Please do not ask about specific external links here! Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link. |
This guideline has nothing to do with links to sources that are used to support information in an article. Those questions should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard. |
Index |
Sorted by subject:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Editors watching this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Bot requests#External links bot. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see my question in Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources#What to do if original website was replaced by predatory dangerous website. - Altenmann >talk 06:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
|url-status=
parameter of most
Wikipedia:Citation templates.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Shouldn't phishing sites (sites that try to deceive the reader that they are the "official" site of a bank or similar, so that they can steal things from them) be included in links to avoid? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mrsone40 ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Should we allow using external links in some fashion in lists of websites? I was looking at List of fact-checking websites recently and recommending it to my students as a useful tool, except that for many entries on it there is, well, no link to the relevant website. One has to google for it or click through to references (media reports/scholarly works) and search inside them for a link. This is hardly ideal.
Looking at some examples. Some just list notable websites - easy. But many list websites which are not notable or do not have articles yet, and this is where there is a lot of mess. Some don't have links anywhere, ex. List of fact-checking websites which would be a valuable educational tool, but right now it is quite annoying to use because, well, it does not link to said websites, just to some mentions of them. Some lists do it by having an infobox for each entry (ex. List of medical wikis). Some have a table with a (non-clickable) URL field: List of North Korean websites banned in South Korea, List of websites blocked in the United Kingdom. Some have embedded links which IMHO seem to clearly violate this policy (ex. List of online image archives).
So it seems to me that many lists do link, prominently, links to websites they discuss. Which, frankly, seems reasonable. Maybe it's time to work out a best practice and write up in the policy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
... the lists themselves should not be composed of external links. These lists are primarily intended to provide direct information and internal navigation, not to be a directory of sites on the web.Granted, than it says
The rules about whether to include an external link in a list apply regardless of the method used to format the list.- but what rules? Then we have examples, with restaurants used for 'no links' (why? it is not explained) and elections as 'links are ok'. This is very arbitrary.
In other cases, such as for lists of political candidates and software, a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table:- fine, but what are those 'other case' where it is ok or not ok? Frankly, all we are saying, apparently, is that we should not include links in the list, but sometimes it is ok, then we say effectively, that for restaurants it is bad, for politial candidates and software it is ok. Very random, very confusing. I feel this section needs a total rewrite. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
In some articles when an external link is to an item with a named author sometimes the order is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this edit made by CopperyMarrow15 in August 2023? When the "notes" were converted to WP:SRF#Explanatory notes in change their numbering from numerical (1, 2, 3, etc.) to alphabetic (a, b, c, etc.). Since these notes are are referred to using Wikilinks in edit summaries or on other talk pages, all of the links no longer work. If there's a way to use {{ efn}} with numbers instead of letters of the alphabet, then that might be preferable so that links to the notes still work. If not, then perhaps the bold change should be reverted to re-establish the WP:STATUSQUO and allow it to be discussed a bit. If using "efn" is the way to go here and it's impossible to convert them to a numerical system, then perhaps WP:ANCHORs should be added so that links to the old system work again. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not ask about specific external links here! Use the external links noticeboard to get feedback on the suitability of a disputed link. |
This guideline has nothing to do with links to sources that are used to support information in an article. Those questions should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard. |
Index |
Sorted by subject:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Editors watching this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Bot requests#External links bot. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please see my question in Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources#What to do if original website was replaced by predatory dangerous website. - Altenmann >talk 06:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
|url-status=
parameter of most
Wikipedia:Citation templates.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Shouldn't phishing sites (sites that try to deceive the reader that they are the "official" site of a bank or similar, so that they can steal things from them) be included in links to avoid? Cambalachero ( talk) 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mrsone40 ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Should we allow using external links in some fashion in lists of websites? I was looking at List of fact-checking websites recently and recommending it to my students as a useful tool, except that for many entries on it there is, well, no link to the relevant website. One has to google for it or click through to references (media reports/scholarly works) and search inside them for a link. This is hardly ideal.
Looking at some examples. Some just list notable websites - easy. But many list websites which are not notable or do not have articles yet, and this is where there is a lot of mess. Some don't have links anywhere, ex. List of fact-checking websites which would be a valuable educational tool, but right now it is quite annoying to use because, well, it does not link to said websites, just to some mentions of them. Some lists do it by having an infobox for each entry (ex. List of medical wikis). Some have a table with a (non-clickable) URL field: List of North Korean websites banned in South Korea, List of websites blocked in the United Kingdom. Some have embedded links which IMHO seem to clearly violate this policy (ex. List of online image archives).
So it seems to me that many lists do link, prominently, links to websites they discuss. Which, frankly, seems reasonable. Maybe it's time to work out a best practice and write up in the policy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
... the lists themselves should not be composed of external links. These lists are primarily intended to provide direct information and internal navigation, not to be a directory of sites on the web.Granted, than it says
The rules about whether to include an external link in a list apply regardless of the method used to format the list.- but what rules? Then we have examples, with restaurants used for 'no links' (why? it is not explained) and elections as 'links are ok'. This is very arbitrary.
In other cases, such as for lists of political candidates and software, a list may be formatted as a table, and appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within the table:- fine, but what are those 'other case' where it is ok or not ok? Frankly, all we are saying, apparently, is that we should not include links in the list, but sometimes it is ok, then we say effectively, that for restaurants it is bad, for politial candidates and software it is ok. Very random, very confusing. I feel this section needs a total rewrite. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
In some articles when an external link is to an item with a named author sometimes the order is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this edit made by CopperyMarrow15 in August 2023? When the "notes" were converted to WP:SRF#Explanatory notes in change their numbering from numerical (1, 2, 3, etc.) to alphabetic (a, b, c, etc.). Since these notes are are referred to using Wikilinks in edit summaries or on other talk pages, all of the links no longer work. If there's a way to use {{ efn}} with numbers instead of letters of the alphabet, then that might be preferable so that links to the notes still work. If not, then perhaps the bold change should be reverted to re-establish the WP:STATUSQUO and allow it to be discussed a bit. If using "efn" is the way to go here and it's impossible to convert them to a numerical system, then perhaps WP:ANCHORs should be added so that links to the old system work again. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)