Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

List and table formatting

User:Beetstra, I think it might be a good idea to expand WP:ELLIST. You've got a good way of formatting links, e.g., in tables of software or political candidates. Can you post a hypothetical table here, and we'll figure out how to include this option in the guideline? (I'm hoping that if we write it down, there will be both better articles and fewer requests for you to do it all yourself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking back at this, and especially at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 35#External links in lists, but being unable to find Dirk's changes to an article (which I remember admiring at the time), I propose that we add this example to the end of the Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists section:

In other cases, such as for lists of political candidates and software, a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table:

Candidate	Political party	Official website	Votes
Alice	Republocrat	[1]	51%
Bob	Demican	[2]	47%
Carol	Other	[3]	2%

In some cases, these links may serve as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources. In the case of elections or other one-time events, it may be desirable to replace the original links with links to archived copies when the event is over.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That is roughly what I had in mind at that time. I then think that the link should become archived at the state on the election date. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There being no objections, I've added that to ELLIST, and I'll see about sharing the advice with a couple of relevant WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have added "Note that for each item in these lists an independent, reliable reference must be provided to establish their membership in the group." .. some of us keep cleaning up because of spam/pet projects being added to lists. For candidates in elections that would probably be a reference showing that they were 'accepted' as candidates, for companies and products that should be references that should be cases of noteworthy use, independent reviews etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

For schools and villages in villages/cities/etc. it should be the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering why that was added. It doesn't make any sense as there's a space for a link but no space for the note you are suggesting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The reference does not necessarily have to be in the list, it can be covering the whole list. In other cases, it needs an added column for a reference for each item. (I'll revert it for now while we discuss this further, but I believe that we need to make a strong reference to criteria that items in the list need to have). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't move my comments please. See WP:THREAD.

Where exactly is this note supposed to be placed? Why is it even necessary? If the link is the candidate's official website, why do we need a note for it anywhere? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (I moved it because the below remark belongs with my previous remark, as they all follow the same pattern of 'abuse'. I was trying to keep the thread together, the below remark is part of the same discussion.

I don't understand your question. Every item needs a reference to show that the item belongs in the list, in the position where one deems most suitable. We do not need a not for the candidate's official website, we need a reference to show that the candidate is an actual, accepted candidate (or that an independent source states that Redis is worth mentioning as a time series database, or that zeal computers is an actual education institution in Patancheru. Or do you want to believe Bob that he is a candidate because he posted on his facebook page stating he is a candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not every item needs a reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

But the comment you added makes no mention of verifiability or even reliability, it mentions a "note". So how does an editor provide this "note"?

Also, this seems like an entirely American issue. For instance, there's currently an election underway in Canada. There is no discussion about linking to a candidate's official website and no interest in promoting the candidates' campaigns in that way. All candidates are listed on an official Elections Canada website and that site is the primary reference on the article.

However, this issue is a side-circus to the statement about how this note would be provided. If you mean a reference, even the example does not supply a reference and so you can see my confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether an inline citation is needed in the list is going to depend on what else is on the page. After all, there's no need to sdd a ref that proves "Alice is a candidate" inside the list if the paragraph above it contains a citation that proves the same thing.

Dirk, we can't raise the verifiability requirements for lists. We can include advice about adding a "reliable" source, but we cannot insist that it be an "independent" one, because WP:V accepts non-independent sources for some purposes (and does not require inline citations at all for other claims. In some cases, those official websites qualify as WP:Inline citations to non-independent but still reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is what we require for items in the list, the mentioned items must be verifyably belong in a list. For candidates the statement before the list does that (with reference), for many other lists we require independent references that lifts them above the 'worth mentioning' ... SPAMHOLE and such. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Where do you expect to see this list? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Theoretically, it could be any list, including things like List of presidents of Dartmouth College or List of restaurants in Wales. However, the most likely use is in lists of (recent) politicians and lists of software. In the political category, independent sources are easy to come by, but not required by WP:V (the candidate's own campaign website is a reliable source). In the software category, independent sources are sometimes harder to come by, but potentially more important (there's a natural limit to how many people are running for any given political office, but the number of software projects is unbounded, especially if you think this list might still be getting additions a hundred years from now). Whether to use WP:INDY sources as a way to filter the list is a matter for WP:LSC rather than WP:EL.

In terms of formatting, inline refs needn't be in a separate column, although that's sometimes done. If it needs to be in the list itself, you could equally well put a normal ref tag after any piece of information in the row (e.g., Alice, or Republicrat, or 47%, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Lists are everywhere (especially the inline ones), Time series database, Boulder Valley School District, Patancheru, List of presidents of Dartmouth College, List of restaurants in Wales. Now, often these lists deteriorate to lists of external links (pre-list revid for TSDB, revid BVSD, revid P). Now, for lists external links can be appropriate, both as an external link, and as a reference, but per WP:NOT we do not make lists of external links. We make lists of the items, or we table the list, naming the item, showing relevant data, and that can include an external link (see the table above). For the current revision of this one could easily make a table '<name of school> | <type of education> | <boys/girls/mixed> | <religion> | <external link to school homepage>'.

What we now defined here is how those lists should look like. They should not be plain lists of external links, but properly formatted. Whether they are lists within articles, or real lists.

But for me, it still misses: what should be in those lists. People will now say 'but when I added my item to the list, I followed the EL guideline regarding that'. We do not state that there are guidelines regarding what should be in that list. Items in said lists should have either stand-alone notability (i.e. be a blue-linked article that does show that they belong in that list, e.g. IBM Informix (listed in the list in Time series database) is stated to be 'The most widely used of these are the time series and ..', well establishing that it is a TSDB. All other items do need an independent, reliable source showing that 'they belong in the list' (per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists e.g. for people 'If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.', for companies/organisations 'a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.'). To me, all these lists (whether embedded or standalone) need for every item to be able to show that the item belongs in the list. That can be a reference in the text leading up to the table (e.g. the official acceptance by a government for all the candidates, where the table then displays the accepted candidates), or independent references for each item. How am I to know that this is not just a made-up list - if there is not a reference, my hobby-school of ceramics could easily be added to that list .. 'hey, I teach how to make teacups to kids, I'm a school!' (yay, free advertisement). People keep bending the rules to be included in those lists: 'my item does not need to be notable to be in the list!', 'X was mentioned here as being a notable A, last week they also became a B, so now X belongs into lists of Bs', 'X is a piece of software that does A, but if you load this addon that this guy wrote it can also do B, so it belongs in list of Bs as well'. There has to be a bar. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:LISTCOMPANY is the only one that even theoretically "requires" independent sources (because I added that restriction in 2011). That's really an anti-promotionalism measure, though. WP:LISTVERIFY contains no such restrictions.
2. Do you understand that the difference between our positions is just whether the required inline citation must be "independent"? Nobody's disputing the need for sources. The only dispute is over whether the External links guideline should be excluding sources that WP:V would cheerfully accept.
   • For example, imagine that being born on New Year's Day is suddenly "a thing", and we end up with a list of People born on January 1 article. WP:V would accept a tweet or a blog post from Joe Film that says his birthday is (or isn't, for that matter) on that day. But if we add your suggested text of "Note that for each item in these lists an independent, reliable reference must be provided to establish their membership in the group", then that self-published source from the celebrity would be acceptable for sourcing the infobox at the top of Joe Film, or for a sentence in the ==Personal life== section of that biography, but simultaneously banned by this guideline for use in anything that is formatted as a list. Is that what you really want to accomplish? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

     WhatamIdoing, so, to be on that page, I just have to make sure that I link to anything that proves that I am born on Jan 1? Is that what you want to accomplish? Why should I be on that list? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

     That's a matter for LSC, i.e., not this guideline. The question here is why WP:EL should ban a category of sources, used to support a particular fact, when it is formatted in a particular way, when WP:V accepts that category of sources without any such restrictions. There is nothing at WP:V that says "You can use self-published sources for paragraphs, but not for lists". Should this guideline be overriding WP:V? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

     WhatamIdoing, that is not what I am saying nor requesting. Only verifiable existence is not enough, encyclopedic and topical relevance are criteria, which can only be determined by independent (secondary) sources. Again, I am not included just because I happen to have my birthday on the 1st of January .. that list would be a good 21 million entries long without you having a say on who to remove (well, for quite some there may not be reliable birth data). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

     Note that I am not disqualifying any sources, I am just saying that using primary sources ALONE is not enough to establish whether there is encyclopedic and topical relevance. I can reliably show what my birthday is, I cannot show any references that makes my mentioning myself relevant for Wikipedia, as there is no independent/secondary reference that shows that me being born on the day that I was born is relevant - it is trivial. (Any reason why not to include myself in List of Dutch people, together with my parents?) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

     Okay, what you wrote originally was all about WP:V (verifying that the item belongs in the list; you said that it required an INDY reliable source, and WP:V says that it requires any reliable source [INDY or otherwise]). Today, you're talking about problems of WP:DUE weight. I agree with you that nobody wants a list with millions of non-notable people on it. But (a) that problem isn't solved with INDY sources, and (b) I still believe that it is not the job of the External links guideline to address questions of verifiability, neutrality, and due weight in lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

     WhatamIdoing, my original text was ‘Note that for each item in these lists an independent, reliable reference must be provided to establish their membership in the group.", which is in line with how we select what to include in lists, I self reverted because the wording is not optimal indeed. It does not talk about WP:V, it talks about the independent sources, where I aimed at our requirement that verifiable existence alone is not enough (i.e. primary sources stating that the subject is born on Jan 1), but that we need sources that establish encyclopedic and topical relevance (i.e. secondary, i.e. independent, reliable sourcing). And I think it is wise to reiterate list requirements here, pointing to relevant inclusion guidelines and policies. Otherwise spammers will push with ‘but WP:EL says that we can include this in the list ...). IMHO there is nothing wrong with cross-linking such guidelines/policies, even if it is a ‘see [there] for which items are admissible as items in the list’ —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

     I repeat: Demanding INDY sources is not "in line with how we select what to include" in EVERY kind of list. It's only in line with how we select what to include in SOME kinds of lists. We require more than INDY sources for some (e.g., a List of people born on January 1 would require blue links, not just an independent source) and less than INDY for others (e.g., a list of school principals, which if placed in the middle of the article about the school could be sourced to the school's own website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that ARE our selection criteria, verifiable existence alone is not enough to be mentioned in a list. We have those criteria, we demand to show encyclopedic or topical relevance. A primary source does not show that. LISTCOMPANIES is specifically stating that, LISTPEOPLE is stating that. Bluelinks are one way of showing that, for the rest we need reliable sources to establish membership in the group. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To expand, the examples that you give are just that, and your inclusion standards for the first are not correct:

• For List of people born on January 1 the requirements for inclusion are either that the person is notable (i.e., that the person has an own Wikipedia page, i.e. there is independent reliable sourcing on the person (otherwise we would not even have a page on the person in the first place)), or that there are sources that 'the person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources', i.e. we need an reliable source that establishes that the person is that odd case that the person itself is not notable, but that there is a source that establishes that the person belongs on that page. Say, someone just invented how to induce birth of a kid, and showcases that on some to-be mother by using that procedure to make sure that the baby is born on the first of January. The mother, nor the kid are necessarily notable (i.e. worthy of a wikipedia page by themselves, I would not consider the claim 'the first baby born by induced birth' to be a sufficient claim to notability), but the fact that they were the first baby born by induced birth on the first of January is a notable fact.
• Regarding the principles of a school: Your source is not really primary (that would be the private facebook of John Doe, or their blogspot), and fully satisfying the fact that you need a reliable source that establishes that the subject belongs in the list. Another reliable source would be that a local newspaper had an item that states that John Doe was the new principle in 1975 (if the list was not available from the school website - still, the facebook post by Jane Doe on their own Facebook, or even of her husband is not reliable enough for inclusion). That source is of a different nature than when the school is claiming that they support the IB school system. I would be wary to include that school based on that claim only, that would need the certification by the governing body to verify that.

I know that we do this a lot, and ignore the rules that we have for inclusion ('Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence'), but for many of these (sub)lists that is just the way to spam event horizon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read what LSC says:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Please consider how that differs from your suggestion of requiring independent reliable sources rather than any kind of reliable source.

As for the rest, I think we're getting tangled up in the technical jargon. Unfortunately, that's going to matter. So, for the sake of making sure that we're talking about the same thing:

• "Secondary" is WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. It is not another way of spelling "reliable". Additionally, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Secondary sources can be non-independent (although in practice that's pretty unusual), but when our policies and guidelines state that an independent source is required, without specifying "independent secondary reliable source", that usually means that an independent primary source is acceptable. And that's good news for most purposes, because most newspaper articles are primary sources. (The big analytical news stories are obviously independent secondary sources ["obviously", because in-depth analysis is one of the major hallmark of secondariness] but the everyday stuff is primary.)
• A school's own website is primary for what the school says about itself. A school's own website is non-independent from the school. And it's also self-published, like any other website that's written and WP:Published by the same organization.
  • This means: If a guideline states that all lists must have independent reliable sources to be able to say that Mrs Smiley was the principal from 1965 to 1975, then that guideline means: You can't use the school's website (not INDY). You can't use the school's Facebook page (not INDY). You could, however, use a local newspaper article (INDY, even if the particular story is primary) or a book written by the local historical society (INDY and secondary), but not a book written by Mrs Smiley herself (not INDY, even if published by the most prestigious academic publisher in the world and at the top of the bestsellers' lists).
  • What WP:V says is: Any of those are enough to establish that Mrs Smiley "is verifiably a member of the group". Any of those sources pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLPSPS.

Does this make more sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But I have As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence Two random additions are the first step to spam event horizon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I more and more get the feeling that this is unclear in the LSC. To me, it reads like 'every item in the list needs a reliable source to show they are a member of the list ...' (which is fine with a primary source - the 'verifiable existence') '... but we also need a source that shows that the subject is worth mentioning in the list' (the 'encyclopedic and topical relevance'), which to me roughly means that we need a reason to include it beyond 'it is a member of the list'. But I understand that you can read LSC as well as 'every item in the list needs a reliable source to show they are a member of the list <full stop>'. To me the latter however conflicts with statements like '... List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper.' and '... encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence'. And that is also not supported by your quote '...if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses.' .. that is exactly the source I am talking about - that is not a reliable, primary, dependent source, it is a reliable, independent source, e.g. an independent review. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

As LSC indicates, what you need to demonstrate that an item is worth mentioning in any given list depends upon the subject of the list. If you've got a reason to be creating a short-but-complete list, then you should not give up on having a complete list just because you don't have a fancy enough source for some of them. However, if you're working on a broad subject like Norwegian musicians, then you absolutely should find reasons to omit most of them.

LSC says that creating and sourcing lists is not a one-size-fits-all situation. You have to use your judgment. You have to use different rules for different subjects. A self-promotion magnet like a list of musicians or a list of software programs does not need the same rules as a short list with objective and widely understood boundaries, like the List of people who have walked on the Moon or a list of candidates for a particular political office on a particular date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, yes, but both are in the end depending on the same thing ... a reliable source that defines what level of completeness is reasonable. A list of school principles is defined by a reliable source listing them all, a list of databases is defined by a reference that reviews a set of them, plus some that have since been shown in notable use, a list of people that were born on Jan 1 is limited by them either being notable or a reference that shows that their being born on the first of Jan was a special feat.

But, I guess that we could settle with some reference to LSC to show that there are selection criteria. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That is great, indeed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I really cant see why lists in the body of the article should have external links when they are not allowed elsewhere. And having read the comments I dont really see why they should be exception to the "no links in article body". Wikipedia is not a directory so I really cant see what encyclopedic reason you would want an list with external links. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MilborneOne, what kind of article (subject) are you thinking about? I'm asking because it might make sense for some subjects, even though it makes no sense for other subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I cant see it making sense for any subject, wikipedia is not a web directory so I cant see any reason to have external links in the article body outside of references. Interesting to know wny there is some exception to this as I cant see any justification for it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are two ways to understand this approach. One is to understand the reasons that editors have for including links to websites in some articles. Then you can then either agree or disagree with their reasons.

The other is to understand the nature of policy on the English Wikipedia. This is not a top-down system, in which I (as someone who has spent an enormous number of hours writing and re-writing policies) and the few people like me get to declare what the rest of you ought to be doing, and then you get to follow the rules that I write. Instead, policy comes from what the rest of you are doing, and the goal of our policy-writing folks is mostly to document the best ways that y'all have come up with. In this system, the "why" is only of marginal importance. The fact is that editors are doing this in a few thousand (out of millions) of articles, and they've concluded that it's best for the article. In this system, you don't need to know what the reasons are, and it doesn't matter if you disagree with them. In this model, we're dealing with the fact that hundreds of editors have "voted with their feet", and our role is to document what seems to be the best system for doing what they're doing anyway. Does that make sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

General we go around removing external links from article bodies but some areas for some unknown reason decide they want to create a directory type listing using external links even though it goes against the normal flow of things. One example is the candidate list further up the page, the external links in any other article would be a link to a wikipedia article. Why this should be different is what confuses, I cant see any reason why these lists should be an exception. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate answer to "why" is "because the editors who write those articles (i.e., not me, and I think not you either?) think it improves the article".

(In the example given, all of the candidates are notable, and there is already a link to their articles. But that is not necessarily true for all notable elections.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Body" vs "Appendix"

I would like to add the following sentence to "Important Points" #2; this would clarify something that many folks (even senior editors) seem to misinterpret. Although this is only a summary of existing MOS text, I'd like to make it explicit in this section. The relevance is that, as currently written, the prohibition against external links does not apply to non-body sections. Any objections?

"Appendices such as a 'Publications' list are not part of the body of an article." Finney1234 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Finney1234, I was surprised to see one dispute about this a few weeks back. It is, if memory serves, the first time I have ever seen anyone even question whether this guideline prohibits editors from using proper bibliographic citations. Have you seen others?

(We can't simply exempt all appendices, because inexperienced editors sometimes put normal external links in the ==See also== section (e.g., if there isn't an ==External links== section), and this guideline does and is meant to prohibit external links in that appendix.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Finney1234: As far as I interpret that, the only thing in an article that is NOT governed by the external links guideline are the external links inside references. 'Body' I have always interpreted as 'prose', meaning not to have an external link making a link of a couple of words in a sentence (e.g. like what I removed here). That does not make any other part of the page exempt from the EL rules, they apply to see also sections (which are also covered through an own guideline reaffirming that), reading lists, publication lists and the infobox. I know that people try to say 'but this is a further reading list, this is not the external links section', but that does not make those sections exempt or counting towards the total or that they don't need to follow the rules. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The discussion you saw before was probably the same discussion. If you look at the revision history of Siemon Muller (links were removed, incorrectly, by a senior editor on May 22), or the archived discussion at User_talk:Finney1234, you'll see multiple instances of editors claiming that external links should not be in a Publications list because "links are not allowed in the body of an article"; the process of resolving this has been annoying enough that I'm trying to clarify it in the documentation so that others don't have to go through it. However, you are correct that some appendices such as "See Also" explicitly disallow external links, so I won't make my proposed change. That said, I also believe that a precise reading of WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footersMOS Layout does not ban external links in appendices. (I am interested in precise and accurate phrasing in the documentation, not because I'm a fan of nitpicking, but because, IMO, it is the *only* way to easily demonstrate that consensus has been achieved on a topic; many claims that "this is the way it's supposed to be done" seem to be based on personal opinion rather than any form of consensus). Finney1234 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra I don't fully understand what you're saying. From a documentation point of view, MOS Layout explicitly defines all Appendices as being outside of the "body" of an article; and this seems to be the consensus basis that one should start from. So, by a careful reading, the prohibition against EL's in the "body" of an article does not apply. (It is a common interpretation that "body" means "text", and I actually tend to agree with that, but I don't think it's stated anywhere in the MOS). It is true that a "See Also" section explicitly disallows external links, so I'm not going to make the change I suggested (since it's contentious). However, before I started dealing with this issue it was already well established that external links to source material in a "Publications" section were allowed (WP:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Online_books_and_articles), and this was further confirmed in a recent RFC I posted (see this RFC). I am not sure if you agree or disagree with this interpretation!

Anyway, the immediate issue is resolved (I will not make my proposed change), so these replies are just in case you or WhatamIdoing have any more comments on the issue (or suggestions on how to improve the documentation with respect to this issue). Finney1234 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You are assuming that the guidelines use the word body to mean the same thing, which is (unfortunately) not a valid assumption.

If you wanted to do something to prevent this (because it should not be happening), then it might be possible to change MOS:BIB to say the same thing about citation formatting that MOS:FURTHER (on the same page) already says, namely that the bibliographic citations in a ==Publication== section should normally match the style used in the ==References== section for that article. That would give you a "See? It says here that I'm supposed to include URLs, because we include URLs in the refs section" retort. But it'll also create problems with people objecting to the "wrong" formatting, so it's a bit of a two-edged sword. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the helpful comments.

Do you know of other places in Wikipedia documentation (other than MOS Layout) where "body" of an article is defined? Or does everybody just (unfortunately :-) ) use it to mean what they personally think it means? Finney1234 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Various projects define a typical body for their purposes. For instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice are an essays, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Articles lists several proposals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Finney1234: That a publications list is not the body does not matter for the scope of this guideline. ANYTHING that is not a reference but an external link 'has to comply' with this guideline. I regard a list of publications basically as a list of 'external links' in the broader sense of the concept - they 'link' ('mention'/'point to') material that is not incorporated in Wikipedia (either in text form, through an ISBN internal link, or through a direct external link), and they can have an external link (in the sense of this guideline). Arguments that they are 'not in the body' or 'not in the ==external links== section' are moot, external links are not external links because they are in an ==external links== section.

The non ==external links== sections that list nonetheless external links (publication lists, further reading) do however have a nasty tendency to become linkfarms far beyond what is reasonable. For shorter articles they can dwarf the article, and there these lists of external links should be shortened (taking only the top 5 or 10 based on a certain threshold). For others, where every single work is notable, the list is to be complete. However, that is a case-by-case discussion that is needed, where (parts of) this and other guidelines can be used to guide the discussion.

I have always regarded 'body' as we define this here as 'the prose', meaning that we do not have external links to link in a running sentence because we do not have a suitable wikilink. And that part of the external links guideline does not mean that we hence can flood everything that is not the 'body' with external links. (I do think that the 'important points to remember' does overly focus on the 'external links' section specifically - it invites the argument: "but this is a 'further reading section', not the 'external links' section, the 'external links' section only has one link: the official website', so 'important points to remember' does not apply"). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra: I still don't fully understand the basis of your position. If by "guideline" you mean the entire WP:EL page, my personal impression is that it's somewhat vague, complex, and potentially self contradictory. But a very commonly cited guideline (see my history pointers above) is "external links should not be used in the body of an article", and the interpretation of "body" is crucial here. The MOS explicitly excludes "appendices" from the definition of "body" (and this is the only written consensus-based definition I know of), and the common interpretation of "body == text" would technically allow external links *anywhere* except in text. Other than the explicit prohibition on EL's in the "See Also" section, and a general goal of avoiding linkfarms, is there anything in the documentation that blocks the (apparently) allowable use of neutral, informative external links in all non-body/non-text sections? (If the meaning of "body" is irrelevant, then "Important Points #2" should be rewritten to not use the word "body").

BTW, I am *not* trying to argue for unrestricted use of external links; I consider my particular issue (URL's in Publications sections) to have been addressed. However, I *am* trying to understand how this particular issue is addressed in the existing documentation. With all due respect for "do the right thing", "ignore all rules", etc, those do not provide a solid basis for quick resolution of what should be a fairly straightforward issue.Finney1234 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the external links in a publications list have nothing to do with your 'body'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with that. However, my larger concern is that multiple senior editors recently used the statement that "external links are not allowed in the body of an article" to argue that URLs were not allowed in a "Publications" list, so this is a common misinterpretation (see the archive in User_talk:Finney1234). I've already done what I could to clarify it, including a WP:VPP RFC. However, other editors may run into the exact same objection, and I'd rather they not have to refight the same fight.Finney1234 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The strange dispute in question basically amounted to whether this part of the article:

== Selected publications ==

• Ferguson, HG; Muller, SW; Cathcart, SH (1953). Geology of the Coaldale Quadrangle, Nevada (US Geological Survey Quadrangle Map GQ23). United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 2019-08-16.

was prohibited (specifically by this guideline) from containing the URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:GBOOKS .. This talk is a bit confusing. Of course we want to link researchable material for our readers...its one of our main purposes. To quote Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies "Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars". The best scenario is a lists used in the article as sources like with Albert Einstein#Publications (GA article) that leads to List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein (FA list)....but even when not used in the article most major topics have a Bib, Pub, Fur section etc.. like Bill Clinton#Authored books (GA article) Canada#Further reading (FA article). One thing I have done and have seen is when people ask me for sources about Canada during the world wars I point them to Tim Cook (historian)#Published works and because they can see the books they use them to expand the encyclopedia (this is good and is why we make things like Bibliography of Canadian military history). Students today will rarely go find a book....we need to do that for our readers doing research.--Moxy 🍁 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the specific source of the discussion (now resolved, IMHO, by a WP:VPP RFC) was the (improper) removal of the URL in the following item in the "Selected Publications" section of Siemon Muller, explicitly based on the (repeated) claim that there should be "No external links in the body of an article". But I actually consider the (strange?) dispute to be resolved at this point.Finney1234 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ferguson, HG, and Muller, SW. 1949. Structural Geology of the Hawthorne and Tonopah Quadrangles, Nevada. US Geological Survey Professional Paper #216. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0216/report.pdf

That's the standard MLA bibliographic citation style, although I suppose that some editors won't recognize it. Any style is okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I was just clarifying that what was removed was an actual URL (an explicit web address), rather than a URL buried in a cite{} template (as in the initial example). I consider either of these to be OK in a Publications list, with the default (like reference style) being to follow the existing usage in the article, if any.Finney1234 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Link I added has been deleted

Dear Sir's/ Ma'am,

I had added a link in the name of Air Gas Electronic Materials ( AGEM Group). Which has been removed forcefully.

can you provide the appropriate reason for the same, as the link is very genuine and true. You can reach me at following details.

Regards, Aniket Kuwar (Redacted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketkuwar06 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aniketkuwar06: This was your addition. It appears to be in the "companies" section, and all of the other companies have articles, while the one you added did not. That would make it an invalid inline external link, not a proper external link. It could also be considered SPAM. The editor who reverted you should have explained why, but you should not have added it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Aniketkuwar06, basically, for your company to be listed there you have to show encyclopedic relevance (i.e. provide independent, reliable sources that show that your company is worth mentioning). Verifiable existence alone is not enough. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

EL NO vs MAYBE

ELNO: "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."

"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

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

Could I be enlightened with some examples? Sites that meet "except" criteria cited from WP:ELNO basically parallels that of WP:SPS that passes as WP:RS. Since personal websites, fan sites are a no go according to this, what would be the example of "knowledgeable sources" that would be ok by ELMAYBE but not conflict with ELNO? I've been working on removing EL clutter in train related articles and links to enthusiast pages are very common. Some of them are compiled data tables from numerous sources and some contain a lot of ads. For example, are the two ELs in the article as it stands right now Baldwin S-12 WP:ELNO or are those WP:ELMAYBE, or no definitive answer? Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about those specific sites, but I provided them as examples. Graywalls (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A relevant page on the website of one of the larger rail clubs would probably meet your criteria, but Graywalls, could I convince you to take a completely different approach to "niche" articles? I'd like you to consider thinking about what the people who read that article might find interesting or informative, and evaluate each link based on that idea first. If that means keeping a link to "compiled data tables from numerous sources", or to a page with a lot of (non-copyvio, apparently legitimate, etc.) photos about the article's subject, even if it's technically a "personal web page" or a "fan site", then that's okay. We didn't make these recommendations so that the "rule-followers" could make articles worse for the readers. We're trying to make articles better, by getting superior links in and inferior links out, and the one-size-fits-most rules don't fit every article equally well. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That applies to everything, including the rule that generally speaking, for "average" subjects, a fan page is not the best we can do – except when it is. We don't need or want fan pages for (e.g.,) celebrities; however, some other articles might benefit from having one or two such links.

In case you're concerned about incentivizing spam, the external links in Wikipedia (and its sister sites) are completely ignored by all the major (and most minor) search engines, so SEO-type spammers mostly leave us alone these days (assuming that they read our help pages, which isn't all of them). The remaining professional spammers seem to be focused on high-traffic pages or on "sneaky" spam, which is mostly not underneath the ==External links== section. I'd guess that a lot of railway articles aren't seeing even 10 page views per day, so they're not attractive targets for serious spammers. The main goal for niche articles should be about educating the reader, even when means reaching for "unconventional" links.

Basically, I'm trusting your judgment as an experienced editor, and I'm asking you to trust yourself, too. It's harder to look at a link and decide whether it's informative to a reader, than to look at a link and decide whether it's a professionally formatted website owned by an organization. But that's what I'd like you to do. If you think that a link is, on balance, going to be interesting or helpful to some reader, then please leave it. If you think it's not adequately informative (e.g., because it's low-quality overall, or because you can swap in a better one, or because the linked page is full of advertisements, or whatever), then please remove it. Please try to do what's best for the article and its readers, and reach back to these one-size-fits-most rules only when you think that knowing the general rule would help you make a decision about what's best for the article. I think you can do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Links to an author's works in each of several publications

In a bio about someone who's written a lot for various newspapers, magazines, etc., should the external links section include, for each of those publications, a link to a listing of the person's articles or columns in that publication? I'm looking at Brahma Chellaney. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says only links that are official for the subject should be there. In general, only content that adds encyclopedic information about the subject. In this case, that would include an interview of the subject from somewhere or an encyclopedia entry that it doesn't make sense to use as a reference. However, MOS:LAYOUT states a "works or publications" section might be appropriate and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works details how that may be formatted, including appropriate links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that pointer. Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Exceptions

Is it time to consider "exceptions to the rule"? Maybe a different form of presentation. A problem is (or not) that some articles take the "External links" section to a whole new level.

One area is articles on countries even to include FA articles. These types of articles can see 8 , 9 (Australia), 10 links, sometimes many more, and elaborately presented such as Germany with fourteen or Russia with sixteen. The USA article only has 15 links but has 87 links in the "Further reading" section and 11 more in the "Internet sources" subsection. China has 16 links and Denmark has 24 links not counting the very large (collapsible) "Denmark articles" and "Articles related to Denmark".

This flies against WP:ELPOINTS that states, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links"., WP:ELMAYBE that states, "Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable"., and WP:ELMIN, "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information".

The varied "External links" sub-sections (not exhaustive) like Government, History, Maps, Photos, Trade, News and media, General information, Culture, Economy, Tourism, travel, Studies, and Other, seem to fall outside the scope of actual "External links guidelines. Everyone that adds a new link will of course consider it of utmost importance.

Maybe a collapsible subsection "other links" (?), below the customary linking (like those in South America), would be something to consider if there is not going to be any limit to the links? Otr500 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that links don't become exempt by virtue of their listing under titles like "Further reading" or "Internet sources". In addition, those headings shouldn't exist in the same article as an "External links" section unless a distinction that is both clear and useful has been drawn between them. Well, "Further reading" might be offline works, but "External links" are already inherently Internet sources. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

-- I am not implying the additions are not important. It just seems there might be a better way of doing it. By the time we add all the links, sister projects, portals, and navboxes, to the sometimes bloated list of external links, the supposedly end section of an article becomes close to a full-blown list article in it's own right. Otr500 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: I randomly chose Denmark#External_links from your list. denmark.dk is there the official website, and there are some other links that are OK there, but I would argue that 'tourism portal' is not appropriate (the article is not about Tourism in Denmark, we have a separate article for that); Maps-links are covered with the geolocation in the top, and the maps in the infobox; Government is the subject of Cabinet of Denmark/Politics in Denmark; news in Denmark seems to be an allegory of random subjects (including history, Danish Geodata Agency (the dead link that is now a different organization), ...). I would argue that many of those links are 'indirect' and therefore discouraged by our inclusion standards. They may have creeped in, but they are certainly not exempt. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Beetstra, and I agree about "indirect" links. Of course dead links in the section can be removed without controversy and OpenStreetMap. Curlie (DMOZ) is now an addition in many articles.

I guess my direction of wondering is what to do in these instances since many articles are affected. I imagine some of the links are more "direct", certainly informational, but there is a point when the "External links" section becomes a dumping ground. When this becomes "normal" with country articles, and U.S. state and city articles are no exception, it needs addressing. Alaska has 16 links with 10 in subsections, and there are many like this.

Portland, Oregon only has five links but a laundry list (8) of collapsed Navboxes that have been added, that are not "External links" at all. When the guidelines are stretched, and stretched, and stretched, they become ineffectual and worthless.

San Francisco (a featured article) does have a better presentation by placing 8 Navboxes under one "Articles relating to the City and County of San Francisco". Dallas has 11 Navboxes collapsed under "Articles relating to Dallas and Dallas County". Of course these are still not "External links" but that has become normal and a defacto exception. Maybe that is a compromise but still, it is an issue on many articles, not "External links", and absolutely means there is a "section" below the "External links". What Largoplazo said is true, "In addition, those headings shouldn't exist in the same article as an "External links" section unless a distinction that is both clear and useful has been drawn between them.". At least these "main" collapsible Navboxes give a "clear and useful distinction".

• California (although the "External links" section has still grown to 11 links) has possibly and by far the better solution with "Outline of California – organized list of topics about California" link in the See also section This does away with all the extra Navboxes but more than that it places the consolidated links where they actually belong ("See also" versus "External links") and a great reason to create more articles. I will leave a note there and notify some editors. I will also post this at some of the articles. Otr500 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: The California article does also have a main collapsible Navbox ("Topics related to California") with 6 others included. Otr500 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: I am going to bluntly try: in two edits. What you see is often a WP:SPAMHOLE-effect, the links slowly deteriorate. On an article with >200 refs and a bibliography, external links have to be of high standard to add something that is not in the article, cannot be added into the article, or does not belong on a related page. And it will go on, people will start adding a newspaper section and add all the major newspaper links .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. A reason I have not tried to work on B-class articles with a goal of class improvements is things like this. While I would certainly do this on C-class or lower I do not like putting work in to get reverted and a "battle that goes nowhere". This has happened enough to discourage me. I found content and references concerning a newspaper (Illinois Staats-Anzeiger) that Lincoln had bought that provided a disposition since it was in the article. It was summarily dismissed because "No reason at all has been provided" to include the information. Just the story line, 1)- Lincoln bought a paper, 2)- to reach certain people, 3)- the next sentence "In the aftermath of the 1858 election, newspapers...", oops, sorry this is not about the previous sentence but apparently should be a new paragraph. It still makes me wonder why have the purchase of a newspaper in the article at all and if so why not give a conclusion. Oh well! I have recently starting performing maintenance of B-class articles that have issues that could result in a lower class reassessment generally with success but thanks for the help as well as the spamhole link. Otr500 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Otr500, I think that you will find that Wikipedia:External links#Handling disputes ("ELBURDEN") is a handy link as you weed the link farms. While it's often good to just move on (you can weed a lot of link farms in the same time it might take you to discuss one, and if someone objects, there might well be a good reason for it), but the rules are in favor of removal. Just in case someone should happen to claim that this is "only" a guideline, then I will also take this opportunity to point out that the default of removing all disputed links is also enshrined in the policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS. You should not need to let worries about getting reverted stop you from doing what you think is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And WP:NOT (WP:LINKFARM): "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." .. it is the policy that we 'enforce' here, the 'it is just a guideline' argument is misplaced at misunderstanding the policy that the guideline explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and a more current discussion to point to never hurts, Otr500 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Largoplazo:, @Beetstra: and @WhatamIdoing:, I guess I will give the noticeboard a shot. I left a message on the talk page (prior to this discussion) of the featured article Percy Grainger concerning needing a review because of the eight links and link farming. Three replies would qualify for local article consensus that the number not only is acceptable, there was one bizarre rationale that a sorely missed main editor had made edits with the eight there so that made it acceptable. I suppose hinting at keeping it like it was as a shrine, but the comments , "It's even missing one", resulted in nine links now so apparently it just needed some fertilizer. Otr500 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Converting external links sections to use "cite web" template

I noticed an editor mass-converting external links sections from the existing square-brackets link style to using the "cite web" template, in multiple articles. For example: [4], [5], [6], etc. This seems unusual to me, and I don't see what the advantage is, so I was going to write them a note about it. But I can't seem to find anything that specifically says they shouldn't be doing this. Should I say something about it or not?

It looks like there was a consensus from 2008 that although it's standard practice to use square brackets, and using cite templates is not recommended, it's also not prohibited: Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 22#Discrepencies with Layout guideline. Would WP:CITEVAR apply here to converting them? --IamNotU (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's time to discuss that consensus between two editors again. I don't see a good reason for not using the template when using an item that can use a template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. It was acknowledged that standard practice among 99% of editors is to use square brackets, but the consensus among the (four) editors was to remove a sentence that had been boldly added that prohibited use of a citation template.

Even though there's no prohibition against using cite web templates in External links sections, I'm always a little concerned when I see an editor going through many articles and changing a lot of existing styles to their preferred one, when it's uncommon. I feel like maybe I should ask them to stop doing that, but I'm not completely certain. For example it's very helpful when people convert bare links in citations to use the cite templates. The main problem that I see is that links in the External links section should often have a short descriptive text written by the editor, rather than just the title of the page being linked to, and that's not supported by the cite web template. Having mixed link styles, or having editors continually changing between them, also seems like something to be avoided. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that we need to retire this practice and start using templates where appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And looking at those links, they're violations of EL:OFFICIAL and as they do not add any encyclopedic value, should have never been included. Converting them to templates would otherwise be perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, please feel free to weed the link farms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We could ask editors whether they think that citation templates should be either recommended or discouraged for == External links ==. I prefer the standard practice, but if there's a good reason to change it, then let's change it. Alternatively, if people really don't want that, then we should just tell them.

If we can't settle it easily among the people who watch this page, we could run a simple RFC on a question like "Should editors normally use Wikipedia:Citation templates like {{cite web}} in the ==External links== section?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Using {{cite web}} for external links is pointless make-work. The OP examples look silly because they include erroneous quotes in the displayed text (example). I have seen people add archive links and dead-link information which is really over-the-top—if an external link does not work now, it should be removed as unhelpful. Obviously people doing this think it is useful and if necessary there may need to be an RfC to settle the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we forcing people to use it, nor are am I suggesting that we convert all ELs to templates, we should just not state it should not be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I really don't like guidelines which fail to give guidance. Everything at Wikipedia is misused by someone sometime, whether it's people adding every possible factoid to an infobox "because the information was missing" to people fiddling with whitespace, and this guideline should say what is a good idea. If someone can give a good reason why cite web is desirable for formatting external links, let them speak up and the guideline can cover that. Otherwise, the guideline should say that such formatting is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The templates allow correct formatting of content (italics where needed, linking in the correct places, etc.) and allow for correct machine processing.

Why is not desirable? In your words, "let them speak up and the guideline can cover that". Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

They are external links, not stories. If italics is needed, use the standard wikitext of two apostrophes. There should be one link in an external link with rare exceptions, and those exceptions can be covered with standard wikitext of two square brackets for an internal link. What machine processing? There is enough trouble from external links without bothering to make them machine readable. Special:LinkSearch is all that editors need. Re formatting, what about the superfluous quotes that I mentioned? Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

They are not stories, and not all editors are as capable as you or I. As for only one link, I've seen multiple, multiple times: Link to Record Album at AllMusic is one example. Don't think of the advanced editor, but for the new editor. Fields are easier to populate than wiki markdown is to learn.

Which superfluous quotes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The OP shows examples of very simple wikitext ([http://www.example.com Example]) being changed to a complex template. How does that help? Search this section for "quotes". Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You've lost me. What is an OP? So far, you've been obtuse and it's not helping one bit.

If you mean the examples linked above, they should probably not use cite web because the pages are not works, but it's also not wrong as that is the title of those pages. On a separate note, the content there is a copyvio from https://books.google.ca/books?id=EbGrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=%22After+the+breakdown+of+communist+regimes+in+Eastern+Europe+in+late+1989,+Mongolia+saw+its+own+Democratic+Revolution+in+early+1990,+which+led+to+a+multi-party+system%22&source=bl&ots=UT80IzKF13&sig=ACfU3U2UfYWRkEY9UqJAJoRJhUPIz8kksg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7rOXPiebmAhWdCTQIHecnDuMQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22After%20the%20breakdown%20of%20communist%20regimes%20in%20Eastern%20Europe%20in%20late%201989%2C%20Mongolia%20saw%20its%20own%20Democratic%20Revolution%20in%20early%201990%2C%20which%20led%20to%20a%20multi-party%20system%22&f=false and should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We have had this type of talk before...but I can't find it. If I recall correctly....because of Wikipedia:Template limits most believe caution should be used when converting external links wholesale into templates. That said I do like the idea of all having a template as very few articles run into the template limit problem. At Donald Trump they convert some "citation templates" to a "manual style" citation till the article was ttrimmed.--Moxy 🍁 23:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moxy. Again, I'm not suggested we insist on their use, we should just not preclude it. We already use {{official website}} rather than a piped link with that term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you should not be mandatory. Do think having templates would minimize how easy it is to spam in the external link section.😈--Moxy 🍁 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. One problem with a template is that it looks "official" and others are inclined to leave it alone on the principle that the author must know what they're doing. Spammers can easily copy a template and change the URL, or simply change the URL in an existing template. @Walter Görlitz: OP = original post = the first comment in this section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

How does the consistent use across articles of templates look more official than bare URLs? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't change your mind but for the record, most editors find template wikitext somewhat intimidating. If another editor adds such a thing, the natural conclusion is that they know what they are doing and it should be left alone. By contrast, most people have experienced spam and understand that someone adding a simple external link could easily be promoting another website. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's probably just semantics - but if we use templates in the External Links section - the "cite web" template shouldn't be the one that is used. External links aren't citing anything. --Versageek 04:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, unless we are actually linking to a work that would require quotations, such as a magazine article or newspaper piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(inserting comment) - External links should not include quotations. If we need to quote something, it should be in the main text. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a little confused. There may not be any "directive" against the use of "External links" citation templates but there is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#External links section. I can't see any advantage to using templates, especially since there is nothing to cite, and editors will likely start using access dates in them. For these reasons, and lacking some specific "External links" template, I might convert any I find. I would like to know an argument for reverting such a move. Otr500 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also a little confused by all the talk above! My original question was about someone who is going around and wholesale converting entire existing external links sections to use "cite web" templates for no apparent reason. I wanted to leave them a note asking them to stop and revert the changes. But since I also don't want to jump on someone and annoy them by reverting a whole bunch of their good-faith edits, and the MOS doesn't strictly say "NO!" (though maybe MOS:CITEVAR applies), I wasn't sure what to do.

I wasn't suggesting changing the existing guidelines, either banning the use of "cite" templates in external links sections, nor encouraging them, neither of which I think would have any significant support, or require any further discussion. Wikipedia:External links § External links section already states that citation templates were not designed for use in the External links section and should be used only with caution. Maybe that should also be included in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § External links section? Otherwise I don't know why people are going on about it...

I also wasn't suggesting that we need a generic "external link" template; I wouldn't be against it but I don't see a big need for it. Also, to be clear, I'm talking only about the use of citation templates, not any other kind of template that might be used in external links.

99+% of external links are done as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § External links section. If an editor wants to add one that really is indistinguishable from a complex citation, then I guess they can use the "cite web" template even though it's not really designed for that. That's the way the guidelines already are, and I'm ok with that. But going around wholesale converting entire sections to use "cite web" templates for even simple links is on another level I think... isn't it? --IamNotU (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• My initial reaction is that the citation template should only be used for actual citations... the links in the “external links” section are NOT citations. They are essentially external “see also” links. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. There is no reason, that I am aware of, where there should be a conversion of styles to "cite web". Also, the standard style that is far more commonly used is what is presented above "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#External links section". Of course someone can initiate a RFC but a result will like follow the general consensus here not to use cite anything templates. If someone wants to explore if there is a need for a specific "External links" template that is another thing.

As for the "mass-converting": It can be treated as a WP:BRD and a note left on the editors talk page, with an option of pointing to this discussion, since consensus has not been established for any "converting". Of eight editors here, it seems five have clearly indicated that "cite web" not be used, and the more broad community consensus is reflected in the current practice. Otr500 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The situation mentioned in the original post isn't the first user to do this.

After reading all of this, I am inclined to change the guidance to specifically state that {{cite web}} (NB: not any of the other templates) should not be used in the ==External links== section. Can anyone think of a situation in which it would be desirable to use that template in ==External links==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Very late to the party. I do indeed also think that {{Cite web}} (or any 'Cite whatever' template) should NOT be used in external links. It is not a 'citation' for any matter, it does not have to conform to any citation standard and external links are NOT references. These templates could be used in the list in the 'external links'-like section 'further reading' (although we do not really formally specify the difference between further reading and external links sections, I do feel that a further reading section contains reliable sources which extend beyond what is/can/should be incorporated in the article). Putting it in the external links section gives the feeling that they are 'references' and are therefore reliable sources (which they do not need to be). I do encourage encapsulating the official link (as defined in WP:ELOFFICIAL) in {{Official website}} and the social media (where they really pass our guidelines) into their own template ({{tl|twitter}, {{facebook}}, {{Youtube}}, etc.) for maintenance and consistency reasons, but encapsulating them in {{Cite web}} is overkill and would remove 'enforced' consistency on the official website, twitter, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this suggestion strays much too far into the realm of WP:MOS and out of the external links guideline remit (which is to say what kinds of external links to (dis)include). On that note, if a user is mass-changing these and it is disagreeable to some, then I think the better way to say "stop" is to reference MOS:VAR, which specifically says not to make mass style changes.

The utility of e.g. cite web in the external links section would be that it adds metadata about the external links that a user may wish to use (in the same way they can load otherwise-normal references into a COinS consuming program). Now, whether that means it is always valuable, I am skeptical, but I have seen enough pages in the external links section that would be RS or similar that I would not support a ban on the practice whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the distinction between "further reading" and "external links", WP:LAYOUT says this:

[Further reading:] a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the References section ... This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content. Any links to external websites are subject to Wikipedia:External links.

[External links:] recommended relevant websites, each accompanied by a short description. These hyperlinks should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section. "External links" should be plural, even if it lists only a single item. Depending on the nature of the link contents, this section may be accompanied or replaced by a "Further reading" section.

--Izno (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And of course I just went to look at the guideline, which I believe hits the right note at WP:ELCITE already:

Most external links should present different details from citations. For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Because citation templates were not designed for use in the External links section, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link.

--Izno (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This page has provided information on how to format links since 2005, when the ==External links== section was also used as general references for article content. The advice about it being difficult to get the citation templates to format appropriately was added in 2008 (I even suggested some of that wording back then). At no point do I ever remember anyone actively believing that it was a good idea to use a citation template in ==External links==.

Can you think of a good reason to use {{cite web}}? One of the cited diffs, for example, turned LGBT Bhutan — Facebook Page. into *"LGBT Bhutan". Facebook.. Is the addition of the non-standard (for ELs) quotation marks and italics actually an improvement from your perspective? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, that it adds metadata is for me not a convincing argument for most links. {{Facebook}} or {{Official website}} could very well be used to add metadata as well ... and the other way around - {{official website}} and many others do 'compare' with wikidata, which I see as an advantage (even if I much despise WD). And I think that that advantage outweighs the metadata provided by {{cite web}}. I can see the utility of {{cite web}} in a further-reading section, but not in an external links section. I stand by the point that External links sections should generally not contain {{cite web}} with few exceptions, but that most links should be formatted as described here since 2005.

P.S. WhatamIdoing those two facebooks are not the official websites of the subject (which like does not have any), and I do not think that they belong in any form on the page where they were. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That editor was re-formatting links that shouldn't be there at all. I didn't want to remove them myself while people were actively discussing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that consensus thus far is generally against using {{Cite web}} in the "External links". I do know that "External links" was used for referencing and in fact is included in reasons (any sources) a BLP cannot be BLP-prodded. There are still many articles sourced with external links and even EL's only and in these cases I convert the section to a "General source" if there is no reason not to. A source that is used in the ELs section that can be used as a reference should be and cited. If a source cannot be used as a reference (one of the reasons for EL's) then to me it is improper to consider it as a source period. @ WhatamIdoing: I am not against advising not to use "cite web" but for there not to be contention, or vagueness that will likely mean it is ignored, I would think the suggested RFC would give some clarity if broad consensus supports this. I don't support the use but I don't think I have ever taken any out just removed access dates if I run across them. Per Izno there is consensus not to mass convert (MOS:VAR) and WP:BRD is an option. Wikipedia:External links#How to link (including Wikipedia:ELCITE), along with common use, does present evidence supporting not using "Cite web". Otr500 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• What is the best solution for dead links? {{cite web}} with |archive-url or [https://example.com example.com]+{{webarchive}} or [https://web.archive.org/... example.com]?..Tadoritz (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dead links should be removed from the external links section. That is different from a reference used to verify article content. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe I said it wrong. I tried to find a guideline about dead links that can be replaced with archive links. I went to this thread because changing to {{cite web}} with |archive-url looks like a good idea. But I can interpret your words only as "archived links in External links are unwanted at all" (e.g. first link here Crowdfunding#Further_reading) and it seems to me pointless. WP:LINKSTOAVOID doesn't say that, also "it may be desirable to replace the original links with links to archived copies". Tadoritz (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Tadoritz, I think you're on the right track. Under most circumstances, dead links are unwanted and just get removed (or replaced with something that's similar but still working). However, in some circumstances, such as a dead link to an official website for the subject of the article, then a link to an archived copy can be interesting and helpful to readers. The full sentence you quote above says " In the case of elections or other one-time events, it may be desirable to replace the original links with links to archived copies when the event is over", and that context is important. (We normally don't use citation templates, even to link to an archived copy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks, now I get it. So, in exceptional cases [https://web.archive.org/... example.com] is preferred, not {{cite web}}. Maybe WP:LINKSTOAVOID or WP:ELDEAD could be more clear about the relevance of archived links. Tadoritz (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Something like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Yes, that is definitely better. Tadoritz (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization Web, organization FB, organization Instagram

For a national Greek Letter Organization, if there is an official website, should the Greek Letter Organization Facebook and Instagram be included as well? And if there is an official website, what other possible external links should there be? The only other one that possibly springs to mind is an Archive of the fraternity magazine and even *that* doesn't seem that logical.Naraht (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Naraht: the applicable part here is WP:ELOFFICIAL. And no, there are no other links that should be included, there are other links which may be of interest. A magazine is not the official website of the subject, if it is of importance it will already be linked from their official outlet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

.onion services

Courtesy ping: @分液漏斗:

Yesterday I reverted this set of edits. In my opinion this massively fails our inclusion standards (and this is close to blacklist evasion, .onion is specifically blacklisted for continued abuse and should go through whitelisting where needed). For this specific case, I do not even see it worth mentioning (the twitter is a primary source, assuming it is true and can be seen as an official announcement from the organisation), the service was launched less than two weeks ago, and there were no independent sources presented. I was subsequently reverted again with 'Total bullshit, this is consensus with all onion services'. Seen that .onion is blacklisted I doubt that that consensus exists, and I certainly did not see that as a global consensus on mentioning .onion services.

What does this fail:

• WP:ELNEVER: .onion is blacklisted
• WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: we link only one (original bolding) official link, and allow only exceptions in very few limited circumstances
• WP:ELNO #1 - this link is not needed to provide information beyond what is needed
• WP:ELNO #8 - the link needs external software

We have always been very conservative to whitelist .onion services, their scrambled nature (in this case pornhubthbh7ap3u.onion makes any change to the name needed to be checked whether they moved domain or that it is an attempt in link hijacking. We need extreme scrutiny on the original domain (and I find here a tweet by the organisation by far not enough). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Onion links should be removed. Wikipedia's role is to provide encyclopedic information about the site and whatever due information has been reported in reliable sources. Providing a directory service is not Wikipedia's role. It is not our problem if the official website is insufficient. Editors cannot monitor obfuscated links and ensure that readers now or in the future will be safe from malware. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider to add '.onion' services to a point similar to redirect services (as both are obfuscating the target you are linking to), and that we are not pointing to (i.e., not linking and not mentioning without link) unless it has been whitelisted (which means that said link is of some particular importance and that a solid case can be made for it likely per WP:ELOFFICIAL). I.e. we write an WP:ELNEVER #3. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that new-ish template is linked in only a few articles. It was written by User:Nanite and User:Deku-shrub.

About two years before the template's creation, at least Deku-shrub participated in discussions here about .onion linking and clearnet gateways. There were also other discussions: Links to .onion domain? and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2011#Hidden wiki and perhaps more. We might as well ping the other participants who are still active: User:MrX, User:Rhododendrites, User:Johnuniq, User:Anachronist, User:Stifle, User:Herostratus, and User:Berean Hunter. What do you all think? I find that my POV hasn't changed: it still fails WP:ELNO#EL7 ("Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am still opposed to including .onion links except in very rare cases where their inclusion can be justified (I don't know off-hand what those would be, but some probably exist [maybe in the Tor article, for illustration purposes?]). The template seems to run in opposition to the spirit of the 2015 discussion. The template should probably be nominated for deletion. I agree with adding something to this guideline under 'Redirection sites' clarifying that .onion links are generally prohibited. - MrX 🖋 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Related discussion from 2016. - MrX 🖋 03:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In lieu of repeating what I said in past discussions, I don't think we should include any onion addresses with the possible exception of when there's an established main site on the web (like including the New York Times onion address based on what nytimes.com says). Nytimes.com can be verified, can't easily be taken/hijacked, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Well, in this case (as I understand it), pornhub.com is an established site on the web, and the issue is whether to add their corresponding .onion domain.

Speaking as the guy who originally put *.onion on the blacklist, my view on that is no, for both pornhub.com and nytimes.com, especially if there's already a main site on the web! It isn't necessary, people who really want to can find it anyway by browsing the main site on the web, and it violates the guideline to avoid links that require special software to access them. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, my position is opposition to including some onion links, and indifference in cases like nytimes. I'm only looking at safety/security/reliability and am more than happy to defer to others for the stylistic/accessibility business. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

.onion is blacklisted, mainly for the reason that for some sites the domainnames keep (kept) changing and there is no control. Moreover, they fail in most cases our inclusion standards, blundly WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: we link only one official site with very few exceptions, and that is then generally the one that a company defines as their official site. We do not link two official sites if there are two, we chose one. Pornhub, Nytimes, Facebook, &c. have an official site, there is no need for a second one until a second official site gets so much prominence that there are daily news items referring to the importance of the secondary site (a notable exception is that facebook's .onion site has its own article, where the .onion is the official website and hence whitelisted; other are darkweb-only websites that have their own article). IMHO, until that point, it should not be 'linked' (or, as it is now, added as plaintext in a way to circumvent the blacklist where WP:ELNEVER applies). When it passes a bar of inclusion it should be whitelisted first - that also gives a layer of security as any change to the link is either prohibited or clearly visible (if the domain does change, it needs to go through a whitelist change request). The fact that a site opened up through the darkweb can be worth mentioning in itself, but that does not need to include what the address is, it should just be referenced to independent sources: 'In 2020 Pornhub started a darkweb version of their domain.<ref><independent and reliable source of a level that shows that the fact is worth mentioning></ref>'.

Still, I would like to add to ELNEVER #2 that breaking links or adding non-linking external links to blacklisted sites do fall under ELNEVER #2. I see too often cases of people breaking a link (sometimes with instructions!) to blacklisted sites to circumvent the blacklisting - blacklisted links should not be mentioned unless a case for whitelisting can be made. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for pinging me. I think there are at least some valid non-spam and even official-link uses of onion URLs and onion hypertext links, but I will leave that up to you. My 2 cents is that I can see a spectrum with clearly good and clearly bad extremes, but the middle is fuzzy.

• Official hypertext onion link here: facebookcorewwwi.onion (IMO good)
• Non-link plain onion domain name in this history section (IMO good)
• --- grey area onion plaintext urls ---
• Darknet scam site links / plaintext URLs (clearly bad, but not so clearly if, hypothetically, the article is actually *about* the scam site)

Now, about the spam blacklist... I just want to point out there is actually a very significant change when you start building normative policy around the resemblance of things to other things on the spam blacklist tool. The spam blacklist is a last-resort tool that was added because editors were getting tired of having to revert spam. This is why it was born, and it's a perfectly good reason for t to continue to exist. I think it's great that .onion hypertext links are by default blocked. But that is purely a technical limitation. If you build normative policy around it, you're making a huge change (and probably introducing circular logic). To me it's simple: the problem when people post spam is that they are posting spam, period. The bot is there to serve the rules, not the other way around. Nobody should ever have to ask for a whitelist exemption unless they're actually trying to overcome a technical false positive where they are literally blocked from making an edit. If someone can find a workaround without having to beg for a whitelist, the question of whether to revert their edit should only depend on whether that edit is spam. (completely independent of what exists on the antispam bot's database) Obviously if certain spam happens way too often, the bot probably needs to be updated. But that presupposes you already know it's spam based on normative rules, and so the only remaining question is technical implementation. (Such a technical discussion would not be happening on this page though, because the design of the bot and what is on its internal database should be be irrelevant to policy.) --Nanite (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nanite, the historical part aside, the misnomer of spam-blacklist was already discussed years ago. Similarly, making the spam-blacklist less black-and-white is also a request that is there for way more than a decade.

There is a lot of material there that is plainly there because it is too heavily abused. SEO is a real thing, and many respected organisations resort to it which sometimes/often results in spamming on Wikipedia. The whitelist is there also for a reason: to allow things to go through after vetting.

The first one is a good example, that is the official website of the subject of the article. The second one is exactly the one I find questionable. There is nothing wrong with the statement there 'On 19 January 2017, ProtonMail announced support through Tor.(refs)'. The same link in the infobox violates WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - we do not link more than one official link with few exceptions. Having a .onion (which is being used by way less people than regular links and where the second official link does not receive regular attention in the media) does not pass that bar. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep the link in the infobox for protonmail definitely seems to not belong. I might have been the one who added it -- if so, my bad. :-) --Nanite (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nanite, regarding the sentence in the text, I do agree that here the start of a darknet service is of sufficient 'topical importance' - internet security is an important part of the subject. I doubt that for other websites/subjects even if they advertise it big, it is of such 'topical importance' as here (e.g. compare with Pornhub .. ). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Got little to add to the above; Beetstra sums it up very well. .onion sites require special software and are inaccessible to the majority of readers, and are redundant to a "normal" URI. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to add changes to external links For Social Media

I would like the external links to be reviewed as i feel we live in a society where fake accounts are spreading fake news would it be fair to say to allow more than one account under the external links to be added as long it is a verified account by the subject Tifin12 (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC) also may be consider some subjects are not verified but have a social media link directly from their website Tifin12 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tifin12: as I explained on your talkpage: that is not the goal of Wikipedia. We are not an internet directory for social media accounts. It may be a goal of WikiData to have that complete list, though. I disagree with such a change, we are writing an encyclopedia here based on content needed for a better understanding of a subject. Sometimes one of the social media accounts is appropriate for that goal, but more often than not just listing the main official site is more than enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra I disagree with you as i feel as an user it makes the wikipedia experience more better & having such people contribute authentic links to any subject is ideal not only to keep real news away from fake news it is also helps with devices that have limited access to some sites Tifin12 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you suggesting adding multiple social media sites when an official website exists or just permitting multiple social media sites when no official website exists? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

External links

Why my external link is removed ? Bairavamc (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bairavamc: I take it you're talking about this edit that was fixed in your next and then likely removed, and then this edit and this edit. The two different editors who removed it didn't offer an answer, but I suspect it's because it did not meet the guidelines discussed in Wikipedia:External links. Specicially, the WP:LINKSTOAVOID section states that "Blogs ... except those written by a recognized authority" should be avoided. Since those blogs do not even list their author, I suspect that they're not written by recognized authorities. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok I understand what links does Wikipedia accept Bairavamc (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The page to which this talk page belongs is here precisely to answer your question. Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ELN#Citation link question

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ELN#Citation link question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to WikiLeaks

Wikipedia:COPYVIOEL expressly mentions WikiLeaks as a website we are not supposed to link to. That is being questioned at Talk:WikiLeaks#External links. Please come there and advise on how to interpret the policy. Please do not comment here and start discussion in two places. The archives here have mentioned WikiLeaks here. -- Valjean (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of IABot

There is a discussion at the Village Pump Technical on when to use IABot to archive links. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

ELNO 4-10

A suggested edit, and a very minor one at that. Instead of MySpace, should this restriction now mention a site more relevant/contemporary? doktorb _words^deeds 07:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe a page needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Stifle (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ANDOR

Please fix this page so that it follows the guidelines MOS:ANDOR and avoids the use of and/or specifically in the section Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided -- 109.76.216.10 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a wikipedia article, it is a guideline. Here it is better to be specific because people will argue that a sentence reads ‘or’ while they did ‘and’ which is not covered. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read MOS:ANDOR, and MOS:SLASH. And/or is not the optimal way to write anything, and there is no reason why the guidelines shouldn't also follow reasonable style guidelines.

If it is important to highlight the possibility of "one or the other or both" then by all means do be specific, and use the extra few words to write it out and provide that extra clarity. -- 109.76.216.10 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't write PAGs for rules lawyers. I've made a change as prompted. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Izno and 109.76.216.10:, I now saw the specific case, where arguing would not be an issue. I also agree that if arguing about it would be an issue, it would probably be better to write out the specifics. I do stand with the point however that our MOS is primarily written for mainspace articles, and that it is absolutely not applicable to material outside of content space. We have for example in one of our pillars, WP:NOT (a policy, not a guideline like MOS) the section WP:NOTMANUAL, where we state that we are not writing an instruction manual. However, most of our policies and guidelines are 'instructions' for how we write articles in mainspace. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, Izno: Sometimes I do write PAGs to defend us all against rules lawyers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The MOS applies only to article namespace; however, the specific change in EL16 that was made is unobjectionable. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking to sites that reproduce portions of copyrighted material

Another user has raised concerns about linking to a web page that includes several screenshots from an episode of a television show (and many other screenshots from many other episodes on subsequent pages) per WP:LINKVIO. That user referred me to this conversation but I'm not sure how relevant it is. Do we have any consensus on issues like linking to an encyclopedia about a TV show that includes several such pieces of non-free media in it? Does LINKVIO only become relevant when there is non-free media with no meaningful commentary or useful content (per my understanding of the archived discussion)? Any thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a specific consensus on this. From first principles I wouldn't encourage linking to a site consisting only of copyrighted screenshots, but fair use in law is not quite as strict as Wikipedia's application of fair use principles so I would be more liberal in considering how much content is on the site. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, I would think that we could link to the page when we can reasonably argue that their use of the images is fair use. We cannot deeplink to the images directly. If their use is obviously not fair use, and hence copyvio, we should not link to them. The area is however a bit grey. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf, LINKVIO becomes relevant when editors think that there is a "VIO" at the "LINK", not when editors think there is non-copyvio non-free content at the link, or when editors think that there is a copyvio on a non-linked other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I don't think that anyone was concerned about the latter and I'm confused why you're bringing up the former. The question is if several screenshots constitutes a copyright violation. Linking to a torrent of Simpsons episode is clearly right out but is there some kind of threshold for how many screenshots is too much? If you have a 21-minute television episode and you link to a page with a dozen screenshots, is that a copyright violation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, if for those dozen uses they can reasonably argue that their use is fair use. Law is less strict than our Wikipedia rules, I doubt we would have a legal problem if we have 10 fair use images on one page, it is more that it conflicts with what Wikipedia stands for. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I bring up the "VIO at the LINK" point because what matters in terms of the LINKVIO policy is whether editors believe that the page with non-free screenshots constitutes a likely copyright violation. For a reliable answer to whether a given think constitutes a copyright violation, I understand that people consult lawyers. Failing that – it being out of most of our budgets – the folks at Commons, on average, seem to know more than the editors at Wikipedia (or at least to sound more confident in their pronouncements), and you could ask for advice there. What I can tell you is that the LINKVIO policy cares about actual copyright violations under US law, and not just more non-free use that we want in our own articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Developmental wikis: Sister projects or ELNO 12?

Some Metawiki:Proposals for new projects (which are unapproved by the WMF) have developmental (i.e. test/experimental/demonstration) wikis. They are generally not included in the Metawiki:Interwiki map, and therefore are not available as interwiki links.

A Template:Sister project template for one of these developmental wikis was recently discussed at Templates for Discussion with no consensus.

The Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects guidelines do not currently contain any explicit guidance on whether these developmental wikis should be treated as full sister projects or as unstable open wikis (ELNO 12), or whether there should be a case-by-case consideration.

I propose to add to the relevant guidelines that unapproved proposals for sister projects are not sister projects, and "except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to" them. --Bsherr (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really get the purpose of the Wikispore project (it seems that dropping the "diversity" buzzword gets one instant support nowadays) but I don't see a problem with using it in principle. However, it is hardly likely to meet the "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" criteria while it is still experimental. Wikimedia project or not, it still has to meet the criteria for inclusion. The TFD conflated two issues, whether or not it could be used as an external link and whether or not the template should exist. The discussion should have been limited to the second issue only but actually hardly touched on it, getting sidetracked into a discussion on the appropriateness of external links. Imo it should not be marked as a sister project, instead it should be marked as an experimental project, which is what it is. SpinningSpark 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• It's "legal" to add a link like that, but there needs to be something worth reading (not something potentially-someday-eventually worth reading) at the linked page, and the linked page needs to be very closely associated with the topic of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, there seems to be some trend that we need to have sisterlinks templates in the external links sections. I do think that they need to comply with our inclusion standards: they have to add something that is not already in the article. I do remove the sister links to commons categories if the one image that is used in the article is the only article on commons in that category. Similar for duplication between a wikisource collection of 7 works while we have an external link to a complete library repository with dozens of works (with content of most works freely accessible) of the same author. Do note that sisterlinks are linked from the toolbox already. For lesser developed sister projects that 'being useful' argument is likely going to be less true. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Right, I agree. My question is, speaking strictly about unapproved projects, do we need the case-by-case examination, or is it possible to have a bright-line rule that none of these meet our inclusion standards? --Bsherr (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, well, ELNO 12 almost completely boils down to being an ELNEVER - I am aware of only one open wiki which generally always passes. Small/experimental/demonstration/test wikis generally do not have a significant userbase and are not 'stable' (which is even true here on en.wikipedia sometimes stays for days/weeks/months - and we have extensive mechanisms in place ánd a significant userbase). Being a mediawiki-wiki does not change that necessarily. As I said, there are often reasons not to add a link to commons, wikisource or wikidata, let alone to a new project. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cite_note-7

WP:EL#cite_note-7 provides an example of how to convert an embedded external link to a citation, but the example seems a bit dated and is using an WP:ECITE type of citation style that has been deprecated for quite some time now. Perhaps it's a not of pressing importance since even an ECITE is better than an embedded external link, but maybe there's a way to tweak the syntax a bit to convert the example to a WP:INCITE style without disrupting the note too much so that editors are not unintentionally given the impression that ECITEs are still OK. The template {{dummy ref}} could be used with a courtesy link to WP:REFB to avoid having to properly format a citation to an actual reliable source. For example, something like the following might work OK.

Yes: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."

• For some general information on how to properly format inline citations, please see Help:Referencing for beginners

-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should strip all the formatting out of that, so that people can see that the links are different. The main point of that example is that those are not the same URLs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the main point is that the urls are different since that seems like it would be more of a WP:RSCONTEXT issue than and external links issue. If that's really intended to be the main point, then it seems as if the "Yes" example wouldn't have replaced the embedded external link to the Red Cross's website with a Wikilink to Red Cross and the "No" example would've embedded the official link for the entire sentence, not just the name of the source. (See the example given in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links for "Apple" to see what I'm trying to get at). I think the main point is to avoid doing things like Example.com. If the main point is as you say, then it seems that "No" example should've been formatted as "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..." and the "Yes" example should've been formatted as "The Red Cross issued a press release that said...[7]." -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, your point could maybe be added as a ' Better: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."'. I do agree that the three should use the same external link. And the way I see the first one ('no') is often 'No: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."' Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Guys, I wrote that. I know what my point was. That footnote belongs to WP:ELNO#EL19, which is about not linking "Websites of organizations mentioned in an article". It's not about the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize you wrote that, so my apologies if I missed the point you were trying to make or even worse assumed that you missed the point you were making. However, if your point is to provide an example that shows how embedded links should be avoided (i.e. avoiding Red Cross in favor of Red Cross), then I don't think there's any need for a second link at all, either as a citation or otherwise (as is done in the example given for Apple in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links).

Why not just give

No: The Red Cross issued a press release that said (...).
Yes: The Red Cross issued a press release that said (...).

as the example? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, now looking deeper into that, that would be the better option. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

When we say "Don't add 'Websites of organizations mentioned in an article'", then someone comes around and says "But there are websites to businesses and non-profits all over articles!" Well, yes, WP:Inline citations, which commonly (but not always) use ref tags, are a thing here. That's why https://www.redcross.org/ is a bad idea in the article body, but https://www.redcross.org/full-URL-pointing-to-specific-page is okay. WP:EL#How to link explains how to format ==External links==. Other pages explain how to format citations.

I think it might be helpful to understand why you were looking at that footnote in the first place. Did you read "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:...19. Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered" and decide to click the (two) footnotes, or were you at some other part of the page, and just happened to see that footnote, without knowing what sentence it followed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I have the feeling we are conflating two issues here:

• No The [http://www.redcross.org Red Cross] issued a press release that said (...) vs. Yes The [[Red Cross]] issued a press release that said (...)

and

• No The Red Cross issued [https://www.redcross.org/full-URL-pointing-to-specific-page a press release that said] (...) vs. Yes The Red Cross issued a press release that said (...)[https://www.redcross.org/full-URL-pointing-to-specific-page] vs. Better The Red Cross issued a press release that said (...)<ref>[https://www.redcross.org/full-URL-pointing-to-specific-page]</ref>

(the first, externally linking the organisation, not meant to be a ref - we do not 'ref' the existence of the organisation by the website of the organisation; the second a inline external link meant to be a ref where we do not ref in that way). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm assuming that you mean me when you write "you", but my apologies if you don't. Anyway, I've been aware of this footnote for quite sometime, and I often cite it in edit summaries or point people to it when I remove an embedded link from the body of the article which is simply intended to serve a sort of quasi Wikilink for pages for subjects that don't have Wikipedia articles written about them. I've always felt the footnote was a bit dated because it suggests using a citation style that's been deprecated for a couple of years now (we shouldn't really be suggesting embedded citations any more), but also found it a bit confusing partly for the reasons given above by Beetstra. The note seems to be trying to do two things at once using a single example: let people to know not to embed links to organization pages that are not intended to be references and also to show that linking to a specific source (webpage) is better than linking to a general webpage (i.e. WP:RSCONTEXT). The first thing, I get because that is an external links issue, but the second thing seems more of a citing sources issue than external links issue and I think confuses things. Perhaps it would be best to have two "Yes/No" examples like is done in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links: one for the embedded link to the organization's page that's not intended to be a citation and one for an embedded link that's intended to be a citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It isn't try to do two things. It's trying to do one thing. The one thing is "Don't like to websites of organizations mentioned in an article". The one thing is "Don't put https://www.redcross.org anywhere the body of any article".

The formatting is completely irrelevant to the point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there doesn't seem to be any need to use two different URLs in the example. If the only point of the example is

No: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."
Yes: "The Red Cross issued a press release that said..."

then maybe that's how the example should be written, without adding any second link used as a citation (embedded or inline) to the end of the sentence. This is the way it's being done for the similar example given in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. That example doesn't use a second link to represent a citation, even though the page is about citations, because the point (as you point out) it's trying illustrate is the same: "Don't put http://apple.com anywhere in the body of any article". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly and WhatamIdoing:, I agree with Marchjuly, the point there should be 'don't use inline links'. If we have to make a point for refs, then that should be in another footnote (which will look somewhat similar, but it is a different point). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with using a wikilink for the "Yes" example is that people add these URLs mostly to non-notable organizations (i.e., a blue link is impossible and a red link is inappropriate). How about reducing it to the "No" example, and changing it to a hypothetical example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Technically, a red link might not always be inappropriate per WP:REDYES, but I think your suggestion is very workable. Since I didn't originally add the note, I'm not sure why "Red Cross" was used as an example. (The same goes for the "Apple" example in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links.) Maybe instead of making up a hypothetical example, we should just use "Wikipedia" instead. For example,

No: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia."

might work OK. A clarification (if deemed necessary) could possibly be added which explains that a Wikilink may be acceptable when an article about the subject exists, but an embedded external link is still not acceptable even when a corresponding Wikipedia article doesn't exist. Do you think that would illustrate the same point you were hoping to make with the original note? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think they were in the news that week, so it was handy. Let's start without any additional clarification. We can always add it later if there is evidence of confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Waiting to see if further clarification is necessary seems fine. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on finding aids

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.

---

Should finding aids be allowed as external links? SpinningSpark 08:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before but no firm conclusion reached. Ongoing discussions on specific cases also occuring here and here. Finding aids do not usually lead to documents that can be read online, so they are nominally in breach of WP:ELNO #7 or #9. From a behaviourial point of view, their insertion is often indistinguishable from spam (single-purpose account inserting links to their employer's site across multiple articles) and they are often removed. However, some editors support their inclusion. Personally, I am in two minds on this, but perhaps Wikidata is more suited for this information. Either way, I think they should be explicitly mentioned in the guidelines to avoid future confusion. SpinningSpark 08:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

To share my two cents, I believe finding aids are useful, but not as useful as links to digitized content. I also believe that they are more useful for people who want to truly research more about a Wikipedia article subject than casual readers. I really like Spinningspark's suggestion about Wikidata...I think that using its "archives at" property (P485) might be the best solution. If we go that route, I would like to explore how we might better be able to connect that property with Wikipedia, as a lot of readers will never even know about that material if it is only on Wikidata. Michael Barera (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If something is not accessible online it probably shouldn't be in the External links section. With respect to one of the links in the first discussion above, perhaps "The documents of O'Keeffe and Stieglitz are archived at Yale University [8]" would fit in Georgia_O'Keeffe#Legacy. Wikidata is a good idea but virtually no one knows about it. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

On Wikidata and no one knows about it, we have a standard set of templates to direct readers to sister projects. There is no reason not to create one for Wikidata if there is a definite reason to send people there. SpinningSpark 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Finding aids to relevant collections in archives and manuscript libraries certainly should be included—and they should be directly included as links on Wikipedia, not obscured by linking them only via another project that most of our readers are not familiar with. For example, in an article about an individual whose extensive personal papers are housed in an archive or library and open for research, a link to the archive's or library's finding aid for that collection strikes me as an important, even essential, piece of information relating to that individual. Of course linking should be done reasonably and only collections with substantial contents relating to the person or topic that is the subject of the article should be included—but that is true of any type of links. I find it difficult to imagine a strong argument against linking to finding aids involving highly relevant content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The links are well intentioned, but approximately 100% of our readers will be unhappy to discover that they completely wasted their time clicking the link. There is no content of value at the link, except essentially an address. Approximately zero-point-zero percent of readers will be willing and able to physically travel to that address. Alsee (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This seems redundant to {{Authority control}}better for Wikisourcedata. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reading the most recent comments, I would like to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Examples of "finding aids" I think should be linked are this for Rex Stout, this for Hugo Black, and this for Isaac Asimov. Is the argument really that there is nothing potentially useful to our readers in this type of link? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, but perhaps those are better for Wikisourcedata instead? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the downside of including the link in the Wikipedia article? It's one line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I had a brainfart and meant Wikidata. As to your question, while there's nothing "wrong" with including these links on Wikipedia having archival data on Wikidata seems better and should be more encouraged. Again, I don't really care about this, but those are my two cents. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Approve: Newyorkbrad's example are quite compelling. Has there been a recurring problem with frequent links to less useful resources? Finney1234 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Informational: I actually have no idea what "WikiSource" is, but the links that Newyorkbrad suggests as appropriate for an article strike me as quite useful.Finney1234 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is a sister project of Wikipedia that publishes the full text of public domain or freely licensed literature and documents. I'm frankly unsure of its relevance to this particular discussion, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Apparently the editor meant wikidata and has now amended their post. SpinningSpark 08:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• As an addendum to my !vote above, I disagree with Spinningspark's initial suggestion that links to significant finding aids violate either ELNO #7 or #9:
  • Paragraph 7 of that guideline discourages links to sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country. This discourages linking to sites with browser compatability or geographical accessibility problems, but I have not encountered many, if any, finding aids with such problems. Paragraph 7 is not about the contents of the linked site. It does not support blacklisting links to finding aids because they don't contain the full text of all the documents in the collection, any more than it would support blacklisting a link to an author bibliography because it doesn't contain the full text of all the author's books.
  • Paragraph 9 discourages links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds. A finding aid to a specific collection does not fall into these categories either.
• In looking into the background to this RfC, I also see several instances in which librarians or archivists inserting helpful links to the contents of their repositories have been criticized for doing so. As long as the links are substantive, relevant, and accurate, I'm not sure why we would want to discourage them. We are talking about one-line mentions of highly relevant resources at the end of articles. Such links, like any other links, should be reviewed for relevance, but I do not understand why there should be any categorical hostility toward them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Approve: Just to make perfectly clear where I stand, I am in favor of explicitly allowing relevant finding aids to be included in the external links. It might also be a good idea to define "relevant" in the new policy, if it is approved. For instance, the finding aids I have added to individuals or groups whose official or personal papers are in the UTA Libraries Special Collections are clearly more relevant than the finding aids I have added to the Santa Fe and Texas & Pacific railroad articles, which involved more tangential content such as land records and adjustment committee records created by those railroads, respectively. While still potentially useful, these tangentially related finding aids are definitely less potentially useful, and we may want to exclude linking to anything that is not the personal or organizational papers of a Wikipedia article subject. (Obviously, this would become a moot point if we ultimately decide to entirely ban finding aids from external links.) Thank you to everyone for participating in this discussion. I am looking forward to a new policy that explicitly addresses finding aids. Michael Barera (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Question for User:SpinningSpark or anyone else who knows the answer: Does this mean {{Authority control}} and similar templates? If the answer is "definitely no finding aids in any article", then what changes would you recommend to Cancer#External links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I defiinitely didn't mean to include authority control when I opened this RFC, but I can't speak for what anyone else meant. The difference is that readers clicking the authority control template know what they are getting, whereas readers clicking an external link are likely expecting to get further information. SpinningSpark 07:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • User:SpinningSpark, are you primarily talking about a link to a webpage that says where a reader can get more information offline (assuming, e.g., that the reader is willing to travel to Big University Library, or a museum, or wherever the webpage says that the items of interest are located)?
• I do think that these are not for standard exclusion, but that the linking should conform what we say in the intro of WP:EL:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
...
If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources."

For some of the links above I do see that is clearly the case, it is a clear addition of data that is beyond what we include. We however, a) do not want a pile-on of such links (I presume that for certain subjects a number of libraries have such overviews and could be included - where the n+1^th is not adding anything over the n^th), and b) should make sure that we link to significant data beyond what is already in the article (or that it is a significant amount of data represented in a comprehensive way that is far beyond what Wikipedia would have in an article). Maybe this should be having it's own template explaining you are going to a finding aid-external link? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• • @Beetstra: I'm not sure that you haven't missed the point of this RFC. A finding aid, in essence, is simply a list of resources held by an archive; the resources themselves are not usually accessible online. Now if the link has been made because the summary page of the site has useful online information, rather than for it being a finding aid per se, then that is a completely different matter and can be decided by the usual EL guidelines. What is not clear in the guidelines is whether a finding aid should be linked purely for its function as a finding aid, that's what I'm trying to get a consensus on. SpinningSpark 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

    Spinningspark, no, I got that. It is, basically, a special case of a 'search link' (ELNO 9). (as opposed to Newyorkbrad, I do think that they do fall into the category #9 'such as links to individual website searches ...' (my bolding; knowing that we there more mean the ever changing results that one would get out of a Google search, it may be different next hour), but note that they are 'discouraged', not 'forbidden'; I don't think that #7 is applicable, maybe #6 would be).

    If the page you get to is substantially adding information over what we have in the article / covered by other external links, they should be linked. If we have already a full bibliography in an article where it is clear that Mrs. X wrote 6 books, and the finding aid basically tells you 'she wrote 6 books: 1 .., 2.., ...<full stop>') then I think that the initial caveats of WP:EL are not met. If that document is https://library.bc.edu/finding-aids/MS1986-096-finding-aid.pdf (Rex Stout) then I doubt I can make a case that that is covered even by Rex_Stout_bibliography. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

    There's also the question of "whether it should be somewhere on the page", which is different from "whether it should be in the ==External links== section specifically". We could decide that it belongs on the page but that it should be associated with, e.g., a sentence in the article saying that the author's papers were donated to Big U's Library, and use that finding aid as a WP:PRIMARY source for the article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

    That's an observation that can be made in the context of a given article. I don't think it's something that should be addressed wiki-wide as part of a formal policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

    WhatamIdoing, I agree with NYB there, if that fact is noted in the article then WP:EL’s disclaimer ‘try to use it as a ref’ overtakes it. Note that that also does not necessarily overrule that it could be re-used as an external link (we discourage using material both as a ref and an external link, but I could see how these could sometimes be an exception). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally agree with Newyorkbrad. Pretty essential to understanding an individual. I also don't find the Wikidata argument particularly compelling: Wikidata's most useful feature in regards to Wikimedia wikis is helping to essentially machine translate elements of en.wiki articles to non-English project. It's not particularly well fact-checked and in many cases can give misleading information based on geographical/political changes over time just to give one example. I'm not super anti-WD like some, but its a project many people who do know how Wikimedia wikis work have a difficult time understanding. Expecting people who presumably don't know how Wikimedia wikis work to navigate it seems unfair to the reader. Anyway allow/approve/whatever NYB said if you want a bold vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2020 (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.

Using ELs from Wikidata

Can anyone chime in at Talk:Sci-Hub#External_links_from_Wikidata? Is it a good idea or not to use {{Official website|{{wikidata|property|P856}}}} instead of a link to the site? This is an unusual case as the URL often changes and according to Colt browning some of the links added recently haven't been official mirrors and they included bitcoin addresses that were different to the official one i.e. the article could have been used to divert traffic to what was in essence a phishing site. I can see some benefits of having it updated in one place for all wikis, but at the same time, it means that there's no way of seeing that the link has been changed by watching the article here. Not sure if this is also worth considering, but the URLs are typically blacklisted to prevent WP:COPYLINK and I'm not sure whether wikidata uses the same blacklist or how the templated link would be affected when the new URL is blacklisted. SmartSE (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Smartse, that coding is excessive, {{Official website}} is the same, and could both be used in the infobox and in the external links section. One of my worries is the possible abuse taking place at WD (which is far, far from capable of catching spam or other external link abuse) not being noticed here. On the other hand, this data is far from stable and just having one place to edit it instead of continuous edits here is an advantage of using WD. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Links to individual articles or interviews

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

@Koavf, would you mind re-posting this at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

https://newsindiahindia.blogspot.com/ 47.31.21.18 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:External links. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As much meaningful article information as possible

The guideline currently says:

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. For example:

== External links ==
* [https://example.com/link_1 Link 1]
* [https://example.com/link_2 Link 2]

I suspect that these examples could be improved. Whether you interpret the suggested label of "Link 1" as meaning "Link 1" or as a recommendation to use the URL, I don't think they show "as much meaningful article information as possible".

What do you think about changing it to something like this?

== External links ==
* [https://example.com/link_1 Official website]
* [https://example.com/link_2 Video] by Original Songwriter

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is actually directly related to the discussion above about templates. --evrik ^(talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this has anything to do with the discussion about templates. Which words to put in the label really has nothing to do with whether there's a template involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We can disagree. --evrik ^(talk) 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: this has indeed nothing to do with that discussion. this is about the text to display, not about how to format that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The discussion above is about the formatting of links. --evrik ^(talk) 17:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: looks good, though I would consider to use an interview in place of the video. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Would you like to make the change to the guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

List formatting

I've boldly added a note to ELLIST to point out that the rules are the rules, no matter how you format the list. If someone deeply believes that we need to have separate rules about whether a link is appropriate based upon whether the list formatting is invoked with * or # or {| or a template, then I first urge you to think about it carefully, and then to talk about it here. I hadn't expected us to need to be so WP:CREEPy as to say "a list is a list is a list" in the first place, and I really don't want to end up with a situation in which changing the list formatting changes the rules about what can be included in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What would be cool is if the RFC from a year or so ago to be reversed. That would be a much simpler fix for the issue. :) --Izno (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

How about a link to that RFC. It might be worth a new RFC. Tom94022 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually we do seem to have such rules since a list formatted with a * clearly allows in-line ELs while one formatted with a {| according to some editors does not. Reviewing the RFC discussion might help understand how we got into this mess. Tom94022 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, but links in tables are allowed, sorry, am I missing something here? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Links outside of tables may be allowed, too, but not when the result is that the entire list item is an external link. In terms of this guideline, there is no material difference between putting * Babette's Feast – 1886 – https://www.example.com into an unordered HTML list and putting exactly those same facts into three columns of a table. If [https://www.example.com Babette's Feast] is unacceptable as the sole content in a bullet list, then it's equally unacceptable as the sole content in a table row. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, exactly. Are there really people arguing that tables are not lists? (Well, seen two other inverted arguments currently running around on this page, I am not surprised). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

YouTube Official Artist Channels

Editors may wish to be aware of this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)