Wikipedia talk:External links

Question on subheaders in the External links section

example's permalink

Bit of a disagreement at 2009 swine flu outbreak in Canada#External links, an editor has split the external links into "Canadian" and "International". I'm of the opinion that this is 1) unnecessary because there's only 9 links anyway and 2) tends to give undue weight to Canadian websites. (Brief discussion at User talk:Xeno#Splitting external links section / permlink). Thoughts? –xeno ^talk 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Subsection in external links is almost never a good idea, and it certainly is not in a case like this. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a Canadianized article, the subheader allows readers quick access to Canadianized medical advise about a potentially life threatening influenza. I think that is adequate reason to allow a subheader. Green Squares (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Please see WP:MEDICAL. –xeno ^talk 18:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  It does no such thing. An international site can have in-depth content on hundreds of countries. As for the medical advice part, note the above. We don't do that. This sort of sectioning is unhelpful and deliberately confusing. 2005 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• A subheader in ===equals=== format is usually not helpful (for a variety of reasons), but a header in ;semicolon format (or '''bold''' format ) is frequently useful and is widely used. See for examples the featured articles: William Gibson#External links and Indonesia#External links and Canada#External links and Belgium#External links and Winter service vehicle#External links. Many EL sections can benefit from this style of subdivision. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the guideline already - can we add a mention and example to Wikipedia:External links#External links section? Is there a better/preferred formatting for these subheaders? (;semicolons are meant for definition lists...) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  I had considered this, seeing it in use at another swine flu article, but with the small number of links (and the fact that the canadian links were fairly obvious from their names...), nevertheless, I've implemented this compromise. I agree with adding in some guidance. –xeno ^talk 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have used this as a solution in External links and for complex References sections. If added to the guidance I suggest that it is done with suitable consideration of WP:DIRECTORY and alternate use of Open Directory Project categories when available.—Teahot (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The William Gibson example is terrible. What is a "references" section doing in the external links section. Subsections are normally a very bad idea and should be avoided, both because they are confusing and because any article where the external links are in subsections should have its external links pruned, not sectioned off. Ten links don't need sectioning, and anything over ten links is the vast majority of the time a bad external links section. As for a country-specific section, that's pointless and user-unfriendly. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are sometimes good reasons to subsection links, but I much prefer to see it done with ;A bold text phrase instead of a level three header (that shows up in the table of contents).

For example, you might have links to wildly counterfactual, but highly relevant, websites (WP:ELNO #2 violation) in an article about pseudoscience or a political debate; rather than labeling each of three links "Time Cube supporter website", you can group them by "pro-" and "anti-". More commonly, in medicine-related articles, I find myself splitting links according to "Information" and "Charities" -- which is frequently, but not always, a prelude to deleting uninformative websites that happen to be run by charities. (Happily, if you do this when you're having a spam problem with a specific charity, they often decide that they want to be listed in the "Information" section instead of the "Charity" section, so they start posting links that actually provide information, instead of links to their fundraising pages or front page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

* ...but a header in ;semicolon format (or bold format ) is frequently useful and is widely used.

Agree, sometimes subheaders can be useful in organizing the links to give clarity to the user. I'll not discuss on the better format, whatever experienced editors concur is OK with me. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Harmless redirect?

I can't say I understand the point being made about banning redirect links completely, as explained in one interesting case in the archives (search for "'harmless' redirect"). I think it would be wrong to generalize too much. In the case of redirect pages by www.co.cc in combination with byethost.com , using the DNS option, there is actualy no way to get to the content of the page without using this domain name. In this case, all URLs of the page are shown as "yoursite.co.cc/directory/page.html". Even though this is the case, co.cc are regularly banned. Shouldn't this change? Joostschouppe (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabs and cats

This change adds to WP:ELNO the recommendation that external links should not be included on disambiguation pages or category pages.

This sounds fine to me (and thus I'm not reverting it), but I wanted to start a discussion here to make sure that there were no good reasons to reject this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's consistent with what WP:MOSDAB says. I don't know much about category pages, though. Dlabtot (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a sensible addition. Certainly it's in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and I can't think of a good reason to put an external link on a category page. ELs (appropriate and useful ones, that is) belong in articles, not on navigation pages.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. ~EdGl ★ 20:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent addition. 2005 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... making two guidelines agree avoids confusion. Abtract (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RailPictures.Net photo search result

I'm aware of the guidance to avoid links to search results, such as [1]. However, I feel that this link actually helps, since the BNSF Railway article discusses this specific locomotive and its unique paint scheme (for which I will be adding a reference from Trains). The link shows a number of views of the locomotive, and certainly provides something useful to the reader (as would several free images from different angles, but there don't seem to be any on Flickr or elsewhere). Barring the procurement of free images, is there any way this link can be worked into the text, where it would fit best? --NE2 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

External links shouldn't be placed in text.

You could certainly place a link to the best one under ==External links==, and you might be able to include a hint about searching for others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that external links don't normally go in text. The problem here is that it significantly adds to the reader's understanding, but if it's in the external links section, the reader won't know about it. --NE2 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How come? I just went to the article and have no clue what you are talking about because whatever it is is not in the external links section where it belongs. One photo in external links with a note saying it is one of many seems the right idea. 2005 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about "VMV Paducahbilt in Paducah, Kentucky painted it in a one-of-a-kind "commemorative" scheme, combining SF's "Warbonnet" with BN's "executive" colors of dark green and cream (instead of SF's red and silver)." Someone reading that won't know to scroll down to the external links for photos. --NE2 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you are talking about a reference. It does sound like the statement should be referenced, but how to do or not do that isn't within the scope of this page. 2005 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a reference. I have much better references to issues of Trains. This would be an aid to the reader in understanding the text. --NE2 00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps explanatory text in a footnote? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people will click down to the footnote, especially when the others are all references. --NE2 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If the reader doesn't click down, then perhaps the reader thinks himself to understand the situations sufficiently. But I ran across an article recently that had a different numbering scheme for the explanatory notes: you got ^[1] for refs, and ^[N:1] for notes; it was clear to me which ones were which. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe the reader thinks they'll all be reliable references, which a page of photos is not? --NE2 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Spock.com - pay site, social networking, spam?

We have quite a few links to this people search engine, but take a look at how it works from the links, eg [2] - yes, you can close it with the x at the top left, but the most obvious thing to do I thought was click skip, and that takes you straight to PayPal. We also have an article on this website Spock (website), still in Beta after two years. It's just been purchased by Intelius and is basically a pay social networking site. We have maybe 80 links on article pages [3]. I don't see it as meeting WP:EL and it may be that it should be blacklisted. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Hard to be more worthless links. I don't know how to do it, but the main page shoud be exempted so it can be linked from the article about the site. 2005 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted, or 'gray listed' at XLinkBot? XLinkBot would prevent spam by IPs and new editors, but it can be reverted or placed by experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Inline links to relevant government documents

Are links like the Surface Transportation Board docket links in the last paragraph of BNSF Railway#History acceptable? They relate directly to the preceding text, so they wouldn't work as external links, but are high-quality primary sources for doing further research. It would seem to be roughly equivalent to longstanding use of, for example, {{usc}} in Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. --NE2 23:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No. But you can trivially turn them into refs for the sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have refs already, so there's no need for that. They are useful not as references but as a link to the actual regulatory process. The docket number is useful without the link, and adding the link improves the use to readers (versus making them go to the STB site and search for it). --NE2 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently have this:

The STB released its final rules (STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1)) on June 11, 2001...

which conflicts with the house style and this guideline. You say here that you're providing this link for further information, but not to support a fact in the text. Therefore it falls under this guideline, which does not permit clickable external links in the middle of articles. The fact that you have other refs is irrelevant.

You can fix it, if you want, by changing it to this:

The STB released its final rules (Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1)) on June 11, 2001...

or -- for all I care -- you can delete the link. It just should not be formatted the way it is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the example I gave, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act? {{usc}} has had an inline link for four years. --NE2 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't concern me. Both pages should be corrected, as well as any others that have this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, so if enough other stuff exists, policy should reflect that. --NE2 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed (removed) the RICO links, which was not only deprecated by this guideline, but actively stupid: It took the reader to either section 1961 or 1968 of the code, and skipped sections 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. The much better link to the same website, which was already under ==External links==, takes the reader to the entire statute instead of to just two out of eight sections.

The fact that a small fraction of articles scatter the occasional external link in the article's text does not mean that we should change the guidelines. The vast majority of articles don't use links like this, and the guideline correctly recommends the view of the vast majority of editors in the vast majority of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that removal was correct and my example was bad. My point is that an article may talk about a law or other primary source without being about that source itself. The reader is obviously helped by being given a link to that source. If a transcription was on Wikisource, the standard is to add a link to Wikisource in that section, not in external links. Hence it makes sense to add a link to an STB docket when talking about it. (Yes, the decisions could be transcribed to Wikisource, which would be very pointless, but the submissions by other parties could not.) I place usablity over following guidelines, and you should too. --NE2 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you should start putting guidelines first. We are an encyclopedia, not a link farm or a dictionary, or a bunch of other stuff that would be very useable. There are no reasons to put external links in an article. if they are referencing something fine, if they aren't, then they can go at the end of an article, and if they are off topic, the external link is not encyclopedic. There are lots of things we could do to be more overall useable, including hyperlinking names of people to their own websites who aren't notable enough to have articles. That would increase useability but it certainly is not what we do. 2005 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

These are on-topic official links that clearly help the reader. You should leave if your primary focus is not on producing a good encyclopedia, but on playing games with guidelines. --NE2 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My goal is the best encyclopedia. You just said yours was not. We are not here to help the reader in all ways. We are here to help the reader encyclopedically. Don't play games with guidelines. Put guidelines first, and exceptions second. The other way around is not a good idea. 2005 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're here to help the reader encyclopedically, and providing a link to a quality primary source does exactly that. I put guidelines second, exceptions third, and creating a good encyclopedia first. Your priorities seem to be broken. --NE2 23:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This line of argument is getting kind of silly.

About the general case: This is a guideline. It says "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" at the top of the page. There are good reasons to have occasional exceptions, but it would be beyond silly to re-write the guideline to enshrine specific exceptions that apply, at most, to a very small fraction of situations.

About the specific case: NE2 wanted advice from someone familiar with this guideline about the use of in-text external links, and he got it: in-text links are not appropriate, and IMO he has not advanced good reasons for an exception in this instance. It's not my fault that he doesn't like the advice that he received, but his dislike for it, as evidenced by this continuing conversation, will not change my opinion. What he does with that advice is up to the regular editors of the target page, not me. Note that I refuse to pretend to give NE2 the "authority" to use the link the way he wants to, just to make him go away, because I simply don't have the ability to do so. He asked for advice; I gave him advice. Absolution for a weakly justified exception is not available here. If he was only willing to accept a yes-man response, then he shouldn't have bothered asking the question.

Now: can we stop beating this dead horse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase the question: what's the best way to include a high-quality inline external link such as an STB docket or NYSE listing? --NE2 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about {{nyse}}? --NE2 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's usually in an infobox, which is one of the authorized locations for non-ref external links. More pointfully, why does it matter? That's not what you're trying to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Out of the first ten uses, nine are in the lead. --NE2 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Social networking contradiction

In the links to avoid section, it says in bold at the top before the numbered list that except for if a link is for an official site of the subject, avoid linking the following, one being myspace at number 10. When you read line 10, there is a note that reads that a social networking site may be included if it is the (im assuming one and only) official website of the subject. However, this contradicts the bold writing at the top which says any official site is okay, not to mention how it is redundant to say that an official site is okay to use again just as it says before the list. Since Myspace is a reliable source when it is official according to here, I would suggest that this note be removed or altered to read "...when it is an official website...". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll attempt to spell out the nuances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

EL vs RS

There seems to be some confusion among some Wikipedia editors as to the differences between External Links and Reliable Sources. Does the former need to be the latter? That is, must the content of linked websites satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR in order to be included in an article’s “External Links” section? —76.110.173.70 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. An EL is simply for further related info, official sites, etc. Nothing about them needing to have anything to do with sources, or even be inherently verifiabily reliable (how many movies link to IMDB for instance). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Melodia is correct. This is clearly stated in WP:ELMAYBE #4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This has come up at Talk:Vorarephilia - there are several suggestions for sites to link to, but the links keep getting removed on the basis that there are no known reliable sources on which said sites can be based. GreenReaper (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that just because ELs do not have to be RS, that doesn't mean ELs can be added willy nilly. They still need to meet other criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I would venture the cite that GreenReaper wants to link to is found in this diff, to http://aryion.com/, which allows "artists, writers, or whoever else has a similar interest to contribute material to this community". In other words, it is user-contributed (i.e. wiki-style) fansite/web forum. I see this as quite clearly violations of WP:ELNO points 10, 11 and 12, with no redeeming content provided by scholarly or knowledgeable contributors and therefore not a candidate for an WP:ELMAYBE exception. Vorarephilia has minimal scholarly interest and adding a fansite (and why only one fansite, why this fansite but not all others?) is clearly not in keeping with wikipedia's purpose. Please correct me if I'm wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The most recent suggestion (from others) was actually to link to WikiFur's article on the topic — "a section of a general website devoted to the subject of the article." The link has previously been added by editors and removed by others due to its wiki nature, but I assert that it meets the WP:ELNO restriction at 12 for stability and number of editors (English/global stats reliable to February, we're getting a dump to update them in a few days). I'm sure the editors would love to provide more than one fansite link (several were proposed), but that runs into the problem that all links are being removed. Editors tried to propose what they felt was the most reasonable compromise - a maintained directory of relevant sites hosted by a site they consider to be authoritative in the area - and it has been rejected. GreenReaper (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Wikifur is also inappropriate. Given the dearth of sources, I don't think it could be reliable, and again it will just be a mass of opinion with no more backing than the anonymous user names of the individuals behind the posts. Wikifur also fails to be a "general website devoted to the subject of the article" as it is about furry fandom and not vorarephilia specifically. At best it has a small number of articles about vorarephilia with the same flaws of relying on unreliable sources. ELNO also prohibits wikis (12) and I don't think there is reason for an exception to be made. By my reading (here) the new contributor count has stagnated at less than 1200 for several months, the pages are being updated less than 20 times per month, there are few very active editors, no new articles in the past two months, less than 12K worth of articles (of which, how many link to vorarephilia?), less than 14 edits per article, articles themselves are very small, and still little to suggest there is merit to ignoring the restrictions on linking. What is gained by linking to wikifur? Wikifur gets a link from one of the highest traffic sites on the web, and wikipedia gets a link to an article on a tangential website that does not use reliable sources, does not contain verifiable, quality information, and is essentially comprised of the opinions of a variety of anonymous individuals. I still see no reason to link to either. The actual article cites the very website that I have previously made the case for not including. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, the WikiFur statistics are only accurate until about February, due to Wikia's inability to provide up to date database dumps for their larger wikis. They are working on a a hardware upgrade for this, but until then "recent trends" is exactly what not to look at. Try reviewing past months, or look at recent changes if you are unsure of current activity. The criticism of edits per article is valid in part, but consider our editors' preference for many small articles rather than a larger merged one - there is less to say on relatively small topics, which decreases both article size and per-article edit count. The Simple Wikipedia has similar "issues" and is arguably getting "worse" over time, even as it increases in size. There are about 170 new articles a month; very few are on this topic, but you wouldn't use that reasoning to avoid linking to Wikipedia from another site if it happened to contain the best article around. GreenReaper (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree: WikiFur and aryion.com both fail WP:EL rules and should not be used. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding "fan sites" to the Vor article makes as much as much sense as adding fan sites to the anorexia article - both are mental illnesses with "fans". Adding unreliable fan sites makes no sense in either case. Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lest anyone think I was trying to forge justification for adding inappropriate links, I’ll explain that I asked here because one or two editors rejected the links solely because they failed WP:RS. While there are clearly valid reasons to reject them (see WLU’s post above), that is not one of them, and one should not operate under that misconception. —76.110.173.70 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent. If editors can agree on one or two representative anorexia fan sites, it makes sense to add them to that article as well. As for mental ilnesses, classification as such is only appropriate when it causes problems for the subject (per paraphilia). There's a bias issue there with only covering the clinical definition, although that's a little outside this discussion. GreenReaper (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose pro-ana websites under WP:ELNO #2: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Anorexia kills; it's a disease, not a "difference". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing that the article has no links to websites promoting anorexia, yet about fifty references talking about such sites. If you wish to draw a distinction between topics which cause harm, I guess that's fair enough, if pandering a little to the "pro-life" (vs. death) crowd. Very few people appear to die or even be harmed by vorarephilia, though. GreenReaper (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazon links

Could I please have someone weigh in on this discussion? I'm trying to convince a user that linking to amazon.com in the {{cite book}} template is not something we do. That is the case, is it not? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We link to the ISBN page, which then links to Amazon and many other sites. --NE2 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, point 15. Do try an ISBN link instead. We don't link directly to amazon because they sell a product, and we're not in the business of sending our readers to buy products; neither should we appear to favor them over other vendors. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Anyway, I think the "url" section is typically for Google Books or, if the book is available free online, for that sort of site. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that a link was better than no link. Is there a particular policy or guideline that has this listed out so that I would be able to point it out to others?Smallman12q (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't WP:ELNO, point 15 pretty clear? There's more on this at various points in the Wikipedia talk:External links, but I think "instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site..." is rather emphatic. If you're not convinced, do ask for clarification on that talk page. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It says WP:ELNO says Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools so I assumed we could link in the references tools. Perhaps something about this should be added to WP:Reference? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm only trying to understand where you're coming from as you're the first Wikipedian to point this out to me. Thank you again for your speedy responses.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case I'm misleading you, which I don't want to do, I've asked at Wikipedia talk:External links for outside input. Hopefully this can be clarified. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the main issue with linking directly to the book at a particular site is that it gives preference to that site for anyone who may be interested in purchasing the item being referenced. By using the ISBN number, it improves impartiality and neutrality in the commercial linking, as the user then receives a link to a list of multiple sites from which the book may be available. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I too support the belief that as a non-profit organization, Wikipedia should not be giving preference to certain sites over others. However, as with Wikipedia articles, I generally like to see reliable sources in the form of a policy, guideline, or a discussion where a consensus has been reached. If one cannot be found, perhaps the current policies/guidelines should be amended.Smallman12q (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Biruitorul that WP:ELNO #15 addresses this. I suppose it's a question of how you define and distinguish "tools". To me, a template is not a tool - so a referencing template would not be a tool; instead, I view tools as items such as the ones found in Wikipedia's "special pages" such as Special:BookSources, or external applications such as http://tools.wikimedia.pl/~holek/isbn.php . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.

— WP:ELNO

I interpret sourcing tools as sourcing templates such as {{cite book}} and other citation/reference templates. The other portion states :Links to sites already linked through. What is your interpretation of already linked through? (I'm just trying to gather a thorough consensus=D)Smallman12q (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition-It also say For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, but it doesn't say anything about doing both. I've always thought that as much info in a reference as possible is good. Please comment.Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I suppose it would be more productive to move this conversation to WT:EL, so that the discussion has better visibility to help build a concensus. But on the specific wording, I would view the sourcing tool as Special:BookSources, and referencing templates as mearly convenience methods to link to the tool. I also interpret "already linked through" to mean any source which can be potentially linked via the sourcing tool in the special pages (ie: older books that pre-date the ISBN numbers would not be linkable through the sourcing tool). Note for clarification: by using an ISBN number, a link is automatically created that routes through the Special:BookSources tool. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the conversation above...any comments? (Am I misinterpreting something?)Smallman12q (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If the link is being used as a reference, than WP:EL doesn't apply; see the paragraph starting, "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources..." But I certainly agree that the {{cite book}} url parameter shouldn't add a link to a commercial site where the book can be purchased, it should be used when the book itself is available online. At least one editor also uses the url parameter to link to the book's official site, but this usage is disputed (see related discussion). --Muchness (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bookseller links in cite book. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't decide about this link

This is a map link [4] - which I can't decide about. It's got some advertising and a donation request, plus some maps -- but I can't get it to work properly, particularly in English. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say no - if it's not clearly showing benefits that outweigh its shortcomings (i.e. not in English, not easily accessible), it shouldn't be linked. At best, if specific maps are useful and can't be integrated via images, link to the sub-page as a reference. Generally though sources can be non-English, external links must be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Could someone else consider the contents of Postorgasmic_Illness_Syndrome#External_links? I think the article is fairly likely to survive its AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at it. You've done a pretty good job. The remaining link though - a list of articles at least 4 years old, an ad for a book, and forums and blogs. I don't think it should be there either and have removed it. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"The purpose of this project is to add external links to Wikipedia articles showing them on Google Street View"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Street View --NE2 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of the links repeatedly added to an article, by the editor that has proposed the new project:[5][6][7]

• Conduit Boulevard on Google Street View
  • North end
  • East end

If you're interested, please look at the links and consider presenting your opinion on the proposal page (i.e., not here, unless you want to change this guideline with respect to this idea, in which case I suggest starting a separate section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

add links

Dear webmaster, My name is Ava, I have read your guidelines on external links. I would like to add my links, this is the info：

Title: Home Security Products URL: http:// www. security 2020 .com Description: Security2020, supply various kinds of security products to make your home secure.

Thanks! Any question, please send email to let me know: XXXX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.0.176.57 (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That site would never pass WP:EL rules for inclusion on any article. It's just a site trying to sell stuff. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed ELNO #2 exception

In regards to this revert, it seems to me that the reverted exception accurately describes the usual practice. Creation science#External links, for example, contains links to pro-creationism websites, as do the External Links of other creationism related articles which are not about any specific individual or organization (and thus do not meet the overriding "official site of the article's subject" exemption.) Dowsing#External links includes links to the sites of several dowsing organizations. Biorhythms#External links appears to contain links to pro-biorhythm sites, even though the subject is categorized as pseudoscience. I could probably find more examples. Now, the exception for #2 would not be a freebie, since many such sites would fail other WP:ELNO criteria, especially #5 and #11. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors can ignore all the rules if they need to, but I don't think that enshrining an official exception for "examples" of a viewpoint is a good idea. It's likely to encourage examples just for the sake of having examples.

Furthermore, these links aren't usually (solely) for the purpose of providing an example. You might link to a creationist website because of the organizations prominence, not to provide an example of 'a website by some random people that claim to believe this'. Users can ask Mr Google if they just want examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"You might link to a creationist website because of the organizations prominence, not to provide an example of 'a website by some random people that claim to believe this'." I believe that a "website by some random people" is excluded by WP:ELNO #11. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really: Anyone can create a website that appears to be run by a "real" organization. For that matter, in most parts of the world, a single individual can actually create a bona fide organization, and then start a website. A website for the Society I Made Up Today wouldn't actually fail a "blogs and personal webpages" test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, another criteria is needed to exclude sites with no independent evidence of notability? Your argument still doesn't address the examples I gave above. And to clarify, by "examples" I meant articles whose external links violate the current wording of #2. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The guideline already plainly covers that. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? If you mean ELNO #11, that apparently is not enough per WhatamIdoing's comment above. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere. "neutral and accurate material", "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant", "recognized authority", etc. How can something be by a recognized authority but have no evidence of notability? It's just impossible. This guideline has enough problems with saying the same thing over and over, we don't need to do it again. 2005 (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't think you should add in an exception, especially as the wording would basically make the whole listing pointless as all links to bad info are about the viewpoint being discussed already. If it's misleading info instead of just controversial then we shouldn;t link to it at all. 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is the current practice? (Since guidelines and policies exist to describe rather than dictate.) I'm sure that scientists could point out many, many misleading statements on any creationist website. Does that then exclude them as ELs? Practice seems to say no. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking through the history of this clause, an activity which I have found helpful in other cases where something didn't quite make sense. So far I note this: The issue I raised here, including the very example which I was using was brought up in February 2006. Note the change which was then made. [8] This apparently stood for months but was then partially removed rather inconspicuously and perhaps unintentionally, in a reorganization. [9] PSWG1920 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I now see that the "What should be linked to" criteria were at that time seen as overriding "Links to normally avoid". [10]. "What should be linked to" #4 was in this reorganization apparently seen as covering the "or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view" exception in what is now ELNO #2. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[11] It now appears to me that the concept of "What should be linked" overriding "links normally to be avoided" was subsequently lost, leaving "official site of the article's subject" as the only exception. As far as (what is now) ELNO #2 is concerned, the eventual removal of "or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view" looks to have been an accident, which occurred in the process of multiple large-scale reorganizations. Between that and the fact that the old exception still seems to apply in practice, I think this is grounds for reinstating it. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From above: Excluding "sites with no independent evidence of notability" means excluding nearly every non-official website in the entire encyclopedia. Many appropriate external links will not meet WP:N.

As for the three articles you name above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't invalidate the rule. IMO, the overwhelming majority of articles do not benefit, and could be harmed, from links to misleading or unreliable information, even if the website is associated with a notable person. AIDS denialism should not have links to Thabo Mbeki's government's denialist website, or to Kary Mullis's denialist website, or to Peter Duesberg's denialist website, even though these three people are very clearly notable, and very clearly notable specifically for their prominence in AIDS denialism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In that example, I'm not sure why those links necessarily shouldn't be present in that article, if they're labeled as AIDS Denialist sites. Wikipedia is not censored. But of course it may have been decided there that those links were best left out.

In regards to this, I think I've shown above that the exception in question was originally added as a result of discussion, and then over time was edited out quite by accident. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing, we don't want to have links to unreliable or misleading information. Otherwise, we could have external links that promote the Bates Method or other similar nonsense that is not only misleading, but could hurt people. Dlabtot (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

PSWG1920, you have certainly not demonstrated that it "was edited out quite by accident". You have demonstrated that it was removed in 2006 while other changes were made, but not that the change was accidental. And again: you have 100% opposition at the current time. The fact that some editors in 2006 supported its inclusion, and apparently didn't oppose its removal later, are not sufficient reasons for forcing your choice into the page over the active opposition of 100% of all editors that have responded in 2009. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently its removal was not accidental: It was removed during a long discussion while this page was protected due to edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion link. As best I can tell, it was actually removed a bit before that—but only because it was seen as redundant. Note the language of the version in the discussion you link to. At the top of "Links normally to be avoided": "Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material." From "What should be linked to": "3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." "What to be linked to" was seen here as overriding "Links normally to be avoided", a concept which has since been lost. See also this edit from 22 June 2006, which as best I can tell is when the clause in question was removed. The purpose was not to change the meaning. To sum it up, "unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view" was removed from the restriction in question only because it was seen as redundant. Some time later the concept which had made it redundant, that of one section overriding another, was lost, apparently in another reorganization in about November 2006. This is why it seems to me the ultimate removal was an accident. PSWG1920 (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "lost"? There was a long discussion on the guideline where it was substantially rewritten, and then achieved a level of consensus previously thought to be quite unlikely. Stuff removed was removed for a reason. Redundancy was cut down in some places. 2005 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess "lost" was the wrong word here. To put it another way, "unless ... it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view" was once an explicit exception to (what is now) ELNO #2. Later, that clause was removed from ELNO #2, only because it was redundant to what was at that time an overriding exception. Later, it was apparently decided that that criterion and the others except for "official site of the article's subject" should not trump everything in ELNO (probably a good decision.) What seemed to go unnoticed was that "unless ... it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view" was once specifically associated with ELNO #2 and removed only because it had been redundant to what had become an overriding exception (not because it was rejected as an exception there.) This is why it seems to me that the removal of this exception from #2 was an unintended fluke. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

More examples

See Inedia#External links and Abortion breast cancer hypothesis#External links. Each contains links to four proponents of the respective viewpoints. Both would definitely be considered misleading, from the majority viewpoint perspective. More evidence that ELNO #2 as is does not describe actual practice. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Inedia, but Abortion breast cancer hypothesis suffers from a tendentious editor (IMO) and I do not recommend accepting it as a representative example of anything -- not WP:NPOV, not WP:DUE, not WP:WTA, not WP:BETTER, not WP:EL (fourteen links?!). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples are irrelevant. This is guideline. Exceptions can be made, and also exceptions that most sane people would think should not be exceptions are sometimes brute force made anyway. Beyond that though, ELNO #2 very clearly does describe actual practice. The vast majority of articles don't have or call out links to factually inaccurate content. The fact that some articles do, well, some articles suck in many ways. Rooting those out isn't our mission here. We are here to make a guideline that makes sense, and does follow general consensus. Linking to non-notable nutbag sources is not the norm, even if some articles have such links. 2005 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the argument? I could provide examples "proving" that we link to blatant spam and torrent downloads and anything else explicitly forbidden by WP:EL if a couple of examples of an article doing so is supposed to be proof of anything. Frankly, the "actual practice" argument is always a bad one on pages like this, because it typically means "I was ignorant of the rules and was told I can't do what I was doing and want to continue to do, so now I want to change the rules to match up with my ignorance instead of admitting I was wrong." DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that I gave more examples at the top of this thread.

As for "I could provide examples "proving" that we link to blatant spam and torrent downloads", I think the difference is that those type of links only remain as long as they effectively go unnoticed, and then if they are re-added repeatedly there will more than likely be sanctions of some kind. Not sure that is the case with the examples I cited here. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the examples listed here lead to external link sections that need to be pruned as per this guideline. I think ArbCom recently upheld this point pretty firmly at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#External_links, ruling that Typically, resources that provide neutral and accurate material, but whose contents are - for reason of detail, copyright limitations, or otherwise - beyond the scope of inclusion in Wikipedia, should be linked to. Resources whose contents are ultimately germane for inclusion in Wikipedia ought not be linked, but rather their contents should be incorporated into the article. Resources which are not sufficiently neutral or accurate to stand alone, but which nevertheless provide useful material, should similarly be incorporated into the article, where context and complementary material may be provided to address the problem of neutrality or accuracy. If this is not possible or not appropriate in the circumstances, then the resource should not be linked to. ThemFromSpace 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Refer to external links section?

In cases in which it is tempting to put an external link in the text, but this guideline recommends putting it in the external links section, is it appropriate to put in something like:

...blah blah blah(see External links).

perhaps with the text being hyperlinked to the section?

Thanks, Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to put it in a footnote. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shreevatsa, if the article has, or could easily have, footnotes. I'm not sure that there's a perfect solution in other cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

4 on demand

I'm not sure whether this has been dealt with before, but I'm currently involved in a duscission with a user who keeps adding a 4 on demand link to an article about a recent film on Channel 4 (4od being similar to the BBC's iPlayer). I removed it believing it appears to be in breach of out External link guidelines, particularly those relating to Longevity of Links. I'm interested in gauging the opinion of others on this matter as if I'm correct we may need to cover this issue in the guidelines. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you were looking for WP:RFC or WP:3O?--Otterathome (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I might post a comment there, but this really affects External link policy since lots of programmes are available to watch online for a while after they've been on TV. Do we add them as links given the fact that they're only available for a limited amount of time? BBC programmes can generally be watched for a week to 21 days after they've been shown, and ITV and Channel 4 shows for a bit longer. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requested on individual case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not a web directory, so there's no reason to link to them, especially with them being taken down often, frequently only being available in specific geographic areas, requiring third-party plug ins, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ELNO #2 points to non-existent RS section

We seem to have a problem with the pointer to WP:RS in WP:ELNO #2. RS no longer has a section defining the relevant terms. Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute is the closest I've come, and it's not very close. Does anyone have any good ideas about fixing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good observation. My suggestion would be to remove (what is currently) #2 from the list and replace it with a subsection below explaining how such links are handled. It seems to me that the actual accepted practice here is a bit too complicated to describe in one or two sentences. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We can explain ourselves without linking to another page, so that is all that needs to be done. The text can be pulled from somewhere else, or made up here. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this revert, it seems to me that the actual accepted practice here is less than plain, per the examples in the above thread. I attempted to nuance the text in the new subsection to reflect that. At the same time I got rid of the wording "factually inaccurate material" and "unverifiable research", which link to non-existent explanations. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't need to link to anything. You really should articulate what you are advocating. The existing text is quite clear. Do you not like something about it? if so, what? And then, why? What do you think is a better concept? Once again, forget the examples as they are completely irrelevant. The guideline should say what the guideline should say, regardless of how some random articles are structured. 2005 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, my issue is that guidelines are meant to be descriptive of accepted practice and not prescriptive of such. Therefore examples are relevant, that is, if we can point them out and yet they are allowed to remain despite getting the attention. In my last edit I tried to more accurately describe what seems to be the accepted practice, which is less than clear-cut but definitely not reflected in the current wording. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And the guideline does represent accepted practice. Once again, pointing out a few exceptions is totally irrelevant. This is a guideline for general practices. If some dozens of articles go in a different way because of consensus for that article, fine. 2005 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try a smaller question: Does this guideline need to define what "factually inaccurate" and "unverifiable research" mean? Or is the plain old dictionary definition good enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike "factually inaccurate", as that is subject to a lot of interpretation, as is "unverifiable" to some degree. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No we don't need to define those terms, any more than we need to define every/any term in the guideline. The guideline is not utterly rigid. Editors of different articles will always interpret the fine line of guidelines differently. "Factually inaccurate" is about as clear as it can be, and all but a miniscule amount of articles follow that lead, so it's fine with just the one sentence. It really is approaching CREEP to go much beyond that. 2005 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the (non-existent) "definitions". If we hear of disputes about this, we can address them at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You Tube

The guide indicates that we dont have a specific ban on links to YouTube but doesnt this contradict with links to be avoided #8 in that the user is required to use (and download) external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit of a contradiction. I do not see Flash as an 'external' application, as it is usually installed as a plugin/ActiveX control in the browser, which allows the content to be shown inline. — Edokter • Talk • 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore that, see Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_24#.22Emerging_markets.22_penetration_of_Flash_players. But youtube links are rarely appropriate anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ELNO #8 is specifically concerned with direct links (to www.com/something.f4v instead of www.com/something.html) because that could be incredibly confusing to a user and leave them with absolutely nothing (whereas a page with an embedded video might contain, e.g., a bit of descriptive text that is readable without the special software), although you're right that in most cases the "direct" and "indirect" links are equally useless to the person without the software, and I think the majority of Wikipedia editors interpret that item as broadly as you have.

More importantly, it's ELNO, not ELNEVER. If the editors of an article have good reasons to set aside an ELNO issue, then they can agree to do so. For rich media links, they will probably want to consider all the usual reasons (copyvio? any good content? unique resource? WP:NOT#LINKS?), plus total file size (not everyone has broadband access), accessibility to readers worldwide, and the likelihood that the specific rich media software is installed/functioning for a wide majority of readers. And, yes, large file sizes (even if streamed) and the required software should be noted. There's no good reason not to, and it's friendly to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a specific ban on YouTube, but based upon the standards required for ELs, YouTube links will almost never be valid ones. The fact that this continues to confuse people means the section needed clarification again, which I have attemtped to do. DreamGuy (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy's wording on the project page. And at the same time I have been adding external links to YouTube videos where the video appears to be public domain or uploaded by the copyright owner. I also add "(needs Flash)", even though ELNO #8 does not apply to html pages. For examples see my edits that add old Edison (who died 1931) film clips: [12], [13], and this added several to 1898. I wonder if similar "good" (I hope) examples might be shown on the project page to guide users? An "External link casebook" like the Commons:Image casebook maybe? 84user (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

After a recent discussion with a user contributing YouTube link to their piano performance on a composer page, I had difficulty deciding how to apply the guidance. Good examples would be useful, particularly for such amateur video as though the contributor may say "that's me!" I don't think YouTube has any simple way of officially showing the copyright status. I certainly had difficulty evaluating "for inclusion with due care" as this seems to rely on judgement rather than simply checking a copyright declaration (as you might do with video on Flickr).—Teahot (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the issue is still confusing, my original point was that I cant see anything in my browser without loading an extra bit of software, hence my query about avoided #8. We also have users adding random YouTube links which dont allways add value to the article - although I cant tell as I cant see them! Perhaps some clarification is required. MilborneOne (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

MilborneOne, are these direct links to the video (you will get an entirely blank screen or an error message about not having the software), or do they go to the YouTube page, where the video part of the page is non-functional, but you can (for example) read the title, the name of the person submitting it, and so forth? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No the links I was looking at are on Tengah Air Base go to the description page where I get Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player. I have turned on Javascript for YouTube and downloaded a flash player so I can now see the videos. Point being I couldnt see it without some positive action on my behalf. Not sure most of the YouTube links I have looked at add any real value to the articles assuming that they are not copyrighted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay: These are not "direct links". ELNO #8, if you look at it, is specifically about the importance of avoiding "direct links", not "links to regular webpages that have video on them". Do you understand why ELNO #8 does not apply to these specific links (whose value, of course, may be entirely suspect for other reasons)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - OK I understand the difference but you still need to do something to see the video, the fact it is not a direct link would not be understood by most users. If you link to the holding page and cant see the video it is probably a worthless link as they are not really regular webpages. I would still suggest that the guidelines are looked at again to make it clearer to editors what is allowed although it may be simpler to remove the use of links to YouTube pages or videos mainly as the copyright issues are a minefield. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly discuss them with the other editors at the page. Having looked at a bit of each link, I don't think that we need to worry about copyright, since they are uploaded by a user whose name matches the news service that appears in the videos. However, they don't see to actually be about the air force base itself, and so they probably fail the most basic "links need to be on-topic" requirements. I'd start there with a bold discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Link management and fair play

My two cents about the external links. Something clear have to be done. Some members delete, censor or vandalize (Call it the name you want, depending on your point of view.) the latest external links additions based on this external link policy. That's ok, but it is played fair. If you want by to play by the book, be honest and clean up the whole array in the lists you edit, not just the latest link.

In the trucks and bus articles, BusExplorer.com, HanksTruckPictures.com, Flickr groups and stuff like that are not appropriate and have to be removed as well or undo your deletions. Keep just the corporate links and it would really look as an advertissement edited by the company itself. The credibilty is not only in the rules, but the way they used. --Villager57 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has two and a half million articles. The dozen or so editors that regularly watch this page can't, and don't, watch links in all of them. I recommend that you "be the change that you want to see" on this issue. You're every bit as empowered to do this as anyone else. As for the editors that remove (your?) links without reviewing the old ones: they may be thinking that it's bad, but at least they're keeping it from getting any worse. I'd encourage them to do more, rather than just complaining about them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the external links symbol supposed to be on internal links?

Is the external links symbol supposed to be on internal links? On User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman#Whales I say it is not, Jack Merridew says in certain cases it is.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit explains what the question is about. (Examples are helpful, when you are asking for advice about specific edits. :)

I agree with Jack, that it is unnecessary. It could even be considered confusing, as editors are used to edit-diff links appearing styled as external links. Changing them on a case-by-case basis is a bad idea. Either get the software changed, so that all edit-diffs are styled as internal links, or leave them alone. My 2c. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's doing any harm if editors want to use <span class="plainlinks">[link]</span> markup to suppress the external link arrow on such links in their own comments. In addition to the possible confusion noted above, the main problems I see are that they make them look like interwikimedia links and they add excess code for no particular usability gain. Per WP:TPO, it is certainly inappropriate to edit another user's signed comments to add this code, as you're enforcing a personal stylistic preference not fixing a formatting error. --Muchness (talk)

About my editing other people's comments to remove the external link symbol, in retrospect (this word is probably grossly misspelled, please correct its spelling then remove this notice), I should not have done it, and I apologise. It was in good faith, but stupid.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with not doing so is that it makes internal links look like external links.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an external link symbol. It's a symbol indicating a complete URL, and it's doing its job just fine. pablo_hablo. 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is dabateabule ,and I am pretty sure, that is disputed.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of "a symbol indicating a complete URL"?--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It tells the reader "if you click here, there's a chance that you'll end up at some completely unrelated website."

This is not the right page to discuss the format of links on user talk pages. I don't know what page would be the right one, but I am convinced that this is not it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have just made my point for me, and worded it better then I could. If that is the only purpose, then only external links should have the symbol.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You forget to sign you're post, would you please do so by adding ~~~~ after you're above post.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Until, we can find the correct page this one will have to do--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not forget to sign my message; you replied in the middle of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on the edit page it looked like 2 posts.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It looked like two paragraphs. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to place a sig at the end of every single paragraph in a multi-paragraph message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

and cutting-in like that is disruptive and just plain rude. cheers, Jack Merridew 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if internal links using a full URL should have the symbol or not is, to me, is a secondary issue. The true question that I'm seeing is if it's appropriate to use <span class="plainlinks">[link]</span> to hide the symbol or not. The answer is usually not - and certainly not if it involves editing a talk post made by a different user, or editing a userpage of a different user. The only appropriate time that I see for using it are either on your own user/talk page, or in some header links (such as "click here to create a new section", etc) - but even then, still not on someone else's user space.

This type of thing should not be forced via stylistic tools. If the community should decide that internal full-URL links should be formatted the same as internal links, then that should be submitted as a proposal at the village pump, where if agreed the developers can work on making a change to the mediawiki software to make it happen throughout the wiki.

Oh, and incidentally ... regardless of if the "plainlinks" tag is being used or not, the link is still currently recognized as a full URL by the Mediawiki software - the simplest way to demonstrate this is to have you place the following code in your monobook.css page: #bodyContent a.external { color: #005500 }

Once added, refresh your cache, then all links using a full URL will be in green (including those links using the "plainlinks" tag), while internal links remain blue (be sure to remove this code from your monobook.css page afterwards and refresh your cache again - unless you want to keep full URLs green). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff to an edit of mine, one of a bunch undoing EHC, used an edit summary of “not appropriate” and I was referring to his imposing his view of the link on the comment of another user. The icon in question, external.png (oh, the irony), is named “external” and this name and likely the original intent was for links to off-site. There are of course millions of on-site link that use full urls which are being styled with the icon. Personally, I could support the idea of tweaking the site css to distinguish between WMF domains and the unequivocally external. Part of that discussion would concern non-WMF wikis such as Wikia. The argument that icon is needed to distinguish between internal links and fully qualified urls is weak; they are already styled in different shades of blue; your skin may vary and anyone is free to use personal styling. The implementation of this disambiguation is fairly straightforward and only involves tweaks to the css; modern browsers only, please. No need to change MediaWiki itself.

The larger issue here is what User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman is up to. I noticed him a few days ago having an inappropriate interest in Jimbo’s userpage, followed by this plainlinks nonsense — which he may have picked-up from me, as I do use it in some of my posts. Looking over his talk page and past contribs, I see a long pattern of mildly disruptive editing, and the regular admonishment of those who raise concerns with him as being “too harsh”. So, Emmette seem to be seeking some attention here and folks might want to step back and review the bigger picture, including our chat on his talk page. Emmette, can you hear me now? Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What I am up to is irreverent for the purposes of if the "external links symbol" is supposed to be on internal links. When debating, it it usually best to attack the argument, not the arguer.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

think of it as a holistic approach. cheers, Jack Merridew 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: That anyone who changes the order or numbering in ELNO should be whacked with a wet trout

I see that there have been a few interesting changes recently, since reverted. I want to express my alarm at the idea of messing with the order or number of WP:ELNO (or other similar sections) for any reason less dire than preventing the complete destruction of the earth. I think that sticking new items into the middle of that list is a very WP:TROUTy choice. Efforts to group related items must take second place to the thousands of times that editors have identified issues solely by number when removing or discussing links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MySpace question

I know, and mostly agree with, the EL policy on MySpace links — but I'd note that an increasing number of musical groups now use only a MySpace profile as their main "official" webpage and don't maintain a separate website, with the result that if the MySpace page isn't an allowable EL then there's no longer any valid EL that can be provided for the topic at all. Accordingly, I'm wondering if the policy should be updated to reflect that a MySpace page may be an acceptable EL if it's the topic's primary "official" website. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that already currently the policy? Or guideline or whatever? That hasn't changed recently, has it? DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be accepted practice, but it's not reflected here in the written policy. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. Official sites are the first thing listed in WP:ELYES. MySpace is listed as normally avoided, but things normally avoided aren't avoided if there's some reason to include them. If MySpace is the main official site then we list it, per "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" at the top of WP:ELNO. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not specific or clear enough to suffice; it requires the average reader to infer an intention into the phrasing as written. Most readers of this policy don't have that depth of knowledge and will simply point to the fact that MySpace is listed as an ELNO without even considering whether it's the topic's primary "official" site or not. When the letter of a policy isn't clear enough on what's allowable and what isn't, in my experience, it creates unnecessary conflict that can be avoided by simply making the letter of the policy clearer and less prone to ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a big problem, but if you have a suggestion on how to make it clearer, by all means feel free to suggest one. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat, you shouldn't be having this problem. It's not just at the top of WP:ELYES and in bold-faced type at the start of WP:ELNO, there's a footnote in the specific ELNO item (#10) that directly addresses this issue! If people can't be bothered to read an entire sentence, then I'm really not sure that the problem can be solved through re-writing this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The guideline is quite clear that official sites are not subject to ELNO. We say it in bold right at the start. 2005 (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

MySpace, WP:EL, XLinkBot, ArbCom: Need for consistent, detailed rules

1) Since I do a fair amount of external MySpace link removal, I decided to take a stab at putting all the salient factors together in one place. That includes MySpace links where I don't make a decision at all, lacking information, or if for any other reasons I feel "uncomfortable" about judging the situation. One purpose for this is that a few editors felt they were "getting the run around", when, for clarity, I cited only part of the factors. Here is my effort: [14]. I invited a couple editors to comment, got moderately positive feedback, and was about to ask for more, here.

2) However, a couple days ago, I discovered that XLinkBot is removing *all* MySpace links added by new users and IPs (once only). [15]. I have asked for clarification, because it seemed XLinkBot is working with a different set of rules than I compiled. Especially: "If you are a 'new' editor, different rules apply to you." (I believe the XLinkBot "position" is defensible from a pragmatic point-of-view, but I'm not going to second guess now, let Dirk Beetstra explain when he's back from vacation.)

3) Today however, an angry administrator came to my page asking why I was deleting MySpace pages. Apparently they hadn't seen the recently revised MySpace footnote...so that was all smoothed out. In the process I discovered that *I* had not seen the latest version of the footnote. So I thought: no problem, I'll just go back and update my "compiled guidelines" to reflect the change. Now I'm an unhappy camper, because before the addition of this phrase to the footnote...

"more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites"

...I was secure in defending the removal of a particular MySpace external link. Now I'm afraid to touch them at all, because just about anybody could claim that the "Official MySpace" site has unique content beyond that of the "Official Non-MySpace" site. (A different blog, concert schedules, or background music.) I'm assuming...after all, I may have to explain an edit I made in the past at any time...that what is meant in the footnote is "unique, encyclopedic content".

4) ThemFromSpace seems to be saying something of the kind by citing ArbCom, above: [16]. But that seems to place far more emphasis on getting material from MySpace links into the Wiki article. And none on whether someone is a "new user", for example. None on some situations that I consider in my "compiled guidelines", for example, when there's an official German and an official English page for a German rock group.

It isn't feasible to give the life history of WP:EL to every angry MySpace editor coming to my page! Ok, so there are only a few. But while doing anti-vandalism patrol, the more detailed, complete and resilient our policies and practices, the easier it is to answer an editor with an element of certainty. Regards all, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I like your FAQ about MySpace pages.
2. XLinkBot is just playing the odds, and we want it to keep doing that. If the page is watched, good links will be restored.
3. Updating the footnote to insist on "unique, encyclopedic content" is fine with me. At the time, my primary goal was simply to discourage idiotic muliplicity of links, like word-for-word duplications of content, and URLs whose sole content is "Click here to go to the other site." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)