![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
The following was recently added:
This addition was not discussed. Linking to videos is frequently used in musician and band discography sections, specifically to link to the video. That makes this patently false as it does inform the read about the subject, whether it is the song or the style of the song. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
An inline external link to the video, mid-sentence, when discussing its release as a single is not appropriate.I hope that such grossly inappropriate situations are not a concern.
designed to attract readers toshould be reworded/clarified. Yes,
Linking to videos is frequently usedis correct, but it is also consistent with what was added,
Also, links designed.... -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Linking for the purpose of promotion is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on promotion, and that is so whether it is mentioned in this guideline or not, so it is not "patently false". For some reason Walter Görlitz seems to have taken the wording to indicate that linking to videos is always wrong, which is not what it says at all. Linking for the purpose of attracting readers to web content, rather than for the purpose of providing information on the subject of a Wikipedia article, is contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether the linked web content is a video or anything else. The fact that links to videos can exist for legitimate purposes no more invalidates that point than the fact that links to a company's web site can exist for legitimate purposes invalidates the point that linking to them for the purpose of attracting customers is contrary to policy. (By the way, I don't understand why the section heading restricts the topic to only YouTube videos.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Linking to youtube videos that explain a subject is fine, but linking to a video in a list just because it is the subject of that item is EXACTLY the same as linking to a non notable company in a list of companies that produce subject X. In that sense it is plainly promotional and not helping the reader to understand (necessarily). That is exactly what our policies prohibit. I therefore also agree with this addition, and think that wikipedia should be cleared of such lists similar to what is prctice with company lists: if they are redlinks they need proper independent sourcing, not external links to YouTube or company websites or whatever. Discographies should not have these links anymore than lists of software that have a certain feature. There simply is no reason to link a video on youtube there. – Dirk Beetstra T C 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
And it was added back here, but the consensus was that the original wording is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
but the consensus was that the original wording is not appropriateWhat consensus are you referring to? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
As Fram so persuasively reminded me, not so long ago, YouTube videos should be linked only if there is no suspicion at all that the video may be in breach of copyright, whether that linking is in article mainspace or not. But provided the video has been posted officially by the musician(s) concerned, I see no great problem with using it to illustrate, for example, a given notable composition or performance. I'd take exception to Ronz's assertion that "Articles about musicians and bands tend to be very bad, prime examples of WP:PROMOTION." This seems to me to be a gross and unfounded over-simplistic generalisation, especially where classical music is concerned. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
If we're done discussing policy, guidelines, and consensus, then I'd like to restore the content once again. No one is arguing that it is appropriate to have links to videos that are clearly promotional rather than demonstrating encyclopedic content. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Videos that demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise, etc should be considered.), which I believe is what you are asking for as well. I object to the assumption that
Just because a performer releases a video doesn't make it appropriate to add an external link to it, nor does a discography in an article automatically create a case for links to videos of the entries in the discography.
that demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise), long after they are released (and not if the books have their own article). -- Ronz ( talk) 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise", then I have to answer "no".
then the written rules need to be updated to reflect the actual practice of thousands of editorsThat's not how consensus-making works, let alone enforcement of policies and guidelines. It does mean we need to be cautious with changes to any relevant policies and guidelines.
I have attempted to remove all external links from this page except the official local government page under WL:ELNO #13. however, a user has taken quite an exception to this. Port_Elizabeth#External_links. LibStar ( talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I see there was some edit warring this week over how strongly to encourage the {{ official website}} template. I've never particularly used this template myself, but I've got nothing against it. It doesn't add any decorative formatting (which I'm glad of), but it sounds like it does make it possible to find out whether the link currently in the article is the same as the link in Wikidata's records (if any). This was given as a reason to encourage it, and it was reverted with the claim that "Data comparison with Wikidata is not a goal of enwiki or the articles".
I'm willing to believe that very few editors actually do compare it, but I wonder whether we ought to be doing more of that. We've had some occasional problems with spammers replacing "official websites" with their own. It seems to me that this kind of spam would be easier to find if we compared our links against Wikidata's entries, and then manually checked any discrepancies to make sure that the article hadn't been targeted by a spammer or vandal. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
have to cooperateto make sure that it is in line with that. I can see that we link official links/twitters/etc. (where appropriate) through their templates, but it is not mandatory, and I will not even support to have it marked as being encouraged. Then the use of the maintenance templates is totally out of line with what en.wikipedia is, and there are easy other solutions to search for discrepancies. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't make sense for editors to on the one hand claim that this template is encouraged "as it allows data comparison with Wikidata", and on the other hand remove the local website and get it from Wikidata instead (which means that no more comparison is being made, it just is copied). See e.g. this edit, where the link to the English-language landing page of the official website was replaced with the Wikidata-driven Swedish version of that page, or this example (provided by User:SlimVirgin) of the same user replacing a working link here (actually already using this template) with a wrong link taken from Wikidata.
I wouldn't mind using a template that didn't have the misused functionality of getting the website from Wikidata instead of inserting it locally. I also wouldn't mind if that template then had the underlying hidden functionality of checking the website and the one provided at Wikidata, to populate hidden categories (I think it would be better if such comparisons were made on Wikidata, not on every individual language wiki, but for the sake of compromise...). But I object to a template which takes the website from Wikidata, and I strongly object to editors removing perfectly valid values from enwiki because the same functionality may at best be added by Wikidata.
We should get a bot run to fill in all instances of the template without an actual website provided here, and then drop the "no value = get the Wikidata one" from the template. We should not instruct users to use the template, and certainly not for Wikidata reasons. Fram ( talk) 12:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram This is not the thing discussed here. Here we discuss edits like this one. Whether to use the direct url system vs the template one. The other edits should be discussed in two diffrent discussions entitled "Should we obtains and use WikiData official website data on Wikipedia articles?" and "Should the official website given to English Wikipedia viewers should directly link to its English section?". So there are three discussions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
tbc. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis above said "One of the reasons to compare data is that once the data is verified to be correct on Wikidata to remove it from the local Wikipedia to reduce the chance of vandalism, simplify wikicode and enable changes from a larger audience." Luckily we don't do this (in general), as usually enwiki is much quicker to correct issues than Wikidata. Goign through the first ten examples at the category, starting from F, I came across F4 Spanish Championship. The official website [1] was changed early in 2016, as reflected in this enwiki change from January 2016. However, Wikidata still has the link from February 2015 to this site, which is now a completely unrelated webshop. So much for using Wikidata to avoid spamming and to get quicker changes thanks to the larger audience etc. Urijah Faber as well has the right website now on enwiki, but an outdated (domain for sale) one on Wikidata "imported from enwiki". While opposite cases probably can be found as well, it would make much more sense to keep the website local, on enwiki, and regularly update Wikidata with changed "imported from enwiki" data, instead of promoting the reverse as is now the case. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran across Jenna Jameson, that has three external links listed under a "Notes" section, and posted it in the External links/Noticeboard. I haven't noticed this practice before so thought I would mention it. Otr500 ( talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Also in the case of (still needed) "general references", the name of the source section they are listed in should be references rather than notes, as the letter is really only used for footnotes/individual citations. If you move them depending on their content they could also be moved to a Further reading section instead of External links in particular if they are digital copy of a book or article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Suggested_edit. Jytdog ( talk) 22:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes run into the following situations: We have a notable subject 'A' who is primary known because of operating/running/developing/owning/singing in/establishing subject 'B', and the opening sentence of the article 'A' generally is something along the line of 'A is known for B' (with B being wikilinked to the article). B has an official website, linked from the article, B.com. People now sometimes tend to argue that B.com is also the official website of A, but going to B.com, it is mainly talking about the properties of B. My argument generally tends to be that B.com in this example is indirect with regards to A, and hence does not have place on A (generally hence resulting in the official web presence of A becoming a personal social website). Is this a correct interpretation of the guideline? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to link to a page that provides "useful" info about the matter in hand but also provides downloads of abandonware? I'm specifically asking about pages with downloads of 8-bit videogames. If the answer is "no", does that also apply to Wikipedia in other languages? Thanks. -- Tactica ( talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Basically, per WP:LINKVIO, we do not link to copyright violating material in any occassion (with probably as only exception sites that violate ‘our own’ Wikipedia’s copyrights). That is often also true for pages which offer links to copright violating material (similar to piratebay). Note that is the material, not necessarily the whole site. As LINKVIO is a policy that is directed by legal issues, and likely directed by WMF it is probably true on any wiki, even if en.wikipedia’s guidelines and policies do have novalidity elsewhere. — Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been challenged that twitters on twitter removals that twitter should be excluded from our WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and hence always be listed when it is official and active. As that is a change in what policy/guideline state, I think that it should be clarified. There is some distinction whether the official twitter is listed on other official websitesor not. — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
they publish information in the area that they subject is notable forHowso? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Linking a Twitter account, which means linking a lot of relevant, encyclopedic content. We're not agreeing on "relevant" nor "encyclopedic", and continued generalizations and assertions seems unlikely to change this. I suggest you treat each article individually and give specific examples. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you should take those articles to AFDThat's WP:DTS at best. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Rebooting the discussion .. what we are discussing here is why the guideline should be changed to reflect the opinion that twitter feeds should be linked next to other official sites / twitter should be the main official site of a subject. — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra is correct: Wikipedia should not provide a handy list of links for organizations so they don't have to bother providing them in an accessible way on their official website. As discussed above, Donald Trump is an obvious exception where his Twitter account should be listed. There would need to be a strong reason beyond ILIKEIT to include such links for other articles which already list an official website. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
(tbc) ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This situation is slightly different (though I encounter it more, and tend to be conservative there): Otome Shinto is a Japanese band that stopped in 2016. Their official website is now taken over by a fan, our Wikipedia-page (now) links to an archived version of the last version when the band still controlled it. The problem now is (again) the Twitter. The twitter account of Otome Shinto is still active (I will assume that it is actually still controlled by the non-existing subject ..). I argue there, that since the band does not exist anymore, it is not an official outlet of the band itself anymore. I also do not believe that the Twitter feed (or practically any Twitter feed for that matter barring some exceptions) is 'significant, unique content' - if there is significant content there, it is covered by mainstream media (I am yet to find it, the last few are birthday wishes and . As this is kept in place by user:Moscow Connection while challenged , I'd like independent opinions on the matter. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect this is a perennial question, but I couldn't find a clear answer in the talk archives. Are external links to Google Maps, such as at South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway), OK? I suspect not, but can't find anything to cite in support. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As it stands now, I would say that the list is indeed far, far too excessive. The lines are not direct, the article is about the station, not about which lines run through it (though also that could be prose, but often the lines have an own article), the art is not appropriate (it does not have a mention in the article, and even if it had, it should not be in the external links, again indirect). Abandoned stations is also indirect (it has an own article ...?).
We are not writing a linkfarm, this dwarfs the article and detracts from the article. Much can be repurposed, or is superfluous or inappropriate. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Removing all of these links would be unhelpful to the reader because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority doesn't have separate pages on each station.. yes, we need internal links to these, or no links at all. Having the locations/images linked externally is inappropriate etc. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Beetstra and JohnBlackburne here, but I am uncomfortable with using a GAN nomination to overturn a widespread practice. I'm going to let them stand in the article, but afterwards, unless some consensus has been reached here, I think an RfC might be useful -- if there really are "thousands" of articles like this, it should be a broad discussion to change them. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
GeoGroup|article=...}}
, one for each article, to do a series of articles at once.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm coming to the party a bit late, but I've seen most of the discussion evolve. My take is related to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't really need to list the geohack of the line. I don't think a fully encyclopedic treatment of the subject needs to include the actual location of the line down to 5 cm resolution. To know the approximate location is enough. The geohack is more a curiosity than encyclopedic. The no search capability on Google maps argument sounds like it's addressed by WP:NOTHOST. Wikipedia does not need to host the geohack anymore than we need to host someone's resume, etc. That finding links like this requires time and labour is a problem looking for a different solution. And then there's WP:NOTTRAVEL, which would be another argument for knowing its location which hasn't really been presented. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Links to Wikimedia vs. to elsewhere section discusses using protocol-relative URLs, but the Wikimedia link it provides points to a section that no longer exists, and protocol-relative URLs aren't discussed anywhere else on the page. I did manage to find Wikipedia:Protocol-relative URL, which says that protocol-relative URLs should no longer be used. So the references here should be removed, right? (Forgive me for not feeling so BOLD at the moment.) Languorrises ( talk) 18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In passing, this page used to mention Interwiki links and full-URL links to Wikipedia when wikilinks are not possible. I removed that section for other reasons, but I wonder if something should be added to this article stating that interwiki links and internal link templates are preferred for over full URLs. Where should this guideline be placed? Daask ( talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the project page and I'm sure this must have come up before, but can't find a specific discussion about it.
Example: a film that earned many awards had an official webpage by its production company. The webpage is now no longer accessible. Can the link be substituted with its archive so that the production company may still appear in the section -- or is this information link deleted forever from the article? Thanks.
Pyxis Solitary
talk
11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It recently came to my attention that linking to YouTube videos from talk pages, where the copyright status of the video isn't 100% clear, is disallowed by WP:COPYVIOEL. I think this policy deserves to be reevaluated, by WMF if necessary. It's extreme and reflects an outdated analysis of copyright law, in which it's settled that linking to infringing content does not create liability (except potentially in very narrow circumstances that don't apply to Wikipedia). The sentence, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement," is incorrect. The ALA article the sentence relies on (which was dead before I revived it through the Wayback Machine) is undated and doesn't take into account any court decisions after 2000, when Internet law was still in its infancy. The law in this area has come a long way since then and our policies should reflect it. I posit that the ALA article is unreliable beyond its description of the state of the law in the very early 2000's.
Beyond the legal issue, restricting links on talk pages in this way is simply extreme and unnecessarily inhibits discussion and the development of the encyclopedia. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.I don't seen anything in the guideline suggesting it also applies to talk pages. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) DrFleischman proposed with [2] that ELNO specifically apply to only article space citing a VPP discussion with two other editors as a basis for the change. I disagree and reverted. Comments? Jbh Talk 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: though maybe the guideline is focussing on content namespaces, the underlying policy is valid for literally ALL of wikipedia. Restricting the guideline specifically is then misleading. — Dirk Beetstra T C 19:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
'This guideline applies to content namespaces (including draft namespaces) only, except where explicitly noted (specifically WP:ELNEVER, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia)'. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
These pages do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's legal and behavioral policies, as well as policies applicable to non-content pages. For example, editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia, and edit warring is prohibited everywhere, not merely in encyclopedia articles.
Are bible references such as bibleverse and bibleref2 to be avoided in article prose? If so, is there any approved way I can duplicate that function? Editor2020 ( talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am seeing lots of links to iTunes artist and song pages which I remove per ELNO (#5 exists to sell songs, #6 requires iTunes registration and #8 requires and launches iTunes app) and on the general principle that Wikipedia does not exist as a marketing and sales platform for these artists. I often get push back, usually from SPA/PROMO accounts but sometimes from good faith editors. I just want to make sure I am not wrong in this.
On a related note. Is there a common practice for how we handle links to 'Official' music videos on YouTube? Generally I see statements like So and So released Some Video [ref w/link to YouTube] My thought is that this is inappropriate per WP:NOTPROMO and, in general, they should be removed but I would like to get some feedback. Jbh Talk 15:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Citing " Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember Number 2" is awkward. I'd like to see a shortcut implemented. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like User:Plantdrew has had a go of removing sister links from about a hundred articles, most or all high profile species articles. Before I hit the revert button about a hundred times, I figured I'd drop a note and make sure I'm not the only one sees that as fairly disruptive. GMG talk 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I changed the examples to use https for the protocol in this article according to best practice. I've changed a few external links over to https in external link section of various articles. Https is preferred as there is less chance of domain hijacking. Browsers are beginning to mark non-https sites as not secure so we will need to start updated links if the site supports both http and https. -- Notgain ( talk) 04:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I met a user that would like to use ETCSL links in his article, that refer to primary sources of ancient Mesopotamian texts (See Gilgamesh#Sumerian poems, from second paragraph onward). In a GA review, the user defends this usage as a standard among scholars of Mesopotamia. I would like to know if anyone can second this usage of external links, and whether it agrees with WP:MOS.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Links normally to be avoided includes, "Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools" with a note stating, "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles". So what are "sourcing tools"? And what sites then are referred to in this guidance? Thinker78 ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that if you use
https://www.example.com/allaboutfoo to support some claims about foo, the reference should link to
https://www.example.com/allaboutfoo and not just
https://www.example.com. (For a real example: any link to a BBC news article vs. BBC frontpage.) However, I could not find it explicitly in our current guidelines, though one might argue that it is already implicit in a few places (e.g. in
WP:INCITE Inline citations allow (...) to associate a given bit of material (...) with the specific reliable source(s) that support it.
(emphasis added)).
Did I miss it? If not, should we add it? Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
... that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content .... Obvious, documents about another subject are not suitable external links. — Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I met a user that would like to use ETCSL links in his article, that refer to primary sources of ancient Mesopotamian texts (See Gilgamesh#Sumerian poems, from second paragraph onward). In a GA review, the user defends this usage as a standard among scholars of Mesopotamia. I would like to know if anyone can second this usage of external links, and whether it agrees with WP:MOS.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikibooks and Wikiversity are in part arenas where fringe editors go when they are unhappy here or banned/blocked. They are the Wiki equivalent of Amazon's CreateSpace or Lulu.com. It just seems wrong to let people promote their original research in our articles. What am I missing? Doug Weller talk 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I regurarly run into situations where technically both criteria in WP:ELOFFICIAL - it is a website Controlled by the subject, and a main claim to the subject’s notability, but I argue that it is not a website ABOUT the subject. My latest example is Meghan Murphy, who is controlling http://feministcurrent.com/ (she is editor), ánd it is a main claim to her notability. I argue there that that is not a website about her, it is the official website of Feminist Current. I find these cases of WP:ELNO #13.
Do we need to be more clear/explicit that this use is indirect in WP:ELLOFFICIAL. Do we need to add that the website needs to be ABOUTthe subject? — Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Another one: Massimo Bottura - it is the website of the restaurant where he is chef (restaurant linked in text). — Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC) (now cleaned in coll. with user:Walter Görlitz. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict Wikinews links in articles, which proposes changing this guideline. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Over at Free Bird, a user provided a YouTube link to a live performance posted by the band's official account at YouTube (which does acknowledge the various other copyrights involved), so I do not it fails ELNO. This seems like a straight up acceptable EL to include, so I wrapped it up in an {{ external media}} template in the body. I feel this is all appropriate under this, but the only reason I ask is that seems to provide a way to for editors on song/album/artist articles to use officially-posted performances or music videos within the body of the article. eg: for a song that has an associated music video that is discussed, and the video was posted appropriately by the artist or the label to their YouTube or Vevo channel, there seems no reason not to include that as an external media block within the music video section.
We still have to be 100% clear that the video posted is not a copyright violation, the account owner is whom they claim to be, and so forth, obviously. -- Masem ( t) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This generally is quite OK, though often these official videos are already available from the official page of the song/album on the artist's official website. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
On biographies, are these links suitable external links. Google scholar is just a search result, researchgate merely a form of social networking. — Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@ DGG: Let me be clear, I am talking about:
in external links sections, not about references in prose.
The former is 'a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines', the second is 'a social networking site for scientists and researchers', the third is a subscription service from Elsevier. (probably we should also include Web of Science search links in this discussion, we don't seem to have a template for that?? and that one is 'an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service')
The indices these provide do have a place on Wikipedia, though taken with a care (I would talk about a range, not the number which is too prone to change). These links have their function in building articles (finding most cited material for a researcher), or reference their indices (where I would go for Scopus and WoS, not Google Scholar), or reference numbers of publications, etc. (again, WoS or Scopus).
My argument is that these, in external links sections, are almost always inappropriate. Google, WoS and Scopus search results, ResearchGate a plain social networking site. Scopus and WoS are not accessible to a whole lot of people (and to those who have, generally only accessible while 'at work'). Much of the information is a duplicate from what is in their official website or on their official profile (barring cases where ResearchGate could be the main web-presence of a researcher per WP:ELOFFICIAL). Often these links are on official profiles or official websites already (duplication of links). Lists of publications are typical on official profiles/websites, and often higher profile articles published by the researcher are even already mentioned in the article. And a complete list of all publications by a researcher is generally only of interest on the very very high profile ones (Nobel prize nominees and similar ground-breaking researchers), generally only a couple of high-profile are for most enough (and those are then mentioned/discussed in the article already). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@ DGG: OK, I think we all reasonably agree on WoS, researchgate and scopus.
For Google, lets go through some:
To me still, Google scholar is still a search result, not a human vetted list. And seen examples above, it seems to show incorrect results, which makes me wonder what the number from that actually mean. (I may add examples to this list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I recently used Template:ASIN in a citation for a book that had no ISBN. I was surprised to find that the template expands to an EL that goes to the Amazon web page where I can buy the book. I would have thought this is prohibited by WP:ELNO. Should I be using this template? This was at List of IBA official cocktails, and it's a Further reading, not a ref. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking [ELNEVER], these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article'.(ELNEVER note mine; emphasis original). If you are using something like {{ ASIN}} in the context of a reference, you may continue to use ASIN in that reference. There is a preference to use a more universal identifier such as a DOI or an ISBN, but if a particular work does not have one of those, then an ASIN is Good Enough.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
The following was recently added:
This addition was not discussed. Linking to videos is frequently used in musician and band discography sections, specifically to link to the video. That makes this patently false as it does inform the read about the subject, whether it is the song or the style of the song. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
An inline external link to the video, mid-sentence, when discussing its release as a single is not appropriate.I hope that such grossly inappropriate situations are not a concern.
designed to attract readers toshould be reworded/clarified. Yes,
Linking to videos is frequently usedis correct, but it is also consistent with what was added,
Also, links designed.... -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Linking for the purpose of promotion is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on promotion, and that is so whether it is mentioned in this guideline or not, so it is not "patently false". For some reason Walter Görlitz seems to have taken the wording to indicate that linking to videos is always wrong, which is not what it says at all. Linking for the purpose of attracting readers to web content, rather than for the purpose of providing information on the subject of a Wikipedia article, is contrary to Wikipedia policy, whether the linked web content is a video or anything else. The fact that links to videos can exist for legitimate purposes no more invalidates that point than the fact that links to a company's web site can exist for legitimate purposes invalidates the point that linking to them for the purpose of attracting customers is contrary to policy. (By the way, I don't understand why the section heading restricts the topic to only YouTube videos.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Linking to youtube videos that explain a subject is fine, but linking to a video in a list just because it is the subject of that item is EXACTLY the same as linking to a non notable company in a list of companies that produce subject X. In that sense it is plainly promotional and not helping the reader to understand (necessarily). That is exactly what our policies prohibit. I therefore also agree with this addition, and think that wikipedia should be cleared of such lists similar to what is prctice with company lists: if they are redlinks they need proper independent sourcing, not external links to YouTube or company websites or whatever. Discographies should not have these links anymore than lists of software that have a certain feature. There simply is no reason to link a video on youtube there. – Dirk Beetstra T C 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
And it was added back here, but the consensus was that the original wording is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
but the consensus was that the original wording is not appropriateWhat consensus are you referring to? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
As Fram so persuasively reminded me, not so long ago, YouTube videos should be linked only if there is no suspicion at all that the video may be in breach of copyright, whether that linking is in article mainspace or not. But provided the video has been posted officially by the musician(s) concerned, I see no great problem with using it to illustrate, for example, a given notable composition or performance. I'd take exception to Ronz's assertion that "Articles about musicians and bands tend to be very bad, prime examples of WP:PROMOTION." This seems to me to be a gross and unfounded over-simplistic generalisation, especially where classical music is concerned. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
If we're done discussing policy, guidelines, and consensus, then I'd like to restore the content once again. No one is arguing that it is appropriate to have links to videos that are clearly promotional rather than demonstrating encyclopedic content. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Videos that demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise, etc should be considered.), which I believe is what you are asking for as well. I object to the assumption that
Just because a performer releases a video doesn't make it appropriate to add an external link to it, nor does a discography in an article automatically create a case for links to videos of the entries in the discography.
that demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise), long after they are released (and not if the books have their own article). -- Ronz ( talk) 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"demonstrate noteworthy technique, style, expertise", then I have to answer "no".
then the written rules need to be updated to reflect the actual practice of thousands of editorsThat's not how consensus-making works, let alone enforcement of policies and guidelines. It does mean we need to be cautious with changes to any relevant policies and guidelines.
I have attempted to remove all external links from this page except the official local government page under WL:ELNO #13. however, a user has taken quite an exception to this. Port_Elizabeth#External_links. LibStar ( talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I see there was some edit warring this week over how strongly to encourage the {{ official website}} template. I've never particularly used this template myself, but I've got nothing against it. It doesn't add any decorative formatting (which I'm glad of), but it sounds like it does make it possible to find out whether the link currently in the article is the same as the link in Wikidata's records (if any). This was given as a reason to encourage it, and it was reverted with the claim that "Data comparison with Wikidata is not a goal of enwiki or the articles".
I'm willing to believe that very few editors actually do compare it, but I wonder whether we ought to be doing more of that. We've had some occasional problems with spammers replacing "official websites" with their own. It seems to me that this kind of spam would be easier to find if we compared our links against Wikidata's entries, and then manually checked any discrepancies to make sure that the article hadn't been targeted by a spammer or vandal. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
have to cooperateto make sure that it is in line with that. I can see that we link official links/twitters/etc. (where appropriate) through their templates, but it is not mandatory, and I will not even support to have it marked as being encouraged. Then the use of the maintenance templates is totally out of line with what en.wikipedia is, and there are easy other solutions to search for discrepancies. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't make sense for editors to on the one hand claim that this template is encouraged "as it allows data comparison with Wikidata", and on the other hand remove the local website and get it from Wikidata instead (which means that no more comparison is being made, it just is copied). See e.g. this edit, where the link to the English-language landing page of the official website was replaced with the Wikidata-driven Swedish version of that page, or this example (provided by User:SlimVirgin) of the same user replacing a working link here (actually already using this template) with a wrong link taken from Wikidata.
I wouldn't mind using a template that didn't have the misused functionality of getting the website from Wikidata instead of inserting it locally. I also wouldn't mind if that template then had the underlying hidden functionality of checking the website and the one provided at Wikidata, to populate hidden categories (I think it would be better if such comparisons were made on Wikidata, not on every individual language wiki, but for the sake of compromise...). But I object to a template which takes the website from Wikidata, and I strongly object to editors removing perfectly valid values from enwiki because the same functionality may at best be added by Wikidata.
We should get a bot run to fill in all instances of the template without an actual website provided here, and then drop the "no value = get the Wikidata one" from the template. We should not instruct users to use the template, and certainly not for Wikidata reasons. Fram ( talk) 12:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Fram This is not the thing discussed here. Here we discuss edits like this one. Whether to use the direct url system vs the template one. The other edits should be discussed in two diffrent discussions entitled "Should we obtains and use WikiData official website data on Wikipedia articles?" and "Should the official website given to English Wikipedia viewers should directly link to its English section?". So there are three discussions. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
tbc. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis above said "One of the reasons to compare data is that once the data is verified to be correct on Wikidata to remove it from the local Wikipedia to reduce the chance of vandalism, simplify wikicode and enable changes from a larger audience." Luckily we don't do this (in general), as usually enwiki is much quicker to correct issues than Wikidata. Goign through the first ten examples at the category, starting from F, I came across F4 Spanish Championship. The official website [1] was changed early in 2016, as reflected in this enwiki change from January 2016. However, Wikidata still has the link from February 2015 to this site, which is now a completely unrelated webshop. So much for using Wikidata to avoid spamming and to get quicker changes thanks to the larger audience etc. Urijah Faber as well has the right website now on enwiki, but an outdated (domain for sale) one on Wikidata "imported from enwiki". While opposite cases probably can be found as well, it would make much more sense to keep the website local, on enwiki, and regularly update Wikidata with changed "imported from enwiki" data, instead of promoting the reverse as is now the case. Fram ( talk) 08:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran across Jenna Jameson, that has three external links listed under a "Notes" section, and posted it in the External links/Noticeboard. I haven't noticed this practice before so thought I would mention it. Otr500 ( talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Also in the case of (still needed) "general references", the name of the source section they are listed in should be references rather than notes, as the letter is really only used for footnotes/individual citations. If you move them depending on their content they could also be moved to a Further reading section instead of External links in particular if they are digital copy of a book or article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Suggested_edit. Jytdog ( talk) 22:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes run into the following situations: We have a notable subject 'A' who is primary known because of operating/running/developing/owning/singing in/establishing subject 'B', and the opening sentence of the article 'A' generally is something along the line of 'A is known for B' (with B being wikilinked to the article). B has an official website, linked from the article, B.com. People now sometimes tend to argue that B.com is also the official website of A, but going to B.com, it is mainly talking about the properties of B. My argument generally tends to be that B.com in this example is indirect with regards to A, and hence does not have place on A (generally hence resulting in the official web presence of A becoming a personal social website). Is this a correct interpretation of the guideline? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to link to a page that provides "useful" info about the matter in hand but also provides downloads of abandonware? I'm specifically asking about pages with downloads of 8-bit videogames. If the answer is "no", does that also apply to Wikipedia in other languages? Thanks. -- Tactica ( talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Basically, per WP:LINKVIO, we do not link to copyright violating material in any occassion (with probably as only exception sites that violate ‘our own’ Wikipedia’s copyrights). That is often also true for pages which offer links to copright violating material (similar to piratebay). Note that is the material, not necessarily the whole site. As LINKVIO is a policy that is directed by legal issues, and likely directed by WMF it is probably true on any wiki, even if en.wikipedia’s guidelines and policies do have novalidity elsewhere. — Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been challenged that twitters on twitter removals that twitter should be excluded from our WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and hence always be listed when it is official and active. As that is a change in what policy/guideline state, I think that it should be clarified. There is some distinction whether the official twitter is listed on other official websitesor not. — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
they publish information in the area that they subject is notable forHowso? -- Ronz ( talk) 15:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Linking a Twitter account, which means linking a lot of relevant, encyclopedic content. We're not agreeing on "relevant" nor "encyclopedic", and continued generalizations and assertions seems unlikely to change this. I suggest you treat each article individually and give specific examples. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you should take those articles to AFDThat's WP:DTS at best. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Rebooting the discussion .. what we are discussing here is why the guideline should be changed to reflect the opinion that twitter feeds should be linked next to other official sites / twitter should be the main official site of a subject. — Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra is correct: Wikipedia should not provide a handy list of links for organizations so they don't have to bother providing them in an accessible way on their official website. As discussed above, Donald Trump is an obvious exception where his Twitter account should be listed. There would need to be a strong reason beyond ILIKEIT to include such links for other articles which already list an official website. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
(tbc) ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This situation is slightly different (though I encounter it more, and tend to be conservative there): Otome Shinto is a Japanese band that stopped in 2016. Their official website is now taken over by a fan, our Wikipedia-page (now) links to an archived version of the last version when the band still controlled it. The problem now is (again) the Twitter. The twitter account of Otome Shinto is still active (I will assume that it is actually still controlled by the non-existing subject ..). I argue there, that since the band does not exist anymore, it is not an official outlet of the band itself anymore. I also do not believe that the Twitter feed (or practically any Twitter feed for that matter barring some exceptions) is 'significant, unique content' - if there is significant content there, it is covered by mainstream media (I am yet to find it, the last few are birthday wishes and . As this is kept in place by user:Moscow Connection while challenged , I'd like independent opinions on the matter. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Linking to wikidata.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I suspect this is a perennial question, but I couldn't find a clear answer in the talk archives. Are external links to Google Maps, such as at South Ferry/Whitehall Street (New York City Subway), OK? I suspect not, but can't find anything to cite in support. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As it stands now, I would say that the list is indeed far, far too excessive. The lines are not direct, the article is about the station, not about which lines run through it (though also that could be prose, but often the lines have an own article), the art is not appropriate (it does not have a mention in the article, and even if it had, it should not be in the external links, again indirect). Abandoned stations is also indirect (it has an own article ...?).
We are not writing a linkfarm, this dwarfs the article and detracts from the article. Much can be repurposed, or is superfluous or inappropriate. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Removing all of these links would be unhelpful to the reader because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority doesn't have separate pages on each station.. yes, we need internal links to these, or no links at all. Having the locations/images linked externally is inappropriate etc. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Beetstra and JohnBlackburne here, but I am uncomfortable with using a GAN nomination to overturn a widespread practice. I'm going to let them stand in the article, but afterwards, unless some consensus has been reached here, I think an RfC might be useful -- if there really are "thousands" of articles like this, it should be a broad discussion to change them. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
GeoGroup|article=...}}
, one for each article, to do a series of articles at once.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm coming to the party a bit late, but I've seen most of the discussion evolve. My take is related to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't really need to list the geohack of the line. I don't think a fully encyclopedic treatment of the subject needs to include the actual location of the line down to 5 cm resolution. To know the approximate location is enough. The geohack is more a curiosity than encyclopedic. The no search capability on Google maps argument sounds like it's addressed by WP:NOTHOST. Wikipedia does not need to host the geohack anymore than we need to host someone's resume, etc. That finding links like this requires time and labour is a problem looking for a different solution. And then there's WP:NOTTRAVEL, which would be another argument for knowing its location which hasn't really been presented. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Links to Wikimedia vs. to elsewhere section discusses using protocol-relative URLs, but the Wikimedia link it provides points to a section that no longer exists, and protocol-relative URLs aren't discussed anywhere else on the page. I did manage to find Wikipedia:Protocol-relative URL, which says that protocol-relative URLs should no longer be used. So the references here should be removed, right? (Forgive me for not feeling so BOLD at the moment.) Languorrises ( talk) 18:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In passing, this page used to mention Interwiki links and full-URL links to Wikipedia when wikilinks are not possible. I removed that section for other reasons, but I wonder if something should be added to this article stating that interwiki links and internal link templates are preferred for over full URLs. Where should this guideline be placed? Daask ( talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the project page and I'm sure this must have come up before, but can't find a specific discussion about it.
Example: a film that earned many awards had an official webpage by its production company. The webpage is now no longer accessible. Can the link be substituted with its archive so that the production company may still appear in the section -- or is this information link deleted forever from the article? Thanks.
Pyxis Solitary
talk
11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It recently came to my attention that linking to YouTube videos from talk pages, where the copyright status of the video isn't 100% clear, is disallowed by WP:COPYVIOEL. I think this policy deserves to be reevaluated, by WMF if necessary. It's extreme and reflects an outdated analysis of copyright law, in which it's settled that linking to infringing content does not create liability (except potentially in very narrow circumstances that don't apply to Wikipedia). The sentence, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement," is incorrect. The ALA article the sentence relies on (which was dead before I revived it through the Wayback Machine) is undated and doesn't take into account any court decisions after 2000, when Internet law was still in its infancy. The law in this area has come a long way since then and our policies should reflect it. I posit that the ALA article is unreliable beyond its description of the state of the law in the very early 2000's.
Beyond the legal issue, restricting links on talk pages in this way is simply extreme and unnecessarily inhibits discussion and the development of the encyclopedia. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.I don't seen anything in the guideline suggesting it also applies to talk pages. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) DrFleischman proposed with [2] that ELNO specifically apply to only article space citing a VPP discussion with two other editors as a basis for the change. I disagree and reverted. Comments? Jbh Talk 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@ DrFleischman: though maybe the guideline is focussing on content namespaces, the underlying policy is valid for literally ALL of wikipedia. Restricting the guideline specifically is then misleading. — Dirk Beetstra T C 19:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
'This guideline applies to content namespaces (including draft namespaces) only, except where explicitly noted (specifically WP:ELNEVER, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia)'. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
These pages do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's legal and behavioral policies, as well as policies applicable to non-content pages. For example, editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia, and edit warring is prohibited everywhere, not merely in encyclopedia articles.
Are bible references such as bibleverse and bibleref2 to be avoided in article prose? If so, is there any approved way I can duplicate that function? Editor2020 ( talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am seeing lots of links to iTunes artist and song pages which I remove per ELNO (#5 exists to sell songs, #6 requires iTunes registration and #8 requires and launches iTunes app) and on the general principle that Wikipedia does not exist as a marketing and sales platform for these artists. I often get push back, usually from SPA/PROMO accounts but sometimes from good faith editors. I just want to make sure I am not wrong in this.
On a related note. Is there a common practice for how we handle links to 'Official' music videos on YouTube? Generally I see statements like So and So released Some Video [ref w/link to YouTube] My thought is that this is inappropriate per WP:NOTPROMO and, in general, they should be removed but I would like to get some feedback. Jbh Talk 15:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Citing " Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember Number 2" is awkward. I'd like to see a shortcut implemented. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like User:Plantdrew has had a go of removing sister links from about a hundred articles, most or all high profile species articles. Before I hit the revert button about a hundred times, I figured I'd drop a note and make sure I'm not the only one sees that as fairly disruptive. GMG talk 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I changed the examples to use https for the protocol in this article according to best practice. I've changed a few external links over to https in external link section of various articles. Https is preferred as there is less chance of domain hijacking. Browsers are beginning to mark non-https sites as not secure so we will need to start updated links if the site supports both http and https. -- Notgain ( talk) 04:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I met a user that would like to use ETCSL links in his article, that refer to primary sources of ancient Mesopotamian texts (See Gilgamesh#Sumerian poems, from second paragraph onward). In a GA review, the user defends this usage as a standard among scholars of Mesopotamia. I would like to know if anyone can second this usage of external links, and whether it agrees with WP:MOS.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Links normally to be avoided includes, "Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools" with a note stating, "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles". So what are "sourcing tools"? And what sites then are referred to in this guidance? Thinker78 ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that if you use
https://www.example.com/allaboutfoo to support some claims about foo, the reference should link to
https://www.example.com/allaboutfoo and not just
https://www.example.com. (For a real example: any link to a BBC news article vs. BBC frontpage.) However, I could not find it explicitly in our current guidelines, though one might argue that it is already implicit in a few places (e.g. in
WP:INCITE Inline citations allow (...) to associate a given bit of material (...) with the specific reliable source(s) that support it.
(emphasis added)).
Did I miss it? If not, should we add it? Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
... that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content .... Obvious, documents about another subject are not suitable external links. — Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I met a user that would like to use ETCSL links in his article, that refer to primary sources of ancient Mesopotamian texts (See Gilgamesh#Sumerian poems, from second paragraph onward). In a GA review, the user defends this usage as a standard among scholars of Mesopotamia. I would like to know if anyone can second this usage of external links, and whether it agrees with WP:MOS.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikibooks and Wikiversity are in part arenas where fringe editors go when they are unhappy here or banned/blocked. They are the Wiki equivalent of Amazon's CreateSpace or Lulu.com. It just seems wrong to let people promote their original research in our articles. What am I missing? Doug Weller talk 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I regurarly run into situations where technically both criteria in WP:ELOFFICIAL - it is a website Controlled by the subject, and a main claim to the subject’s notability, but I argue that it is not a website ABOUT the subject. My latest example is Meghan Murphy, who is controlling http://feministcurrent.com/ (she is editor), ánd it is a main claim to her notability. I argue there that that is not a website about her, it is the official website of Feminist Current. I find these cases of WP:ELNO #13.
Do we need to be more clear/explicit that this use is indirect in WP:ELLOFFICIAL. Do we need to add that the website needs to be ABOUTthe subject? — Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Another one: Massimo Bottura - it is the website of the restaurant where he is chef (restaurant linked in text). — Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC) (now cleaned in coll. with user:Walter Görlitz. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict Wikinews links in articles, which proposes changing this guideline. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Over at Free Bird, a user provided a YouTube link to a live performance posted by the band's official account at YouTube (which does acknowledge the various other copyrights involved), so I do not it fails ELNO. This seems like a straight up acceptable EL to include, so I wrapped it up in an {{ external media}} template in the body. I feel this is all appropriate under this, but the only reason I ask is that seems to provide a way to for editors on song/album/artist articles to use officially-posted performances or music videos within the body of the article. eg: for a song that has an associated music video that is discussed, and the video was posted appropriately by the artist or the label to their YouTube or Vevo channel, there seems no reason not to include that as an external media block within the music video section.
We still have to be 100% clear that the video posted is not a copyright violation, the account owner is whom they claim to be, and so forth, obviously. -- Masem ( t) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This generally is quite OK, though often these official videos are already available from the official page of the song/album on the artist's official website. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
On biographies, are these links suitable external links. Google scholar is just a search result, researchgate merely a form of social networking. — Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@ DGG: Let me be clear, I am talking about:
in external links sections, not about references in prose.
The former is 'a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines', the second is 'a social networking site for scientists and researchers', the third is a subscription service from Elsevier. (probably we should also include Web of Science search links in this discussion, we don't seem to have a template for that?? and that one is 'an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service')
The indices these provide do have a place on Wikipedia, though taken with a care (I would talk about a range, not the number which is too prone to change). These links have their function in building articles (finding most cited material for a researcher), or reference their indices (where I would go for Scopus and WoS, not Google Scholar), or reference numbers of publications, etc. (again, WoS or Scopus).
My argument is that these, in external links sections, are almost always inappropriate. Google, WoS and Scopus search results, ResearchGate a plain social networking site. Scopus and WoS are not accessible to a whole lot of people (and to those who have, generally only accessible while 'at work'). Much of the information is a duplicate from what is in their official website or on their official profile (barring cases where ResearchGate could be the main web-presence of a researcher per WP:ELOFFICIAL). Often these links are on official profiles or official websites already (duplication of links). Lists of publications are typical on official profiles/websites, and often higher profile articles published by the researcher are even already mentioned in the article. And a complete list of all publications by a researcher is generally only of interest on the very very high profile ones (Nobel prize nominees and similar ground-breaking researchers), generally only a couple of high-profile are for most enough (and those are then mentioned/discussed in the article already). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@ DGG: OK, I think we all reasonably agree on WoS, researchgate and scopus.
For Google, lets go through some:
To me still, Google scholar is still a search result, not a human vetted list. And seen examples above, it seems to show incorrect results, which makes me wonder what the number from that actually mean. (I may add examples to this list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I recently used Template:ASIN in a citation for a book that had no ISBN. I was surprised to find that the template expands to an EL that goes to the Amazon web page where I can buy the book. I would have thought this is prohibited by WP:ELNO. Should I be using this template? This was at List of IBA official cocktails, and it's a Further reading, not a ref. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 23:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking [ELNEVER], these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article'.(ELNEVER note mine; emphasis original). If you are using something like {{ ASIN}} in the context of a reference, you may continue to use ASIN in that reference. There is a preference to use a more universal identifier such as a DOI or an ISBN, but if a particular work does not have one of those, then an ASIN is Good Enough.