Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 II.
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

BBC INfax links are 404[edit]

Links to :- seem to be generating 404's, are these internal intranet links? (They should ideally be marked for archival replacement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs) 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert Moog[edit]

I'm currently doing extensive work on the Robert Moog article, which has a vast External links section. I could familiarise myself with the rights and wrongs of external links but it's the sort of Wikipedia work I find very dull and I'd rather focus on writing, my strong suit. Could anyone take a look and see how much of the section is kosher? Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Popcornduff. I've removed about half of them, and probably another 50% could get cut, too.
On the question of "the rights and wrongs of external links", the rules exist mostly for people who want to add things, rather than people who are trying to weed out things. There's one very simple rule for editors who find huge lists of links: If you don't like it, take it out. External links are meant to be optional niceties, rather than important content. The anti-edit-warring rule is that anyone can remove any link for any reason (including vague reasons, such as "I just don't think it's a desirable link for this article"), and the disputed link stays out unless and until there is evidence of a consensus to include it. So, when you encounter vast External links sections, feel free to remove anything that doesn't seem like a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Great to know. Thanks for the help. Popcornduff (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruise booking site[edit]

Spotting this link on a number of cruise ship articles usually claiming its a link to show the ship location but it looks like its primarily book a cruise through us site. Lyndaship (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at one of these links. Would you be happier with a page such as ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this site is primarily one which seeks to sell you a cruise but I wouldn't see the point in adding it as an external link as the only information it is likely to give beyond what should be in the article sourced from RS is the current location and destinations which I don't think it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The articles on cruise ships suffer hugely from enthusiasts putting on review sites and all sorts of stuff which is of no interest to the general reader Lyndaship (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that destinations are a reasonable thing to include in an encyclopedia article, assuming that they don't change so often that it becomes a maintenance burden. s:en:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Steamship Lines lists many ships and their main destinations.
Current location is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but one of the main points behind the ==External links== section is to provide information that doesn't belong in the article. (If the current location belonged in the article, then WP:ELNO#EL1 would prohibit us from adding a link for its location.) So I think that a link about current location could be accepted (if editors want to add it). The Cleancruising link itself might fall afoul of WP:ELNO#EL5 on grounds of "objectionable amounts of advertising", but any one of several links that doesn't have quite so much advertising is probably acceptable. Links like this are also not required, so if you don't like them, you can remove them, and then see if anyone actually cares enough to start a discussion about whether to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for guidance. Agree areas of operation are encyclopedic but routes and destinations tend to vary with every trip so I feel to try to include them all will result in an incomplete record and it overwhelms the article with detail disinteresting to the general reader. Not something I am trying to clean up though at present Lyndaship (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC pointer[edit]

There is an RfC in progress here that may of be interest to editors here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

how to approach ELs for lists[edit]

I'm not sure why there are any ELs at List of soccer clubs in the United States as there is no official link for the subject. Any advice would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that was just removed (which is okay). The usual reason is that (according to the editors who place them) these will be interesting or useful to the likely readers of that page. (The external links section isn't exclusively for official links, so it doesn't really matter that there isn't a single official link for all US soccer clubs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to 1960s commercial audio recordings at the Internet Archive[edit]

I'd be glad of advice on the propriety of the link added here. The recording was made by EMI in the 1960s and I'm not at all sure it's out of copyright. A steer from an editor who knows the rules about copyright and links would be v. gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate, as the copyright is not clear. Internet Archives does not assure material uploaded is appropriately licensed, we need to check that. That's likely an improper upload under their terms but we should assume that the sound recording is still copyrighted (to at the latest 2067). --Masem (t) 19:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that advice. I rather thought it might be so. I'll delete, and explain why on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 20:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)