Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

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. (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: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

User:Ani medjool

User:Ani medjool shows two links to Youtube. They appear to be investigations by The Guardian. I'm not seeing anything license or statement wise giving Youtube permission. I asked the user if he knew but action was not taken. Is this a WP:ELNEVER concern or am I just not seeing the license?Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Disregard they were removedCptnono (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Elinks dispute at Talk:Centrifugal force

I'd like to invite editors here familiar with the guidelines to comment on the RfC there. Currently there is something of a stalemate with regard to the proposed link (addition/removal), with various IPs and some registered editors first removing the (offensive to them) link, which is then reverted (for the reason given that 'the dispute has not been settled'). Any editors willing to chip in their opinion would be helpful, though it might be useful to read the current reasonings first. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the link in question. The RfC has been open for about two months, and the responses haven't been obviously for or against. I'm sure that responses from editors (especially from non-specialists) would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider this to be a self-evident violation of WP:CANVAS. This call is self-evidently trying to imply that the link is only considered to be offensive, and only mentions one side of the story. The implication that it's OK to remove links when there is clear lack of consensus to do so, where's the heck that coming from?- Wolfkeeper 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As the person that added the link, the link is on-topic, concise, accurate, informative, amusing and I have requested the author relicense it so we can include the actual image in the wikipedia article. It violates no policies, nor is it, except to the most humour deficient deletionist in any way offensive to anyone.- Wolfkeeper 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of the image being relicensed (it's already under a free license, but the Wikipedia needs a commercial 'free' license), there is no replacement image, and hence this is permitted under WP:EL.- Wolfkeeper 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, gaining consensus about issues that are currently at a stalemate is one of the reasons this board was created. ThemFromSpace 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but you're supposed to make the call neutral. You point out that there is a dicussion, and leave it at that. This call went significantly further. He's violating both the spirit and letter of WP:CANVAS.- Wolfkeeper 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I don't think that it is actually possible for any notice at a widely recognized, formal noticeboard, no matter how biased its wording, to violate WP:CANVAS. But even if it is, I hope that you'll assume that the editors who frequent this board are smart enough and experienced enough not to be irrevocably misled by the first message that we happen to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this could be seen as non-neutral; I went as far in the first sentence of saying "addition/removal". Have some faith that I did this because I was looking for editors who would be willing to comment on the issue at hand, and who have dealt with external links disputes before, and not as trying to canvass. It would make your life and mine simpler. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

timedetectives

I reverted some links like these a while ago. Now an IP has added a couple more. Any opinions on whether they are helpful? Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like they're links to the family trees for a handful of celebrities; the genealogy work was done by a professional service that charges a minimum of 150 pounds per tree.

It also looks probable that the IP is the owner of the service, who (naturally enough) would like his business to be promoted on Wikipedia.

I don't think these links provide useful or encyclopedic information about the people in question. I would remove them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just removed them all. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

erowid

I am concerned about the number of times that erowid.org appears as an external link (and sometimes cited as a reference) (over 500 times) Does the content on the site generally meet the criteria for External links "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" or "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". MM207.69.137.6 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Erowid is a very large library & archive covering a lot of topics, so I wouldn't be surprised or very concerned about the large number of links, unless there's a problem with redundant links within articles.

You're asking if the site's content generally meets WP:EL criteria. Since it has a lot of different kinds of content — from peer-reviewed, journal-published articles & books to archives of anecdotal, ephemeral postings by anonymous contributors — it is very much like any other library or other meta-resource: the primary concern should be whether specific, individually authored content is worthy of being linked to, in the manner it is, from the relevant articles; not so much whether the collection, in aggregate, is problematic.

If you have concerns about neutrality, accuracy, and credible authorship of specific content, I recommend dealing with that in the usual way: discussion on the article talk pages, or just being bold and pruning whatever links are of dubious research value.

If you have concerns about the curators' editorial policy, Erowid Center explains this, to some extent. The FAQ says they're committed to verifying and referencing what's there already. The About Us explains that new content comes from what are essentially 'knowledgable sources' (vetted by the curators, FWIW), and new content is reviewed & edited. I'm also told (privately) "We are a long-term library that can be cited at consistent URLs for the purpose of scholarship and discussion. We strive towards 'neutral and accurate' as per our non-profit charter, but there are always errors in any library, documents age, and some are less good than others to begin with. Even with very old, out of date documents, we believe in keeping them for the purpose of long term access, the evolution of knowledge, etc. We will add editors' notes to documents that are desperately out of date or next to facts that are clearly wrong in existing documents." They also said they do minor copy edits as needed, and credit themselves when there are more substantial changes. However I certainly wouldn't interpret that as meaning that all content has been reviewed; again, I strongly suggest considering the appropriateness of linked content on a case-by-case basis. —mjb (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that most, but not all, of what's there meets our "knowledgeable sources" standard. However, "not actually banned by the guideline" is not the same as "you should include this link": editors must use their best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My concern, mjb, would be the uneven mix of material. Reading the FAQ on "LSD", I was impressed by the terse, knowledgeable and informative style. That is, until an abrupt change to informal, even semi-literate original research in a new section, "Because of its extreme cheapness and potency, the purity of LSD in blotter form is not an issue: either it's lsd or untreated paper." I can't resist ... one has to ask ... was this guy on drugs? LSD is as cheap as untreated paper? What?? If it's as cheap as paper now, why would anybody bother selling an imitation? This wild plunge from the scientific to the incoherent in a single article ... not good. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's not as clearly written as it can be, but I'm not sure you interpreted that statement in the FAQ correctly. "Why would anybody bother selling an imitation?" is actually the point. The paragraph in question is followed by an excerpt from a book which makes it more clear what they're trying to say, which is that it's unlikely that LSD on blotter has been replaced with something, because other psychoactive adulterants are going to cost more to make, and will be far less potent (have a lower quantity-to-dose ratio); an LSD-dose-sized square of blotter is too small to accommodate a psychoactive amount of pretty much anything (although if the DEA is correct, it can happen).

Anyway, Erowid's own disclaimer at the top of the FAQ indicate it's probably not an ideal reference, as it's an archived publication (e.g., from Usenet archives), not part of their 'current' collection. More generally, like I said, if a particular document contains questionable content or has poorly written sections, then we probably shouldn't link to it. I wouldn't blacklist the entire domain over it. As the previous commenter said, editors must use their best judgment. —mjb (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Petitions

Is it OK to link to a petition website for a petition related to an article? In particular I have found a petition to have a criminal released from prison in the external links of his article, wanted to know official policy regarding this. Freikorp (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:SOAP applies here. External links shouldn't really be used for advocacy of causes. ThemFromSpace 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this sort of link as unencyclopedic, although if there are newspaper stories (or things like that) discussing the fact that petitions are being circulated, then this verifiable fact might be appropriate to include in the body of the article.

Additionally, it's widely known that online petitions are a complete waste of time and energy (no political body pays any attention to them), so I think that including the link would tend to make the reader think that Wikipedia was not a serious or thoughtful enterprise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice from both of you, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dmoz hater

An IP User has an anti Dmoz fetish, and is wholesale replacing Dmoz links with paid-for-listing Yahoo directory ones, despite the obvious inferiority of the Yahoo links. On my talk page he has asserted more than 20 editors have stated a preference for Yahoo links over Dmoz ("More than 20 editors agree with this point and only two disagree") and a bizarre assertion that WP:EL mentions the Yahoo directory when it does not. Frankly these statements and actions are mystifying since no such discussions or text have occurred. I'm posting here partly to get some agreement that the jillions of Dmoz links we have are fine, especially as a single link in highly popular, highly spammable articles (like the gambling ones in question here)... and to get some help in reversion policing of this particular user's fetish regarding changing all these links to yahoo while making up guideline text and phantom 20/2 discussions as a justification for doing it. 2005 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It says here at a Wikipedia Spam Reduction Project page that Yahoo Directory is part of the Wikipedia spam project and can be used as an alternative to DMOZ. So I am here to defend my actions of replacing DMOZ listings, which are full of outdated and few sites, with fresh Yahoo listings. Many DMOZ pages are full of poor quality outdated links, whereas Yahoo has to update their pages with fresh links that actually work and are not left around for years at a time. There is controversy about DMOZ editors adding only their own sites to these pages and nothing else, thus reduces the quality of these pages and prevents extremely high quality sites from ever being listed there. Adding the Yahoo directory link instead of poor DMOZ links actually helps Wikipedia visitors out, giving them a fresher and higher quality choice of sites, and this is more important than this guy's Pro-DMOZ fetish.

I would also like Wikipedia Administrators to consider adding Best of the Web (BOTW) directory in addition to the spam project's templates like DMOZ and Yahoo directory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.163.74 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dmoz does suck for subjects that don't lend themselves to analysis by enthusiasts (things like bingo, casino directories, etc.), and should be removed. But not to be replaced with this - [1] - tell me the relevance of any single one of those links to online bingo????

Note that BOTW requires a $150/year payment for inclusion and is therefore unsuitable ab initio. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for creating that link incorrectly, since 2005 keeps reversing every single page and I have to keep creating the links, a mistake is bound to happen. Still, BOTW has a much better selection than DMOZ and it's updated frequently, so it doesn't matter if it's $150/year for inclusion. Many people have been known to bribe DMOZ editors to get their links listed, which will be heavily trafficked by Wikipedia visitors. Other editors won't add anything useful for years on those DMOZ pages. Still, other editors will just refuse to list anything but their own low quality sites, essentially making it impossible for anyone else to have a chance to be listed there. ANYTHING is better than DMOZ and it also helps Wikipedia visitors more than anything.

Also, I think the Wikipedia Administrators need to think more about their policy of giving DMOZ automatic unanimous default privileges of being listed everywhere on Wikipedia when spam links get too troubling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.163.74 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators also need to understand that DMOZ is not editable by the rest of the public. If an editor dies for example, the category is essentially locked out from being edited by anyone for years unless one of the few editors with greater authority decides to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.163.74 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that people pay to advertise on a page doesn't bother me. WP:EL does not actually prohibit pages that contain paid advertisements.

I think that most of these directories don't need to be listed at all: IMO the articles are better served by no link than by either DMOZ or Yahoo! links.

When a link is being included, the choice between the two should be made individually, based on what's most useful to the reader. We link individual, specific pages in individual, specific articles, not "DMOZ" on "Wikipedia". A bunch of deadlinks at DMOZ is not preferable to Yahoo!; conversely, a bunch of commercial-only links at Yahoo! is not preferable to a more comprehensive list at DMOZ. Editors need to look at the actual pages and compare them, and quit worrying about whether the link is spelled d-m-o-z or y-a-h-o-o.

Given this dispute, if a page already contains one or the other, then the fact of the change should be discussed. If there's a problem with an existing DMOZ link, for example, then leave a note on the talk page about exactly why the Yahoo! link is better. This standard procedure should cut down noticeably on complaints and edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect External Wiki

The Mass Effect article has had an external wiki link added and removed twice (removed based on WP:ELNO). In the talk page I discuss why I think the WP:ELNO does not apply to this link and hope to draw further attention to this issue. ialsoagree (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

www.encyclopediamilton.com

Copy-&-pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, after Johnuniq suggested the move. --bender235 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jasonmichaelweaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) frequently adds www.encyclopediamilton.com to Milton, Florida. In my opinion this site is WP:SPAM, which is why I reverted his additions. He opposes. Hence we need some 3rd opinions. --bender235 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to add it frequently. At first I didn't even understand why it had been taken off. Why are there 3rd opinions needed to put it back but not to take it off? That was one of my first experiences editing in Wikipedia but for the most part I regret it because the website has been very openly called spam and I have been called a spammer. I'm not going to add it back; someone else can if they judge it to be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmichaelweaver (talk • contribs) 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities/Guideline strongly discourages external links other than official city links. On that basis, I would leave the link out. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason, I'm sorry that you've had a discouraging experience. Wikipedia can be a complicated place. You might like to read the advice at WP:PROMO. It's not all relevant to your specific situation, but you might find some of it helpful.

Bender, I don't think that adding the link three times (ever) really counts as spamming behavior, especially with someone who probably thought your zero-explanation removal was an honest error on your part. In the future, please try to add edit summaries for non-vandalism reversions. Just saying, "I don't think this is a good website" might have been helpful, and I'm sure that starting a discussion on the WP:TALK page would have been helpful.

I don't think that I would have removed this website. Local history websites aren't prohibited by the actual guideline, and a small town like this isn't likely to have a better or more official history website. (Jason, please keep in mind that "not actually prohibited" isn't the same as "should be included": There are so many websites that are "not actually prohibited" that we usually try to have positive reasons for including them.)

The article has a bit of a linkfarm, and it should be weeded: The radio websites should probably get pulled, the high school is a deadlink, and surely a single tourist center is enough. If I were going to reduce unwanted links in this article, I definitely wouldn't have started with the "Encyclopedia Milton". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

nemo.nu

[2] has been linked to Egyptology articles and a couple of tank articles, but just a few links. This morning Ottarvendel (talk · contribs), evidently its webmaster (see [3], has added it to a large number of articles. I've pointed him to our policies on spam and COI, but I'd like to know if people agree this falls under WP:ELNO as a personal website. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed he's ignored my request to stop. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of a note on his talk page; are you sure that he's received the message? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a copy and paste error, fixed. The webmaster isn't an expert in the area, and likely fails ELNO #1 at least. I would say it's spam. I've reverted the ones I could with rollback. If someone else finds the links worthwhile, I wouldn't mind them being reinserted on a case by case basis. MER-C 12:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that all makes a lot of sense and is very helpful, WhatamIdoing. Thank you for taking the time to explain that all to me and help me out. I'll try to be more careful to avoid confusion in the future.Jasonmichaelweaver (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube Copyright infringement?

I'd like to add an external link to Youtube, but I don't yet know the copyright policy well enough. The page to be added to is Moi... Lolita. The vid contains the original French lyrics plus an English translation, subtitled over a live performance. Does the video still infringe copyright if the original has been modified? My guess is yes, I'm just shooting for a second opinion. And then isn't even Youtube blatantly spreading illegal recordings? Just curious on that last point.

Here is the link: Moi ... Lolita Lyrics and Translation at Youtube.com SSBDelphiki (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're exactly right. It looks like a commercial music video that someone has subtitled. There is no indication that the translator has the right to copy, post, or share the video. Please do not link things like this, and please remove such links whenever you find them.

Thanks for your vigilance on this issue! WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)