![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund was recently added to the infobox at Maria Butina and is currently under discussion on the talk page. This seems to be Butina's only official web presence and the editor who added it has argued that it is no different from a link to a political campaign site, however I feel that it's inappropriate to link to a fundraising site which is functionally identical to a GoFundMe page. – dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Remove it. It doesn't meet the purpose of Official websites, and violates WP:NOT as being solely promotional in nature. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
5. Advertising, marketing or public relations.
Just to pile on: From an external links viewpoint, that link does not belong per our external links guideline and our 'What ×Wikipedia is not'policy. Quotes given above.
Note that many subjects do not have an official homepage. Stretching that this the only website that can be considered an official website of the subject is more like looking for excuses than the IAR of WP:ELOFFICIAL was meant to codify. In this case, Wikipedia is better off without the link.
(and lets consider to blacklist it if after this discussion we keep having (new) editors adding it). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
How should a Maria Butina webpage be stuctured to meet you criteria?: Are you in a position for the answer to result in a new official site? If not, then why are you asking? Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Question moved. Sorry about that. Geo8rge ( talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is apparently normal to have massive lists of candidates in the external links sections of election pages, e.g. as seen in this diff. I've cleaned a handful, but there are likely more (and these linkfarms get reverted back in, while these links are clearly indirect, and we are not a directory). Can I have some help cleaningthis? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
And I think that that is a slippery slope. That reasoning is then exactly the same as linking the official websites of all car brands on Car - they are after all the official websites of the representatives of the subject. I think that the community explicitly suggested against that when writing ELNO#13. Except for those living in the country (well, America, it seems) that list there does not add anything for most outside of said country. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, when I look at the situation, here's what I see:
And, on this basis, you declare that there is a consensus to exclude these links, and if I don't agree that an evenly divided group, both sides of which are (plausibly, although IMO not with equal strength) citing policies and guidelines as their justification, counts as a consensus for your side, then you propose... to seek a topic ban for the editor who has responded to more questions on this noticeboard than anyone else since its creation? And not only the most active editor at this noticeboard, but also the guideline itself (I believe that I can fairly claim to have written a third of it) and its talk page? Perhaps you would like to think that over again.
Note, in case it's not been clear, that I've not got a strong view about these links myself. Saying that the overall consensus is unclear to me is not the same thing as saying that I agree or disagree with anyone. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
the mass of experienced editorsThe mass of experienced editors, if we hadn't blocked so many along the way, want to use Wikipedia for promotion. Way too many still do. Consensus is not the will of the masses, a vote, or what editors can get away with. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a news sourceWhile some desire it to be so, it is not per NOTNEWS.
Funny, I deleted some. Check my edit history and you'll see social media links. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@ MAINEiac4434: No, that is not Ronz' opinion, that is the opinion of several editors here, and as it stands currently, the stand of the community consensus of WP:NOT and WP:EL. And again, these external links are NOT a primary sourceforthe subject ofthe article. They are a primary source for the campaign of the person. And in any case, as we have multiple people on each side of this discussion, we clearly do not have consensus for inclusion, so per WP:ELBURDEN and WP:BRD, remove them until we have found said inclusion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Creating a !vote section. Keep the discussion above or create a new section.
;-)
.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)The website link in the infobox of Bitch (magazine) seems to perhaps lead to some sort of phishing scheme when I follow it - but it could just be not loading right on my end. I ran it through a few virus checking tools (that I found through a google search for the like) which did not seem to pick anything up. Does anyone else have any issues when they follow the link? The aforementioned article is one of the DYK on the main page, heightening my concern. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my providing the YouTube link for the this relevant excerpt from the film Koyaanisqatsi will be a problem. I am posting here for experts who know the copyright rules and can tell if it might be a problem.
I also don't if there is a preferred way to provide a reference to an external excerpt like that. I have never added a film or sound excerpt before. If there are guidelines for that, please let me know. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
external links should not be used in the body of an articleper WP:ELPOINTS#2. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
tokyograph.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I reported this on the spam noticeboard but no action was taken. Probably the wrong venue but reposting it here as something needs to be done. Seems this site was once a useful resource for Japanese topics. It has been used in a lot of references, seemingly both for news and as a more encyclopaedic reference, judging from the ways it’s been used.
The problem is the site has gone. The domain is up for sale. Meanwhile it is being used for malware distribution. All the links on the site lead to a site prompting you to download malware (and I would recommend against clicking on them unless you are confident in your OS and browser’s ability to deal with them). I am not sure what to do as there is no obvious replacement. Even adding an archive link normally leaves the link there, and we should remove them, not only to better protect our readers but to stop helping out the malware hosters with many links to their site.
Note this is not a user problem, as far as I can tell. The links seem to have been added in good faith years ago when the site was active.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
|deadurl=unfit
or |deadurl=usurped
in CS1/2 citations. --
Izno (
talk) 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors have been adding Wikimapia in external link sections of articles. Some examples:
{{wikimapia cat|3072}}
(now removed)What is linked are just maps as we already link extensively through a toolserver page by location. Some are (were) plain wrong, when I clicked the link on Royal Dutch Shell I get a map somewhere in the middle of nowhere, 'No objects found ..'.
To me, these links fail our inclusion standards in external links sections. They, generally, do not add anything over what our articles already have (or which could easily be included by using coordinates linked to non-wiki sources). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion about Goodreads here back in 2016 that was rather sharply divided. I've nominated the Goodreads templates for deletion (old ELN discussion is linked there): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#Goodreads Jytdog ( talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Over at the page that I recently created for the death and legacy of Tom Thomson, an author has tried to have a link to his books website put into the External links. Citing both WP:COI and #11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, I removed the link ( twice).
The author started a thread on the talk page taking exception to my removing the link. In particular, he is trying to argue that he is a recognized authority on the subject and so is exempt from rule #11. Here is the #11 cited in full:
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Obviously an individual cannot be the judge of whether or not they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like some help in determining whether or not the web-page should be included. The book he wrote is the following: Lehto, Neil J. (2005). Algonquin Elegy Tom Thomson's Last Spring. New York: iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-59536-132-8. It has not been used in my writing of either the Tom Thomson page, nor the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson (apart from a passing mention in the latter's Popular culture section). The essays have not been used either, both because I have better sources available and because I feel they come across as blog-ish.
Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
To say he has better sources is ridiclous. What are they? That has nothing to do with whether a mere external reference is appropiate. The website in question is http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Essays. Nlehto ( talk) 22:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
What are the objective standards being applied here? He says he has "better" sources? What makes them "better"? To what extent is that even remotely related to whether I might be a notable authority on the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson? I can try to run you off a list but I wonder what the criteria is that might make me notable on such an obscure subject? Unless you know what you are talking about, you can have no idea. He is treating himself as an expert on my notablility without one shred of evidence for doing so, is he not? What objective standard did he apply for doing so? He won't say. First, the many essays on the website discuss many details of the death -- with many references -- that have not reported elsewhere. The essay here http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Chouinard.html cannot be dismissed. It is "better" than the sources he cites. This essay talks about evidence that has not been discussed elsewhere. http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Fraud.html. It is "better" than anything he mentions. Actually, in my view, he wants to scrub away doubts and questions about the artist's death. That is why he moved in into a separate topic. Second, that is probably the source of our disagreement. I would suggest the possibility, based on your talk page here, that I should further edit this topic to add what I know that has not been otherwise mentioned. I offered this approach to him and ended up here. Nlehto ( talk) 22:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
“The mystery around Thomson’s death has never attracted a lot of scholarship,” said Dr. Gregory Klages. “It’s attracted a lot of amateur historians and journalists, however. In the absence of interest from professional historians, untrained historians have led the investigation of Thomson's death, from Blodwen Davies in the 1930s, to William Little in the 1950s and 1960s, to Roy MacGregor and Joan Murray in the 1970s and 1980s to Neil Lehto today."
From the Canadian Mysteries website by Dr. Gregory Klages: "After having surveyed the documents and images on this site, you will no doubt be curious what conclusions other contemporary researchers have arrived at. Not only have our team members offered their own perspectives, but we have solicited the views of some prominent Thomson researchers, including a re-assessment of Thomson’s cause of death from Ontario’s Chief Forensic Pathologist. Each of these reports deals with different aspects of the Thomson mystery. Enjoy! Gregory Klages, Research Director for this site, is a historian, art critic, and practicing artist. He is the author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction (Dundurn 2016). Neil Lehto is an American lawyer and author of Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson’s Last Spring (2005) a hybrid fiction/history book, dealing in part with the death of Tom Thomson."
http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/wa/library/algonquinelegy.html
Film credit in West Wind:The Vision of Tom Thomson
Speaking engagements:
Two-Hour performance at the Leith Church in Owen Sound.
Solo, two hour presentation at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound
Member of panel consisting of Angie Littlefield, Roy MacGregor, David Silcox and Tim Bouma in Owen Sound sponsored by the Tom Thomson Gallery
Joint presentation with Dr. Phil Chadwick at the McMichael Collection in Kleinburg
Joint presentation with John Little at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound this past summer.
Numerous references to my writing in Dr. Gregory Klages, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson
Roy MacGregor, Northern Lights: The Enduring Mystery of Tom Thomson and the Women Who Loved Him. He says:
"I thank Neil J. Lehto, a Michigan lawyer who became fascinated with the Tom Thomson mystery and who wrote Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson's Last Spring after spending years studying the story. Neil and I began exchanging emails when he was writing his book and we continued throughout the research and writing of mine. He used his legal training and his natural skepticism to challenge me at every turn. His was a tough, fair court and I appreciate every discussion we had concerning our mutual passion. we both believed, at all times, that truth mattered ar more than than persona preference." Nlehto ( talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The website link had been part of the Tom Thomson page for years. I don't recall who added it. I was contesting its removal. Nlehto ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I did make a case for inclusion on the article talkpage and the other person referred the dispute here. At this point, although I pass the notable authority test, nobody has offered any objective reason why these website essays would not be useful to readers of the article. They all deal with the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson, subject of the article in which the other person seems barely interested in doing any more than scrapping the surface of all the material available. It is poorly done. I would be willing to accept removal of the External Link if anyone would offer an objective explanation aside from a barebones reference to obscure and ambiguous guidelines. Nlehto ( talk) 20:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So, after reviewing what information I provided, do you retain that opinion? If so, you embarrass yourself in front of the Canadian art community as a non-expert. You could not engage in a debate over the death and burial of Tom Thomson or any of the many unmentioned details of the 1956 dig conducted by William Little at the Mowat Cemetery or what has been learned since then. What you know is rather limited and it skews your judgement. Maybe its because I am from Michigan in the United States. I have suffered regional prejudice with my book. So, do you reject me as a notable authority or not? Nlehto ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Where does this come from? What am I digging deeper into? I understand these guidelines and will comply. The link is directly to the essays, not the book. (I get the claim that it promotes the book. Don't kid yourself about what that is worth? I earned like a few dollars last year from this book published in 2005.) The essays were a response to the reaction I got from Canadians who knew the story and wanted to know more. I enjoy research and I am very good at it. The External Link is to a "site 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. . . . " or other reasons.
For what reasons does the link not fully comply? Nobody has said a word. I meet the author criteria fully. Nlehto ( talk) 22:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books... [and] personal websites... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
Anyway, the only place to determine whether this is a good link to include is to wait for independent editors to comment on a thread on the talkpage. If there is no support there, then it should not be included.
WP:ELNO is about links to avoid, not links to never add. This one does seem to tick some of the boxes on that list (#11 is cited a couple of times above, #1 is likely an other). If independent editors (i.e. not Nlehto) can make a case that this adds substantial information that cannot be included in the article, then inclusion should be considered.
Nlehto, you had more than your share of WP:BOLD edits to include it, you have now to obey WP:BRD (and you started the discussion and made your case), it is now time to step away from that discussion. Do something else. You can still contribute to the prose of the article or other articles related to this subject, improve them, expand them (just use your knowledge, if you wrote a book on the subject, you are aware of sources outside of your self-published information that you can use to do that - and if you really need your self-published material somewhere else, then again start a thread on the talkpage of the article in question). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all who participated in this lively discussion. Nlehto ( talk) 09:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
To what extent is it a good idea to include external links to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles available on wikisource? The question was previously discussed in 2007, 2010 and 2017. I'm bringing it up because there has been a disagreement between User:PBS and me on whether Punjabi language should have an external links entry for wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Panjabi (some discussion at Talk:Punjabi language#Wikisource). This might be an extreme case: the EB article is outdated entirely, and – being a few sentences long – contains less content that the lede of our wikipedia article. However, PBS has apparently been adding such EB link to a large number of articles, so maybe a general discussion is in order.
In terms of guidelines, we've got WP:ELNO, which states we should generally avoid adding external links to:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
A strict reading of this would appear to altogether rule out linking to other encyclopedias, full stop. But on the other hand, I think it's OK to use common sense and add links that will be useful to readers, and that will be so if the external encyclopedia's article is much better than wikipedia's (I've sometimes linked in this way to Encyclopedia Iranica – there are topics on which its articles are better and more detailed than ours are likely to be in the foreseeable future). However, this generally isn't the case for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: most of the time, the articles there are much shorter than ours, and given that they were written over a century ago, it's likely that they will often be outdated. Hence, I would expect that links to EB 1911 should generally be avoided unless the article is much better developed than ours and there are solid grounds for believing it is up to date. PBS disagrees and as far as I can tell their opinion is that the guideline here applies to sites, and given that the site in question is wikisource, we should add links to it as it is a sister project. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We have many links to this site (>5,000). I looked in particular at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20000119/ai_n9537565
which is dead. I found no useful archive on Internet Archive.
Another link from the same article is also dead.
Maybe we should deprecate this site?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
I am working on an article related to 1993/1994 congressional committee hearings across two sessions. If I could point to transcriptions of the hearings, I would use those instead but this was before Congress was digitally enlightened. Fortunately, both sessions were filmed by CSPAN. There are YouTube versions of these recordings by non-CSPAN uploaders. Per CSPAN's terms, its recordings of federal transactions like congressional hearings can be posted online non-commercially as long as they are credited. In other words, these two videos are technically legal uploads. (They don't directly credit CSPAN but CSPAN's logo all over the videos and CSPAN says that's sufficient).
Obviously, these videos are non-free but I would like to include the Youtube links in this article. Are these fair ELs? -- Masem ( t) 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I refer to the recent history here. The external link does not seem compliant to me. And see talk. Is anyone able to offer a second opinion, either way? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the embedded links to YouTube videos added to various sections of this article are appropriate. There seem to be some templates being used for the individual competitions which is embedding links to not only videos, but also to pdf files to various sections of the article, which generally is not really something allowed per WP:ELLIST or WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. The use of embedded citations has been deprecated, so the pdf links might be able to be converted to regularly formatted inline citations, but not sure how that will affect the functioning of the templates. Moreover, most of the links to YouTube are to the competition's official channel and it seems that one link to the channel's main page in the "External links" section should be suffiecient per WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Links to :- http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/ seem to be generating 404's, are these internal intranet links? (They should ideally be marked for archival replacement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareFan00 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently doing extensive work on the Robert Moog article, which has a vast External links section. I could familiarise myself with the rights and wrongs of external links but it's the sort of Wikipedia work I find very dull and I'd rather focus on writing, my strong suit. Could anyone take a look and see how much of the section is kosher? Thanks. Popcornduff ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC in progress here that may of be interest to editors here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are any ELs at List of soccer clubs in the United States as there is no official link for the subject. Any advice would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Spotting this link on a number of cruise ship articles usually claiming its a link to show the ship location but it looks like its primarily book a cruise through us site. Lyndaship ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd be glad of advice on the propriety of the link added here. The recording was made by EMI in the 1960s and I'm not at all sure it's out of copyright. A steer from an editor who knows the rules about copyright and links would be v. gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Again a discussion on twitter, which anyway always go the same way. Is the addition of the twitter, here by User:Pigsonthewing in line with our inclusion standards. The official website of the subject is there, the official website has a link to the twitter, this twitter hence makes the second external link on the page. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?. -
Marchjuly (
talk) 07:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
if the community feels otherwise, then [the] links can easily be re-added; however, at least a few of the arguments in response in favor of re-adding the links seem to be more of " I like it" or " it's useful" types of arguments than not. Even so, if you or someone else feels they should be re-added, then you or they can be WP:BOLD and do so; however, since the article is being transcluded into the main article about the 2020 election, there's more than one article affected which might mean that a broader consensus should be sought. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 01:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Business_case , one of the links claims to be "Official Business Case Template" but leads to this site ( http://www.projectinabox.org.uk/registration/) that is just selling some services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.97.186 ( talk) 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Musixmatch promotes itself as a website with a "lyrics catalogue [that] is created, synched, and translated by millions of contributors from the Musixmatch community. The final version of the lyrics is edited and validated by a team of international curators." [9] Additionally, it asserts "to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics". [10]. However, after going through 50 or more lyrics pages, a large majority do not actually show that they have been verified. So, if Musixmatch were able to squeak by WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12 (open wiki-type sites), should there be a restriction on linking lyrics that don't indicate "Verified by so-and-so"? (assuming of course that the lyrics are properly licensed). — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nivia Zumpano ( talk · contribs) has been adding this [12] to a number of pages in various places. I've been removing it as spam - these are clearly good faith additions but I don't think they are appropriate. This has been described to me as a cultural project to get Brazilian music known around the world. I'd like other views please. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Megan Thee Stallion#External links.
Citrivescence (
talk) 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Greetings:
This concerns the page, "Century 21 Exposition". I added an external link, i.e., this:
A couple of weeks later, somebody reverted it, and it sparked the following exchange:
On what basis did you revert my edits to "Century 21 Exposition"? I am most concerned about the "1962 Seattle" one, because it has a lot of links that surely give people a lot more information about the Expo. My World's Fair page has been praised by bona fide World's Fair historians. There's nothing commercial about it. It doesn't seek donations. Its aim is to inform and give visitors a chance to experience the Fairs, purely. I'm serving the public and giving them an opportunity to learn and enjoy more than the Wikipedia article provides. They read the Wikipedia article, and my page is just as deserving as the other external links, because it gives Wikipedia visitors more. On what basis did you kill it? PaulSank (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@PaulSank: You must follow the External links policy when adding links to articles. Your website should not be linked by yourself without consensus from Wikipedia editors, like those at the EL noticeboard, and needs to follow the stricter guidelines on Conflict of interest and especially the self-promotion section. You are welcome to maintain your fansite, but it would also fall under links to avoid (specifically section 11). If someone else adds your site, then that's better in our view, but otherwise you must recuse yourself from adding your own links. (signature)
@(The other guy): This bit about the EL Noticeboard appears to be made up by you, because it doesn't appear in the other links you have provided here. I don't see anything on the links-to-avoid list that applies to mine. I have no conflicts of interest. And the self pub paragraph starts, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason", and my 1962 Seattle is HIGHLY relevant. So AGAIN, I insist on specifics, ON WHAT BASIS?
PaulSank (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@(The other guy): You have replied to somebody else (below), but you have not replied to me. Good, because it suggests that I have successfully clarified my position. I will now restore my link, because it's highly relevant and useful, and I derive no benefit whatsoever beyond the pleasure of helping people learn more about and enjoy more of Century 21. PaulSank (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@PaulSank: It's not my job to handhold you through the various processes on Wikipedia. I will say this: your attitude so far is more akin to a desperate spammer than someone with the best interest of the project in mind, and I recommend that you try to seek out guidance from the noticeboard or another forum with multiple users who are better versed in COI than I. Your website appears to be a repository of links, which is helpful but not particularly useful, and may also fall under the WP:ELNEVER restrictions on copyright, which is taken very seriously. Please try to understand this site's policies and rules before attempting to re-add your links. (signature)
"Spammer", no way, I have nothing commercial to offer. As for the rest of what you say here, somehow it clarifies the issue better, so yes, I'll now go to the ELN. Thank you.
(end of quote)
What say you? Can I have my rich repository of highly relevant links as an external link, or not? Please make sure you actually look at my section and explore it for at least a few minutes before you judge. I can't even believe I have to have this discussion, because my 1962 Seattle is so highly relevant, offering Wikipedia visitors the opportunity to spend hours and hours in further exploration of the Exposition, and sharing it brings no benefit to me. Thank you. PaulSank ( talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am shocked, appalled, insulted, and highly OFFENDED at all this name-calling! Regardless of the facts, there are nicer ways of expressing oneself than to insult someone personally, e.g., "calling you a spammer". Because I'm so offended, I want to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. I want nothing more to do with a community that hurls insults at people. PaulSank ( talk) 16:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When I go to huffingtonpost.co.uk [14] on my Mac, I get a popup that says the site needs my consent to access my device! I have no idea what that's about, but I sure as hell don't like it.
Sample article: Sheri Jacobson. Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
HuffPost is part of Oath. Oath and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Oath will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products.
Learn more.
Select 'OK' to continue and allow Oath and our partners to use your data, or select 'Manage options' to view your choices."
Regarding the disagreement here, does The Unz Review masthead FAQ assertion that, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them," allow us to link to this article from The Reporter from 1966 as the source of an early use of the term "white genocide"? EllenCT ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|via=
like is often done with sites like
Google Books, etc. The question then might be whether such a convenience link would be OK; it might for a website like "
Newspapers.com", "
Google News Archive", "
Internet Archive" or "
HighBeam Research", but maybe not so much from some kind of personal website hosting the content. Just from looking at
Ron Unz#The Unz Review and other activities, I'm not sure how reliable of a website it would be as a source or how credible it would be even for just a convenience link just based upon what Wikipedia has to say about it; however, if do a Wikipedia search of the websites url, you'll find it being cited in quite a number of articles which might mean it's considered reliable for some things, which in turn might mean it's credible as a convenience link. (Note: This was originally asked about at
WP:MCQ#Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?, but I suggested asking here at ELN since it seems to be more of an EL question than a file upload question.) --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)I am just saying that I do see the value of convenience links to material and that we should use them where ever we can (especially to make material easier to verify), but that does not mean that we HAVE to have a convenience link to material EVERYWHERE (and the same goes for archived copies). If there are no problems with the convenience link, fine, but I do not believe it is a problem if we cannot (or even try to be on the safe side). If there are serious suspicions about a site, then it is just better not to have the convenience link and only 'link' to an (even paper-only) original. I really don't see a problem with that. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the links on the article Rolls-Royce 20/25. I've twice removed them and they've twice been re-added by another editor. I'm looking at the links and they fail multiple points on WP:ELNO. For the first two links, https://archive.rrec.org.uk/ & http://www.rroc.org/
The third link, which was updated to be a little more specific, https://www.fiennes.co.uk/The-Cars/Rolls-Royce/20-25/
I've tried to engage the user who keeps re-adding the links, but they're not listening and no longer replying to the points I'm making and are just reverting. Now I don't wish to get into an edit war here, but the user doesn't seem to get why some links may not be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. So I'm bringing this here to get some more eyes and to see if I'm being unreasonable in my removal of these sites. Looking for opinion. Note: These sites are not linked from any other specific Rolls-Royce sites, it seems the one user has a strong attachment to just this single article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at dankneen.com, used at Dan Kneen (deceased 2018)? I am unsure if it (now) complies with WP:ELOFFICIAL, particularly numbered points 1 and 2. Seems to be ostensibly 'retail/commercial' with a charity status from late Oct 2018.
Extract from Isle of Man index of charities: "To promote in the Isle of Man and elsewhere the relief of persons injured in motorsport events and the families of deceased competitors in need due to ill health, disability or financial hardship. To pomote (sic) public safety in motorsport and provision of improved safety facilities."
Just done an update on the article and unsure if this is appropriate to be shown. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone want to join an effort to clean Professional certification? How vigorously should WP:LINKFARM be applied? For example, IACCP appears three times with three external links in each. Should WP:WTAF be enforced by removing IACCP? By the way, IACCP redirects to International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology which is different from the certification IACCP. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't know if it's enough that the link in this edit was removed in this one, which left a mention of the website rather than a link to the specific copyright-breaching page there. Is revdel required, does the mention of the website need removing, or are we good? 16:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.240.227 ( talk)
There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to La Griffe du Lion ( lagriffedulion.f2s.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § La Griffe du Lion. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct forum for this. There is a discussion [ the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article. The current discussion relates to a hat note which doesn't link to similar titled articles but to a list of external prevention hotlines with phone numbers for users to call if they happen to be suicidal while reviewing this article. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Another editor is insisting that external links be included in the "References" section of Sumner College. These links use reference templates but they're not used as references in the article. He or she claims that these are "general references showing the college exists and has been reported in reliable sources." I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; can someone else please help? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Al Seckel was active mostly 1990-2010 as a popularizer of optical illusions. I am working on the section of his bio about this part of his career, which is in my opinion the only reason he is notable. Seckel's lawsuits, his book deals, the people who say he owed them money, etc. are topics amply covered in most of the article.
Seckel gave talks at TED (2004) and Davos (2011) about optical illusions. [15] [16] [17] @ Ronz: removed this information from the article twice. Although now there is now a sentence that mentions the talks, Ronz then removed from EL the standard TED template, with comment "lots of problems with such links -- borders on linkspam." [18] Many GA include a TED template among their EL. What do others think? HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This [19] been added to Skull and Bones by User:Nocturnalnow. I removed nn earlier version [20] and it was replaced with this one. It's clearly a conspiracy site: "For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups." S&B is indeed a secret society (note]] that I was never a member and although I must have met students who became or were members I'm certain no one ever told me they were - I thought it was all very silly at best. The Bilderberg Group publishes its attendees, I see no evidence that the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission has a secret membership, the Order of the Garter is very public as are of course recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship. There's ohviously a BLP issue as well. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict):::So we ignore the fact that he thinks there's a conspiracy about Rhodes Scholars or Knights of the Garter? We're going to have to disagree about conspiracy theories, they are real and affect the real world, QAnon being just the latest - the first conspiracy theory to have been called a potential source of domestic terrorist by the FBI. This guy's not in that category of course, nor are the conspiracy theories he's promoting. So, we have:
"In addition, although the article isn't a biography it falls under our BLP policy. WP:ELBLP says "In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
So I am trying to restart this sub-section leaving out the pejorative and non-established description of the site as a "conspiracy" site. If that "conspiracy" description is to be accepted then I feel someone must present evidence to show it to be a "conspiracy" site. Nocturnalnow ( talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that Nikkimaria is removing Find-a-Grave as an EL from some (but not all) articles based on the reasoning that there is already a picture of the grave in the article. While pictures of resting places are a feature of that website there is other information available. Of greater concern to me is the precedence this sets in regard to other external links. For example should the links to IMDb be removed from film articles that have a complete cast and production list or from actor articles that have a complete filmography. I've started this thread to try and reach a consensus about this kind of criteria for excluding a website that otherwise meets the guidelines as an EL. If the consensus is to partially exclude a site then IMO that should be added to the instructions at Wikipedia:External links. Thanks ahead of time for any responses. MarnetteD| Talk 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semantic Scholar. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Two users are adding the dozens of links on Divya Dwivedi and making wikipedia as linkfarm. I removed the links as per WP:ELMIN, WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM but users are reinstating it and saying that it is in accordance with the external links policy without citing specific paragraph or specific policy. First one editor did it here, then here and now, they made separate section named further reading and added those same links in which non-notable works, her three interviews' youtube links (she gave only three interviews till now, btw) of her are included. This can be found here. Already section Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#On_External_Links was going on and when editor was loosing debate then he created another section named Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" in which he started whataboutism. Now, there is possibility of edit war, thus, I am not removing it but seeking guidance on few questions.
-- Harshil want to talk? 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Any thoughts about an interesting new template {{ CodeBox}}? See Template talk:CodeBox#External links. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The organization mentioned in
this NYT article (or rather a successor org) is hosting a JPEG image PDF on its website that looks to be a reprint of the article in question, retyped. A link to the image can be found on
this page. The article is used in a citation on the organization's current wiki article.
Is this a copyright violation? Probably. Can fair use be claimed so I can link to that image as an "archive" of the original in a citation on the organization's article? That's my main question. Thanks! Ignatz mice• talk 13:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article, EMD F9 along with other articles I have been working on, I am coming across external links to fan sites containing a repository of scanned copyrighted contents, such as factory workshop manuals that are not old enough to be public domain. Additional, I am seeing citations in many articles in train category that cites unauthorized PDF scans of conferences, documents and manuals hosted on fan sites. I could remove them, but that doesn't prevent others from going back to old revisions to use Wikipedia as a directory to access these sources or reverting them back on. What are the proper procedures for handling such things? Graywalls ( talk) 01:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Any thoughts on these edits at Deepfake? Johnuniq ( talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a this link to a wikia article citing WP:ELNO. Considering the above average level of activity on that wiki, wouldn't this link quality as passing the bar set out in ELNO#12? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I personally find that they should be removed unless a compelling case is made on a case-by-case basis per item # 11 of the WP:ELNO, because http://www.trainweb.org/ by nature is like a weebly, freewebs and tripod of anything railroad related. "Since 1996 TrainWeb has been providing free web hosting to rail enthusiasts and organizations that offer railroad related information and photographs for the enjoyment and education of the public." The #11 of External Links guidelines reads:
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Most notably, "controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited;".
Another editor disagrees, so I want to have wider consensus. This is the disagreement: Special:Diff/929675056. The specific deep link challenged is: http://www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/sd45.htm . Once, there when you go back and click on "go back to rosters" you get an intro message which reads
" This is a list of various diesel rosters compiled on the Diesel Modeler's Mailing List. I began some of these lists myself; lists begun by others are so identified. If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, email me at [<redacted>]. David Thompson"
As far as I'm concerned, it's some rail fan dude cobbling together things for other rail fan dudes and I am not seeing a compelling case for inclusion. I don't find it useful one bit and I don't believe such sources are useful for the average purpose of a general purpose encyclopedia to include order shipment data of each specific train cars and who first bought them originally and Wikipedia isn't a detailed technical catalog for niche groups. That's what those fan sites and technical related sites are for, not wikipedia. Graywalls ( talk) 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
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, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.The details part would seem relevant to this discussion.
Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund was recently added to the infobox at Maria Butina and is currently under discussion on the talk page. This seems to be Butina's only official web presence and the editor who added it has argued that it is no different from a link to a political campaign site, however I feel that it's inappropriate to link to a fundraising site which is functionally identical to a GoFundMe page. – dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Remove it. It doesn't meet the purpose of Official websites, and violates WP:NOT as being solely promotional in nature. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
5. Advertising, marketing or public relations.
Just to pile on: From an external links viewpoint, that link does not belong per our external links guideline and our 'What ×Wikipedia is not'policy. Quotes given above.
Note that many subjects do not have an official homepage. Stretching that this the only website that can be considered an official website of the subject is more like looking for excuses than the IAR of WP:ELOFFICIAL was meant to codify. In this case, Wikipedia is better off without the link.
(and lets consider to blacklist it if after this discussion we keep having (new) editors adding it). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
How should a Maria Butina webpage be stuctured to meet you criteria?: Are you in a position for the answer to result in a new official site? If not, then why are you asking? Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Question moved. Sorry about that. Geo8rge ( talk) 17:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It is apparently normal to have massive lists of candidates in the external links sections of election pages, e.g. as seen in this diff. I've cleaned a handful, but there are likely more (and these linkfarms get reverted back in, while these links are clearly indirect, and we are not a directory). Can I have some help cleaningthis? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
And I think that that is a slippery slope. That reasoning is then exactly the same as linking the official websites of all car brands on Car - they are after all the official websites of the representatives of the subject. I think that the community explicitly suggested against that when writing ELNO#13. Except for those living in the country (well, America, it seems) that list there does not add anything for most outside of said country. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, when I look at the situation, here's what I see:
And, on this basis, you declare that there is a consensus to exclude these links, and if I don't agree that an evenly divided group, both sides of which are (plausibly, although IMO not with equal strength) citing policies and guidelines as their justification, counts as a consensus for your side, then you propose... to seek a topic ban for the editor who has responded to more questions on this noticeboard than anyone else since its creation? And not only the most active editor at this noticeboard, but also the guideline itself (I believe that I can fairly claim to have written a third of it) and its talk page? Perhaps you would like to think that over again.
Note, in case it's not been clear, that I've not got a strong view about these links myself. Saying that the overall consensus is unclear to me is not the same thing as saying that I agree or disagree with anyone. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
the mass of experienced editorsThe mass of experienced editors, if we hadn't blocked so many along the way, want to use Wikipedia for promotion. Way too many still do. Consensus is not the will of the masses, a vote, or what editors can get away with. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a news sourceWhile some desire it to be so, it is not per NOTNEWS.
Funny, I deleted some. Check my edit history and you'll see social media links. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@ MAINEiac4434: No, that is not Ronz' opinion, that is the opinion of several editors here, and as it stands currently, the stand of the community consensus of WP:NOT and WP:EL. And again, these external links are NOT a primary sourceforthe subject ofthe article. They are a primary source for the campaign of the person. And in any case, as we have multiple people on each side of this discussion, we clearly do not have consensus for inclusion, so per WP:ELBURDEN and WP:BRD, remove them until we have found said inclusion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Creating a !vote section. Keep the discussion above or create a new section.
;-)
.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 20:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)The website link in the infobox of Bitch (magazine) seems to perhaps lead to some sort of phishing scheme when I follow it - but it could just be not loading right on my end. I ran it through a few virus checking tools (that I found through a google search for the like) which did not seem to pick anything up. Does anyone else have any issues when they follow the link? The aforementioned article is one of the DYK on the main page, heightening my concern. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my providing the YouTube link for the this relevant excerpt from the film Koyaanisqatsi will be a problem. I am posting here for experts who know the copyright rules and can tell if it might be a problem.
I also don't if there is a preferred way to provide a reference to an external excerpt like that. I have never added a film or sound excerpt before. If there are guidelines for that, please let me know. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
external links should not be used in the body of an articleper WP:ELPOINTS#2. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
tokyograph.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I reported this on the spam noticeboard but no action was taken. Probably the wrong venue but reposting it here as something needs to be done. Seems this site was once a useful resource for Japanese topics. It has been used in a lot of references, seemingly both for news and as a more encyclopaedic reference, judging from the ways it’s been used.
The problem is the site has gone. The domain is up for sale. Meanwhile it is being used for malware distribution. All the links on the site lead to a site prompting you to download malware (and I would recommend against clicking on them unless you are confident in your OS and browser’s ability to deal with them). I am not sure what to do as there is no obvious replacement. Even adding an archive link normally leaves the link there, and we should remove them, not only to better protect our readers but to stop helping out the malware hosters with many links to their site.
Note this is not a user problem, as far as I can tell. The links seem to have been added in good faith years ago when the site was active.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
|deadurl=unfit
or |deadurl=usurped
in CS1/2 citations. --
Izno (
talk) 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors have been adding Wikimapia in external link sections of articles. Some examples:
{{wikimapia cat|3072}}
(now removed)What is linked are just maps as we already link extensively through a toolserver page by location. Some are (were) plain wrong, when I clicked the link on Royal Dutch Shell I get a map somewhere in the middle of nowhere, 'No objects found ..'.
To me, these links fail our inclusion standards in external links sections. They, generally, do not add anything over what our articles already have (or which could easily be included by using coordinates linked to non-wiki sources). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion about Goodreads here back in 2016 that was rather sharply divided. I've nominated the Goodreads templates for deletion (old ELN discussion is linked there): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#Goodreads Jytdog ( talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Over at the page that I recently created for the death and legacy of Tom Thomson, an author has tried to have a link to his books website put into the External links. Citing both WP:COI and #11 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, I removed the link ( twice).
The author started a thread on the talk page taking exception to my removing the link. In particular, he is trying to argue that he is a recognized authority on the subject and so is exempt from rule #11. Here is the #11 cited in full:
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Obviously an individual cannot be the judge of whether or not they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like some help in determining whether or not the web-page should be included. The book he wrote is the following: Lehto, Neil J. (2005). Algonquin Elegy Tom Thomson's Last Spring. New York: iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-59536-132-8. It has not been used in my writing of either the Tom Thomson page, nor the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson (apart from a passing mention in the latter's Popular culture section). The essays have not been used either, both because I have better sources available and because I feel they come across as blog-ish.
Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
To say he has better sources is ridiclous. What are they? That has nothing to do with whether a mere external reference is appropiate. The website in question is http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Essays. Nlehto ( talk) 22:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
What are the objective standards being applied here? He says he has "better" sources? What makes them "better"? To what extent is that even remotely related to whether I might be a notable authority on the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson? I can try to run you off a list but I wonder what the criteria is that might make me notable on such an obscure subject? Unless you know what you are talking about, you can have no idea. He is treating himself as an expert on my notablility without one shred of evidence for doing so, is he not? What objective standard did he apply for doing so? He won't say. First, the many essays on the website discuss many details of the death -- with many references -- that have not reported elsewhere. The essay here http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Chouinard.html cannot be dismissed. It is "better" than the sources he cites. This essay talks about evidence that has not been discussed elsewhere. http://www.algonquinelegy.com/Fraud.html. It is "better" than anything he mentions. Actually, in my view, he wants to scrub away doubts and questions about the artist's death. That is why he moved in into a separate topic. Second, that is probably the source of our disagreement. I would suggest the possibility, based on your talk page here, that I should further edit this topic to add what I know that has not been otherwise mentioned. I offered this approach to him and ended up here. Nlehto ( talk) 22:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
“The mystery around Thomson’s death has never attracted a lot of scholarship,” said Dr. Gregory Klages. “It’s attracted a lot of amateur historians and journalists, however. In the absence of interest from professional historians, untrained historians have led the investigation of Thomson's death, from Blodwen Davies in the 1930s, to William Little in the 1950s and 1960s, to Roy MacGregor and Joan Murray in the 1970s and 1980s to Neil Lehto today."
From the Canadian Mysteries website by Dr. Gregory Klages: "After having surveyed the documents and images on this site, you will no doubt be curious what conclusions other contemporary researchers have arrived at. Not only have our team members offered their own perspectives, but we have solicited the views of some prominent Thomson researchers, including a re-assessment of Thomson’s cause of death from Ontario’s Chief Forensic Pathologist. Each of these reports deals with different aspects of the Thomson mystery. Enjoy! Gregory Klages, Research Director for this site, is a historian, art critic, and practicing artist. He is the author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction (Dundurn 2016). Neil Lehto is an American lawyer and author of Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson’s Last Spring (2005) a hybrid fiction/history book, dealing in part with the death of Tom Thomson."
http://www.skagitriverjournal.com/wa/library/algonquinelegy.html
Film credit in West Wind:The Vision of Tom Thomson
Speaking engagements:
Two-Hour performance at the Leith Church in Owen Sound.
Solo, two hour presentation at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound
Member of panel consisting of Angie Littlefield, Roy MacGregor, David Silcox and Tim Bouma in Owen Sound sponsored by the Tom Thomson Gallery
Joint presentation with Dr. Phil Chadwick at the McMichael Collection in Kleinburg
Joint presentation with John Little at the Tom Thomson Gallery in Owen Sound this past summer.
Numerous references to my writing in Dr. Gregory Klages, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson
Roy MacGregor, Northern Lights: The Enduring Mystery of Tom Thomson and the Women Who Loved Him. He says:
"I thank Neil J. Lehto, a Michigan lawyer who became fascinated with the Tom Thomson mystery and who wrote Algonquin Elegy: Tom Thomson's Last Spring after spending years studying the story. Neil and I began exchanging emails when he was writing his book and we continued throughout the research and writing of mine. He used his legal training and his natural skepticism to challenge me at every turn. His was a tough, fair court and I appreciate every discussion we had concerning our mutual passion. we both believed, at all times, that truth mattered ar more than than persona preference." Nlehto ( talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The website link had been part of the Tom Thomson page for years. I don't recall who added it. I was contesting its removal. Nlehto ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I did make a case for inclusion on the article talkpage and the other person referred the dispute here. At this point, although I pass the notable authority test, nobody has offered any objective reason why these website essays would not be useful to readers of the article. They all deal with the Death and Legacy of Tom Thomson, subject of the article in which the other person seems barely interested in doing any more than scrapping the surface of all the material available. It is poorly done. I would be willing to accept removal of the External Link if anyone would offer an objective explanation aside from a barebones reference to obscure and ambiguous guidelines. Nlehto ( talk) 20:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So, after reviewing what information I provided, do you retain that opinion? If so, you embarrass yourself in front of the Canadian art community as a non-expert. You could not engage in a debate over the death and burial of Tom Thomson or any of the many unmentioned details of the 1956 dig conducted by William Little at the Mowat Cemetery or what has been learned since then. What you know is rather limited and it skews your judgement. Maybe its because I am from Michigan in the United States. I have suffered regional prejudice with my book. So, do you reject me as a notable authority or not? Nlehto ( talk) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Where does this come from? What am I digging deeper into? I understand these guidelines and will comply. The link is directly to the essays, not the book. (I get the claim that it promotes the book. Don't kid yourself about what that is worth? I earned like a few dollars last year from this book published in 2005.) The essays were a response to the reaction I got from Canadians who knew the story and wanted to know more. I enjoy research and I am very good at it. The External Link is to a "site 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. . . . " or other reasons.
For what reasons does the link not fully comply? Nobody has said a word. I meet the author criteria fully. Nlehto ( talk) 22:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books... [and] personal websites... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
Anyway, the only place to determine whether this is a good link to include is to wait for independent editors to comment on a thread on the talkpage. If there is no support there, then it should not be included.
WP:ELNO is about links to avoid, not links to never add. This one does seem to tick some of the boxes on that list (#11 is cited a couple of times above, #1 is likely an other). If independent editors (i.e. not Nlehto) can make a case that this adds substantial information that cannot be included in the article, then inclusion should be considered.
Nlehto, you had more than your share of WP:BOLD edits to include it, you have now to obey WP:BRD (and you started the discussion and made your case), it is now time to step away from that discussion. Do something else. You can still contribute to the prose of the article or other articles related to this subject, improve them, expand them (just use your knowledge, if you wrote a book on the subject, you are aware of sources outside of your self-published information that you can use to do that - and if you really need your self-published material somewhere else, then again start a thread on the talkpage of the article in question). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all who participated in this lively discussion. Nlehto ( talk) 09:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
To what extent is it a good idea to include external links to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles available on wikisource? The question was previously discussed in 2007, 2010 and 2017. I'm bringing it up because there has been a disagreement between User:PBS and me on whether Punjabi language should have an external links entry for wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Panjabi (some discussion at Talk:Punjabi language#Wikisource). This might be an extreme case: the EB article is outdated entirely, and – being a few sentences long – contains less content that the lede of our wikipedia article. However, PBS has apparently been adding such EB link to a large number of articles, so maybe a general discussion is in order.
In terms of guidelines, we've got WP:ELNO, which states we should generally avoid adding external links to:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
A strict reading of this would appear to altogether rule out linking to other encyclopedias, full stop. But on the other hand, I think it's OK to use common sense and add links that will be useful to readers, and that will be so if the external encyclopedia's article is much better than wikipedia's (I've sometimes linked in this way to Encyclopedia Iranica – there are topics on which its articles are better and more detailed than ours are likely to be in the foreseeable future). However, this generally isn't the case for the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: most of the time, the articles there are much shorter than ours, and given that they were written over a century ago, it's likely that they will often be outdated. Hence, I would expect that links to EB 1911 should generally be avoided unless the article is much better developed than ours and there are solid grounds for believing it is up to date. PBS disagrees and as far as I can tell their opinion is that the guideline here applies to sites, and given that the site in question is wikisource, we should add links to it as it is a sister project. – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We have many links to this site (>5,000). I looked in particular at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20000119/ai_n9537565
which is dead. I found no useful archive on Internet Archive.
Another link from the same article is also dead.
Maybe we should deprecate this site?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
I am working on an article related to 1993/1994 congressional committee hearings across two sessions. If I could point to transcriptions of the hearings, I would use those instead but this was before Congress was digitally enlightened. Fortunately, both sessions were filmed by CSPAN. There are YouTube versions of these recordings by non-CSPAN uploaders. Per CSPAN's terms, its recordings of federal transactions like congressional hearings can be posted online non-commercially as long as they are credited. In other words, these two videos are technically legal uploads. (They don't directly credit CSPAN but CSPAN's logo all over the videos and CSPAN says that's sufficient).
Obviously, these videos are non-free but I would like to include the Youtube links in this article. Are these fair ELs? -- Masem ( t) 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I refer to the recent history here. The external link does not seem compliant to me. And see talk. Is anyone able to offer a second opinion, either way? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the embedded links to YouTube videos added to various sections of this article are appropriate. There seem to be some templates being used for the individual competitions which is embedding links to not only videos, but also to pdf files to various sections of the article, which generally is not really something allowed per WP:ELLIST or WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. The use of embedded citations has been deprecated, so the pdf links might be able to be converted to regularly formatted inline citations, but not sure how that will affect the functioning of the templates. Moreover, most of the links to YouTube are to the competition's official channel and it seems that one link to the channel's main page in the "External links" section should be suffiecient per WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Links to :- http://catalogue.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/ seem to be generating 404's, are these internal intranet links? (They should ideally be marked for archival replacement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareFan00 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently doing extensive work on the Robert Moog article, which has a vast External links section. I could familiarise myself with the rights and wrongs of external links but it's the sort of Wikipedia work I find very dull and I'd rather focus on writing, my strong suit. Could anyone take a look and see how much of the section is kosher? Thanks. Popcornduff ( talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC in progress here that may of be interest to editors here. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there are any ELs at List of soccer clubs in the United States as there is no official link for the subject. Any advice would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Spotting this link on a number of cruise ship articles usually claiming its a link to show the ship location but it looks like its primarily book a cruise through us site. Lyndaship ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd be glad of advice on the propriety of the link added here. The recording was made by EMI in the 1960s and I'm not at all sure it's out of copyright. A steer from an editor who knows the rules about copyright and links would be v. gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Again a discussion on twitter, which anyway always go the same way. Is the addition of the twitter, here by User:Pigsonthewing in line with our inclusion standards. The official website of the subject is there, the official website has a link to the twitter, this twitter hence makes the second external link on the page. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?. -
Marchjuly (
talk) 07:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
if the community feels otherwise, then [the] links can easily be re-added; however, at least a few of the arguments in response in favor of re-adding the links seem to be more of " I like it" or " it's useful" types of arguments than not. Even so, if you or someone else feels they should be re-added, then you or they can be WP:BOLD and do so; however, since the article is being transcluded into the main article about the 2020 election, there's more than one article affected which might mean that a broader consensus should be sought. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 01:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Business_case , one of the links claims to be "Official Business Case Template" but leads to this site ( http://www.projectinabox.org.uk/registration/) that is just selling some services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.97.186 ( talk) 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Musixmatch promotes itself as a website with a "lyrics catalogue [that] is created, synched, and translated by millions of contributors from the Musixmatch community. The final version of the lyrics is edited and validated by a team of international curators." [9] Additionally, it asserts "to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics". [10]. However, after going through 50 or more lyrics pages, a large majority do not actually show that they have been verified. So, if Musixmatch were able to squeak by WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12 (open wiki-type sites), should there be a restriction on linking lyrics that don't indicate "Verified by so-and-so"? (assuming of course that the lyrics are properly licensed). — Ojorojo ( talk) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nivia Zumpano ( talk · contribs) has been adding this [12] to a number of pages in various places. I've been removing it as spam - these are clearly good faith additions but I don't think they are appropriate. This has been described to me as a cultural project to get Brazilian music known around the world. I'd like other views please. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Megan Thee Stallion#External links.
Citrivescence (
talk) 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Greetings:
This concerns the page, "Century 21 Exposition". I added an external link, i.e., this:
A couple of weeks later, somebody reverted it, and it sparked the following exchange:
On what basis did you revert my edits to "Century 21 Exposition"? I am most concerned about the "1962 Seattle" one, because it has a lot of links that surely give people a lot more information about the Expo. My World's Fair page has been praised by bona fide World's Fair historians. There's nothing commercial about it. It doesn't seek donations. Its aim is to inform and give visitors a chance to experience the Fairs, purely. I'm serving the public and giving them an opportunity to learn and enjoy more than the Wikipedia article provides. They read the Wikipedia article, and my page is just as deserving as the other external links, because it gives Wikipedia visitors more. On what basis did you kill it? PaulSank (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@PaulSank: You must follow the External links policy when adding links to articles. Your website should not be linked by yourself without consensus from Wikipedia editors, like those at the EL noticeboard, and needs to follow the stricter guidelines on Conflict of interest and especially the self-promotion section. You are welcome to maintain your fansite, but it would also fall under links to avoid (specifically section 11). If someone else adds your site, then that's better in our view, but otherwise you must recuse yourself from adding your own links. (signature)
@(The other guy): This bit about the EL Noticeboard appears to be made up by you, because it doesn't appear in the other links you have provided here. I don't see anything on the links-to-avoid list that applies to mine. I have no conflicts of interest. And the self pub paragraph starts, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason", and my 1962 Seattle is HIGHLY relevant. So AGAIN, I insist on specifics, ON WHAT BASIS?
PaulSank (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@(The other guy): You have replied to somebody else (below), but you have not replied to me. Good, because it suggests that I have successfully clarified my position. I will now restore my link, because it's highly relevant and useful, and I derive no benefit whatsoever beyond the pleasure of helping people learn more about and enjoy more of Century 21. PaulSank (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@PaulSank: It's not my job to handhold you through the various processes on Wikipedia. I will say this: your attitude so far is more akin to a desperate spammer than someone with the best interest of the project in mind, and I recommend that you try to seek out guidance from the noticeboard or another forum with multiple users who are better versed in COI than I. Your website appears to be a repository of links, which is helpful but not particularly useful, and may also fall under the WP:ELNEVER restrictions on copyright, which is taken very seriously. Please try to understand this site's policies and rules before attempting to re-add your links. (signature)
"Spammer", no way, I have nothing commercial to offer. As for the rest of what you say here, somehow it clarifies the issue better, so yes, I'll now go to the ELN. Thank you.
(end of quote)
What say you? Can I have my rich repository of highly relevant links as an external link, or not? Please make sure you actually look at my section and explore it for at least a few minutes before you judge. I can't even believe I have to have this discussion, because my 1962 Seattle is so highly relevant, offering Wikipedia visitors the opportunity to spend hours and hours in further exploration of the Exposition, and sharing it brings no benefit to me. Thank you. PaulSank ( talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am shocked, appalled, insulted, and highly OFFENDED at all this name-calling! Regardless of the facts, there are nicer ways of expressing oneself than to insult someone personally, e.g., "calling you a spammer". Because I'm so offended, I want to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. I want nothing more to do with a community that hurls insults at people. PaulSank ( talk) 16:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When I go to huffingtonpost.co.uk [14] on my Mac, I get a popup that says the site needs my consent to access my device! I have no idea what that's about, but I sure as hell don't like it.
Sample article: Sheri Jacobson. Adoring nanny ( talk) 12:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
HuffPost is part of Oath. Oath and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Oath will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products.
Learn more.
Select 'OK' to continue and allow Oath and our partners to use your data, or select 'Manage options' to view your choices."
Regarding the disagreement here, does The Unz Review masthead FAQ assertion that, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them," allow us to link to this article from The Reporter from 1966 as the source of an early use of the term "white genocide"? EllenCT ( talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|via=
like is often done with sites like
Google Books, etc. The question then might be whether such a convenience link would be OK; it might for a website like "
Newspapers.com", "
Google News Archive", "
Internet Archive" or "
HighBeam Research", but maybe not so much from some kind of personal website hosting the content. Just from looking at
Ron Unz#The Unz Review and other activities, I'm not sure how reliable of a website it would be as a source or how credible it would be even for just a convenience link just based upon what Wikipedia has to say about it; however, if do a Wikipedia search of the websites url, you'll find it being cited in quite a number of articles which might mean it's considered reliable for some things, which in turn might mean it's credible as a convenience link. (Note: This was originally asked about at
WP:MCQ#Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?, but I suggested asking here at ELN since it seems to be more of an EL question than a file upload question.) --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)I am just saying that I do see the value of convenience links to material and that we should use them where ever we can (especially to make material easier to verify), but that does not mean that we HAVE to have a convenience link to material EVERYWHERE (and the same goes for archived copies). If there are no problems with the convenience link, fine, but I do not believe it is a problem if we cannot (or even try to be on the safe side). If there are serious suspicions about a site, then it is just better not to have the convenience link and only 'link' to an (even paper-only) original. I really don't see a problem with that. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the links on the article Rolls-Royce 20/25. I've twice removed them and they've twice been re-added by another editor. I'm looking at the links and they fail multiple points on WP:ELNO. For the first two links, https://archive.rrec.org.uk/ & http://www.rroc.org/
The third link, which was updated to be a little more specific, https://www.fiennes.co.uk/The-Cars/Rolls-Royce/20-25/
I've tried to engage the user who keeps re-adding the links, but they're not listening and no longer replying to the points I'm making and are just reverting. Now I don't wish to get into an edit war here, but the user doesn't seem to get why some links may not be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. So I'm bringing this here to get some more eyes and to see if I'm being unreasonable in my removal of these sites. Looking for opinion. Note: These sites are not linked from any other specific Rolls-Royce sites, it seems the one user has a strong attachment to just this single article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at dankneen.com, used at Dan Kneen (deceased 2018)? I am unsure if it (now) complies with WP:ELOFFICIAL, particularly numbered points 1 and 2. Seems to be ostensibly 'retail/commercial' with a charity status from late Oct 2018.
Extract from Isle of Man index of charities: "To promote in the Isle of Man and elsewhere the relief of persons injured in motorsport events and the families of deceased competitors in need due to ill health, disability or financial hardship. To pomote (sic) public safety in motorsport and provision of improved safety facilities."
Just done an update on the article and unsure if this is appropriate to be shown. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone want to join an effort to clean Professional certification? How vigorously should WP:LINKFARM be applied? For example, IACCP appears three times with three external links in each. Should WP:WTAF be enforced by removing IACCP? By the way, IACCP redirects to International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology which is different from the certification IACCP. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't know if it's enough that the link in this edit was removed in this one, which left a mention of the website rather than a link to the specific copyright-breaching page there. Is revdel required, does the mention of the website need removing, or are we good? 16:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.240.227 ( talk)
There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to La Griffe du Lion ( lagriffedulion.f2s.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § La Griffe du Lion. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct forum for this. There is a discussion [ the Suicide methods] article. There have been numerous attempt to throw in disclaimers and warnings etc on the article. The current discussion relates to a hat note which doesn't link to similar titled articles but to a list of external prevention hotlines with phone numbers for users to call if they happen to be suicidal while reviewing this article. If this isn't the right place for this please direct me to a noticeboard that is more appropriate. Shabidoo | Talk 17:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Another editor is insisting that external links be included in the "References" section of Sumner College. These links use reference templates but they're not used as references in the article. He or she claims that these are "general references showing the college exists and has been reported in reliable sources." I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; can someone else please help? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Al Seckel was active mostly 1990-2010 as a popularizer of optical illusions. I am working on the section of his bio about this part of his career, which is in my opinion the only reason he is notable. Seckel's lawsuits, his book deals, the people who say he owed them money, etc. are topics amply covered in most of the article.
Seckel gave talks at TED (2004) and Davos (2011) about optical illusions. [15] [16] [17] @ Ronz: removed this information from the article twice. Although now there is now a sentence that mentions the talks, Ronz then removed from EL the standard TED template, with comment "lots of problems with such links -- borders on linkspam." [18] Many GA include a TED template among their EL. What do others think? HouseOfChange ( talk) 06:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to Allmusic and Discogs on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Musician Discographies from Allmusic and/or Discogs. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This [19] been added to Skull and Bones by User:Nocturnalnow. I removed nn earlier version [20] and it was replaced with this one. It's clearly a conspiracy site: "For about the past ten years I have been studying secret elite groups. The average person has almost no knowledge of them and there are very few sources of information. These secret groups include the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, The Knights of the Garter, The Knights of Malta, The 33rd Degree Masons, the Rhodes Scholars, The Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. What is needed is a historical roster of the membership of each of these groups." S&B is indeed a secret society (note]] that I was never a member and although I must have met students who became or were members I'm certain no one ever told me they were - I thought it was all very silly at best. The Bilderberg Group publishes its attendees, I see no evidence that the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission has a secret membership, the Order of the Garter is very public as are of course recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship. There's ohviously a BLP issue as well. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict):::So we ignore the fact that he thinks there's a conspiracy about Rhodes Scholars or Knights of the Garter? We're going to have to disagree about conspiracy theories, they are real and affect the real world, QAnon being just the latest - the first conspiracy theory to have been called a potential source of domestic terrorist by the FBI. This guy's not in that category of course, nor are the conspiracy theories he's promoting. So, we have:
"In addition, although the article isn't a biography it falls under our BLP policy. WP:ELBLP says "In biographies of living persons, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." Doug Weller talk 14:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
So I am trying to restart this sub-section leaving out the pejorative and non-established description of the site as a "conspiracy" site. If that "conspiracy" description is to be accepted then I feel someone must present evidence to show it to be a "conspiracy" site. Nocturnalnow ( talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that Nikkimaria is removing Find-a-Grave as an EL from some (but not all) articles based on the reasoning that there is already a picture of the grave in the article. While pictures of resting places are a feature of that website there is other information available. Of greater concern to me is the precedence this sets in regard to other external links. For example should the links to IMDb be removed from film articles that have a complete cast and production list or from actor articles that have a complete filmography. I've started this thread to try and reach a consensus about this kind of criteria for excluding a website that otherwise meets the guidelines as an EL. If the consensus is to partially exclude a site then IMO that should be added to the instructions at Wikipedia:External links. Thanks ahead of time for any responses. MarnetteD| Talk 03:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semantic Scholar. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Two users are adding the dozens of links on Divya Dwivedi and making wikipedia as linkfarm. I removed the links as per WP:ELMIN, WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM but users are reinstating it and saying that it is in accordance with the external links policy without citing specific paragraph or specific policy. First one editor did it here, then here and now, they made separate section named further reading and added those same links in which non-notable works, her three interviews' youtube links (she gave only three interviews till now, btw) of her are included. This can be found here. Already section Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#On_External_Links was going on and when editor was loosing debate then he created another section named Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Adding_the_section_"Further_Reading" in which he started whataboutism. Now, there is possibility of edit war, thus, I am not removing it but seeking guidance on few questions.
-- Harshil want to talk? 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Any thoughts about an interesting new template {{ CodeBox}}? See Template talk:CodeBox#External links. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The organization mentioned in
this NYT article (or rather a successor org) is hosting a JPEG image PDF on its website that looks to be a reprint of the article in question, retyped. A link to the image can be found on
this page. The article is used in a citation on the organization's current wiki article.
Is this a copyright violation? Probably. Can fair use be claimed so I can link to that image as an "archive" of the original in a citation on the organization's article? That's my main question. Thanks! Ignatz mice• talk 13:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article, EMD F9 along with other articles I have been working on, I am coming across external links to fan sites containing a repository of scanned copyrighted contents, such as factory workshop manuals that are not old enough to be public domain. Additional, I am seeing citations in many articles in train category that cites unauthorized PDF scans of conferences, documents and manuals hosted on fan sites. I could remove them, but that doesn't prevent others from going back to old revisions to use Wikipedia as a directory to access these sources or reverting them back on. What are the proper procedures for handling such things? Graywalls ( talk) 01:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Any thoughts on these edits at Deepfake? Johnuniq ( talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a this link to a wikia article citing WP:ELNO. Considering the above average level of activity on that wiki, wouldn't this link quality as passing the bar set out in ELNO#12? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I personally find that they should be removed unless a compelling case is made on a case-by-case basis per item # 11 of the WP:ELNO, because http://www.trainweb.org/ by nature is like a weebly, freewebs and tripod of anything railroad related. "Since 1996 TrainWeb has been providing free web hosting to rail enthusiasts and organizations that offer railroad related information and photographs for the enjoyment and education of the public." The #11 of External Links guidelines reads:
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Most notably, "controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited;".
Another editor disagrees, so I want to have wider consensus. This is the disagreement: Special:Diff/929675056. The specific deep link challenged is: http://www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/sd45.htm . Once, there when you go back and click on "go back to rosters" you get an intro message which reads
" This is a list of various diesel rosters compiled on the Diesel Modeler's Mailing List. I began some of these lists myself; lists begun by others are so identified. If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, email me at [<redacted>]. David Thompson"
As far as I'm concerned, it's some rail fan dude cobbling together things for other rail fan dudes and I am not seeing a compelling case for inclusion. I don't find it useful one bit and I don't believe such sources are useful for the average purpose of a general purpose encyclopedia to include order shipment data of each specific train cars and who first bought them originally and Wikipedia isn't a detailed technical catalog for niche groups. That's what those fan sites and technical related sites are for, not wikipedia. Graywalls ( talk) 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
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, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.The details part would seem relevant to this discussion.
Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.