Wikipedia talk:External links
|Please do not ask about specific external links here!
Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the External links page.
|This guideline has nothing to do with links to sources that are used to support information in an article. Those questions should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard.|
Sorted by subject:
|Threads older than 25 days may be archived by.|
- Hey Editor2020. We generally shouldn't put external links in article prose at all. You would also not need these sites as a reference, since if your only need is to cite the Bible, you can just reference the text itself without needing a website. You can also pretty much cite as much text as you like, since, barring maybe some theological debates about Elijah, Enoch, and for some Mary, it's probably safe to say most of the writers have been deceased long enough for their contributions to have fallen into the public domain. (And I'm pretty sure resurrection doesn't affect copyright status. :P) GMGtalk 16:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh. I see you mean Template:Bibleverse. Yes, the same as our general policies, you would want to put the template in ref tags, so that it would appear in the reference section of the article, and not in the body as we would wikilinks to other articles. GMGtalk 17:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is I've found a number of cases of alteration or misrepresentation of bible quotes and like to make reader verification easy, but I guess I can make 'em references. Thanks for your help! Editor2020 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Links to iTunes
I am seeing lots of links to iTunes artist and song pages which I remove per ELNO (#5 exists to sell songs, #6 requires iTunes registration and #8 requires and launches iTunes app) and on the general principle that Wikipedia does not exist as a marketing and sales platform for these artists. I often get push back, usually from SPA/PROMO accounts but sometimes from good faith editors. I just want to make sure I am not wrong in this.
On a related note. Is there a common practice for how we handle links to 'Official' music videos on YouTube? Generally I see statements like So and So released Some Video [ref w/link to YouTube] My thought is that this is inappropriate per WP:NOTPROMO and, in general, they should be removed but I would like to get some feedback. Jbh Talk 15:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- If the links to the iTunes Store is in the EL section, remove it. If it's used as a reference, it's possibly valid, but a better source should be found.
- YouTube for artists is questionable. It's usually just promotional and offers nothing encyclopedic, however, we do allow for a YouTube link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that linking to iTunes (which is a storefront here for all purposes) is not appropriate. A YT/Vevo link to an official channel with the video is fine. Mentioning that the video was released to YT is usually not necessary, but if third-party sources note the popularity of the video (eg the viral nature hitting millions of views within hours), that's part of a single's/video's reception that can be mentioned. --Masem (t) 15:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- The YT/Vevo link is only fine if it is either the only online presence of a subject, or the artist has gained a significant part of their notability through said YT/Vevo. Most of these links plainly fail WP:ELOFFICIAL.
- As a reference it is often primary, and that does not necessarily make it worth mentioning. Any secondary reference makes the primary reference obsolete and there is no loss in losing it. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)