in what we link. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this case, these links are"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." --evrik (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Evrik, No, they are not. This is not a knowledgeable source. Anyway, we are not a linkfarm. You do not have consensus for the inclusion of the links, hence, they are excluded. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence on offer above that these links comply with WP:EL. More fundamentally, evrik, you do not have consensus. You came here asking for an opinion on the use and the unanimous answer is "no". I advise you to recognize that a consensus has indeed formed and move on to another editing task. Attempting to restore the links at this point would likely be considered disruptive and I'm sure no-one wants that. I hope that helps. 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
There already is a widely adopted consensus. That answer is no as a reference; and almost always no as an EL. Things only end up in WP:RSP list only after repeated discussions and a consensus has been established. If you think you have the unusual exception, that's something to discuss. The fact we have Template:Find_a_Grave gives a false impression that it's a source that is encouraged to be used, unfortunately. Graywalls (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so no using  {{Find a Grave}} as a reference or in the External links section of an article unless in the unusual circumstance that they add something to the article not found elsewhere. --evrik (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm resurrecting this as it seem that some editors are trying to insert it into the infobox now as an external link under the understanding that the External link consensus only applies to the External links section, and not if imbedded inside another template. We already have consensus that the link adds nothing to the article, this is not some exceptional circumstance where the Find a Grave needs to be used on this article. It adds zero value to it, nothing exists in the link that isn't in this article or one of the main articles. Consensus seems to be it plain shouldn't be used here in any circumstance for this particular article. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that is a different discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, No, that is exactly the same discussion (it is here e.g.). WP:EL is applicable to EVERY external link in a document, throughout a document, with as only exception the links that are properly used as a reference. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The previous discussion was generated by the EL section of an article, not data used in a template. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, they are still external links. Evrik, stop your wikilawyering. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the rules for references and external links are not the same. For instance, we discourage ELs to marketplaces (Apple Music, Amazon, etc.) but for basic information about an album (tack titles, etc.), we can use such a link, however they would not help to confirm notability as they are linked to the subject. With that said, I'm not sure Find a Grave should be used as a reference either. The content is user-generated and I don't believe it is checked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, yes, but some links are unsuitable as references (as in generally too unreliable like findagrave), and as external links (generally do not add anything with some exceptions, like findagrave). There are two separate consensuses that have established that. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed: The rules for references and external links are not the same. But every now and again, someone tries to argue that these links are neither references nor external links, but some third thing that doesn't need to support article content but is still somehow exempt from Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with removal. I'm not sure why any of the other external links belong for that matter. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Since you removed one that has a discussion on the talk page, you should make a post on the talk page about that. Been some arguments as to whether or not a link to a copy of a letter he wrote has anything to do with his grave or not. Canterbury Tail talk 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. This is at the very least soapboxing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

findagrave in general

So, despite WP:ELPEREN strongly discouraging the use of findagrave in external links, we still have thousands (8085) and thousands (60,000) external links to findagrave (granted, not all in mainspace, but many are). References are down to a couple of hundreds, so they do not make a massive number of these 68085 links, and templates are prepared/exist to include these links. Should these be generally cleaned up (not by bot, but still rather drastically)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have a rock solid consensus that it simply shouldn’t be used then I’m happy to remove them as I come across them. Perhaps we should start by deleting the template if consensus is to ditch them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also remove it from Templates like Infobox_cemetery and the like. I feel that it'll just continue to be used unless the community makes a decision firmly against it and actively removes it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: looks like there are far more than a couple hundred references - this search has 2600, there's a few hundred more for the http version, plus a couple thousand of the template in ref tags.
@Canterbury Tail: The template was recently nominated for deletion and kept, although I would be in favour of removing the parameter from infobox templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably somewhere between 14.7k (URL) and 19.6k (URL + template) uses in references. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Izno and Nikkimaria:, this just shows a couple of hundred (500 limit, less than a page). Funny that not all show up there. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Er, not sure why you're seeing what you're seeing, but at that link I see 15k. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. That's 1-500 of 16k for me. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Same, definitely says Results 1 – 500 of 16,165 in the top right corner. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, ah, yes. Funny, so I can’t see results 500-1000? Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Beetstra I can scroll to the very bottom of the page and click Next 500 and get the next page of results and continue. There's no paging or Nexting at the top on Search results unlike some Wikipedia pages such as history or contributions. Could that be what you're missing? Canterbury Tail talk 16:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, yep, that’s it. Inconsistent.
Anyway, 500 or 16000, quite a number of unreliable sources, and still quite a number unaccounted for (50.000 odd, of which quite some on talkpages). Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As with special templates like {{cite tweet}}, I prefer to keep templates like the findagrave template as it makes it easier to find and audit usage (yes, I do agree that some use it under the belief that it is approved). (I wonder if there should be a general discussion about such templates to see if one of those is more convincing for the majority.)
There are 15.1k links in mainspace and another 37.6k template uses in mainspace. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this conversation, there is hidden category for Wikidata and WP article mismatch for the Find A Grave data, also we have Template:Find a Grave. The removal of these external links does not make sense in my opinion unless your planning on addressing these other factors as well. Jooojay (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Beetstra, has there been an attempt to reach consensus about black-listing Find A Grave? The site values quantity over quality, and it's not hard to find documentation about it refusing to correct errors for families because the "memorial owner" refuses to relinquish control of their entry because doing so reduces their score on the site. Here's one example that outlines some of the problems. Data on the site is essentially self-published, and therefore not reliable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Mikeblas, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2016#findagrave.com, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2020_Archive_Oct_12#User:MartinBarry13, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2013_Archive_Jan_1#findagrave.com, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:Thomas.W_removing_Findagrave_links_and_the_place_of_burial_from_articles. There is useful stuff there, but I start to wonder whether the problem (rather blind additions wherever deemed possible 'because they are not forbidden') starts to outweigh the couple of cases where the information is indispensible (we have a whitelist for a reason). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
{u|Beetstra}}, in that 2016 blacklisting discussion, I learned that use of the website as a reference is already pretty strongly discouraged at WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Should we just move forward be removing most links to it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Mikeblas, per RSP, all references can go, and I really wonder how many genuinely useful ELs remain after a cleanup. Quite a task though, and seen what precipitated this discussion, one may see quite some resistance. I will be more active in removing them as well. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Time 100

I'm wondering about the use of external links in the article Time 100. Adding these lists as external links might have been done because adding the actual list content itself would've been a copyvio per WP:TOP100 and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, but adding them as embedded external links doesn't seem like a good idea either. Maybe there's one main link which all of these subpages link to that can be added to the external links section of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, nah, this is not the way. Where there is something to tell, the link is a great reference, the others should either go or something should be said so it can function as a reference. We cannot do something alike The_Top_100_Crime_Novels_of_All_Time vs. https://pastoffences.wordpress.com/the-cwa-top-100/ ?? Dirk Beetstra T C 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Beetstra for taking a look at this. I've either removed or hid the links and added {{Empty section}} to sections that had no prose content (i.e. were just links). I left a WP:HIDDEN stating that the links might have some value if converted to inline citations in support of prose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working as part of team of researchers on a project called the Interactive Nolli Map. It's a project that began in 2005, and it is an accurate interactive map of 18th century Rome. Adobe Flash's expiration encouraged a team of researchers to update the map, and now it is equipped with significantly more detailed entries and tools that generally make it more user friendly. There are exactly 1320 ruins or objects listed in the map, and each object has a detailed entry, geographic information, drawings made at the time of the Nolli Map's creation. The map allows a user to orient themselves in Ancient Rome, and it allows users to get a remarkably accurate sense of a specific object's geographic location that is nearly impossible to replicate in text. In addition, the links that we have been using center the user on the specific object in the map. Furthermore, inclusion in the original 1748 Nolli Map was often important in itself in many of the objects or building's histories. The interactive map is completely free to access and requires no account or registration of any kind. We have read Wikipedia's External Linking Guidelines and think that it would be really helpful to update Wikipedia's External Links on pages that already link to the now defunct site and add specific external links directing users to that exact object in the map to the site on pages that don't link to it anymore, but we keep running into warnings and the links keep being removed because of successive linking. I would love to discuss the potential merits of this site in contextualizing an encyclopedic entry and its overall benefit to these entries. Please let me know if creating these links will be possible and avoiding removals is possible. I've linked an example of page that I added a link to, so you can see both the Nolli website and how it connects to the entry.

Example of a website with the Nolli Map External Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Antoninus_Pius

Nolli Map General Webiste: https://nolli.stanford.edu/#%5B12.4782%2C41.9013%5D

Rendor21 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So I've reviewed these map links and it's just an app on top of OSM. I am not sure that there is added-value sufficient to justify putting it in hundreds of articles. You could just as easily drop Google Maps or Mapquest in here and have the same effect. Does this user truly intend to add the link to every article corresponding to an item on the map? Yikes! Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rendor21, my first question is whether you have investigated Wikidata, as a comprehensive set of links/locations is often wanted there.
My second question is whether you think this might be suitable for the map service. To understand what I mean, please go to Column of Antoninus Pius and look (probably in the upper right corner, near the search box) for a small link that says "Coordinates". Click the numbers. That will open a new map page. Does your project look like something that could fit into that group? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian online library

I am considering adding some links to [26]. The site allows downloads of a lot of texts that aren't available on more commonly used online resources like the Internet Archive. I am aiming in particular for Jagić, Vatroslav (1838–1923): Istorija slavjanskoj filologii, St. Petersburg 1910 and Vajs, Josef (1865-1959): Rukověť hlaholské paleografie, Prague 1932. My (poor) understanding is that the first one is public domain in the US, the second is not. I naturally intend to add the link, not text from these publications. This link doesn't seem to be used on en-wp, and just a couple of times on ru-wp (and probably cited a couple more times as Библиотека Фронтистеса), but seems otherwise serious. The sites copyright policy is stated here, it seems to roughly say the site was made in accordance to a russian copyright law (probably mentioning an outdated one) and to contact in case of perceived offence (with some effort I can provide a resonably reliable full translation). I already linked to it only at Talk:Glagolitic_script#Origin_of_Djervь_Ⰼ. Personuser (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition: if this helps the site is also given as the source for some files in the public domain on Wikipedia[27][28][29][30] and one particular page linking to a more recent work appears at WP:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/flybb.ru Personuser (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_23&oldid=1073212253"