Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

External links section

Wikipedia:ELCITE

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.

I was reading Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_39#Converting_external_links_sections_to_use_"cite_web"_template Can we reword this to read:

First suggestion: External links present details differently than a citations format. In most cases, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more useful than the actual title of the linked page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Because citation templates are meant to provide information in a scholarly fashion, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link.

Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Makes sense. We should also mention that we should not usually use a link already used as a reference which is implied in WP:ELNO 1: "should not merely repeat information that is already … in the article".

• I find that articles on films do this frequently: they use review aggregators in the reception section and then repeat them in the EL section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you @Walter Görlitz: --evrik ^(talk) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's good but I would change the first sentence to "An external link should present different details than a citation." Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Second suggestion: An external link should present different details than a citation, and a link already used as a reference should not be listed as an external link. In most cases, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more useful than the actual title of the linked page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Because citation templates are meant to provide information in a scholarly fashion, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link.

--evrik ^(talk) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe just "Do not use citation templates in the ==External links== section"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• That would be my preference but there was pushback at the discussion linked above. Perhaps an RfC would be in order because I cannot see any reason to use a citation template. An external link is a simple mention of an off-wiki page which currently shows useful information (and if that changes, the link should be removed). Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Actually ... I support the use of citation templates.--evrik ^(talk) 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why? What useful info do they add? Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Properly used, they help avoid link rot. --evrik ^(talk) 04:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Evrik, no, the template does not avoid linkrot. It becomes easier to manage. But if we have an external link to a live document like a subject’s homepage, we expect to see the current status, not the version of 20 June 2013. Linkrot is an issue on references, for external links that is much less an issue. Moreover, using citation templates in external links sections suggests a status similar to references (‘it is in a citation template, it must be reliable’) which is wrong. It makes sense for further reading type material, but not for external links. I am against suggesting using it in this guideline, and will remove it where I deem it in contrast with the principles I have discussed here. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't find the source, maybe someone can help me, but I read somewhere that using the templates helps the bots create archives, and maintain the links. --evrik ^(talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Evrik, yes, that is what those templates do. But again, for e.g. the official website of a subject that is not in any form desirable, it smply does not make any sense to archive the state of an official website now, knowing that the frontpage looks different tomorrow (Wikipedia makes an effort to show different content on the main page every single day). And if it would be desirable, there is no reason why we would not implement that on {{official website}}. Next, some subjects have a twitter/youtube/instagram, which are so volatile that archiving defeats their purpose completely.

  There is no reason why we would prevent linkrot on anything that is not used as a reliable source supporting a statement. There are some links in the external links section where it makes sense (‘further reading’ type material), but not for anything else. There are no benefits, it only sends a wrong message. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  The bot provides an archive of links used as references so if the main link no longer works, the archive is available to verify the article text. An external link is entirely different—per WP:ELYES, an EL is for an official link; a legal and free copy of the work; or neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. If the official link goes dead, there is no official link and the article should not link to a snapshot as that would serve no encyclopedic purpose. The same applies to the other ELYES points. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, well, we do that sometimes on subjects. Remove the official website and link to the last archived state before it went dead. But those are exceptions. My point is more that it absolutely does not make sense to link to an archived copy of an external link (at least, before it goes dead). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  The relevant line is here: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
  Quite often, people put relevant links in to the EL. They might not be able to integrate them into the article, or they might be slightly duplicative of the references. They don't belong in further reading, but may add context to the article. Having them go deadlink serves no one. --evrik ^(talk) 19:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Evrik, so, add an archive link to it. That is not a reason to put them in a cite template. And I gave that provision actually earlier: “There are some links in the external links section where it makes sense (‘further reading’ type material), but not for anything else.” It certainly should not appear in this guideline, and only be used sparingly in the few occasions where it really fits (and even then, there is nothing wrong with doing it by hand). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Evrik: Wikipedia is not a link directory and there would be very few cases where an article should have an external link to an archived page. Do you know of such cases? A couple of exceptions can be handled with explicit archive links, but using citation templates in order to keep archives suggests that pretty well all external links should be retained forever. Presumably that would be in the belief that Wikipedia should be a link directory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  The official website for a now-defunct organization or notable website is the usual exception. Other than that, it's not at all common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link, and it says that the inclusion of archive links should be "rare", not an automatic, indiscriminate bot action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I maintain my point of view from from the last time we talked about this topic. --Izno (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I find the formatting used in most external links inelegant and not uniformly used. My thoght was that a citation template make people organize the text better. --evrik ^(talk) 05:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please provide an example of an external link section where templates have been useful, and where the same cleanup couldn't have been better achieved by simply editing the [link text] wikitext. You might also provide examples of dead external links that should be kept as links to archives (apart from occasional official links). Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Air guitar or campfire --evrik ^(talk) 04:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Evrik, wow .. just ... wow. Talking about a bad example. I have massively cut-down the massive linkfarm on Air guitar, leaving only a couple of .. guess .. 'further reading' type material. The linkfarm on Air guitar was almost completely about Air guitar championships (which are overly represented in the document, more is needed there).

• And I strongly disagree with the formatting of the links on campfire. Using the cite template does not help in any form, it even gives 'credibility' to an about.com article and a youtube video there (which, incidentally, will not be backed-up by any archive anyway). A third link in that section uses the archive link in the | url = field, suggesting that an archive of the archive is possible. Also there, the document archived there is maybe a live document that is still updated, but now frozen in time as an archive. I will do a bit of cleanup there as well. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for cleaning up the linkfarm. Really. What's left though is a good example of how to use the templates. I just started working on the campfire article. The archive link was a rescued deadlink. A bot will fix the formatting later. --evrik ^(talk) 05:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Evrik, I have just reverted the move to templates on Campfire, there that just does not make any sense, certainly not for the youtube (now removed). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, when you say that you find the formatting inelegant, do you mean that you find the wikitext (aka "the part that readers never see") to be inelegant, or that you find the reader-facing result (e.g., the lack of quotation marks around the name, the absence of a period at the end of the line) to be inelegant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I find the "reader-facing result" to be inconsistent. I think that using the templates helps format the output, but also guides people into what data they should be including. --evrik ^(talk) 19:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Inconsistent with what? With other external links? With citations that support article content? With other articles? With something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• the "reader-facing result". External links tend to be a free for all. --evrik ^(talk)

• @Evrik: you started your elaboration here stating that citation templates are more scholarly. Then you switched to preventing linkrot. Then it is inelegant. And now inconsistent.

Yes, there is inconsistency between articles, there is even inconsistent within articles. It is not an infobox, it is not written prose. There is inconsistency that hurts my OCD, but that inconsistency is not solved with citation templates. That inconsistency is not solved with archive links. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, I was trying to clarify the current language. Personally, I like the second suggestion. --evrik ^(talk) 13:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still leaning towards "Do not use citation templates in the ==External links== section". Short, simple, objective, quick, and easy for everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a groundswell of support for that position. --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is the discussion to remove templates entirely. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

An external link should present different details than a citation, and a link already used as a reference should not be listed as an external link. In most cases, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more useful than the actual title of the linked page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Because citation templates are meant to provide information in a scholarly fashion, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link.

From last month, I think this is the best modification. --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, you have still to provide some examples where citation templates are a huge benefit. I am with user:WhatamIdoing here, 'Do not use citation templates in the ==External links== section". It gives merit to them that external links do not have, and they 'solve problems' that do not need resolving. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As an example, look at the discussion below, Wikipedia_talk:External_links#As much meaningful article information as possible. Use of a template allows, "As much meaningful article information as possible" in an organized fashion. --evrik ^(talk) 17:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, that does not talk about specific examples where citation templates (specifically) are a benefit. Writing out external links properly can be well done without citation templates. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is one small example. You'll note that the underlying code is cleaned up and standardized. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, so, what advantage does that give? Soon we get archive links added? Now the blog has citation status? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, wait, you are still implementing these, while editors here are mostly suggesting not to use them? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines as written today don't prohibit this type of formatting. As such, there is nothing wrong with editing in that fashion. I started this discussion to clarify the standard. Also, it's not mostly. --evrik ^(talk) 18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, Izno, WhatamIdoing, JohnUniq, me .. vs. you and Walter (the latter with a question mark) ... seems mostly to me. Maybe we should add that ‘do not use citation templates in external links sections’ to the guideline. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we need to "prohibit this type of formatting", then we can certainly do that.

I still don't understand why Tommy Lasorda at Baseball Almanac is supposed to be better or worse than "Tommy Lasorda" at Baseball Almanac. Will there be an answer to my long-standing question about why the addition of quotation marks, italics, and a full stop is allegedly more helpful to the reader than the same link with the same words without that formatting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is the current practice to allow the use of templates. The initial proposal was to tweak the language to better explain the standard. I believe that the templates improve the hand formatting across the project. That has been said before. Also, it helps prevent linkrot. --evrik ^(talk) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, again, linkrot is not an issue in external links. Most of the items in external links, like the two in your latest example, should not be frozen in time while the websites are available. If they go offline, then a choice needs to be made whether they should be removed, or linked to an archive of their last version. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, if the links go offline, then certainly their inclusion should be judged. Using the templates makes it easier for the various bots to flag problem links in a coherent fashion. Nothing in wikipedia is ever frozen. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, what does "improve the hand formatting" mean? Does "improve the hand formatting" mean "adds unwanted punctuation"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, moreover, I have to check, but as far as I know the dead link bots check the ‘external links’ for deadness, not links in citation templates. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Erm, no, I distinctly did not support a total ban on using citation templates in the external links section. Please review my actual contributions from the last time this was discussed and where the current guideline stands, from which I quoted extensively. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Izno, ah, reread it, yes you are not in favour of a total ban. But then I would like an opinion on changes like this. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• You can add me to the list of editors who think we should not be using the citation template for external links. If there is a need for consistent formatting for external links (and I don’t think there is), we can always create a separate “External Links” template. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Why recreate the wheel? Judicious use of existing resources can and does work. --evrik ^(talk) 22:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    Evrik, because external links are not citations. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

    • That's besides the point. Currently, the policy allows the use of templates, the proposal on the table is to clarify the current language. --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm late to this discussion but you can add me too to the list of editors who think we should not be using the citation template for external links. Tom94022 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I withdraw thisnproposal. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary notes

So on the one side, we have:

• Citation templates enable the link-rot bots (which aren't normally supposed to be used for external links anyway)
• Citation templates "improve the hand formatting across the site" (I've asked for clarification above, but I think this means that {{cite web}} defaultly adds the same punctuation.)

On the other side, we have:

• Problems for readers
  • Citation templates add extra, unwanted punctuation and formatting, such as quotation marks, italics, and full stops at the end of each templated line.
  • Citation templates create verbose listings, especially when generated automatically or updated by a bot/script, which take up more screen real estate for the reader. Readers expect to see Official website but they get "Official website". (complete with quotation marks and full stop at the end) instead.
• Problems for editors
  • Citation templates result in bulky wikitext code in the editing window. A simple [https://www.example.com Official website] (42 characters) becomes {{cite web |url=https://www.example.com |title=Official website}} (65 characters).
  • Citation templates are difficult for new editors. Inexperienced editors are more likely to be able to figure out how to add a link correctly than to manually correct one of our most complex template systems correctly so that it displays only the standard, relevant details.
  • Citation templates are unpopular for this particular use. There has been a clear lack of community support for expanding citation templates into the ==External links== section. Editors almost always choose a specific external link template or a plain, normal link formatting for the ==External links== section.
  • The output of a citation template doesn't match the formatting of any of of the many (couple thousand?) external link templates in Category:External link templates and its subcats, so when they're combined, the list of external links is formatting inconsistently within the same article. So if you use citation templates, and you want the list's formatting to be consistent, then you have to figure out how to turn off all the unwanted punctuation that the template just added.
• Problems for bots and template editors
  • Bots, AWB, and other tools can't tell the difference between citation templates in ==External links== and elsewhere, so they automatically add DOIs, dates, and other identifiers to external links, even though WP:EL says to exclude all of that.
  • Citation templates result in the unwanted, automatic addition of Internet Archive links. WP:ELDEAD says to most remove dead links, but the bots don't know that, and they can't tell when the exceptions apply.
  • When used instead of a proper external link template (such as {{IMDb title}}), the citation templates makes it hard to correct links that are dead due to a website being rearranged. Currently, many of those can be fixed by changing the central template, and all the external links in those templates are automagically corrected.

Have I missed anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I guess this is it, yes, thanks for the summary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the summary, I am going to suggest to add: the use of the {{cite}}-template (and its variants) in the ==External links== section is strongly discouraged. This type of templates should only be used on links that would be suitable as a reference, and these links should then preferably be in a ==Further reading== section.
  • That, per opinions above, does not strictly forbid it, but puts limits on what should be hosted inside these templates. This does not necessarily exclude that we create a {{external link}}-template similar to the {{cite}}-templates, but which has certain parameters disabled (e.g. access date. However, I expect extended discussion here before such a template is implemented showing significant benefit and how it should be used, as I do not see how we actually benefit from this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer language that leaves no opportunity for editors to believe that converting links to citation templates is acceptable, but I can live with "strongly discouraged" if you think this is closer to the community's view. Also, I'd rather specifically name "cite web", as it is the most commonly used. I think it's important to get the ==Further reading== bit correct, and I'm glad you thought of mentioning that point. What do you all think about this shorter, simpler statement? "Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the ==External links== section. Citation templates are permitted in the ==Further reading== section." (Alternatively, "The use of {{cite web}} and other citation templates in the ==External links== section is strongly discouraged", if you think that's best.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

      WhatamIdoing, maybe the 'do not use' is good enough, there is always IAR for the cases where it does really add something more. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

      Do you want an RFC for this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

      WhatamIdoing, I guess it needs it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

      Beetstra and others: Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:External links#RFC on how to format external links and let me know if you think that's clear enough. If you think it's ready, then replace the ~~<timestamp>~~ bit with a signature (five tildes to skip your name) and put style|policy|prop at the start of the section. (The signature needs to come before the table, because the RFC bot can't cope with tables.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

      WhatamIdoing, I’m fine with it, waiting for another 19 hours for more opinions, if any. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is actually the opposite of the original proposal, which was to clarify the existing language. This is a reversal of the policy. Something like this should be an RFC and bring in the broader community. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Evrik, did this comment accidentally end up in the wrong section? There's nothing in this section that needs anybody to post any votes, and there's already an RFC open on exactly this subject at the end of the page. Look for the section titled #RFC on how to format external links (assuming your comment is about this subject). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Links In Lists illustration

I'd like to suggest modifying the current illustration in WP:ELIST from:

Candidate	Political party	Official website	Votes
Alice	Republocrat	[2]	51%
Bob	Demican	[3]	47%
Carol Redlink	Other	[4]	2%

Note: Carol has no Wikipedia article so she could either appear as either a redlink or just an unlinked entry.

To

Candidate	Political party official website	Votes
Alice	Repblocrat	51%
Bob	Demican	47%
Carol Redlink	Other	2%

Note: Carol does not have a Wiki article and probably doesn't deserve one, but she does have a web page that is an RS to her information. The alternative of a redlink never to be filled with a reference to the webpage seems wasteful of article space and editor's time.

Alternative presentation as currently used in some lists

Candidate	Political party official website	Votes
Alice	Repblocrat	51%
Bob	Demican	47%
Carol Redink	Other	2%

The proposed change is consistent with the language of this section and shows a more compact display which IMO is the more likely usage of ELs in list tables. This would help resolve a dispute with @Stesmo: over ELs in a table of a list article here Tom94022 (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tom94022. I notice that the last line now has two links. What's your thinking there?

What would you do when editors want to link to the Wikipedia article on, e.g., Republocrats? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The idea was that Carol did not have a Wiki article and probably didn't deserve one, but if she had a webpage it should be linked to as an RS about Carol. I put in a dummy EL in this example. I suppose if this change is agreed upon I can create a dummy bio page for Carol to make it clear. Thanks for the question. Tom94022 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If the editors of such a page wanted to link to both the party's website and a wiki article they could use both a wikilink and EL, e.g. Republocrats [5]Tom94022 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing On further reflection I think an editor should choose the one most reliable one source which ordinarily would be a wikilink to a relevant article; however it may be the relevant article does not support the inclusion in a list in which case the editor could use an El in the list or alternatively edit the relevant article to support the inclusion in the list and then use a wikilink. In summary if one link is sufficient, use the most reliable one. Tom94022 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, but our example does both. It has a wikilink (which may be red) and the link to the subject’s website (which possibly doubles as a primary reference). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022 that is what is making it undue. Alice and Bob are notable and have their own article, Alice If Carol is not, so she gets a link to her promotional page, and Bob and Alice don’t? In the chosen format Alice, Bob and Carol all three get their ‘promotional link’ (and repblocrat should really wikilink, not externally at all). And note, your references are primary, which is not necessarily enough. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC) (repaired —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

You appear to be confused. In the current example Carol is not notable but has a Wikilink to an inappropriate page. Assunming Carol has a webpage, there seems there are two alternatives in this current example, redlink referenced to the website or EL Carol. The language of this section clearly allows EL to such primary material. Tom94022 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, no, I am not. Carol should be redlinked. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I see what you meant here, my apologies for the confusion. I did not agree here that the guideline should be changed, my comment was to your example, and that in that case Carol carol should be redlinked, not externally linked. Sigh. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, simply, no. This puts too much focus on the external links. The official websites in the top table are generally the campaign websites (if existing). The names of the candidates should preferably be linking to wiki articles (alternatively: not linking), and the same for the political party. Losing one column make these lists more spammy/soapboxing. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and perhaps if you read my changes above you might change your mind. BTW, I really don't understand how the changes increases or decreases the spammy/soapboxing at all. Tom94022 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tom94022: I read it, and that is where we came from, disagreed with in the first place, and then we came to this. You have the list that brings you here, with a discussion that disagrees with your preferred formatting. Now you see that this guidance is not in line with your format you want to change the guidance so you are right.

This formatting was chosen to comply with policy after long/many discussions. It is set up not to allow spamhole and soapboxing. That article where you are coming from is filled with non notable items (redlinks) without indication (no independent reliable sourcing) that they even belong in that list / are worth mentioning in that list. It is not distinguishable from a spamhole, it is not within policy, it is not how we format such lists. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The language of the section is clear, ELs are allowed - the example is confused and poor, but it is only an example. There is no restriction or limitation in the language as to which column can contain ELs nor is there any requirement as to form of the EL. While you may call an article a spamhole there is no evidence that that the one in question is and as WP:SPAMHOLE notes, "The best remedy is to evaluate each link one at a time." The editors have and are doing that so stop raising a strawman argument. The language of this section is clear; regardless of what the intent was ELs are permitted in tabled list article. All I am asking for is a clarification of formatting. If you want to change the language of this section, that is a whole other discussion which you are free to raise. It would be interesting to hear what other editors might think Tom94022 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, no, we have here repeatedly come to the conclusion that that is not the way of linking, as that is spamhole prone, soapboxing etc. This is the interpretation of policy as that consensus has chosen to implement it.

The external links are in the third column, so yes, external links are allowed, but not as the focus of a list, and not in an undue way. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And we do not externally link in a column if wikilinks are available. Repblocrat is typically something we would have a wikilink for. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have continuously stated the language is clear, ELs are permitted. Tom94022 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The language of WP:ELLIST is clear that ELs are permitted in lists formatted as tables as follows:

Policy on external links in lists

... a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table
... these links may serve as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources

WP:ELLIST

The only question is what formats are permitted. Some editors seem to think that only the one format of the table in the section is allowed but there is no such restrictive language in the section. There are other formats such as in-line EL and EL in a reference all of which absent a prohibition are permitted. So the simple questions are:

1. Are other formats of ELs allowed in lists formatted as tables beyond the one shown in the section?
2. If the answer is no, what language changes are necessary to make the restriction clear.?

It would be nice to hear from editors other than Beetsrta. Tom94022 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, yes, and that is exactly what our example is showing - external links in a table. That external links are permitted, and can serve as a primary source does not mean that a) you can turn a list into a complete spamhole, and b) that you do not need to show that items actually belong in a list using secondary sources.

And no, you cannot choose who you want to listen to. You asked for an opinion, you got an opinion. Now you don't like that opinion because it is against how you want it seen implemented (and actually in line with what what has been removed, and what you continuously reverted), so now you want to ask yet another parent? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to usage and format of ELs, unfortunately there is nothing in the clear language of the section to support it.::No, I'd like to see if there can be a consensus reached as to reasonable interpretation of this section in light of its clear language. AFAIK no one editor's opinion has any more weight than another's. Why don't you give some other editor's time to enter the discussion or would you rather |just shout down my suggestion? Tom94022 (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, others can enter at any time. You asked for an opinion, you got an opinion, you don’t like it. And I have confirmed your clear language but you have not replied to my remarks over that. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I like the third option. --evrik ^(talk) 17:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, the third option is the closest, indeed. But the issue is that in option 1 the external links are for the subjects, not for the parties. For most elections presented on Wikipedia, the political parties are notable, and hence linkable. The problem is the subjects, which are not always (and do not need to be). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(I think that current table in the guideline is maybe unclear in that - the columns are 'person', 'political party', 'official (campaign) website of person', 'votes'). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not just for the election lists, but all embedded lists. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: Yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this option is avaailable for 'everything', but as a practical matter, this style is primarily used in the context of elections and software. That's why the example was written to use elections as the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to be a bit clearer:

Candidate	Political party	Official (campaign) website of candidate	Votes
Alice	Republocrat	[6]	51%
Bob	Demican	[7]	47%
Carol Redlink	Other	[8]	2%

The 'republocrat' and 'demican' are not 'linked' because that here would give redlinks which are not very representative (could be solved through a pipe to a dummy). It is, by the way, totally not in the scope of this guideline that Carol is a redlink, this guideline is not talking about the notability of the different subjects, it is focused on how consensus here is to present the table.

Candidate	Political party	Votes
Alice	Republocrat	51%
Bob	Demican	47%
Carol Redlink	Other	2%

is undue in that, because Carol is not notable enough for an own Wikipedia article, she gets a campaign website, and the others don't. For, say, software solutions, most will link to the wikiarticle, but because you are not notable enough you get a link to your (likely promotional) website. The other option:

Candidate	Political party	Votes
Alice	Republocrat	51%
Bob	Demican	47%
Carol Redlink	Other	2%

goes over the fact that Alice and Bob are notable. For me, the first option is still the best, it gives external links (as suggested by ELINKS), and wikilinks for those that are notable. Moreover, the links in column 3 are also a primary source for their candidacy. That is why we ended up at that choice.

Going further, for the subject at hand (harddrive producers) it is not really an issue, but on many other articles, representation akin 2 results in the articles becoming a spamhole. Especially software solutions and apps result in addition of many 'hobby' examples that have no place in the article. 'I have an external link, so I exist, so I belong in this list'. With option 1 that is much easier to keep clean and weed out. Not notable by itself? Do you not have a proper independent reference showing that you are worth mentioning: "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Primary sources only show verifiable existence, not encyclopedic or topical relevance. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I do not support link farming, or using external links in place on internal links. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• A few quick replies:
  • Republocrat and Demican are not going to be red links in the example, and the real political parties won't be redlinks, eitherr. I think the parties generally should be linked to their Wikipedia articles (subject to the usual, generous reading of Wikipedia:Overlinking that we apply to table content), because (a) Wikipedia has articles on nearly every political party, and (b) not every political party is as well known as the two large American ones. I doubt that most people could name ten political parties outside their own country. Depending upon the country, the link to the party may be more important than the individual candidate.
  • I think that it's unfair to let some candidates get a link to their campaign websites, but to refuse that to others (e.g., notable candidates).
  • I don't think that the candidate's individual website should be associated with the party's name. Expectations of party affiliation vary significantly. What if the one candidate stands for two parties? What if a candidate changes party affiliation mid-campaign? If there's a separate campaign website for that individual, it should be kept separate.
• WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and evrik welcome to this discussion, thanks for taking the time to comment. I too do not support link farming but in simple lists (not tables) in-line EL are already the approved way to provide a RS to a list element that is not in itself notable but is significant in context of the list.

Let's not get too carried away by specifics of the poor choice of election results as an example of list formatted as a table. Consider this list not in table form but approved by this section of the article.

List of Restaurants featuring something rare

• Alice's Restaurant
• Babette's Feast
• The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

External links

• Rare Restaurant

Notice that an in-line EL is approved for inclusion in this simple list, albeit separated from the notable elements by warning.

The same list of restaurants could also be provided in table form with additional information such as this:

List of Restaurants featuring something rare

Restaurant	Location	Chef
Alice's Restaurant	New York City, NY	Alice
Babette's Feast	Immrieville, California	Bob
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe	Kharsaim, Russia	Carol Redlink
Rare Restaurant	London, England	Arkeni

Notes on content:

1. The restaurant column entries have exactly the same format as in the approved example.
2. Some towns are Wikilinked, one has a in-line EL reference and one has none
3. Alice and Bob are notable, Carol has a RS webpage and Arkeni has nothing. Arkeni could be a redlink if an editor thought he was notable

I believe this example complies with the plain language of the section, notably by using in-line ELs the table is as suggested far more compactly than other approaches.

So far Beetstra has failed to explain why in his opinion in-line ELs are not permitted in lists organized as tables, even though they are supported in plain lists and even though there is no language in the sections prohibiting their usage in lists organized as tables. I speculate that it is because they are not shown in the example, which is an argument that "everything not specifically approved is prohibited." Beetstra also argues that this somehow encourages or enables spamholes but produces no evidence that such happens. The several lists i follow are not spamholes. Ultimately the existence of spamholes depends upon the lack of diligence of editors; something that doesn't appear to be lacking.

I propose we reach a consensus on an example to replace the flawed election example in the section.

Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, it is not my opinion that ELs are not allowed, that is where you are wrong. I have been telling you over and over, the provided example is showing external links that function as identification and primary sources, and, unlike in your example, are neutral over the table. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022 to take your table, and to illustrate what I mean:

Restaurant	Location	Chef	Website
Alice's Restaurant	New York City, NY	Alice	http://alicesrestaurant.com
Babette's Feast	Immrieville, California	Bob	http://babettesfeast.com
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe	Kharsaim, Russia	Carol Redlink	http://therestaurantattheendoftheuniverse.com
Rare Restaurant	London, England	Arkeni	http://rarerestaurant.com

Now all the restaurants have a link to their website, not just the non-notable one. I know that this table is less compact, but it is much fairer to the notable restaurants that they also get an external link to their website, then only the non-notable ones. (I don't think that Immrieville and Carol need to be externally linked, that should also be a redlink/unlinked. Note that this comes close to what one then could write in the prose of the article The Restaurant at the End of the Universe: 'Carol Redlink is the chef of the restaurant.' We explicitly suggest against having such external links in our prose throughout Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, we wouldn't normally have multiple links per list item/table row.

Dirk is also correct that we would sometimes want to spell out the name of the website (e.g., if it's unusual or famous; this is decided by local editors).

I'm glad that we're finally getting to the crux of the disputed edit, which is whether non-notable businesses (or possibly notable businesses that nobody happens to have written an article about yet) should get an external link to their own (i.e., inherently promotional) websites in lieu of getting an NPOV article on Wikipedia. That is, in a list of notable and non-notable businesses, should the reader be sent to a mix of NPOV Wikipedia articles and POV corporate websites? My answer is no, and I would be very surprised if the community at large did not share my opinion.

It would usually be okay (if local editors agree) to provide WP:ELOFFICIAL links to *all* of the list entries (especially if the list is otherwise unsourced; biased primary sources are better than no sources), but not only for non-notable list entries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, see this revid, where I have formatted the table similar to what we describe in this guideline. Note, the table has external links to all of the products (or manufacturer), which double as primary references for the subjects (they are not formatted as references, which makes it also clearer that they are primary - they prove 'existence'), it also has blue- and redlinks to the wikipedia pages of the subjects (so, people may chose to create the redlinked ones if they think it is notable), and it has a column for references, which, ideally, should contain independent (i.e. not primary) references to reliable sources showing that this product is actually 'worth mentioning' (i.e., is beyond verifiable existence, hence also of encyclopedic and topical relevance / to establish its membership within the group). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, note that I do not standard agree that the businesses need to have the external links also listed. One can, probably successfully, argue that these links are also primary references for ‘existence’, but often the wiki-articles serve for that, and independent sources serve that better (and at the same time provide relevance). I see not much value in repeating the wikipages of all bluelinked entries to serve the few that happen to not have a wikipedia article (yet). (This discussion may need a counterpart at LSC). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra thanks for all the effort that went into a demonstration of one way to deal with the issue of including not otherwise qualified but notable items in a list table. I hope u didn't have to do all the work by hand. I agree that it is superior to the current presentation. If we went this way I would suggest the Product Website column be located next to the Name column. If you want to transform the article go ahead since nothing is lost and the overall layout is improved. My primary objection to the edit that started this dialog was that the editor deleted information as to why the Company was on the list.

However, I think the layout of a list table is the decision of the editors supporting it and the use of an in-line El to support the inclusion of a row in a list table is a decision left to those editors. It has the advantage of being more compact than multiple columns for website links and reference links. Note that the justification for a not notable inclusion is not limited to a website - e.g. a books or magazines could be used. Apparently at least WhatamIdoing appears to agree with me that some information is better than none.

I am a bit confused by the changes just made to the article since I thought the idea was to not make any changes until there was a consensus. Nor do I quite understand what the changes accomplish. Based upon the discussion above it seems that the existing does not apply criterion resolved the issue by removing an EL "serving as a citation to a reliable source for a stand-alone list entry" from the controls of this section and placing such ELs under the control of EL:OFFICIAL which as I read it allows in-line ELs for this purpose. If my understanding is correct I apologize for wasting a lot of time and text. If so, the we really shouldn't we revise the section to at least point to EL:OFFICIAL? Also why have a exclusionary criterion when we can write an inclusionary one and incorporate it into the examples? Tom94022 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, I made the change and reverted myself. That left the status quo but giving a clear view of what I think this guideline is trying to tell.

The website link is less important than the company name (column 1), and the information. The website/primary reference and other references should be in the last columns. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom, in your final paragraph, you are not correct. If the link is (primarily) serving as a citation to a reliable source for a stand-alone list entry, the controlling guideline becomes Wikipedia:Citing sources, which pretty much bans the kind of link formatting you were using. Taking CITEVAR into account, instead of turning the plain text, unsourced Amp Inc. into [http://www.ampinc.com/ AMP Inc.], you'd be expected to turn it into something like AMP Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ampinc.com/solid-state-drives/ |title=Solid State Drives |publisher=AMP Inc.|access-date=4 August 202}}</ref> (for that article). About 90% of this guideline, including ELOFFICIAL, is irrelevant once you declare that you're "really" talking about a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Dirk, the RS folks are trending towards being pickier about sources for lists, and not relying upon the continued existence/contents of a blue-linked list entry. I agree with you that the ideal source would be an independent one, and I think this guideline could be improved by the addition of Template:Dummy reference (probably after the voting results, for that example) to suggest that an external link is not, and normally shouldn't be, the only approach to verifiability in a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As noted in Wikipedia_talk:External_links#External_links_section templates create problems in EL sections, I suggest they also create problems elsewhere in lists, particularly for non-notable row entrants.

Further more, acccording to Beetstra this construction meets all Wikipedia style guidelines

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller	Product website	References
ADATA	Taiwan	No	No	Yes	No	No	[9]
AMP Inc.	United States	No	No	Yes	No	No	[10]
Angelbird	Austria	No	No	Yes	No	No	[11]
GS Nanotech	Russia	No	No	Yes	No	No	[12]

The order of columns is an editor's choice so this too must be acceptable

Name	Product website	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller	References
ADATA	[13]	Taiwan	No	No	Yes	No	No
AMP Inc.	[14]	United States	No	No	Yes	No	No
Angelbird	[15]	Austria	No	No	Yes	No	No
GS Nanotech	[16]	Russia	No	No	Yes	No	No

Then why isn't this too acceptable, it is certainly more compact and contains exactly the same information and the links are in the same formats.

Note I removed the redundant EL to AMP as redundant since it was an EL to a generic page and not to a page specific to the topic of this list. BTW this is a problem in many lists in that a Wikipedia article may not justify the inclusion in a list. For example the General Electric article may not qualify GE for inclusion in a list of widget manufacturers.

Name	Based in	Manufactures hard disk drives	Manufactures Flash memory	Manufactures Flash-based SSDs	Manufactures RAM-based SSDs	Manufactures Flash memory controller
ADATA [17]	Taiwan	No	No	Yes	No	No
AMP Inc.	United States	No	No	Yes	No	No
Angelbird [18]	Austria	No	No	Yes	No	No
GS Nanotech [19]	Russia	No	No	Yes	No	No

I've looked at a number of list articles and for the most part they mainly use Wikilinks to apparently establish a valid entry in a row but almost all have the problem of adding a valid non-notable row to a list. After this long discussion and looking at a lot of lists it is my conclusion that the last approach shown above is preferred, namely Name Inc. [http://www.nameinc.com/releventpage]. It has the advantage of flagging the entity is not currently notable but associates it directly with an indisputable proof of valid entry. It maybe only a semantical issue whether an in-line EL used as an WP:ELOFFICIAL is in fact a link to a WP:RS requiring a full citation; if it is semantics then we can probably establish policy in this article. If not, then if we agree then we should have a dialog with the RS people. Tom94022 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, so, you look at it, and you see a wikilink, a number in brackets, and a reference for that number in brackets? What are those things? Why not a column for ‘website’, principle of least surprise? And references often go at the end of a sentence, so last column makes sense. Moreover, the reference is not for their website, it is for the whole row. Why the urge to compact that table so much? Too much compactness is just confusing.

And I think that on a list of harddrive producers, the important info is the name of the manufacturer and the type of harddrives they produce. That is what the article is about. Country of origin, website are less important. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of surprises, we have now gone from a complaint that it's not okay to turn the plain-text Amp Inc. into an external link like [http://www.ampinc.com/ AMP Inc.], to an implicit claim that, if there exist two columns with valid, encyclopedic content, that someone has banned merging the contents of those two columns. There's probably a name for that somewhere in the List of fallacies. I don't think that Moving the goalposts is quite the right thing. "Refuses to take yes for an answer", maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, we are moving into the territory of:

• GS Nanotech[20] from Russia does not manufacture hard disk drives, flash memory, RAM-based SSDs and Flash memory controllers, but produces Flash-based SSDs

Turning the table back into a plain list so that it is more compact. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe just "GS Nanotech[20] from Russia produces Flash-based SSDs^[1]"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And that makes me wonder all over again why any of these list entries should have an external link at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, WP:NOTYELLOW is not enough for that? Or first weed out the ones that fail WP:LISTCOMPANY, find that most are bluelinks anyway that already link to their official website? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, the primary source is not always enough ... On some lists, an independent source is needed, see e.g WP:LSC and WP:LISTCOMPANY, verifiable existence alone Is not enough, you need proof of relevance. (That criterion is often used to filter out spam: yes, your hobby project exists, but does anyone care to talk about it, is it in use somewhere notable, etc.? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, and, the link for Amp Inc was the one that is currently in the article. I agree though, seen the description I gave to the column, it would be better specific. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra WhatamIdoing Evnik and Izno I've been busy on another project that will keep me from substantial editing until Sunday. It appears to me that the issues with external links in lists, whether text lists or table lists include the formatting issues raised in the recent RFC below in addition to the more fundamental question as to what primary or secondary sources are appropriate for inclusion in a line of a list. I'd like to summarize the issues and see if we can come up with an RFC on this broader issue so I'd appreciate holding off until I've had my chance to summarize. Tom94022 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of holding off. This is not an emergency. We're moving forward with the unrelated RFC (which is purely about what wikitext you type to get a desirable link onto a page, and has nothing to do with whether the link is desirable), and it would IMO be best to hold this question until after that one is finished (i.e., probably in September). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, that would not be an RfC for here. This is formatting with respect to external links, not the notability/worth mentioning part of lists. That belongs elsewhere. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It turns out my project went well beyond Sunday and it is going to take me some time to summarize what are the many practices and associated problems with formatting currently practiced in external links in lists throughout Wikipedia at which time we shall see if there is agreement as to the need for an RfC. With regard to where the RfC could go to it seems this article could be appropriate which after all is "External links" and the section in question is entitled "Links in lists" or it could go in WP:Lists MOS:LIST and/or WP:SAL but all should be involved. BTW the arguments in favor of the RfC, below, about formatting of external links of a list within an External Links section of an article are IMO the same arguments to be made in favor of formatting external links in any list. I will get to the summary in the next several days so forbearance is appreciated/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom94022 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Summary

Misleading article title

This article is really about the "External Links" section of an article or section and not about external links in general. Section 4.1 Links in lists is similarly limited. While there are statements as to what the article/section does not apply to, it is confusing and it might be better to retitle the article or rearrange the exclusions to make it clear what exactly the article does cover. Tom94022 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, do you mean "guideline title" instead of "article title"?

Yes I meant "guideline title" - but isn't this guideline an article? :-) Tom94022 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In Wiki-terminology, this is a page—a project page, that is, a page in the "Wikipedia" project namespace. The term "article" is reserved for pages in the article space, the publication of which is the purpose of this project. Largoplazo (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that this guideline is not meant to cover anything outside the ==External links== section. It is meant to cover every URL to any external website except those that are used to support article content. For example, this guideline tells editors that they can't start an article by writing "'''[https://www.official-website.com Big Corp]''' is the biggest corporation..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it certainly is confusing to me. I completely missed both:

• "these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article."
• "This section [Links in lists] does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation to a reliable source for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria"

So we had a lot of inconclusive discussion regarding whether the "Links in lists" section did or did not or should or should not allow in line EL in lists in general. I'm a bit smarter now, but I suspect others might be mislead. Perhaps raising the bolded sentences higher in the sections might help some future editors. Tom94022 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The difficult point is whether editors decide that the links in a given lists are "primarily" sources (e.g., to prove that a named politician is indeed a candidate in that race) or "primarily" external links (e.g., to provide information about the list entry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW WhatamIdoing, does External_links#RFC_on_how_to_format_external_links apply to just lists in External Links sections or to all lists? I really can't figure it out. Tom94022 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed anyone trying to use citation templates in such lists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen any but I wondered about editors using the external link section to list something not linkable, like in a library. Tom94022 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not permitted. You can, however, list such items in a ==Further reading== section (which accepts list entries both with and without URLs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, 'the external link section to list something not linkable'? Can you not see why that does not make sense? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, that RfC is focussed on the external link section, it is not focussed on the list concept. Yes, the external link section is a list, and that section should maybe be excluded when we are talking about lists here (‘lists in the article, except for the list of links in the ==External links== section’). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my point, IMO the summary notes above are persuasive so that if the inline format is good for a list of External links it should be allowed for lists in general. It remains to be seen what the consensus will be on the External links section at which point I shall consider raising the broader question. You may be correct that the place to make changes is in the Links in lists section, but perhaps by expanding its scope rather than retitling it. We have to see how the RfC turns out. Tom94022 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, how you should handle the "link" depends upon what its purpose is. If the "link" in the list is mostly about verifying the content, then WP:CITEVAR applies and WP:LINKROT is a factor. You can toss a dead link from ==External links==, but if you lose your content-supporting sources, you lose article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both your points, and you can toss a dead row/line from a list if because of link rot there is no longer an RS for its inclusion. Tom94022 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Tossing out the names of candidates for election, just because their campaign website closed after the election, would not be considered a constructive edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but i am sure you would agree that there are other lists where eliminating an element would be appropriate if the link rots and nothing can be found to replace it. For example, any "List of current ..." Tom94022 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do any of the Special:Search/prefix:List of current articles contain inline external links that aren't meant to support article content?

You seem to be bringing up a lot of hypothetical scenarios: What if editors wanted full bibliographic citations in tables? What if a link went dead, and it was the only way to verify the content? What if someone wants to link the unlinkable? This guideline has traditionally been limited to real, demonstrable problems that can't be solved by common sense. This isn't the WP:RSP, where people hold huge RFCs over whether to deprecate a source that nobody's using anyway. We don't need to make rules to solve problems that people aren't having. I think it would be more productive for you to focus on the specific problems that you actually have. If you can't figure out how to improve an article, then bring the exact diff to this page, and ask for advice. If it turns out that we don't already know the answers you need, then we'll figure it out together. But let's not worry about problems that we don't have today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I came to External_links#Links_in_lists seeking advice when an editor deleted an item in a list article in the form of SSD Manufacturer A because such in-line ELs Are not permitted by policy. I am actually poking around at various list articles and find there are a whole bunch of different ways of entering a element into a list where the element does not have a Wikipedia entry; please see Problems with format of external links in lists where I have started to add links to specific examples. Based upon my poking around to date I guess something on the order of 10% of list articles have one or more of the variants identified. So when you think of how many list articles there are in Wikipedian, a 10% problem should be large enough to have a discussion about whether an RfC is in order. Tom94022 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, actually, no, I do not agree. Please give me any one example from one of those 'list of current ...' articles where an item should be tossed out because the external link rotted? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

For example: List of computer hardware manufacturers Elements are justified in this list either by Wikilink or by in-line EL with very few references. If an EL rots and no replacement link can be found what would you do? Tom94022 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I looked and looked and looked at that article, starting at the bottom (where the ELs usually are), and it was almost forever before I finally found the two (I really can't see a third) links in the upper 1/4 of the page. But Maxtor should link to Maxtor, and Areca Technology should presumably link to Areca Backup. Et voilà! No link rot problem. So maybe you have a page which is a better example? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, and that is exactly why we should not link like that in lists. As JFP says, it should be Maxtor and Areca Backup. And if they are redlinks they either should be removed (generally the best solution), or they should have a reference to an independent reliable source that shows that they should be in that list. There are a plethora of problems that you induce with having external links instead of blue/redlinks for an item in any form of list. External links do not belong in the 'body' of the article with only few well established exceptions, and in lists they simply have to be used in a very controlled way, as is described in WP:ELLIST. Not to replace a redlinked/non-linked item. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Now, lets entertain the (somewhat hypothetical?) case where a item is linked to the external site of the item. Yes, we now have established 'existence', but existence alone is not enough for inclusion into a list, we also need relevance. Relevance means that either the item is notable (in which case it should not be an external link but wikilinked to the article, but anyway), or that you have an independent, reliable source that is showing notability. We have bots running around making sure that references are protected from linkrot by adding an archive link to the reference (even post mortem in some cases). If the external link of the item goes 'dead', then it is fine, because we have established that it is worth mentioning through the reference (which, even if it goes dead is still fine as there is the archive, 'notability'/relevance is not volatile). Thén there are four options: remove the link, turn it into a text-only (leave reference); remove the link, turn it into a redlink (hope it becomes blue / leave reference); remove the item (why would you, but it is an option), or find the last archived version of the item's external link and link there. Even if it is a non-hypothetical case, what you are discussing is a solution in search of a problem on situations that are discouraged in the first place. And we have not even touched on the 'spamhole' problem here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists have a problem with formatting source citations

The extensive discussion above is just one example of the many different formats used throughout lists in Wikipedia in formatting a citation to a reliable source for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria. While some formats are not recommended in some guidelines their extensive use demonstrates many editors believe them to be appropriate so that a discussion of a revision to the guidelines is appropriate. I have summarized the situation in my sandbox with the intent of posting it to MOS:LISTS after giving Beetstra, WhatamIdoing, Evnik, Izno and any other interested editor an opportunity to suggest improvements there to before posting in the appropriate policy or style articles. Thanks for tall the comments above and any help hereinafter. Tom94022 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, don’t unnecessarily fork this discussion. Opinions were given here, now you rehash the discussion pushing back your preferred format in them, ignoring what the guideline is currently suggesting. Also your collapsing above hides all opinions that were given. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually I seem to recall u are the one who stated this discussion does not belong here; regardless, it's pretty clear the discussion is inappropriate for the Links in list section. It is also pretty clear that this is a problem with most lists. Furthermore, it seems to me a somewhat limited version of the same issue in being debated in External_links#RFC_on_how_to_format_external_links so once that RfC is resolved I will consider raising the broader issue in the appropriate forum. Tom94022 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tom94022, yes, but do that properly. Not hide all comments here and then write up a summary that is a misrepresentation of what is discussed here. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Need clarification

In an unrelated discussion, several people expressed the opinion that they didn't understand #16 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which tells me that we should improve the wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, it mostly means "please don't link to news.yahoo.com". Also URL shorteners, event-related websites that are expected to shut down after the event (although if the event is the subject, then the website can be archived and the archive linked), etc. Basically, if you have a reasonable expectation that the link will be dead in a short (weeks? months?) period of time, then please don't bother inserting it, and thus making work for others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can word the policy to reflect that? As I said, several people (I was not among them) opined that they have no idea what the current wording means. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The text of WP:ELNO#EL16 says "Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time."

I'm having trouble imagining what's unclear about it. Does the site function reliably, or will a lot of readers get error messages when they click that link (e.g., due to poor site maintenance, due to the Slashdot effect, or any other reason)? Do you expect the site to break soon? Is this temporary content? Is the link likely to stop working soon? (Should you be making a note in your calendar to come back in a few weeks/after the event/after the etc. to remove this link?) It doesn't sound that complicated to me.

Would you like to share a link to the original discussion? Maybe there's something in that discussion that would make the source of the confusion clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had linked to it.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Pre-RFC: Minor change to LINKSTOAVOID and ELOFFICIAL

• "Question: How do you define temporary internet content?" --Whiteguru
• "Like Whiteguru, I don't know what you mean by 'temporary internet content'." -- Schazjmd
• (After reading this page) "I think #16 is addressing things like drop boxes and test pages" -- SpinningSpark
• (After a second link to this page was posted) "[Oppose] 3 because I am not really sure what that means."

Note that at the beginning I specified "The text of WP:ELNO#EL16" and later once again linked to it. I really do think that this is a case where several editors read this page and could not figure out whar one part of it is talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, a) why was that discussion not advertised here, b) why was that discussion not pre-discussed here? That seems a discussion about a solution in search of a problem. Malware sites are blacklisted by definition, and I would never whitelist that because it is the official link. That proposal is overal so confusing that I don’t really know where to start answering. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion should have happened here. ELNO changes happen a couple of times a year, and almost never require an RFC.

As your proposal involves questions of censorship (i.e., disallowing links to the official websites of notable quacks, notable books, notable films, etc., on the grounds that they contain pseudoscientific content, that part might require an RFC (I recommend holding it here, by the way), but other parts I think we can solve informally for you.

I do recommend that you drop the ban on temporary official links. I think it will produce more problems than it solves, because someone's going to announce that every website for every political campaign is "temporary" and therefore banned under your proposed rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read our article on brainstorming and contrast it with making a concrete proposal.

I have produced evidence that the present wording of WP:ELNO#EL16 is unclear to multiple editors, and hijacking a question about that specific problem does not help us to achieve our stated goal here, which is to discuss possible improvements to the Wikipedia:External links page rather than discussing a brainstorming session that cannot possibly result in any change to this page.

You both appear to have missed the point of having an RfC instead of going straight to an RfC, and in doing so demonstrated why posting a link to the Pre-RfC here would have been a bad idea.

The basic idea behind brainstorming before making a concrete proposal is that the two have completely different goals. With brainstorming (which is what a pre-RfC is) you [A] are purposely not making any decision, [B] are purposely not rejecting any bad ideas, and [C] are purposely entertaining ideas that everyone knows are not going anywhere in the hope that they discussion about them will result in a good idea that is worth putting in the concrete proposal (which is what an RfC is).

In the brainstorming session (the Pre-RFC), you also are purposely not assuming that you will later post a concrete proposal (RfC). Many brainstorming sessions end with "interesting ideas, but nothing that is clearly better than doing nothing so let's leave things as they are". The important point is that a pre-RfC cannot possibly result in any change of policy or even a minor change in wording. That takes an actual RfC. If you preempt the process of brainstorming and treat the brainstorming as if it was a concrete proposal, which you both appear to have done, you often end up with a lower quality RfC or possibly an RfC that should have died during brainstorming. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am not necessarily protesting against the brainstorming, but am against having that elsewhere, and without notifying editors who frequent discussing this guideline.

The ELNO #16 has NOTHING to do with official links. You are combining/conflating things that are not possible to combine in one argument. ELNO#16 is for external links in general that are temporary content. The chance that an official link is temporary is small, and, as an AVOID link not banned. I would be against banning temporary content.

Malware and the like should be banned on sight (and we generally do). In the odd case that that is an official links we IAR and do NOT link to the official site in order to protect the reader.

You pose a question with a link between points that does not exist, people don’t understand (I don’t understand) and then you come here to complain this guideline is unclear. Please rephrase your point and maybe we will all understand. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve tried to add a ‘typical example’: a short-lived Snapchat post. Feel free to improve. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the example. Let us hope that the reader can now understand what #16 is talking about.

I find it difficult to reconcile the actual wording of the page ("Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: [...] Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. A typical example would be a short-lived Snapchat post.") (bold in original) with your claim ("The ELNO #16 has NOTHING to do with official links.") The first four words in the section that you claim have nothing to do with official links are "except for official links". It also contains a link to WP:ELOFFICIAL, which says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided." The page is pretty clear: temporary content that is also an official link is allowed.

Having something that is both temporary content and an official link would certainly be unusual, and in my opinion it may very well be unusual enough that it is a special case that we don't want to WP:CREEP, but it is in no way technically impossible. On the other hand, if (as seems likely) I am going to create an RfC to remove ELNO #3 from the "except for official links" exception, it might be worth looking at what other sections of ELNO don't actually have a "except for official links" exception in practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to pursue the malware question, then you'll want to look at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 28#Official malware for background information. I think that's the last time the subject was discussed at any length. I can add that since that discussion, there has been one instance of an official website being hacked. It was some minor US politician's campaign website. After some discussion, editors at that article decided to stop linking to it and to add a warning note next to the plain-text domain name during the week or so that it took for the site to get cleaned up and off the usual (external) blacklist sources.

Second, you don't normally need to have an RFC to make changes here. This is not a "policy". This is a "guideline". We regularly make changes to it based on nothing more than common sense and ordinary discussions. Honest: You can pretend like it's still 2006, that we're more interested in content than in process, and just talk about the changes you'd like to see, without trying to follow the most bureaucratic process possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Yes, that is what is written here, 'except for .. an official page .... one should generally avoid ...'. If it is an official link, ELOFFICIAL applies, otherwise ELAVOID applies. 'Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, avoid linking to material that only exists to sell a product'. The key word is the first word of that sentence: 'except'. Ergo, ELOFFICIAL has very little (to nothing) to do with ELAVOID, they do not apply at the same time (then it would have said 'avoid links to material that only exists to sell a product even if it is the official website').

The malware question is one worth pursuing, and not in line with (my or) current practice: I will meta blacklist them when confirmed (and possibly do that before confirmed until rebutted). Then ELNEVER applies. Protect the reader. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC on how to format external links

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Supporters observe that proscription of citation templates in the external links section will avoid inclusion of extraneous information and promote inclusion of desired information, promote consistent formatting, and eliminate ambiguity. Opponents believe a guideline change is unneeded because these ends can be achieved through copy editing and discussion, that citation templates promote their own consistency, or that some information from citation templates may be desirable in external links sections. I take notice that citation templates like Template:Cite web are documented as being "used to create citations", that entries in external links sections are not citations, and that the external links section is differentiated from the further reading section, at least to some extent, in this way. I find the overall consensus and the weight of the arguments supports the proposed change, and the guideline, template documentation, and other relevant pages should be updated accordingly. As to the degree of the language, there seems to be greater support for prohibition, but (if I might be so bold as to suggest a compromise) I suggest "Citations templates should not be used" (or similar) (emphasis for illustration only) as being something between "do not" or "must not" on the one hand, and "strongly discouraged" on the other, and better reflects the role of a guideline as stating best practices. Bsherr (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The Wikipedia:External links guideline provides advice about how external links should normally be formatted. Most editors use external link templates such {{official website}} or {{IMDb title}}, or simple formatting, such as [https://www.example.com Official website]. A few editors have recently been converting these links to Wikipedia:Citation templates. Should the WP:ELCITE section of this guideline prohibit, or at least strongly discourage, the use of citation templates in the ==External links== section? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Text of WP:ELCITE that could be changed

Current	Proposed
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.	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. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the ==External links== section. Citation templates are permitted in the ==Further reading== section.
Potentially acceptable wikitext under this wording: * {{Official website|https://www.example.com}} * [https://www.example.com Official website] * {{cite web |url=https://www.example.com |title=Official website}} * {{Cite web|title=Example Domain|url=https://www.example.com/|website=www.example.com}}	Acceptable wikitext under this wording: * {{Official website|https://www.example.com}} * [https://www.example.com Official website]
Results of the above: Official website Official website "Official website". "Example Domain". www.example.com.	Results of the above: Official website Official website

Survey

• Oppose – no to prohibit, no to strongly discourage. The guideline already specifies what is desirable and undesirable in an external link. The new wording seems aimed at editors who either don't understand the guideline or don't know how to properly adapt a citation template to meet it. The correct response is to enforce the guideline, not to dumb it down to cater to the lowest common denominator, with the side effect of prohibiting those who have a better understanding of it from following the guideline and doing it correctly. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Mathglot, can you provide an example of how to adapt Template:Cite web to match the normal formatting (e.g., no quotation marks around the titles, no terminal punctuation, etc.)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you explain why you think that question is relevant, especially to Math's comment? --Izno (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

      Sure, Izno. "The guideline already specifies what is desirable and undesirable" and @Mathglot identifies one of the main problems with the current wording that there are "editors who…don't know how to properly adapt a citation template to meet it", e.g., by removing the unwanted punctuation. One solution to [one category of] the complaints would be to provide instructions about "how to properly adapt a citation template". I figured out how to suppress the terminal punctuation but not how to suppress the quotation marks around the title. I'm asking Mathglot how to do that. The options are either (a) it can be done, and therefore this guideline could profitably be updated to provide those directions, or (b) Template:Cite web can't actually be adapted to meet the formatting guidelines for external links, and therefore part of Mathglot's reasoning for opposing this change is invalid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, the use of the citation templates should be strongly discouraged up to a level that they are not used in ==External links== sections. Any links that are formatted like this should be material that is moved to a ==Futher reading== section. Using the citation templates in the external links section gives too much credibility to links and the perceived advantages with maintenance of link rot are not applicable (see e.g. diff, diff and diff. Moreover, it results in the changes to display (vide supra) which are unnecessary. For some links metadata information is of interest, but many typical external links are already wrapped in templates ({{Official website}}, {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}} that can (and probably do) conform to these (and information like access dates are just not necessary in any form on an external link, most are there because they are 'living documents' and do not need to be 'frozen' at a certain time to show that they displayed something at that time). Moreover, citation templates are likely daunting to new editors. If certain metadata is often needed on external links, then a template {{external link}} could be set-up that caters to those needs the information that is needed in external links and control the display of the information for the external link in a unified way in line with what is common in external link sections. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support prohibition on citation templates in external links section I am unfamiliar with reasons why anyone would want to use those templates in that section. It seems like an error makes the link management more complex and also brings no benefit as compared to the conventional process. I am open to hearing why anyone feels that the templates are useful, and I also support exceptions whenever they make sense, but as a default practice using those templates seems like a mistake.
  Also, Support trend toward using {{official website}} to pull link from Wikidata. Most pages with an external links section should have a link to one official website then cross-wiki links to the other Wikimedia project collections. By just putting the "official website" template on an article, that sets up the link to Wikidata without any further input, and I think this should be the near future best practice recommending depending on the rate of Wikidata's development for quality control. If anyone wants to use that template now, then I support that also as a limited experiment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bluerasberry, regarding {{official website}}: it does that. However there are cases where the link is not (yet) on WD, and you cannot expect new editors to understand that practice, there are cases where our local choices are different, and WD is very sensitive to spam without too much control, spammers start to understand that WD is a one-stop-spam-all, with material staying sometimes really long. It is however out of scope here to go into that discussion. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Beetstra: I think talking about Wikidata is in scope because on that right column, I recommend adding the bare {{official website}} template to pull from Wikidata as a legitimate option comparable to any other. I bring up Wikidata because this is a conversation about standardizing external links at scale. I recognize that Wikidata is currently at least as exploitable as Wikipedia, but also, the development of security features in Wikidata is progressing crazy fast as compared to Wikipedia. If we are talking about best practices and what our guides should say, then while I do not think anyone should be automating the changeover to Wikidata now, I think it is fine to manually set up the template as a best practice. I think new users can do this, especially new users who are capable of considering multiple options for external links. I do not expect a fast turnover to Wikidata but if we are going to use Wikidata in 5 years, the time to start planning is now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support prohibiting use of citation templates in the external links section. It will help editors understand the difference in function/purpose between the EL section and (preferably in-line) references, and help discourage over-external-linking. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Over-external-linking most often happens without use of these templates (never mind the ongoing discussion on this talk page about inline external links in lists and the RFC last year). I don't really see how you came to that conclusion. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already indicated above by Beetstra and Blue Rasberry John, AF4JM (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not a link directory—it is not our role to maintain a list of archived or otherwise decorated links to other websites. If an external link ceases to show useful information in accord with WP:EL, the link should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have seen a few cases where archive links were to the benefit of the article. Making it clear the link is an archive is one of the utilities available with the citation templates. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Izno, You do not need templates to have the ability to make it an archive link. Here a dead external link gets an archived link added without being inside templates by a bot. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as policy creep and per personal look in earlier discussions. If we have an editor who is continuing to do this as his (sole) MO, that deserves a strong request to stop or an ANI section, not policy/guideline change. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've personally talked to two editors about this, and got the same "It's not absolutely prohibited and ILIKEIT, so I won't stop" response from both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Beetstra and Blue Rasberry. We'll also need matching updates to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#External_links_section. - MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the proposal. No {{cite web}} templates and promote the use of {{official website}} and wikidata where possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Beetstra and Blue Rasberry. Tom94022 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – no to prohibit, no to strongly discourage. --evrik ^(talk) 02:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No rationale provided for the proposed change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7, this has been discussed repeatedly in the last year or so. See Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39#Converting external links sections to use "cite web" template for one such discussion, and the discussion currently at the top of this talk page for another. Do you have a rationale for accepting/converting links to {{cite web}} in the ==External links== section, or is yours more of a minimize-all-changes vote? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sure. The use of the template provides: (1) Consistent formatting of the links and (2) the ability to maintain the links automatically. For (1), the format of external links is not prescribed, so there is no reason for consistency, which is normally a bane of editing. For (2) this means that Bots will add additional information like dois to make the link easier to access, and will be able to add an archive link when link rot strikes. The argument presented here is that external links should be removed when or before they decay. The claim made above that they must be removed contradicts WP:ELDEAD, which encourages the link to be replace with an archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  So your rationale is that templates provide consistency (to what?), but you don't want consistency, and that you read ELDEAD as "encouraging" links to archived websites. ELDEAD says Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. In rare cases, such as the official website for a notable political campaign, it may be better to replace the dead link with a link to an archived copy of the website. I can't imagine how we could make this text seem less encouraging than saying that they're of "no use to Wikipedia" and only in "rare cases" that it "may be" (but also may not be) better to have an archived link. If you want to suggest wording on how to make it clear that dead links and archived substitutes are strongly discouraged except in extraordinary circumstances that apply to only a tiny fraction of articles, I would be happy to hear your suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7, Just regarding point 2: information of the type that has dois is not very common in ==External links== sections (it is common in ==Further reading== sections, and I would argue that if such material is in ==External links== sections it is often better in such a ==Further reading== section). Regarding dead links, there is no reason for a link to be in a template to have an archived version added. In fact: the bot that does that for citations just as well takes plain external links in ==External links== sections and adds the archived link to a dead link. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support this change, so that the community's best and standard practices are reflected in this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Mathglot, the problem is the argument 'but it is not prohibited, so I can do whatever I like'. The current 'editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link' basically even encourages the use of citation templates in the external links, solving problems that do not exist, giving credibility to material that does not deserve it, etc. Beyond IAR there is simply no reason to ever use a citation template in an external links section (and if that IAR is valid, that external link likely belongs in a ==Further reading== section). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Beetstra I reject your argument above, where you wrote:

  The current 'editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link' basically even encourages the use of citation templates in the external links...

  No, it doesn't encourage it, and I don't know where you got that from.

  ..giving credibility to material that does not deserve it, etc.

  No, it doesn't. You're projecting something into the current wording that doesn't exist, in order to argue that the current wording should be changed. The current wording doesn't say imply what you claim it does, and all your conclusions based on that faulty reading, are thus invalid. Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the effect of encouragement and credibility. Links to blogs are changed to cite templates because people think that it displays better, and since it is not forbidden people think there is nothing wrong in implementing cite templates. I see value in making it more explicit that we should not use them there for all the reasons stated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid another issue is people finding something to do. It's easy to visit a dozen articles and change the straightforward external link markup to a citation template with its air of importance. However, that action does nothing other than make maintenance of the external link more complex. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

An external link should present different details than a citation, and a link already used as a reference should not be listed as an external link. In most cases, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more useful than the actual title of the linked page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Because citation templates are meant to provide information in a scholarly fashion, editors who use citation templates in this section should be careful to ensure the resulting description is appropriate for an external link.

I think that this change is broad and over reaching. Instead I think we should go for incremental change like the proposal above. --evrik ^(talk) 17:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are one of the very few editors who enjoys converting normal external links into citation templates, so it's not surprising that you want the guidance to remain unchanged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• One of the users here. You have no real statistics to back up this claim. evrik ^(talk) 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, have you figured out how to use Template:Cite web without getting quotation marks around the title? They're not supposed to be in the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, where do it say quotation marks are not allowed around the title? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is one of the things that we mean by "appropriate for an external link". You've personally said that you want the formatting links to be consistent. They are not consistent when some of them say Official website and others say "Official website". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, Izno, Evrik, Hawkeye7, it's pretty obvious to me what the outcome of this RFC was, but would any of you feel more comfortable if another editor provides a formal summary? I don't want anyone on the minority side to feel like there wasn't sufficient formality around the result, and I'll submit it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if anyone asks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is a major change, so unless this close is "no consensus," please ask someone else to close this. --evrik ^(talk) 00:41, 17 September 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.

Game article and game play external links

An interesting thing happened a few hours ago on a game article that watch. What appears to be a developer of a website that allows users to play the game against another person added their site, before all others, on the page. I reverted because there isn't any useful information about the game at the site. I later checked the other ELs, found that one was a reference and removed it, another was another game play site and removed it, and because there was no heading, created one for the remaining article. The game programmer then edit warred to add it back in and I opened a discussion on the article's talk page. The other editor's presenting point is that Wikipedia allows rich media in ELs. My understanding of that is RICHMEDIA arose form a debate about whether we could have Flash or other interactive content, but where the content was still informative. The other editor's point about allowing links to audio snippets of songs (I also acknowledged that we link to videos of music, but neither of these are in the EL section) and speeches. I realized that we allow links to out-of-copyright books as well. So should game play links be allowed? The game developer also pointed to chess, draughts and go (game) in the discussion. The latter two did have links to game play which I commented out while the chess article did not. I'm sure that there are many other game articles and some may have links to play them while others may not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In general games like chess or the like where there's probably hundreds of different implementations, linking to one over any other should be seen as promotional. If we were talking one specific implementation, that would be a fair link as the case with audio snippets or music video links, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 19:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with linking to an online game (if it's a game that can be played online), but there were other problems in that article:

• That's not the only game being linked in that section. Pente.org is also a game site.
• There was no ==External links== section. These links don't belong in the ==References== section.
• A better link would usually be a online directory of lots of online Pente games, if a good one exists. Curlie is common, but any well-curated page that lists many sites is acceptable. However, sometimes one site is inherently superior to all the others, in which case it's okay to link it directly and skip the rest. The best of these would be a page that includes some sort of unique and detailed information (e.g., photos of the inventor, details about the programming algorithm – anything that might interest some readers but doesn't really belong in the article itself) and "just happens" to also have an online game on it. However, in the more reasonable range, indications of a given link being superior include things like better compliance with the WP:ELNO list (you wouldn't pick an advertising-infested page, one that requires registration, or one that only works in some countries, over one that doesn't do these annoying things).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

IMDb and film reviews

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adding IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic to external links (wherever possible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Should links to streaming outlets be included?

Hey all, I'm trying to get a sense for whether or not links to streaming outlets should be included in the External links section. After seeing what looked like some spam additions, I got a bug up my arse to start cleaning out links to MX Player like what you see at the bottom of this MTV Roadies article, on the basis that they feel rather spammy. Then I noticed the Voot link and that felt doubly-spammy. But I figured I should reach out to the community first about this since there's nothing specifically in the guidelines that discourages streaming site links. If it's not something we want to see, I think we should add it to the list. (And maybe remove MySpace, on account of nobody using it anymore?) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Most such links are in violation of either links to avoid #6 (Sites that require payment or registration) or #5 (objectionable amounts of advertising). If it something like a notable youtuber or youtube video we will tend to link that as an 'official site' though. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions about derivative movie database sites?

I'm sure that even including IMDB in the External links section is probably divisive, but I'll ask anyway: what are the thoughts about other movie database sites like Malayalam Movie and Music Database or Bangla Movie Database, etc? The former one has lots of links at the English Wikipedia, although most look like they're in File space, likely because of the site's Creative Commons licensing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The first doesn't appear to be in English. Non-English sites must be labeled and are not preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, first, IF imdb passes the bar of WP:EL (which I do not believe that it is as often as that it is claimed, but well), then I think that will be the most established movie database and that one should be included. That then excludes the other ones, we are not writing a linkfarm of external sites that tell also something about the movie. For those cases where the other ones are telling something significant and it is not covered then they can be included on a case-by-case basis. Burden is still on the person who wants to include them, and certainly they should not be 'standard' included (or 'because you have imdb, then why not this one as well'). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata probably wants them as "standard", but I don't see much need for them here, especially when they (any/all of them) contain very little information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as long as we don’t get the argument ‘but WikiData has it, so we have to use it’. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC revisit on how to format external links

This post-RFC discussion regarding Wikipedia_talk:External links/Archive 40#RFC on how to format external links occurred on my talk page. The discussion followed from a short revert altercation due to my different interpretation of the close from the proposer's. The discussion still has some activity, suggesting that the outcome may not have real consensus, so I am moving it from my talk page to below this line break. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The RFC's closing summary says "supports the proposed change" in bold-face type. I put in the (actual) proposed change. I was concerned that the closing editor's "suggestion", which was not discussed during the RFC, might be considered too close to a Wikipedia:Supervote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. However, this is a guideline, and the closing admin's comment was spot-on in that guidelines are not policies, they are neither "must-do" rules nor "must not" prohibitions, they are best practices. I felt that the final wording should capture the final judgment in the close. The original wording you replaced already captured that. The wording I substituted balanced the closer's suggestion with the spirit and intent of the original proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The policy at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines does not support your belief that guidelines are neither "must-do" rules nor "most not" prohibitions. It says, in the ==Content== section, that:

"Policy and guideline pages should:

• Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms or dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly they must or should do something."

There is nothing that policy that says "but only use words like must in policies; in guidelines, the best practice is to say should and hope editors will guess that you mean must but are too humble to say so".

The belief that only policies can name "must" (although the statement here is "Do not" rather than "You must not") is called out as a common misconception in Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. WP:EL in particular already contains absolute prohibitions on some types of links, including anything on the blacklist and any page that contains copyright violations. The word must presently appears in that guideline six times, and the phrase do not appears another six times.

Based on your last sentence, I am assuming that you didn't realize that I wrote the proposal for the RFC. Beetstra launched the RFC, but I wrote it. I think, therefore, that if there could be any question about "the spirit and intent of the original proposal", that I am the person best placed to tell you what it is. As for "The original wording you replaced already captured that", I'm not sure what you mean by 'the original wording'. Do you mean the wording that's been in the guideline for years? Or is there some other 'original wording'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything above.

To answer your points:

The wording I used was clear and in line with what you quoted, and it balanced the proposed change with the administrator's close.

My original point still stands, basically, that policies are our rules we agree to abide by, and guidelines are our best practices. My usage of the words "must" in my previous comment were meant to be illustrative of the difference between a rule and a best practice.

You're correct, I took no notice of who wrote the proposal. The identity of the proposer matters less to me than the actual proposition and how it was closed. Pardon my confusion about the original wording, that was an error on my part.

Finally, had I seen the proposal before it was closed, I would have voted against it as being unnecessarily prescriptive. However, since you are the original proposer and you evidently feel that the final outcome should reflect exactly what you proposed and not the actual closing comments, I will revert my change to the guideline. I just disagree that this is an improvement, but I don't have the energy right now to prolong a dispute about something that, ultimately, is of little consequence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that what has been written reflects the consensus or the closing comments. --evrik ^(talk) 02:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: I don't know how to interpret that, because I think you left something out. Do you mean "I do note that..." or "I do not agree that..."? They are opposites. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --evrik ^(talk) 05:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. The closing admin left it open to interpretation, though. My interpretation is different from the proposer's. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A bit late to the party (here because of User:WhatamIdoing's ping). I agree that the proposed change is a definite change, 'do not use' (per proposal), not the (somewhat supervote!d) 'should not be used'. That close is strange in that, the original text was 'should be careful to ensure ...' (my bolding), whereas the proposal was a hard 'do not use', and then we close that with the statement that the proposal passes, but that it should be 'should'. I do note as well that the guideline WP:MOS has 323 times 'not ' (including a space!) in terms like 'Do not use A, An, or The as ...', '... not title case ...', '... do not abbreviate it ...', '... should use the (formal, not colloquial) English ...', 'do not capitalize the word the in mid-sentence', etc., which in all case are definite 'not's (there is a lot of should not in WP:MOS as well). I do not think that it is wrong in a guideline to say what absolutely not to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's good to know. I just disagree that in this case we need an absolute prohibition, and the closing admin seemed uneasy about it as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that "do not" constitutes an absolute prohibition. However, if you'd like to know more about the history, then looking in the recent archives for the several thousand words expended trying to convince just one editor (who voted in opposition to the change) that when several editors had asked him to stop converting existing links to citation templates, that he really ought to actually stop doing this (on many articles – it was not an isolated incident), then you might have some idea why a greater level of clarity was sought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

And lest you think "Eh, just send him to ANI and get him blocked": (1) This wasn't the first editor who thought the existing should statement meant that he could do wholesale reformatting of links over other people's objections, and (b) if it's possible for someone to genuinely misunderstand 'the rules', then I prefer to fix the rules instead of punishing people for not understanding them. I know others have different approaches to that problem, but that's mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, perhaps we should have pinged you before. As you can see, your creative suggestion to replace the existing "should" statement with another "should" statement has produced a disagreement about whether the original proposal is unacceptable. I wonder whether you would clarify whether you meant to say that the original proposal is unacceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I apologize that my comment gave the appearance of a supervote or caused confusion about the outcome. I should have set forth that suggestion as a separate comment outside of the close. There is a consensus that the guideline shall prohibit the use of citation templates in the external links section. The nature of the comment was merely this: Both should on the one hand, and must or do not on the other, indicate an obligation. However, disclaimed by the limit that guidelines are just guidelines, all of these words are synonymous. I suggest "should" simply as a kinder (but still clear and concise) choice of phrasing to implement the result of a discussion that was by no means an avalanche. WhatamIdoing notes above that the phrase "do not" appears six other times in the guideline, however, only three of these are actual uses in the imperative, and they are for: (1) linking to copyright violations, (2) linking to potential libel, and (3) creating "spammy" graphical external link templates. Granting that it is a prohibition, does this issue rise to the same need for "imperativeness" in the language? It wasn't addressed in the discussion, so that's a matter for you all to decide now. (That the prior text of the guideline used should is coincidental, because it is obvious that the prior text did not amount to a prohibition.) --Bsherr (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, not being aware of this post-RfC discussion, I stumbled upon this RfC yesterday, found that the changes in the guideline do not accurately reflect the outcome of the RfC and therefore changed ([21]) the text in WP:ELCITE to use the "should not" phrase instead of "do not" which was clearly suggested in the RfC's closing summary:

"I suggest "Citations templates should not be used" (or similar) [...] as being something between "do not" or "must not" on the one hand, and "strongly discouraged" on the other, and better reflects the role of a guideline as stating best practices".

However, I was reverted by Dirk Beetstra ([22]).

As I see now in the edit history, Anachronist earlier tried to change the wording in the same way as I did now independently.

Even in this post-RfC discussion, Bsherr explicitly stated that it is up to us to decide if the wording should be "should not" or "do not". As Anachronist, evrik and I (and apparently also Bsherr) prefer "should not", while WhatamIdoing and Beetstra prefer "do not", I don't see a consensus on "do not" here at all. Looking at the arguments broad forward in the RfC itself, there is a majority vote pro change, but it is not ground-breaking and both sides broad forward good arguments, so realistically the outcome could have been just as well some form of "no consensus" by another closing admin (as was suggested by one of the participants).

To me, this suggests that we should not go for extremes, therefore "should not" is the preferred wording here. Regarding "or similar" I added "therefore" because it, IMO, better transports the message. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, what do you think that practical difference between "should not" and "do not" actually is? Is there a situation in which you would do something that you were told you "shouldn't", but you wouldn't do that same thing if you were told "don't do that"? Is there a practical difference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, my point is, that WhatamIdoing and I suggested to change the wording 'Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the ==External links== section.', and that the RfC (after 39 days of discussion) 'supports the proposed change' (bolded text). Several of the editors in the RfC !voted 'Support prohibition on citation templates in external links section'. For me the closing remark from user:Bsherr '... there seems to be greater support for prohibition, but (if I might be so bold as to suggest a compromise) I suggest "Citations templates should not be used" (or similar) (emphasis for illustration only) ...' means that we go with the wording as suggested in the RfC, not necessarily with the wording of the (supervote?) suggestion. And there is no reason why we should not use 'do not' in a guideline, our WP:MOS has 77 instances of 'do not' plus 2 in section headers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to revisit the RfC, particularly for the trivia of the question posed. What did the RfC say about using cite templates in external links? The close included "there seems to be greater support for prohibition". Those opposing the RfC didn't event amount to ILIKEIT—most of them just opposed with no reason for why a cite template was desirable. Every day, external link sections are used by passers-by to promote their favorite website (which isn't Wikipedia!). Several of them have learned that dressing up promotions in a template makes the naive less likely to remove the link because the template suggests an official blessing. Regardless of that, the RfC was clear and no more time should be wasted on it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think too few people saw the original discussion. I am open to revisiting this. --evrik ^(talk) 23:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, since your persistence in converting normal external links into inappropriate citation templates was the proximate cause of the RFC, and since it didn't end with everyone agreeing that you could just carry adding inappropriate templates, then I think none of us are surprised that you want to re-open it, or indeed do anything that would let you get back to re-formatting ==External links== sections. I do not have any reason to believe that any further discussion is going to change the overall outcome. Messes like Yevgeny Zamyatin#External links (your most recent edit; you weren't responsible for the whole mess) and edits like these are still unwanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Want to add any more judgement to your post? No. What caused the change in policy was my requesting that the language of the previous policy be clarified. That got turned around into a new proposal that completely reversed the previous policy. A small number if editors made a substantial change. --evrik ^(talk) 14:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the links above, I think that the changes made were positive edits to the articles, especially when the EL section was a mess.--evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, 39 days of discussion was available, 13 editors commented (9 in favor, 4 against), and it was advertised in three places (diff). People had all the chance to comment. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We can disagree. I will note Beetstra, that you are now reverting edits I made prior to this discussion, are you reviewing all my edits? Is that really necessary? --evrik ^(talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, the edits now do not comply with this guideline: ‘do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the ==External links== section’ (and WhatamIdoing pointed to them). And yes, I think it is necessary to make them in line with common practices like {{official website}}, and as I do with many other EL sections that do not comply, it is nothing personal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Spam-related Wishlist proposals

People who follow this page may be interested in the proposals at:

• m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Improve anti spam mechanisms
• m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Overhaul spam-blacklist
• m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers/Discourage External Spam that Exploits Wikipedia
• m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Bots and gadgets/Artificial Intelligence Spam hunter

Please share links to other proposals that you think are related to external links and spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

active violent extremist websites (hate groups)

Moved back to original discussion location: WP:VPPOL#Extremist groups and their URL's per WP:MULTI. --Izno (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

External links in lists of works

I added guidance on use of EL in lists of works based on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works guideline. I did not seek consensus here first because that guideline reflects a consensus already, and because WP:EL appears to be mostly about the "external links" section of an article and the use of such links in running text, neither of which apply to the "list of works" or "publications" section. These links do not appear to be likely to be abused in the way that generic external links are. Please ping me if I made a mistake. -Arch dude (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arch dude: You mean this edit? First, I would fix the capitalization of the second sentence if I were you. Also, I think it's misplaced. AT the vert least, if the contents can be forced into a template, it might make sense to use it. If citation templates start showing up in external link sections after the lengthy discussion held earlier in the year, that advice might be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll fix the Caps and add a note over there that it does not apply to the EL section, but I was actually referring to my additions here, not over there. -Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Arch dude, It could probably use a clarification that links to free copies of the work are desirable, but links to book stores are not. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: That is covered in several related places, but should perhaps be emphasized further. I think the editors that hang out here at WP:EL are more concerned with spammy links and more sensitive to them, while the guys that do the citation templates and list of works stuff are more concerned with formatting the publication information properly. I'm here because I got a question at the help desk that identified a discrepancy between two WP guidelines. I'm not an expert in either area. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Arch dude, is this about Wikipedia:Help desk#External links in publications section?

I'm not sure that the new link to this guideline at MOS:WORKS is entirely correct. Usually, the goal is to match the citation style used for the reliable sources in the article (sometimes omitting the author, if all of the listed works are exclusively by the subject of the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition here, because it seems self-contradictory. If external links should be considered for inclusion in a list (the first edit), then the section on how to format them in that list (the second edit) should apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No standard advice about http vs https

I noticed that we do not have any standard advice about whether a URL should or should not use https by default. It would be my preference to request that if both are available, we should use the unecrypted port unless there is a valid reason to force initial use of the encrypted port. Some sites will not work if you try to reach them using http and those should definitively use https in all instances. Most web servers will attempt to switch over to the secure port if the browser is capable. The main reason I advocate standard (http) protocol is that my employer (and probably many others) uses firewall software that blocks access to secure websites but not standard websites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to lodge an issue with your employer. Decreasing everyone's security (yes, beginning the connection without encryption counts) for employers of this sort is bad practice. We should always prefer the security protocol. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would go farther and say that firewall software that blocks access to secure websites but not standard websites is broken firewall software.

See [ https://https.cio.gov/guide/ ]:

"M-15-13 calls for “all publicly accessible Federal websites and web services” to only provide service through a secure connection (HTTPS), and to use HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) to ensure this.

This applies to all public domains and subdomains operated by the federal government, regardless of the domain suffix, as long as they are reachable over HTTP/HTTPS on the public internet."

Also see: The Federal HTTPS-Only Standard: Necessary and Overdue]. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the software in question isn't broken, it's deliberately made to sniff/track what the employees are doing on company hardware and/or stop them entirely from doing what they will on the Internet. Hence why the HTTPS connections are failing. There are ways to do the same, even in the same hardware on the company side, but companies are fundamentally lazy. Which is still not our problem. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There are five types of websites for this type of firewall. Known and safe. Sites like Google and wikipedia.org fall into this category. Known and unsafe. Porn and other "not safe for work" websites fall into this category. Unknown with suspicious terms in the domain. I will occasionally come across these. The final two are unknown requiring review where the first is that the site is http and has a content description in the response http that allows automated approval requiring only a refresh, and yes, Izno's category is the fifth, where if it is on a secure channel cannot be sniffed by the firewall and will require manual approval. Since these firewalls do not prevent https access for approved sites means that your suggesting that they are controlling or monitoring employee behaviour is Orwellian (or possibly paranoid) at worst. However, Inzo, don't tell me how to address my employer. No Wikiedpia reader's security is compromised by directing them to http://nhl.com. If the reader's browser does not support secure connections there would be no way to downgrade to that connection and it would fail, but for browser all that can, and this is the majority, there is a server-side rewrite to https://nhl.com. No security issues at all. It is the best option.

Realize that some national governments use similar firewalls. If the reader were to go to a previously unknown site the firewall would simply prevent access, and since they went there, they would still get a knock on their door asking why.

Good to know that Federal websites and web services must serve only HTTPS. That leaves a vast majority that do not fall under that requirement, not the least of which are websites and web services run by private industry and other governments.

So while corporate or national firewalls may not be our problem, we have no guidance which protocol to prefer in ELs and I am suggesting that for reasons of accessibility, we suggest that unless there is no http access, that we use it by default. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any http link on Wikipedia if a https link to the same page exists.

---

"Bootstrap MITM (man-in-the-middle) vulnerability is a vulnerability that users and HSTS Hosts encounter in the situation where the user manually enters, or follows a link, to an unknown HSTS Host using an "http" URI rather than an "https" URI. Because the UA uses an insecure channel in the initial attempt to interact with the specified server, such an initial interaction is vulnerable to various attacks (see Section 5.3 of ForceHTTPS)." -- [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797#section-12 ]

---

"What’s the best way to secure an SSL website?

Disable HTTP access to the domain, don’t even redirect or link it to SSL. Just inform the users this website is not accessible over HTTP and they have to access it over SSL.

This is the best practice against MITM and phishing attacks. This way your users will be educated that application never accessible over HTTP and when they come across to a phishing or MITM attack they will know something is wrong.

One of the best ways to protect your application against MITM attacks and phising attacks is educating your users." - [ https://ferruh.mavituna.com/ssl-implementation-security-faq-oku/#_Toc198392036 ]

---

Related: Pineapple Surprise![23][24][25] Remember, anything Troy Hunt can do with his pineapple surprise your IT department can do far easier. And what happens if your CEO thinks he is connecting his laptop or smartphone to the company WiFi but some clever employee or even competitor has set up a pineapple surprise hidden behind a bookshelf and is performing a man in the middle attack?

---

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know an efficient way to find it, but wasn't a bot created which converted all http links to https if the latter existed? Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it['s a mistake, but we should state this clearly in the article and yes, comission a bot to update any links. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

wasn't a bot created which converted all http links Yes, Bender the Bot. Though since a year and a half ago, MediaWiki will automatically change wikitext http URLs to HTML https URLs for known websites per phab:T200745 and related work. --Izno (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

they are controlling or monitoring employee behaviour is Orwellian (or possibly paranoid) at worst I make no value judgement of the company's choice to spy on you and/or change your behavior. My issue is where you seem to think it is secure to allow the connection to HTTP; it is not. Guy was quite nice to provide the links above on the point. Your chosen preference accordingly can be used to decrease general_user's security and should certainly not be the recommendation. --Izno (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got it completely wrong. While China and Turkey may spy on its citizens, that's not the case with most companies using this software and you're simply misrepresenting the facts by twice stating that is what is happening.

No, I never said it was secure so again you're misrepresenting the facts. I said that some readers will not be able to reach secure sites. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

80 percent of major companies monitor the internet usage, phone and email of their employees.[26] If a company has a firewall that doesn't allow their users to access perfectly valid https links (a practice that by an amazing coincidence allows them to do a better job of monitoring employee internet usage) it isn't Wikipedia's job to expose all of our users to potential man-in-the-middle attacks to accommodate that company's poor choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. You clearly did not read what I wrote. I still contest that it is an accessibility issue, but I too am more concerned about man-in-the-middle attacks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited the guideline [27] after confusion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#HTTPS vs HTTP? I had not seen this discussion and didn't mean to bypass it. You are free to revert but I think a clearly stated guideline is best. There is no longer need to mention an old pre-2015 system. I read the old formulation as a convoluted way to say the same as me. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We are at an impasse as to what the advice should be. Walter Görlitz thinks I did not read what he wrote and that this is about accessibility. (There is a difference between not reading something and reading it but disagreeing with it.) I think I read what Walter Görlitz wrote quite carefully and concluded that any accessibility issues need to be addressed by the owner of the firewall who has decided to make some sites inaccessible, not by Wikipedia. I suggest that if Walter Görlitz wishes to pursue this he should post an RfC, which I am convinced will come down overwhelmingly in favor of making https the default for all links with an exception for websites that only support http. I am going to leave it at that and stop debating the issue. Please ping me if an RfC on this is posted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No Guy we are not an an impasse. My interpretation on your misreading came from how you mischaracterized what I wrote. I see what consensus is but recognize that it will cause problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I support PrimeHunter's recent change to the guideline. A clear majority of website traffic is using https: these days (something like 80%, I believe). Blocking secure connections might be defensible in a particularly 'dirty' environment with unusual responsibilities (e.g., school computer systems for use by 12-year-old students), but that will block a lot of traffic (e.g., bank websites).

Using https: does not prevent authorities (e.g., your employer, school, ISP, or government) from knowing which website/domain name you visited. Instead, it prevents them from knowing exactly which page(s) you looked at. I don't worry too much about outsiders being able to tell that a reader went to (for example) a specific newspaper's website, but I really do not see any reason why we need to prefer an arrangement by which authorities can find out which specific news article a Wikipedia editor was reading, so they can decide whether it had "the right" information in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Partially correct. They will even know the pages you visit because it's in the URL. What they will not know is the content of the pages you visit unless they fetch those pages to view them. The only ones who will know all of the content is Google and other trackers. Since most broswers will not allow mix-mode content, they are part of the push behind secure browsing because their tracking is generally done over https. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, No, that's not how HTTPS works. The URL is encrypted as well, all the firewall's operator can see is which server was connected to, and possibly which DNS queries were made if they control that as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the URL is not encoded only the HTTP headers, but I'll trust your expertise and simply say that my experience has been with sniffers to verify that the content is encoded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"The increased use of encryption on the Web is a substantial privacy improvement for users. When a web site does use HTTPS, an ISP cannot see URLs and content in unencrypted form. However, ISPs can still almost always see the domain names that their subscribers visit.

DNS queries are almost never encrypted. ISPs can see the visited domains for each subscriber by monitoring requests to the Domain Name System (DNS). DNS is a public directory that translates a domain name (like bankofamerica.com) into a corresponding IP addresses (like 171.161.148.150). Before the user visits bankofamerica.com for the first time, the user’s computer must first learn the site’s IP address, so the computer automatically sends a background DNS query about bankofamerica.com.

Even if connections to bankofamerica.com are encrypted, DNS queries about bankofamerica.com are not. In fact, DNS queries are almost never encrypted. ISPs could simply monitor what queries its users are making over the network."

Source:What ISPs can see --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

See also DNS over HTTPS. --Izno (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)