Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

Greetings and felicitations. I scanned this page's archives back to number 36 (2017), and did not find what I was looking for, and prior to that I checked the project page and the MOS. Is there a rule about a limit to the number of links an External links can have? Or was there one which was deleted? I have run across one article that has a long EL section, full of on-topic links, which I am loathe to delete without offering an alternative. There is a (small) appropriate category in Curlie, but it would take a lot of effort to submit the links, never mind the time it might take for the links to be approved. Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any defined number, but I know it when I see it. ;-) Our guidance says, "should be kept to a minimum". So long lists of ELs are suspect and probably overkill. In practice, when lots of links are on a page many of them have rotted away, and can be pruned, and some are YouTube videos and the like and probably ought to go as well.
If you're talking about a page like List of Nike missile sites, I would point out that several (many?) of those links go to TheMilitaryStandard (=TechBastard) or ed-thelen.org, both of which seem to have copied large swaths of text from Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System by B.N. McMaster, J.B. Sonbee, W.G. Fraser, K.C. Govro, C.F. Jones. (If you look at a page like this one, you'll see that TheMilitaryStandard even copied the footnote markers acquired by the United States Government in 1942 from William G. Vetter.[55] and you can search the Web for certain texts, like this one, and find your way back to that report). As we oughn't link to COPYVIO pages (WP:COPYVIOEL) I would suggest removing all of those offending links, which would make the list somewhat shorter. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That's the article. (Trivial note: TheMilitaryStandard is formerly TechBastard, according to what I read on the site tonight—the site owner changed the name. I'm otherwise not previously familiar with the site.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
DocWatson42, there is no numerical rule for the number of links, though we do enforce minimization in some cases (e.g. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL). That the Curlie is available is enough, if anyone thinks that a certain link should be linked, they can add it there, that is not necessarily your job.
Being on-topic is NOT an inclusion standard. One can often think of hundreds of on-topic links (a google search on 'tree' will likely result in hundreds of thousands of independent links which are on-topic). Usefulness is a more appropriate factor, and that goes often quickly down, I would think it very rare that the 10th external link has any added value over the first 9. And then there is our prohibition on linkfarming - yes, all recordings by any artist of all works of Beethoven are on topic on his article .. but do we have to list all of them? Or even one? Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney and Beetstra: Thanks. (While it's not my job to add links to Curlie, I hate to ruin a good resource.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@DocWatson42, we normally only provide one link per site, which is a way to reduce that page. Another option is to put (some of) it on the talk page – it's there if any editor wants to help submit it elsewhere, but it's not too much in the article. Also, Curlie isn't the only option. If that whole thing were copied over to another website (any website – external links don't have to be reliable sources, they don't have to be professionally operated, etc.), then that other website could be linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Links in article

Marchjuly, do you remember Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39#Cite note-7? It looks like it confused someone recently, who thought it was just stray text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember the discussion, but I don't have WP:EL on my watchlist; so, I didn't notice the edit you reverted. I think that edit was probably just a good-faith misunderstanding. Maybe adding a WP:HIDDEN after that sentence explaining that this was discussed on the EL talk page and that anyone wanting to remove it should post on the talk page to clarify why would stop it from happening again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the confused person. I don't think my confusion is due to anything esoteric. I just don't understand why "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia" is an example of bad formatting. Say there's an article on encyclopedias. In the external links it could include Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, the encyclopedia you have to pay for. I don't understand the point being made here. But it's not a big deal. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Danbloch. I think your confusion is understandable since the note is a bit too cryptic perhaps, particularly to those who aren't familiar with how it came about. The purpose of the note is to try and show that the use of embedded external links in the body of an article is not allowed as explained in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:ELLIST. The note used to provide a "good" and "bad" example as shown here, but the problem with that was that the good example was using an embedded citation—a citation style that has since been deprecated. The current note was an attempt to try resolve the embedded cite issue, but also still show that embedded links aren't OK; maybe, however, it still needs some work. Anyway, the point is basically that adding links to the bodies of articles like this (http://www.example.com/ this) is not considered OK, particularly when it's just a link to external website of whatever is being mentioned like in the Wikipedia example; so, instead of adding an external link like Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia), it would be better to format the link as an internal link like Wikipedia ([[Wikipedia]]) or not add any link at all if there's no corresponding Wikipedia article that exists. In the case of a citation, adding it to an article like [http//:www.example.com] (http//:www.example.com.)is no longer considered acceptable, and it's better to format the citation instead as an inline citation as explained in WP:CITEFOOT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The ~original version of the footnote said something like this:
  • Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source, but not to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.
    No: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."
    Yes: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said...[1]"
Danbloch, does that make more sense? I wonder whether including both a good and a bad example would help. Or maybe it would be more obvious if it's not about Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this again, the root cause of my confusion is that all of the other items on this list are links which should be avoided even in the External links section. I was trying to interpret this item in that context too. The new text works much better for me. Though I think that saying, "in the body of the article" somewhere might also help. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll have a go at adding your suggestion now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but... it changes the meaning... let's say there's body material "Before joining Boeing, Smith worked at National Wing and Propeller". (Let's say that National Wing and Propeller doesn't have an article.)
In that case, you could include a link to the National Wing and Propeller website in the External Links section. After all, Smith did work there. Maybe include links to the websites of all the places he's worked. But what the note was saying was: don't. Don't do that, if the reason is:
  1. Just to prove that National Wing and Propeller exists, or
  2. Just to prove that National Wing and Propeller has a website, or
  3. Specifically to direct (encourage) readers to look at that website, because for some reason you want them to.
But now it says, go ahead and do that. Well it doesn't say go ahead and do that, but it doesn't proscribe it anymore either, unless the link is in the body of the material. So the meaning has been changed.
And after all the body text to which the not is attached is about websites of entities that are just mentioned in the article, so why should there be an attacked note about links being inline or not, which is an entirely different subject.
Granted, the example at the end of the note does seem to be about inline links. But maybe its the example which is out place and should be deleted, instead. Herostratus (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the footnote appears at the end of the ELNO item "Websites of organizations mentioned in an article", I don't think that it will be misinterpreted as saying that it's okay to put links to the websites of organizations mentioned in an article into the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

History of ELNO #19

This was added in October 2009 in this diff after multiple discussions. Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 27#Link lists was the discussion that triggered the addition.

I added the footnote in December 2009 in this diff. It may have been inspired by this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Bibleref2c

Hi, can I get an opinion on Template:Bibleref2c, and whether or not it's in conflict with the rule about "no external links in the body of an article"? I can't see that this has ever been discussed before. See Abraham#Biblical account for an example of how the template looks in the field. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @DanFromAnotherPlace. Various versions of Bible links have been discussed in the past. AFAIK none have ever been rejected as a result of this guideline's advice. I doubt that will change. You should probably re-think the changes you've been making to the template /doc pages.
Technically, for the Bibleref template family, the external links guideline is irrelevant. It's true that this guideline discourages external links in the body of an article, but it's also true that the guideline repeatedly says that it has absolutely nothing to do with citing sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the advice already given. They are not really external links, they are meant to be references, hence the term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The changes I made to the other Bible templates were based on the deprecation of parenthetical referencing; that's a different issue. I was asking about this because I wanted to fix some of the fully inline usages of Bibleverse, but I didn't want to convert them to Bibleref2c if that was also seen as problematic. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For some external links a see a symbol after the link. It is a square with an arrow extending from the middle (of the square) and pointing top-right. Should some information be added about this? Qwerfjkl talk 19:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly. Maybe it should be more prominent. Wikipedia:External links#Templates for external links says: "{{plain link}} will remove the arrow icon that is automatically placed on URLs." Wikipedia:External links#Rich media says: "Note that MediaWiki software will provide small icons for several types of outgoing links, such as the PDF example above". The second sidebar links to Help:External link icons on "External link icons". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that it needs to be more prominent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ELORDER" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ELORDER. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Wikipedia:ELORDER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

answers.yahoo.com

It appears that answers.yahoo.com will disappear in about a month. Special:LinkSearch can't filter for the mainspace. Is there anyway to find out whether this domain is linked in the mainspace? (It shouldn't be.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

odd results.Moxy- 03:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, the ‘insource’ in the tracking template above gives a similar result as what Moxy shows (1 more). They should be cleaned up or, if they are of real interest, be frozen in time. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
One is an official link in the article about Yahoo! Answers, and the other two are links to questions asked by the subject of the article. I quoted the whole question for one of those. I'm not sure whether it's WP:DUE to mention them, but that's not really a problem related to external links in either case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, that then seem to be ones we are talking about, I do not see any others in mainspace. Still probably best to freeze all three in time (internet archive, if that is not already done), just in case. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that, and I assume that if it could be done, it already would have been done by the bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Archived broadcast of key games

I saw that official full MLS Cup 2017 was linked on the article recently. The video is on the channel of the copyright holder. Good idea or terrible one? I does not really add any encyclopedic detail, but it is most certainly directly related to the content of the article. Treat as WP:ELOFFICIAL? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as there's no issue per WP:COPYLINK, it seems fine to link from a copyright standpoint. Moreover, it would seem to fall under ELOFFICIAL if it's the official YouTube page of the MLS. I'm assuming that like other major sports leagues, the MLS owns the rights to any broadcasts or rebroadcasts of its games (e.g. the standard disclaimer "Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of blah, blah, blah, is prohibited."); so, if the MLS puts it up on their official YouTube channel then it's hard not to assume that it's at least OK with people linking to it. If at some point the MLS removes the file from YouTube, then the link should probably be removed and not re-added from some other site or an archived YouTube page (if that's even possible). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, I would expect the official website for this to be a dedicated page on the website of the organizer, mlssoccer.com. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Beetstra, that that website would make sense on the Major League Soccer website, not for a specific game. That would be like linking a book article to the author's official website, or an album to the band. Or possibly, linking a specific Olympic Games to olympic.org rather than the specific game.
Marchjuly, that was my assumption too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, no, what I mean is that for the news on BBC we do not link to BBC, we link to bbc.co.uk/news. That is the homepage for the news. We do not link the Audi A4 to audi.com, we choose audi.com/A4 (all examples, I did not go into the details; but see ELNO # 13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked."). Here there might be a page mlssoccer.com/cups/2017 or something similar (like MLS cup has https://www.mlssoccer.com/meta/competition/mls-cup, and Major League Soccer has https://www.mlssoccer.com/). That would be the front page of the subject.
And I do not agree that this youtube video is 'the official homepage <of the subject>', nor the channel, the channel is of Major League Soccer, not of the 2017 edition of the cup. Certainly the one video on the channel is not the official homepage of the subject
But now regarding the youtube addition itself, we often link to official youtube videos of a subject, like for songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s__rX_WL100 on Like a Virgin (song), and I think that that is quite acceptable. I do think that this video for thát reason is acceptable as being 'the official video' of the subject (I would be against it if it were a recording on a mobile phone by a fan, even if that person who made the recording had all the rights to record the whole game). Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Certainly not ELOFFICIAL, but as a video of the event, it's useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's an appropriate link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

What is a Twitter feed?

In the section of what to avoid, it says, "Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists."

Twitter is not listed along side social networking sites mentioned in brackets. Rather "Twitter feed" is mentioned a different entity by itself. What exactly is a Twitter feed - is it equivalent to a Twitter timeline or does it refer to Twitter profiles? How is it different from a social networking site that it has to be mentioned separately? Jay (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jay, the twitter feed is the ongoing stream of twitter messages, another way to say that is indeed the twitter timeline. I am not sure why it was separated from the social networking sites, it could be wrapped up in there. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, done. Jay (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Britannica template

Template:Britannica, created in August 2007 by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), serves as an inline link to Encyclopædia Britannica, where Britannica is being used as a source. Britannica is not an ideal source as, like us, it is a tertiary source, however - per WP:PSTS, it can be used in certain circumstances, such as for establishing broad views and notability. So the template serves a purpose.

It is, however, also sometimes placed in the External links section, which is not appropriate per WP:ELNO#1, as we are simply sending our readers to a page similar to our own where they will find duplicated information. In short, we are wasting their time. (There may be those who wish for research purposes to compare our coverage with that of Britannica, but, in such cases, they would already know where to find Britannica on the internet.) So I have just started removing the template where it is used in External links, but leaving it in place where it is used to identify and link to Britannica as a source. However, after getting through A to D I realised that there were considerably more Britannica templates placed in the EL section than I had realised. As such my actions might be out of step with consensus, and a little controversial. So I have stopped to seek consensus here to either continue, or to restore the templates I have removed. SilkTork (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SilkTork, I think this is a good idea. I don't know what search method you're using, but this link specifically looks for the template appearing after the ==External links== section heading. It will miss some, but you might as well find the easy ones first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing. I've been using AWB, and asking it to search for either *{{Britannica or * {{Britannica, and that seems to work. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone has a reason why the template should remain in External links, if not, I'll continue. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If you enjoy that kind of editing, then two other large-scale problems to look for are the mis-use of citation templates in the ==External links== section (WP:ELCITE) and the over-use of archive links (WP:ELDEAD – IABot's owners say it's too hard to restrict the bot only to refs, and the use of archive links in the ==External links== section is supposed to be only "in rare circumstances", almost always only for now-defunct official links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
SilkTork, I agree with WhatamIdoing, except for the rare exception (if there is signifiant more information in EB, though that can all be incorporated anyway so still failing inclusion) they can all go. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that links to Britannica would always fail WP:ELNO#EL1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I meant that I could envisage subjects where the EB still has way more than we have, and that our article should, at some point, incorporate that. But that also hardly warrants the link to be there. No objection to bot-like wiping of all. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I'm on board with that, count me in. (I never link to Britannica anywhere anyway as it seems not sporting and kind of ghoulish.) Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Too many

Am I imagining things, but does the EL section of dungeon synth seem a bit bloated? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I have wholesale moved it to talk for cleanup. The lack of context on each link does not make it easy for others to judge whether it is suitable, so a {{linkfarm}} seemed rather useless. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about link farms here, but was well aware of WP:LINKFARMs. A lot of extreme metal articles have collections like this. I'll follow suit if I encounter them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Does TV Tropes fall under ELNO point 12?

I was cleaning up uses of it as a reference (it is plainly WP:USERGENERATED and not usable in that respect outside of a few limited exceptions), and came across a number of external links to it. At a glance it probably has a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors, but I was wondering what people here thought, since I don't really know what ought to be used as a point of comparison. --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion, one rule of thumb (noting, for clarity, that there is no solid agreement about what the best rule of thumb is) is that we want to see 100 registered contributors during the last month. I don't know what the equivalent of Special:ActiveUsers is for their software, but at a glance, they probably meet that guideline, or at least come close to it. The only significant prior discussion on this page was Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 25#tvtropes.org in 2009. @Thumperward once created an External link template for it (perhaps in an effort to make it even more obvious that it shouldn't normally be used as a citation), and might know more about it.
I'd suggest that, since you have made thousands and thousands of edits over the course of many years, that whenever you personally thought it should be left in the ==External links== section, then you should probably trust your judgement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I would definitely eliminate TVT out of external links. It should only be touched as a source if third-party sources reference TVT (eg Groundhog Day (film) aludes to TVT using the film's name for any work with a repeating time loop structure as part of the film's legacy, based on third-party sources). --Masem (t) 05:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem, your comment makes it sound like you have higher standards for ==External links== (which explicitly do not need to be reliable sources) than for ==References==. It is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED, so it cannot "be touched as a source" even if third-party sources do refer to it.
Why do you think that it would not be acceptable for a relevant article (@MrOllie names two possible candidates; I agree with him that there will be very few such articles) to link to that website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I cannot imagine a case where if TVT is appropriate to link as an EL, it would not already be referenced in text: If it is directly referenced by a third-party source, it would make sense include it as a cited reference rather than an ELNO at the point it is references. If not, then its inclusion would fail USERG, given the variability of quality of TVT (in contrast to a decent USERG work like Wookiepedia). --Masem (t) 01:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You aren't supposed to be citing Wookiepedia, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
On the distinction between refs and ELs as regards reliability, see my post of 12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#last.fm as external link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a wiki that primarily revolves around references to popular culture. If that doesn't set klaxons blaring then nothing will. On rare occasions TVT's framing of a subject has been notable enough to actually have an impact on it, but in general it should absolutely not be included on articles whose subject it merely references (which number a significant portion of all television from the last thirty years or so). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
With the exception of articles that are actually about a trope (something like Jumping the shark or Final girl), the links won't be 'relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject' and should be excluded on that basis, I don't think ELNO #12 really needs to come into it. - MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:LINKSTONOTAVOID" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:LINKSTONOTAVOID. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 27#Wikipedia:LINKSTONOTAVOID until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Frontman830 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be no clear guidelines regarding or discouraging the use of links to collections/archives of news or opinion articles of journalists, columnists, and commentators who don't have an official/personal website. Examples include works of Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times, Steve Deace at Blaze Media, Neil Patel at The Daily Caller, and McKay Coppins at The Atlantic or BuzzFeed News (or alternatively, verified meta-collections like Muck Rack). My view is these are reasonable links that are directly relevant to the subject in an area where they are notable, offer readers a unique perspective (straight from the horse's mouth) in the spirit of WP:ELOFFICIAL and MOS:FURTHER, and aren't in violation of other policies or guidelines. They are often more educationally rich than perennially-debated Twitter links. But I have seen some occasional pushback, e.g. claiming it lends undue weight to the subject's own views (especially when the writer is controversial, fringe, or unpopular among Wikipedians), or invoking WP:LINKFARM or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some objections claim these are search results contra WP:ELNO #9 (when in fact they are often stable, dedicated links to curated content), or that links to deprecated/unreliable sources but not-blacklisted sites like Blaze Media or The Daily Caller are violating some other guidelines. I'd like to see some discussion and clarification here and maybe the eventual addition of this to WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, or somewhere in WP:ELOFFICIAL (if not in a bullet point, then perhaps in a footnote clarifying when it would or would not be appropriate). The number of such links should of course be kept to a minimum just like WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and local consensus on a case-by-case basis can determine which links and how many are most appropriate for a given article, e.g. a longtime staff writer of a single periodical who has a few op-eds or scattered articles in other publications might only link to the author page for which they're most prominently associated. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty, it sounds to me like you're looking for an WP:ELYES #2 for authors. (It is currently written to explicitly apply to a book [such as Black Beauty] but not to apply to the book's author [Anna Sewell, whose biography contains links to her book].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I can see some encyclopedic value to the reader to have links to collections of online accessible works by an author (any author, not just columnists) - though, referencing my discussion above, should those links be provided directly by Wikipedia, or by a central resource such as Wikidata or Authority control? Such links appear to me to come under the field of "library resources", and webpages holding links to works would qualify as finding aids, which are currently allowed under WP:ELMAYBE#7. Unfortunately, ELMAYBE#7 offers little clarity or advice on when and how to link to such resources, which is one of the reasons why the above discussion was started. We do need more clarity in these matters. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
My instinct here is to say that I would favour such a link over other archival links, as long as they are accessible (the NYT's link, for example, is not accessible as it requires registration, something we would normally disallow, per WP:ELREG). As with WhatamIdoing, I see such a link as being similar to WP:ELYES#2. Problems could arise if an author has multiple publishers, and archives of their works are scattered over multiple sites, which is where I come back to the above discussion. One such link seems a good idea to me, but each separate link reduces the value of the first and subsequent links as the reader becomes overloaded with too much choice. SilkTork (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:ELREG is worth considering. But in the absence of an official website, a link to collected articles could be considered "as official as it gets," per WP:ELOFFICIAL #2, and may be warranted. Note that registration is not required to view the landing page for Nicholas Kristof, nor to view the biographic information, sign up for his newsletter, or contact the author. Other author pages may have links to social media sites and other resources, which could make the page considerable per WP:ELMAYBE #3. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For those interested: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Links to copyrighted material on Open Library. Paradoctor (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Television station translator lists

I nominated KTVK for GA, and in the review, Tayi Arajakate suggested that the external links in the Rebroadcasters section needed to be moved.

We have a lot of link lists that look like this for TV translators, and some of them are being rescued from being in hidden boxes. This is the one from KPHO-TV, for instance:

The links are to technical records about the TV rebroadcasters and are generated by a specific template. Some of these lists can be very long (look at KSL-TV#Translators). Is this a permissible use of external links or should the standard be changed for this type of page? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, have you two looked at Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, that's what I'm asking. Is it acceptable as a citation to a reliable source? (I'd imagine so as a link to official record) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
ELLIST suggests that you format it more like this:
Caption
Location FCC facility data
Bullhead City (Katherines Landing) K05MR-D
Camp Verde K31LZ
Chloride K30GG-D
Cottonwood, etc. K29LM-D
but otherwise I think it is acceptable, and I don't think that the formatting is extremely important (although it would help people understand that if they click that link, they won't end up in a typical customer-oriented website).
That's separate from the verifiability concern that SilkTork raises (which is more like "How do we know that these are associated with this article's subject at all?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie, I looked at the links (with a view that they could be turned into cites), but couldn't see a reference to KPHO-TV in the links. I did a search for the first station on the list, K05MR-D, and found this: [2] and this: [3], which does mention KPHO, along with other stations, so is more useful, though it may not be a reliable source. A query that occurred to me while I was looking, is regarding the encyclopedic value of listing all the rebroadcasters. Is there a reliable source, other than mere listings, which have mentioned the rebroadcasting when talking about the parent station? At the moment a section is devoted to information which appears to be rather minor, and if it is worthy of note, could perhaps be summed up as "KPHO-TV's CBS transmissions are rebroadcast by 12 other Arizona stations", with a reliable source which says this. Not this source, because it's old and out of date (1975), but something like this: Federal Communications Commission Reports. SilkTork (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
SilkTork, the last document I have that would be definitive is linked here as "List of TV Translator Input Channels as of November 8, 2017". That might seem recent, but unfortunately two events have occurred since that require major updates since then: spectrum reallocation (aka "the repack") and the end of low-power analog TV in July 2021. Many of our lists need rebuilds for both anyway, and that's a task I've been taking on (though it's been a bit harder of late). FCCdata used to have a list in its records, but that has disappeared. RabbitEars is used as a source in the subchannel tables in almost all pages, and I trust it; it may be a worthy stopgap. I have emailed the FCC in hopes that a more updated list can be built and supplied. It would resolve many of these problems. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that RabbitEars has an article on Wikipedia, and that it has been cited by reliable sources. As such, it does appear to be reliable, and so could be used as a source. SilkTork (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a number of pages that include text-embedded ELs to Wikia (now Fandom), in form of interwiki links using the centralwikia: Interwiki prefix. For example, Alice (name) has numerous links like [[centralwikia:w:c:disney:Alice Kingsleigh|Alice Kingsleigh]], which creates Alice Kingsleigh, a link to a Disney fan wiki on Wikia.

I don't see anything in WP:EL suggesting that Wikia pages are special with respect to external linking in text; the fact that there's an interwiki mechanism in the software is a separate issue from where it is appropriate to be used.

I propose to begin removing them when I see them, just as I would any other in-text EL that's not exempted from the general rule in WP:EL. Am I missing anything? TJRC (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Embedded external links of any type are discouraged per WP:ELPOINTS. Open Wiki sites (e.g. Wikia (now Fandom.com) are mentioned in WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12. I think wikia links should generally be removed, although there hypothetically might be rare cases where EL to a wikia is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed; my only concern is whether the presence of interwiki support specifically for Wikia suggests different treatment for those links. I don't think it does, but this is a sanity check. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No, there's no special rule for them. Everything goes by the same rules, even if there is (or used to be, in the case of Google Search) an interwiki shortcut for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Official website § Pencil icon

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Official website § Pencil icon. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Robochurnalism"

I think this category is implicitly covered in the existing criteria ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."), but autogenerated youtube "news" seems to deserve a special mention. Example videos here and here. Note the synthetic voice, automatically generated video montage (where the relationship to the text is generally superficial, sometimes to the effect of great humor). Could this type of content be added to the project page? I don't know the proper, if one exists, name for it yet ("robochurnalism"?). Maneesh (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Automated journalism. Paradoctor (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not quite it, no? Video isn't prominent in that article (cite of AP's efforts..which I can't really find an example of). "Automated journalism" seems too broad, as one could imagine more and more automation in the production of RS...it's the "junky" quality of those videos that makes them bad I think. Maneesh (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you having trouble getting inappropriate links removed from articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Roud Folk Song Index and Child Ballads nr in the WP:LEAD of articles about songs

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

NO ACTION
(non-admin closure) RfC with wide-ranging scope generated much discussion but unclear results. Question 1 seemed to find consensus in favor of linking to useful aids, the other questions' responses were harder to collate. Practically withdrawn as overly broad by requestor two months ago, which is why I have dared step in to archive (and not really close) this. Certainly, further discussions on these topics, perhaps in smaller, bite-size morsels, may be appropriate in the future. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a RfC to get clarity and consensus on how and when we should provide external links to libraries and archive resources or finding aids. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Background: Wikipedia has long been ambivalent about external links; we recognise that linking to certain resources can be a valuable aid for readers, yet we are uncertain about just how many links we should allow, and we resist being a mere repository of such links. The whole area of external links is broad and complex, with an ongoing tension between those who wish to add links, and those who wish to keep links manageable. We have a guideline that we should not add links to websites that either duplicate or provide less information than we do (WP:ELNO#1), yet at the same time we create templates to facilitate linking to such websites ({{AllMusic}}, etc). And then we tag thousands of articles with concerns regarding the number of external links that are being added - with a number of tagged articles dating back to 2012: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. However, this RfC is not about external links in general, nor cleaning up excessive links. This RfC is specifically about library links, and how we ensure such links comply with our policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY and Wikipedia:External links.

Info: Linking to library or archive sources can be done by a conventional link to the website: *Example.org, or by using one of several templates that provide links - such as {{Library resources box}}, which links to books available at a library, but does not include unique archive material, or {{Archival records}}, which links to unique documents housed in a library, but does not link to books; and {{Authority control}}, which aims to hold all available library data on the topic. Wikipedia is always evolving, and linking to library material is one area in which we are evolving, though there appears to be no clear consensus on how we do it. Looking on the talkpages, Template talk:Library resources box, Template talk:Archival records, and Template talk:Authority control, concern has been raised regarding all three, and there is some uncertainty moving forward as to which should be used, and how. There appear to be teething problems with {{Authority control}}, which is presumably why {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} have been brought in. After a discussion last year (Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_39#Request_for_comment_on_finding_aids), the EL guideline was adjusted to allow Finding aids: WP:ELMAYBE#6 - what is not clear from that discussion, is what qualifies as an appropriate finding aid/archive/library resource, and how we should link to the resource.

Questions to resolve:

1) Clarify/confirm if it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host links to finding aids/archives/library resources.

2) If it is appropriate, then clarify if Wikipedia should host individual links, or use a centralised resource, such as that provided by Wikidata and/or {{Authority control}}.

3) Clarify if {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} are appropriate alternatives/additions to Wikidata and/or {{Authority control}}.

4) If direct links to library and archival resources are appropriate, clarify the criteria by which links may be added:

ai) Archives/finding aids which independent, reliable sources have identified as notable resources for the article topic?
aii) Archives/finding aids which a Wikipedia editor finds useful?
aiii) Archives/finding aids which are agreed by consensus on the article talkpage to be useful?
b) That there are no other archival external links in the article?
c) That there is a limit of one/two/three/.... archival links?

5) Clarify the size and formatting of an archival link:

Are these an appropriate size and format?:
Archives at
SourceSilkTork Archive
How to use archival material
Library resources about
External links/Archive 41

6) Is it possible to have one template which provides one link to a central resource? And for that template to be of a proportionate size and format?

7) Is this an issue which WMF should be involved in?

TLDR/Nutshell: How can we clarify, simplify, and agree on library links?

SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • The intention is to be open and free-ranging with the topic, and to pool information and skills. The questions are examples which can be used to frame the discussion, though nobody is obliged to respond to all the questions, and new questions can be added. The aim is to have a guideline on the use of library links to amend or update WP:ELMAYBE#6. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from SilkTork

    • 1) Yes, we should link to appropriate and useful library resources.
    • 2) If possible, and to avoid Wikipedia articles becoming overloaded with external links (Shakespeare, Aristotle, Dickens, Sunshine Mine, Acceptance of evolution, etc), one link to a centralised resource would make sense.
    • 3) I am very sceptical of the value of {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} - it appears to me that {{Authority control}} does a better job.
    • 4) If there are no other archival links in an article, and no {{Authority control}} template, and there is an independent reliable source that says an archive is notable, then linking to that archive would be appropriate - though the ultimate aim should be to use a link to a central resource like Wikidata, so that stand alone link should be removed when {{Wikidata}} and/or {{Authority control}} templates which include links to the archive are used.
    • 5) I feel the size and format of the {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} templates are innappropriate - drawing too much attention to themselves, and taking up too much space. A collapsed {{Authority control}} template appears appropriate.
    • 6) My preference would be to use one template (such as {{Authority control}}), and to discourage inserting individual links into articles (and so amend WP:ELMAYBE#6)
    • 7) Technical matters such as creating a link repository (Wikidata) are WMF matters; decisions regarding which links are used in articles is a Wikipedia community matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

The work that SilkTork has put into bringing together the various strands of this hydra-like question should not go unacknowledged. This is an important matter on which an agreed policy, consistently applied, has been sorely lacking and is highly desirable. I'll return in a day or so with any detailed comments after a good ponder. Meanwhile, thank you, SilkTork! Tim riley talk 10:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts after watching comments coming in, below. We are all, I think, agreed on the broad aim, albeit with slightly differing preferences as regards admissibility, but the mechanics remain elusive. I am attracted by the idea that libraries can be challenged to confirm that they are one of the two leading repositories of the material in question, though whether "leading" is measured by quantity or quality is tricky, and the earnest young interns who add the acres of links we are beset by will swear their institution is the most important resource. @SilkTork:, have you any thoughts on they way forward from here? Or perhaps leave the discussion open a while longer? Tim riley talk 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the scope of the RfC is probably too large. It might be helpful to look at areas where there seem to be interest and agreement, and to narrow down on one or two of those to get some consensus moving forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
That looks right to me. It puts a burden on you, though, and we'll owe you a collective debt of gratitude if you do boil the issues down to the do-able. I will, as before, gladly carry a spear in your infantry. Tim riley talk 17:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Dirk Beetstra

This is indeed a hydra of a question. Some general points, I do see these more as 'further reading' than external links (though the two sections are generally judged combined), and also more like 'authority control'. Distinction will need to be made as well for 'a work by the subject' (where hence the 'work by the subject' is the subject of the Wikipedia article, where I would regard 'the work by the subject' to be inappropriate on the page of 'subject') vs. 'a significant collection of works by the subject' (WP:ELNO - direct vs. indirect linking; if there is a page where the 'indirect' link is 'direct' then we should not duplicate it here - I do not think that Vincent van Gogh should carry links to archives where his paintings are hosted since most/all of his works have individual pages which already tell where that work is hosted, as well as that we likely have a list of paintings by Vincent van Gogh which specifies locations and maybe links individually to them).

My couple of bucks:

1) Yes, we should link to useful and appropriate library resources. Focus on 'useful' though.
2) The material should be useful and significant. Not 'look, we also have a quilt in our collection', but a link to 25 meter of boxes filled with original letters written by Shakespeare should be there on the subject's page. WP:EL notes this as 'common sense' in its intro.
3) If the link is through authority control then there is no need to duplicate it (unless it is of really particular interest; reasoning alike that for the inclusion of Donald Trump's Twitter is of interest there: every other tweet by Donald Trump was world news, so we override WP:ELMINOFFICIAL there).
4) With other external links (for example for interviews with the subject) I generally feel that 'the next' interview is adding less than the previous, with such lists often losing significance after the 5th or 6th interview. 'But we also have a quilt in our collection' is not a reason for inclusion. Generally bulk of materials are located in one main location (one archive has most of the material). With every next finding aid being smaller than the previous, and hence giving less extra information. See WD below. Note that for subjects where their work is truly scattered around (paintings everywhere) a 'list of works by <subject>' article (with for most/all of the works their current location) could easily overtake the need for all links to individual works on the article of <subject>.
5) Depends completely, if one archive contains 25 meters worth of material, and the next only 2 A4s then the first one can be an external link and the next ones are not needed. If there are works in 3-4 major places then grouping them in a box is probably better. If works like paintings are scattered everywhere a 'list of works by <subject>' article serves the purpose better than a linkfarm. If it is likely that there is material in your local library then a link to that search would be interesting to add (i.e. a generic link similar to Worldcat).
6) Difficult, are you referring to a template like {{Official website}} here?
7) WikiData policies are different from our policies. I feel that WD should link to all locations individually as that is data that they can have. That does not automatically mean that we have to use all that data (we don't link to Twitter because WD has the Twitter handle of the subject, we link to Twitter (or not) because it fits with our inclusion standards). I don't think that that is an issue that we should be concerned with except for staying away from the 'WD has it, so we have to use it' discussion.

All in all I am afraid that this will not be a black-and-white result, there are too many aspects which may be different for each subject under discussion (the original works of painters are on displays in different musea, whereas the original works of Shakespeare are all in well protected archives and we use copies or even WikiSource hosted digital copies). Thank you Silktork for opening this discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re your response to Question 6, Dirk. I am thinking only of external links to libraries/archives (finding aids) - templates which link to other resources, such as official websites or Twitter or other encyclopaedias are not intended to be part of this discussion, as I think that would be too broad a scope. And a link to the official website is clearly encyclopedic, so should be allowed somewhere prominently in the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Sorry, I wasn't clear in my confusion :-). I meant to ask whether you were thinking of a typical wrapper template like we wrap the official website ({{Finding aid}}?), or wrap them in an archive-dependent wrapper (which then is more like the {{Twitter}} where you add only the 'identifier'). I guess the bigger archives are all already in the {{Authority control}} so those are linked from there (and I would exclude replication with very few exceptions), the unusual ones (where an artist has left their works to a local museum which does not have significant works from others) will not be in the authority control. I'm not convinced by a {{Finding aids}} similar to {{Authority control}}, those are rapidly deteriorating to show literally all remotely available archives just like Authority Control is doing now (a gibberish of identifiers only useful to those researching the subject, but with very little use for the general public and with way too much overlap). Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I wasn't thinking of a wrapper. I was thinking only of reducing the number of individual links or templates, and the best way of managing that while keeping access to the finding aids that are felt to be encyclopaedic and useful. For me, ideally, there should only be three external links: 1) The official website, 2) The work being discussed (if available legally and free online - such as a music work via Spotify, or a book via the Gutenberg project), and 3) A link to an off-Wikipedia resource, such as Wikidata, which holds links to libraries, museums, archives, and statistics. I think for the bulk of our readers, links to 1) and 2) would be the most useful, while 3) would be there for those who wish for a little more information. SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Ssilvers

Famous writers and creators have produced so much material that numerous archives and libraries often hold them. And every archive has an enthusiastic archivist who thinks that their collection ought to be linked in Wikipedia. Sometimes, they add a link ALL of their collections to the dozens or hundreds of relevant Wikipedia articles with obvious pride. I can see adding an EL to something that is acknowledged by everyone to be a writer's *main* collection or repository, but we cannot add a long list of ELs to articles simply because they exist. The EL guidelines should state clearly that before you add an EL to a collection, you have to show that it is the subject's main archive, or at least one of the top 2. The "library resources"-type boxes/templates are way over the top and should be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Wugapodes

  1. We should link to finding aids. It helps with WP:V. If more readers can quickly and easily check citations for statements we increase the chance that errors are found and corrected.
  2. We should use a centralized source where possible, but links to individual resources should be used where it is the only viable option such as niche archives.
  3. Both of those templates seem like reasonable solutions.
  4. I think it's too soon to establish criteria, but I think it should be something closer to aii and aiii. If someone thinks an archive is useful, then it probably is. If it's disputed or there are too many then a talk page discussion can establish a local consensus on what to include or exclude. If it turns out that that plan causes too much conflict, I would be fine with ai.
  5. We should format these similarly. If we're going to have authcontrol as a page-wide collapse box, I would like the option for the other boxes to be included within it or at least of a similar format.
  6. Probably? I don't know the code for authority control, but presumably it could handle a feature similar to nested infoboxes.
  7. I doubt they could help much.

06:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Biogeographist

  1. Yes, we should link to appropriate and useful library resources. Wikipedia loves libraries.
  2. A centralized resource would be great, but there should be an easy-to-find instructional page (if there isn't already?) for new archivist/librarian (or other) editors to learn how to do it.
  3. I already noticed that {{Library resources box}} does not do very much, and is not precise enough to replace the kind of links that we're discussing here, if I understand correctly. I wasn't sure what {{Archival records}} does, so I had to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Archival records to find examples. The examples I examined only included one archive, so including multiple archives in {{Archival records}} could be a problem? So neither appear to be good alternatives to a centralized resource that could include links to multiple archives.
  4. The first criterion (Archives/finding aids which independent, reliable sources have identified as notable resources for the article topic) looks most reliable, though I imagine an exception should be made for Wikipedia articles about a person or organization when there is only one archive (all the person's or organization's papers went to one place): in such exceptional cases, no independent, reliable source would be needed. That is, if a library says that they have received most of a person's papers, and the content of the archive makes it obvious enough that it is true, no independent source would be needed.

Biogeographist (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from ProcrastinatingReader

I still believe in the position I outlined at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_180#Authority_control. The {{Authority control}} template is a large dump of links in violation of WP:NOTLINK and the WP:External links guideline. It has been added to 2 million articles, and on many of those all the links in it provide no useful information. Often it is (uncollapsed) longer than the longest section on the article. In many cases the article has no sections (ie is a stub). I don't mind with the template being on talk pages or people being directed to Wikidata, but the English Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, and nothing else like it is visible on article pages. I much prefer the idea of Template:Library resources box personally, especially since the presentation seems more often to provide relevant/useful links. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Blueboar

We have “discography” articles where we list the recorded works of musicians and bands… I would suggest similar “bibliography” articles where we would list the works of writers, and (not sure what to call it… “corpus of work”?) articles where we would list the works of artists. If we have our own internal lists that we can link to, then there is no need to link to external databases. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing this

I'm not sure if we'll be able to get an uninvolved editor to write a closing statement for this. User:SilkTork, I haven't read most of this, but do you feel like you got the information you needed? Are there threads of agreement that are helpful to you here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This didn't get the attention I hoped it would - but that was my fault for making the discussion too large and complex. Quite early on I realised I should have tackled this one piece at a time. I'll look through the discussion to see if anything can be gleaned from it, and highlight those points here, though I'm not sure we have learned much we didn't already know, and I don't think anything has changed. If I haven't made a summary by the end of the day, then close and archive it as is. SilkTork (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The policy states in part "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern." This is incorrect- linking to something is not a violation of copyright under the U.S. Copyright Act because a link is not a copy- but rather a link only points to where a copy can be found. It also follows that because Wikipedia is located in the U.S. it is not subject to foreign copyright laws as a matter of U.S. law. (e.g. foreign copyright holders must sue U.S. actors in the U.S. courts because foreign courts lack in personum jurisdiction to hear cases involving U.S. citizens as a matter of clearly established U.S. law, where the U.S. courts will, as the typical rule, decline to enforce foreign judgments.) The U.S. supreme court as well as the several federal circuit courts of appeals, have issued multiple rulings on the point that confirm this as being the state of the law relevant to Wikipedia. This is strengthened from the fact that YouTube posters may place settings on their content that prevent third-party linking, and if something that is posted to youtube is a copyright violation, DMCA must issue to YouTube, not third-party users of YouTube's services. Therefore, this business concerning copyright and youtube is really of no legal concern to Wikipedia and should be removed from policy. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The statement as given is not incorrect. See WP:LINKVIO for more detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Linking to copyright infringement has been found to be contributory infringement. See WP:COPYLINKS for details. MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

See the example given at External links section and the sorrounding text. In the current version, this is the example: 

== External links ==
* [https://example1.com Official website]
* [https://example2.com/link Interview] with Subject

First, I consider the words with Subject, which raise some questions. The other words (External links, Official website, and Interview) are words that the reader will see. But the reader will not see with Subject, or at least Subject. Wouldn't it be better if the example consistently tries to display what the reader will see?

And why Subject, why not subject? The uppercase S seems to indicate that Subject is meant to represent a name, i.e. the person who has given the interview. If a person is meant, would't it be better to use a name like John Doe instead – Interview with John Doe? A name like John Doe would be much closer to what the reader will see than Subject.

But maybe Subject means the subject of the interview, i.e. what the person was talking about. In this case, we could also make that clearer. For instance: 

== External links ==
* [https://example1.com Official website]
* [https://example2.com/link Interview with John Doe about his last will]

Second, does such an example illustrate what the corresponding text says? The example does illustrate briefly summarize the website's contents (in the preceding text), or concise description of the contents (in the text below), and it does illustrate access dates are not appropriate (in the text below). The example does not illustrate a clear indication of its source (in the text below). A source should be added in the Interview entry.

Moreover, I think we should include an entry that illustrates the common case of an online article with title, source, date (see the New York Times entry below). And maybe more entries to illustrate typical cases (see the Biography entry below). If we add more entries, the example might look like this: 

== External links ==
* [https://example1.com Official website]
* [https://example2.com/link Biography] at the John Doe Foundation website
* [https://example3.com/link ''John Doe's amazing career''] The New York Times, 1 April 1975
* [https://example4.com/link Interview with John Doe about his last will] in the Library of Congress

Sorry for the lengthy posting. What do you think? --Lektor w (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In this example, "Interview with Subject" is meant to represent "Interview with <insert the name of the person being interviewed here>".
I tend to use Alice and Bob as fake names; you may use any name that you want. We sometimes also use examples directly from real articles.
As for your examples:
== External links ==
* [https://example1.com Official website]
* [https://example2.com/link Biography] at the John Doe Foundation website
* [https://example3.com/link ''John Doe's amazing career''] The New York Times, 1 April 1975
* [https://example4.com/link Interview with John Doe about his last will] in the Library of Congress
#1 is good. #2 would normally be redundant to the official website, right? I wonder whether an example involving a collection of his papers at a university library would help. (@SilkTork?) #3 should sound more like the title of a newspaper article, so that nobody is tempted to add puffery here. Maybe "Retrospective of John Doe's career"? #4 sounds fine to me.
If you were looking for another type of example, then something about photos could be useful. We can't always get free photos for articles, but readers often want them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for answering. I don't think #2 is redundant to #1. An official website offers much more than a biography: a list of the works, pictures, maybe videos, and the like. #2 is only a biography and it is a different source. I think a biography, not only the official one, is a typical entry in an article about a person.
#2 and #4 illustrate this message: "In the External links section, titles can be replaced by a different and often shorter wording, e.g. Biography instead of the original title of the biography."
I wrote John Doe's amazing career with a twinkle in the eye, just like 1 April. Of course we can drop such attempts at amusing the reader.
Such details are less important. My main idea was that the wording should more accurately reflect what the sourrounding text says, and that some of the variation of real entries could be demonstrated by e.g. two more entries. --Lektor w (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the current examples are not actually good examples as they are not identifying the website. Example 4 is a good example. I like that, apart from the use of John Doe, which is an American expression that not everyone would be familiar with. Subject is clearer, and is what we use throughout Wikipedia to mean the subject of a biographical article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". However, to make it clearer we could use "Interview with <subject of article> about their last will". Subject also avoids gender, which we should strive to do as much as possible. I'm not keen on there being four examples. We try not to encourage people to use external links, as we have a greater problem of excess external links than lack of links. Two examples is sufficient. Any more than that, and we are wandering into the area of people putting up links rather than writing the article, and we cease to be a useful encyclopedia and become a repository of random links instead.
Official website is almost redundant these days with official websites appearing in the info box at the top of most articles, and perhaps we should make a note regarding that ("If there is already a link to the official website in the info box, then consider if there is a need to place a duplicate link in an External links section at the bottom of the page"). It is useful to have the flexibility of an External links section, though they are not mandatory, and if the info box carries the one essential external link, then there is no need to create an External links section just to duplicate what is already in the article, which would, at the same time, encourage people to start entering excessive and random links. If, however, we are to continue having a link to the official website at the bottom of the page in addition to the top, then we should make the links appear the same so people are not gulled into clicking a second time. For example, in Bob Dylan, the info box at the top reads: "Website bobdylan.com", and that is clear and useful. While in the External links at the bottom we get a template merely saying "Official website", without identifying the name, or that it is the same website as in the info box: bobdylan.com. The template does appear to allow the name of the website to appear if the parameter |name= is used. SilkTork (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
We don't need a link to a biography - the Wikipedia article is a biography. Linking to a site which replicates what is or should be in our own article is discouraged by WP:ELNO#1. Example3 is just another biography, and so would also be discouraged by WP:ELNO#1. Those sites might be useful as sources, but not as external links. As WhatamIdoing says above, linking to a site which provides photos which we cannot use would be useful and acceptable, and a lengthy interview "might" be acceptable, though that's not a certainty. Some people, Bob Dylan for example, have been interviewed many times, and if people starting linking to each published interview we'd have an impenetrable list of links which would cease to be of use to the general reader. We need to keep things manageable if our articles are to be helpful. In most cases if an interview is useful it would/should be used as a source to build the article, and as such would already be listed in the references section. However, I wholeheartedly agree that we should strive to make the link clearer, which [https://example1.com Official website] does not, as it renders as Official website, which doesn't tell us the name of the website. I generally like to know where I am going before I click on a link. SilkTork (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. <subject of article> instead of John Doe is a good solution. It is clearer than Subject. Maybe we should avoid about their last will because the gender plural their would not appear in a real article. Let's write something else that avoids their.
At the bottom you say, "[https://example1.com Official website] ... renders as Official website, which doesn't tell us the name of the website." Do we need the name of the official website? Isn't it common practice to only write Official website? (Example.) I think Official website is all the readers need to know. And it illustrates the principle "Keep it short".
You suggest that perhaps we should make a note "If there is already a link to the official website in the info box, then consider if there is a need to place a duplicate link in an External links section at the bottom of the page". That's a new idea. I suggest discussing this idea in a separate section. We should either get a majority in favour of "no official website in the External links section if already contained in an infobox" or a majority against this. Only advising the users to "consider" the question may leave them clueless what they should prefer to do. There is also a systematic reason for a separate discussion about the proposed idea: The question mainly refers to Wikipedia:External links#Official links where we focus on official links and already say something about where they may appear. ("Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.") In the section discussed here, we consider the case (quote) "If you include an official website".
You say (let me use my own words): The more entries we add in the example, the more users feel encouraged to overload the section in their articles; we should try to give the opposite message and show as few entries as possible. That's a good observation. On the other hand we can't show much with two entries. We could add an instruction like "Don't overload the section with too many links" or "Don't insert too many entries". Possibly with a maximum number as a recommendation. That would be stronger than showing only two entries in our own example. --Lektor w (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Showing the name of the site is certainly a debatable point. I like the way that info boxes do it, as that is providing both the link to the official website and the name of the official website, so there is useful information. A reader may wish to know the name of the official website for future use, or to include it in whatever work they are doing, newspaper article, research study, blog, whatever, but not actually wish to visit right now. By not displaying the site name, the reader needs to click on the link and go to the site to find out - that seems to me to be inappropriate and distracting, especially when the name of the site can be given and read at a glance.
Many articles put up wording in the External links section desperately requesting that people add no more links. It doesn't seem to work. We even have a template on those articles saying quite boldly that there are too many links so they need to be trimmed. Nobody seems willing to do that work (I've done a bit), and despite that clean up template, people still keep adding links. See Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup - I have worked on the older backlog up to 2012. I might have another crack at it one day, but there are easier, more enjoyable, and more satisfying things to do! Do you fancy having a go? A crude but effective way is to cut and paste the whole list of links to the talkpage, and from there move back into the article those which meet our EL guidelines, and leave the others on the talkpage to potentially be used as sources to help build the article. Here's an example: Talk:H.323#External_links. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Official website" is the most common practice, and it is normal to include the official website at both the top and bottom of the article, assuming that both an infobox and an ==External links== section exist in the article (which is often not the case, especially for less-developed articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
SilkTork, I perfectly agree: overloaded External link sections are a massive problem. So what do do about it in our section? I suggested to insert a warning. I have done that now: like this. If you find a better wording, please go ahead. --Lektor w (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC) – Update: WhatamIdoing has shifted the advice into the lead section and linked it to further information. Thank you. --Lektor w (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether those <!--hidden requests--> are being added at the same rate as they were ~15 years ago. I suspect that most could be removed with no harm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand that. Which hidden requests? --Lektor w (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Look in sections like this one for the bit that looks like:
===========================({NoMoreLinks}})===============================
There are perhaps about a thousand copies of this template in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think that we should try to amuse the guideline's readers whenever that can be slipped in harmlessly and unobtrusively. A little levity might help people remember the examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The example at #Short citations is funny: "The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]" I was very amused when I read it. I love it. Well done. --Lektor w (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I was gonna add, "And the asteroid is close.[4] " But then I decided there might be a WP:RELTIME issue (with is) or a problem with WP:RECENTISM. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I love the #Short citations example. It's inspiring. Indisputable facts, and not so long that the content gets in the way of the principle that's being illustrated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

See External links section. I'm reading:

  • If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question. If you link to an online article, try to provide as much meaningful article information as possible.

This is not realistic. It should be rewritten, since a good summary sounds like a considerable amount of text, adding and the reasons, which would result in even more text; providing as much meaningful article information as possible (!) would be really much text. The opposite is common practice and sensible: as little text as possible. The key word should rather be brief or short instead of as much as possible. For instance:

  • The text of each entry should be kept as brief as possible. [Or: ... should be kept brief.] Its function is enabling the readers to decide whether they are interested in clicking the link. In case of a link to a website, a few words are often sufficient, e.g. the website's title or Official website.

A detailed instruction about what to write in the case of a an online article would be more complicated. I would prefer to include more examples below with some variation, instead of only one example for each case. --Lektor w (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

When you see "a good summary", do you hear "a long summary"? I think that (for some people, perhaps not for everyone), "a brief summary" and "a good summary" might sound like opposites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I don't feel well reading the word summary. And why not say brief summary instead of good summary if brief is the most important aspect? Those link texts are so short that they are not really a good summary. They identify the linked content as briefly as possible. (Why briefly? Because the readers should be able to decide as quickly as possible, and as easily as possible, which links they want to follow. They need to quickly get an overview over all the links offered in order to decide how to prioritize them.)
See External links section, second sentence, where we have briefly summarize. That's more like it, due to briefly.
User Butwhatdoiknow has now deleted those two sentences. I think that's an improvement. As for the reason, Butwhatdoiknow saw conflicts with that second sentence, and he added that this sentence "isn't quite right" itself. (I agree.) The second sentence reads:
  • External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article.
First, could we please delete and why the website is relevant to the article? Sometimes a praising commentary like (with detailed biography) may be added, but such commentaries are an exception, not standard. In most cases, it's obvious that the linked content is more or less relevant to the article. Each link should be relevant anyway, so it's not necessary to explain why a single link is relevant.
Second, summarize the linked content would be better than summarize the website's contents, since the linked content is often not a whole website.
Third, summarize seems somewhat unappropriate, just like summary.
By the way, External links should identify ... is not exact. It's not the external link, it's the link text, or entry, that identifies the linked content.
So I suggest shortening the second sentence, for instance:
  • In each bulleted line, the text should briefly identify the link.
--Lektor w (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
PS. I just tried to organize several sentences in a more logical order, starting with this edit and with minor adaptations. Resulting in this version. I thought discussing all of these steps beforehand would be too complicated. I hope you agree with the suggested ordering.
So, what I have called the second sentence above is now the first sentence in the second paragraph. --Lektor w (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I think and why the website is relevant to the article is probably useful only in a minority of cases, unless you take a very expansive definition of "why". (Does "official website" could as an explanation of why the website is relevant to the article?) Perhaps that should be understood as a case of "if it's not obvious, then..."
Overall, I have no objections to the changes you made. The only thing I think you should look at again is the "For example:" bit. It currently sounds like the example is showing how to put the official link before the other links, rather than showing how to describe a link. Rearranging a few sentences might make that better.
BTW, I noticed that it took you several edits to make those changes. I wonder if you would prefer the visual editor. Click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links?veaction=edit#External_links_section to try it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing, thank you for your feedback.
I strongly oppose and why the website is relevant to the article. A reason for relevance is sometimes given. But this is only true in a very small minority of the cases, isn't it? Therefore, this part of the instruction is simply not realistic. It should at least be downsized, something like Consider adding a reason why the link is relevant if its relevance is not obvious. I think however that it is not necessary. And it would be contradictory to the main message Keep it short. I would prefer to delete those words.
I would prefer to shorten the sentence even further, as suggested above.
Reordering the "For example" bit: I agree with you. I thought that myself. The ordering in this part came from the recent edit done by Butwhatdoiknow. I'll try to improve that.
Your last remark: I sometimes prefer do separate edits with separate comments so that the others can exactly see what has been changed and why, especially if the text is sensitive. I think instruction texts like these are a sensitive matter. Some more separate edits are due to the fact that I can't always see what should be changed at once. I know that other users might have preferred one or two single edits. I regret that. --Lektor w (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have not shifted and shortened the sentence about the position of official websites (see new version).
If you ask me, the part and why the website is relevant to the article cries out for being deleted. That's even clearer now because the Example doesn't illustrate this instruction.
I think the Example should also be reviewed. I'll start a new section for this topic. --Lektor w (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Lektor w, why don't you remove that phrase, then? The worst-case scenario is that editors get into disputes over this, and we have to stick it back in. I think that's very unlikely to happen, and it's easy to fix if it does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
(I don't care how many edits you use; I'm likely to read them all in a single diff no matter what you choose. I just wanted to offer an alternative, in case you were hoping to find something easier.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing. You ask, "why don't you remove that phrase, then?" Because I thought you were defending the phrase. Thank you for encouraging the removal. So I have now shortened the sentence in the way I suggested. This is the result. You are right: We can wait and see if somebody opposes the edit. --Lektor w (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

if appropriate, provide a short description explaining its relevance

@Butwhatdoiknow, I'm not sure that language is really necessary. Have you ever seen a dispute about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the text prior to January 15 (and at least as far back as December 2011): "External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article." Have you ever seen any dispute about that text?
Regardless, the appropriate question isn't whether there has been a dispute. It is whether removing the text improves the article. Why do you think the answer is "yes"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's an unnecessary instruction, and therefore WP:CREEPY.
This phrase was added in March 2005 by @SimonP. I see no discussion of the specific phrase in the archives from that time. Of course, back then, things were really different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to confirm before we go further, do you agree that the guidance is correct and the only issue is whether we should provide it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the guidance is probably wrong. That is, in nearly all cases, you probably shouldn't explain "why the website is relevant to the article". I think you should only do that if it will be unclear to the reader why this link is relevant. Even in that situation, I think that when you "brieflly summarize the website's contents", then the relevance will be clear. In almost no cases should we both briefly summarize the contents and also explain why it is relevant.
Separately, I'm not entirely sure what the practical difference between "identify the link" and "briefly summarize the website's contents" is meant to be. That may be another opportunity to omit needless words (e.g., to avoid editors mistakenly believing that it's necessary to write the name of the website in plain text).
Also, in most cases not involving official links, we're linking "webpages" rather than "websites". We normally use the word "link" to encompass both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I suppose we should fix "briefly identify the link" first. Are you proposing substituting "briefly summarize the link's contents"? If not, what text would you prefer? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we should fix the unnecessary "why the website is relevant to the article" bit first, because it's very easy to fix. We should just remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
We don't remove content because it is easy to remove, we remove it because the result is a better article.
We don't yet have consensus that "provide a short description" is surplusage. You "think that when you 'brieflly summarize the website's contents', then the relevance will be clear." However, the current text says "briefly identify the link." About that you say "I'm not entirely sure what the practical difference between 'identify the link' and 'briefly summarize the website's contents' is meant to be. That may be another opportunity to omit needless words."
From this it appears that (a) we need to fix "briefly identify the link" regardless and (b) whatever fix we come up with may, as you suggest, make it clear that "provide a short description" is surplusage. If that happens then we won't need to talk about that phrase any more. So I again request that we work on fixing "briefly identify the link" first. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
None of that has anything to do with the unnecessary "why the website is relevant to the article" bit. We should remove that bit because it is bad advice in most situations. Removing that bad advice does not depend on any other changes. It can simply be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You say (emphasis added): (1) "in nearly all cases, you probably shouldn't explain 'why the website is relevant to the article'" and (2) "it is bad advice in most situations." Lektor says such descriptions "may be added" but are "an exception." It seems that you agree there are some - you and Lektor would say "rare" - occasions when inserting "a short description explaining its relevance" is appropriate. (Whether we should provide guidance to that effect is a separate question.) Can we agree on that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There are rare instances in which providing a short description explaining its relevance may be appropriate.
However, the question at hand is not "Shall we ban all explanations of relevance?" but "Shall we provide guidance to do this?", and both @Lektor w and I agree that the answer to the question about whether to provide that advice is "No". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your first paragraph: I had thought you were opposing keeping the text because, among other reasons, it is wrong or bad advice. I'm glad that you've now clarified that, in appropriate circumstances (a limitation which is part of the current guidance), it isn't.
Regarding your second paragraph: the fact that two editors favor removing the guidance does not support removing it any more than the fact that removing it is easy to do. See WP:POLL. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that users don't need this advice because in those rare cases they would add some words about the link's relevance anyway, or another user would add those words anyway.
Butwhatdoiknow, you exemplified your adding "and, if appropriate, provide a short description explaining its relevance" by this entry: "Example Museum, repository of Subject's papers". Normally, users would rather choose: "Subject's papers at Example Museum", and we have again the normal case of an entry that does not need an additional explanation of its relevance. So this entry isn't necessary. If we add an entry it should exemplify a more relevant case or provide a more important message. --Lektor w (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your first paragraph: I have seen cases where editors have not explained relevance when they should have. And, from my experience, when that happens the most frequent outcome is that another editor removes the link with an edit summary saying it isn't relevant.
Regarding your second paragraph: To my mind, "Subject's papers at Example Museum" does more than "identify" the link. I discuss that below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Above, Lektor tells us that "Subject's papers at Example Museum" identifies the link without providing a short description explaining its relevance. It seems that Lektor is using "identify the link" to mean "summarize the website's contents" (to use WhatamIdoing's phrase). If so, then the only remaining concern I have is finding language that more clearly states what is intended.
Do you both agree? If so, then I'll work on some language to propose that I hope will (a) improve upon both "identify the link" and "summarize the website's contents" and (b) allow us to eliminate the text separately dealing with the relevance of the link. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree that this is an improvement. I think that providing no instructions, and only examples, would be better than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It would have been nice if you had suggested this when you started this discussion. But, now that you have suggested it, I can find no fault with your reasoning. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Butwhatdoiknow, as for "[...] and why the website is relevant to the article", you were asking: "Have you ever seen any dispute about that text?"
In my second edit above, I wrote: "First, could we please delete and why the website is relevant to the article? Sometimes a praising commentary like (with detailed biography) may be added, but such commentaries are an exception, not standard. In most cases, it's obvious that the linked content is more or less relevant to the article. Each link should be relevant anyway, so it's not necessary to explain why a single link is relevant."
And later: "If you ask me, the part and why the website is relevant to the article cries out for being deleted." --Lektor w (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

All the wiki links in this section Tony Lundon#Cinematographer, director and producer are external links to imdb pages. "[[imdbtitle:2224435]]" becomes imdbtitle:2224435 -> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2224435/ Is this a new thing? Where are the technical details? How does it affect WP:EL..? Bogger (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a new thing, but not something that should be done - appropriate external links belong in the external links section, not there. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
See m:Interwiki map for the general feature. IMDbTitle has been there since 2005.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As we continue to tighten up sections on notability for fictional topics, often with redirects, sometimes with deletions, we are left with explanatory dead ends. The specific one I ran across yesterday that prompted my musings here is Wraith Hive-Ship, but others abound.

We have had ELNO criterion 12 ("Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.")for as long as I can remember, which is probably 15 years or more. In that time, Wikia has become Fandom and many more mature fandom topics' own content Wikis have themselves become not only notable, but de facto institutional: Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha. These repositories, in total, cover a lot of detailed content often derided as 'fancruft' but genuinely sought and appreciated by many readers.

Is it time to consider relaxing ELNO 12 and considering such stable fan Wikis under ELMAYBE 4 ("Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.")? Specifically for the instance I ran across, would it be appropriate to replace the red link with an inline EL to this instead?

That is, rather than sticking EL's only at the end of documents, would inline external links to stable and well-edited topic-focused open Wikis be an acceptable way to further deescalate the fictional inclusionist/deletionist disputes by replacing the long-since-unused "Transwiki" AfD outcome with "Wiki EL it." This could lead to encouraging those in the process of editing fictional topics to consider using such ELs when content is trimmed, but substantially replicated or more thoroughly covered elsewhere on such topic-focused Wikis. I could see, for example, list of non-notable fictional characters listing the character, a sentence or two, and an EL to the relevant Wiki.

The challenge for this that I can think of is that the fictional topics which are most likely to be non-notable are those which are newer and are least likely to have established, stable Wikis. There's a specific niche for things like Stargate, Babylon 5, etc. which have stable sites, established fan bases, and no new content. Correspondingly, those sorts of fandoms also seem to have a disproportionate presence dating back to the early years of Wikipedia that is not being actively maintained. Would this sort of proposal be a net positive to improve such coverage without wholesale deletion, accepting the status quo, or wishing for editors to materialize with a passion for upgrading it? Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens, I'm not sure what you mean by "an inline EL". Do you mean replacing the red link to Hive ships in Richard Woolsey#Character arc in Stargate Atlantis with an external link to some other website? If so, the part of this guideline that would require changing is the part about never adding links to other websites in the body of the article (e.g., the second sentence of the guideline, WP:ELPOINTS #2, Wikipedia:External links#cite note-7, and probably WP:ELNO#EL19). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the end goal: a substitute class of links to (vetted? probably) fan Wikis. Is there any perception of value in rewriting the various aspects of this guideline in a way that allows for such? Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In practice, you can do this now, with an interwiki link. The m:Interwiki map includes a lot of non-WMF sites. But if someone noticed it, it would be removed.
Is the fact that these are also wikis the key point for you? If we would link to a wiki writing about a fictional element, would it not make sense to link to a non-wiki (such as an official website) that contained the same or better information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
In some cases linking to an official site would work, but for dead and/or well-established franchises, the diehard fan wikis are both more detailed and more stable, in my experience. Consider that Kobayashi Maru links to Memory Alpha as its only EL, not anything associated with Paramount. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but it links it in the ==External links== section, not right in the text of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Years ago, JohnMarkOckerbloom created Template:Library resources box. @SilkTork, I wonder if the library finding aids that are discussed at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 41#RfC: External links to library resources and elsewhere could be incorporated into this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That was discussed. Indeed, finding that we had this template which appeared to duplicate authority control was a major prompt for me to open that discussion. I think only one user commented directly on Template:Library resources box, and they found it lacking in comparison with authority control. I see little value in putting an effort into developing and maintaining two schemes which are aiming to do the same thing. {{Authority control}} is the most used (nearly 2 million: [5] compared to 3,874 for the library box: [6], so it makes sense to use that, and to merge useful functionality of {{Library resources box}} into {{Authority control}}. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I generally support this for the reasons that SilkTork enumerates, though I believe that the Library resources box has the advantage that it is visible in the mobile version of Wikipedia, whereas Authority control is definitely not. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
DocWatson42, I just checked on my phone, and no templates show up on the mobile version on my phone, and that includes {{Library resources box}}; though they will show up if Desktop is clicked at the bottom of the page. My experience with all websites, not just Wikipedia, is that there is a decision made not to show certain things so the page is easier to manage, but this can be overcome by selecting Desktop version. I prefer to look at websites on my phone via the desktop versions. What I sacrifice in having to move the screen around is more than gained by the extra functionality. For example, categories don't show up on the mobile version, but they do show up on the desktop version. Of course, different phones, different browsers will have different effects, and my experience may not be the same as yours. SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding functionality: One thing the library resources link templates do that Authority Control currently doesn't is to search users' local libraries. (As far as I'm aware, the authority control links only go to national libraries; the Library resources links enable various targeted searches in any library the user has selected that's in our current list-- currently over 1000 libraries, and the ability to request adding more. Selections are saved in a cookie, so users don't have to keep selecting their preferred library in a link unless they want to change where they search. Searches currently are set to use Library of Congress headings or the article title, though I've considered adding support for other national thesauri if there's available data on their heading forms.)
If there's interest in adding local library search links to Authority control, I'm happy to talk and work with someone appropriate about integrating the functionality.
Regarding templates: Last I checked, Library resources box currently does not show up on the mobile version of Wikipedia. (The inline text templates, like Library resources about and Library resources by, do, to the best of my knowledge.) The box template could, I think, be made mobile-friendly, if there's interest, by using a different underlying display template than the one currently used, though I don't know if there are relevant policies about what functionality should or should not appear on mobile view. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@SilkTork: My apologies. Both you and JohnMarkOckerbloom are correct—the Library resources box template is not displayed in my mobile browser. Also, thank you for pointing out that desktop mode can be selected, as while it is too small for regular use, it will help when I'm trying to edit to solve a problem at the bottom of a section. (An aside: Portal templates were recently rewritten to display in mobile mode, and I wish that more templates were visible in that mode, particularly navboxes/-bars.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Navboxes don't really work when your screen is two inches wide. The layout is all wrong.
Also, we have no solid evidence that non-editors use them, although someone at the French Wikipedia recently did a small experiment suggesting that articles linked in a navbox have higher total page views than articles that aren't (or something like that; I can't remember the details offhand). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

GMMTV

Is it now an acceptable practice for networks like GMMTV to advertise Shows (current and upcoming) and television series in the "External links" section, as well as "Hana Yori Dango (Boys Over Flowers) by Yoko Kamio"? There are always creative ways to circumvent or otherwise navigate around policies and guidelines but these are just promotional listings that I do not feel belong in an encyclopedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I assume that all WP:ELOFFICIAL links are promotional. External links aren't supposed to contain only non-promotional encyclopedic content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is in the WP:YOUTUBE section. Is this still a thing, or can we trim that sentence? I can't remember the last time I went to watch a video and whatever device I was using couldn't play it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to say that videos requiring special software (not supplied by default in one of the major browsers) should not be linked. That's similar to but stronger than the old "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software" just above in "Rich media". Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
And I do expect that this is true in countries with high levels of the newest equipment. There are still systems that run on Windows 7 because the software it runs cannot run on newer software, and I expect that there are still enough significant areas in the world where that level of software is commonly running. My previous smartphone still made good calls, but software would not update anymore and it had an old version of android … Dirk Beetstra T C 04:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Right now, WP:ELNO includes social media profiles in the list of links to be normally avoided, and I get that adding links to a subject's Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn can add to unnecessary bloat. But could we allow cases where a social media profile is the de facto official site? For example, I edit articles of competitive climbers, and in the sport, Instagram profiles serve as official sites where athletes make announcements about their careers and give regular updates. For most athletes, "official" sites are generally placeholders with links to their social profile and contacts for commercial inquiries. And if anything, the Instagram profile is more permanent than a web domain.

Could we amend the WP:ELNO language to make exceptions for, say, a single, verified social media link in place of an official site URL? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Language is already there, under the Official links section (WP:ELOFFICIAL): These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Adeletron 3030, did this answer your question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing @MrOllie Yes it did, and sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks! Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you got things resolved. (No problem about not responding sooner – there's no requirement!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute on a Further reading section

Having a content dispute on including links to Amazon on book listed in a Further reading section. Does this page on External links cover those, and are Amazon links to the book acceptable on Wikipedia? Thanks. Pinging fellow edit war participant Horse Eye's Back. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

p.s. if not allowed can the books be listed without a link? thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn, generally speaking, editors dislike links to Amazon. Some of this is philosophical/personal/political (why not link to an independent bookseller?), but some of it is practical (why do we always link to the Amazon website for this country, and not to the one for that country?). Links to an "official" site (e.g., publisher's website, author's website, book's website) are usually preferred.
Yes, books can be listed without a link to any place to buy the book. That's the normal thing to do! You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Further reading, which strongly discourages links to any booksellers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn Amazon is just one of the commercial sites that sells books. Why not bol.com? Why not my local bookstore, why not another publishing house.
Most books have ISBNs, which gives a link to Special:BookSources which lists publishing houses, commercial sites, but more importantly libraries (including likely ones that are nearby). It is a neutral way of linking (does not prefer one seller over another), and it gives access in many ways. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. The books were already linked to Amazon and were removed by another editor (linked above). I put them back, and the Amazon links was a point of contention, so wanted to clear that up. Seems the books should not be linked to their Amazon pages but should stay, although unlinked. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I would still suggest to put ISBNs. Whether the books should stay is a question for the talkpage, that is not necessarily a question for here. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Phab:T312666 (Remove duplication in externallinks table) may be of interest. The aim is to reduce the very large size of the database table but the dream of an efficient search to find both http and https usages of a URL has been mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Template:Rotten Tomatoes includes a subsection Duplication concerns added 2021[7] that asserts that WP:ELDUP does not apply to Rotten Tomatoes link.

I understand that some editors do hold that opinion but I see nothing in the documentation here to confirm that. I do not believe there was ever any consensus established for this opinion. (There were some discussions, for example about always adding Rotten Tomatoes and there was support for having the Rotten Tomatoes links but just not for always automatically adding them.)

If there had been a full and proper discussion I would have expected to see Rotten Tomatoes listed on the page Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites but that has not happened. I think including Rotten Tomatoes once is plenty, and I believe WP:ELDUP still takes precedence. -- 109.76.199.51 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Think it's fine because the external link has links for individual reviews, so can provide additional information and be useful for readers
Discussion on the template talk page regarding duplication Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes#Specifying_reviews_page
Added notice to the template talk page regarding this discussion Indagate (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, should this be at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard per notice at top of page? Indagate (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I know you think that Indagate, and I know Erik from Wikipedia project film thinks that too. It is a nice theory but I do not think a consensus for that opinion was ever established and I don't think the supposed justification to make an exception to the rule is good enough. I think duplication Rotten Tomatoes when it is already so clearly referenced inline is unnecessary and just the sort of needless duplication this guideline was trying to discourage. Once is plenty.
I saw the notice recommending taking disputed links elsewhere but I am not requesting a disputed link be included, my question is about WP:ELDUP the Duplicate external links guidelines, I am asking if there really is consensus for this sort of duplication and having another exception. Clearly a few editors think this duplication is acceptable, a good idea even, but if there is consensus for their way of thinking then there should be (or have been) a discussion to show it. Whatever way it gets decided, Rotten Tomatoes should be clearly documented here on the relevant Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites list already. -- 109.76.194.8 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone? I acknowledge there was enthusiasm and good intentions from a few active editors but I do not believe there was ever consensus to deliberately duplicate Rotten Tomatoes and undermine the higher level guideline to avoid unnecessary duplicate External links. Unless editors are going to have that discussion and establish that there really is consensus for the duplication they propose, I would like to see the principles of the existing WP:ELDUP guidelines to be reaffirmed. I'd like to see the Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites list updated too, with something like as follows:

  • Rotten Tomatoes
  • As a reference: checkY Generally yes, but do not include repeatedly. Reference reviews using details of the original source, it is not enough to repeat the Rotten Tomatoes.
  • As an external link: Nota bene* Sometimes. If not already included in the Reception section.

Again I believe this would simply be reaffirming what the existing guidelines actually say, but if editors believe their there is enough consensus for the continued duplication of Rotten Tomatoes in the External links section I ask that they actually establish and make clear that there really is a consensus for it, and also update the Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites list accordingly. -- 109.79.173.172 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No response? I thought some editors would at least say they believe the duplication is a good idea and would want to firmly clarify that Rotten Tomatoes is worth duplicating in the External links section. I still think the WP:ELDUP guidelines are already clearly saying this duplication of Rotten Tomatoes should not happen. -- 109.79.73.200 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb, could you look at what 109.79's concerns about what you wrote?
ELDUP says that there are two circumstances in which a link could be appear in both ==References== and ==External links==. They are:
  1. any official sites for the article topic, or
  2. websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and comply with the criteria for links to be avoided.
Outside of the Rotten Tomatoes article itself, I'm not seeing how RT meets either of these. For example, if you think about Breakfast at Tiffany's (film), then https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/breakfast_at_tiffanys is not the official website for the film, and it is also not a website specifically devoted to Breakfast at Tiffany's that contains multiple subpages about Breakfast at Tiffany's, plus also not violating anything in WP:ELNO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, WhatamIdoing! I forget the circumstances that led me to add that bit to the documentation, but I support maintaining our current practice (as established by numerous film FAs) of using Rotten Tomatoes in relevant articles as both a source and an external link. ELDUP is somewhat poorly worded, but the essence of it, as I read it, is "this guideline isn't talking about external links in references. If you want to include a reference as an external link, it needs to meet the respective criteria for both purposes." Overall, the uses are not duplicative: as a source, it supports a particular piece of content in the article, and as an EL, it provides a gateway to readers looking to learn more about the film. Many readers of the reception section wouldn't think to check the EL section if it was omitted as a reference, and many readers looking for the link to Rotten Tomatoes in the EL section wouldn't think to look in the reception section if it were omitted from the ELs. We need to move away from the mindset that readers go from top to bottom, reading an article and all its references comprehensively — that's not what actually happens; they jump around, and the design of our articles needs to cater better to that mode of use. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point of ELDUP at all. I think the point is that if you use that (exact) URL as a reference, then you should not normally put it in ==External links== as well. Wikipedia is not a link farm or an internet directory. The (very) long-standing position presented in this guideline is that if the world needs a collection of links, then the world should be given a link to some other website – a website whose purpose is to collect links (e.g., DMOZ until about five years ago) rather than a website whose purpose is to write encyclopedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You're speaking to WP:EL as a whole there moreso than ELDUP. If the contention is that Rotten Tomatoes is not a useful external link, then that's a separate question which should be considered on its own (and for which there is also longstanding de facto consensus that yes, it's useful, because it's the main directory of reviews of most Western films). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think I'm referring to the guildeline as a whole. Here's ELDUP specifically and in its entirety:
"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and comply with the criteria for links to be avoided."
You appear to be saying that when RT is "used as sources in the creation of an article", that it "should be cited in the article and linked as references". I agree with you.
Where we differ appears to be in the next bit: "Links to these source sites...should not normally be duplicated in an external links section." What do you think that sentence means, if it doesn't mean "Links [i.e., that were linked in the references section; e.g., links to RT] should not be duplicated in an external links section"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
If we're going to wikilawyer, the text is "not normally be duplicated". The way I'd define exceptions to "normally" are circumstances in which a link qualifies as both a strong reference and as a good external link under WP:ELYES. Per my previous comment, RT qualifies there for most Western films.
From a fundamental principles angle, I'm not seeing any good argument that having it as both a reference and an EL harms the reading experience. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
That might be the way you would define the exceptions to "normally", but the very next sentence gives the guideline's definition of the exceptions to "normally", and RT doesn't fall into either of the guideline's two exceptions.
Whether it's better to follow the guideline is something that (IMO) reasonable people could disagree about. It's possible that we should change the guideline. It's possible that we should stop duplicating RT. It's possible that we should re-think how film-related links are handled entirely, and automagically put them all into a box like Template:Authority control. It's possible that we should remove them all and send people off to some other link-aggregating website. It's possible that there are other options, too. So far, the only thing I'm certain of is that your claim about an universal exception from ELDUP for RT contradicts ELDUP as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The guideline says Exceptions include, which is very different than The only exceptions are. I think the language of the guideline could certainly be improved, and I again encourage us to go back to basic principles rather than wikilawyering over language. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
True; it's perhaps overly restrictive of me to assume that "exceptions include" means "exceptions include only" – although the fact is that I've followed this guideline closely for about 15 years, I was around when that language was added in December 2008, and I'm pretty sure that we meant what we wrote.
I suppose the question for you is: What third exception would you add, that indicates RT gets a pass from the normal rules, but not everything does? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This came up before about 4 months ago. End result was to remove the duplicate link in an FA review as the doc page has not been vetted by the community, thus default to official protocol as outlined at Wikipedia:Template documentation. Moxy- 05:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly believe that our standard practice should bluntly be 'do not replicate links in the external links section that have already been used as a reference'. The only plain exception can be the official website of the subject but that is about it. For the rest it should be web pages which are an all-encompassing description of the subject or websites that have an enormous amount (almost complete) of reliable data (where only small parts are used in references). If the RT document has more good information, beyond what is in our article, and you really think that the RT information is of interest to the general reader, then that giving scope to expand our document, not to also put it in the external links section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that the film review sites are being added as a convenience to people who like them – the same kinds of arguments about "But I use <popular social media platform>, so why shouldn't the company's official MyFaceSpacer link be easy to find?"
If the references were citing a specific subpage (e.g., rottentomatoes.com/Breakfast-review-2493593) then there'd be no difficulty in ELDUP if editors wanted to linking to a different, more general page (e.g., rottentomatoes.com/Breakfast-main). I gather that what's wanted is to repeat exactly the same link in both places. Also, I suspect that what's wanted is to do this for multiple websites in articles about films, not just RT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If the 2 links are different then ELDUP does not apply. And yes, a lot of those links are 'I like it, I think others should see this' but basically failing inclusion standards. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is that Rotten Tomatoes does not meet the external link inclusion standards, then we should be discussing that directly, not bikeshedding about ELDUP. I've done plenty of removals of unneeded social media platform links, but Rotten Tomatoes is not analogous to that. It is the primary aggregator of critical reviews of films and TV shows in many countries, and as such it falls under WP:ELYES #3, Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail as well as "links to be considered" #3, A well-chosen link to a directory. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
ELMAYBE #3 suggests that a link to a Curlie page would be more appropriate than links to multiple review aggregating sites. RT isn't "a directory". It's a destination in its own right. Directories provide links to multiple destinations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Sorry, I don't get that. It is fine that Rotten Tomatoes often does meet inclusion standards for external links. That does not by definition mean that we then still have to duplicate it if it is already (extensively) used as a reference. Meeting inclusion standards does not mean that you HAVE to include it. 'Yes, we have 100 external links on this article because all of them meet the inclusion standards' is a very poor excuse for having a linkfarm. Even if a specific Rotten Tomatoes article is a complete match for our inclusion standards, if it does not add anything beyond what we already have in our article then we still don't include it. This way of argumenting makes me think of the excessive amount of imbd links we have, where we just standard include it without consideration. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I look at this long discussion and I seems to me that the people who think Rotten Tomatoes to be exceptional have not made their case and established consensus. As such the existing guidelines warning against duplicate links in the external links should still apply. -- 109.77.202.9 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

TikTok

Hamedkazemi2 added TikTok to the social media sites item in ELNO. I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know enough about TikTok to know whether it's really a form of social media or if it is instead better described as an Online video platform (like YouTube). Either way, I'm sure that it needs to be mentioned in the guideline. The only question in my mind is which section to put it in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER and sites that host illegal content

Why is copyright the only form of illegal content listed under WP:ELNEVER? As illegal content goes, it is hardly the most alarming or pressing sort of thing to forbid. Are there other forms of illegal content that should be specifically listed there? (This grew out of discussions on the Kiwi Farms RFC - I think that they do host copyright violations, but it seems like going after Capone for tax evasion, so to speak; surely illegal threats of violence are more alarming? Someone else in the discussion mentioned 8Chan not getting linked due to concerns about it hosting child pornography, which is technically not actually listed under ELNEVER and, again, is surely more serious than hosting music without permission from the copyright holder.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think – and if you wanted a real answer, of course you would need to get a lawyer – that "illegal threats of violence" are illegal to make, but not illegal to access/read. Consequently, that wouldn't be covered even under WP:ELNO#EL3, which is where you'd find restrictions against linking to, e.g., child porn.
The distinction between ELNO and ELNEVER is not obvious to everyone. ELNEVER reports what there's a bright-line policy or a hard technical restriction against doing. AFAIK we don't actually have a formal policy that says "no linking to child porn". Editors have never needed a policy to tell them that. I've been following this guideline for about 15 years, and, while I have seen (two) instances of editors trying to keep links to malware-infected official links, I do not remember anyone ever trying to make excuses for child porn. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Coming from the Kiwi Farms discussion, I feel like we should consider adding a "no external links to sites that contain personal information about other editors", in accordance with our WP:OUTING policy (if that's not the case already). Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 01:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
You mean, if it would violate OUTING? Presumably Jimmy Wales would still be allowed to have a link to https://jimmywales.com/, but the official websites for some of Category:Critics of Wikipedia might have to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Critics of Wikipedia is a hit-list. Many, many people have made criticisms of Wikipedia. Including some impeccable sources that Wikipedia cites with regularity. People aren't on the list because they criticise Wikipedia. They are there because whoever adds them to the list doesn't like what they have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:ELLIST

I saw a user deleting large amounts of links to archive.org books in publication sections because of WP:ELLIST. (See for instance these edits to see what I'm talking about.) I feel like it's helpful for people researching a topic to have easy and clear linkage to works by an author, especially when those works are out of copyright. I'm not a Wikipedia expert or anything but perhaps an exception to this rule can be made for Archive.org/Google Books links? Relinus (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this note, @Relinus, as it has made me realize that ELLIST does not mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Publications (Works, Bibliography) at all. The general rule is that the article should have a style for listing works by an author, and editors should follow that style as best they can. That list could be short and simple ("Title, 1934") or it could be a full-on citation template with as many links as possible, or anything in between. Links to the Internet Archive are mentioned in that section of the MOS. I'll add a link to that section in ELLIST now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Relinus (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists of charities on charity version of gameshow

In The Apprentice (American season 7), there is a list of charities that the celebrities are playing for and for those charities that don't have a wikipedia page, an external link is provided. Is this allowed? If so, under what exception and if not, should the EL be removed?Naraht (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ELLIST is the usual advice (with examples).
@Naraht, I'd like to suggest that, as you are an editor with considerable experience, you consider what you believe will make the best article for the reader, and not primarily what follows the written rules. That could be an external link, a Wikipedia:Red link, or no link, and you might even decide that different entries should be handled differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing I picked apprentice 7 because it seemed like a perfect example. My more exact question is, suppose that some removed all of the entries that were external links in that article (with an WP:ELNO reason) , is there anything I can point to in the standard that would say that this doesn't apply *or* would I have to essentially go straight to IAR).Naraht (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
There isn't anything that says that these links are required, so (in the event that someone removes them) you need to have some evidence that there is a consensus for including them. One might argue that ELLIST encourages or discourages them, but there really isn't much room to argue with WP:ELBURDEN. Once someone removes it, you need a discussion on the talk page before you can put them back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Naraht: I don't think the charity names should have an external link. First and foremost, the target doesn't provide anything which validates or verifies the content -- which is the primary reason for a citation in Wikipedia. Second, linking to the charity website smacks of advertising. Third, the links to the charity websites adds nothing of value to the article. Last, it is UNDUE because the charity is extraneous to the show (the subject of the page). I say list the charity names, bluelink them if they have a page of their own, leave out external links to charity websites. Grorp (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree: The links don't belong, including the information looks like WP:PROMO, and the information is WP:UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The candidate websites under external links should also be removed. Each one of the celebs has their own wiki page which has a link to their website. No need for bring them to the season page. And I see they've done that for seasons 1 thru 6, but not 8 and onward. (SMH) Grorp (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Outdated example

The footnote regarding WP:ELMIN exceptions (Note #8, as of this writing) uses Barack Obama and David Cameron as examples of how politicians' infoboxes might validly link to multiple official websites.

Obama's infobox contains three official links, so it's a good example, but Cameron's only has the one. We need a new second example, if anyone can think of one offhand. (Or, failing that, we need to at least remove Cameron as an example.) FeRDNYC (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Have you looked for an article that would be a good example? If it were entirely up to me, I'd prefer not using only US presidents as examples, as that might give people too narrow of an idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Have you looked for an article that would be a good example? I haven't, so far, mostly out of a combination of lazy procrastination (hoping someone might wander by with a ready off-hand example) and foolish optimism (thinking there's any chance that someone might wander by...). Asking around WP:POLITICS, at least, would probably have made that slightly less of a vain hope. But I didn't even do that.
I suppose I could gin up a tools query for Infobox transclusions with |website= params that contain strings like list}} or <br, tho. FeRDNYC (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@FeRDNYC, I just checked the PMs since Cameron and didn't find any dual-website ones, there, but Narendra Modi lists two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks! I've updated the footnote on the project page. FeRDNYC (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for making the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Social media: How valid is verification?

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to...[s]ocial networking sites... (WP:ELNO)

  1. Twitter "verification" is now for sale at $8/month via Twitter Blue. Should Twitter links begin to be deprecated?
  2. Mastodon has no official verification, but a green checkmark is displayed if a profile's official website has the link to the page. Should Mastodon links be avoided, since if the user is verified, we have a link to an official site, which would be our preferred external link anyway?

—C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred I recall seeing a discussion - I believe on Reliable Source Noticeboard - where the general view was that old Twitter verification was (and therefore still is) reliable so old-verified links could stay, but that the new paid Twitter checkmarks were worthless and cannot be relied upon. You can try searching that noticeboard if you want/need more.
As for Mastodon, I don't know much about it and I don't recall ever seeing it discussed among editors. I guess you could try searching Reliable Source Noticeboard history for Mastodon. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#Twitter Blue and verified Twitter accounts —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#The "new" Twitter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_41&oldid=1152200286"