Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

Unique resources

I think that this is a dubious statement:

  • [one should generally avoid] "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

It may be that I am misreading the "should generally avoid" and "does not provide" if so then please fell free to tell me I am wrong. I read this as:

  • one should generally only include sites that provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

In which case I think that there is a problem with the sentence.

Something that underdeveloped articles may require is a bibliography. The advantage of linking to a reading list provided by a third party such as a university, is that they have academic expertise in selecting appropriate books for such a bibliography which a random list built up from additions by various editors is very unlikely to match. However in a featured article it is likely that comprehensive list of references alphabetically sorted by author makes such a bibliography in an external links section superfluous.

Another example is a link to a picture of the subject of a biography article. In a more developed article (particularly one of featured article quality) it is likely that an image would be provided, making such a link to an alternative in the external links section superfluous.

The point of this is that there are things that it is desirable to place in an underdeveloped article that is not a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean external links with information which can be incorporated into the Wikitext, but have not been incorporated into the wikitext yet? If so, then the point is that either that information needs to be incorporated (and the link used as a reference), or such a link can be suggested on the talkpage (that is what they are for, to discuss article improvement and where such info can be found). What you otherwise see (and that happens sometimes) are articles of 1-2 lines of text with 20-30 external links to more info, and often good links suitable to expand the article (see also WP:SPAMHOLE). Although the links were added in good faith to help future editors, one sees that often these links stay there for years and years, leaving the page in a pity state (possibly interested people will come, and click through using the external links, and not update the page - if they return at all), the more empty page (same 2 sentences, only one or two external links) would IMHO often more entice editors to add a sentence (don't have much evidence for the 'enticing' part, but it is easy to find external links on articles which are really suitable to significantly expand an article, and which are there for a long time). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Or, the existence of pre-researched links, might entice some people into editing the article, incorporating the info that they find readily available. (And that they might not think to look for on the talkpage.)
Also, casual readers cannot benefit from the links if they're relegated to the talkpage.
(Just to provide the balancing perspectives ;) Ideally, all content gets added and cited in perfect formatting from the beginning, but reality isn't ideal.)
The wording of the guideline is to combat problems; our rules are generally quite firmly worded (so that even stubborn personalities will get their points) but they usually need to be interpreted/applied contextually. Some articles are worse spam-magnets or EL-bloat problems than others, and need a strongly worded rule as a cluestick. We definitely want to avoid WP:SPAMHOLE event-horizon sized lists, but we also want to strongly encourage good content additions, eg if someone wants to add a link to a bibliography on a notable-author-stub, that should be welcomed (but currently runs afoul of this rule).
I'm not sure how we should tweak the wording of this line, but I agree it's worth re-examining. —Quiddity (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The first is of course possible, though the problem is that some of these 'pre-researched links' stay sometimes for years, and don't entice anyone any more than what they would do on the talkpage. And sure, the casual reader cannot benefit from the links if they are not there .. though that is not what Wikipedia is for - we are not a linkfarm or a directory (or Google). I'm afraid that articles have more a tendency to turn into a LinkFarm when links are there and no text, than that links 'disappear' (i.e., become references) and the articles grow. Links tend to entice editors more to add more links than to use them to actually expand the article. Moreover, when Spam event horizon has been reached, there is a risk that the linkfarm is firmly cleaned without the links being used. A better place is really the talkpage. But I am glad for the balancing perspective :-)
It is of course a matter of finding an optimum. This is a guideline (occasional exceptions apply) and we do Ignore All Rules if we think that that helps Wikipedia. If a link links to data which can be used to massively expand the article (and even when in the end ALL of the external info could be incorporated), then the choice to put it in the external links section certainly makes sense. When the external link has some little amount of info which certainly all can be incorporated, but which will in the end not improve the understanding of the article so much, I'd put it on the talkpage as a suggestion. Or, for both, draw a bit of info from it, and use them as a reference (if I really look for more info, I tend to not use the external links, I try some of the references and use those to expand my knowledge - but maybe that is a trick of an experienced Wikipedia user). Don't read it too strict, and use common sense (and then also the link to the (and hopefully not 'one of the many') biography of the notable-author-stub might pass).
Not sure how to word that differently in the guideline without losing too much of the strength of the statement and making it too inviting to add links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ELNO may need to be clarified

An editor made the following commenI am familiar with WP:ELNO. Can you point to where including both an official website and official Twitter not allowed?. It's right there, but he doesn't want to talk to me. Would anyone care to

  1. revert the addition of the social media link on the article, and
  2. modify the guideline to clearly state this.

I would do it, but this is becoming an edit war with someone and an WP:AXE to grind and I don't want to get muddy, thanks. Editing the quideline now would be suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's already in the guideline, under WP:ELOFFICIAL. The other editor should also read WP:ELBURDEN (contested links are always removed). If you need help resolving this, post at WP:ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Vevo

Shouldn't everything that's on the Vevo section of YouTube be okay to use as an external link? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ELPEREN, and then ask at WP:ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Source Forge

Should a link to a Source Forge project that seems to have been created by one person be treated as a personal website, and thus not liked to? [ This is the edit] that raises this question.

I intend to remove the link anyway because it seems to be a conflict of interest. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion notification

The template used ~5000 times to link to the external site of tv.com is being discussed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_27. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikiplays

It is odd that Wikipedia hasn't embraced these, given the hullabaloo over access. Most of them are on Youtube, rather than wikiplays.org, but still, we can't expect our own audio readers to keep pace, or to be regularly updated. Serendipodous 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd never heard of them until now. They appear to be... OH GOD! THE HORROR!
"Uploaded videos: 1-10 of 94233"
94 thousand videos uploaded. Approx 3 videos are being added, per minute.
All voiced by text-to-speech software.
The visual component is the slowest slideshow ever. Eg. The 58 minute long video on Mercury is illustrated by 5 images...
This is not good. Wikipedia is facepalming.
If it was a small test-run, of an alpha-stage project, then I might try to offer constructive criticism, so that future videos might be useful; but as it stands, this is just horrible.
(If you know the creators, tell them that their site has NO OPTION for contacting them, and gives NO DETAILS on who they are.) I rarely use allcaps, but this warrants it. –Quiddity (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:External links/Archive 33#Links normally to be avoided, #8 says "links ... that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java)". I'd like to add an exception for PDF format, since it is widely used to publish documents and most everyone has the necessary reader (or should/will). A large number of WP external links and references already point to PDFs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a hard-set disallowance for PDF links, just that they should be directly appropriate for the topic. More often, you actually can link in the PDF via an inline cite and avoid the EL. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to link to an HTML page that then gives the reader an opportunity to download the PDF, assuming he wants to?
This section is ELNO, not ELNEVER. It's what we normally avoid, not what we must never do. If you've got a really good reason for it, then you can ignore this particular item. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
My point is that PDFs, in particular, should not be discouraged, since they are so widely used, in general and in links from existing pages. I can't think of any other format that currently is so ubiquitous as to warrant an exception. Is there a reason to not make this change? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, PDFs are fine. PDFs are supported in-browser by every major, current browser, aren't they? Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
No. Firefox does not come with any PDF reading software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.194.245 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually they're working on that. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Dissagree. I don't see consensus for this change. I do, however, agree with WhatamIdoing that "It's what we normally avoid, not what we must never do.". There may be instances where its acceptable however explicitly allowing these are problematic. PDF exploits are real and have become an increasing a problem. 46% of browser-based exploits were aimed at vulnerabilities of Adobe Reader PDF viewer([1]) and they can install malware([2][3]). Pdf's still require a Plugin or product application, whether its pre-installed in a browser or not its still a Plugin or product application.--Hu12 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Artist social media pages

Are artist official social media pages part of WP:ELNO also? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm (WP:NOT#LINKFARM/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). Generally, people (artists) have an 'official' homepage, which prominently links to the prominent official social media that they have. If so, then a link to the official website is enough. If they don't link you have to consider whether the person does consider the social media of enough interest, and whether the social media page is actually giving significant info (e.g. official twitters sometimes boil down to personal talk, without any real encyclopedic info). But sometimes, even when it is prominently linked from the official site of the subject, there are cases where their use of one of the social media is of so much importance or adds so much more that it may be worth linking (e.g. a reporter who makes heavy use of twitter for reporting news, but hardly uses it 'for personal use'; but that does not happen often).
For those who only use social media, I would consider to use the 1 or maybe 2 most important for the artist (there still is no need to link to all). And also the less prominent official sites are linked as well (people mentioning their YouTube channel prominently on MySpace). Note that some social media are useless without having an account (I don't use MySpace, I don't have an account, and I therefore can not access official myspace pages of bands .. if it is the only web presence, OK, but if it is the second I would just not link because it is inaccessible and 'inferior' to the official site - but still there may be exceptions if the myspace if of high importance).
I hope this explains a bit. If in doubt, start a discussion on the talkpage of the page where you find there are too many, or where one may be of interest to add. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 10:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Beetstra, that really explains a lot. The article in question was The Chainsmokers, where a user was adding all the Facebook, Twitter etc links to the EL part. I just removed it, keeping the official website. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The underlying principle, always, is that the subject generally gets only one external link which is under their control. Other external links should be to impartial sources of additional information which doesn't belong in the article itself. Occasions when this is true of twitter and the like are so rare as to almost not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com

See TfD of tv.com templates. Frietjes (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2012

Hi I wish to edit the TITAN Industries page.

Regards, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.51.66 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Malware, phishing, and other technically harmful websites

Please go to WP:VP/Pr, where I've proposed that we expand WP:ELNEVER by prohibiting the inclusion of websites that attempt to harm users through malware, phishing, and related problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ELNEVER is "imposed from on high". It is what you can't do (e.g., the software will not allow you to link to a blaklisted site), not what editors here have decided is a really, really, really bad idea.
Also, when we're talking about non-blacklisted malware sites, there are frequently disagreements about whether it's truly a malware site. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed removal of one criterion

Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, rather than proscriptive. I therefore propose that we remove the sentence:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

from the WP:LINKSTOAVOID section. Not only does it not describe current practice, and is it vague, but many of our articles will never be FAs, and FA criteria are not the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the whole point of WP:EL is to discourage people from adding a multitude of links—Wikipedia is not a link farm. Anyone is able to edit, and adding links is a favorite pastime of some people so there needs to be criteria for deciding which to retain. Per WP:IAR (and because WP:EL is a guideline), exceptions can be justified as required. Any useful website can be found in Google so there is no danger that removing a few links from an article means the websites cannot be found. In general, any recommendation to change a guideline or policy should be accompanied with a couple of examples that show what benefit may arise from the change. In this case, what article needs what link (where the link was removed because of the quoted sentence)? Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If anything we need to tighten up our guidelines. The fact that most articles aren't FA's isn't a reason to remove the critrion - at least I can't see why it should be. I've just run into Haplogroup H (mtDNA)#External links which has 15 links. I'd love something more specific about numbers of links to help me there, where I might find resistance to removing anything. And there are worse examples out there. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to both. There may indeed be a need to "discourage people from adding a multitude of links"; and 15 ELs may be excessive; but the wording above isn't a solution to this; it's vague, and FA criteria are irrelevant. As for an example; the above wording has been used to suggest that we should not link to Xeno-canto from articles about individual bird species, for which we have no birdsong recordings on Commons; but that's not the point - the point is the wording's unsuitability. I reiterate: Guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, rather than proscriptive. The wording above does not describe current best practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your section header is suggesting a removal of a criterion. That first criterion is actually there to make sure that the external links are of the best possible quality - it may be that the wording needs to be changed or updated, but removing it altogether would simply allow all rubbish to be added. That very first 'rule' is a simple threshold (which nonetheless is still subject to discussion, WP:IAR etc., we are talking guideline here). And taking the highest quality links is current practice, and it avoids 'Oh, my site also says something about a birds of a feather, so my link goes there as well'.

Regarding xeno-canto - I would consider that such a link would pass #1. It is a resource that does add to the article. Sure, it could be replaced by a commons-media-link at some point (and I could see it being a (albeit soft) FA-status criterion that a sound is uploaded to commons), but until then it is a great addition. And it is 'could', such sounds may not be trivial to get in a 'free' form which can be uploaded to Commons (I assume we are not allowed to take the sound from xeno-canto, and upload it, and I assume that the people from xeno-canto themselves would not upload them either), and as long as we do not have a 'free' sound, linking to it is the only solution (if the sound is uploaded, then the site certainly should go if all that it adds is yet another sound - "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."). Care may have to be taken for sounds that are available from many sites, as it then runs the risk of being the first in a Spam event horizon (the 'his site is linked, so why not mine' - and if you miss that 2-3 times, before you know it you have 15 sites with bird-sounds linked).

Using #1 there as a reason to take it out is certainly not the way forward, and I think, if it is the sole reason to have objection to the link, it is a faulty reason. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, ELNO #1 is perhaps the second most likely criterion to be cited by editors. (#10 on social networking is probably the most frequently cited.) That suggests that it has fairly broad support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ELNO question

For works linked off-site, do they have to be in PD in the US, or just their source country? For an example, Darah dan Doa is PD in Indonesia and on YouTube. It would have fallen afoul of the URAA and thus be ineligible for Commons, but ELNO is a little unclear if we can link to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:LINKVIO, and it might be helpful in figuring out what's best. If it doesn't, then you might consider asking at that talk page, where the copyright-savvy folks tend to hang out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How should we link to pages on websites who claim to prohibit links to their pages? Please see discussion at WP:VPP#Prohibited (sic) links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, external links and links in references are just for convenience, as service to our reader. They are by no means a complete must, nor are they absolutely necessary ('more information about me on my userpage' vs. 'more information about me here' - sure, the second is better, but anyone knowing his way around would find the first as well - as long as the description to the page is unambiguous). If they don't want links, just refer to the page without an external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion started on my talk page. Until it developed I had not realised that it needed a wider audience. I have thus copied it verbatim and present it below for wider discussion and a consensus to be reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pasted discussion starts:

I have been searching for a template, similar to {{Third-party-inline}} that we can use as part of external links or inline citations in order to flag the fact that a browser has noted that the destination site may contain malware. A valid name might be {{Malware-inline}}. Obviously the template will be applied manually. We rely on editors to use their proper judgment.

I suspect it would be useful for one of the template dating bots to apply a date to it as well.

I could create the simplistic template easily enough, but i would prefer an expert to create it well and with full documentation and integration into the dating bot.

It may be, of course, that the template already exists by another name. I have been unable to find it, so am asking for direct help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Per this guideline, we should not be linking to pages that have malware in the first place. If a site is reported to test positive for malware, then it should be delinked and replaced with a suitable, clean site. The idea of a template warning is nice, but it has a few flaws:
  1. It would have to be applied universally if we wanted it to be effective (good luck virus-scanning the billion external links there are on the project)
  2. We already disclaim that we are not responsible for the content of external sites. While we certainly don't want to link people to malware, ultimately, making a template like this would go against that disclaimer by making it seem that we're attempting to take responsibility for external content.
I hope my point seems coherent! If not, you're welcome to ask for clarification. Regards, m.o.p 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Your point is coherent. However I would like to take this a little further. Most editors have no idea what to do when a Malware site appears. I was unsure, as you can see. What would be useful is to allow those of us who are unsure to flag the link, and then have a bot do two things:
  1. Perform correct delinking, leaving the original link surrounded by <nowiki></nowiki> tags and marking with a [link may contain Malware] label and flagging the need for a citation (like this diff as an example, though there is no category included)
  2. Enter the page in a suitable category for expert attention
I note your thoughts of universality, and like the desire for this. I think that may be a bit of a side issue. I'm also not at all concerned about disclaimers. I'm more concerned about achieving correction in a universally more competent manner than we do today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the software that decides that a site is "Malware" actually reliable? I see lots of reports of false positives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I have genuinely no idea. I know that browsers appear consistent in their flagging sites as suspicious, but consistency and reliability are different topics. Thus it is my view that the link can be improved and should be improved, but should be left in a manner that users can choose to follow it until it is replaced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I still don't think it's our place to warn users; we should just remove the link, per WP:EL. As I said, we don't take responsibility for the content of third-party sites, and we disclaim that officially. If we start warning people about some sites and not others, I feel we'll get a few confused/angry editors who stumbled upon a malware-infected link because there wasn't a warning template next to it, etc.
This is probably a discussion best had on WT:EL or somewhere on the Village Pump, to be honest. Something like this would need much wider consensus. m.o.p 09:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

pasted discussion ends

I'm not worried about a few confused or angry folk. We get those anyway. What concerns me is the building of a better way of handling potential malware links. Many editors who spot them don;t have the expertise to deal with it. Being able to delegate this to a bot after a simple flagging and tagging makes profound sense. We can't police everything, but we can do our best when we find things, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia talk:External links#Malware.2C_phishing.2C_and_other_technically_harmful_websites?
I've added a link to the WP:BLACKLIST instructions on that item. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I had not read that previously, and I find it interesting. It appears to me that a link can and should be flagged for potential inclusion. I declae myself not competent to discuss the mechanics. My objective was to start the discussion and allow wiser heads to finish it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Radio shows

Hi! I have a discussion with an editor because I removed external links to for instance this radio program in this edit and this radio program in this edit and while it is clear that it doesn't fulfill any of the ELYES parts, I would also like to be able to refer to an ELNO number. Shouldn't we write something about radio discussions in the ELNO list? Lova Falk talk 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If by "radio show", you mean pre-recorded audio programs that you can listen to at any time, they get handled the same as any other type of rich media (think YouTube or television shows). If they're highly relevant to the subject, and have content valuable enough to overlook the problems with rich media that many users have (especially in the developed world or on smartphones), then they may be included. And if not, then they may not.
If by "radio show", you mean a link to a live-streaming radio program, then they are only linked as official links for an article about the radio show. Otherwise, we treat them like blogs and chat rooms: there might have been valuable content at one point, but who knows what will be there tomorrow? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I mean the first one, with interviews and knowledgeable people discussing. I don't have the time and patience to listen for 1½ hour, but my impression is that in this show, people express their own opinions, probably intelligent and/or highly informed opinions. Yet they are still opinions. Was I wrong to exclude them? I will take this question to the Help desk, in order to get more responses. Lova Falk talk 09:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest WP:ELN rather than the WP:Help desk. The help desk is mostly for technical questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing! I had no idea that page even existed. I'll give up this question now, but I'll ask them next time. Lova Falk talk 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A talk page discussion I've commented on (at Talk:List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8) has raised the issue of whether official links (as allowed by WP:ELOFFICIAL) are discouraged in lists of eligible topics. I've always assumed that the guideline here applies to single articles only.

There's also been some questiones raised as to where external links are suggested and where they're to be avoided. In particular, the words "... or other entity .. " (in WP:ELYES) seem to me to allow for loose interpretation.

I propose adding a lead sentence to the Official links section to clarify the scope of the remit, and possibly rewording the two places on the page that describe what subjects qualify. --Noiratsi (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's complicated.
We don't make lists that are just external links (the first version of that page) per WP:ELNO#EL20.
We do sometimes include external links (called WP:Bare URLs) in a list if those links help verify the information and/or if the alternative would be silly. It's easier to understand this in a list that's been formatted as a table. This is okay:
Artists Description Sources
Alice Alice is a painter. http:/alice.com
Bob Bob is a sculptor. http:/bob.com
In the category of something that would be silly, sometimes you have a legitimate need to list dozens of links for dozens of list entries. When the list of external links would be very long, it's far preferable to list "* Alice [http:/alice.com]" than to list "* Alice" at the top of the page and "* [http:/alice.com]" at the bottom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm not 100% clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that there's consensus that sources for listed information can be presented as part of the list? Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links would seem to disagree with you, and the very page you link to (WP:Bare URLs) offers nothing but discouragement.
You mention a "legitimate need" to use links in lists. Is that for the purpose of citing sources, or for the purpose of directing users to the website of the item on the list (i.e. official links)? (Or something else?) If it's for sources, I think it's unnecessarily confusing to exempt lists from the ordinary citation guidelines. (In any case, if the list meets WP:LISTN one might reasonably expect there to be sources which treat the list as a group, reducing the number of sources necessary). If, on the other hand, it's just for the sake of providing a link to the item on the list, it seems to me to go against a huge number of guidelines including those at WP:EL, WP:DIRECTORY and WP:LIST. I agree that common sense should win out and that we can't legislate for every possible fringe scenario, but I think the presence of external links in lists is widespread enough that some sort of consensus is needed.
At the moment I'm not trying to put forward one view or another; I'm just saying I think the guidelines need to be cleared up. If there is consensus for allowing inline links for list items, we need to alter various guidelines and policies to make that clear, and to give the reasoning behind it. If consensus is that such links are a bad idea, we need to make that more explicit in existing guidelines—for example by prohibiting directory-style lists more forcefully or by clarfiying WP:ELOFFICIAL so it can't be interpreted as referring to list items.
If, on the other hand, there is no consensus on this, I'll be happy to start vociferously advocating the removal of as many external links as possible! Lists which serve an informational or internal-navigational purpose are fine, but in neither case do I see any reason for exemption from ordinary linking guidelines. —Noiratsi (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Here's an example of what we're talking about: List of software for molecular mechanics modeling. (I've never worked on that article, so I don't know if the article has any issues, I mention it as an example.) Is it permissible to have an official link for each item? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good example of what's generally accepted. That style is common in lists of radio stations, too.
One reason that it's common is because it's acceptable to include official links for list entries (subject to consensus on the talk page, of course), and because it would be incredibly silly to list 70 or so items in the list, and then turn around and list the same 70 or so items again under ==External links==, only this time with their official link. And in many cases, the same bare URL serves as both a citation ("This radio station really does exist") and as an official link.
Yes, we discourage WP:ECITEs and bare URLs. There are good reasons for that, and I've even added to the discouragement on the relevant pages. But we do accept the style for certain limited purposes, and this is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that it's still discouraged, and if someone wants the official link, they can go to the article about it, or it's not notable enough for WP in the first place and thus shouldn't be linked it (though listing it in a list may still be fine). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends. After all, you want to have citations to support the fact that "KFOO" is a radio station, and "kfoo.com" is a perfectly reliable source for that fact. So why not list "kfoo.com" as your source? And since it is, in fact, an official link, then why not just list it as such?
"* KFOO[1]" followed by "==References== 1. kfoo.com" can be just as silly as presenting exactly the same URL under ==External links==. Sometimes what's best for the reader is to see the ref immediately next to the list entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I should say again that I'm not asking this question because I particularly need to know the answer; I'm asking because I think this issue is one which is important enough to be treated in the policy pages. The current wording (of this set of guidelines and of other relevant bits elsewhere) just seems to confuse the issue.
Are you basing your comments on past discussions, WhatamIdoing? I, like Melodia, have always assumed that, under the current guidelines, official links belong in single-topic articles, not in lists. As I said, if the view you're putting forward is supported by consensus then the guidelines here and elsewhere need to be radically updated and clarified.
As an aside, there are good reasons behind all the existing consensus on references and such. I'm all for common sense, but it shouldn't be applied in such a manner as to go completely and groundlessly against existing policy. --Noiratsi (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm basing my comments, and have always based my comments on this issue (which you will find repeatedly in the archives of this page) on the only true policy on the English Wikipedia, which is what editors actually do in articles. In actual practice, for many years now, and with very few disputes, the community has actually supplied bare URLs in some kinds of lists that function both as primary, non-independent, self-published reliable sources to support the entry's inclusion in the list and as official links to the entity in the list. This is what's been done by hundreds, if not thousands, of editors over the years; therefore, this is what our real policy on this point is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm very happy to go along with this, but I would like to see it reflected clearly in the wording of the guidelines. It doesn't make sense for the policy page to disagree with actual practice, since as you say actual practice is the only real policy. (I like the way that's put at WP:NOTSTATUTE, which notes that policies document what we do do rather than prescribe what we should do). So, as I said right back at the start of this thread, I propose making some changes to this policy page.
  • Part of the current text reads: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below." This could be changed to: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. Items appearing in certain types of list may also be supported where appropriate by an accompanying link to an official website. See Official links below."
  • A paragraph could be added somewhere under "Official links" saying: "In lists of products, companies, people etc. it is sometimes useful to present an official link accompanying a list item. This can be an efficient way to provide factual verification and additional information, but should be done with the other relevant guidelines in mind."
  • If people agree, I'd also like to expand on the above with a further clarification saying "If external links are used to supplement lists in this way, the link should be placed after the corresponding list item. The title of the list item should never be directly linked to an external site, in the same way that external links are not usually used to link article text directly."
I've had another look at pages like WP:LINKFARM and I can't find anything else which would really need to be altered. Which shows I was probably overreacting in the first place...
How does that sound? I'm not 100% happy with it but it'll do as a first attempt. Feel free to reject or alter anything I've suggested! --Noiratsi (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes boldy made to provoke more discussion ;) --Noiratsi (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Melodia Chaconne ♫ on this - as in it is discouraged overall. Two years a I was involved in a debate over just this fact. We went from this format to the current format because of the interpretation of our guide(s) on the matter. We are not here to list links .... external links have there place and our readers should know were they are.Moxy (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the change as it offered far too much support for spammers and promoters who would take the proposal as a green light to add mentions of companies to articles so an "official" link could be added. It is not a good idea to discuss significant changes to an important guideline without a couple of clear examples where the proposal would help the encyclopedia (what article needs this change?). If it is List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 where people want to add official links, I would suggest that the entire purpose of Wikipedia has been overlooked with the creation of that article—Wikipedia is not a place to promote non-notable products (see WP:WTAF). Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, Moxy and Johnuniq. To be clear, I personally am not at all in favour of external links in lists (or in any other places for that matter). My goal is to get the guidelines clarified to reflect consensus, because I found it hard to find definitive answers to some of my questions.
From the above discussion, it seemed that using links in lists was so widely accepted that it ought to be reflected in policy (per WP:NOTSTATUTE guidelines and policies are descriptive not prescriptive). One example given was List of software for molecular mechanics modeling.
I'm glad there are others who don't agree. My initial feeling was that the current guidelines agreed with me, but the arguments above gave me the impression that consensus was against me. I think there's still a need for discussion here—I'm not planning to let this drop until we can clear up the guidelines so that the either explicitly promote or definitively and explicitly deprecate the use of external links in this way. --Noiratsi (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have not read all the guidelines but if I had seen List of software for molecular mechanics modeling before I would assume it was wrong and at least change the weblinks to references! I would suggest that if it imples somewhere it is acceptable then I would suggest that this should be changed to remove any use of external links in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you reformat that? Do you think that it's actually better to list all of these items twice? Look at the difference:

Typical formatting Forcing it to be a ref
References
  1. ^ http://example1.com
  2. ^ http://example2.com
  3. ^ http://example3.com
  4. ^ http://example4.com
  5. ^ http://example5.com
  6. ^ http://example6.com
  7. ^ http://example7.com
  8. ^ http://example8.com
  9. ^ http://example9.com
  10. ^ http://example10.com
  11. ^ http://example11.com
  12. ^ http://example12.com
  13. ^ http://example13.com
  14. ^ http://example14.com
  15. ^ http://example15.com
  16. ^ http://example16.com
  17. ^ http://example17.com
  18. ^ http://example18.com
  19. ^ http://example19.com
  20. ^ http://example20.com

Does that really help the reader? If you're after the link that tells more about this entry, which system makes it easier to get the information you want? Isn't it simpler to find the information you're after on the same line, rather than having to go to a completely separate list—one, by the way, that almost exactly duplicates the information in the real list, only with the addition of http:// at one end and .com at the other—and search through the second list? What benefit do we actually get from creating a near-duplicate of the same information, and calling the second list "References"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they are references they more obviously need to meet rules for WP:RS or can't be used. If it's just a list of external links it encourages the kinds of things that shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. And "it's useful" isn't an argument unless it's useful for the kinds of things an encyclopedia shoudl actually be used for. External links in the body turns the site into a web directory, which is a major violation of WP:NOT. DreamGuy (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "they more obviously need to meet rules for WP:RS or can't be used." WP:RS doesn't care about formatting. WP:RS cares about whether the source is strong enough to support the claim being made. Generally speaking, if the question is something like "Is _____ a kind of software for molecular mechanics modeling, and therefore a valid entry in the List of software for molecular mechanics modeling?", then the manufacturer's website for _____ is considered a fully authoritative and reliable source for that fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

wiki advice please

The single-page wiki http://www.activethanet.com has been removed from an article's external links section with the editor claiming it violates WP:EL. [24] I wonder if others would care to give their opinions.

I had a look at the wiki's history and found:

  • a history of stability: >4 years. Much content from 2008 is still in place, [25]
  • substantial number of editors: it seems there are many IP editors and there are several registered editors: [26] (most active editor), [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Does a dozen registered editors + numerous ip editors qualify as a "substantial" number of editors for a one-page wiki?

The history indicates there has been a vandalism/spam problem, but there appear to be no spam links now, presumably due to editing being locked.

I am from this area and personally I believe it is a valuable local resource that improves the Wikipedia articles that link to it. As far as I am aware, there is no similar source of information available. Any thoughts on whether this is an appropriate website for wikipedia to link to? pgr94 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, it fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - we are not the yellow pages or a linkfarm. That link does not tell anything about the subject, it seems to be a directory of clubs and societies in Thanet - and not even in Margate specifically. We do not link to lists of newspapers, drug-stores, or ATM-locations either, and if you'd include this, then all those should be there as well. That type of linking is totally out of the scope of Wikipedia. I think that that is an even bigger problem than the fact that the page that is linked to is a wiki. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh. I thought WP:NOT#DIRECTORY referred to actual WP content, not the content of external links. pgr94 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're right: NOT#DIRECTORY is about actual Wikipedia content. However, we also want our external links to be a source of knowledge, and a directory listing doesn't really do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but now I'm a little more confused.
Links to DMOZ appear to be welcome in Wikipedia, yet that is also just a directory. If we're applying WP:NOT#DIRECTORY to external links, then DMOZ falls foul of that rule too. I hope we're not looking to remove links to DMOZ.
pgr94 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We use DMOZ for several purposes. Sometimes it's because we'd like to provide links to dozens of websites (think "Cancer charities in every country around the world") and a link to a list of dozens or hundreds of such organizations is useful. Other times, we use it as a way of reducing spam: persistent people will then pester DMOZ (or whatever website we've linked) with their spam instead of us. But we're normally looking for something much more significant than "Here is a list of the names and addresses of all the clubs". We're normally looking for something that provides knowledge about the subject (e.g., cancer organizations generally have patient-oriented information on their websites), not just telephone numbers or meeting times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I read in that part of WP:NOT (also) that we are not supposed to be a directory of external links that link to anything that is, directly or indirectly, linked to the subject. You are telling about Margate, then we do not make a list of external links for all businesses, clubs, societies, etc. etc. Those are not encyclopedic at all (and now you are lucky that there is an external list of them, what if that was not there, would you link to all the individual clubs and societies - probably not, because most of them are not encyclopedia content .. moreover, you now leave out all petrol stations, why mention the clubs and societies ..).
Linking to ONE dmoz (whose business it is to be a directory of links of everything related to the subject) is something else, that does not turn Wikipedia into that directory (and actually, the alternative outlets in #DIRECTORY does have directory services as an alternative). Here, a directory link to 'Margate' could lead to a dmoz with this link, and a link to a list of petrol stations, a link to a list of ATMs, etc.
Do note, that this link, to the Thanet-directory is indirect on Margate (WP:EL#EL13; it is about the clubs and societies in Thanet, not the clubs and societies in Margate) .. and one could even argue that it is indirect on Thanet (it is not about Thanet, it is about the clubs and societies in Thanet). It would probably be direct on Clubs and Societies in Thanet, which would probably be the only page where that link would have its place. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation at the end of an entry

I noticed today that there are several templates in existence that are used for "External links" entries that automatically place a period at the end of their output. ({{DBLP}} is the one I ran across.)

This strikes me as being incorrect; these entries are not sentences, thus should not have terminal punctuation.

I don't see any mention of this either on the current page here or the archives, but it would seem to me that there should be a "no terminal punctuation" guideline here, and the various templates should be corrected. This would match similar guidance that's part of the disambiguation page style guidelines.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just correct it if you encounter it? If people aren't getting into disputes over this, then we could avoid the WP:Instruction creep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Mainly because it would appear to involve correcting a raft of templates. My experience has been that, WP:BOLD notwithstanding, that's the kind of thing that should be socialized a bit before jumping in with both feet.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a list or a guess at how many need to be fixed? (I fixed the one you mentioned above.) We could also let WP:WikiProject Templates know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Er... three?
Yeah, the problem may be less pervasive than I originally thought. When I first started investigating this and noticed how many bios used {{DBLP}}, I saw what seemed at first to be many instances in those bios of other offending templates. But, on re-examination, it looks like what I saw was really only multiple instances of {{AcademicSearch}} and {{GoogleScholar}}, which I have fixed.
In examining Category:People and person external link templates, out of the 216 templates currently in the category, these are the only three with extraneous punctuation I've found so far. Thanks for talking me down :-). --NapoliRoma (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL should have specific guidance about global corporates' multiple websites

I think there should be specific language in WP:ELOFFICIAL against the inclusion of multiple official websites in articles about multinational entities which often have a website for each of the countries they operate in. Only one link to the "Global HQ" website should be included, such "Head office" websites normally contain links to subsidiary websites, but even if they don't it's not our problem anyway. Roger (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues with redundant external links could be made clearer in general, as they apply not only to corporations with multiple sites, but to groups and individuals with blogs, facebook pages, twitter pages, etc. all linked from an official website. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and routinely remove multiple "official" links with an edit summary along the lines that there is only one such link, and the official website should list other useful links, although it is not our role to worry about whether they do (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Johnuniq (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


We already have an entire subsection on this point:

Minimize the number of links

If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances.[1] However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.

More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation. In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking and communication services where the content changes rapidly and may not comply with this guideline at any given moment in time. Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.

  1. ^ Situations in which multiple official links are typically provided include:
    • The biography of an elected official might link to both an official government website and the official's political party or campaign website (see, e.g., Barack Obama, David Cameron).
    • A retailer may have separate websites for the corporate office and for consumers (see, e.g., Walmart, J. C. Penney).
    • A person who is notable for more than one thing might maintain separate websites for each notable activity, (e.g., one website for music and another website for a book).
Just how much more strongly are we supposed to put this? Add "This means you" and "If you don't know what 'minimum number of links' means, then one of our sister projects is a dictionary" in bold, red text? And do you think that even that would help, given that WP:Nobody reads the directions?
Yes, these need cleaned up, and I've done hundreds of them over the years, but these aren't being added because people think the guideline supports dozens of official links. They're being added because good-faith editors have never read this guideline, and believe that we actually want twenty-seven different links to the manufacturer's product lines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The excess of links is often compounded by the question of what to do in practice. Some bands may have a "band.com" website, and/or facebook, myspace pages as well as twitter and YouTube channels, all of which are "official". That often leads to the 'which one do we use' situation... -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    People usually choose the "band.com" website, but on occasion the Facebook or Myspace pages have been chosen instead of the band.com website. Twitter is almost never chosen. I'm not sure how commonly people (i.e., experienced editors familiar with the guideline) choose YouTube channels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    Band.com - the others are ephemeral. If the band care about social networking sites, they'll link them from band.com --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    I recall hearing about one case in which Band.com was the former website of the band, but was now under the control of the former manager or label and so no longer valid, and I think that two or three cases have been found in which Band.com was basically a soft redirect to the actively maintained Facebook or Myspace pages. So there are exceptions, but they are infrequent and easily addressed by using common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances..." - I think this needs to be reworded, focusing on the rule rather than the exception. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we should lead with a sentence like "Normally, only one official link is included"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion. What I think happens is that editors skim for what they want to find, and don't read further. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
support the clarification as suggested by WhatamIdoing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't really imagine anyone objecting, so I've done it.
I hope that "Normally" will not be misinterpreted as "always" for those occasional situations in which we really do want two official links to be included. We'll see how it goes; if we need to, we can change it again later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do?

Pursuant to the above discussion, I'd like to ask: what ought I to do with the external links to Heroine? Should I remove the imdb and Hungama links as per WP:LINKSPAM? -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Those are not official links, as they fail criterion #1 of the two-part definition (e.g., the IMDB page is actually controlled by IMDB, not by the film). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Crowdfunding links -- explaining modification

In this article GoFundMe (a website devoted to Crowdfunding), I removed particular links to fundraising projects that the organization is involved in. (These were in addition to the official link for the organization.) See: [39]. While I think such links are not acceptable IAW ELNO #s 4 & 10, I've expanded the guidance in WP:ELOFFICIAL with the following: "This exemption does not allow for additional "official" links such as those found on [[Crowdfunding|fundraising]] websites. – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To be candid, although you're entirely correct about those being inappropriate links, I don't think this is an improvement to the guideline. Separately, I also don't believe that adding it will be effective, because WP:Nobody reads the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I take comfort in the fact that you are the first of the 750 718 total page watchers to comment on the changes I made. So I figure that my change was acceptable without controversy, and I like your link to Nobody reads. (Thank you!) Whether or not the language is a great improvement was not too important to me -- the goal was to give those who care to strip out the additional links some specific guidance to support their efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I am one of the silent majority, having seen your comment and the change. Looks good to me. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
– S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The number of active watchers is less than half that. I think there's a better way to handle this. I'm not sure that it's in the correct paragraph, and I think it may be too specific to be maximally effective. However, until I come up with something better (and I've been thinking about it since you added it), I don't see any harm in leaving it.
In case any of those are raising money for patients and/or medicine-related charities, you might also keep in mind that WP:MEDMOS#External links has prohibited fundraising links for years now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Fundraising links are in direct violation of WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Sites, or pages, that exist solely for raising funds or pushing agenda's, have a very low threshold for blacklisting. We are not (writing) a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ELs in categories

Should External links be permitted on WP:Categorization pages? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Reference resources about a template that links to several other websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Does anyone else find the positioning of icons at the end of external links (when the external-link formatting produces them) to be inelegant?

For example:

Placing them before the link names (of varying lengths) would seem to be preferable..? (I've seen this – and follow it – when "language icons" such as (in French) are used.)

CsDix (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We have no control over the pdf icons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds apocalyptic. Does it mean this is something that would require enquiry at the MetaWiki and/or MediaWiki sites? CsDix (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you'd file a Bugzilla request, but I'm not entirely sure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the link icons (for PDFs, external links, etc.) are added via CSS and can easily be overridden or changed locally (by editing MediaWiki:Common.css). In fact, MediaWiki core does not add the PDF icon, it comes from the local MediaWiki:Common.css (search for "pdf"). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Do we have a policy or guideline about the use of "(adult content)" disclaimers next to external links? Examples: [40], [41], [42]. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:DISCLAIM perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the examples provided, but the situation is more subtle than NOTCENSORED or DISCLAIM. I see the "adult content" text as more of a NSFW warning which could save some hapless reader from embarrassment. I agree the disclaimers are not in accord with standard procedures, but I don't recall any previous discussion on this. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It still falls under the penumbra of WP:NOTCENSORED, insofar as we are then deciding what is or isn't adult content, disclaimer-worthy, NSFW, etc. Do we warn you if the link is to art depicting Mohammed? Breastfeeding? Autopsy photos? Baby ducks so cute you'll squee in an undignified manner? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If the links pass the ELNO criteria, the content shouldn't cause undue surprise. In these three examples, the likely nature of the content seems predictable and appropriate to the topic. In other kinds of articles, where the relevance of links is less obvious, a neutral phrase of description not in the form of a warning can let readers know why they might want to supplement their reading of the article with a visit to the site. (That's useful whether the content is potentially upsetting/shocking/offensive or not.) After all, we should be able to explain why the link has encyclopedic value. The guideline on disclaimers seems more to the point here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think WP:DISCLAIM is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not sure why I didn't think to look there. There are maybe about fifty or so "adult content" disclaimers currently, looking at Special:Search filtered to the article namespace. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed just about fifty of these. I searched for "warning:", "adult content", "explicit content", and some variations. Special:Search with 500 results is pretty good for this. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Linkspam

I just noticed and removed a couple of instances of linkspam in the external links section, such as for Keren Ann. I suspect the problem is quite prevalent in popular culture articles. I noticed the templates ({{myspace}} and {{facebook}}) would seem to invite such spam and perhaps ought to be deleted outright. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ELPEREN and WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELNO #10. If the article's subject only has a myspace/facebook/twitter/etc as their "official page", then we link to that, using these templates. But we keep the list minimal, ideally to just One (which usually links to all the others).
Personal-thought-tangent: I'd suspect it is quite prevalent, but keeping them in template form helps us keep track of them, and, more importantly, it helps us lure in new editors. One of the very first edits I remember making was adding an {{imdb}} template to some film's page... –Quiddity (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reallocation of WP:X

Wouldn't this policy page be a good place for this shortcut? --Mathnerd 101 What I have done What have I done? 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately over 5000 pages use the existing shortcut. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on new library search tool for Wikipedia

We have a new tool, Forward to Libraries, which helps readers find books at their local library related to the articles they are reading. The tool is run on Wikimedia Labs but links to external library searches. There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) to determine how this tool should be used on Wikipedia. Interested users may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking to Crackle video site for full movies.

Does anyone have anything to add to this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to post this at WP:ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Linkspam(?) at Sterling Moss

Yesterday, I removed what is I interpreted to be Linkspam as having been defined in this guideline, and was summarily reversed with the summary:"reinstated links that are perfectly valid and offer materials not possible to provide here". Please comment. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest posting this at WP:ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

False warning

When I made this edit, I was falsely told that I was adding external links. My edit was accepted after I did the captcha, but anyway your warning has false information. 67.160.69.105 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please mention this at WP:VPT because it is a technical issue that is unlikely to get much investigation here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This policy page is horrible in that it never distinguishes clearly, plainly, simply the difference between a citation or general reference and an external link.

The result is that it just makes Wikipedia look that much more incestuous, that much more subject to wiki warring, that much more a huge circle jerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.158.58 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You're looking for the first sentence in the third paragraph of the introduction: "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." WP:Inline citations and WP:General references are the two types of citations to sources.
In practice, it's not hard: if you used the source to write the article's content, then it's a "source". If you didn't, then it's an "external link". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Location

My preference for ordering is NOT to put "External links" LAST but near the last arranged with other material near the end, something like the following:

  • See also
  • External links
  • Further reading
  • References [containing an "author (year) title" list if any are referred to multiple times]
  • Notes (or "Footnotes"), consisting of {{reflist}}

In particular, I think {{reflist}} should be dead last, whether labeled "References" or "Notes" or "Footnotes". People may want to read "See also", "External links", "Further reading" and even "References" (when not a numbered {{reflist}}) sequentially. I often read footnotes, but I almost never read the list of footnotes sequentially by itself. For more on this, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#References should be last. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects to spam blacklisted sites which have their own articles

Apparently, or so I am told, there is no technical way to whitelist a link to the mainpage of an article about a website that appears on the spam black list. Per the WP:SPAM and WP:LINKLOVE guidelines, I've carved out an exception here for using a redirect just for the explicit purpose of providing an encyclopedic link, until such a time as the technical and incidental restraint is repaired. -- Kendrick7talk 03:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see my change has been reverted,[43] but I consider this a de novo circumstance about which there is no pre-existing consensus. Seems like WP:COMMON sense to me that our guidelines shouldn't be held hostage to a software bug which defies a plain reading of WP:SPAM/WP:LINKLOVE, but I welcome your feedback. -- Kendrick7talk 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While BURO is admirable, it does not mean that guidelines should be ignored without good reason. Anyone can link to a black-listed website by putting the link in nowiki tags. Wikipedia cannot cater for every situation, such as a reader who is only able to use links they can click. Redirector sites are a large problem because the destination is unknown, and could change, and Wikipedia definitely should not make it easy for people to hide spam, malware, or other content warranting the black list, behind a clickable link. Wide community discussion would be needed before such a fundamental change to the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Who said it's technically impossible? Why wouldn't whitelisting \bcheapviagra\.tk\/index\.html work? Regardless of whether the whitelisting can't be done or merely won't be done, I disapprove of using a redirect and any redirection url used for this purpose should itself be blacklisted. Readers will just have to suffer the indignity of having to c&p urls to visit that site. Kilopi (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring guidelines, merely trying to reconcile 3 conflicting ones (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:LINKLOVE). WP:LINKLOVE's very existence as a guideline is due to most editors agreeing that simply using nowiki tags for sites people don't like is a form of unacceptable discrimination. Johnuniq points out the dangers of using redirects, but for the most part, any realization of his fears, especially via generic link-shortening tools, would have to assume the editors involved to be bad faith super-hackers. While the dangers are great, I see no reason not to WP:Assume Good Faith in general and allow editors to apply the WP:LINKLOVE guideline to work around the bug. -- Kendrick7talk 12:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This should simply be handled by the whitelist (and that is how it is done for a long, long time already). Preferably through a 'main.htm' (e.g. 'http://www.example.org/main.htm'), 'index.html', 'sitemap.html' or an about page. Most of these whitelist requests, when performed by a 'regular' editor, are immediately whitelisted without much question (generally, find a proper page on the site which is informative for the organisation, if you just request just the domain then it will not be done). There is much abused stuff out there that has its own article (typical are the bigger porn sites, and recently some of the .onion sites). There is no need to use redirect services for this. Ever. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I frankly didn't know WP:WHITELIST existed; I'm not much of a technocrat any more, and have no idea how that list works. The argument I got[44] was that it's better to have a nowiki psuedo-link to the "real" page than a working link to the about page. I agree with Dirk that a working link is vastly superior. It would be good if we could somewhere write that down for future referece. -- Kendrick7talk 05:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7 .. you say that you did not know that the whitelist existed. I however presume, since you noticed that you could not link to encyclopediadramatica.com, and that that invoked the MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. That note has told you about the existence of the whitelist, and, as far as I can see, has done that since October 2006.
I can understand that local editors on local pages may not know about the black/whitelist and the way they are operating, but there are many places where one can ask, e.g. on the talkpages of blacklist or whitelist, or on the external link guideline or noticeboard pages.
Now a bit related, IF a mainpage of a site is grossly offensive, has problematic information, or is utterly NSFW (not suitable for work), I would strongly suggest that a less-offensive, though still representative page, on that site is the one to be whitelisted (like for encyclopediadramatica, an about page). I would strongly condemn finding tricks like using redirect sites (dildomail.com .. which I will meta-blacklist in a minute), and frown upon nowiki or non-working-link tricks (like Conti (talk · contribs) did in the above diff you provided), that is NOT the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't suffer bots gladly, and I admit that I didn't read everything the bot unexpectedly hollered at me. I saw something about WP:BLACKLIST, and dimly recalled that years ago I thought our community had this settled, and headed off there to make my case. Although per WP:NOTCENSORED I find your argument about NSFW links somewhat problematic, I'm again happy enough with a link to the about page in this particular case. Although I'm not entirely sure why we should throw out WP:AGF in regards to all redirects absolutely, I don't like arguing about purely esoteric matters so, as far as I am concerned, my point is moot. -- Kendrick7talk 23:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, let's stop the discussion. However, anyone reading this later should be told that NOTCENSORED does not mean what you seem to think, and it is nothing to do with whether an article should include an external link to a redirector to evade the blacklist. Also the comment about AGF wildly misinterprets its purpose and scope. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Or, let's stop the discussion and say that I meant what I said, and those policies mean exactly what they say also. -- Kendrick7talk 02:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, this has very little to do with WP:NOTCENSORED .. we are providing a service to the reader, and though we do not need to censor information, if a suitable and proper alternative exists, then that is well worth considering. Censoring would be deleting the whole Wikipedia page because the external site is a porn-site.
Secondly, I have been active running anti-spam bots for well over 5 years (maybe even close to 10). Spam pays, people make money with it, they persist (they come back a year later to try again, they come back weeks after a link gets de-blacklisted, they use redirects, encode their links, etc. etc.). Proper spammers will do ANYTHING to get their links here. Nofollow helps a little bit (it only does not help their google ranking), but still, having a link here means that people may follow it and get to your site. General redirect sites are abused for this very purpose, spammers even use redirect sites pre-emptively to 'hide' the real link so that the real links don't appear on the blacklist. Moreover, there is, simply, NEVER any use for redirect links, they can always be replaced by the real links, and the specific links can be whitelisted if the real links are blacklisted. You may not want to throw out WP:AGF on the redirect sites, but in that you are getting close on throwing out WP:AGF on the people who are trying to keep Wikipedia clean of spam and their judgement that redirect sites are a continuing problem, and who have thrown out that WP:AGF. Redirect site are simply NOT to be used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Just an example: someone is persistently adding a referral link to Neteller, so every click from Wikipedia makes him a bit of money. Our answer: that part of the site gets blacklisted. You think it is over .. of course not, that guy is persistent, it is his bread that is vanishing. So: diff. Thát is exactly why redirect links are NOT to be used .. ever, and that is why we blacklist this type of stuff. Official site, sure, respectable, yes. But sometimes an official link is just not possible, and we need the second best. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That's all well and good, just keep in mind how much your moral authority is undermined when someone throws a site like Encyclopedia Dramatica on the "Spam" list just because they WP:DONTLIKEIT. If you support policies that could be used for censorship and then allow them to be abused willy-nilly for exactly that purpose, you have no right to be surprised if such policies are thrown back in your face. -- Kendrick7talk 09:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a strong accusation, Kendrick7. I have to see anyone blacklisting a site because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or for censorship, then that would be an abuse of admin priviliges. I hope you can back-up such accusations of abuse on the (few) admins who are trying to keep spam or similar abuse (and some other exceptions) from Wikipedia. Otherwise, I ask you to withdraw that general attack. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Quod scripsi, scripsi. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been sent to WP:AFD 8 times, and along that ride has been through WP:DRV 15 times. A massive debate among Wikipedians occurred resulting in the rejection of WP:BADSITES and the acceptance of WP:LINKLOVE with this exact website largely in mind, and even after all our careful WP:5P considerations, rising above a constant rejection by a very vocal minority against having a page about the site or even linking to the site, at the end of the day it somehow just ends up on the WP:SPAM blacklist anyway? Gee, maybe that's a bizarre cosmic coincidence, but you have to admit, it doesn't look so good. I am really glad you are out there on the front lines protecting the project from nefarious spammers. Nevertheless, this site has been white-listed in spirit by the community a dozen times over. If I were you, I wouldn't be happy about its current situation. -- Kendrick7talk 04:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Kendrick7, the page itself is not a problem, and the whole argument is edgy on WP:BADSITES too. The site was blacklisted for abuse, and as Conti mentioned: ""... ED is a troll site, and if I remember correctly, the last time their homepage got removed from the blacklist, they put up some Wikipedian's article as their "article of the day", including pictures and outing information...". Yes, one could define it as a bad site, but I don't know whether you are aware, that there are fights up to (or even before) ArbCom now regarding linking to sites that are outing editors. One of the Arbs (albeit wrongly) blacklisted a site that did that, and many editors (established admins amongst them) who were linking to the site ended up blocked (I am not sure whether that was the right approach, but that is where the situation is at the moment with sites that sometimes out people). I agree that a site should be linked from the subjects Wikipedia page (WP:LINKLOVE), but I would be very, very careful when a site is known for such problems to de-blacklist it, or even to consider to link it. Certain things go further than community consensus - we could in theory have consensus to upload child pornography, but anyone doing it would be breaking the law (one would not make this argument of WP:LINKLOVE for a site which has as a sole purpose the distribution of child pornography). I am not sure how it will be with sites that out people, but it is better to be careful. I really think that either not linking at all, or having a workable alternative (an about page) is really better, ignoring all rules on WP:LINKLOVE.
I think we look at it from opposing sides. Sites which are abused are blacklisted (plain as that; whether it is pushing (spamming for a financial incentive), or excessive linking of a site in inappropriate places where the general nature of the site makes its use limited on Wikipedia anyway (porn sites are generally not used except one or maybe two links on the subject-page itself, if it even is notable enough - note that there are a lot of porn sites out there that are not appearing on our blacklists, we are not after blacklisting stuff that don't like, it is really about having been abused), shock sites similar). At the de-blacklisting or whitelistings things are then considered in a conservative way. At that point, the fact that the site was abused, and it is a shock site / NSFW / outing site, whatever means we consider possible recurring abuse, and consider whether we could avoid that (for real spam, I have seen them return days after de-blacklisting). It is not that we censor Wikipedia, we do not punish sites for bad content, we blacklist because it was abused. Also, generally, shock sites get abused because of their shock nature, NSFW sites similarly (these two are the typical sites where teenagers replace the homepage of their school with a link to e.g. a porn site). We should not open floodgates again because of WP:LINKLOVE, but consider the options: open completely (would that start the same problem back over?), open just the mainpage (could that have the same problem, is it possible, wanted?), use an alternative page for which there is no incentive to link for the original reasons (an about is generally 'neutral'; albeit a hurdle, school kids might just figure out that 'yourfavouritepornsite.com/index.html' (which does exactly the same as 'yourfavouritepornsite.com' itself) is whitelisted, so they can still shock others by using it as the link on their school's Wikipedia page), or that there are simply no possibilities (single-page sites).
Regarding ED, the only place it has is basically on its own Wikipedia page, and there it will be limited to a very few links (a 'mainpage', and maybe something as a primary source). Since it was, apparently, abused in the past, I would really consider that to be handled by the whitelist, and a request with good arguments by a regular (especially when backed-up with a talkpage discussion or a wikiproject discussion) will generally result in a swift whitelisting. I have not seen that been attempted (may have missed it ..) for the 'Main_Page' of ED (though, since the remark about outing on the mainpage of the site, I would consider the About page to be better in this case, although it was whitelisted originally for a different reason (but lets not get bureaucratic for that)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Google Earth Hacks"

A number of editors have been adding links to specific gearthhacks.com pages as external links, e.g. [45] [46]. The site seems to fall between open wiki / map source and blog. Do not think these are appropriate. Babakathy (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate. The first paragraph of the article linked appears to be copied (without attribution) from our Zambezi article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WP:ELN 00:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Retrieved"

Why do we care when an item was "retrieved"? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't. But you might ask at WT:CITE or WT:RS why they do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
(Smile.) Those zealots? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I added this to Special:Mypage/vector.css
.reference-accessdate {display:none}
which makes it vanish. I recommend! –Quiddity (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I do see this on external links as well sometimes. I don't know why .. I simply would presume that the 'accessdate' is the same as the date that someone added the reference .. what is it .. 'oh, I have this link that I looked at 5 years ago .. let's add it here, must still be of interest ..' .. do we also have a field 'accessed' with options 'yes' and 'no' as well? 'I have this reference, I haven't looked at it, but I think it says what I am writing on Wikipedia' (and I know that people do not follow links before they add them .. see the requests from people who add google-search-redirect-links, they must just copy-paste the link that Google is providing them (with some exceptions)). </cynism> ;-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I use Bing, but I see your point. In any event, it is darned annoying to be fed information that has no reason for being there (the date somebody added the reference). As a matter of fact, I have seen dates that clearly could not have been accurate, dates added to citations I myself had made weeks previously. Maybe that occurred when somebody edited the cite; I don't know. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I would be quite happy to see |accessdate= flagged as an error if it is added to a citation that already contains a valid |date= parameter. - 79.67.251.72 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No. Anyone who spends much time trying to fix bad links knows it's a useful piece of the puzzle. Aside from that, it's an affirmative declaration that the source was seen and verified by the person citing it on that date, which may be sufficient for many purposes if the source can no longer be found. If you don't like it, hide it (per Quiddity's solution), but if you cite a source, please be nice to your fellow editors and click the auto-fill button in the cite form. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"20. Sites whose primary function is promotion or marketing of sexually explicit adult content,which, if published where the Wikimedia servers are (as of 2013, Virgina and Florida) would be subject to S. 2257 record-keeping requirements (or local equivalent)"

Bringing this here for a disscussion first.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that's a good idea. Such sites can have information about particular <searching for word> performers, who may have Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Such as EVERYONE on List of pornographic actresses by decade and other similar lists. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Also strongly relevant here: WP:NOTCENSORED. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What would be the point of such a restriction? Are you sugesting that, by linking to such sites, Wikipedia itself would be subject to the legal recordkeeping requirements? If so, I'd like to see some more evidence that this is, in fact the case. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not (and Wikipedia uses explicit content from Commons anyway). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, However, I have a view that 'commerical' sex sites covered by 2257 would not contain the sort of content which is relevant to Wiki(p/m))edia objectives in promoting 'free knowledge' and cultural exchange. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a rather narrow definition of relevance to Wikipedia, which has no basis in any sort of policy objective, and directly contradicts NOTCENSORED. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd take a look at the current list of recommended external links at the Pornography Project first before making this kind of change. As an aside, there's been some minor "controversy" recently over which of the sites on this list should actually be used on Wikipedia articles of adult film actors/actresses as opposed to those that might be precluded by ELNO or "spam" links. Any input on that would be appreciated. Guy1890 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In the absence of an opinion from foundation legal counsel saying this is a problem, I see no need for a categorical prohibition. While most such links are probably not desirable, I don't see what S. 2257 has to do with it. Monty845 00:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth asking for an 'opinion'?, Also there is the issue of whether web links fall within the 'advertising' provision of Virginia laws (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-376 although that refers to content which is actually obscene as opposed to merely 'explicit' content.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is a legal concern, ELNO#3 should have that covered already. Many such links could be disqualified under other criteria as well. This addition seems unnecessary. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Back about five years ago, we had a couple of long discussions about Twitter in particular, and documenting the full social media presence for a subject in general. The result is that ELNO specifically names Twitter, and the consensus against including a lot of social media links was reaffirmed. However, it was a pretty contentious question at the time, and one does always wonder how closely our conversation reflects the broader community's view.

It turns out that I had a way to check. Back in 2009, MZMcBride pulled a bunch of Twitter-link-containing articles for me, and I weeded out a bunch of inappropriate links over the next eight months or so. You can see what's left at User:WhatamIdoing/Spambox (feel free, by the way: if you review an article, whether you decide to keep or remove the Twitter link or if it's already gone, just remove the article from the list), which I looked into again recently. The result of my quick survey was that about half the Twitter feeds had already been removed. I removed links from about a third of my short sample of articles, with zero restorations so far. Some of them seemed appropriate, so I left those in place. I think that this is a fairly strong indication that the community at large agrees with the guideline, and that we were correct in assessing consensus back then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Works in non-english languages as ELs

Should we link to books and websites in languages other than English? I know we can use them as references... but external links? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is covered at Wikipedia:External links#Non-English-language content. In summary, avoid linking to non-English resources except when it is unavoidable (e.g., no official English resource exists at all), when the material is particularly relevant (e.g., linking to the original text of a non-English literary work), or when the material is primarily visual rather than textual. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've discovered a three-figure-plus number pages using the Google Maps home page as a reference; and others using specific Google Maps URLs as references or external links (see Whitecliffs Branch for an example of the latter). Please see this discussion, about how to resolve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at the Philosophy interest group about the inclusion of an curated web site on the external links on some articles. The site in question is curated and is respected in the field. However it does seem to fall foul of policy as it is not a "link to an official page of the article's subject" which is the permitted exception, I won't repeat the arguments but here is the link ----Snowded TALK 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is generally more effective to request help at WP:ELN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible linkspam violation

Can someone comment on the state of the article, and specifically the links here that have been removed by me but another user has reinserted. Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please use the WP:External links/Noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Reposted now, thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to have the same official link in both the info-box and external links? I've noticed some pages with an external links section that has nothing but one official link that is a duplicate of the info-box official link, making the whole section redundant, e.g. Nginx. WP:EL says "Normally, only one official link is included" but it is not clear on this duplication. Bhny (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This duplication is commonly done, and therefore it is the apparent policy of the community to permit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I try not to have an external link section if it adds nothing to the article except a spam magnet. Bhny (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I often see these, but just because many articles have these in both places doesn't necessarily mean these are "appropriate". However, an additional link may be required in lengthy articles where the infobox is far from the bottom of the article. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Insanity proceeds at an unabated pace

I've watched this page over the years encroach on more and more issues. Now we have [47] removing obviously useful links based on wikilawyering enabled by this page. Good job, wikipediots. "recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." LOL. Most WP:RS don't meet that criteria. To wit:

  • Are photos on filckr self-published? I don't see any difference between that and a farm-hosted blog with photos and some extra text. Yet it's obviously useful to add photos as external links when Commons or the 'pedia comes up short because of copyrights. There's even a template for that {{External media}}.
  • Also, a good adaptation/translation of material from a foreign language few speak to English is quite useful even if the English source is a self-published website.

Both are prohibited by ELNO #11, obious evidence that it is just wikipediocy. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention external links in the content disclaimer?

I have started a discussion about adding something about external links to the content disclaimer, see Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer#External links. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs

There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNO # 14 "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." seems ambiguous to me.

(A) Is this merely reiterating WP:NOTDIR to say that the article should not have dozens of external links to manufacturers etc. in the "external links" section of the article itself? So a single external link to some external web page that does list dozens of manufacturers etc. -- perhaps using the {{dmoz}} template -- is OK? Or,

(B) Is WP:ELNO # 14 saying that articles shouldn't even have a single external link to a list of manufacturers etc.? So the {{dmoz}} template should never be used?

--DavidCary (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear on ELNO # 11

I was looking at an edit made today to WP:ELNO#EL11, and I realized the wording of that item seems unclear to me. Where it currently states:

This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.

I think to be clearer it should instead read:

This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals should always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.

The current wording could potentially be misinterpreted to state that if a person is a recognized authority, then they would inherently meet notability. And while that would make no sense to me, I can see someone using that as a potential argument. To me, adding the "should" clarifies this so that there's no risk of misinterpretation. Does anyone have any concerns with this clarification? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This ELNO 11 is sheer idiocy and should be removed entirely. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_5#Template:IMDb_name

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_5#Template:IMDb_name. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between "cite" and "language icon" templates

FYI, just posted here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Non-English-language_sites. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:UnitedStatesCode

The template {{UnitedStatesCode}} creates an internal link to, for example, Title 42 of the United States Code along with an external link to the relevant section at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ . Most of the articles I checked that use the template include it in the article text, not in an external links section. (E.g. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Chief of Naval Operations, Perjury) This seems to flout WP:External links, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."

Is the use of {{UnitedStatesCode}} and similar externally-linking templates in article text acceptable? If so, shouldn't that be described in WP:ELYES? If not, shouldn't it be noted in the documentation for the template(s)? Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the operative word here is 'normally', which gives editors to WP:IAR on it. It is certainly not an WP:ELYES-type of linking, it should be discouraged with exceptions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have added a line to documentation at Template:UnitedStatesCode/doc linking to WP:EL. Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I also added similar wording ("This template links to external sites. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; see Wikipedia:External links for discussion of acceptable and unacceptable uses") for all United States legal citation templates that have separate documentation. This excludes {{US House Vote}} and {{US Senate Vote}}, which lack documentation. Likewise, I did not add the information to {{Executive Order}}, which links to Wikisource. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This one generates relatively few links. If the code is being mentioned in passing, and we don't have an article on it, then we should probably accept an in-body link to it. If it's the article itself, then it's better placed as an external link, at the top of the ==External links== section (or in an infobox). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

deleting protocol from external WP URL

An editor is editing external-link WP URLs to Wikipedia to delete "https:" (here's a post-editing example) (I don't know if the editor also deletes "http:") so that the link begins with "//". They work, but I wonder if this editing should be supported by the WP:EL guideline. My clicking the link assigns "https:" but not because of the browser (typing a URL beginning with two slashes got me "Firefox can't find the file at //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June." and "Firefox can't find the file at //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplate_documentation&diff=582180982&oldid=582106515."), so I assume MediaWiki or Wikipedia is figuring it out, which seems burdensome on servers. Maybe it's to allow assigning either HTTP or HTTPS according to what the Wikimedia Foundation wants when a visitor accesses its servers, which I understand depends on whether a visitor's nation blocks HTTPS access. Thoughts on supporting this in WP:EL? Nick Levinson (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I do it to both kinds, it makes the links protocol-relative (a feature that has been available for just over two years now); but I only do it if the link is enclosed in single square brackets, because if these are absent - as in //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - the MediaWiki parser does not recognise it as an external link, so does not add the appropriate protocol. The reason is that not everybody uses https: - some are unable to, some choose not to; and protocol-relative links mean that a user who is normally on http: is not switched to https: unnecessarily (and vice versa). See wikitech:Https#Protocol-relative_URLs particularly the phrase "we must use protocol-relative URLs". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the guideline. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Mandatory or merely recommended? I've raised that question about protocol relativity, given the possibility of reading the Wikimedia page either way, although I thought it was clearly mandatory before the recent editing of this guideline. If Wikimedia says it's mandatory, then this guideline needs to say "must", not "should", where the word was recently changed. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I've requested a clarification at a MediaWiki page on whether it's mandatory. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
In general, our idea of "mandatory" for this guideline is either (1) it doesn't work technically or (2) the lawyers will get you if you don't do it their way. Using protocol-relative links meets neither of these standards. It's a good idea, and you should feel free to adopt this approach. But if it were a true "must", then we'd be sending a bot around to change all the links, and we're definitely not doing that for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

question on mirrors especially non-MediaWiki and WP templates

Where a text that includes a URL is meant for use in a copy outside of Wikimedia Foundation servers, I think the omission of the "http:" or "https:" would prevent getting to the URL's destination by simply clicking on it. I'm inclined to assume it would work fine on any MediaWiki installation, but a non-Wikimedia copy could be in many other kinds of files and programs. It could be in HTML in a text file, for example. As a result, I deleted and then restored "http:" within a {{subst:user page}} template for a page, because that template (and several others) is primarily meant for use in page copies in non-Wikimedia websites. While normally a Web address in the form of //www.example.org is to be used in lieu of https://www.example.org or http://www.example.org to allow autoselection of the protocol by MediaWiki software, should an exception be applied to Wikimedia contexts meant mainly for off-Wikimedia usage? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC) (Added missing bracket & clarified phrase: 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

I don't think that we should worry about what Wikipedia mirrors do or don't do. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Redrose64. This is a problem that any archiving- or mirroring web site has to deal with. "Not our problem." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Most external links should present different details from citations."

  • Why "most" and not "some"?
  • "Citation" has no precise definition in WP:CITE#Types of citation. Does this mean full citation or a short citation or a general reference?

If an external link suffers link rot then "the actual title of the page" is a great aid in finding a replacement url. There is no reason why the "the actual title of the page" can not be given along with "a concise description".

"a clear indication of its source", well for that to be true for an ebook or journal, one needs: author, title, publisher, isbn, page numbers or section headers etc, how does that differ from what is needed in a citation?

"access dates are not appropriate", why are they not appropriate, if the url suffers from link rot the access date can be great help in finding the correct archive version.

If an ebook or a journal is placed in a "Further reading" section then it would usually be formatted the same way as the books and journals in the "References section", because consistency in format is considered desirable for a "Reference section" and by extension the adjacent "Further reading" section. Whether such a section is called "Further reading" or "External links" should need affect the format used for such entries. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Most external links should present different details from citations, because most citations ought to display more details than just the name of the link. CITE permits people to use the most common EL-style in refs (which is usually just the name of the website, but can be the page title), but we're not going to encourage that here. For EL purposes, a "concise description" and "clear indication of the source", looks like this:
Body-mass index calculator at Some Health Charity
Detailed chart showing that bodybuilders have almost no effect on population-wide BMI measurements by Alice Expert
This sort of description is more appropriate and useful than a formal citation:
Expert, Alice. (2010) Evaluation of Body Mass Indices Workman Publishing, New York. p. 234.
The formal citation doesn't explain to to the readers why they would want to click that link. (It's different with citations: you click the link because the article content has already given you an idea of what's supposed to be in that source.)
We deal with linkrot in ELs through an extremely simple mechanism: dead links are removed on sight. Nobody is encouraged to find replacements for dead ELs. This is dramatically different from WP:DEADREF. We don't add access dates because it doesn't matter if the website was working in the past or what information was on that website at some previous date. All we care about is what happens with that link today. If it doesn't contain the desired information today, or isn't working today, then we just remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see that "we" disagree! There is absolutely no reason not to give enough information so that the link can be maintained through link rot. As to descriptions of content that is separate issue for the information needed for the link, (just as it is in Further reading). so talking the example you give above:
  • Expert, Alice. (2010) Evaluation of Body Mass Indices Workman Publishing, New York. p. 234. — Alice states bodybuilders have almost no effect on population-wide BMI measurements.
-- PBS (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Most editors consider that level of detail to be needless clutter when it comes to external links. Their interest in preserving ELs from linkrot is close to zero.
You don't have to agree with this system. I'm only asking you to recognize that the established system that the community has chosen to use for formatting ==External links== does not include full bibliographic details. This guideline is almost purely descriptive, including in that section; it merely documents what experienced editors actually do, rather than trying to change the community's behavior into what some people believe might be a better system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i tried to add a link to the Dark Tower wikipedia page and it was taken off, it was simply a video of a guy playing the game. I don't understand why that has to be taken off for copyright, even though there is a link for a commercial for the game. Can somone please help me, thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.171.103 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Most vidoes at youtube violate copyrights, even though many cases can be argued to be in fair use. We only allow links to YT videos which the copyright owner of the material is the uploader so that we avoid the facilitation of pointing to copyright violations. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes but still dosent answer my question, why could someone else link a commercial that is the same commercial that's used at one point in the video that i linked? I mean the other person that uploaded the commercial probably didn't own the rights to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.171.103 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you realize that we are not writing a linkfarm here. You say that your link contains the same commercial as the other link - so at least that part gets duplicated already. Moreover, per WP:OTHERLINKS - that other links are there is not an argument that yours should be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Those people who upload any video on YT are copyright holder of their own material as MASEM said "We only allow links to YT videos which the copyright owner of the material is the uploader", so if you are not the copyright holder of that link, it will not be linked any more to avoid copyright violation see WP:CV . Nechlison (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

What the hell does this mean? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing, isn't it?
Generally speaking, the point is to discourage people from:
  1. adding links that repeat the content of the article, or
  2. adding links that would repeat the content of the article, if the article had been "finished" already.
This discourages people from saying, "Oh, I won't write the article. I'll just add a link to this other website instead." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to be considered - point 4

I just came into a situation regarding choice of links (a linkfarming situation), and I checked what WP:EL had to say about this .. all I really found (WP:ELMAYBE):

  • "4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

I know that our external links don't have to be reliable sources if they tell more. A blog-post could satisfy that fact - it may not be suitable as a reference, but it may be as an external link.

Now what if there is choice between a 'reliable source' for something (piece in a reasonable sized newspaper) and a 'unreliable source' (a blog post). Common sense tells me, that even if the blog post contains some more information than the newspaper piece, that I'd prefer the newspaper piece, since that is likely more accurate than the blogpost (not necessarily, but likely).

Does WP:EL have to say that though information does not have to be from reliable sources, that when the same information is available from a reliable source and a typically unreliable source, that the former takes preference (except when the latter contains significantly more information)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this would be unnecessary. We already have some trouble convincing people that ELMAYBE #4 exists, so I wouldn't want to "weaken" it. That said, I think that most people use their best editorial judgment in these rare situations, and that probably leads to the best outcome (i.e., one that is based on all the facts and circumstances rather than on a general category of webpage). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorization and inconsistencies between "cite" and "language icon" templates

Hello,

I have reported an issue between {{cite}} templates and {{language icon}} templates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Categorization and inconsistencies between "cite" and "language icon" templates. Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a boilerplate template to use on the doc pages of external link templates, outputting something like:

This template links to external sites. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; see Wikipedia:External links for discussion of acceptable and unacceptable uses.

I've seen text like that in various templates[48], such as {{Federal Register}}, but shouldn't the wording be defined in one place? —SamB (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've got a question. Should external links to Live webcams be included in the External links section of an article? WP:EL says nothing related to Live webcams. That's why I thought talk page would perhaps be a better place to raise my concern. It is related to an User:Chrissperl who wants to add a link in the External links section to a Live webcam in Lugano article. Have views? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless the topic is extremely closely related to either the webcam itself or what it shows, then no. Examples of where such links may be allowed would be an article about a notable building under construction that linked to a live webcam of the building's construction. Personally, I would recommend erring on the side of caution and if I thought there would be any controversy, I wouldn't add it. If I thought it would be non-controversial, I'd err on the side of caution and open a discussion on the article's talk page and wait a few days for objections before adding the link. But that's just me. Reasons NOT to include live webcams include the thought that it might be too promotional, the thought that if the webcam showed a place where people didn't realize they were on camera there could be privacy issues, and if the camera were close enough that individual people could be seen in any level of detail, it could be used as a way to "photobomb" the camera and exploit Wikipedia in the process. Imagine the headlines and headache if "live camera linked to from Wikipedia used by political protesters" or "Nudists photobomb live camera linked to from Wikipedia." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Following up to my own comment: "Low risk" webcams might be those that point to the sky such as star-, moon-, or sun-tracking cameras, those which point to distant vistas, and "city panorama" cameras where people appear as tiny dots if at all and which there is clearly no attempt to promote anything. "Low risk" does not mean "no risk." Other low (but not "no") risk cameras are wildlife cameras, particularly if they are in areas off-limits to unauthorized visitors (e.g. the Chernobyl pollution zone, the undisturbed-for-decades habitat in the Korean DMZ, cameras at Antarctic research stations, etc.), but even these have the risk of being promotional depending on what they are aimed at. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That is garden-variety link spam by an WP:SPA, and it should be removed. I just removed the last promotional link from Hamburg. Someone would need to provide a convincing explanation for why these links assist the encyclopedia—the burden is not on established editors to provide an explanation that would convince someone here to add links. By the way, this should be at WP:ELN, and please raise it there if you notice an ongoing problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I did remove twice the link from Lugano. I had few words on this my talk page (User_talk:Anupmehra#Chrissperl) and later on here (User_talk:Slazenger#Livecams). I assume, there should be a line in WP:EL related to the use of Live webcams links in the External links section of an article. Either including it in the WP:ELNO/ELNEVER section or WP:ELYES with some criteria. I'm not sure if it is a regular problem but should we wait till SPAs do not keep it repeating? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that this incident warrants expanding the guideline. There are many attempts like this every day and we can't keep adding examples of what should not be linked. Thanks for reporting it, and if you get more trouble, please use WP:ELN (or here if the repeats are soon). By the way, my above "last promotional link" points to a page that shows all links to the website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll follow up your advise. The last promotional link is quite helpful. Thanks for that. Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe one would be appropriate for Trojan_Room_coffee_pot, if it hadn't been scrapped. In fact, it looks like it's been un-scrapped, and there actually is a link to the associated webcam in that article. —SamB (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all rules have exceptions, and that's an interesting article where a webcam link is pretty well obligatory. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

query about Template:DMOZ

Seems to be used for external links -- but all it gives is a big list of ... even more external links. How utile is it? Collect (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. As a method of discouraging linkfarms here, it's pretty good. As a method of finding good websites on a specific subject, well... wikt:YMMV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

https

Is there any reason to include the 's' in 'https' URLs? Archive search 'https' evidently hits one relevant section of old talk, a 2011 inquiry that was ignored (https vs http).

If 'https' merely suggests that one of us editors used https protocol to view the target page, I prefer not to use it.

--P64 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#How should external protocol-relative links be implemented? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
For some websites, only https: (or only http:) links actually work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions are being raised about the distinction between External links and Further reading at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline. Interested parties might care to comment there. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Open wikis and Wikia

Currently, we state: "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Per argument made by User:Ibadibam [49] and my reply, if the primary concern is that open wikias are subject to above average vandalism and spam, Wikia seems pretty well defended. As such, I'd propose we modify the above sentence to read thus: "Open wikis, except Wikia-hosted wikis, and other wikis those with a substantial history of stability", clearly acknowledging Wikias are usually vandal- and spam- free, and removing the unnecessary requirements for high number of editors - what we should be primarily concerned is stability and vandal/spam free-ness. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, simply not having obvious spam or vandalism is too low a bar to set. We want links that actually have clear value; the average wiki link, whether operated by Wikia or another group, does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious to hear more. What value do Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have that other wikis lack? How can we make the guidelines clearer to help editors evaluate wikis for inclusion as external links? Ibadibam (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if we could agree on a minimum number of editors that could be a metric for evaluation, but I'm not sure that's a worthwhile pursuit.
The whole point of having a wiki-based content project is to benefit from the "wisdom of the crowd"; under that model, wikis with much larger userbases are more likely to be accurate, appropriately balanced, etc - that's part of the rationale behind the "significant number of users" requirement, although there are other factors involved too, such as lower vandalism rates, increased significance of the wiki itself within the topic area, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
First, it is difficult to quantify this. 1000 users is ok, 1 is not, how about 10 or 100? Such metrics are inherently too primitive. However, I am fine saying that a wiki with only one editor is not a valid EL. Two, then, is fine? Since two is already a collaborative project? Not a crowd, you say? Fine. Then three, since that's the proverbial definition. Now, we have a nicely quantified rule, right? Anyway, I think it is clear that most wikia articles of relevance to us are helpful and uncontroversial. We should allow the inclusion of wikia links by default, and exclude them only as an exception, when someone can make a good point for why a given wikia is not a valid EL, not the other way around. Bottom line, linking to wikia articles, which can contain content - particularly with regards to fiction topics - that we have more difficulty accepting - is beneficial to the reader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think it's worthwhile to try to decide on an exact number. It's clear that your numbers are far lower than mine would be, and others will have different opinions yet. But no, we should exclude external wikis by default, as we do now. It is incumbent upon the person adding the link to make the case for why it is valid, not the other way around. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Ibadibam was replying to the OP—Ibadibam: your comment should have started with only one colon. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that Ibadibam was not answering to me, but to Nikkimaria, given that I think me and Ibadibam are in agreement at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Perennial_websites#Wikia regarding seeing wikia links as acceptable, but Nikkimaria is not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, I was responding to Nikkimaria, not to Piotrus. Ibadibam (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears there is some backstory that I am not aware of. It is rarely useful to talk about governing principles without knowing what the underlying issue is (I guess there is a disagreement over external links at a particular article?). At any rate, the way all external links work is pretty simple—one official link is fine (if it really is official); everything else has to be justified on a case-by-case basis. While links to some Wikia wikis may be fine (if they satisfy the requirements of WP:EL), there can be no formula that qualifies a wiki for an EL—each link has to serve an encyclopedic purpose, and anyone wanting to add such a link has to justify it. As such, I oppose the proposed change. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've replied over at WT:ELPEREN. Open wikis, no matter where they are, are commonly rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Responded at WT:ELPEREN as well. Ibadibam (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was working for an owner of a site who directed me to insert references and external links into Wikipedia to advertise the site. The majority of links lead to my articles and work which are under my copyright. I was to be compensated for my articles and Wikipedia editing, but am now locked out of the site due to a contract dispute. The site is keeping my work against my wishes, so I began to delete the links and references from Wikipedia. As I was doing so, another editor, "Hobbes Goodyear" began reverting my deletions and arguing that I have no proof, although they affirm that some of the links were spam. I tried to settle the dispute through "Hobbes Goodyear", but they cannot, or will not see my reasoning against their opinion. I sought the arbitration from another editor, but got a TLDR I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but from everything I've read regarding it's policies, this matter would be treated with much more concern than I've gotten. I'd be very appreciative of any help from someone else on the matter. Wercengetorix (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have previously raised a similar matter (if not the same - it's very long) at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Copyright, spam issue, and difficult editor. Please see WP:MULTI and WP:FORUMSHOP. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. They didn't really look at it and gave me a TLDR, and I'm trying to go through the proper chain of command. Sorry it looks long, but really, it's in Wikipedia's interest to look into it and to follow policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wercengetorix (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I recently discovered there exists an obscure technique that makes external links look like internal ones. e.g. [50] can be made to look link an internal link Britannica. I would like to add language to deprecate this practice. NE Ent 13:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Plainlinks is an established technique that has been around for several years, and is how the {{plain link}} template works. Without the plainlinks class, the "edit" or "e" link in a navbar would show with the external link arrow, as would many others. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, but the template doc says its for "a local or interwiki link" link -- I'm talking about using it for external (non WMF) links. Which I think is a bad idea. NE Ent 14:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You'd have to do it with regex or something. As far as I know, there's no built-in way to distinguish between external links and full internal links without parsing the URL to see if it contains a WMF domain name. That would probably mean adding conditional rules to the site's CSS.
Since most of the people who know enough to use plainlinks also know better than to use it irresponsibly, the contract given on the template doc probably suffices to limit the use. Did you recently see some abuse of this CSS class? (Also, for what little it's worth, most skins don't change the color of a plainlink from the turquoise that all ELs use, so there is still a difference, if subtle, from the blue wikilinks.) Ibadibam (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I accidentally stumbled upon it while looking up Leopard seal -- last link that looks internal is actually external. I was startled when I clicked on it and went off-wiki. I started fixing them and have run into disagreement at Talk:Pennsylvania-class_battleship#plainlinks, thought it best to get consensus before proceeding. NE Ent 02:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oof, yeah, Leopard seal is a pretty egregious case of an inline EL sticking out like a sore thumb. See WP:ELPOINTS, bullet #2. The battleship is a trickier one. I have contributed a rather lengthy but hopefully diplomatic comment there. Ibadibam (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

One are

The guideline says, "The heading should be "External links" (plural) even if only a single link is listed. " What reason is there for this?Kdammers (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say consistency, both with other articles that have a similar section, and with another standard appendix - "References". Having it always as a plural avoids having to adjust the heading if adding an EL when there was only one to begin with, or when removing one of two existing ELs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There are at least two reasons to avoid the need to convert headings. Many editors would miss the need--grammatical need, so to speak--and revise without meeting it. Many editors would recognize the need, and meet it, so our headings would change and section links would break. I guess that links from page history to External link(s) section are among the most common and most useful section links we have. --P64 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Semantically, it is also quite normal to use the plural for a list of potentially several items that currently contains only one item. The heading refers to an indeterminate number, so it is more analogous to "How many presidents has the Republic of South Sudan had?", than "one are".--Boson (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikia

I am seeking a consensus to include Wiki as an entry at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Perennial_websites#Wikia; and if you want to argue against it, please read my posts and provide a comment on the specific cases I analyze (where I find reviewed Wikia pages to be stable, informative, and vandal/spam free). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add something about archive spamming?

Archive spamming seems to be a growing problem that is easily overlooked. It certainly took me some time to figure out what was going on before I started a report on articlescache.org. We've two recent reports of similar problems (onreference.com multiple domains) and in the latter I wondered if we should cover this in a guideline or essay.

Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an issue of references and WP:REFSPAM rather than external links (usually), I'm looking for the appropriate location for discussion and inclusion. Suggestions? --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion could still be here, with notices on the boards frequently used by review of sources (WT:IRS and WP:RSN are the first two that come to mind). But to get maximum involvement, it may be better to have the actual discussion at one of those boards - or to bring it up at ANI and see if anyone there has a better board on which to raise the issue it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
RSN is a good idea. I already brought it up at WT:V, so I'm going to wait for responses there. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You might consider writing a separate page about archiving (if one doesn't already exist). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read the External links guidelines and I can't tell how to apply them to this:

Are external links to charity raters/rankers OK? The National Rifle Association External links is what brought this to my attention, but I'm sure other articles are linking to GuideStar, CharityNavigator, and so on. Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's usually better to include the relevant information in the article and provide the external link within a citation.- MrX 22:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with MrX: it's best handled as article content. Also, I believe that Guidestar requires registration, which would be a "WP:ELNO-no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MrX. Also, WhatamIdoing, I thought the same thing, but Guidestar does give some information without paying. You just have to pay to get access to all its content. Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Foundation Center is pretty good alternative to GuideStar, especially if you just want raw 990s.- MrX 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The question is not how much information you can get without paying. The question is how much information you can get without needing to register a (free) account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Google communities

Just found someone trying to add [51] as an EL. Should we mention Google communities[52] in ELNO? Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this not just another one under the umbrella of WP:EL#EL10 "Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess so. It's because I wasn't sure that I asked. I should have been sure! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, if you're still interested in this, then you could add it to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Catching up on my open tabs! Started a discussion on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_33&oldid=1144428085"