Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:External links

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
Within the "Longevity of links" section, the "What can be done with a dead external link" subsection begins with: "Within the ==External links== section, dead URLs are of no use." There is no mistake as to the meaning.
The subsection has a "main articles" Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links and Wikipedia:Link rot. The first "main article" points to preventing and repairing dead links --- as sources, and can be confusing.
The second actually states "About|(primarily) link rot in Eternal links", that omits "section".
It is my understanding that Wikipedia has evolved (a fairly long time ago) towards it not being acceptable to use a link in the "External links" section as a general source. Sometimes a determination requires some exploring but sometimes a link in the "external links" section is factored as a citation. On some articles it is more clear if there is no other sourcing and only a link in the "External links" section.
It could be just my misunderstanding but it seems to add a level of confusion to use a "Main" link to the Wikipedia:Citing sources (WP:DEADREF) when the subject is the External links section in articles. There is an obvious difference between an "External link" and a link in the "External links" section. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this address your concern? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like that better. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the more general subject, for the purposes of Template:Unreferenced, any URL anywhere on the page (to a webpage that contains something relevant to the article) should be treated as a source. What makes something be a source is whether it contains information that verifies any part of the article. Obviously, some ways of formatting the citation for a source are better than others, but the formatting isn't what makes something be a source. Articles aren't wholly unreferenced merely because the formatting is suboptimal. (The {{no footnotes}} template is used for URLs that are in a list at the end instead of being properly formatted into ref tags.)
Editors also have to watch out for people (including me, back in the day) who changed ==References== sections to say ==External links== if the contents of that section were just WP:General references instead of WP:Inline citations. Genrefs have never been banned, though they are not adequate substitutes when inline citations are specifically required. You can "legally" use a genref for some simple material ("The capital of France is Paris") but not for something like a direct quotation, because WP:V specifically requires an inline citation for all direct quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ WhatamIdoing. A blank "References" section would show as not having a source even if there was a source in the "External links" section. "Any URL anywhere on the page" would be with the assumption that a url or link didn't have copyright violations.
I just recently changed an "External links" listing to general source at St. Nicholas Church, Louny. That was before I was going to convert the url's and found both to be 404 errors. My justification was basically that an "External links" section is one of the optional appendices and can be deleted. Plus, a general source is a source. Wikipedia has gravitated to it not being acceptable to source through the external links section. There was an article that showed to be unsourced and my attempting to correct this ended basically with an unsourced article. WOW! It is a good thing that the current state of the article does not determine notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you were starting with a {{no footnotes}} article, and ended up with an {{unreferenced}} one. If you thought the URLs were genrefs, then leaving them in the article, but tagging them with {{dead link}} would be an intermediate option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I had to stop but was looking for sourcing whoch I plan to resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author's names order

[edit]

In some articles when an external link is to an item with a named author sometimes the order is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, are you asking about Wikipedia:Citing sources? In the ==External links== section, there usually isn't any author's name given. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about citations WhatamIdoing.
In External links sections authors are usually mentioned when the link is to a book at the Internet Archive/Google Books or an article. Mcljlm (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcljlm, can you give me a link to an example or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel#External_links, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain#External_links, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Slovo#External_links and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lubbock,_1st_Baron_Avebury#External_links includes examples of named authors WhatamIdoing. Mcljlm (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcljlm, most of that appears to be due to people incorrectly using WP:Citation templates like {{cite web}} in the ==External links== section. Usually, authors aren't included in the ==External links== section. If they are named, then it most often looks something like this:
There is no prescribed format, but there is a preference for having them look obviously different from the citations (e.g., don't use citation templates). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes formatting

[edit]

Can someone take a look at this edit made by CopperyMarrow15 in August 2023? When the "notes" were converted to WP:SRF#Explanatory notes in change their numbering from numerical (1, 2, 3, etc.) to alphabetic (a, b, c, etc.). Since these notes are are referred to using Wikilinks in edit summaries or on other talk pages, all of the links no longer work. If there's a way to use {{efn}} with numbers instead of letters of the alphabet, then that might be preferable so that links to the notes still work. If not, then perhaps the bold change should be reverted to re-establish the WP:STATUSQUO and allow it to be discussed a bit. If using "efn" is the way to go here and it's impossible to convert them to a numerical system, then perhaps WP:ANCHORs should be added so that links to the old system work again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such links can't be preserved forever anyway; even if the old formatting style were restored, the numbers change every time an earlier ref is added to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but "anchors" can be updated each time a note is added or removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to replace all of the links in past discussions that currently link to something like "WP:EL#cite_note-6" to a newly created, permanent anchor? When that footnote becomes #cite_note-7, we can't add an anchor to its old #cite_note-6 location, as that number will be needed in for a different place on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought just updating the anchors for the efns being used in the EL page would work; however, after thinking about it a but more, you're right that there's much more involved than that. As long as there's a way to link to the notes like before, things should be fine. Thanks for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs and Bible verses

[edit]

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Template:IETF RFC exempt from WP:NOELBODY? is the most recent discussion about whether WP:NOELBODY bans all external links in the body. I think that one is largely going to resolve as "Huh, I didn't know that Template:Cite IETF existed and has all the functionality I want", but I think that the questions reveal a shift in editors' thinking towards the idea that everything that is not permitted is forbidden.

If memory serves, we have historically permitted external links to non-WMF-hosted websites, in the middle of sentences/paragraphs, in five instances:

The first three used to be hardcoded as magic links into the MediaWiki parser; you couldn't avoid them even when you wanted to. The last was used widely enough that it couldn't be described as anything other than the community's widespread and long-standing practice. (These days, the Bible verse template has an option to point to Wikisource.)

My impression is that PMIDs and ISBNs aren't normally used in the text of an article, but the other three use cases are still valid. In addition, some lists correctly contain external links (see, e.g., the many Lists of websites as well as the examples in WP:ELLIST).

I am wondering whether it's time to write down some of these "unwritten rules", so that good-faith editors (as well as any editors seeking to win a content dispute by objecting to the formatting) can see that the most common "Other exceptions" that this guideline mentions really are permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another: Template:United States Code and related law templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no objection for over a month, I have added some additional examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted part of it. If I understand the above correctly, the argument being made is that historically Bible verses have been widely linked - but I'm not seeing a reason why that should be the case, if that is still true at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I think if you click this link: Genesis 1:15–16 you will understand why that particular template is not banned.
The usual context is something like "Alice says that Genesis 1:15–16 is meant to tell a story,[1] but Bob says that it's more properly understood as a poem or song lyrics[2]". It's too long to stick the text in, and the title is too obscure to assume that the reader knows what it means (like saying "Sonnet 130", as if we all have the numbering scheme for Shakespeare's sonnets memorized). Of course, if we had an article at Genesis 1:15 (as we do at Sonnet 130), then linking to the article would be preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I can see a benefit to understanding what Alice and Bob are referring to, but that same argument could apply to anything they might be referring to, whether musical lyrics or part of a novel. What we would do in those cases is quote the passage if particularly relevant, or link to the article on the broader work. I don't see a reason to treat Bible verses differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see why a link to Wikisource is okay, then could I encourage you to go review the original form of the footnote?
What we do in cases where we believe the reader will get some "benefit to understanding what Alice and Bob are referring to" is:
  1. quote the passage if particularly relevant,
  2. link to the article if one exists, and
  3. for certain fixed, famous works (usually ones whose titles are cryptic), for which directly quoting the passage is inappropriate (so we can't use option 1) and for which no article exists (so we can't use option 2), link to the relevant text.
This is fundamentally about putting the readers' benefit ahead of thoughtless compliance with The Rules™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question your basic premises here: if a reader cannot understand an article without reference to an external source, then we are doing a poor job of serving that reader, regardless of whether linking that source is in accordance with the rules or not.
An article on the Book of Genesis exists. You're proposing a scenario where the reader needs to understand something more specific yet somehow something that we can't quote, and also where we know what version is being referenced (because it's definitely not fixed). And you're also suggesting this scenario is unique to "certain fixed, famous works". I don't think that logic makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase "certain fixed, famous works" risks opening a whole can of worms. Even in this instance, as noted, there are many different versions of the bible. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago, the edit in question did not include the phrase "certain fixed, famous works". It just expanded a single example of an accepted template to four examples of accepted templates (and also added examples of templates that aren't used this way).
@Nikkimaria, I don't say that the scenario is unique to "certain fixed, famous works". The same scenario applies to (e.g.,) memes and movie quotes, which in a social media context might be posted with a link. But the community doesn't accept external links to memes and movie quotes. They do accept external links to a handful of other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your own response above used the phrase "certain fixed, famous works". If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? DonIago (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the phrase I used above is relatively unimportant, because it's not part of the proposed footnote.
What I mean is that the footnote used to say:
  • Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.
and that I think it would be better to give more than one example of a template, e.g.,:
  • Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates that link to original documents being mentioned by name/number in the article (such as – but not limited to – {{Bibleverse}}, {{IETF RFC}}, and {{United States Code}}) and templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.
We have a problem with editors reading "other exceptions include..." and thinking that it means "the sole acceptable deviation from standard practice". Listing more than one should reduce this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And cause the opposite one: encouraging the use of inline external links for primary sources as a default, even where another solution serves the reader better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found this to be generally the case, but I agree with you that the goal is the best solution for the reader.
Using the example above ("Alice says that Genesis 1:15–16 is meant to tell a story,[1] but Bob says that it's more properly understood as a poem or song lyrics[2]"), I suggest that having neither link nor explanation is not usually the best solution. Do you agree with me on that point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that what you've presented in isolation isn't particularly helpful for the reader, but without context it's difficult to assess the most appropriate solution - whether quoting, linking externally, linking internally, explaining, or omitting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the best choice would depend on the context.
Your reply indicates that linking externally could (sometimes, perhaps rarely) be the most appropriate solution. Have I understood you correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely, but sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in that rare situation, which method do you want editors to use to provide the link? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, would be highly context-specific - if it's a major touchpoint for the text use of {{wikisource}} may even be warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We try to constrain that particular template to the ==External links== section, because it's bulky. (The general thinking is that if it's worth that much space in the main article, then you ought to be considering a blockquote instead.)
For inline links, the Bibleverses template is the normal approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{od}
To continue this:
  • It is sometimes acceptable to have an external link to Bible verses (and some other things) in the middle of a sentence.
  • Template:Bibleverse is the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses).
  • IMO this guideline should just say that. This should not be an "unwritten rule"; it should be written down where people who don't know that the template exists, or who just learned about it, can find out about it.
So: Why not just say that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because saying that makes it look like this is a standard, when it is rarely if ever the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are adding the link, then using this template is the standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I just ran across this and my internet is down. I would like to state that the bulleted form of (first comment), ::(second comment), back to :(first comment) etc, is far easier on the eyes.
I will have to reread things to really be abreast of things. One thing about the comments "So: Why not just say that?" and the reply "Because saying that makes it look like this is a standard, when it is rarely if ever the best solution.", leaves me a little confused.
If I am not off base: First, there are editors that have extensive command of verbiage to note that something is "rarely used" as an exception. Second, I surmise it would ultimately be a decision of consensus on a particular article, if a "seldom used" or less than "best solution", should be in an article or not. I will have to look at a Bibleverse template example but ATM I am hamstrung with internet issues.
I will note there is Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. In the External links guideline the lead paragraph states, "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article", and This page in a nutshell: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." Not "normally" and "With rare exceptions" indicate there can be, "rare" exceptions, but I would have to look at some. I apparently and simply must have continually missed that the template is for "External links". If that is so (and I am sure it is), and it "is the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses)" then it is not "rare exceptions", as there are many instances of Bible verse content (if some, many, or all are in a template) on Wikipedia. It seems then that there is a need for discussing some agreeable solution. I perform a lot of work in (as in the "inside") the External links section so am one of those that didn't know about this. I also consider myself extremely well "versed" concerning the Bible, and not being timid decided a long time ago to steer clear of most Biblical articles or discussions.
  • There are two arguments or comments that stand out. I suppose two ways of looking at this:
    • 1)- "It is sometimes acceptable to have an external link to Bible verses (and some other things) in the middle of a sentence.", with "If you are adding the link, then using this template is the standard.", and
    • 2)- "And cause the opposite one: encouraging the use of inline external links for primary sources as a default, even where another solution serves the reader better.
The second comment is in line with a saying in a TV movie. Something like, "If you build it they will come". If you provide a reason to use a template, it will become everyday common. It is like the plague, it will spread quickly. However, placing a binder on those wishing to cite Biblical passages only seems normal to those on the other side of the fence. There is such a mainstream move against anything about the Bible that what Nikkimaria stated, "I don't see a reason to treat Bible verses differently.", is likely the reason. I mean, Guinness World Records states "the Christian Bible" is still the best selling book of all time, if it is believed or not. Possibly between 5 and 7 billion copies? We can quote books of pure fiction but not works considered by many to be non-fiction. A criteria for a source is that it is published. ::::Also, A template could have a place to list which Bible a source is used from. However, there is a BIG can of worms looming around this discussion. The "External links" section has a particular set of criteria that "generally" is for that section only. Now we have that citing Biblical passages in an external links template is "normal". Anyway, that is all I am going to state about that. Let me know what you figure out. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About '"the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses)" then it is not "rare exceptions"': Providing a link is (or should be) fairly rare. However, whenever you do that rare thing, then using this template is the common way to provide that link.
If you are using it to "cite", or "as a source", then you should not put that in the text. Compare:
  • Revered Rae referred to Genesis 1:15–16 when claiming that the Sun, Moon, and stars are the source of light for the world.<ref>Rae, Rev. (2012) "Let There Be Light: Symbolism in the Genesis Creation Story" Bible Magazine. p.14</ref>
  • The Bible says that God made the Sun, Moon, and stars.<ref>Genesis 1:15–16</ref>
In the first, the link shows you what the text/passage/poem is. You should first link to any article that provides the same information; you should next consider whether a link is necessary (probably, for a sentence like that, since most people don't know what those numbers mean, though you should consider re-writing the sentence to avoid the numbers); finally, if a link is deemed necessary, then you should use this template instead of placing the link manually.
In the second, the link is being used as a citation to support article content. You probably shouldn't do this at all (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion; consider the potential problems of original research with this class of primary sources), but if you're going to rely on this primary source for such a statement, then it belongs in ref tags and not in the sentence itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, according to that rationale it would be "rare", possibly somewhat controversial, but not common. I tend to stay away from OR. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which rationale do you think is the one about a controversial action? The rationale for providing a link to 'tell the reader which passage is being talked about' is not the rationale for 'editors should avoid using ancient religious texts to support claims in articles'.
For the WP:EL issue, if you would write "Shakespeare used imagery of the Sun and Moon in Sonnet 21[1]", then you should equally write "Revered Rae says Genesis 1:15–16 talks about the Sun, Moon, and stars[1]".
And if we didn't have suitable Wikipedia articles (which, as it happens, we have one for the Shakespeare sonnet but not one for the Genesis passage), you should write "Shakespeare used imagery of the Sun and Moon in Sonnet 21[1]" and equally write "Revered Rae says Genesis 1:15–16 talks about the Sun, Moon, and stars[1]". (Both of these links point to Wikisource.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&oldid=1255279278"