Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to the external links noticeboard
    This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
    • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
    • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
    • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
    		 Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

    Indicators
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to WPSPAM
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter

    Bot? Sock? Farm?

    [edit]

    As I've said over at SPI...

    I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.

    The edits – [1] [2] – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.

    It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
    I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @Beetstra, MER-C, LaundryPizza03, any thoughts on how to detect this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Found one more account.

    The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.

    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali. MER-C 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw this by Drutohishab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. MER-C 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- GreenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in WP:AN's header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC, @LaundryPizza03, @MER-C, it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- GreenC 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been actively updating it in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been encouraged to use this list instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Months ago I warned User:Themashup to stop canvassing external links to BookBrowse. As far as I can tell, they've added the links in good faith. After objecting to my warning they've resumed canvassing adding the links [3],[4],[5],[6]. I've nominated BookBrowse for deletion as I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. I'm seeking additional opinions as to whether this sort of canvassing is appropriate, and I've notified them of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not quite sure what you mean by canvassing. WP:REFSPAM, maybe?
    All of the diffs you link show an online magazine being used to support article content. Wikipedia:External links repeatedly things like "these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article" (emphasis in the original). I think that you will need to take your concern to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and explain why you think https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/1285/brick-lane#media_reviews from a review aggregator website is actually WP:UNRELIABLE for statements, e.g., about how many stars Kirkus Reviews did or didn't give that book. I think you'll find that story difficult to sell there, so I suggest thinking about how you could present your concern clearly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "canvas" isn't the right word here, ref spamming is what I intended to convey. Thanks for your input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so confused right now. I told you I felt you diddn't know what BookBrowse was as you acted like it was just nonsense when it adds media reception (take for instance: https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/2286/in-the-kitchen#media_reviews, they also, from what I checked, for more info on the media scores they have a section on it: https://www.bookbrowse.com/more_info/index.cfm/fuseaction/faq_20/full/1) and when I asked and told you I diddn't see what you're point was it feels like you ignored answering my question with no point it seemed. Aggregates are sometimes used on Wiki for purposes and that seemed lost when trying to communicate with you. You brought no good reason, from what I checked over and over again, only that it was nonsenical or spam rather than anything useful and brought no real point with it and when I asked for a point I was ignored and it felt like you lacked any reasoning. Themashup (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I start to feel this is better handled at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM and/or Wikipedia:COI/N. I see some rather dedicated accounts aroun. (I must agree, not a discussion for here) Dirk Beetstra T C 19:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is only part of a larger discussion first began at Talk:The Years (Ernaux_book) and expanded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Unencyclopedic review aggregation. Themashup decided to become a single-issue account to spam this trashy review aggregation at the top of every reception section. Their exhaustive edits are unusually unproductive and uninformative, as I have expressed in detail on the aforementioned talk pages. A self-confessed lazy editor on a bizarre crusade to spam this trash. Οἶδα (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Curlie template deletion

    [edit]

    Some of you may remember many years ago that part of WP:EL efforts to reduce excessive links was to encourage the placement of a DMOZ, and then later once DMOZ was defunct a Curlie link. Curlie is also pretty much defunct now - the site is nearly always down - and was mostly taken over by spammers when it was working. So I have nominated the template {{Curlie}} for deletion and am letting you know here as a courtesy so that a full discussion can take place. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Template:Curlie. Thank you and keep on keeping spam off Wikipedia! --10mmsocket (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add a blog from a verified institution to a Wikipedia page

    [edit]

    I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Wikipedia page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?

    Global Cyber University Fanmadehenecia (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fanmadehenecia Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention Hwang Hyun-jin, so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, WP:BLPSPS likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university Fanmadehenecia (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fanmadehenecia, you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
    This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of Hwang Hyun-jin?"
    Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a goodwill ambassador for Korea in the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elton John videography

    [edit]

    I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in Elton John videography. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly, there is no ==External links== section in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against WP:EL unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not banned per Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists, but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Computational chemistry

    [edit]

    @Ldm1954 and I are having a discussion here on whether the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. We would love to have more input. Dajasj (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a comment, I am cross-posting to both WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ldm1954, while this could be argued as a type of Wikipedia:Further reading, it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals might have some advice for you about how to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were WP:RS. I do think that a problem with the External Links Remover, like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate WP:EL. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, WP:BRD). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
    In the particular instance, WP:ELBURDEN says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1258804959"