Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
  • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Defer discussion:
Defer to RS/N
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

Find A Grave links as external links[edit]

In Baden-Powell grave, @Nikkimaria: stripped two findagrave URLs being used as references as the are not reliable. Fine, so I added them to the EL section, and Nikkimaria is now edit warring over this. Please tell me why the two links directly related to the article can't be used? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Kit and Morgan Benson. "Olave St. Clair Baden-Powell". Find a Grave. Retrieved 2019-04-02.
  • Kit and Morgan Benson. "Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell". Find a Grave. Retrieved 2019-06-11.
Evrik, what do they add? We don’t just link to everything that has the same subject. Remember the onus is on you to show that they are useful.
I have found FindAGrave links problematic for a long time. They are dumped everywhere without adding significant information, and most information there that is reliable can be added here as well, making them superfluous. For me, many should be cleaned out. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel they contain zero encyclopaedic info, so shouldn't be linked at all. Half the time there's no support that it's even the correct grave. It's a fansite really, user generated. It's effectively just a wiki. And other than a photo it usually has nothing not already in the article and we're not a travel guide, as the location isn't particularly encyclopaedic in most cases. And those two links add zero that's not already in the article, or in their respective Wikipedia articles. So it adds zero. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:ELPEREN's extry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • First, this is an article on a grave ... but simply, the graves are pilgrimage sites. Linking to FindAGrave may offer people sources not available on wikipedia. --evrik (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopaedia, not a grave guide or here to help people find spiritual guidance. And I personally, personally, think the idea of going to strangers graves for spiritual guidance to be super odd and inappropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 20:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Evrik, may .. IF there is substantial info there then they can be linked (but better, incorporate that data here, if you can find references). In by far the most cases the findagrave page does not add anything, and it is up to you to show that it merits linking for each specific case, so you should check. And if it gets challenged, like for the Baden-Powell grave, they go out until there is consensus. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The subject of the article is the grave. The website is findagrave. --evrik (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What do the links add that isn't already in the article? Do the links add any encyclopaedic information that isn't already included in the articles? I contend they do not add anything. Links must add extra information or purpose, not just exist because they're connected. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The article covers the subject adequately. In this case, the links offer the same story in a different voice, a slightly different narrative. In this case they are resource. --evrik (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Evrik, "In this case, the links offer the same story in a different voice" - that is enough, the links do not merit inclusion. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Evrik, findagrave is never the official website of a grave. And yes, they share he same topic, but we do not link to everything that has the same topic in external links sections, we are very selective in what we link. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this case, these links are"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." --evrik (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Evrik, No, they are not. This is not a knowledgeable source. Anyway, we are not a linkfarm. You do not have consensus for the inclusion of the links, hence, they are excluded. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Graves aren't automatically pilgrimage sites and we are not a tourist guide in any case. And as said above, this adds no encyclopedic value. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In fact, these are pilgrimages sites. --evrik (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    Evrik, and even if it is, that does not matter. The linked documents do not substantially add anything. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence on offer above that these links comply with WP:EL. More fundamentally, evrik, you do not have consensus. You came here asking for an opinion on the use and the unanimous answer is "no". I advise you to recognize that a consensus has indeed formed and move on to another editing task. Attempting to restore the links at this point would likely be considered disruptive and I'm sure no-one wants that. I hope that helps. 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talkcontribs)
There already is a widely adopted consensus. That answer is no as a reference; and almost always no as an EL. Things only end up in WP:RSP list only after repeated discussions and a consensus has been established. If you think you have the unusual exception, that's something to discuss. The fact we have Template:Find_a_Grave gives a false impression that it's a source that is encouraged to be used, unfortunately. Graywalls (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so no using  {{Find a Grave}} as a reference or in the External links section of an article unless in the unusual circumstance that they add something to the article not found elsewhere. --evrik (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm resurrecting this as it seem that some editors are trying to insert it into the infobox now as an external link under the understanding that the External link consensus only applies to the External links section, and not if imbedded inside another template. We already have consensus that the link adds nothing to the article, this is not some exceptional circumstance where the Find a Grave needs to be used on this article. It adds zero value to it, nothing exists in the link that isn't in this article or one of the main articles. Consensus seems to be it plain shouldn't be used here in any circumstance for this particular article. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that is a different discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, No, that is exactly the same discussion (it is here e.g.). WP:EL is applicable to EVERY external link in a document, throughout a document, with as only exception the links that are properly used as a reference. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The previous discussion was generated by the EL section of an article, not data used in a template. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, they are still external links. Evrik, stop your wikilawyering. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the rules for references and external links are not the same. For instance, we discourage ELs to marketplaces (Apple Music, Amazon, etc.) but for basic information about an album (tack titles, etc.), we can use such a link, however they would not help to confirm notability as they are linked to the subject. With that said, I'm not sure Find a Grave should be used as a reference either. The content is user-generated and I don't believe it is checked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, yes, but some links are unsuitable as references (as in generally too unreliable like findagrave), and as external links (generally do not add anything with some exceptions, like findagrave). There are two separate consensuses that have established that. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed: The rules for references and external links are not the same. But every now and again, someone tries to argue that these links are neither references nor external links, but some third thing that doesn't need to support article content but is still somehow exempt from Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with removal. I'm not sure why any of the other external links belong for that matter. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Since you removed one that has a discussion on the talk page, you should make a post on the talk page about that. Been some arguments as to whether or not a link to a copy of a letter he wrote has anything to do with his grave or not. Canterbury Tail talk 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. This is at the very least soapboxing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

findagrave in general[edit]

So, despite WP:ELPEREN strongly discouraging the use of findagrave in external links, we still have thousands (8085) and thousands (60,000) external links to findagrave (granted, not all in mainspace, but many are). References are down to a couple of hundreds, so they do not make a massive number of these 68085 links, and templates are prepared/exist to include these links. Should these be generally cleaned up (not by bot, but still rather drastically)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have a rock solid consensus that it simply shouldn’t be used then I’m happy to remove them as I come across them. Perhaps we should start by deleting the template if consensus is to ditch them. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also remove it from Templates like Infobox_cemetery and the like. I feel that it'll just continue to be used unless the community makes a decision firmly against it and actively removes it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: looks like there are far more than a couple hundred references - this search has 2600, there's a few hundred more for the http version, plus a couple thousand of the template in ref tags.
@Canterbury Tail: The template was recently nominated for deletion and kept, although I would be in favour of removing the parameter from infobox templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably somewhere between 14.7k (URL) and 19.6k (URL + template) uses in references. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Izno and Nikkimaria:, this just shows a couple of hundred (500 limit, less than a page). Funny that not all show up there. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Er, not sure why you're seeing what you're seeing, but at that link I see 15k. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. That's 1-500 of 16k for me. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Same, definitely says Results 1 – 500 of 16,165 in the top right corner. Canterbury Tail talk 14:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, ah, yes. Funny, so I can’t see results 500-1000? Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Beetstra I can scroll to the very bottom of the page and click Next 500 and get the next page of results and continue. There's no paging or Nexting at the top on Search results unlike some Wikipedia pages such as history or contributions. Could that be what you're missing? Canterbury Tail talk 16:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, yep, that’s it. Inconsistent.
Anyway, 500 or 16000, quite a number of unreliable sources, and still quite a number unaccounted for (50.000 odd, of which quite some on talkpages). Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As with special templates like {{cite tweet}}, I prefer to keep templates like the findagrave template as it makes it easier to find and audit usage (yes, I do agree that some use it under the belief that it is approved). (I wonder if there should be a general discussion about such templates to see if one of those is more convincing for the majority.)
There are 15.1k links in mainspace and another 37.6k template uses in mainspace. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this conversation, there is hidden category for Wikidata and WP article mismatch for the Find A Grave data, also we have Template:Find a Grave. The removal of these external links does not make sense in my opinion unless your planning on addressing these other factors as well. Jooojay (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[edit]

The Kwasizabantu article has been experiencing some edit warring recently, especially around recent controversy following a news report alleging the church of being a cult. I've been trying to keep an eye on the article and help editors note the WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. I believe I am a reasonably neutral editor for this article because I have no affiliation with Kwasizabantu and only learned about it recently through patrolling recent changes.

An external link to has been posted and reverted a few times. I believe it doesn't meet the criteria for an acceptable external link because it is not neutral (it is very much anti-Kwasizabantu) and doesn't contain substantial information that hasn't been mentioned or cited in the article.

I'd like to find consensus on this external link one way or another as a way to hopeful help defuse the edit warring. Thanks!

Ping @TruthFearsNoQuestion, the latest editor to post the link. — motevets (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Motevets, I think the first thing you all need to know is that WP:ELBURDEN is strict: disputed links are out, unless and until there is agreement ("consensus") to include them. There are no exceptions to this standard. No external link is ever so important than we need to edit war over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for pointing me to that policy. I've removed the external link for now from the article.— motevets (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Rose City Antifa[edit]

It has been suggested at the talk page to bring the discussion here to discuss the suitability of including the link .The proponent is suggesting it could be used per WP:ELMAYBE. I think it shouldn't be per WP:ELNO #1, 2, and 11. It is a text conversation that goes back and forth in an interview transcript format. It is purportedly an exchange between people who operate that website and people who are said to be from Rose City Antifa. Graywalls (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  • KEEP @Graywalls: I don't see anything on the page that indicates that this is a text conversation, and even if it was, I don't think that, by itself, would be enough to disregard the link. (These are underrepresented social distancing COVID times after all.) Regarding the ELNO points: this doesn't fail #1 because the site does provide a unique resource beyond what the article contains. It doesn't fail #2 because it is not trying to mislead the reader. The interview is very likely legitimate despite Antifa organizations being mostly anonymous because both organizations have interacted with each other on social media, so it would stand to reason that Rose City Antifa would have said something if the interview wasn't legitimate (which they haven't as far as I can see). Lastly, this doesn't fail #11 because this isn't a blog, personal web page, or fansite. It is the official website of the Brighton Antifascists. While this site likely does not pass muster as a reliable source, it does have sufficient notoriety to have an external link. Cheers! motevets (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean text as in SMS, but rather typed out dialogue. It's a self published page. Anyone can write anything. One could fabricate it and write it all up too. There is no independent editorial oversight whatsoever. Graywalls (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: you're right that there's no editorial oversight (that we know of) which is why we can't use it as a reliable source. But we have little to no reason to believe that this isn't published by the organization, Brighton Antifascists, an organization of notoriety in their own right or that the interview was fabricated, and given that they were interviewing the subject of the article, it is a resource that the reader would likely be interested in to supplement the article. Now, if Rose City Antifa announced that this interview was fabricated, then we should definitely question whether or not to include this link. My opinion is that there is no problem using this as an external link. -- motevets (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Motevets:, you know, people could setup interview with commissioners. So, if some person has an interview with Chloe Eudaly, then they type out the supposed transcript of the interview and toss it up into the cloud, then is it appropriate to add it as external link in her article? If not, why is this any different? Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I'm not sure what you mean by "setup interview with commissioners," but I believe the hypothetical you drew is different from the external link in question. The organisation that conducted and published the interview, Brighton Antifascists, is notable and have a prior relationship with Rose City Antifa. This isn't some random person with a blog on the internet who nobody has ever heard of publishing an alleged interview with a notable person. This is one notable organisation interviewing another one, and publishing it on their official website. Unless you can find a post on Rose City Antifia website or official social media discrediting the interview, then I don't think you'll change my mind. -- motevets (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, almost all websites are self-published with no independent editorial oversight whatsoever. (Think about it: Who exactly do you think is publishing say, Coca-Cola, Inc.'s website? Only people whose paychecks depend on them keeping Coca-Cola happy with their work, right? There's no "independent editorial oversight" there, but we still link to it, and to tens of thousands of websites like it, anyway.) That is, therefore, an irrelevant consideration for the ==External links== section.
Generally speaking, "interview transcripts" are named in WP:ELYES as a desirable type of link. Speaking specifically about this link, I'm not quite sure that it counts as "neutral" for that purpose – it's a bit self-promotional – but it is still a link to consider. Looking at the talk page, it seems that there is considerable support for inclusion. Unless that changes, I think the link should be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

External links in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj[edit]

There are quite a lot of embedded external links in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#Interviews and Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#Speeches which seem a bit sketchy per WP:EL (more specifically WP:ELLIST, WP:EL#cite_note-7, WP:CS:EMBED and maybe even WP:LINKFARM). There also seem to be WP:ELMINOFFICIAL issues in Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj#External links.

I guess it would be possible to treat the interviews and speeches sections as a quasi WP:FURTHERREADING section, but that's still quite a lot of links and maybe it's possible to reduce them if they are also being linked to from one of the official websites listed. I'm also not sure if simply moving them all to the "External links" resolves anything since that would seem to just be bloating the EL section unnecessarily. Some of the more siginficant interviews and speeches could perhaps be incorporated into the body of the article with the interview or speech cited as a source, but I'm not sure every interview and every speech given by Elbegdorj needs to be linked to yet alone even mentioned in the article.

Anyway, I'm just curious what some others might think about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I find it excessive. Some carefully selected interviews and documentaries are suitable as 'further reading' (where I have now wholesale moved the ==Interviews== and ==Speeches== sections) but this is too much. I am tempted to wholesale move the stuff to the talkpage so they can be cleaned out.
I have brought the external links section in line with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dirk Beetstra for taking a look at this and trying to clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


A discussion at Talk:8chan#Inclusion of the link to 8chan was mentioned at WP:ANI. The discussion asks whether the article should include a link to 8chan (yes: official link; no: possible illegal content). Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, the answer generally is that we link to a neutral landing page on the subject page. If that does not exist then we should make the exception to WP:ELOFFICIAL (which does happen). Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)