Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

WP:ELWD ambiguity

Per the text at WP:ELWD and the RfC, Wikidata links are not to be included in the body of an article, but per MOS:BODY, the body does not include the external links section. Note that templates like {{Scholia}} are routinely placed there. As I understand the RfC, that does not preclude links such as that in the external links section. Can someone clarify if I'm wrong here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alsee: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Resolved. Koavf Wikipedia:External_links#Handling_disputes aka WP:ELBURDEN. Once an external link has been disputed it is inappropriate simply simply revert war it back into place. The burden is on the person wanting to restore the external link: Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Alsee (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverting is not the same as revert warring, Alsee. There's no need to escalate, particularly per the thread on your talk page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:External_links#Linking_to_Wikidata is under WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided because, per the reasons at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_204#New_RFC_on_linking_to_Wikidata, Wikidata pages are lousy external links. They are not intended to be reader facing pages. Alsee (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore it is redundant to the Wikidata item link on the left sidebar. Alsee (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But Scholia links aren't, correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf Sorry for the late reply, lost track of this section for a bit. If Scholia were some random outside website I'm sure we would have zero or near-zero links to it. The only reason these links are added is because some editors are enthusiasts for anything related to Wikidata. That said, I would not attempt to claim the previous consensus on Wikidata links covers Scholia links. They are actually toolforge links, and it preforms assorted random Wikdata searches generating whatever random sections it can come up with. That's still arguably WP:ELNO #9 and from what I've seen most of it looks like strange or poor quality auto-junk, but at least they are actually intended as reader-facing pages. Given that there's ~2595 such links I'm not eager to actively contest Scholia links at this time. (Although I'd be happy to see someone open an RFC on it.) If Scholia links are considered valuable then a bot could complete the work of adding Scholia on every article. If not, a bot could remove them all.

Regarding the original topic of my External-link-section edits of links directly into Wikidata items, may I consider those edits no longer contested? Alsee (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I see here, since the external links section is not the body, there is no problem according to this guideline about including Wikidata in the external links section. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that they are lousy links - they were banned from the body because they are a lousy place to send readers. Wikidata items are not intended or designed to be reader-facing pages. Also such links are also utterly redundant to the link already in the sidebar. WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. The links are disputed, I gave two good reasons to dispute them. If you object to removal then then EL-burden is on you seek consensus to include. I am disputing all of the Wikidata links in an external link section which serve no other purpose than to be a link to that article's Wikidata item. If you want to seek consensus to include, you can open a single RFC to cover all of them.

Unless you are inform me that you are seeking consensus to include, or you are attempting to dispute WP:ELBURDEN, it is my understanding that the dispute is effectively resolved and I am free to resume my cleanup work removing these links. Alsee (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot declare that all links to a certain site are disputed and consequently need to be justified across millions of pages. I personally object to linking to IMDb, but that doesn't mean me declaring it here somehow means that everyone is obliged to remove those links. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all it's not a "million pages", my recollection is a little fuzzy but I think the search results I was working from had around a hundred page hits.

Secondly, I'm not saying anyone needs to remove the links. I'm saying *I* was in the middle of removing the links, and that I put that work on pause for the duration of this discussion. If you are not disputing WP:ELBURDEN and you do not intend to seek consensus to include, then I can resume removing them without hindrance. Reverting my removals, without consensus to include, would be an open and shut case of disruptive editwarring. Alsee (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There are millions of pages connected to Wikidata items. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there's some miscommunication here - this has nothing to do with pages connected to Wikidata. We are discussing the edit you reverted here - pages where someone added put a redundant Wikidata link in the External Link section. This search result turns up 68 pages pattern matching that link. We've wasted more time discussing this issue than it would have taken me to finish those 68 edits. Maybe there's a few more out out there that could be found with different search terms, but I'm just reverting a few junk external-links-section links from a very limited number of pages. Alsee (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There is yes, "I am disputing all of the Wikidata links in an external link section" I'm saying that you cannot in one place declare that all links that could be in millions of pages on Wikipedia are thereby disputed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I was in the middle of removing them when I paused to discuss with you. I am informing you of my intent to resume. Prior to doing so I was attempting to give you a chance to either: (A) expressly wrap up any dispute and acknowledge I may proceed, or (B) re-assert that you object to removing them and accept that the WP:ELBURDEN is on you to establish consensus for inclusion.

I don't know if there's a communication problem here or what, but if I can't get a clear answer from you then I'll just have to resume removing them and just see what you do. If you revert in violation of WP:ELBURDEN then it escalates to administrators as editwarring. Alsee (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

(B) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you accept that the WP:ELBURDEN is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. Did you want me to make another removal and then you seek consensus restore it? Or do you want to open a general proposal for inclusion? Just let me know where and when you want to open it and I'll hold off on further edits. Alsee (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on that framing, I think we should have a general proposal for inclusion, which is why I brought up the general issue here and confirmed that as the external links section is not the body, therefore, Wikidata links are not ipso facto disalloewd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• In the originally disputed article, Template:Sister project links should probably be restored with a link to c:Category:A Charlie Brown Christmas for Commons.
• The claim that Wikidata pages are a lousy place to send readers is a personal opinion. I won't say here whether it's a personal opinion that I happen to strongly agree with, but it is often a good idea to avoid assuming our personal, individual opinions are universally true, rather than something that reasonable people could disagree with. There are many external links that I would classify as lousy for the average person, and yet there are readers who find them incredibly helpful. ICD-10 codes are one example of this: They are essentially universal in articles about diseases, and nobody reads them just for fun.
• ELBURDEN does apply, and it applies even when an editor is removing links from dozens or hundreds of articles, but a blanket "I hereby challenge everything from here to infinity" is WP:POINTY. If Koavf wants to form a consensus to include these links, then such discussions are usually handled article-by-article, at least until several such discussions have concluded and a trend is generally believed to be evident. For example, he might start a discussion on Talk:A Charlie Brown Christmas (soundtrack) that suggests that the contents of d:Q2304393#identifiers are particularly appropriate and typical external links for a music album. If editors express an opinion, then we should go with their opinion.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf also from the WP:EL point of view, the EL section is not body (and I would argue that purely bulleted sections like see also and further reading are not ‘body’ either). I read ‘body’ here more as ‘prose’.
For sister links, including WD I have strong inclination to remove them from EL type sections as they often fail WP:EL (the times I find commons links that just reproduce all images already used in the article, sometimes the article even has more (non free) images than commons). Moreover, those links are already supplied in the toolbox. I agree that ELBURDEN applies, if they are removed then an argument needs to be supplied, or a talkpage discussion with consensus, before they are re-added. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You're correct: The MOS:BODY does not include the MOS:APPENDIX. I also agree that from the perspective of external links, we are more concerned with links in the middle of sentences (the way we link to Wikipedia articles). There are times when an external URL could be linked, e.g., in a list or table or via special-purpose templates such as {{external media}}, if editors think that improves the article. And it hardly needs to be mentioned, but URLs in bibliographic citations, including anything covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, are widely accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Wishlist

Editors who are interested in external links might be interested in this wishlist proposal: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Citations/Warn when adding a url reference that matches the SpamBlacklist.

I haven't finished reading all the proposals. If you find any others related to external links (good or bad), I would appreciate it if you shared a link here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive is better than iarchive interwiki link prefix

Here and here, I replaced iarchive interwiki link prefixes in "External links" sections with {{Internet Archive}}. The latter is better for this purpose since it generates a proper external link with an external link icon: see the disadvantages of interwiki links for this purpose at Help:Interwiki linking § Interwiki links versus external links. (Pinging Throughthemind, who created the original interwiki links in these instances if I'm not mistaken.) Biogeographist (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Padding for neat placement

Without padding WP:ELPOINTS is smushed by the infoboxes at right on desktop, and its shortcut box is misplaced (preview). For this reason, I have added {{clear}} at the botton of the lead. Please inform me if you have a better solution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The result

@LaundryPizza03, unfortunately, that solution causes other problems. The MOS has warned against such efforts for years, because what looks good on "my" screen isn't going to look good on "your" screen. As you can see from the screenshot, the clear template produces (more than) a full screen of no content at all. In this case, one effective solution might be to just remove the generic guidelines navbox from the top. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: This seems like a good solution, but it would make the policy and guideline list inaccessible on mobile, since that ocurs only in the navbox. Should I try that anyway and rely only on the {{guideline}} header for mobile navigation of the guidelines? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. You're not likely to end up on this page because you want general information about guidelines anyway. The "Linking and page manipulation" box is likely to be more relevant, assuming that what you need isn't on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

ELLIST: List and table formatting

I think the change made to WP:ELLIST back in 2019 discussed at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39#List and table formatting that boldly carves out an exception for such link use in in-body tables/lists in articles about elections needs to be revisted. There's seems to be nothing wrong with adding such external links to the "External links" ofr such articles pretty much in the same way they would be added to any other article. Such links are after all basically no less "promotional" in nature than linking to a company's or organization's official website, and I don't see really any reason why they need to be added to in-body tables either as bare urls like http://www.example.com or as embedded links like Website, especially when they're also listed in the "External links" section of the very same article. If a "link" is truly needed for an individual entry, then there's no reason why an internal wikilink (e.g. [[#External links|Official website]]) to the article's "External links" section wouldn't suffice and serve just as well encyclopedically as a "direct" external link to the website.

I think a much stronger consensus should be established (possibly even via an RFC) for something such as this. Most of these links are added much in the same way logos are added to such tables; there purpose seems to be more for "decoration" or "sake of convenience" than as having real encyclopedic in value to the reader. Campaign website links, in particular, would seem to be at risk of becoming dead links or being over-written with new content once the election is over, and the candidates and everyone else has moved on to other things or their next election. Adding archived version could be a way around this, but the same could be done for links in an "External links" section; moreover, this assumes that those adding the links or editing the articles are going to be just as dilligant about adding archived links before also moving on to other things. These links at best seem to add minimal encyclopedic value for however long the election cycle is, but create much more potential for disruption. This type of linking also seem to be used in more predominant in recent at the sub-national level (at least for US elections) where individual candidates might not be Wikipedia notable enough for stand-alone articles in their own right. Some might argue it's also potentially discrimintory against certain minor party or non-aligned candidates who aren't promently featured in the individual election articles (i.e. in candidate tables) but might have "official websites" for their campaigns.

Anyway, if the consensus is that something like this is really OK to do, then I think more clarification about when and how it should be done should be added to the ELLIST section then simply just a table as an exanmple of how to do it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "or" to "of" in the second sentence. -- 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)]

See also Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 40#Links In Lists illustration for even more discussion.

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with having these links in the article.

Whether they're better placed inline or at the end partly depends on how many there are. A very short list might easily be placed in the ==External links== section, although we have had folks complaining that links to candidates' websites are not official links for "Election of..." articles, and then removing them. That's the approach taken in 2022 California gubernatorial election: two (of 28) candidates' official campaign websites are listed under ==External links==, and the actual official link, which would presumably be https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-nov-8-2022 is not listed at all.

However, they decided to include links only to the two most plausible candidates. A list of external links for all 28 candidates' websites would not best presented by requiring people to engage in a huge amount of scrolling and searching, and we normally consider more than about 10 ELs to be evidence of a {{link farm}} that requires serious weeding.

Additionally, IMO it would be pretty silly to have an article that says:

Candidates

• Alice Expert
• Bob Business
• Carol Christmas

External links

• Alice Expert's official campaign website
• Bob Business's official campaign website
• Carol Christmas's official campaign website

There's no need to list each candidate's name twice, and "but I want all the external links in the labeled section" is not IMO an adequate justification for it. We've got to use some common sense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's OK to have these links in the body of the article, and I apologize if my OP was confusing to the make it seem as if I did. (I think the problem was that I mistakenly typed "or" when I meant to type "of") I'm not sure I also agree with your idea of common sense regarding whether it's better to have all "external links" in the "External links" section, but that could just be me. The example you cited above as "silly" seems to be the format that's used in 2013 New York City mayoral election and 2017 New York City mayoral election (though the formatting was changed for 2021 New York City mayoral election) as well as 2022 Los Angeles mayoral election, 2021 Seattle mayoral election and 2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial election. Sometimes a mixed-format is used like in 2023 Philadelphia mayoral election and 2023 Chicago mayoral election. Sometimes like in 2015 Philadelphia mayoral election no external links to candidate's official websites are provided. Obvious there's lots of inconsistencies in the formating and styling of these types of articles that have nothing to do with external links, and maybe there's WikiProject guidance for how these articles should be formatted. It might also have to do with the country where the election is held since 2021 London mayoral election and 2022 Toronto mayoral election and 2021 Rome municipal election also seem to refroan from using external links to official candidate/party websites. Because there's so much inconsistency among election related articles, it seems like a bad idea to try and use elections and an example of an acceptable type of linking in ELLIST. Personally, it seems much simpler to limit external link use like this to "External link" section, even if it means an extra click, particuarly when the link has pretty much zero value as citation and is primarily promotional in nature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How many candidates were there in 2013 New York City mayoral election?

Imagine that we made a complete list of campaign websites for every single candidate, not just a couple of them. What do you think that would look like if it were under ==External links==?

(Never fear: We have only agreed that they ought to be somewhere on the page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

official YouTube channel

Many people, corporations, and other organizations have "official" websites. These are often included in the External links section using something like the template official website. The use of official website (or explicitly specified URL) is currently allowed under the existing WP:EL policy. However more recently, many of these same entities also have "official" YouTube channels (carrying corporate content or other content specific to that corporation). Can the official YouTube channel of a corporate entity (of whatever sort) be included as an External link? The use of an official corporate YouTube channel has been flagged by an editor as not allowed due to the existing restrictions on the use of External links. Are external links to official YouTube channels for corporate entities (persons, corporations, or organizations) officially disallowed under the guidelines of WP:EL?

Arguments for allowing:

• all videos within the channel are copyrighted by the organization itself
• the organization maintains their own channel exclusively
• the content of the channel provides further insight for WP article readers about the nature of the subject of the WP article

Arguments for disallowing:

• this would somehow violate WP:NOTYOUTUBE
• it would violate WP:NOTFANSITE and specifically item 10 under there WP:NOSOCIAL
• it would violate conflicts of interest concerns WP:ADV

What is the current policy on this issue? Thanks for any information. L.Smithfield (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking about WP:ELMINOFFICIAL; in other words, the practice of trying to minimize the number of external links to a subject's official websites as much as possible. Usually, linking is limited to the primary website, particularly when that website predominantly displays links to the subject's other official websites. So, for example, if the main official website of a company has links to all of the company's official social media accounts, generally only a link to the main website is considered OK. Of course, there could always be exceptions to that, but that seems to be the general principle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, although I would add that if an organization does not bother providing an easily seen link to their Youtube channel, neither should we. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Although I see your point, it would seem that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL would come into play first, whether the organization (or whatever sort of corporate entity) provided a link on their own website to their own YouTube channel or not. But regardless, I think that there is (so far) consensus that under the current WP:ELMINOFFICIAL policy, explicitly providing links to corporate YouTube pages should be disallowed. More opinions are welcomed, but I will assume this (above) consensus so far. Thanks. L.Smithfield (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I had not thought about that at all. So if an official YouTube channel of a company (for example) would be considered a second "official" website of the same company, then under WP:ELMINOFFICIAL only one of those two links should be provided, rather than both. It would make sense to provide the link to the "official" website (template:official website) rather than to the YouTube channel, if only one of these two were allowed. So I am going to take your response as a case for not allowing "official" corporate YouTube channels when an template:official website exists and is linked under External links. Thanks very much for this insight and clarification. L.Smithfield (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change to ELMAYBE

So, I'm not sure if it's an artifact from when Wikipedia had looser standards, but is anyone else bothered by the statement in ELMAYBE that says "4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I'm struggling to find a situation when it would be appropriate to link to an unreliable source. If it is unreliable, then anything it says is suspect. Unless anyone can come up with some actual use cases (and I can't think of one) perhaps we should remove this criteria; inviting people to link to unreliable sources seems like a bad idea. --Jayron32 12:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Article about book, linked to unreliable book; article about pseudoscientific idea, linked to website of notable proponent of the idea; article about event, linked to oral histories describing event; article about a place or thing, linked to a website with photos of that place or thing...

Since "failing to meet the criteria for reliable sources" could just mean that the website is (as nearly all of them are) self-published. Most WP:ELOFFICIAL links "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources" at some level. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to blacklist a health website

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Healthline: deprecate or blacklist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Social media links

I'm unsure what the policy is for adding social media page links. For example, a TV presenter, whose only online presence is their Instagram page, no official website. Is it then acceptable to put an external link in the infobox to their Instagram page? If it is, and they have multiple social media pages in use, e.g. Instagram and Facebook, is there a preference of linking to one over the other?

My second question, I'm a little unsure how to interpret "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". My initial assumption was that an external website link or social media page link in an infobox adds useful information, because someone might want to go there next. But if Wikipedia is not a repository of links, then adding external links invites people to leave Wikipedia, rather than reading the article itself. I'm unsure which is the best approach with external links, which is in keeping with the intentions of Wikipedia. I'd appreciate more detail on when an external link is useful and recommended, and when it's a distraction and not recommended. Are there specific article types it's recommended to add links to, and other article types where they're not recommended? Thanks Snowpeek (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read the section above titled "official YouTube channel". In that discussion mention was made of the WP policy WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. With regard to social media links, I would sort of interpret this policy as meaning that only one URL to a personal media website of some sort (whether an "official" website or a social media page) is encouraged. It would be the responsibility of the website or page put into the External links section to contain links to any other social media sites (if the article subject even has any). So if no "official" website is available, then I would tend to come down on the side of YES, put one social media page URL in the External links section, but only one. But you might want to wait a while for further opinions to show up here on your question. Others may see the situation differently. The issue of "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" might have further implications that I am not taking into consideration. --L.Smithfield (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" is specifically about not adding collections of links. It doesn't express any judgment on the use of individual social media links. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. You said you think putting one link in the external links section would be the right approach. Is the top right infobox not recommended as a place to put an external link?

An example is I recently edited the article for fashion designer Esme Young who also features on some TV programmes. I added a link to her Instagram page in the top right infobox. She's known to be a private person, but her Instagram account is actively used and posts are regularly added, and so is a source of further info about her. This is what started me thinking about the use of external links to social media on Wikipedia articles!

What do you think of the edit, with her Instagram page linked in the infobox? Should I move it to an external links section at the bottom of the article? I think that would be less visible and less likely to be noticed by people visiting the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure if Wikipedia prefers external links to be less visible, or more visible. Thanks Snowpeek (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

YES, I would move any external links to the External links section of the article. I (for myself) have never (ever) seen any external links (URLs) in any info-box. One can put proper references (with full citation information) in the info-box, but those are not external links proper (even though they usually contain a URL to an external source of some kind). And YES, I would only put a single URL link that is in any way personal or owned by the subject of the article (in other words an official website of some sort) in the External links section, in keeping with the WP policy of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Happy editing. --L.Smithfield (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

L.Smithfield is mistaken. An official website can go in an infobox--this is what the website parameter is for. If this is an official website, which by Wikipedia's definition it probably is, it can go in the infobox, the External links section, or both. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth noting MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored..". In other words, start with the external links section. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I echo User:zzuuzz's point. Whatever the official website is, it is usually the first visible item listed under External links (apart from any special templates, et cetera). Also, I apologize for any confusion I may have introduced. --L.Smithfield (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE was helpful, thank you. It does seem to make clear that the first place to put links should be the External links section, based on an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored.

I'm also thinking about The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. This suggests to me to not put an external link in the infobox in a lot of cases. An official website isn't a key fact, and this says the less information in the infobox the better. I can see why a website could be a key fact, for example an online only company, e.g. Dropbox. Having the website URL in the infobox gives the key fact of its main "address" or location. But with e.g. a famous person, their official website / official social media page isn't a "key fact" about the person. I'll use this guidance going forward and adjust my previous edit accordingly. Thanks Snowpeek (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good distinction. The website for a company (whether it's online only, does substantial business online with the company, or there are other similar circumstances) is often a key fact, and for some sorts of people (e.g., an author of popular fiction) it might be a key fact, but you should use your judgment.

Also, @Snowpeek, just so you know, you're now among the top 5% of editors in terms of experience. We're likely to trust your judgement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, User:Danbloch is correct. Official websites (official website) can go in the info-box, but I was referring to external links other than the official website. To User:Snowpeak's point, if the official website is a social media site other than a real (non-social-media) site, then yes, I suppose that it can also go into the info-box as well. But this is a very rare case. I have never seen these cases. But if a social media site is considered the official website then I suppose that it would be allowed. --L.Smithfield (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ELMAYBE changes

@Danbloch, please look at the item "Links to finding aids" in the old version and the new version. What number is that item in each version?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, this is numbered 6 in the first version and 1 in the second version. But these numbers aren't referred to anywhere so this isn't a problem. The numbers which do matter, the {{anchor|MAYBE 2}} links, don't change. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that item (the last in the list) is numbered 6 in the first version and 5 in the second version. These numbers do get referred to. We have a long-standing practice of preserving the numbers, so that WP:ELMAYBE #whatever will always make sense to people reading old comments.

That's why ELMAYBE #1 said – and IMO should continue to say – "The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed" – instead of just being disappeared without any idea that all the numbers changed.

On the substance of your change, you have decided to add "Professional reviews. The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section." to WP:ELNO, and I think that the problem is that this does not align with the actual practice. We don't ban any other type of reliable source from the ==External links== section, so why this one? Also, for better or worse, links to MetaCritic and other websites are very common, and those include professional reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, sorry, 6 and 5. But the number doesn't change any of the subsequent discussion.

Your argument about a long-standing practice of preserving numbers is misleading, since this practice is reflected only in this one item ("professional reviews") which we're discussing now. That item changed from a "maybe" to a "no", but remained for thirteen and a half years in the "maybe" section with "this item was repealed" text. This is the item I finally moved from ELMAYBE TO ELNO, where it belongs.

From an aesthetic standpoint it's unfortunate that a few items (I was careful to minimize the number) had their numbers changed, but that's the way the world works. Anyone who has tried to track down old policies knows that there's a certain amount of work involved. The "The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed" wording hid the item from users by putting it in the wrong category, and looked sloppy and lazy. It also violated WP:RF, since it made the page more difficult to use for all editors to the benefit of a few very experienced ones.

Whether or not this corresponds with actual practice is an unrelated issue which I have no opinion on. I didn't add any text; I just moved it. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The number changes the meaning of previous discussions. As in, someone will search for a website or a concept and see an editor (e.g., me) saying "Oh, that's okay. See WP:ELMAYBE #1." Then they'll go look it up and think – what?! Why would she say that sister projects are okay, when the question is about professional reviews?"

We have preserved the numbering of that "repealed" item for 14 years, and we have never re-numbered any of them – not in ELYES, not in ELMAYBE, and not in ELNO. I think that counts as "long-standing".

Also, if you go read the old discussion, professional reviews didn't change from "maybe" to "no". They changed from "maybe" to "we have no particular advice, but we're going to stop recommending that you consider including them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

These seem to be the same arguments you made before, and my answers remain the same.

Yes, this change will make it harder to follow the history for the very few people who do this. It makes the page more usable for everyone else. There is no Wikipedia policy about preserving ordinal numbers in lists.

The inclusion of this item in ELMAYBE has been wrong for 14 years (it may have made sense for a transition period at the beginning). It doesn't become right after some number of years.

And in the old history it looks to me like it did change from "maybe" to "no" (diff). But how we got to this state doesn't matter. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

How, exactly, does having an essentially empty item make the page less usable for everyone else? Do you also feel that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which also maintains consistent numbering, is also difficult to use because it doesn't change the meaning of the numbers over the years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Ways the old text is a disservice to editors:

• An editor reading just the "Links normally to be avoided" section will not learn that professional reviews are to be avoided.
• An editor reading just the "What to link" section will waste their time reading this item. They will waste quite a lot of time, since the text is long and convoluted. ("The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see "Professional reviews" at talk page archive). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.")
• An editor reading the whole document will likewise waste their time untangling this item, possibly spending even more time than required since it's the first item on the list and it's in italics, suggesting that it may be especially important.
• Since this text is so easy to fix but has been here for so long, it suggests that Wikipedia does not care about quality.

Dan Bloch (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Professional reviews are not "to be avoided". I don't know why you think they are, but I want you to imagine the response to an RFC question that says something like "Shall we strongly discourage editors from including links to professionally written reviews of books, films, and similar subjects (e.g., books reviews in The New York Times Book Review or reviews such as PMC 4277750 or doi:10.1177/1049909121997362 in scholarly journals) in the ==External links== section? Note: Links to unreliable sources and to review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes will still be explicitly permitted per WP:EL#MAYBE 4 (for unreliable sources) and WP:ELYES #3 (review aggregators)." Does that sound like a winning RFC proposal to you?
• The text could be shortened substantially, perhaps "Repealed (previously about book reviews)", or even just "Repealed".
• Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but even if they did, one sentence is not going to waste much time.
• Since this text has been here for so long with no complaints, it suggests that nobody (except you, of course) thinks it's a problem. But if so, it could easily be shortened.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I think that professional reviews are to be avoided is because that's what the text says: The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section. If you believe that text is in error then by all means, raise that as an issue (in a new discussion). But until that guideline changes, it belongs in the "Links normally to be avoided" section, not the "Links to be considered" section.

Also, under no circumstances does the text about a repealed version of the guideline belong here. Wiki policy documents are for current policy, not for historical information about what the policy was fourteen years ago. If the history is important, it can be mentioned in a footnote. Dan Bloch (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, all reliable sources should be considered for use as sources that support the article before they are considered as external links. That's what ELNO #1 is about: write the article first. (In practice, we don't enforce this until the article is fairly well developed.) Advice to follow ELNO #1 is not the same thing as advice to avoid professional reviews always.

I understand that you hold your opinion about hiding the guideline's past in the page history, but it's just your opinion. There is no requirement that we follow your POV either here or at other pages, such as CSD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's what it meant, it's kind of sad that none of our editors have known this for the past fourteen years. I've changed the page to better reflect this.

"Hiding the guideline's past in the page history" follows directly from Wikipedia's guiding principles. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and cluttering a page with old history makes it harder to build an encyclopedia. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Language instruction links

Suppose we have an article on language L, and someone adds to the external links section a link leading to a free language instruction site (anywhere from a phrase book or a guide to writing the language's letters/characters by hand to a sophisticated multi-level multimedia teaching extravaganza). It's a resource beyond what would be included in the article if it were a featured article. But do we allow it?

Does it matter why someone placed the link there? (We generally don't know why someone placed a link, but I'm asking hypothetically.) Whether because it's a high-quality site that they came across and objectively consider it to be of great value or because they created the site and want to attract users?

Does the quality of the site matter?

If it's acceptable to have a link to such a site, considering that there may be dozens of language L instructional sites, does it matter that the linked site is inferior to many of them? And what if other people add numerous links to other language instruction sites? Then we have a WP:NOTLINKFARM situation. What happens then? Does someone pick one site for inclusion and remove the rest? In that case, does one leave the first one to have appeared on the basis of seniority? Or does one try to assess all the sites and choose which is the best choice?

If someone removes all the links accept one, what does one say in response to the posters of the other links who object "That's not fair! Why do they get to have a link?" Do we have an answer for that? Or, out of fairness, do we remove all the links? But, if that's the solution, then shouldn't we just not allow such a link in the first place?

I believe my scenarios and questions here are applicable to many other sorts of links than instructional links in language articles, but that's the context in which I've formulated my inquiry. When someone adds such a link, I want to be sure I'm reacting appropriately. Largoplazo (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Largoplazo, the first question you need to ask yourself is: Do you, personally, think that the link would be interesting/helpful/desirable to someone who wanted to know more about the subject? If so, then you're done. You don't need a rule that explicitly authorizes you to improve articles in a particular way, or to allow other people's contributions to remain when you personally believe them to be an improvement. It doesn't matter why you believe it's improvement; if you believe it's an improvement, then you should leave it there. The appropriate first reaction is always the one that uses your best judgement, not the one that follows some sort of pre-approved algorithm or looks to The Rules™ to replace your judgment. If we didn't want your human judgment, we'd have a bot handling this.

But let's say that you looked at it, and, after briefly considering all the facts and circumstances, it does not feel like an improvement, in your personal opinion. In that case, consider these suggestions:

• What to link? In theory, phrase books and the other things you mention are appropriate ideas for external links, so one might want, say, one phrase book and one how-to-write and one learn-the-language site and one repository of digitized literature (and generally one of anything), rather than six phrase books and nothing else. Pick the best one (or two) for each thing. (This can include replacing not-so-good links with better links that you find yourself, as well as removing not-so-good links in the hope that someone else might find a better link in the future.)
• What's "the best" site? "Best", or at least "better", can manifest in lots of different ways, but following the language-learning example, some editors might consider a government/university/non-profit website better than a commercial site (e.g., because of better privacy policies, or not running advertisements), and other editors would consider aesthetics (e.g., a beautiful game vs an ugly one, or whether it looks okay on a smartphone), and still other editors would consider how much is covered (e.g., three very basic lessons vs enough to keep you busy for a year), and yet another group of editors would prefer the phrasebooks on our sister sites, such as voy:en:Bikol phrasebook (an unusually popular page at the English Wikivoyage, given that only 2.5M people worldwide speak that language). This guideline can help with some basic things (no malware sites; no copyvio sites; no paid-subscription-required sites), but it's not much help with deciding what constitutes "better". You get to decide what you think constitutes "better" if nobody else is around; if other editors show an interest, then you all have straight-up, straightforward consensus-based discussion and add (or remove) whatever sites you all want. (If there might be a temptation among the group to edit war, then please note WP:ELBURDEN, which is one of the strongest anti-edit-warring rules in all of the Wikipedias.)
• About the link farm risk: If there are only a few good websites, then choose the good ones, weed out the not-so-good ones, and you're done. If, however, there are lots of good websites, then it's better for us (less spam) and better for the other websites (more fair, because "everyone" gets indirect traffic instead of just one) if you can find a web directory (remember DMOZ back in the day?) or a good webpage that links to multiple sites. This webpage could be something like an individual blog post that compares and contrasts a handful of websites/resources for that particular language; it doesn't have to be official or standardized.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Status of linking to works on the Internet Archive (and Google Books and HathiTrust)? that is relevant to this page; please feel free to contribute there if so motivated. Primefac (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Are external links acceptable in end notes and foot notes?

On the Pokémon article, I noticed that there were external links to the fansite Bulbapedia one of the article's end notes. I would like to know whether or not external links in explanatory footnotes and end notes are acceptable before I edit the article accordingly. TheVHSArtist (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheVHSArtist, Bulbapedia is currently mentioned in just one place in that long article, in a sentence that says "As of June 2023, the fan site Bulbapedia documents 96 main card sets, 13 special editions, and 36 promotional sets."

If you read the top of this guideline, you will find some bolded text that says "these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." The things appearing inside the little blue clicky numbers at the end of sentences are called "citations to reliable sources", and they are things that this page does not apply to. If you have questions about whether something is acceptable for use in the little blue clicky numbers, then you will need to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

While you're here, though, let me add that it is even okay for a large external wiki to be linked in the ==External links== section, if editors decided that they wanted to. This is authorized in WP:ELNO#EL12 for open wikis with "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

External link within a photo

The Interstate Highway System extends 46,876 miles (75,440 km).

I noticed this image added here. The image appears like a normal image linking to the Commons, but in fact links to an external website. "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article", and regardless that the liked website is copyright-free, it's still an external website. Thanks for your input.

References

Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be avoided. I don't know if it's still the case today, but in the days where people still used the word "webmaster", it was considered rude to link people to external sites without making it clear what they were clicking on. Checking the UK Government's in-house web design guidelines, that seems to still be 'a thing'. So I think it should be considered to fall under WP:NOELBODY. DFlhb (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Even though linking such an image is apparently doable, it's completely wrong. Clicking an image in a Wikipedia article is supposed to lead to the File page; it virtually always does; and treating one image differently makes it an Easter egg. In addition, the map is already sourced, and the link that was added goes somewhere else, so it's misleading altogether. This resource may be a suitable addition to the External Links section of Interstate Highway System, if it isn't already there, but it doesn't belong here. Revert. Largoplazo (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The |link= feature is mostly used for "decorative" links that need to do something useful, like the button in Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff.

If the link takes the reader to a non-WMF-hosted website, it should be labeled, perhaps by adding a simple note in the caption (like "Click the map to see an updated map at OpenStreetMap.org"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Was this edit correct?

[1]. I put ELNO in the edit summary, but there doesn’t appear to be any criteria against this link (a podcast about the subject). Is “whatever informative value this link has is small and tangential” a valid removal criteria? Mach61 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think "whatever informative value this link has is small and tangential" is a better reason than WP:ELNO, since I don't see a specific bullet point in ELNO that applies to it. BTW, for other readers, the relevant link is [2], not the one that appears above. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. And that goes double for the idea that you can't improve Wikipedia unless there's a rule explicitly permitting you to do so.

Editors should remove external links that they believe are not helping readers. It's good to have a bit of an imagination and generosity in this process, because maybe what helps "me" doesn't help "you" or "her" or "him" or "them", but if you can't even imagine a link being genuinely useful to someone, then it should go. If someone else disagrees, then you can talk about it. But you've got more than a year's experience and 1500+ edits under your belt now. Start by doing what you believe is right by the article. Worry about rules if someone complains. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ELDEAD

"Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles. Such dead links should either be updated or removed."

I have no idea how long this has been around or what discussions led to it. My personal experience is dead links in the External Links sections, which have an archive URL, can still be of interest/value. The overly simple blanket statement they are "of no use", well sometimes that is true, sometimes not. If the content is still there in an archive mirror, the same reason for adding it in the first place doesn't change. Content is content, at the source URL or the mirror web archive. -- GreenC 20:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The "should either be updated or removed" guideline is highly desirable to reduce spam and clutter. I have seen a couple of archive links remain in EL but they are rare. When a webpage goes offline, the reason is generally unknown. Perhaps the author is recanting on what was previously published? Johnuniq (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an edge-case scenario, the same could hold true for dead links used in citations. Other mechanisms for discovering those would need to be used such as information about a retraction in another source. -- GreenC 21:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's been there about 18 years. Dead or hijacked links are, clearly, of no use. The very next sentence notes the use of archives for material that may still be of value. Use an archive if there's interesting content that still meets all the criteria for external links today - just note that a lot of the functionality can be lost when that is done, so don't just blanket archive link. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this guideline was written with certain types of websites in mind, like interactive sites that no longer work when archived, thus making navigation within the website impossible eg. a rock band website. There are indeed a lot of sites like that. However if the link is to an essay, where 100% of the value is in the text, it doesn't matter if it's an archive or not. It might help to clarify what we mean by "of no use". The "rare" qualifier currently there is not really true because a lot of links are still useful in the archive form, these types of links are not rare. -- GreenC 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Due to some limitations in User:InternetArchiveBot, we unfortunately have a substantial number of ==External links== now pointing to Internet Archives pages, but:

• they are to sites that are actually working (but detect and block the bot),
• the linked archive page contains no relevant content at all (e.g., they have archived a HTTP 404 error), or
• the linked archive page doesn't contain the unique information that was the reason for putting the link in the article (e.g., photos and videos).

I sometimes find the archive page worth keeping, but not usually. Even when it's relatively useful, it's often also easy to replace with another, equally good webpage.

BTW, there's a note at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard about a hijacked URL, if anyone wants to help with the clean up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No question, some need to be removed. But the current wording is such only rare cases are kept, and I don't think that's right when you start looking through examples. As for IABot, yes it's not perfect but then that's the wiki-way we all work together to improve one step at a time. The bot has an interface anyone can log in and change how the bot behaves for each link. It the bot has bad information, log in and change it, this will propagate to 300+ wikis and have massive impact. -- GreenC 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of keeping archived links of static material, as long as it's really valuable on not just trivial supplemental material. I was more concerned with the problem you noted: interactive sites that depend on heavy navigation or backend material - I fear many of those are just gone. I see this a lot with defunct companies - the "official" link is archived, but it's sparse with no real value and deep links to interesting material are missing. Hijacked ones are murky; sometimes they just snap up expired domains and replace them with casino/porn ads, but other times they archive the original material themselves and inject spam or worse. It's a little murky. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. At the risk of repeating, the ELDEAD guideline should ask if content that was at the original site is still useful at the archive site, and not presume it is of "no use" or only "rarely" so.

I did an experiment to see how rare the 'useful external link section archive URL' is.

Example links that would likely fail under old ELDEAD guideline (prior to the guideline change):

• biography of a deceased person: Example 1.a, Example 1.b, Example 1.c (from a RS)
• pictures of the deceased subject of the article: Example 2.a (from a RS)
• history article: Example 3.a (from a RS)

I found the above 5 examples by looking at Category:1890 births, starting at the first article, then looking at the external links section for the first 33 pages. These are the only archive URLs in the external link sections. I think this exercise shows there is useful content among archived URLs, it is not "rare". And for good reason, if the original link didn't have useful content it would have been deleted long ago. Likewise all of these sites are static 1-page URLs, which is also not surprising for the subject area, bios of 19th century deceased people, which will tend to have content written by academic-types and not, say, Web 2.0 flash-based entertainment sites. -- GreenC 01:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I opened the same 33 pages, and found only four that contained a link to archive.org in ==External links==. The articles are Jussuf Abbo, Hubert Acland, Art Acord, and Hatazō Adachi.

• JA: The archive link contains photo, and would otherwise probably fail WP:ELNO#EL1. Given that there are other options, I'd remove it.
• HA: Was a live link and shouldn't have been taking readers to the archived copy. I fixed it.
• AA: Domain name changed; I've swapped in the new one. Might fail ELNO #1.
• HA: Website rearranged; I've swapped in the new id number.

So 33 articles, four with archive links and none that are compelling to keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok so..

• JA, you would remove it for reasons unrelated to ELDEAD ie. had the link been live, you would still remove it due to the content.
• HA, you made dead link live again, great. The ELDEAD guideline has update as a recommendation vs. adding an archive URL.
• AA, same as HA
• HA, same as HA

The missing 5th: Example 1.a is from John Aae which I mistook as an external link. I am not arguing to keep archive links for the sake of it, and I hope you are not arguing to delete archive links for the sake of it. You removed them because it was possible to update to a live link, or because the content you believe is not appropriate. Those are valid reasons. -- GreenC 05:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd remove the first one because it's an archive link. If it were a live link, then "webpage containing a photo" is a good thing. But it's "archive containing a photo", which is worse than "webpage containing a photo", and I'd therefore remove the archive. There's IMO no reason to keep the archive.org page for the photo when https://archive.metromod.net/viewer.p/69/2949/object/5138-7740597, with multiple photos, is already in the list. Therefore, of the four archive.org links we found in ==External links==, I recommend removing all of them.

("The missing 5th" is a source being used to support article content, which means that ELDEAD doesn't apply and WP:DEADREF does.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How to clear "Account Suspended" ELs?

I've been working for/with Doug Payne who is the owner of the dougpayne.com website - he has had numerous problems over the years with his old hosting company, we have moved the website and rebuilt it. All Doug's old content should be online at it's original URL as of today.

The question is, how can we clear the old "Account Suspended" links on wikipedia without actually manually editing them?

For example there is one at Stone_Flower_(album) - see number 2. The references linked to http://www.dougpayne.com/ctid7072.htm#stoneflower which is now back online as of today and should be good for the future.

Thanks for any guidance. Since we didn't create those references we have no idea how many or were they are.Cathcam (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cathcam, you probably want to start with Special:LinkSearch/*.dougpayne.com (note that you have to search http and https separately).

@GreenC, is this something that Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests could help with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Curlie as spam

Links to Curlie (which is a kind of community continuation of DMOZ) have been discussed here a few times. I just wanted clarity about if putting external links to it using {{Curlie}} is considered spam. Is there any other guidance on when or how it would constitute spam other than WP:LINKSPAM? Thanks. @Sbaio:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not spam. A single link to a web directory, especially when it can replace (NB: not supplement) all/nearly all external links, is officially encouraged in WP:ELMAYBE #3. Curlie's predecessor, DMOZ was previously recommended by name in the guideline for this purpose, but a good web directory from any source (even including a personal website) is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case I don't think the link to Curlie is spam, but it's completely pointless because it just repeats the URL for the team's NHL.com address, which is already listed in External links. In other words I would also delete it, because it's redundant. PKT(alk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It has four subcategories for Chats and Forums, Fan Pages, News and Media, and Players that provide a number of helpful links. E.g. from here, you could be directed to ESPN. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's not spam. Just a tad redundant. Personally, we shouldn't third party link to sports fan sites and blogs, but player profiles and news article sources are better uses. IMO, neutral. Conyo14 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

News articles should normally be used as reliable sources to support article content. They should normally appear in the ==External links== section only if they aren't needed to support content and they contain a lot of information that can't be included in the article (e.g., lots of photos). External links do not have to be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this is inarguably not spam and based on what I read above, there's clear consensus that it's an acceptable addition. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what discussion you are referring to, but in this particular discussion there is no consensus. Other editors quite clearly say that it is redundant to include it, because it does not add anything. In addition, your block blog and your recent behavior suggests that you should really take some time off (unless you want to end up in WP:ANEW once again). – sbaio 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above, which clearly states that it is not spam, unlike your earlier claim that it was. Please do not add irrelevant noise to discussions and assume good faith. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't add it to the sports team pages, please. It's of little value, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why sports team pages in particular? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't add much of anything, to them. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It does. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We disagree. GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly. It would be nice if you gave some evidence for your perspective instead of just stating it, but in the meantime, this is exactly the kind of link that should be considered for external links sections and as noted above, this page used to explicitly recommend linking to it. I see no compelling reason why sports is somehow unique. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Recommend this entire discussion be hatted and/or manually archived. Just don't see it going anywhere, in terms of reaching a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why you think that, @GoodDay. I see:

• Koavf: Is this spam?
• WhatamIdoing: "It is not spam."
• PKT: " I don't think the link to Curlie is spam"
• Conyo14: "I agree that it's not spam."
• @Sbaio: "in this particular discussion there is no consensus".
• You: "Just don't see it going anywhere, in terms of reaching a consensus."

Do you see anyone in this discussion saying that Curlie is spam? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Describe it as whatever you want. Just don't add it to sports team pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't generally add it to any articles, but the question asked here is whether it's spam. It was not whether it should be added to any particular article or to any broad category of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)