Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

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

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


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

Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?[]

Regarding the disagreement here, does The Unz Review masthead FAQ assertion that, "The articles and columns that appear here are under legal copyright and the authors or their representatives have merely granted The Unz Review the right to publish them," allow us to link to this article from The Reporter from 1966 as the source of an early use of the term "white genocide"? EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: is citing the original alone not enough? Do we really need a copy-source? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel like being able to read the whole article gives a sense of the political climate and conflict history necessary for understanding the use of the term. It's not a huge deal, I just am astonished that everyone isn't willing to take The Unz Review at their word, since they clearly paid a lot to license hundreds of thousands of important historical news publications, and would have been sued to kingdom come decades ago if they weren't offering them on the up-and-up, that's all. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, EllenCT. Generally, entire newspaper articles aren't uploaded to Wikipedia per WP:NFC simply so that someone can read the entire article; so, it seems unlikely such a file could be uploaded and then added as part of the citation; a link to the article, on the other hand, is often considered OK as long as it's not a problem per WP:COPYLINK or WP:ELNEVER. It seems to me that as long as the original source(s) were WP:PUBLISHED and are considered reliable, then it should be able to cite them per WP:SAYWHERE even if they cannot be currenty found anywhere online. If they can be found online uploaded to website other than one controlled by the original source, then perhaps as a WP:Convenience link could work using the parameter |via= like is often done with sites like Google Books, etc. The question then might be whether such a convenience link would be OK; it might for a website like "Newspapers.com", "Google News Archive", "Internet Archive" or "HighBeam Research", but maybe not so much from some kind of personal website hosting the content. Just from looking at Ron Unz#The Unz Review and other activities, I'm not sure how reliable of a website it would be as a source or how credible it would be even for just a convenience link just based upon what Wikipedia has to say about it; however, if do a Wikipedia search of the websites url, you'll find it being cited in quite a number of articles which might mean it's considered reliable for some things, which in turn might mean it's credible as a convenience link. (Note: This was originally asked about at WP:MCQ#Is The Unz Review masthead credible as to their copyright licensing?, but I suggested asking here at ELN since it seems to be more of an EL question than a file upload question.) -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am just saying that I do see the value of convenience links to material and that we should use them where ever we can (especially to make material easier to verify), but that does not mean that we HAVE to have a convenience link to material EVERYWHERE (and the same goes for archived copies). If there are no problems with the convenience link, fine, but I do not believe it is a problem if we cannot (or even try to be on the safe side). If there are serious suspicions about a site, then it is just better not to have the convenience link and only 'link' to an (even paper-only) original. I really don't see a problem with that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this and think SAYWHERE is more than acceptable solution to any link at all. I just mentioned a convenience link as one possibility, but I don't think their usage, especially in this case, should be seen as automatically OK. If there are ELNEVER concerns that cannot be fully resolved, then a convenience link shouldn't be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The dispute is about this , which is not in the ==External links== section. This is primarily a question about WP:LINKVIO when Wikipedia:Citing sources. One or believes that the website has a suitable license, on the grounds that they claim to, and therefore that a link in the citation is acceptable. Another or believes that the website does not have a suitable license (apparently on the grounds that they are bad people, and so can't be trusted in matters such as copyrights). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[]

Can someone take a look at the links on the article Rolls-Royce 20/25. I've twice removed them and they've twice been re-added by another or. I'm looking at the links and they fail multiple points on WP:ELNO. For the first two links, https://archive.rrec.org.uk/ & http://www.rroc.org/

  1. These links are general collectors club links, not links specific to the Rolls-Royce 20/25 model. Fails WP:ELNO #13
  2. These links require paid subscriptions in order to access them, thus removing their encyclopaedic utility. Fails WP:ELNO #6

The third link, which was updated to be a little more specific, https://www.fiennes.co.uk/The-Cars/Rolls-Royce/20-25/

  1. The link immediately provide no additional info beyond what the article already does. Fails WP:ELNO #1
  2. This link is to a catalogue section of a commercial website and everything on and from that page is solely to sell replacement parts for the cars, not to provide encyclopaedic information. Fails WP:ELNO #5

I've tried to engage the user who keeps re-adding the links, but they're not listening and no longer replying to the points I'm making and are just reverting. Now I don't wish to get into an war here, but the user doesn't seem to get why some links may not be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. So I'm bringing this here to get some more eyes and to see if I'm being unreasonable in my removal of these sites. Looking for opinion. Note: These sites are not linked from any other specific Rolls-Royce sites, it seems the one user has a strong attachment to just this single article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Mattporta, the first two seem like excellent sites, but charging a fee is a really serious failing – for the "External links" section itself. You can see this in the rules at WP:ELNO#EL6, "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". Now, if you happen to have paid that membership fee yourself, and you want to cite those excellent specific pages in the article as refs (usually done as a type of Wikipedia:Inline citation, and ending up in the ==References== section), then that's totally fine. Just not in the ==External links== section.
Canterbury, I'm less convinced by your description of the problems with the Fiennes link. The landing page isn't a great link, but there is information on that page that isn't in the article and might not belong there. For example, the term Hobson Telegauge appears in the link but not in the article. (Whether it ought to be in the article is outside my expertise.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox website link suitability[]

Could you please take a look at dankneen.com, used at Dan Kneen (deceased 2018)? I am unsure if it (now) complies with WP:ELOFFICIAL, particularly numbered points 1 and 2. Seems to be ostensibly 'retail/commercial' with a charity status from late Oct 2018.

Extract from Isle of Man index of charities: "To promote in the Isle of Man and elsewhere the relief of persons injured in motorsport events and the families of deceased competitors in need due to ill health, disability or financial hardship. To pomote (sic) public safety in motorsport and provision of improved safety facilities."

Just done an update on the article and unsure if this is appropriate to be shown. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer, it's not "wrong" but it's probably also not "best". You could replace the link with one to https://web.archive.org/web/20180604073854/http://www.dankneen.com/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Professional certification[]

Anyone want to join an effort to clean Professional certification? How vigorously should WP:LINKFARM be applied? For example, IACCP appears three times with three external links in each. Should WP:WTAF be enforced by removing IACCP? By the way, IACCP redirects to International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology which is different from the certification IACCP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JJMC89 for doing the cleanup in a mega-. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I just pulled the maintenance template from the top.
That type of basic article on a broad subject can be really difficult to write. I'm glad you have decided to take a stab at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is revdel required for a link on a talkpage?[]

We don't know if it's enough that the link in this was removed in this one, which left a mention of the website rather than a link to the specific copyright-breaching page there. Is revdel required, does the mention of the website need removing, or are we good? 16:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.240.227 (talk)

Discussion on external links to La Griffe du Lion on the reliable sources noticeboard[]

There is a discussion on the appropriateness of external links to La Griffe du Lion (lagriffedulion.f2s.com) on the reliable reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § La Griffe du Lion. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)