Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 16

Rush Hour (board game)

Link to iTunes version at Rush Hour (board game) fails WP:EL in my view, but another editor is determined to re-add it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support removal:
This article needs a lot of help. There are 11 external links versus zero references. Yes I know there shows two but they are just fillers to avoid deletion. The "See also" section and the "External links" section is far too large and that needs to be reduced, by deleting the one added, as well as getting rid of excess, but reliable sources need to be found also. Otr500 (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Greenlandic language

Given the problems with external links in language-related articles, I thought it might be best to take this dispute here for visibility. The links that are currently in dispute are below. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the problems with external links in language related articles exactly?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Language articles attract promotional and off-topic links, and don't appear well-maintained when it comes to such problems (recent discussions at Talk:Amharic language, ELN and RSPAM) --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not only it, Ronz. The problem is that many articles contain links which are plainly indirect on the topic.
  • Linking to a news outlet on a language page (or a country or city page) is indirect, it belongs on the page of the news outlet, and when needed, that wikilink should be in the text.
  • A text written in the language, linked from the language page does not teach you about what the language is about, it at best is an example. First of all, the specific choice of one text is undue (why this specific one), second of all it is just a text which is uncomprehensible without knowing the language. This goes for Bibles, Qurans, a textbook in agriculture - none of these are written to teach you about the language, they 'teach' about their subject (christianity, islam, agriculture). Note that many languages have an 'official translation' of the bigger books, which I would argue to be intrinsically notable, and hence would be suitable for an own article where the link is direct.
  • A well chosen, 'official' dictionary may be a good link, but often you see specific dictionaries (for Amharic it was the medical one, why not the chemical one or a technical one - leaving out a general dictionary), or linkfarms full of unofficial dictionaries. Don't forget we have Wiktionary as an alternative to this.
  • As for dictionaries, that goes for grammars as well. Many languages have an official grammar institute with an official grammar, all others are superfluous. If there is no official one, one needs either to chose a good one, or just leave them out.
  • 'Learn x'-links. Inappropriate, promotional, and a massive WP:SPAMHOLE (starting from the very first of them). If people want to learn a language, then they should find a suitable course using a search engine, that is not within Wikipedia's scope. Maybe it is within Wikiversity's scope.
We are not writing a directory service, the yellow pages or a linkfarm here. The links should really be about understanding the topic, and this type of material is simply not justified for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The disputed links on Greenlandic language

  • The Bible in Kalaallisut online translation from the Church of Denmark
    The page contains nothing about the understanding of the language. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(I've commented on these cases on the talkpage of the article). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Seattle Wikia

Requesting comment on the suitability of a Seattle Wikia page for Last Exit on Brooklyn. The site, unfortunately, has zero editors at the present time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry to refactor, but this discussion is already started on the talk page of that article. I am pasting a comment here to there, and would ask that people here join the established conversation there at Talk:Last_Exit_on_Brooklyn#External_links. What Ed says is correct - this is the subject of discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I agree the discussion should take place where it has already been underway for some time. Skyerise (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

lukeisback and sexherald dot com

Are "lukeisback" and "" appropriate and compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links?

  • WP search results "lukeisback"[1]
  • WP search results ""[2]

An open RSN discussion [3] indicates that they are not WP:RS. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The way I read our EL policy, any external link that's not, say, the subject's (personal) website or something like that ought to be a reliable source, and the two sites in question are discredited following discussion at WP:RSN. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:ELMAYBE permits non-reliable sources, but you'd still need a positive reason to include them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bulk deletion of microscopy ELs

Ronz has just bulk-blanked the whole ELs section of these articles. Even removing journal references from phase contrast microscopy. I restored most of them, those that clearly met WP:EL. They were immediately reverted by Ronz "per ELBURDEN". No attempt at discussion.

Yes, I have read WP:EL. Read the contribs history - I strip a whole lot of spam and spam ELs. These are not spam.

I can't even begin to understand where this bulk-blanking comes from. Just bulk-removing the lot, no per-link study whatsoever. How does that work?

These links are all about microscopy topics - a hugely complicated topic. Our "good" ELs are there to provide resources that WP can't provide for itself, and that's just what these are doing. Some, like the links are to authoritative teaching resources from one of the big names in the field. The ibiology link is a 20 minute video course on confocal microscopy in biology - the sort of resource we have no real chance of providing on-site, just as WP:EL demands.

I'd appreciate further comments on this. Looking at Ronz' edit history, this is the characteristic style of his editing. Maybe he's a polymath who knows every subject, but this looks an awful lot like "All ELs must DIE" and no critical assessment is being applied to each. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on you to find consensus for inclusion. Instead you've decided to focus on me, overlook the discussions I've started. Taking this to ELN is in extremely bad form, especially when you haven't bothered to discuss any of them yourself. How about deleting this and engaging in the discussions? --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
After you bulk-reverted me three times without any attempt at discussion I considered ANEW, but you were already there and warned. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I started discussions in each case, despite the fact that the burden is on you to get consensus. You've joined one of the discussions, apparently not reading my comments there. Can we assume you will be joining the other discussions soon, and reading what I've written when you do? --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No response? Then I consider the matter closed. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm dubious about these removals, Ronz. For example, the Java simulators towards the end of this link appear to make that link both valuable and fully compliant with all the guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If that's the worst concern you have, then we're wasting time. Please follow WP:ELBURDEN and take it up on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the Youtube clip a copyright violation of the original film/sound recording, even though the subject sang the public domain song? I wonder if the Youtube upload complies with copyright law of Italy. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There can be multiple, separate copyright issues. The songwriter's claim is expired (the song itself is in the public domain), but you'd have to check the filmaker's rights separately. The description at the article says that the film is from 1960. Presumably someone far more familiar with copyright could tell you whether that is likely to be okay or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked copyright law of Italy. The duration is 70 years after life of the last surviving author. In other words, it may have been copyrighted on 1 January 1996, so it is copyrightable under URAA. Fulvio Vernizzi died in 2005, so copyright may have been violated. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Invalid link

Regarding profile of Vikki Thomas:

Item 3 under References should be removed as the link therein is invalid. (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It could remain, as per WP:KDL. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced it with an archived version. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 08:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of links to YouTube videos

A user named gyrofrog removed a link I placed on the page of Jimmy Rushing to a YouTube video. His contention is that the video might violate copyright. This seems odd to me because there must be literally millions of Wikipedia links to YouTube videos that MIGHT be copyright violations, and they are not removed from Wikipedia. There is no possible to way to know that a YouTube video violates copyright, and the assumption must be that it doesn't since a takedown hasn't been issued. YouTube is far more likely to know if a given video violates copyright than a Wikipedia contributor would. Suspicion should not be enough justification for removal. This problem doesn't stop at videos, it extends to photos and written materials posted to sites like Scribd. In other words, probably tens of millions of links should be removed from Wikipedia if the basis for doing so is suspicion of copyright violation. It is one thing to remove items (like photos) from Wikipedia if their freedom from copyright is not asserted, but to extend this to links is insensible. For starters, I don't think Wikipedia could be held responsible for links that lead to copyrighted items. And I presume that Wikipedia could also receive takedown requests if violations existed. is gyrofrog correct that a link to a video suspected of being posted to an external site in violation of copyright should be removed? If so, when will the wholesale removal of such links begin? I don't like to have my link removed while countless others remain. Nicmart (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've previously commented at Talk:Jimmy Rushing#Copyright. The video in question is Jimmy Rushing on YouTube, originally from the Jazz Casual television program. The end of the program (at 29:00) unambiguously states "©1995 Jazz Casual Productions, Inc. By license from Jazz Casual Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It may unambiguously state that, but such a statement is not necessarily fact when the work is introduced or especially after time has elapsed. All sorts of possibilities exist. The copyright may have not have been renewed. It may be been licensed and the license expired. Jazz Casual Productions may not exist anymore. Such a thing is commonplace. I spoke to a man tonight whose wife had some major music hits in the 1950s on a now defunct label. I was surprised that he has the original tapes. Who owns the copyright? It would probably take a team of lawyers and an expensive lawsuit to make that determination if anyone cares. Yet many of those recordings are now on YouTube. The original albums and single bear the copyright of a label that hasn't existed for decades. I have several books by Richard Mitchell that have copyright info in them, naturally, but the copyright reverted to him, and before he died he stated that the works would no longer by copyrighted and anyone could use them as they saw fit. (There is actually no official process of uncopyrighting a work in the United States.) Truth is, as I said, that Wikipedia entries include links to millions of presumably copyrighted video, audio, and written works, and those remain in place. I'm unaware of any statutory or case law that makes someone (in America) who links to those works guilty of copyright violation. Gyrofrog has not enlightened me of such legal evidence, and he has not explained why all Wikipedia entries that have links to presumptively copyrighted material should not be removed. Does Gyrofrog do nothing but spend his time visiting Wikipedia sites and removing such links, because it is a full-time hobby. I think it is up to the owner of the linked web site to determine what is copyrighted and what is not, and that inexpert Wikipedia users do not have the information to make the call. The important fact is that it is not a copyright violation in America to link to those works, and it is routinely done on Wikipedia. Nicmart (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy against linking to copyrighted material, although it is based on reputation more than law. (Makes Wikipedia look bad.) It specifically refers to YouTube as a possible offender. It says that Wikipedia's editing code automatically blocks linking to sites known for copyright violations. But what site is alleged to violate copyright more freely than YouTube, yet code doesn't prevent linking to YouTube. Why not? This seems like rank hypocrisy to me, and the Wikipedia discussion of contributory copyright infringement in no way demonstrates that links to copyrighted material are themselves contributory. In fact, the case mentioned, Sony v Universal City would suggest the opposite. It is the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed consumers to use Betamax machines known to record copyrighted material from TV. Nicmart (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the Wikipedia interface should warn users when adding a link to It does this for other external links that are on the prohibited list. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
YT are generally discouraged in all cases because the bulk of YT uploads are copyright infringements. However, if you have very sound confirmation that the uploader is the copyright owner of the video and that the account is truly that person, then that's okay to include as a link. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I can tell you that the uploader is not "Jazz Casual Productions, Inc." nor anything similar. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:ELNEVER/copyright issue was one of the items that I had brought up at the article's talk page; Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube is another. Ignoring the WP:ELNEVER concerns for a moment: the editor hasn't made a case why this particular video (much less any video) should have a link in the article, given our YouTube guidelines. We wouldn't link to every Jimmy Rushing video (as per WP:NOTLINK) but why this video? But given WP:ELNEVER, I don't see how we would include it at all. It does sound like the the editor's concern is (at least) as much about the application of WP:ELNEVER, in general, as it is about adding a YouTube link to Jimmy Rushing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Wattpad is a forum for self-publication of works of fiction. My question, are the links given in this section permissible? Both stories and authors are linked: Noyster (talk), 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. Perhaps links to the categories would be OK (for example, here), because otherwise it can be seen as promoting individual works, which is unfair and that section will be a permanent spam magnet (if it isn't already). The article is not about the stories or the writers, it's about the company. I removed it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:EL#ADV related question

I've deleted a number of external links to pages from the website that were added to various building articles by CityRealtyNYC. The articles in question are Millennium Tower (New York City), Chelsea Modern, The Astor 235 West 75th Street, Metropolitan Tower (Manhattan), 731 Lexington Avenue, and 101 Warren Street. I believe this was the correct thing to do per both WP:EL#ADV and WP:ELSPAM since "CityRealtyNYC", based upon their choice of username, appears to be directly connected to "City Realty". I know I have already gone and put the cart before the horse, but I'm asking here just to see if what I did was OK. If not, then my mistake and please revert as deemed necessary. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What external links can I use?

Hi, I've started my account a few days ago and I'm trying to edit a post and to add external links. I've read Wikipedia:External links and I have some questions: 1. Can I link to pages like,,,,,,,,, (I have to mention that these sites provide additional information and relevant content) 2. Can I link to blogs that are not mine, but are relevant for my content? 3. Can I link to NGOs like GoGirl 11:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Rolandia (talkcontribs)

@Andreea Rolandia: That depends completely on the context. Do you mean whether this link is the (thé) official homepage of the subject of the Wikipedia page, then you can. Or do you have another page on Wikipedia, and you want to link to a specific page on one of these sites, where the page is on the same subject as the Wikipedia page, then it depends: does that page add anything that is not already covered by the Wikipedia page itself (or could the vast majority of that extra info be incorporated; or the extra information is already been covered by the other external links), then no, otherwise, providing that the number of external links is not getting excessive (we are not writing a linkfarm or an internet directory) then maybe. When in doubt, open a discussion on the talkpage of the page where you want to add the link to. Of course, the page linked to should be reasonable reliable (open wikis are generally not deemed stable and reliable, with some exceptions) and accessible to everyone (e.g. certain websites are only accessible in certain areas of the world, e.g. certain YouTube videos, even when perfectly on topic, are only accessible in USA and not for the other millions of readers of Wikipedia; pages in Romanian will not be understandable to the majority of English speaking people). I hope this helps a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback. I think I will open a discussion on the talkpage. GoGirl 14:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreea Rolandia (talkcontribs)

Looking for opinions on whether it is acceptable to use this Facebook page as an external link for this school's Wikipedia article. On first glance, it appears that both WP:FACEBOOK and WP:ELREG say no, but my interpretation might be too strict. Is it possible that this Facebook page could be considered OK per WP:ELOFFICIAL? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First criteria for WP:ELOFFICIAL is "The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article". Does the school have direct control over that Facebook page? Additionally, WP:FACEBOOK says exceptions can be made if there are no other web presences. Is this the same school: Stesmo (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Stesmo. Since the title given for the external link is "Anti-Summit Facebook Page", my guess is that this is not an account controlled by the school. I don't have a Facebook account so I can't be 100% sure, but the FB page's description says " You show me a kid who's not emotionally scarred, I'll show you a kid who never went to Summit." which does not seem to be something the school would say about itself. According to Summit School (Nyack, New York)#Affiliate, Summit School (Queens) is a sister school, but no source is provided supporting that statement. FWIW, I've removed the link per WP:ELREG and WP:FACEBOOK. I explained my reasons for doing this at Talk:Summit School (Nyack, New York)#Anti-Summit Facebook page. If removing the link was incorrect, please let me know. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that was correct, Marchjuly. Facebooks are hardly ever the main official site of a subject, and often the only way of knowing that a facebook is the official facebook of the subject is because it is linked from their official site (making linking superfluous when the main site is already there - we are not a linkfarm ..). Exceptions are only those cases where the subject, besides having an official site, is mainly known for his facebook account, in which case listing 2 official sites can be appropriate. This school is not such a case. This facebook looks like a (anti-)fanpage (or should I say a fan(atics)page), and is hence also inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking to article by author

At the Teahouse I was told not to link to this article because it is a reprint of a news article.[4] It is being used used here. I have found the published article in archives but I cannot link to it. The article is at the author's own blog, but contains images from AP and contributions by other staff members at the San Antonio Express-News. The San Antonio Express-News website contains the phrase "Copyright © 2013, San Antonio Express-News. All rights reserved." Is this link violating copyright policies? Should it be removed? Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ajaxfiore. As this is about a source and not an external link in the EL section or infobox, this seems more like a question for the folks at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Bird Information Websites

The IP user User: has added a bunch of related links to several websites involving birds. I'm not sure if they are appropriate or not, so thought I would raise the issue here. See [5]; [6], among there other contributions. meamemg (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Update from userUser: (user matrex01) I believe it should be ok now, I removed my aviary logo from the top of the page. The page is full of information that will help someone in need. Lots of medical information as well. I hope the changes will make it ok now. I am sure this message is in the wrong page so please delete it if needed - I just wanted to let you know i am trying to make the link ok by guessing on what needed to be changed. Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrex01 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

List of TED speakers

The lengthy "List of TED speakers" contains external links to the video for each of the talks listed. Leaving aside the list entries themselves, this article seems to go pretty strongly against Wikipedia consensus on external links, per WP:EL: "Stand-alone lists or embedded lists should not be composed mainly of external links. These lists are primarily intended as internal navigational aids, not a directory of sites on the web. This does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." See also WP:NOTLINKFARM. Although some readers may find it useful to have these links, so they can watch the video, that goes against Wikipedia's purpose.

I recommend removing the external links from the list and, secondarily, limiting the entries to notable speakers (those who have or should have a Wikipedia article about them) so as to make the list more useful in the context of Wikipedia. Does either seem a sensible choice? Knight of Truth (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that there is a very reasonable link to already present, and that a link to a particular talk may well be appropriate on the individual speakers' articles.Knight of Truth (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is pretty clear on the number of acceptable external links as well as the reasoning. Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thousands of external links at that article... I cannot imagine how that would meet WP:EL in letter or spirit. There should be a maximum of 1 external link on that article. Stesmo (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
WAIT!!!: Let's make sure we are on the same "page" here. I looked at List of TED speakers that shows four external links. Although that is more than the one, possibly two of ELMINOFFICIAL, where did Thousands of external links at that article... come from? Otr500 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There are 4 in the EL section. There are thousands in the body of the article. One ext. link for the bio for each speaker and a minimum of one external link for the talks. I just couldn't get past those... In the EL section, there are four where there should be one (TED speakers). Stesmo (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: WOW!!! the more I look at it the more it is a major circumvention of Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. I have not studied on the use of the video links (in a "Talk(s)" column), as references or external links (I assume one of your main concerns as they have to fall somewhere), but someone has linked videos to non-articles and that is inclusion by some proxy that does not exist.
My take: The videos are not acceptable according to Wikipedia standards for inclusion and certainly not plastered on a list page to be able to exist outside of any Wikipedia policies. This is how articles like the thousands of Playboy Playmate was existing with "major" problems. Does anyone know how to counts these? I will support ANY move to clean this up. Otr500 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
With due respect to those who must have put in quite a lot of work here, I'd question the purpose of the article as a whole, a link farm merely culled from the website. What is this adding to our TED (conference) article? Should we consider taking to AfD?: Noyster (talk), 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The article clearly doesn't comply with WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:MOS#External links and best practices for list articles. I think AfD might be a little excessive. What I recommend is to remove all red link entries per (see WP:WTAF), remove all "bio" external links, and convert the remaining links to web citations.- MrX 13:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
SO you noticed the complexity and depth of the list article? I also notice that a proper entry was listed at Talk:List of TED speakers#Discussion: removing external links from the list entries. It is a good thing to consult with interested editors from that article.
I like lists and find them useful, With that in mind I would not want to submit to Afd if cleanup is possible. Can this be done? I am not sure as it is a "large" undertaking and may exact opposition. The practice of using a column with what is certainly external links for video's is inappropriate.
"IF" we can have a "local" cleanup that does not end up in conflicts then that will be good. "IF" this ends up being a "local" attempt to to hinder needed cleanup we will have to take this to the larger community. It would be refreshing to straighten out an issue, without being inundated with opposition, but that has not been my experience.
With a cleanup in mind what would be a suggested solution? Deletion and conversion would still leave external links in column list form would it not? That does not conform to ANY norms of policies and guidelines like layout. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to object to the inclusion of the links in the current format of the page. The links are functionally convenience links: the only functional option, aside from the current format, is providing just the name of the talk (i.e. removing the EL) and moving the EL inside <ref></ref> tags; both of them have the same function, and the latter makes it less convenient to get the same link. In my mind, the problem is the overwhelming size of the list, and I question the need for such a list at all, but as long as we have a comprehensive list, we might as well provide convenience links to the talks. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend that the convenience links to the videos of the talks should be kept - they also link to other info about the talk and speaker at This is quite useful to our readers. — Lentower (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The "(bio)" links should be moved to the Wikipedia article about the speaker where one exists, and otherwise deleted. — Lentower (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm against removing list entries where there is not currently a Wikipedia article on the speaker. Many of them meet Wikipedia's notabilty policy, and articles could be created - without doing the research it is hard to know who isn't notable. — Lentower (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Why would we need thousands of links on an Wikipedia article when all of those speakers, talks and bios are a click away on the TED site? The article should be stripped of all external links except the link in the EL section to the EL list of speakers. The speakers names are already wikilinked/redlinked. I'm not sure how keeping these external links fits with WP:EL in any way. Stesmo (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that keeping the external links would be contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia lists. Viewed one way, this is a navigational list. Navigational lists like this one serve to direct readers to Wikipedia articles; this serves an encyclopedic purpose. It would be wildly against policy to maintain the list for the sake of helping users navigate to TED videos, because Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. On the other hand, this may be seen as an informational list. In that case, what is still important is the speakers themselves, not their talks, and links to videos are extraneous. Because readers might be inclined to watch these videos, a single link in the "External Links" section to a TED video page is appropriate, but it cannot be the main function of the article. Knight of Truth (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with deletion of the external links to videos and removal of non-notable people in the list per WP:NOT, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Similar discussion to this "List of TED speakers"

Comment: Participants in this discussion are invited to weigh in on the somewhat related discussion below about external links to Prager University, a website kind of like TED Talks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Turner Diaries and Hunter

There is a copyright dispute on my talk page over external links on the William Luther Pierce articles about the fictional novels Turner Diaries and Hunter. Both of these books explicitly state on The Internet Archive that they are no longer in copyright and public domain, have been at this online library for 5 years, have thousands of downloads and no dispute of copyright has ever been taken up against them. Can someone please come to my talk page for arbitration?Pussypimples (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

To give my side of this:
  1. The dispute concerns The Hunter, a book by William Luther Pierce written in 1989. PP is attempting to insert an external link to its listing on the Internet Archive, which claims that it is public domain and was released as such by the National Allianc÷e.
  2. Problem the first; the book, absent an explicit revocation of copyright, is still copyrighted: It was written in 1989, and so is within the existing copyright terms in the United States (our hosting jurisdiction, the IA's hosting jurisdiction, and Pierce's jurisdiction of residence).
  3. Problem the second; the NA didn't write the book, Pierce did. There's no statement or evidence presented that Pierce transferred copyright to the NA.
  4. Problem the third; even if Pierce did transfer copyright, "someone claiming to be the NA says it's public domain" does not constitute a release. We don't know that they are NA-associated at all, much less that they're authorised to work as the NA's legal agents. Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
To begin, WP:EL states that a link can normally be included to "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work..." The question then, is whether the Internet Archive legally distributes the work (not whether it is in the public domain). The Internet Archive distributes the work based on permission from the National Vanguard, the book's publisher (according to Hunter (Pierce novel), anyway). In my mind, then, this boils down to solely a factual question: does the National Vanguard have the right to permit others to distribute the work, and if so, has the National Vanguard actually given this permission? I am no expert on copyright law, but I'm under the impression it is ordinary that the author gives the publisher such a right, and that if the publisher asserts this right, it need not be questioned by us unless challenged by the copyright holder. That leaves us with the question of whether the National Vanguard actually did give the Internet Archive permission. Knight of Truth (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I just want to note that I find it questionable whether it was indeed National Vanguard that uploaded the book. (But even if it were, I don't think we can make assumptions about their right to distribute it on the Internet Archive, and unless Pierce assigned the copyright to the publisher, they certainly can't just go and say it's public domain.) wctaiwan (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the most straight-forward way would be to ask National Vanguard directly? If the publisher says the work can be distributed freely, why should we have any more worries than when the publisher says the work is for sale? It is not reasonable to question the (usually private) agreement an author has with a publisher if there is no evidence that there is a dispute over it. We do the same thing when, say, we link to an article in a scientific journal that publishes its articles online; no-one asks to see the copyright release the author signed. Knight of Truth (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Er. What? No. That's not how it works at all. Yes, publishers have a license to distribute; without that, they're not publishers. This does *not* mean that they have the full rights to the work, including the ability to declare something to be in the public domain. That's what's under discussion here, and is most definitely not standard: does the National Vanguard hold the full copyright to the work, and if so, have they released the work into the public domain. This is not ordinary and is perfectly legitimate to question. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

But as I said, the question is not whether the work is in the public domain, merely whether National Vanguard can (and actually did) assign its right to distribute the work to the Internet Archive. Policy is to link to copyrighted works so long as they are legally distributed, whatever copyright status or license (from public domain to CC-BY to a custom license) that may entail. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you're simply wrong. Again, the IA's listing claims the work is public domain; that's what we're trying to establish here. If the uploader was not the NA, it is a copyright violation and we cannot link to it. If the uploader was the NA and they lack the authority to release copyright - which, I will remind you, is not an authority usually given to publishers - it is just as illegitimate a release and just as problematic to link to. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor who removed the links to turner diaries and hunter suggested on my former talk page (pussypimples) that he was essentially politically and socially motivated (my interpretation) because he doesn't like links to hatebooks/hatesites from wikipedia. This is in spite of the fact the external links in question are indisputably relevant to the articles. This effort to remove the links smacks of lowbrow POV warrior activism which is decidedly unacceptable at Wikipedia. I did a search on Google, Bing and Yahoo using a variety of terms associated with these books and the IA listings come up on the first page every time. If there was even a shadow of a doubt they were in copyright violation certainly they would have been removed long ago. Ironholds has not provided any prima facie evidence these novels are in copyright violation other than pontificating passionate speculation. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks are also unacceptable at Wikipedia, y'know. Again, the onus is not me to show that the work is copyrighted, because US law mandates that a work of this age is copyrighted unless explicitly released by the copyright holder. We do not have any evidence that the NA is the copyright holder, and the fact that someone claiming to represent them uploaded it is meaningless without some kind of verification. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
When someone publicly admits on my talk page about being politically motivated to remove highly relevant information from Wikipedia articles because of its conflict with their personal ideological and social belief systems, it undeniably is the epitome of anti-intellectual (lowbrow) POV warrior activism. By no means is criticizing the confessed bias to be misconstrued as a personal attack either. I looked closer at the two said novels in question and it appears they were added to IA in early 2010, which means they are about to turn half a decade old (as listings). The items appear to state they were published by National Alliance, the organization founded by the deceased author Pierce. Given the defacto age of the library listings, their 5-figure combined downloads, conspicuous copyright liberation statements and linkbacks galore to the National Alliance, it's pretty clear that the items are not in copyright violation. The onus is now on you to prove the items are in copyright violation. You have not provided any proof to support your claims, even though you have been given numerous days so far to show any kind of evidence. All further responses from here on out are going to be: Please show us proof the items are still in copyright. The onus of proof and evidence remains on you. If you don't have proof just be honest and admit it, so we can end this dispute with the links staying in their respective articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "defacto" means what you think it means, but it's clear that we're done here. You have a tremendously flawed understanding of copyright law, and in the absence of any ability on your part to revisit that, there's nothing useful to be said. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Please try to make a more concerted effort to stay on topic next time. The focus of this arbitration has nothing to do with you expressing any unresolved feelings or speculative opinions regarding my understanding of copyright law. The focus of the arbitration: determine the copyright status of said novels. Your responsibility to provide proof they were in copyright violation resulted in you providing not even a modicum of evidence other than musing about wondering. All you needed to do was spend a few minutes searching the Internet to discover who occupies the director seat of the publishing organization in question. Since you didn't do so, I decided to find out for myself. It appears that the Grand Pooh-bah of this organization is Kevin Alfred Strom who can be found at and then ask him. Just contact him and find out if the said novels are in copyright violation or not. What we need are precise answers not substanceless circle talk. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That's entirely on-topic because you are labouring under the tremendous misunderstanding that the onus isn't on the person claiming that copyright is released. Have Strom contact OTRS - which is not hard (I wrote the darn page) and validate that it's out of copyright. Until then, the links should be removed. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The said novels listed on IA clearly state they are public domain and not in copyright, you have failed repeatedly to show even as much as a modicum of evidence or proof they are in copyright violation. Again, the onus is upon you to prove they are in copyright violation, not the other way around. You are the one claiming they are in copyright violation, not me. You need to back up your claim, not lecture about curious speculation. The said books in very non-vague terms explicitly state their status, and have been listed on IA for 5 years unmolested. Moreover, the fact a POV warrior activist confession was publicly made that the motivation to remove these very relevant links is politically and sociologically motivated indicates a wanton disregard of mutual good faith (good faith is a two way street and it appears you have not lived up to your end). It's up to you now to prove the items are in copyright violation, and so far you have yet to do so other than pontificate in mind-numbing circles. It's time for you to deliver something of substance, it's time for you to provide proof, it's time for you to present evidence, so until then, these highly relevant links are to remain unmolested. If you can't provide even an iota of evidence or proof the said novels are in copyright violation at least show a scintilla of integrity and admit it. Again, until you provide proof or evidence the links remain. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait, what? I've made no such declaration of being a "POV warrior activist". This is clearly a waste of both our time. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The editor who deleted the relevant links from the articles about novels hunter and turner diaries did so on the stated pretext of "copyright violation" but then reversed himself making a public confession on the pussy pimples talk page that he was removing said content for personal political and sociological reasons. This is clearly a surreptitious failure of mutual good faith and a disgusting example of clandestine POV-activism. Based on the editor's public admission of personally motivated bias, it appears "copyright violation" was really meant to be nothing more than a ruse. The reason it is a ruse because the said novels clearly state their copyright status and you have refused repeatedly to provide any proof or evidence otherwise. If you can't provide even an iota of evidence or proof the said novels are in copyright violation at least show a scintilla of integrity and admit it. Again, until you provide proof or evidence of copyright violation the links remain. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I work in copyright, I was asked to review this. There is no evidence that this content was hosted by anyone with authority to do so. It is not hosted by the Internet Archives directly, but is in the "community texts" section - [7] - these books can be uploaded by anyone who creates an account, which makes it the equivalent of Scribd. Internet Archives does to verify the copyright status of these works. It simply asks in the upload form that you only add content you have the right to. To make sure of this, I uploaded a "book" myself - within 10 minutes of creating account. I could have done it in 2, but it took me a few minutes to find a verifiably PD document they didn't already have. ([8]) This opens up content hosted there to fraudulent claims of copyright status, as anyone can host any content under any claim of license. In accordance with WP:ELNEVER: "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." Given this, there is additional reason to doubt the veracity of this PD claim and this is compounded by the fact that the book contributor is listed on the site as "Dr. William Luther Pierce" (in case that changes, as evidently the description has been altered by the person who uploaded the book within the past few days), which is obviously patently untrue, as the man died in 2002. As we have reason to believe the content is hosted in violation of copyright, these links need to be removed in accordance with policy. We do not keep them until there is proof of violation; we remove them on reasonable doubt, which we have, until that reasonable doubt is removed. They should not be restored pending consensus that they are appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. I'm going to remove the links now. GBH, either have the relevant people validate the release through OTRS, or those links aren't coming back - no, not even if you write Yet Another 1,000 Byte Talk Page Comment explaining how I'm a terrible person who can't be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oliver, I never said you were a terrible person, those are your own words. I said moreorless provide definitive proof the items in question where not what they claimed to be (no longer in copyright), and not provide conjecture or talking in circles. MRG, those novels have been live for five years on Wikipedia and no one ever brought a copyright claim against them. Any search on any top engine, shows those listings on the first page results. The editor who deleted the links initially stated he did so for reasons of bias.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
What I actually said was I admit I'm in part motivated by my desire not to see hate speech linked directly from Wikipedia, but even if we were to disregard the nature of the content, Wikipedia tends to be conservative on how we handle copyright, and this just isn't good enough. Please stop mischaracterising what I said ("public confession") and slandering my character ("POV warrior"; a casual look through my contribs will show that is patently untrue) with every comment. As far as I'm concerned, we're done here. wctaiwan (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
.GingerBreadHarlot, it doesn't matter how long it's been here. What matters is whether they're policy compliant. We remove content that has been published longer than five years on Wikipedia routinely. Yesterday, I blanked material that was published on Wikipedia in 2006. We address problems when they're discovered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Wctaiwan, please stop intentionally twisting what I wrote, which is clearly documented above. Please make an effort to comprehend what people write concerning issues, without your feelings being hurt, this is not about your emotions or personal attacks. You publicly admitting that you were partly motivated to delete the links because you did not want "hate speech" linked directly from Wikipedia is an ostentatious act of POV warrior activism, because the links were undeniably highly relevant to the article and this was never disputed. I respect the decision to have the links removed because of potential copyright violation. My intention for providing them was to make it easier for editors to verify claims about the articles in question. Now it means people have to go to oligopoly search engines if they want to find the original items, instead of through Wikipedia. Given the links were relevant to the article, your personal political feelings are irrelevant about the subject content, other than copyright issues which were addressed here. I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States of America we have a constitution that provides freedom of speech and protects its citizens and websites like Wikipedia from political correctness and censorship. I never said you were a POV warrior, I was criticizing your behavior as POV warrior activism and I am correct in stating so. Now, what I need to do is criticize your behavior of twisting people's words, make efforts to comprehend what people are saying and not twist their words (see above if you need reference), it's not a personal attack. We are done here, carry on. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reaffirming the futility of reading your arguments, through trying to suggest that the First Amendment applies to Wikipedia in any way, shape or form - or that it supersedes copyright law. The "addressing" of the copyright issues was confirming that the copyright issues exist, and so the links were removed. With that, this discussion is entirely pointless to perpetuate - particularly a week after it's winded down - and given that gap in time, it's impossible to interpret your comment as anything except an attempt to get the last word in and sulk off. Grow up. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Er. What?" - Pompous communication is detracting and neither proves nor disproves facts. Disagreeing with you does not require of anyone to "grow up". My legitimate concern is about the defending of politically correct POV advocacy as part of the pretext for copyright issues that the editor admitted above. However the irony of you falsely directing this kind of infantile attack on me ("Grow up") is that you are the one who attempted a generally immature tactic of retorting with the suggestion about how "terrible of a person you are" (see above), this a childish red herring and not acceptable behavior for a serious discussion about an editor confessing POV activism as an undercurrent for "copyright issues". The fact remains, I was addressing the behavior of said editor, not making personal attacks and I am making no personal attacks against you either. Moreover, I'm now addressing your own personal attacks against me, now asking that you control yourself and refrain from the repetition of them. This issue is resolved for now. Until the organization who publishes these books provides clarity on the status of these books "Turner Diaries" and "Hunter" that are in dispute, I accept the current decision of the copyright monitor for the time being. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive author

The template Internet Archive author generates a link to the Internet Archive for works by or about a person. The output results are a Search engine results page. When if ever should this template be used in the External Links section of an article? (The Links to be avoided list (item 9) would seem to suggest that it should not be used.)

Here are two examples of its usage:

Central Intelligence Agency
Note that this article already includes a rather lengthy Further Reading section.

Mary Cruger
This article does not include a Further Reading section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFM784 (talkcontribs) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Superman Animated Shorts from 1940s

Guru78x keeps replacing the already existing External YouTube Links of the Superman Animated Shorts from the 1940s with links to versions of these shorts on YouTube Channel 8thManDVD.Com. His reasoning is that the shorts on this channel are "better" quality because they are in 1080. Besides 1080 not being a guarantee of better quality, and there already being proper links, the 8thManDVD vids are in the incorrect Aspect Ratio.

These are also non-Public Domain Copywritten versions as they include the 8thManDVD logo watermarked into the video. Ironically, if these were the original links, they are the ones that should be removed/replaced.

As an example, for the 1st Cartoon -

Here is the original link (incidentally, to Warner Bros. YouTube page):

Here is the one from 8thManDVD, the channel Guru78x is using to replace each Superman video:

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazlocollins (talkcontribs) 07:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that he has been doing the same for other classic cartoons, such as Betty Boop: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazlocollins (talkcontribs) 07:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am contributing by adding the best quality YouTube PD video links. There is no rule that says YouTube links can't have a watermark or be 16:9 etc. I am merely adding the best quality to contribute. I have only replaced/added links that are of better quality and are freely legally available on YouTube. I have done nothing wrong. Why settle for no videos or those lousy low quality ones with WB making money? Wiki is not about big corps and making $$$. The links I add are free. Guru78x (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim that you are simply replacing with better quality is bogus as can be seen by a simple comparison: Original: Yours:

The 8thManDVDcom one is inferior due to the modification to make it fit 1080. Otherwise, quality is subjective and small in comparison to the issue of linking to copywritten material. Lazlocollins (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the quality, replacing a youtube video with basically the same youtube video is not necessary, and disruptive if repeated after being reverted and asked to stop. Question is actually whether the video belongs there in the first place, we are not writing an internet directory, we are writing an encyclopedia. We are talking about the movie, we do not need to provide a link to the actual movie (if people want to see the movie, let them go to YouTube). Moreover, the links are not accessible to some, I, for example, can't see either of them (and that is another reason why external links have to undergo scrutiny before being added - they should be accessible to most readers unless there is an exceptional need because without the external information the subject can not be understood - the criterion should not just be that it helps understanding the subject). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The Private Snafu articles, I notice, are periodically plagued by that kind of commercial spam. However, I think this particular episode is over as the accounts who were pushing those videos have been blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty generally accepted that, where legally possible, an external link to a copy of the work being written about is appropriate. See WP:ELYES #2. Because these cartoons are still in copyright, it is inappropriate to link to unofficial Youtube uploads, especially watermarked. Thus the link should be to the legally distributed Warner Bros. channel. It is unfortunate that they are not globally available, but this isn't like a paywall; a video available to everyone in the United States (just to use an example) seems plenty broad to support an external link, I would say.Knight of Truth (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

TVPlayer as a streaming media availability source on UK-only TV channels

The service appears to be in-line with other "watch online" availability WP:EL sources (ITV Player, BBC iPlayer, 4oD) listed on British TV channels on Wikipedia.

The website (the WP:EL) in question is here:, they also have apps on Android/iOS and they operate a channel on Freeview (LCN 241). They have rights agreements with the majority of the channels (they also seem to provide streaming for several of the channels’ own websites through the parent company Simplestream) and the BBC channels, ITV1 and Channel 4/5 appear to be covered by the Section 73 exception. Additionally, the service is not locked behind any forms of authentication or logins. The service is however geolocked to the United Kingdom, so (UK Only) would need to be appended to any potential usage of this as a WP:EL.

Considering the service has been around for over a year and is unlikely to disappear due to be being recently invested in by several companies and looks like they might be moving internationally, should it be considered as a valid WP:EL for the availability sections of the channels that are present on the service?

Kaden (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking to Prager University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's currently a TfD for {{PragerU}}, a wrapper for linking to Prager University (PU), where several people (including myself) have !voted in favour of deletion 'cause of PU itself, rather than the function of the template. Nyttend has pointed out that we should seek consensus for that elsewhere. Personally, I believe that linking to PU, on account of its overt slant, to be contrary to the spirit of the encyclopaedia. Alakzi (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi summarises my position well. The TFD has basically been a mix of "delete because the website shouldn't be linked at Wikipedia" and "keep because it's a useful way of presenting links to this website, as long as they're here". Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am the first editor of {{PragerU}}, and I'd first like to thank Alakzi for putting this discussion in the right place. As I understand it, the discussion here is just about whether Prager University lectures can be listed as "External links". This is not a proposal to blacklist the site, or otherwise prevent its use as an inline citation. Right? (I'll have more to say depending on the answer to that.) DougHill (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. Alakzi (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
OK then. Under your proposal, would we still be able to link to Prager University on the Dennis Prager page, and if such a page is developed, on a Prager University page? DougHill (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No one has answered this question. Under Alakzi's proposal, the answer would seem to be no. If this is not correct, could someone please make a more specific proposal? DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This proposal is about not linking to PU in any manner that it may appear educational. PU is a propagandist institution; we're not here to promote its views or its speakers' views. Per WP:ELNO, links to be avoided include:
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
Other commenters here appear to have interpreted the issue differently. Alakzi (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As the original TfD nominator, please allow me to explain the issue. Prager University is a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people--similar to TED Talks, but with a politically ideological goal. ([9], [10]) DougHill, the creator of the template, has added the template to every (or almost every) Prager U speaker that has his or her own article. (examples: 1, 2, 3) The question is not whether Wikipedia can link to Prager U. Rather, the question is whether links to Prager U should be systematically added as external links to all or most such articles. This strikes me as violating our policies and guidelines surrounding promotion and neutrality, specifically WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELPOV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. I could certainly see a Prager U lecture being cited as a primary source in limited circumstances, but that is not at all what we have here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying "every" when you know it to be untrue. And please answer my two questions (this is the more appropriate forum anyway). Even if it were every lecture, which one of those specific policies would it violate? (TNTFNOT) And, are we still in violation of that policy? DougHill (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this is confusing to me. There are at least threefour issues being discussed or at play here:
    • with regard to the template, the TfD has a note saying that discussion is ongoing here. In my view, the template is just a tool for some editor(s) to promote Prager U more conveniently, and doesn't serve any useful goal with regard to the public getting access to useful information. So delete the template.
    • With regard to the source, that would be a case by case decision with regard to the article and the content it is used for.
    • With regard to the behavior of any editor whose edits are focused on adding links to Prager to WP articles, that person would likely be warned that WP is not a vehicle for promotion, they would be warned that their account is a WP:SPA and would be asked if they have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor and warned about advocacy, and if many of the links were found to inappropriate they would probably be blocked for spamming/WP:NOTHERE.
    • with regard to adding many instances of links to Prager U as external links if I came across this, I would systematically go through and delete them all, as I would if I came across anybody spamming a link across WP, which is just plain WP:PROMO for the target of the link and is an abuse of WP (per WP:PROMO). Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (added comments on 4th issue, the one here, namely EL Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
DougHill isn't an SPA, he just pivoted to Prager-related content starting in mid-December. As for forum, I would go anywhere necessary to get most of these ELs removed. They all follow of the same pattern, the EL is simply placed in the "External links" section rather than as a source for any content. It's not practical to start a discussion on each and every article talk page. I think that's what this noticeboard is for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As noted somewhere (TFD, if I remember rightly), and as a Dr. Fleischman says here, a few of these videos might be useful, e.g. "Person X says YYYY", cited to the video of person X saying YYYY. This would be a reasonable use of the template and the links; that's why I'm opposed to its deletion and would be opposed to an attempt to remove all links without regard to the context. If the assessment by Dr. Fleischman and Jytdog be correct, we should indeed remove most of them, but as I haven't investigated fully enough, I can't either agree or disagree with their assessment. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It just occurred to me there's a better way to do this than to sift through DougHill's contribution history. This text search shows 22 hits for "Prager University," excluding Dennis Prager. Browsing through these hits reveals that a number of these links to Prager U are actually in inline citations rather than in "External links" sections. (My apologies to all--especially DougHill--for assuming all links were in "External links" sections.) Some of these citations appear appropriate and some do not; they will have to be addressed on an article-by-article basis (not here). This discussion is intended to be about linking to Prager University in "External links" sections. Nyttend, hopefully this addresses your question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So then why not change your vote in the TfD? Either way, we are going to deal with the main issue, the "External Links", here. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These templates and these link additions:

  • The addition of an interview of/talk by the subject with/at some journal/university/organisation/entity is failing our general inclusion standards (an interview with a subject does not very often give much extra information beyond what is encyclopedic or necessary for understanding, and what extra information is needed generally can be part of the Wikipedia page itself) - there must be a very good reason to include an interview like that, and it certainly does not belong on many pages. Having a template for that is not appropriate (and this seems to be the general use of the template at the moment). Many of these links should be removed, and consensus on each specific case should be gained on the talkpage before (re-)inclusion - convince editors that the link is one of the exceptions, or they should be used (as intended) to draw information from that expands the document (and then converted to references, which generally makes re-linking it as an external link superfluous as well). For the template, it does not need a template for the few cases where the link is appropriate in the external links section, that can be 'written out'.
  • In the references: interviews with, or talks by a subject can be a perfectly valid primary source for something that a subject has said. Linking to such a video is then appropriate. We have many templates handling citations, and (some of) those can handle videos as well (note, if it is a specific statement, I would suggest that the citation is including the time when it was said in the video or when the relevant info is there). Also for that, a separate template is not needed, nor is this template appropriate for use in the references section (use a regular cite-template). (this part is indeed out of scope of the discussion on this page).

I will comment in the TfD accordingly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree except to note that Prager "University" is neither a journal nor a university. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have added 'organisation/entity' .. I could even add 'whereever' ..
Just a note on the external links-part - for interviews with, talks by, videos of/by, narrations of work of, etc. (like the external links discussed here), those external links do sometimes help in understanding a subject, but it is hardly ever the case that the subject can not be understood without a (or more) linked interview(s)/talk(s)/video(s)/narration(s) (the text 'Miley Cyrus is sitting naked on a wrecking ball' is already in the article, the video of that is not adding information that can not be understood without seeing the actual video). People often insert such links as 'but it is informative to see the subject talk'-type of argument, but I argue that that, often, fails WP:EL#EL1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"). Moreover, the choice of which interview is often biased as well (and we are also not writing a linkfarm here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Should links to Prager University in speakers' "External links" sections be kept or removed?

There has been a lot of valuable input but the discussion has gotten long enough that it might be difficult for newcomers to join in. I suggest a !vote for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Remove: On neutrality, promotion, and usefulness grounds. I agree in particular with Beetstra's latest comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove, for my reasons above. In addition, I disagree with the ostensibly 'even-handed' approach of comparing Prager U to TED. Alakzi (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Comment": Are there any left? Can someone identify a few articles where this is in dispute? All I could find was Dennis Prager, where there hasn't even been any talk page discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talkcontribs)
Yes, there are a bunch, e.g. George Gilder and Joseph Telushkin. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. These lectures clearly provide provide a quick intro into their subject's thinking and thus are "a unique resource [that] the article would contain if it became a featured article)." And while we are having this discussion here, I ask that the recently removed links be restored OR a note about this discussion be placed on their talk pages. I will have more to say here after the resolution of the TfD. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing clear about it, hence these discussions. It would help to address the relevant policies/guidelines given how strongly this looks like spamming/promotion. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    I am not clear about that either - an interview, or a talk by a subject do not necessarily provide a quick intro into their subject's thinking, nor is it impossible to understand a person's thinking by .. writing a piece of Wikipedia text. Moreover, why would these talks/interviews (as opposed to many other possible talks/interviews) provide that insight (except if this is a unique occasion where the subject is talking/being interviewed, or the specific talk is particularly iconic). A do oppose the notion that this is necessarily "a unique resource [that] the article would contain if it became a featured article)." - that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, should be made on the talkpage before adding (explaining why is this link indispensible for this page), and the burden of proof is on the person wanting to add this link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not in favour of a black-and-white/blanket remove or keep - though I do think that many of these need proper discussion before being included and should be removed, except if they are either particularly unique cases of the subject speaking in public, and/or are particularly iconic, in which case they might kept (a keep-argument). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any examples of the latter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should links to Prager University in speakers' "External links" sections be kept or removed?

Prager University is not a university but a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people--similar to TED Talks, but with a politically ideological goal. ([11], [12]) Should external links to Prager U be kept or removed in articles about Prager U speakers? (examples: 1, 2, 3) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Are we gonna exhaust all bureaucratic avenues on this? I've already removed all links to Prager and nobody except Doug has complained. Alakzi (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have complained, by arguing against the TfD, apparently I am nobody.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The TfD is irrelevant. Alakzi (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just trying to gather a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the consensus is to remove the links and keep them out, with a few exceptional cases. It appears that someone has removed the links. --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the TfD, Alakzi, who started this ELN, made it clear what this was all about. He wrote: "we're censoring links that've no business being on Wikipedia." This violates the spirit and policy of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not censored". It is wrong and contrary to this policy for those of us here to decide what should go on other pages: this should be decided by the editors of the particular pages. Now, I won't be restoring these links to the external links sections. But where I believe the links are appropriate, I will suggest them on the talk page. I have done this at Talk:Arthur C. Brooks. (I am open to suggestions as to what to say in future cases.) And I will stay out of the discussion (except to answer questions specifically addressed to me) and defer to the editors' decisions as long as the rest of you here do so as well. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As should be obvious to anyone, I used censor in a metaphorical sense. Not every little thing we remove amounts to censorship; censorship is when we bar the inclusion of specific material to appease powerful people or groups of people. That's not the case here.
On the other hand, your suggestion that we keep out of the discussion, in the hope that regular contributors to the article will share your mindset, is overtly both dishonest and a violation of WP:OWNERSHIP. Alakzi (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting that DougHill calls it "wrong and contrary to this policy for those of us here to decide what should go on other pages" when he stated exactly the opposite at the outset of this discussion. Not to mention that what he's objecting to is the very purpose of this noticeboard. ("This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links policy. * Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : Hi, all. I'm randomly involved here (invited by Legobot). I have read the discussion and if I understand the topic, it is about whether we should make an external link or not of Prager University in affiliated articles. Correct me, if I am wrong.
External links should always be at minimum level in any Wikipedia article, better if there is none. If there is something relevant to subject of article in any reliable source, one should better extract encyclopedic contents from it to expand the article and use the source as inline citation. Why should Wikipedia care if any notable person is speaker at Prager University (PU)? WHY? None of them seem to be notable for being a PU speaker (any one?). If there are some independent, reliable sources that mention a subject as PU speaker, then we may consider to write that they speak at PU in their respective article (however one still is required to discuss it, we are not building news archives but an encyclopedia. See also, WP:NOTDIARY).
I've chosen to pick first mention from rfc, -1- that is George Gilder. The article doesn't even have a word on affiliation of "George Gilder" with PU, why it should be important for an encyclopedia then to add an irrelevant source (yes, PU) in external links section of his biography? If anyone attempts to do it, I will prefer to call it WP:REFSPAM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - (I was chosen randomly by Legobot.) The purpose of the "External links" section is to provide a place to include a very small selection of representative links which are relevant to the subject. The links list can usually be kept small by linking to the subject's website or profile, which likely contains any particularly relevant links. There are times, though, when it would be appropriate to link to a particular work of a subject. In my opinion, in the particular case being discussed, (1) a link to a list of a person's Prager University talks would be appropriate if the subject was discussed in independent sources as being known for talks there (in which case this would be stated in the article), or (2) a link to a particular talk would be acceptable if independent sources agreed that the subject is well known for skill as an orator, and there was talk page consensus that the PU talk was the best online example of this. The fact that the organization has a politically conservative editorial policy shouldn't of itself prevent all links to it from being included. It's safe to say that most publications, conferences, topical websites, etc., came into being because their creators thought that there was a need for more published content on certain subjects, and decided to do something about it.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Carnival Is Over

Abracadabra in References: "Рейярш Х Мнрш Дкъ Тнпреохюмн Псяяйху Мюпндмшу Оеяем Russian Planet". Please correct text in Russian: "Тексты и ноты для фортепиано русских народных песен" (can not be edited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Is SourceWatch ever an appropriate WP:EL? If so, when? It's my contention that SourceWatch is rarely, if ever, an appropriate EL. This is because SourceWatch is published by the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive advocacy group. Moreover, the bulk of articles on SourceWatch are poorly maintained (out of date, general quality issues), so I don't think they are useful resources for our readers. User:Srich32977 and I have already been discussing this issue at Talk:Independence Institute but I wanted to give more folks a chance to weigh in on this issue. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. It cannot be used as a source either. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've had some interest in SW, but not because I like it. Having culled it as a reference throughout the project, I do see it in the EL section over 700 times. (When I saw it used as a ref, I moved it into the EL section.) Interestingly I see it in a lot of Congresspeople articles and in articles about Indian power plants (perhaps because of coal burning). All this said, I'm in a quandary because how do we decide to keep or not keep it as am EL in any particular article? Simply because it is out-of-date? Well, how out of date? Simply because it is sponsored by a progressive group? Well, how about sites that are sponsored by other groups? Simply because it is a wiki? Well, some of their articles are edited by quite diligent editors, Rebekah Wilce being one example. I'd prefer if SourceWatch did not exist because CMD is so rampantly partisan, but I favor allowing SourceWatch in ==External links== sections because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
SourceWatch has proven to be an invaluable research tool for me, but I oppose including it in EL sections. SourceWatch contains a mix of verifiable content (which would be included in the body of a featured article, see WP:ELNO #1) and unverifiable factual content that mostly comes from the progressive blogosphere (i.e. echo chamber), see WP:ELNO #2. IMO it should be scrubbed from the >700 articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
SourceWatch has an aggressive and explicit point-of-view. Its articles about conservative groups come off as attack or hit pieces. I think it's highly unencyclopedic to include these links. If SourceWatch uses links to WP:RS that we can incorporate into WP articles, great. Here's a typical SourceWatch link [13] that User talk:Srich32977 has recently added [14]. The first sentence says: "The Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI) is right-wing pressure group." This is positively dripping with advocacy/lack of neutrality. Then the article goes on to discuss the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (other groups/networks that seem tangentially connected to the group at hand). The only unique info about the organization (Caesar Rodney Institute) are some dated financials which we could just as easily (and more accurately) pull from GuideStar or Charity Navigator. I see a lot of downsides for including SourceWatch, but I haven't heard any compelling arguments why we should include these links. They are not providing anything unique or indispensable that we can't find elsewhere in better sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That strikes me as a particularly non-neutral example. Some other SourceWatch pages aren't as bad, and I'm uncertain whether every externally link site must be uniformly neutral, but this example exemplifies why we shouldn't be linking to SourceWatch. It's just a collection of information gathered from other sources, with an ideological slant. Some of those sources satisfy WP:RS, some don't. But there's no informative non-advocacy that cannot be incorporated directly into our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Since SourceWatch is not being evaluated as WP:RS (unlikely in any WP context), I'll suggest that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should be applied. Sometimes its' POV is overwhelming, but sometimes it has noteworthy material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of WP:RS so it doesn't formally apply. Assuming you're talking about the more general concept that "context matters," of course it does, but I haven't yet seen a SourceWatch page that is worthy of inclusion, so until that changes I'm in favor of a categorical rule. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Srich, can you articulate why you think SourceWatch may sometimes be an appropriate EL? What criteria are you using to evaluate it? Undoubtedly some SourceWatch articles are better than others, but can you explain what factors are swaying you to include particular SourceWatch articles as ELs? As I said above, we've articulated some serious issues with SourceWatch, but I'm not clear what you think the tradeoffs are--as in, what unique value do you thik SourceWatch is adding here that you think is worth including? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Jeez, I wish I could. Like you say some of their pages are better than others. How about State Policy Network? Last edited in May 2014. Has more info than our article. Heavily edited by Rebekah Wilce, who is a writer for CMD's real magazine (and a WP editor). Or how about Barack Obama? Interestingly this article is not in the EL section of Barack Obama. You see I'm playing devil's advocate in this discussion, which is a bit difficult. But I'm quite happy that Safehaven has opened this thread so that your concerns can be resolved. With more commentary perhaps my concerns will be resolved too. – S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused, as it seems no one is here is defending the use of SourceWatch as an EL. Srich, you've been adding SourceWatch as an EL, but I'm not sure why (and it sounds like you're not sure, either). I brought this issue to the noticeboard because I expressed objections to including the SourceWatch link at Talk:Independence Institute. You seemed to understand my objections, but then you re-added the link without giving a clear policy reason for doing so [15]. You have not yet articulated a reason for including SourceWatch links, but you've said several times you don't like SourceWatch and don't seem to want to include it, leaving me quite confused. It seems to me we can move forward by agreeing it's best not to include SourceWatch, but to encourage culling SourceWatch articles for reliable sources we can incorporate into Wikipedia articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

More comments are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with Dr. Fleischman (and I guess everyone else). This is not a suitable external link and I believe it should be scrubbed. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to other Editors to join this discussion about posting an External link to relevant sites

I was advised to post the following question to this page. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Rezin talk talk talk I was once informed to view my role as an editor to “What can I do for Wikipedia rather than what Wikipedia can do for me.” That is straightforward advice; however, I also do research and writings on criminology, firearms, and military history. I am also the representative for the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment Association at Fort Benning’s Best Ranger Competition. In question is the link “Photographic history of LRRP Rangers in the Vietnam War” that I believe would be of great interest to Wikipedia users. The link depicts the biggest battles of the Vietnam War and would be especially relevant to the following Wikipedia sites: 75th Ranger Regiment, U.S. Army Rangers, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, Tet Offensive, Battle of Quang Tri (1968), Operation Delaware, Battle of Signal Hill, and Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP). Yes, the link is to my website but the purpose is not self-promotion–-rather to share this unique photographic history and scholarly account with the Wikipedia community. The site links to Wikipedia and Google Analytics verifies it draws people from throughout the English speaking world and from countries such as, Italy, Russia, France, and Germany. It’s all about sharing knowledge. People express appreciation and David Maraniss, Associate Editor, Washington Post, and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has been in contact because of information presented. I would appreciate a dialogue. Respectfully,Icemanwcs (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Icemanwcs - our policies minimize the use of external links to the bare minimum, only including those which can not be included ánd which are necessary for the understanding of the subject. Obviously, the site information can not be included, but I do think that the Wikipedia pages where these links were, and where you want to add them are very well understandable without these links. For more information, see 'The external links guideline'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra I appreciate your prompt response but I have to respectfully disagree. I hope you had the chance to look a the pages and the link. The photos on the link "are worth a thousand words" and the captions add much historical detail relevant to those sites. I think if nothing else the links would be most meaningful and appropriate to the Wikipedia sites: Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), and Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol. Can this be reconsidered or can another editor take a look. Sincerely,Icemanwcs (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Icmanwcs - unfortunately, 'The external links guideline', and the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy (the latter one of our pillars) disagree with you. External links are to be minimized and are only to be included when needed. Moreover, there are images in the documents already that speak also a thousand words, people can already see many things. Addition of external links to picture sites (possibly plural!) does not expand the knowledge about the subject much further, and I do not believe they do beyond what an encyclopedia should bring (and that is what many people think, seeing the two policies cited in the first sentence here).
By the way, I did look at the sites earlier, and have removed many of the links because they were not appropriate.
If you believe that there are pictures that are on the external site, we do have Commons, where (free) images can be uploaded and used to explain things in our documents. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra Thanks for your prompt response but again I respectfully disagree that the subject matter of the proposed link does not expand the subject matter much further. Quite the contrary I think it expands the subject matter to the relevant sites immensely. I have posted some pictures to the sites but the proposed link shows a series of chronological photos with detailed captions that gives a boots on the ground and scholarly account of the battles. Yes, the pictures I posted speak a thousand words but it's the holism of the link that puts it into a much deeper human context.

I cited the following conversation from the above Should links to Pager University: "In the TfD, Alakzi, who started this ELN, made it clear what this was all about. He wrote: "we're censoring links that've no business being on Wikipedia." This violates the spirit and policy of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not censored". It is wrong and contrary to this policy for those of us here to decide what should go on other pages: this should be decided by the editors of the particular pages."

It is my request that other editors review this matter to determine if the proposed link expands the subject matter further. Respectfully,Icemanwcs (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Icemanwcs - I have no doubt it does, but I do not think that that understanding is necessary beyond having an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra I respect your commitment to a principle that you believe is right but I share that same commitment. I agree with much of what you have suggested and for that I thank you for improving my work as an editor. But the links in question are certainly relevant to the proposed pages. Wikipedia defines “An encyclopedia,,,is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.”
I think both views are valid and achievable by having a comprehensive summary on the page and appropriate links that expand the knowledge of the subject matter. Appropriate links provide the cross-references of the past but with the speed of light access. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, your argument should be used to convince editors to change our pillar 'What Wikipedia is not', and the our external links guideline, because that is the 'principle' you are trying to fight. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra Thank you for directing me to the two pages and I have read them. And because of that I disagree more profoundly. Those pages state: “Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia…Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information, provide more external links, and update more quickly.”...“External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article…”....“What to link...There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link….Is the site content assessable to the reader?..Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?...Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?”
It certainly appears at this point I am not fighting a Wikipedia pillar, principle, or other editors. I will respectfully do my work that I specialize in and post appropriate links that are relevant.Icemanwcs (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." and "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." (both from WP:EL) . The pages you want to add the link to contain resp. 4, 4, 1, 8, 0, 0, 0 and 2 external links, 9, 0, 2, 50, 0, 1, 5 and 2 further reading and 28, 49, 14, 225 (!), 22 (7), 6, 2 and 14 references. Some of those pages are telling a long, long story already. We do not add external links because they are on topic, we add links because they add something that is not in the article, and that is detrimental to understanding. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Icemanwcs was involved at the Spam blacklist here [] for the hundreds of times he has linked spammed to his own self acknowledged webpage (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
talk "Hundreds" really? I stand by my work and that the vast majority of references added helped the articles. I thought the links did, too, and still do in cases but realize I did it too much and that it appeared self-promotional when my intent was to share relevant information,Icemanwcs (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


I earlier removed a couple of commercial links from T gauge which in my opinion do not provide any information beyond what is already in the article. I think that these fail ELNO #1 (in fact, some of them do not provide any prose or explanation about the subject, just that they are there to sell the product). Looking at all 4 commercial sites there, I think that WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:EL provide all the reason to remove all 4 of them (leaving only the forum, which is questionable in itself as well).

Some of them may be suitable as references (they do confirm sometimes statements in the article), but that is about it. I was informed that other pages in the series were in the same dire need of external links cleanup, as they seem to have the same problem. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

" some of them do not provide any prose or explanation about the subject, "
Nor does Wikimedia Commons, yet we recognise that images, and in this case lists of titles, might not be "prose", but they still have value for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking images here - images are in the article, and more can easily be provided. These links do not provide any additional information to what is already in the article, at best they confirm statements in the article (and hence should be references). These links fail our inclusion standards and hence should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Implementations of AES

I removed some implementations of AES, but they were put in again:

Am I wrong in removing them? --Ysangkok (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You were totally right in removing external links in the body of the article, Ysangkok. I've removed them again. Stesmo (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Check and opinions needed -

Hello, I could use some feedback from experienced editors about recent EL additions in hospital articles to "". See this search: [16] adding 1 or 2 links to the "External links" section. The links seem to go to a paysite with no valuable free encyclopedic information - incidentally the additions are made by recently created SPA accounts or IPs. It seems like a clear WP:EL (and WP:SPAM) violation, but I would like to get more opinions on this. If those ELs are inappropriate (?), the SPAs should be warned/blocked and the website itself probably blacklisted. GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A diff with 2 example links: [17] for discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Spam to me. They should be removed and the account warned about spamming Wikipedia. Good catch, GermanJoe. Stesmo (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Done - thanks for your help with this Stesmo, I have covered the remaining 5 links from a previous IP session. GermanJoe (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the external link section but was reverted. Problems with this section:

  1. There are too many links per guidelines.
  2. Most of the links are to individual books, most of them hosted at which is a commercial website and home of a commercial reseller of PD titles (and known spammer of Wikipedia).
  3. A single aggregate link to all books at is provided - there is no need to link individual titles
  4. If individual titles must be linked, it is preferable to use a non-profit neutral organization such as Internet Archive or Project Gutenberg. Not a commercial book seller.

-- GreenC 21:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow... 75+ external links. Green Cardamom, I've reverted the revert of your edit, added NoMoreLinks and commented in the article's Talk page in support of pruning the external links from Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist). Stesmo (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, thank you for looking and taking the time to explain the rules better than I could. I forgot the burden is on the includeee not the deletee, and disputed links are removed until consensus for inclusion. -- GreenC 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from WP:VPR

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). SD0001 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Good day

I wish to add external links to a series of pages that are desperately in need of such. I do not wish to be tagged as a spammer.

Wikipedia suggested I post here for feedback. "...see if there are any objections, then add the links." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • This isn;t the place. The place is Wikipedia:External links/NoticeboardAnd we can hardly give you advice on this unless you tell use what the proposed links will be, and where where you propose to use them. (and if you have any conflict of interest, you should say so.) DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot get into the other page.

Example: PAGE: Pearlette Louisy

The External Link would be Governors General of Saint Lucia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Would not be appropriate. The page we are taken to tells us no more about Pearlette Louisy, but merely advertises for sale a book about the holders of the post she currently holds. That would be classic spam, however worthy the book itself is. It might be worth giving the following two sections a critical read: Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
However, it might be worthwhile to include the book (but not a link to the Amazon page) in a "further reading" section. I think probably not in this case because the book is not about Pearlette Louisy, but something to think about. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Always good to ask. I'm not sure what to do. But I know not to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Porn Wikileaks

The Porn Wikileaks article links to that site. Given the nature of the site (a wiki dedicated to posting personal information on people), should a link even be allowed? Seems like a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Trivialist (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It should not be linked per WP:ELBLP. I would imagine that the site violates some privacy laws, possibly including HIPPA. Linking to it does not improve a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject.- MrX 02:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
An official link to a notable site should be okay. If the site isn't notable put the article on AFD. If the official link is broken, remove it. The latter was the case here (504 gateway error), I removed it. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mario Gregorio as a recognized authority on Nostradamus.

I posted this on the Reliable Sources noticeboard as well, but there seems to be extensive dispute over the inclusion of his personal website as an External link, too, so I thought I should also raise it here. Basically, there has been a series of old disputes on the Nostradamus page over the inclusion of a page set up by someone called Mario Gregorio as an external link; as far as I can tell, Mario Gregorio edited the article extensively early on, which may have contributed to the issue. The source being cited in particular is his personal webpage. WARNING: The page currently reports as infected with malware for me, although I gather it isn't for everyone; this also makes it fail point 3 in WP:ELNO, of course, but I'd rather reach a wider-reaching conclusion, since I assume the page will be cleaned up at some point. Anyway, I won't hyperlink it for that reason, but the page is; from what I saw of it when my antivirus allowed it to load before, it looked like a Tripod-style affair. An editor on the talk page insists that Mario Gregorio is a recognized authority on Nostradamus and that his personal webpage is therefore an exception to point 11 of WP:ELNO; as far as I can tell, Gregorio only has one publication on the topic to his name, which I think was published through a vanity press (although it's hard to be certain since it's all in Italian.) Anyway, since this dispute appears to have flared up there several times, could someone take a look (through some sort of sandbox, I guess, in case the source really is infected), look up Mario Gregorio, and weigh in themselves on the suitability of using his webpage as an external link? On a related issue, another external link in dispute is a Yahoo group which many people have repeatedly re-added. I feel a Yahoo group always fails point 10 of WP:ELNO, but the user(s) who want these links on the page have edited the page extensively for a long time (and, I should say, generally have done good work as far as I can tell, my objections to the external links and a few sources aside); because of this, I could also use more eyes on the page or people weighing in there in general, since it seems to have been edited extensively over a long period of time primarily from a very small number of people who hold Gregorio and the Yahoo group in high regard. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The website does not look to be a viable candidate for external linking in my opinion. it's not really a scholarly resource. A claim that someone is a "recognized authority" is meaningless without evidence of such a claim from other reputable sources. The disclaimer at the bottom of some pages "Note: If you think that in any page we have violated the copyright please inform us at once we will provide to remove it." does not inspire confidence. You are also correct that a Yahoo group should not be linked at all. - MrX 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to post link to three relevant sites

  • Rezin talk talk talk I would like to prudently add the link “Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968” to the following three sites: Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP); LRRP; and 75th Ranger Regiment. The site provides a unique, scholarly account of the LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive (the biggest battle of the war), the Battle of Khe Sanh (the second largest battle of the war), and the air assault into A Shau Valley (the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam). 1968 was the peak year of the war and today’s Rangers' history links back to the LRRP/Rangers of the Vietnam War. Incidentally, the 1st Air Cavalry Division was the first army division to arrive in Vietnam, and its company of LRRP/Rangers, Company E/H Company (Ranger) lost the last two Rangers of that war. The link Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968] would be very relevant to those pages and are not for self promotion. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See [[18]] and [here for a summary diff] - EL spamming by an IP, that is directly connected to the organization (see WHOIS report). Worse, valid internal Wiki-links are removed with external spam links. Considering that the article already got cleaned up twice (a month ago by myself), what's the best way to proceed here without an edit war? GermanJoe (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah. I've reverted their recent edits, GermanJoe, and added a COI notice to their site. This may just be a 'once in a blue moon' type of edit. For Edit warring: they didn't notice their ELs were removed for a month, so it very well may not be an issue on this article. Stesmo (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion to blacklist at MediaWiki Please read and join if you can help resolve it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube where the subject film is for rent/purchase

An external link was recently added to YouTube, claiming to link to the full film. This seemed an immediate red flag for copyright issues. However, the YouTube page in question is from a verified source, the film's studio. The content is a two-minute trailer with a link to buy the full film.

Is this an appropriate link for an article, or is this too much of a promotional link to an item for sale? —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I still would argue that such links do not add anything beyond what is already told in the prose about the movie (when you want to know about the movie, you go to Wikipedia, if you want to see the movie you Google it and see whether it is available on YouTube, Netflix, or whatever. I also think that this fails WP:ELNO on the point that we should avoid linking to pages where one has to pay to see the content, and that this would be available on many 'rent movie'-sites (Netflix?) so this would end up to be a choice to where to link and to who to promote so they make money of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding ELs to to relevant articles. I reverted the link added to List of Nobel Laureates in Literature and Nobel Prize in Literature as not adding anything to the article. The links seem on-topic, in the case of stubs they seem to be adding information, in the case of longer articles they strike me as linkspam, but other than the two Nobel Prize articles, I cannot really judge. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it is not a spam link. Check article. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like spam to me... I didn't check each of IP's ~40 edits, but they all appear to be in External Links or adding the EL section. And, the ones I spot checked all were pointing to the same site. Stesmo (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely an ip spamming links. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
While it may at times be appropriate as an external link or a source, it's been spammed a great deal to articles that aren't being reviewed closely. Lots of review and cleanup are needed. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Links in Webby award lists

In our lists of Webby awards (see List of Webby Award winners for the overall article which includes links to the individuals), I notice some of the lists linking the website. I tagged 1998 Webby Awards and received responses on my talk page as well as them being removed from the specific article [19].

I'd hope we can quickly agree that it is inappropriate to link to the current websites of the award winners.

I can see some editors might find it acceptable to link archived copies of the award winners websites.

I'm unaware of any discussion on this, but haven't looked extensively. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that this is an unusual situation in that the article is about an award ceremony where the award winners are websites, so it is directly helpful to readers to link to the award-winning website instead of just the wikipedia article on the parent company. For example if the 2005 award winner was then readers would gain a lot more from being linked to the website than being wikilinked to the article on the Coca Cola Company. But I really can't think of a good reason why the current website should be linked. While it is helpful to link readers to the websites honored in the ceremony, the relevant aspects of these websites only exist until the websites are updated (which happens rather frequently). looked much different in 2005 than it does today. So I think the thing to do is to remove the links to the current websites and retain only the links to the historical websites (via Internet Archive). This should benefit the reader with almost zero concern for commercial influence (since historical products are usually no longer for sale). I've worked a bit on these articles in the past so if this seems like a good idea then I'd be happy to implement the consensus on the relevant pages. Anyone care to weigh in? -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm... Well it's difficult to find a consensus when nobody is interested in discussing the matter. What say you, Ronz? It's been a week now and according to the page stats there are 318 people watching this page who haven't objected to my suggestion. Should we take this as a silent consensus? Just to reiterate, I'd like to remove the links to the current versions of the websites and only leaving the links to the historical versions (i.e. from the Internet Archive) of the websites. I'd be glad to take care of it myself if that sounds like a good idea. Shall I go for it? -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      Disappointing that there's been no response.
      Can you think of parallels in other articles? When a movie wins an award, it doesn't justify a link to view the movie. The more I think about it, the more I'm against it. --Ronz (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      The closest thing I can recall is this WP:VG discussion where consensus was found to link emulated versions of old abandonware video games to their respective articles. I think the main concern with linking to copies of films related to film awards is that such links would in most cases violate WP:COPYVIO. In other words if it was a film award for non-COPYVIO-implicating public domain films then I do think it would be helpful to readers to link to a reliably-hosted (e.g. at copy of the film. I have a hard time seeing the downside actually. Is the concern mainly that Wikipedia might be used for commercial promotion if we link to the historical versions of the relevant websites? -Thibbs (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems that there is general consensus (even if largely silent) to do away with at least the current (non-historical) exlinks, right? Given my 2005-era examples above, I just made this example edit at the "2005 Webby Awards" article. I'll refrain from doing any further edits to these pages until consensus is reached, but hopefully that's a helpful illustration for those who would consider my earlier comments re: the usefulness of providing readers with historical links to stable and accurate copies of the actual website designs that were honored at the ceremony. -Thibbs (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely do away with the current links. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
OK that sounds good. I'll get to work on it. -Thibbs (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Internet_Movie_Database an ok external link? It appears to fail 1, 2 and 12 Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Govindaharihari (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fail #1 and #12. It's actually a very unique resource in that it pools information that usually is not contained within a single resource i.e. links to news stories and professional reviews, release dates and age ratings for different countries, soundtrack listings, awards, a synopsis and parents guide, alternate versions, technical specs, filming dates and locations etc. I can't think of a single resource that offers all of that, which makes it unique in my book. Even though it is built via user contributions it is not "open" i.e. contributions have to be accepted. It arguably fails criterion #2 which is why we don't accept it as a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB, but generally the information is useful if not entirely accurate and provides a good starting point for any potential research or extra corroboration of a source. It often appears as an external link on film articles, but given the questionable editorial oversight it is probably not a good idea to stick it on articles about living people. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb says, "Generally yes, if the subject of the entire page is exactly the same as the subject of the IMDb page that you're linking." --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Betty Logan and User:Ronz your feedback and advice is appreciated, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link removal without the possibility of improving the contribution

Dear Sir or Madam,

My intention is to add a web link to certain Wikipedia fungus pages redirecting readers to an external webpage describing clinical cases of fungal infections. The website in question is, where the user can look through a database to find clinically valuable information. Unfortunately I added the web link redirecting Wikipedia reader to the main page, whereas it should have been adapted so the reader will immediately reach the webpage showing only the cases of a certain subgroup of the respective fungus. Ohnoitsjamie removed the links. I discussed this topic with Ohnoitsjamie and proposed to change them to deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases. He insisted it is link canvassing and that I try to spam these links thus, without valuable information. FungiQuest is a tool for clinicians directly linked to FungiScope, an international study on rare invasive fungal infection internationally recognized and appreciated in expert audience. This work is endorsed by all leading scientific societies in the field of medical mycology including ISHAM (International Society of Human and Animal Mycology), ESCMID (European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease) and ECMM (European Conference on Medical Mycology). Thus, to me it is incomprehensible that such valuable information for clinical doctors to improve patient care might be considered spam. There are other external links accepted like Pubmed subpages (biggest journal database). Trough FungiQuest you are able to access the biggest Database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed.

This links are not an advertisement and just should offer more information to readers. I do not try to promote a website or a product, just a direct access of clinical case data related to the fungus. I work in Infectious Diseases and since a while with rare invasive fungus. I did contribute with the Geotrichum page and I was surprised nobody checks it before it got public. Nonetheless, my intention to offer direct available clinical cases is considered spam? Decisions like this do not encourage further contribution to Wikipedia or the correction of erroneous information published on these invasive fungal infections. For most clinicians Wikipedia is the first source of information when facing such rare disease in their patient. I would herewith like to demonstrate the need and importance of including the link to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

LuisaDG (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've explained to this user multiple times to the user that we do not allow single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest (in this case, affiliation with a university project) to canvass links, regardless of the quality of the links. Besides, links of high-quality/high relevance are inevitably added by numerous other high-volume editors that don't have single purpose agendas. In addition to WP:ELNO, this is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
LuisaDG, please follow our conflict of interest policy by making a case on the article talk pages, rather than adding the link yourself. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes not appropriate per WP:ELNO Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ELOFFICIAL for Adrian Bryant

I ran across Adrian Bryant today and couldn't find any profile or other information about Adrian Bryant on his official site, . I replaced it with his Facebook page, because it links his official site while having some information about Bryant. What do others think? --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

YouTube link

A link to a lengthy YouTube link has been placed in Assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, and the uploader of the video and three others parts from the same documentary claims it to be "fair use" material. I'm not sure that this claim of "fair use" actually meets the standards for fair use. Not sure what to do. - Location (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there are seven parts, which seems much more like copyright infringement than fair use. Also there's not critical commentary, YouTube is not a news or educational website, and the substantiality of the work copied potentially undermines commercial opportunities of the copyright owner. In my judgment, we should not have a link to the video per WP:ELNEVER.- MrX 00:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the feedback! - Location (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Promotional External link on UDI and GHS

The external links from at UDI Unique Device Identification and GHS Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals pages are promotionals and need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree and Removed - a topic expert would be great, to look for additional problems in the further reading and link sections of those 2 articles. Thanks for pointing those out (PS: I converted the references in your post into "regular" Wiki-links for articles). GermanJoe (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

imdbtitle external links in articles

Wil Wheaton had 18 links (recently removed) like the following embedded in the article:

This permalink shows how the links were used. They were added in January 2015 and are being discussed at WP:VPP. Use of imdbtitle is illustrated at interwiki help. Searching the April 2015 dump shows 1500 links like that in over 300 articles. {{imdbtitle}} is also used. An example is here and some EL abuse is here.

Has there been a discussion about the use of imdbtitle external links embedded in articles? How about its use as an interwiki link? Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Embedded links, other than those to Wikipedia pages, are inappropriate.
Imdb, per WP:ELPEREN, is generally not appropriate as a source, but appropriate as an external link in the "External links" section at the bottom of the page of an article with exactly the same subject. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ELs in Dealey Plaza

The EL section in Dealey Plaza has been tagged for excessive or inappropriate links for over five years. Looking for second opinions on the following ELs that are listed there:

Thanks! - Location (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should all of the urls for this website [The Pirate Bay] be included in the infobox?

 B An RfC "Should all of the urls for this website [The Pirate Bay] be included in the infobox?" has been posted at Talk:The Pirate Bay#RfC - 24 July 2015. Interested users are invited to comment.- MrX 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. The rather unique situation we have with The Pirate Bay is that it recently changed to a system where it uses 5 domains,,,, and, cycling through all of the domains on a regular basis with none used more than any other. It would seem to be WP:OR to decide that one of these is the primary domain so we should be neutral and list them all. This is being discussed at Talk:The Pirate Bay after one editor insisted on removing all of the domains from the infobox.[20][21] I'm looking for some guidance and thoughts on the matter here. --AussieLegend () 16:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following the discussion over there. But given the recent court rulings, I am curious as to what argument has been used to not trip WP:ELNEVER #1. Is it because we are linking to the main page of the site and not to specific copyrighted material? Normally I could understand that argument - but due to the court case, I'm wondering if we should consult [email protected] on linking to any page of the site. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Barek. There is no requirement to provide an official link at all, and providing a directory of links to each of their domains seems to be a bad idea.- MrX 17:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
IANAL but the website doesn't actually violate the copyright of anyone. I believe the court rulings stated that the website "facilitates" the violation of copyright which is a subtle but important difference to actually violating copyright. This is why it only ordered that domain should be seized rather than close down the site entirely. While there is no requirement to provide an official link, there is as far as I'm aware, no restriction. --AussieLegend () 17:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Likewise IANAL but The Pirate Bay does not offer any copyrighted files for download, it is more like a searchable directory of material available via BitTorrent downloads. The other point that I made is that other sites such as Kickass Torrents do exactly the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The Pirate Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia is not based on literal reading of rules, so whatever the basis for the seizure of TPB's equipment and domain, and the convictions of its founders, it would be standard to interpret WP:ELNEVER as "no links". Wikipedia should not be used as a substitute for the TPB website, and should not be used to right great wrongs. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This debate was originally started in May because of an objection to five links per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Creating a new rule for "no links to torrent sites" would need to be applied consistently across all articles about torrent sites.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
To interpret WP:ELNEVER as "no links" would be incorrect. The founders are gone, so they don't apply. Merely having equipment seized doesn't demonstrate that the site has violated copyright. At this time the site itself does not violate copyright although there may be files on the site that allow somebody to find material somewhere else on someone elses computer that violates copyright. If we were to interpret WP:ELNEVER as "no links" then we wouldn't be able to link to YouTube because there is actually material on YouTube that violates copyright. WP:ELNEVER specifically addresses this saying This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. Based on this it seems that ELNEVER supports linking to The Pirate Bay itself, but probably not one of the magnet links. --AussieLegend () 07:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, my question above was not asking if links to hosting and torrent sites in general should not be used. My question was specifically "given the recent court rulings" - other sites would only fall under the same question if there were also court rulings. Even then, I had not read the court orders - and I do not know if the US government recognizes those rulings (considering Wikipedia's servers are in the USA, that would also be relevant). This is why I suggested consulting with legal@wikimedia. However, if the ruling only impacts a single country-specific URL, does not constitute a shut-down order, and is not receiving US government support - then my question is not relevant and the original ELMINOFFICIAL question for our internal site rules is all that applies. Very sorry for not being clearer in my original question, I had not anticipated it to be viewed as questioning the the linking to web hosts and torrent directories in general. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The situation is indeed rather unique - there are not 5 official sites, but at any given time, there is only one official site out of those 5. The other 4 hence would violate WP:EL as they are not the official site at that time. One would have to edit on a regular basis changing the official site (or go through a template transclusion, not making the edit history of the article going nuts - you'd get people annoyed if that article would get so many edits).

The other solution, which was implemented earlier, is listing all 5. In principle the listing of 3 or 5 official sites is allowed under WP:ELOFFICIAL/WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, if there is sufficient reasoning (we generally do not list someones twitter next to their official own domain (also because the twitter is generally linked from that own domain), but if a subject is very well known because of their twitter, then inclusion of the twitter next to the own domain (and hence having two official sites of a subject) is very allowed. This situation is somewhat similar (though with the point that actually 4 links are not at any given time an official site).

As far as I have seen in the past, actual linking to the site or going to the site is not a legal issue, downloading material in violation of copyright is a problem, and I think that they want to establish that providing the service to download material is also a problem (I am assuming that TPB is not hosting the material as well). As per YouTube: linking to TPB (or youtube) is fine, linking to magnet links of material that is NOT violating copyright is fine (as for youtube, linking to material uploaded by the copyright holder of the material is not a problem), linking to magnet links of copyright violating material is not fine (as on YouTube, linking to material that violates copyrights is not fine). (note: I think that magnet links are not within the scope of Wikipedia anyway, but that is also true for much of the material that is on topic, not a violation of copyright on YouTube. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well put. Anyone visiting the site will not find any material that is illegal or a copyright violation in itself. A person would need to download a piece of torrent software and click on the download button for a magnet link. Also, as far as I am aware, The Pirate Bay website is not blocked in all countries, and is available in the United States for example. There are some armchair lawyers making decisions about the legality of the site which is admittedly something of a grey area. Even if the site was illegal in Sweden (which isn't exactly what court rulings have said), it would be up to other countries to decide whether to block it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That gets to another point. Company A has a website .. that is verifiably its official website. Now, some global internet organisation decides that that website is not to be accessed by anyone in the world, and they make all the DNS servers / routers / whatever is needed to display a 'you're not to go here'-page when s.o. types in that address. Does that preclude us linking to it? I would say no - only when the organisation (and maybe even if it would be just some countries) would prosecute everyone who types in that link / follows that link because that is deemed illegal we might consider to globally blacklist it and remove it from our articles (as we do with links to sites with malware - protect the reader). We do not remove the official facebook link either because it blocked by the firewall in some countries.
We have decided in our guidelines (in a way, WP:IAR) that we link to the official website of an entity in our Wikipedia articles on that entity (with restrictions, WP:ELOFFICIAL, and overruled only by WP:ELNEVER). At any given time, one of these is the official site of the subject. If, say, America decides that it is illegal to go to even go to that website, it is still the official website. Unless the landing page is in itself a copyright violation (hence should not be linked to for legal reasons), or installs malware or similar (to protect the reader), I do not see any Wikipedia restrictions in linking to that website. (And if such restrictions exists for any given website, if restrictions exists on websites that you're not even allowed to follow a link to it or type it into the address bar, then Wikipedia should codify the solution to that restriction in WP:ELNEVER). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The Swiss Courts ruled that the site is illegal and jailed all of the founders. The courts no longer can shut down the site because it is moving from country to country and the operators are anonymous. The legal arguments that it doesn’t actually violate laws because it is merely a directory were rejected by the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court of Sweden. TPB is continually changing the site’s urls due to seizures by numerous countries and other legal actions. By continually updating links to the site to help users get around the legal rulings, Wikipedia may be exposed to the same charges of aiding and abetting copyright infringement as the founders. IANAL, but it would seem that is the purpose of WP:ELNEVER. Objective3000 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
One of the ironies of this debate is that The Pirate Bay is no longer the most important torrent site anyway. By Alexa ranking and general consensus among users, KickassTorrents is now the most important torrent site, even though The Pirate Bay remains the site that the average person is likely to have heard of. It is also the most common focus of debates about the legality or otherwise of torrent sites and tends to receive the most media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What I find odd is the pitched battles over inclusion/exclusion of these links from WP. It’s not as though anyone is having any trouble locating these sites. Let the pirate blogs take the heat and let WP do what it does best – document the site. WP is not a directory. Objective3000 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Look, I have no trouble finding pages linking to/mentioning their websites: see here, here, here (though not linked), here. That something is illegal, does not mean that it is illegal to talk about it, or to point to it. 'Look, he is robbing a bank'. If anyone can show me a reliable source stating that a website was taken down (or even, just a document was taken down or altered) because that website having documentation pointing to these three websites, then we can reliably say that Wikipedia also should not be linking to that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Despite Objective3000's claims to the contrary, the site is not illegal. It has been raided by Swedish police and could have been taken down but it wasn't. All that has happened is that the courts have decided that the domain name should be seized because it "facilitates" copyright violations. The courts seem happy to allow the site to continue operation on another domain so there is no evidence that the site is illegal. The founders, who are no longer involved with the site are not proof that the site is illegal so this aspect of this discussion should not be an issue. The issue is how we list the urls in the infobox. --AussieLegend () 11:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The court ruling both convicted the founders and ruled that the "site" itself was illegal. That ruling has not been reversed and is still in effect. The site is illegal under the law. It doesn't matter who runs it. Also, the Swedish government did take down the site in that raid. It remained down for eight weeks until they found another host. It has been up and down since.Objective3000 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This is really tiresome. The ruling was against the site run by the founders, not the present site. You really need to give up on this unless you can provide verifiable evidence that the present site is subject to the rulings of the past. The site only went down in the 2014 raid because hardware was removed that was required to run the site. It wasn't a takedown. You're making ridiculous assumptions. --AussieLegend () 11:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding snide remarks to your edit summaries. Removing the hardware and arresting the operator were effective methods of taking down the site. The fact they got it up again in Moldova (until they were thrown out of that country) doesn't mean that the Swedish courts were "happy" to allow the site to continue operation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather than having the same argument in a different place, why not just start an RfC?- MrX 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it’s pointless. Court after court has ruled against TPB. They were recently shut down by the Swedish Gov’t. AussieLegend even stooped to a Hitler metaphor yesterday. An RfC will not stop people from claiming that TPB is legal and bullying editors off the TPB article that aren't wholehearted supports. Objective3000 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
An RfC is a pretty effective tool for determining consensus and its effect is fairly binding. I don't see how that would be pointless. Are you asserting that WP:ELNEVER applies ("Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.")?- MrX 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There is more to it though. TPB is constantly changing its domains as it keeps losing them. Wikipedia editors change them based on reports from TorrentFreak, an activist blog that uses anonymous sources that the editors of this article insist is an RS. Of course there are other sources – but they all trace back to TorrentFreak. In the case of domain names, the anonymous operators of TPB feed them to TorrentFreak, and WP editors take it from there. So, basically, WP is getting its information from the operators of the subject of the article, vetting the safety of the links, and adding them to the article, making it easier/safer for pirates to violate copyright. Further, information gathered in this manner has proved highly unreliable. For example, claims that TPB had moved its servers to an offshore oil platform, hovering drones, North Korea, their own country, the Swedish Parliament building, and other outlandish fabrications. Despite the fact that this anti-copyright blog has provided such poor information in the past, a search of the source of the article shows TorrentFreak 129 times. Now, the editors claim that TPB is rotating among five domains, based on the same source. Frankly, this is unlikely, unnecessary, and I can see no evidence of it from examining the site. (Yes, that’s WP:OR. But, why would anyone believe it?) Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As Barek mentioned in the very beginning of this section, everyone is free to contact [email protected]. Trying to interpret US law regarding linking to a website where the founders was found to be assisting in copyright infringement is an interesting question, but one which should be given to the lawyers who has the education and verifiability to actually make a definitive statement on the issue. Assistance to assistance is a legal topic often discussed on forums, but I have yet to find anyone using precedence or facts to actually point to a specific conclusion.

If we were then to look at the specifics in this particular legal case, translating it to US law is riddled with problems. The law which the founder broke in Sweden likely do not exist in the US, as it is based on the idea that a person running a service can't primarily provide that service to people who commit crimes. The documented thought process behind the law, which in civil law count as if it was part of the law text itself, the politicians wanted prosecutors to have the ability to go after biker bars when a MC-gang uses it as an operation base. In the case of TPB, they then looked at top 100 torrented files page, concluded that it showed a majority of unauthorized copyrighted material that was made available to the public. Making copyrighted material available to the public was explicitly written into Swedish copyright law reform in the late 1990s (in the BBS law), and thus the judges concluded that the founder was found assisting in copyright infringement. (all this can be read in the judgment file published by the court, including why a "why google would likely not be found guilty under same law" section).

What does that mean for the US law that uses case law? I am not a lawyer, so I would leave that to the lawyers of Wikipedia to decide. Its their job to consider what legal issues might or might not be relevant for the project, and I trust that they are good at it. Belorn (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Any issues about the legality of linking to the TPB website are for [email protected]. The site's availability in the USA means that there is no clear cut answer to this question. Also, TPB is not the only site offering magnet links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:ELNEVER applies whether or not it is legal to link to a site. Objective3000 (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Rather than argue about this, it would be better to ask [email protected] anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Who's arguing about legality of linking to TPB? Legality is not relevant to WP:ELNEVER.
  • So I asked them. Reply awaited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    An inquiry to WMF legal has no bearing on this content dispute, unless and until they come back and say that we can't link to Pirate Bay, which is doubtful. If they do say it's OK, WP:ELNEVER may still apply. Personally, I'm starting to lean in favor of not listing any links based on the arguments that I've read so far.- MrX 12:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Got a reply, which is a private e-mail so I won't quote it directly. It says that it is a community decision rather than a Foundation issue. As predicted, there was no outright ban on linking to the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I don’t know the question asked or the answer. The question could have been “Is it legal to link to a torrent site?” (Of course it can be given no other information.) Or, it could have been “Should we update links on a continuing basis, month after month, based on anonymous sources, that has been declared illegal and whose pronouncements have proved unreliable, has to constantly move from country-to-country due to legal rulings, has to constantly change domains due to country-after-country rulings, whose founders were all jailed, and whose current site (which may or may not include involvement from some founders) was recently shut down by the Swedish Gov’t., based on anonymous sources that appear to be from the current operators of the site and have often proved to be fabrications, to ease the violation of copyright in contradiction to Wikipedia policies?”
Or, something in-between those two. So, the answer: “Up to the community” sounds quite reasonable.
I assume good faith on your part, and thank you for the effort. But, I really don’t see the point of getting a complex legal ruling on the full explanation of the situation. I believe that WP:ELNEVER exists to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. WP is an encyclopedia. It documents. It shouldn’t get involved with the politics of any situation. It should be fearless in reporting – but not go out of its way to aide any side.
BTW, a sysop removed the links that we are discussing awaiting a resolution. They have been restored despite the fact that the discussion continues. Regards, Objective3000 (talk)
  • My opinion: Link to one (any of them), with a footnote about the situation. Linking to all five seems redundant and would generally just cause clutter, since as I understand it they all point to the same place. A footnote to clarify that there are actually five URLs with none being authoritative avoids it being inaccurate or WP:OR to use one in particular for our link. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We are coming up on six weeks and the TPB article still violates WP:ELNEVER. Before this issue was sent to this noticeboard, I said it would be useless as the editors of that article don't pay attention to noticeboards when they don't support their arguments. Objective3000 (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for some consensus given the legal concerns, then forgot about it.
So there's agreement that at least one link is appropriate, correct?
I'm not seeing agreement for more than one?
How about using a footnote to explain that they are trying to maintain multiple domains, knowing that some will be taken down? --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of notice boards if they are continually ignored by the editors of this article? The links are back again. Objective3000 (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
We follow WP:DR. If some editors choose not to, they'll eventually be blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the edit-warring will cease and an RfC has been started. I'm a confused if/how ELNEVER applies still. There's agreement that the sites themselves are not hosting any illegal content, correct? What are the other concerns? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

1.) The page has been frozen with a violation and the opposite of the consensus here. So, edit-warring is not needed as the person behind the edit-war got his way. 2.) The RfC is pointless. They ignored this discussion -- indeed the person edit-warring wouldn't even stoop to participation in the discussion. He just overruled, again and again. So, if the RfC doesn't go their way, they will likely ignore that too. That is the history of the article. Seriously, some of us do not have the time to stop constant violations on an article that is basically written by the subjects of the article via a pro-piracy blog whose sources are nearly 100% anonymous and purportedly the subjects of the article. Look at the sources of the article. They are either TorrentFreak, or an article that quotes TorrentFreak, which uses anonymous sources that they claim are the subjects of the article. WP has lost a large number of admins over the last couple years. WP is spread too thinly, allowing such rogue articles. Objective3000 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has stalled, with each side as staunchly supporting the same opinions they held as they were when it started. There is no consensus, even though several editors on both sides claim there is by simply ignoring the other side's comments. I believe it is overdue for a higher authority to step in and provide some serious direction and resolution before things continue to get worse between certain editors. As many steps of the DR process require no current official discussion to be ongoing, I'm at a loss as to where to go next, so I thought I might as well say something here. —烏Γ (kaw), 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has only been going for 12 days and most discussions slow down after initial comments. The normal period for an RfC is 30 days unless there is strong consensus and there is no reason why the RfC shouldn't be left open for the entire period. The solution is to advertise the RfC in more places and get opinions from more editors, not to close it. Your argument at the RfC that Attracting more editors will only grow the size of the faction war is quite ridiculous. The aim of any RfC is to get as much input from the community as possible. You claim that you're at a loss as to where to go next, but you're trying to subvert the process by voting to close the RfC early. --AussieLegend () 07:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This thread would appear to be moot, unless someone wants to push a case that no link is permissible at all: The main server is back, and round-robins to all the rest, so only one link is needed now at the article. All the other domains TPB has are superfluous for our purposes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Eight editors have indeed pushed the case that there should be no link. Objective3000 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly true. Some editors have certainly "pushed" it, while others have simply voted in the RfC. At the same time, 13 editors have voted for one link only, at least one link, or listing them all, and some of those have pushed the issue. --AussieLegend () 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposition in the RfC still represents a valid ongoing concern. For that reason, the RfC needs to be assessed for consensus by an outside party. If there is no consensus for (a) all links, or (b) any links, I believe they should be removed, but I also think the RfC closer needs to make that determination as WP:ELBURDEN is a guideline, not a hard rule. - MrX 14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is wrong place to report this, but anyway this site in question is used in several articles (for example Madaoua, Bouza, Sennar), don't know if it has ever been legit site but right now atleast my browser redirects it to one of those "win an iphone" or what not scam sites. J.K Nakkila (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have removed the links in those article. Please let us know if you find any others. - MrX 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I found 13 more that I've also removed. - MrX 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Most have been removed now, still one page shows up in search Maarrat al-Nu'man. J.K Nakkila (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, you already removed it but it showed up in search anyway. J.K Nakkila (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Now you know that you can remove these kinds of links yourself. - MrX 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I need experienced editors to comment

Hi guys. Sorry for spamming this, but it's for a good cause. I would like to encourage editors to comment on my idea lab request here. Input would be greatly appreciated.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable Names Database (NNDB) - proposed template deletion

A discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21 is being held to determine if {{NNDB}}, an external link template, should be deleted on the basis of not being a reliable source. Specifically, in violation of Wikipedia:ELNO #2 which states,

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."

Discussions surrounding the reliability of {{NNDB}} have reoccurred 13 times at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Additionally, the argument(s) used to advance a move to delete this template could be applied to other widely used templates like {{Find a Grave}}, {{YouTube}}, or {{IMDb}} (for all external link templates see Category:External link templates). Participants in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21 have been notified of this posting. Mitchumch (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems a bit "sky is falling". Each link would be examined on its own merit (I have no plans to nominate other ones, btw). I'll add here that I have proposed adding NNDB to the spam blacklist - see here. Please feel free to join either discussion.Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that these videos could be useful as external links for some articles, for example City of London [22], Gerrymandering [23] and Nocebo [24] (ok, someone added that one already). They have a humourous slant but afaict the facts are good. Is this a bad idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis at each article. I don't see that the videos as an obvious breach of the guidelines, but it's also not clear that they provide accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.- MrX 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We need guidance from WMF legal, please

Can we please have some guidance from WMF Legal about the advisability of including external links, or listing URIs, as in the case of List of The Pirate Bay proxies. The concern relates to possible WMF TOU violations; the possibility that such links are a form of contributory copyright infringement; and whether such links bring the project, and by extension, WMF into disrepute. The community needs this guidance to be recorded on Wiki (as opposed to email), so that it can be referenced by editors involved in disputes about this type of content. Thank you.- MrX 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Email sent requesting that WMF Legal comment here.- MrX 18:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it’s important to include that not only are these links to proxies that have been specifically designed to circumvent blocks enacted by multiple governments; but that it appears a great deal of work by a Wikipedia editor has gone into detailing which links are available to aide copyright infringement. Objective3000 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not received the courtesy of a response from the WMF legal team to the email I sent six days ago, so I assume that they have no interest in commenting about this. I suppose it's moot anyway since the List of The Pirate Bay proxies article has been deleted.- MrX 17:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

imdbname interwiki

See VPT#IMDB hack where the following is discussed:

This was mentioned here in July 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the use of 50 ELs ever appropriate?

USS Liberty incident is a very contentious subject, but 50 ELs, one simply a book, seems way over the top. Several are from the same website/person, and it seems some are used in the article. I'm opening a discussion there but I have no plans to edit the article. Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. External links are appropriate for material that can't be summarized in an article or if they provide a unique resource. The so called sources should either be properly cited as sources with footnotes, if they are reliable, or they should be removed. - MrX 12:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll respond on the talk page, too. - Location (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Embedded links in articles.

I'm not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this kind of thing, but it does sort of involve external links. My understanding of Wp:CS#Avoid embedded links is that external links to third-party websites should never be embedded within articles. So, I always try to convert such links into inline citations whenever possible and only remove the link altogether as a last resort. I recently converted some match result links embedded into 2015 Sydney Roosters season#2015 results, but have been reverted twice by KC Roosters. I've explained why the embedded links were converted in my edit sums here and here as well as at Talk:2015 Sydney Roosters season#Embedded links within articles, but still the only comment received from the other editor was I would appreciate if you did not make any more changes to this page at User talk:Marchjuly#2015 Sydney Roosters season. There has been no explanation given by the other editor as to why they feel a properly formatted citation is not an improvement over an embedded url. Anyway, I do not wish to engage in edit warring over this, and if the embedding of such links is actually considered acceptable as some kind of exception, then I'm happy to leave them as is. I am, however, interested in hearing what others have to think on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You were correct to convert the inline external links to footnote citations. Wikipedia is not a collection of sports stats, and we're sure not a collection of sports stats with external links to more sports stats. - MrX 12:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the correct noticeboard, but the issue is more tricky than just converting links to refs—the issue is whether an article should serve as fancruft with lists of excessive detail, including links to details on external websites. It takes a lot of patience and energy to deal with pages like that, and it is often easier to turn a blind eye because at least someone is monitoring the page and filling it with information that fans would find useful, and it's not blatantly bad. On the other hand, if such lovingly maintained link farms become entrenched, others will want to do the same for their favored topic. I'm not sure we have enough good editors to repel all the paid promotions and all the fancruft, so some kind of triage needs to be applied, and the reported page is not a high priority. At any rate, just converting the non-encyclopedic external links to refs is not really a solution. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
First of all, thanks to MrX and Johnuniq for taking the time to respond. For reference, my issue with the links had more to do with the way they were being embedded into the article than whether they were spam links, etc. I believe they were added in good faith as sources to support the match results being provided; The "Statistics" label, however, is probably a bit misleading and maybe should be changed to "Result". Per the "Avoid embedded links" cited above, it seems that using embedded citations has been deprecated, so I was just converting the embedded citations to inline citations. If this was not clear in my original OP, then my apologies for the confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

AdamSEOWorks (talk · contribs) was reported to WP:AIV. The user is not introducing any new links, just changing the existing dead links from to I removed the AIV report as not vandalism, but dropping a note here in case someone wants to discuss if these links are spam or not. utcursch | talk 17:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

When an account with SEO in the user name does 50 edits in under two hours, apparently all of them involve promoting an ".info" website, the default assumption would be they are not trying to build the encyclopedia. Also see However, pages like this appear to satisfy WP:EL, and there is an old bot request to do the same job.
I asked at WT:WikiProject :Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I should have responded when this was first posted. There's no spamming going on, only quick cleanup without reviewing them on a case by case basis to see if they (still) meet WP:EL for each article. I don't expect a new editor to do such a review, but it would be nice. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Promotional or OK?

Wolpat has twice inserted this link to a YouTube video that appears to be a commercial for a company's products. Is it OK? (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Promotional. And so are several of the other links in the article. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. - MrX 21:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Promotional. I do not have any strong objections to linking to their YouTube channel, however, they already have an official website to which Wikipedia already links. - Location (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add my two penny worth, if I could... I consider myself still new to Wikipedia, as even a good few months in there is still an awful lot to learn, especially with rules, regulations, policies and so on. It's a definite that I have learned that any given policy can be interpreted in about 100 different ways on a 100 different pages. But specifically on this subject, I put in most of the external links under discussion after watching them all (more than once), and satisfying myself that they all actually would show and/or tell the person watching them something new and different, and that they included something of interest that was not in text. I believe they all contribute something individual, and enhance the quality and quantity of information that this Wiki page offers. I absolutely agree they are created to promote, but I don't see them as adverts per se. I do think they are valuable, and would like them to be retained. I am also interested in how the Wiki community at large views this. I would also ask, would it not be more appropriate to discuss before deleting? --Wolpat (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The content of those videos are about 95% promotional, 5% informational in my opinion. The big issue I see it that it is not objective. A manufacturer is not a good source of objective information on their own products. Phrases like "Investing in world-class operations to provide the best value" and "Oshkosh is ready to build JLTV to the highest standards...right now" are empty marking cruft of no educational value. To answer your question "would it not be more appropriate to discuss before deleting": discussion is always good, but disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them per WP:ELBURDEN. When first reverted your link addition as spam, that was your queue to open a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus for including it. Perhaps linking to the company's YouTube channel, as suggested by Location, would be a good compromise.- MrX 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletion occurred after discussion with MrX and Location above. Because their views seemed unequivocal and accorded well with established policy, no further discussion seemed warranted at the time. Linking to the company's YouTube channel does seem like a reasonable move. (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That all appears to make sense. As I say, I'm still learning, so am happy with the results here, and hopefully have a better grasp of this process. The compromise is also fair, and I'll track down the YouTube channel and put in a link for that tomorrow.--Wolpat (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Put the YouTube Channel links in, and I believe correctly; it's links not link as I could not find a single 'corporation' channel, but only a channel per division, which I suppose makes sense. I've also added some more content, and hope to add a bit more as time allows. I might try and get permission to use some old pictures from the book I cite.--Wolpat (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
DUH!!!! Just found a Corporation YouTube Channel ( ) It's dire... I'd vote to leave the others up as this is next-to-useless; the others deliver more content (albeit with a sprinkling of PR...), while this is pretty much a waste of a link. Happy to work with the general consensus though. Note to self; look twice next time!--Wolpat (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What Location suggested above and what others responded positively to was including this YouTube channel, not a half dozen others. (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
That's all well and good, and while the 'Defense' YouTube Channel is a good one (it's the bulk of their revenue I believe), the point I tried to make was that some might argue that as this is a 'Corporation' page and not a specific 'Defense' page, the sole external link of this type should be to the Corporation channel, and not to that of one division of the Corporation. Like I said, I'm happy with Defense, but I fear we may end up going through all of this again when A.N. Other decides they are not. Thoughts?--Wolpat (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONS, WP:CCC. (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. They look like gobbledegook, but at some stage in the near future I will sit back for a read, and will hopefully come out the other end with a little more in-depth knowledge of the workings of Wiki. Thanks again.--Wolpat (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

John E. Stith

John E. Stith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The EL section in this article about an author appears to have an inordinate amount of promotional-like links to social media sites. - Location (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. I have removed most of the social media and other WP:EL-violating entries. See also WP:ELMINOFFICIAL for more details. GermanJoe (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links to YouTube audiobook recordings

I am wondering if the YouTube audiobook links added to Secrets at Sea and The Mouse with the Question Mark Tail with this edit and this edit are acceptable as external links or are copyvios. They were originally added to the "References" section of each article, and I moved them to "External links". I'm not quite sure, however, if they should instead be removed completely per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The YouTube channel owner "Audiobooks" appears to have no declared indication if they are the rights holder or not to have the ability to publish of if they are just skimming something like Audible to repost the content. Without strong affirmation of being a rights holder, this is a copyvio. (Even that said, I can't see the need to link even to an official audiobook recording even if offered freely than just using the physical book as a reference). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a copyright violation. A quick search for the title shows that this was never released for free and I found that the publisher does indeed charge for the audiobook. It's highly likely that this was recorded off of Audible or Overdrive and then uploaded to YouTube, as was said above. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking into this Masem and Tokyogirl79. Just for reference, I removed the links a few weeks back per ELNEVER, but this is nice to know in case someone tries to re-add them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A. J. Weberman

A. J. Weberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Weberman appears to be a bit of a crank who has put up a number of iffy webpages, one of which appears to be an attack page. I think all four should go, but I'm hoping someone can take another look. Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The links to his site appear to be WP:BLP violations to me. In some cases even the title is a BLP violation. I removed the ones I saw there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)