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 editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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


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

Betty Boop WikiaEdit

In this edit, Nikkimaria removed a this link to a wikia article citing WP:ELNO. Considering the above average level of activity on that wiki, wouldn't this link quality as passing the bar set out in ELNO#12? –MJLTalk 20:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No. It's still a dross site. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
In addition, the exception for open wikis at ELNO is those with a substantial number of editors - this one has had fewer than 100 who've ever made any edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. And I'm slightly surprised you even asked. Guy (help!) 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've never understood that part of ELNO: "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." - why is that exception there? Why would we ever want to link to an open wiki? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: This is the discussion that originated that wording, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    I would personally interpret it as pretty restrictive, and fewer than 100 editors ever is certainly way too low, I might consider it at several thousands of edits by hundreds of different editors per week while substantially adding information over what Wikipedia is likely to ever include ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    That's... a little off given the example Wikia linked in the originating discussion. But I tend to agree, Memory Alpha should be just about the standard for size of wiki. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Memory Alpha had 180 editors during the last month. I agree with Izno that that's probably the right size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    Regarding the original question "Why would we ever want to link to an open wiki?", well, many Wikis have a very good fact-checking operation -- much better than many entities that we actually use, not only as external links, but as sources for article material.
The reason being, these wikis are swarmed by eyes of people who have the Four Virtues of individuals used as sources:
1) They have the expertise to get their facts right
2) They have no incentive to get their facts wrong (no reason to spin stuff for ideological reasons etc.)
3) They have incentive to get their facts right (professional reputation, reputation withing their peer group, etc.)
4) They are careful about details, as far as we can tell
For many wikis, the editor corps is obsessive about getting stuff right: "Correcting text: A printing error give Supergirl a green cape in the second panel of page 7 of issue #164, not issue #163". You know what I mean. I mean, Trekkies, you know? Comic Book Guy, etc,
The main problem with a wiki is that it could contain false info or even have been vandalized at the precise moment that our reader is looking at it, even if the bad material is only there for a few minutes. This is why we can't use wikis for sources in articles. For external links, we can accept that some tiny number of views (less than 1%, I figure) will be reading vandalized or wrong information. IMO.
Smaller wikis have few editors to correct errors or vandalism in a short time. Also, some large wikis don't have the Four Virtues, I'm sure... too many editors who aren't sufficiently obsessive about getting details right, or whatever. Case by case, you can figure the wiki's vibe by reading it for a bit. Betty Boop people in particular, I don't know. Boop died a long time time ago, so as a first thought you'd figure that people who are still excited about her enough to write about her might have the Four Virtues. Herostratus (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

popular websites specializing in hosting pornographic deepfakes include...Edit

Any thoughts on these edits at Deepfake? Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh god no - terrible, awful, should never be there. As with any article on a phenomenon, no part of that article should be a linkfarm of websites about that subject. If that website has some particularly special significance to the article topic, maybe. If the website is itself notable, maybe, though an internal link to its article would make more sense. If that website is discussed in the article, maybe. But here there is an additional concern which is linking to websites that violate the personality rights of living people. Even if that violation is covered by a fair use exception, Wikipedia does not have to participate in driving traffic their direction, especially when it is this offensive. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue is now at ANI so there probably is no need for action here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of webcomic awardsEdit

Would like some opinions on the external link use in this article. The links to the individual websites seem pretty excessive since (1) many of the entries have their own stand-alone articles where the links are (or should) be added instead and (2) it sort has a WP:NOTLINKFARM or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, especially since many of the entries are supported by citations. I was under the impression this type of external links use was not allowed in lists/tables, because it's essentially seems to serve the same purpose as an embedded external link even though it's technically not formatted as such. The links aren't really intended to be WP:INCITEs, but function sort of like a quasi-WP:ECITE, which is a citation style which has been deprecated. Anyway, after looking at WP:ELLIST, it appears that things might not be so clear since it does now give an example of some "official links" being used in tables; it's not clear (at least not to me), however, whether the example given is referring to links used more for citation purposes (just as ECITES) than simply links to the each entry's official website. The last part of ELLIST appears to have been recently added per Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 39#List and table formatting, but I'm wondering whether this is what they had in mind when making that change. Pinging WhatamIdoing, MilborneOne, Beetstra, and Walter Görlitz (in no particular order) since they participated in the WT:EL discussion and may be able to clarify how or if it applies to this particular article. Just for reference, I'm not advocating that the recent addition be removed per se; just would like to know how it applies to this particular article. In addition, whether it now means that the removal of such links (prior to the revision of ELLIST) from other articles should be revisited and reassessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that including the names of the websites is allowable in that article, because the subject of the article is the web content.
It's not an embedded external link in the sense intended by that footnote. What's present is something like this:
2008 | Girl Genius | Phil Foglio and Kaja Foglio | girlgenius.net | [1]
That's probably okay (although this particular webcomic seems to be located at http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/ these days), given that the whole point of the list is to talk about the web content. It is somewhat more typical (but not required) to simply link the website like [1]; this might be because it takes up less space. However, I notice that about nine of the domain names are linked to the Internet Archives, and that several others aren't linked because the website is offline. That suggests that the domain name might serve as identifying information rather than purely to get people to the web content.
I don't think that it is necessary to systematically re-visit previous decisions, unless you particularly want to WP:VOLUNTEER to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
It's an odd situation. The reference should really be the place where the link to the site should exist, but since the table is about the awarded site, it makes some sense to offer a direct link to that site. The guideline focuses primarily on the EL section, not links like this. In-line links would be unacceptable in prose ("[https://www.xkcd.com/ XKCD] is the most-awarded web Weblog") but in the table, appears to be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that this is actually quite a good list. If now ALL of the webcomics had an article (and why would they not?) then one could argue that the link is unneeded (it will be in the article), but even then, the list focusses on the subject (first column), not on the EL. Even if this was not webcontent this would not trigger my cruft-radar. —Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took a look. I'm not sure if I totally agree with some of the things posted and I don't really think there's much difference between https://www.example.com, [2] and Example.com when it comes to WP:ELLIST (before the recent addition about official links), WP:EL#cite_note-7 or WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, at least not in the spirit of what they seem(ed) to be trying to avoid. A list article or embedded list is primarily supposed to only include entries which are Wikipedia notable in their own right (i.e. have their own stand-alone articles), and it seems that it's in the "External links" section of such articles where links like these should be found, at least in my opinion. Maybe this is an exceptional case, but permitting this type of usage overall seems to be just an invitation for link spam or other problems, but perhaps that an overly pessimistic assessment of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, things do not have to be notable in their own right per sé, but "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence" (WP:LSC). For these lists, references are there for items that are not notable by themselves (you can show that they received an award), and in this case, removing those items that are not notable in themselves would make the list incomplete. Here there is no reason for spam - you cannot just add your own random webcomic to the list as you would fail the award-criterion. For a list of random subjects ('pieces of software that do X') the criteria for inclusion should be indeed more stringent, and there having the links certainly is an invitation to spam your own.
I see some point in removing the external link column, but as many of them do not have an article then that information would get lost. If by far most would be having their own articles, then that column becomes more obsolete as they are in the own article. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point about LSC which is why I used the word "primarily" in my post. I also understand the concerns about creating an incomplete list by removing some items, and wasn't really suggesting that. There just seems ot be quite a bit of redundancy in that some of the links used as citations in the article also seem to contain links to the same official websites given for the individual comic; for example, it looks like all of the citations for the entries in List of webcomic awards#Ursa Major Awards (such as List of webcomic awards#cite_note-87 through List of webcomic awards#cite_note-102) lead to pages which contain links to the comic's official website and removing the external link from the table is really more of a loss of convenience than encyclopedic information. In addition, in many sections, there are comics which have received same award multiple times (one comic apparently won the same award nine years in a row and has the same external link given nine times). It's also odd that multiple Wikilinks to the same stand-alone articles aren't really considered OK per WP:OVERLINK for comics listed more than once, but multiple external links are OK. Of course, there might be ways to mitigate some of these things by spanning/combining columns or rows of the tables, but that might not resolve all cases when there are gaps between multiple listings. I think one of the problems of allowing this type of external link use is that lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy. This is something often seen in lists/tables where there is a column for images, and seems to be the case when there is a column for websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, if "lots of editors are going to want to add content", then we should rejoice. We need more editors.
I think that your understanding of embedded lists is not quite right. They are not "primarily" used for notable objects. They are primarily used for short lists within larger articles. Look at the embedded lists in Featured Articles such as Schizophrenia#Subtypes, Coeliac disease#Malabsorption-related, Chagas disease#Prevention, and Acute myeloid leukemia#World Health Organization. None of those bulleted lists are lists of notable objects. Embedded lists of non-notable publications are typical for academics, such as Golding Bird#Journal articles or Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.#Selected list of works. It's really only lists of people and consumer products (i.e., lists with high potential for spam and self-promotion) that follow the "notable" or "blue link" standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Please don't cherry pick or misquote me, I posted lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing [so] complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy which is about adding certain content in certain ways; I didn't say or imply there was anything wrong about editors adding content to articles in a general context. In addition, my use of the word "primarily" was not just related to embedded lists, but was also used in reference to SALs; if that was unclear, then my apologies. Even in an embeded list, however, the "most basic" common selection criterion seems to be that the individual entries have their own stand-alone article; of course, this doesn't mean every entry needs to have a stand-alone article, but it's a good place to start assessing whether something should be mentioned.
I was never advocating that any of the individual entries from this article be removed; if that's wasn't clear from my previous posts, then again my apologies for the confusion. I was only asking whether the column for website links was really something warranted because most of the entries do have stand-alone articles where the same links can be found in their respective EL sections and because there seems to be quite a bit of redundancy both with respect to the some of the same links be available in the citations cited in support as well as the same links being listed multiple times when the same entry is listed multiple times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add the word "not" (underlined to indicate where) since it affects the meaning of the sentence. -- 05:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)]
I'd certainly remove the "Website" column.
The article needs clear inclusion criteria. We should not be assuming that all awards are noteworthy. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, you're still quoting Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists to make claims about what belongs in a list that is not a stand-alone list. CSC does not apply to embedded lists.
Yes, I know that your comment about attracting editors was meant to imply that their edits wouldn't be as valuable as experienced editors'. Well, I screwed up some of my early edits, and I'll bet that every regular contributor to this noticeboard did so as well. That's okay. We need new editors, even if the only thing they want to do is to add a picture to a list. They can learn the details about exactly when it's useful to add those pictures later, just like the rest of us did.
User:Ronz, that page specifies the inclusion criteria in the lead. Awards are eligible for inclusion in the list if the award is Wikipedia:Notable and it is an award "specifically for webcomics, or which focus mainly on webcomics". Writing it out like this, in reader-friendly prose and without self-references, is considered the best practice.
Other lists post their selection criteria on the talk page in a blunter, less elegant way. If these editors had decided to do that, it would probably say something like "Do not add any award to this page unless the award itself (not just the winner) qualifies for a separate article on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Notability (awards) rules AND the award is primarily about webcomics (not just happens to have given the award to a webcomic once or occasionally). Red-linked notable awards are okay, but please consider creating at least a stub as soon as possible." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the criteria in the first sentence. I noticed what are apparently non-notable awards and expected inclusion criteria to be spelled out in the last sentence before the list. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I'm not sure what you mean by Yes, I know that your comment about attracting editors was meant to imply that their edits wouldn't be as valuable as experienced editors'., but that's neither what I posted nor what I meant; so, once again please stop trying to misquote or incorrectly attribute something to me. My comment was once again lots of editors are going to want to add content to empty spaces in tables regardless of whether doing [so] complies with relevant guidelines or creates redundancy, which is my opinion based upon things I've observed as an a editor. I made no mention of new vs. experienced editors, or attracting vs. driving away editors; so, I'm not sure why you seem to be keep trying to turn (spin?) my comment into something it isn't. FWIW, I'm all for WP:WER and do all I can to try and help and encourage it. My comment was only intended to mean lots of people (editors) don't seem to like empty fields in a table and when they see one they try to fill it regardless of whether doing so is in accordance with relevant policies or guidelines. This doesn't mean (or isn't intended to mean) that I automatically think they're doing so to be disruptive and need to be stopped at all costs; the table seems "incomplete" to them and they most likely see "completing" it as an improvement: they might just be unaware of the relevant policy and deadline. The question (at least to me) is really whether there should be such a column (for example,a column such as "websites" ) in the first place, at least in this article. If the only argument for doing so is that it might attract people to edit and encourage to stay, then that doesn't seem (at least to me) to be a very good reason.
As for the CSC, let me try to clarify. What we are discussing here is a WP:SAL and the very first sentence of WP:SAL states "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." This article is essentially a list of smaller lists combined together (i.e. "embedded") into to one big list (i.e. a "SAL"); so, if the there are CSC for the one big list, there are also CSC for each of the smaller lists. These CSC don't necessarily need to be the same which is why I posted of course, this doesn't mean every entry needs to have a stand-alone article, but it's a good place to start assessing whether something should be mentioned as clarification to Even in an embeded list, however, the "most basic" common selection criterion seems to be that the individual entries have their own stand-alone article, and once again I'm not advocating for the removal or any individual sections or individual entries of sections be removed. My use of the term "embedded lists" may be confusing in that I'm not referring to type of embedded lists given as an example in WP:EMBED, but rather mini-lists (formatted like mini-SALs) like the ones "embedded" into this particular article. My question only has to do with whether a column of external links to official website is really appropriate given there does appear to be quite a bit of redundancy in that the some links are listed multiple times throughout the article, are also provided in sources cited in support of some entries, or are listed in the stand-alone articles for individual entries (when such articles exist) or other related articles. Perhaps the example I gave above about citations 87 to 102 was unclear so I'll try to give some more specific ones.
Example 1: In List of webcomic awards#Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards, the webcomic The Perry Bible Fellowship won the award for 2007. The external link provided for the webcomic can also be found in its stand-alone article, which makes it seem somewhat redundant to me. The Perry Bible Fellowship also won the same award for 2008; the article isn't wikilinked (most likely due to WP:OVERLINK), but the same external link to the website is listed, which now seems more redundant. The same comic also won the List of webcomic awards#Harvey Awards and the List of webcomic awards#Ignatz Awards for 2007 and 2008 and the links to it's official website are provided each time; so, that's the same external link being provided six times when it can be found in the external link section of its stand-alone article. Similar examples of this are the entries for American Elf, Battlepug, Hark! A Vagrant, PvP, but there are a few more as well which have won multiple awards and are listed multiple times.
Example 2: The entries for Bandette in List of webcomic awards#Eisner Award; one links wikilinks to ComiXology, but the other contains the same wikilink and an external link to ComiXology's website (a subpage on the website).
Example 3: The entries in List of webcomic awards#Ursa Major Awards; each entry has an external link provided (the same link is provided nine times for Housepets!), but the same external links are also provided in the citations for each entry (e.g. the citation for Housepets! in 2009 is ursamajorawards.org/UMA_2009.htm).
Example 4: Most of the sections of the "List of webcomic awards" contain hat notes to other related articles or sections of articles. Some of the target pages/sections of these hat notes show external links being used in a similar manner; for example, List of Harvey Award winners#Best Online Comics Work seems to be contrary to WP:ELLIST and the external links seem to be embedded, at least in my opinion. This seems once again a kind of redundancy since the same external links given the entries in "List of webcomic awards#Harvey Awards" can also be found in the hat note articles.
All of these things seem redundant to me and something which should be discussed and not just automatically assumed to be OK. Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, but my main concerns are the redundancy of many of the external links within the list article itself and across multiple articles and it would help clarify things for me if someone could address that redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think ELLIST needs to be readdressed. External links in lists should at least be strongly discouraged.
If the "Websites" column were removed, what redundancies remain?--Ronz (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz: I waited a bit to see if someone else would respond to your post, but nobody has. I think removing the column would eliminate all redundancy, at least that which is related to external links. The MOS tells us to try and avoid WP:OVERLINK as much as possible with respect to internal links, and that seems to be what's been done in throughout that article. It seems logical (at least to me) that we should try and do the same with respect to external links.
A webcomic which has won the same award multiple years in a row doesn't need to have the same external link added for each entry, particularly when it has its own stand-alone article where the same link can be found (and is only given once) and when the comic is only Wikilinked once in the relevant section about the award. Similarly, if the citation supporting an entry contains the same EL found in the table, then that EL seems unnecessary. So, if the consensus is that removing the entire column is not the thing to do, then perhaps selectively trying to minimize the external links is a better approach. Rows of tables can be "spanned" to cover multiple redundant entries which means an EL given multiple times in the same table might only really need to be given once. Likewise, columns for a particular table can be removed or "spanned" to cover both "website" and "references" when there's redundancy between the two. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. I'm tending toward remove the column, and see what happens.
Again, I think ELLIST needs to be readdressed. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

trainweb.org based rail fanning sites used on train related pagesEdit

I personally find that they should be removed unless a compelling case is made on a case-by-case basis per item # 11 of the WP:ELNO, because http://www.trainweb.org/ by nature is like a weebly, freewebs and tripod of anything railroad related. "Since 1996 TrainWeb has been providing free web hosting to rail enthusiasts and organizations that offer railroad related information and photographs for the enjoyment and education of the public." The #11 of External Links guidelines reads:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Most notably, "controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited;".

Another editor disagrees, so I want to have wider consensus. This is the disagreement: Special:Diff/929675056. The specific deep link challenged is: http://www.trainweb.org/jaydeet/sd45.htm . Once, there when you go back and click on "go back to rosters" you get an intro message which reads

" This is a list of various diesel rosters compiled on the Diesel Modeler's Mailing List. I began some of these lists myself; lists begun by others are so identified. If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, email me at [<redacted>]. David Thompson"

As far as I'm concerned, it's some rail fan dude cobbling together things for other rail fan dudes and I am not seeing a compelling case for inclusion. I don't find it useful one bit and I don't believe such sources are useful for the average purpose of a general purpose encyclopedia to include order shipment data of each specific train cars and who first bought them originally and Wikipedia isn't a detailed technical catalog for niche groups. That's what those fan sites and technical related sites are for, not wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello, I'm the other editor. I was not notified of this discussion. This user has been going through North American locomotive articles and aggressively removing long-standing external links without discussion. I'm unfamiliar with this noticeboard. My first question relates to scope: Graywalls has challenged this source as used on EMD SD45. I believe he intends to deprecate Robert Sarberenyi's site globally based on this discussion, but I'm unsure. A similar discussion at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#http://www.thedieselshop.us/ as used in ALCO PA) was ostensibly about the ALCO PA, but the discussion was repeatedly broadened and the user hasn't actually engaged on the question of whether the site proprietor, R. Craig Rutherford, is an expert on ALCO locomotives (he may be, he's published on the subject).
  • Bundled in this request is a claim that locomotive articles should not have rosters in them, separate from the question of linking them. This is based on the false belief that reliable sources haven't covered the topic. This has been refuted in prior discussions so I'm surprised to see it made again in yet another forum. It's wearying.
  • I think it takes WP:ELNO too far to say that you can't be linking out to related information because it's a personal site. I can't count how many outbound links we have to Wikia sites and the like (yes, that's prong #12, but the point stands). This isn't a random personal site. The pages maintained by Robert Sarberenyi are stable and of long standing and high reputation within the railfan community. Linking out to them helps discourage the reproduction of their highly-technical content within Wikipedia itself (we are, after all, a general-interest project). Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're suggesting consensus by silence? I disagree. There is plenty of bag log of housekeeping and just because there are many broken windows and unswept floors doesn't mean that keeping it that way has received a wide consensus. Something I have also come across in rail related articles is a relatively high frequency of edits that involve sock puppets and addition of unverifiable contents. The reliability of source is a part of WP:DUE evaluation IMO. If an individual does original research from his own information gathering, going through manuals, other fanatics websites, etc and publishes it on his/her website, it isn't really "reliably published". "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." from WP:USESPS. Letting this go on creates a precedent where niche/special interest group first publishes things they want to have on Wikipedia, then citing that web source to circumvent no original research policy. Graywalls (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • comment Regarding Alco's FA: Running in the Shadow : an In-depth Look at the Alco-GE/MLW FA Series by R. Craig Rutherford
    • Publisher: Four Ways West Publications, 2005
    • Reading about the publisher: "Four Ways West Publications is owned and operated by Joseph W. Shine. The company was formed in 1986 to self-publish railroad books based on Southern Pacific passenger trains and operations." I have a feeling that book likely won't get him the status as a recognized expert source. It might be better entertained at Reliable Source noticeboard if you want to go further about this specific page. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I suggest you move your comments about Rutherford and ALCOs to the RSN where it belongs; it has literally zero bearing here. I am not suggesting a "consensus by silence." I am suggesting that given that WP:ELNO #12 explicitly allows stable wikis with user-generated content as an external link that you are applying far too high a personal standard for WP:ELNO #11. You're also repeatedly conflating standards for external links and standards for references. It is not, and has never been the case, that an external link must be a reliable source. I'm not opining as to whether Sarberenyi is a reliable source. I'm saying that you're using the wrong standard. WP:USESPS has no relevance for external links. Even if it did (and it does not), reliable sources have published roster information in some detail, so your repeated observation that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" is met: someone did so. @Graywalls: I said so in my first comment. Why are you continually repeating a talking point that is incorrect and (in this context) irrelevant? Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Click on the "Back to the roster page." near the very bottom andit says David Thompson. it seems like Thompson compiling/doing original research using various information he's gathered, but in general anything trainweb.org would appear to be things on Weebly. You might find an exception to things there, but in general, it's a host where anyone can build a page. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Your reply ignores just about everything I've said here. The most central issue appears to be your claim that an external link needs to be "reliably published." In fact, two parts of WP:EL point in the other direction:
  • WP:ELYES #3 calls out Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The details part would seem relevant to this discussion.
  • WP:ELMAYBE #4 calls out Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Leaving aside the question of whether the various individual sites on trainweb are "reliably published", the material under consideration here, the SD45 roster maintained by Robert Sarberenyi, clearly falls into one or more of those buckets. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree to disagree as "knowledgeable source". I am going to weight for other editors to weigh in. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A few points:
    • Graywalls asked about this a month ago at Wikipedia talk:External links#EL NO vs MAYBE. My general view hasn't changed since then.
    • The bits in the above discussion about WP:USESPS and whether the webpages are "reliably published" or "original research" are irrelevant, because we're not talking about sources to support article content. (Also, NOR is a rule that is binding on Wikipedia editors, and never on sources. "Original research" means things made up by a Wikipedia editor, as contrasted with things found in a published source.)
    • "Knowledgeable source" is a broad concept that includes everything from eyewitnesses (which are notoriously unreliable) to dedicated fans to journalists to advocacy groups to academic experts. It sounds like the page under discussion qualifies easily on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing:, it's all good, although in that interpretation that ends up opening doors to a ton of fancruft sites. So when it is viewed together with WP:ELNO's #11, I am seeing contradiction. Perhaps The WP:ELMAYBE is better interpreted to mean "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." but NOT fancruft sites. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        • ELNO #11, which is against "most fansites" (not all of them), has not historically been interpreted that way. If it were, then WP:ELNO#EL12 would be pointless, because nearly every open wiki is also a fansite. I think it's important to remember that the goal is to get useful or interesting information into the reader's hands. If you can do that with a link to a fansite on a niche topic, then do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

railfan.net personal websitesEdit

Preface: http://railfan.net/ is like Wix or FreeWebs of rail fan personal page where each site owner has full and total control of contents just as any personal sites.

On the article ALCO PA, I removed the two external links:

Discussion consulted: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Best_Student_Council

Another editor reinserted the site arguing "you've been told that you don't understand ELNO".

My reasoning that these sites should not be there: ELNO #11 which disallows most fan sites. I don't see how these sites are different from "most sites" to be exceptions. Anyone can present themselves as an expert. The captions and descriptions in the photo could be completely full of wrong and I don't see any basis to simply classify fancruft sites as "useful" or "knowledgeable". While doesn't require the sources to adhere to WP:RS standards, it also discourages fan sites and in my opinion these sites are fancruft that are of limited interest and we can't necessarily assume people that posts train pictures and writes caption are "knowledgeable sources." and allowing this creates a milestone inserting whatever fan personal websites into Wikipedia.

I consider these fancruft, because these are sites of unknown accuracy and knowledgeableness and in my opinion, are of interest to fans only.

Am I understanding ELNO incorrectly? Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Graywalls: How is this section any different from the section directly above it? This is starting to become disruptive. WhatamIdoing as good as told you that your interpretation of ELNO #11 is contrary to how it had been interpreted historically. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Different link... and it was one input. By all means, feel free to not participate if you find it bothersome. Graywalls (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • outside opinion: WhatamIdoing is correct about ELNO #11, Graywalls is mistaken in trying to overturn historical practice and precedent based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of ELNO #11. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange:, Would you happen to have links to archive discussions condoning personal websites and fan sites in external links indicating #11 has turned obsolete? That would be most helpful. Thank you, Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that #11 is obsolete. Everyone is saying that Graywalls misreads it, possibly forgetting that the N in ELNO stands for "normally" and that saying "most fansites" is not equivalent to saying "all sites that anybody declares to be a fansite." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange:, appreciate your prompt response. So, hence my statement: "I don't see how these sites are different from "most sites" to be exceptions". What makes contents "Hi, I'm Rolf Stumpf, an Alcophile from Germany. Enjoy my worldwide compilation of ALCos, MLWs and licensee ALCo power. Welcome, ALCo addict no. since June, 3rd 1996. Established January 1996." hosted on railfan.net which is equivalent of rail fan catered Wix/Weebly/Freewebs different from "most" fan sites? Some dude shows pictures of things they like, writes caption, talk about it. Written by and for fans. Isn't that by definition what defines "fan sites" for the most part? I think so. Accuracy? who knows. I honestly don't see how this is or NKP190 source is OTHER THAN typical fandom sites. Could you explain why these are DIFFERENT?, Thank you Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You're here looking for a general rule against specific sites, or maybe a whole category of sites, on the basis of ELNO #11. Multiple people are telling you that ELNO doesn't work that way. Is that an endorsement of a specific site in a specific article? Not necessarily. My concern is that you think the reverse: if I remove this site from this article, then that's carte blanche to remove it and semi-related sites from other articles (again, despite the fact that you've had very specific pushback here and elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Some scattered answers:
  • What's the difference between a railfan site and "most" fan sites? Well, for one thing, it's not about BLPs or pop culture. (Most fan sites are.)
  • How are you supposed to know whether it's accurate? Well, if you don't, then leave it to someone who does. You can probably find them at a relevant WikiProject. Or just switch a subject area that you know more about in general.
  • What's ELNO stand for? "External links – no". There is a series on the page that runs ELYES, ELMAYBE, ELNO, and ELNEVER. But HouseOfChange is correct that the word "normally" is highly relevant. We usually say that "ELNO isn't ELNEVER". The shortcuts are handy, but they're not the guidelines. If we needed to make them accurate, we'd have to rename them to ELYES to "ELPROBABLY" and ELNO to "ELNOTUSUALLY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for my mistake, and thanks to WhatamIdoing for setting me right. What I should have said is that WP:ELNO links directly to a section whose title is "Links normally to be avoided" (emphasis mine.) HouseOfChange (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violationEdit

This looks like a clear copyright violation to me - a CBS News segment uploaded by a random LiveLeak user with no evidence of permission. I removed it but it has been reverted by two IPs. Guy (help!) 19:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. Seems like this shouldn’t be added per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. The news report may, however, be a RS in some context since CBS News as a source seems quite reliable in most cases, but it can be cited without providing a link to it per WP:SAYWHERE. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, as a source, CBS would be fine and would not require a link. This is an EL only so unless we can find a clean upload of the original CBS content it can't be used. Guy (help!) 10:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy, do copyvios seem typical for that site? If so, then the whole site needs to go off to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, See WP:RSN#LiveLeak. Yes, it's common. Guy (help!) 10:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?Edit

Hello! I would like to ask if the Forgotten Realms Wiki would count as an exception to the rule no. 12 of WP:ELNO of not using external links to open wikis except...

The Forgotten Realms Wiki has been alive and kicking since 2005, has 30,000+ articles, a number of active users and a steadily high acitivity, being currently rank no. 89 at Wikia with a WAM score of 97.05 (whatever that means). In my biased opinion as a contributor the average quality of article is also relatively high.

As further background why I think having that link(s) at appropriate page(s) would be good: Recently a number of Dungeons & Dragons related articles have been deleted on the grounds that their content belongs to fandom wikis rather than Wikipedia. I assume some reader come to Wikipedia with the same naive notion then me, that you can more or less find all knowledge here. For these people, being pointed to where that content is, that does not actually fit in here, would be helpful. The Forgotten Realms Wiki is by far the largest and most successful wiki dealing with D&D Canon. Thank you very much for your input! Daranios (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Daranios, this wiki probably does not have enough active users (=people who made an edit during the last 30 days) to meet the usual standard for an exception. About 60 registered editors made an edit there during the last month. We are usually looking for something more like 100 or even 150. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should definitely be included as an external link. First of all, the guidelines listed here, are just guidelines. They are not definitive or literal rules of absolutism. They can all be discussed, debated and weighed, depending on each case. And in this case, the Fandom Wiki should be kept for several good reasons.
The guideline referred to says this:
Links normally to be avoided
12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
Forgotten Realms Fandom is indeed stable. The term "substantial" can be debated. Mainly because it would be relative and depend on the subject at hand. "Forgotten Realms" as such is not the most popular or broadly known subject, its quite nerdy, and it is rather specific too. Considering that, 60 active editors would be considered quite high. For these reason guideline 12 does not disqualify this Fandom.
Apart from discussing this guideline 12, there are a bunch of good reasons to keep the Fandom Wiki. Daranios mentioned some, but maybe the most important reason is that Fandom was launched by Wikia in 2016 as specific fan-driven wikis for pop-culture. Wikia is an off-spring of Wikipedia, and as such it is fair to consider Fandom wikis as highly relevant for Wikipedias articles on pop-culture. Especially Fandom wikis which are substantial, well maintained, has a high number of visitors, are stable and actively edited. RhinoMind (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikia is not an offspring of Wikipedia, it's a separate entity. Wikia/Fandom wikis do not and should not get special consideration compared to other wikis. Additionally there is no relativity written into the guideline - a wiki on a specific "nerdy" topic is treated the same as a wiki on a more "popular" topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I see, but is the "substantial number of editors" strictly defined as "at least 100"? With all due respect for Nikkimaria and WhatamIdoing, I still am convinced that having the link at least would be useful for the readers of Wikipedia (which should be the main goal), because it is a valuable resource for people interested in the topic of "Forgotten Realms" and perfectly complementary to the topic's treatment at Wikipedia. (Forgotten Realms Wiki has the same emphasis on correct sourcing - albeit with primary sources - and covers everything that goes beyond Wikipedia's notability scope.) Or should this discussion be shifted back to the Forgotten Realms talk page to achieve an individual rather than a global decision if such a link may be benefical to have? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Wikia is an offspring to Wikipedia. And Fandom was created with the purpose of porting pop-culture stuff there. Please read up on this. I have wiki-linked in my comment, although the Wikipedia article is rather poorly written and lacks some information, it might serve as a starting point at least. Also "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is as relative as any guideline can get.
This issue concerns all use of Fandom wikis and I think it is relevant to find a way of how to deal with Fandom Wikis in general here on Wikipedia. If no consensus has been reached on that subject already, that is. RhinoMind (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Our way of dealing with open wikis, including Fandom wikis, is the guideline you've quoted. We don't give Wikia/Fandom wikis any special consideration in that regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria is correct. The point of requiring a substantial number of editors is to reduce the likelihood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. The same "substantial number" is required for every open wiki, regardless of subject or popularity.
Daranios, "substantial number of editors" has not been strictly defined as a single number. (If it had been, I'd have just put that number in the guideline and saved you the trouble of asking.) The usual rule of thumb is that anything with more editors than Memory Alpha is okay. Sites that are a little smaller can be discussed. Sites that are significantly smaller are removed.
As for the "local consensus" idea... the fact is that the ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere. If nobody at that article is complaining, then you're unlikely to run into problems. However, there are some editors whose favorite kind of work is "weeding link farms", and if one of them sees it, they may object. As always, whenever a link is disputed, WP:ELBURDEN applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the enlightenment, I was wondering about the rationale behind the "significant number of editors". I would argue in this case that the 15 years of history, and the effective acitivity of the admins shown in that time, means a very small likelyhood of the site being overrun by spammers and vandals. So in conclusion I feel strongly enough to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations, and already apologize for taking up some of your time at a third place. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: I am among the editors WhatamIdoing mentioned "ELN regulars don't normally seek out suspected violations, just to interfere." and my "work is "weeding link farms". I have been working in "External links" almost as long as I have been an editor. If links have grown excessively (my range is generally more than 4) I will look at trimming. I would not be considered a "fan" of open Wikis but certainly if the list needs trimming the relevance of importance would have to be weighed against the others in the list. I usually leave a talk page message and see if local editors will trim. If not I have been known to do so per policies and guidelines. I haven't used Wiki links as a reason that I am aware of. I have no idea the history of ELNO #12 but like with all other reasoning I don't agree that any WP:SILENCE is justification giving a blanket exception such as "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". If I ran across this during trimming I might have to consider if the site is just being advertised on Wikipedia. This might include if the editor that added the link is also an editor there. A site can have 100 editors but the particular link provided could be by the adding editor so maybe WP:OR and could be seen as a way of advancing that information on Wikipedia in an unconventional way. That is normally too deep for what I do (culling link farms) so hasn't come up, I am just giving my points of view.
I will state that I do NOT find it disrupting for an editor to continue examining things. I would have a problem with any "precedent where niche/special interest group first publishes things they want to have on Wikipedia, then citing that web source to circumvent no original research policy.". It is just as important as "to discuss that link again specifically at Forgotten Realms in spite of Nikkimaria's reservations", as that is not only how Wikipedia evolves it is also how those that perform maintenance can operate. This is what I do a lot of so if I run across an article an editor here is involved with, and there are too many "External links", we may have a discussion about trimming. If your "Wiki" is among them then just cut some of the others and I will likely leave it at that. Some may choose to dig a little deeper and it should not be considered "disruptive" as I am sure all are aware that consensus can change even on things with a long history. Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Denomination-specific link on general Bible history pageEdit

Regarding Development of the Christian biblical canon External Links section:

Is it really necessary or appropriate to include a link to one extremely small (less than 500,000 members) sect of one particular Christian denomination for its "perspective" on the article's subject? The criteria for normally permissible links reads in part "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject[...]" -- linked article is definitely not neutral or encyclopedic in nature.

External link in question: WELS Topical Q&A: Canon - 66 Books in the Bible, by Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (Confessional Lutheran perspective)

rothko (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Rothko999

External links are never necessary in any article. Is this link appropriate in this case? Probably.
What exactly in that link do you disagree with? (I'm assuming that "definitely not neutral" means that you don't agree with something in it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to a video on how to tie a knotEdit

There is a discussion at Talk:Surgeon's knot#You-tube videos about the appropriateness of linking in the External links section to a German language You-tube video showing how to tie a surgeon's knot. Other opinions would be welcome. - Donald Albury 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal religious websites and blogs for external linksEdit

  1. I was removing: Accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net and palikanon.com from some Wikipedia articles where they have been spammed unncessarily. But I got reverted by Farang Rak Tham who appears to have went as far as misrepresenting one of these spam links to be scholarly.[3]
  2. Accesstoinsight.org is not a reliable source per the admission of the website creator himself, who says that "Some biases, however, inevitably intrude, owing to the editorial choices I've made and to the summaries and short introductory essays that I've written here and there to give some context to the material being presented."[4]
  3. Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources and have been spammed. Instead of naming unreliable sources as "scholarly" one would need to read the definition of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which first requires a scholarly publication since scholarly publishers are better at fact-checking than the WP:SELFPUB websites that have admitted to having hosted errors. Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts. Neither these websites contained what would be helpful for the readers. If preserving 'translations' is the aim then nonetheless, Wikipedia is not WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Generally a source which is not WP:RS should not be spammed across other articles. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of numbering the points you mention:
  1. I did not misrepresent the sources. See point 3 below.
  2. That link does not appear not be part of the original website accesstoinsight.org. Please post a correct, direct page with the content quoted. Even if that quote does originally come from accesstoinsight.org, Access to Insight is a collection of books and articles about Buddhism from different authors and publishers, which need to be considered for reliability on a case-per-case basis. Per comparison, just because a library is not in a university campus, doesn't mean the books in it aren't scholarly.
  3. Palikanon.com and Suttacentral.net are obviously unreliable sources Please provide an explanation why you think that is the case. Palikanon.com, for example, hosts translations by Karl Eugen Neumann and a full version of the Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names by G P Malalasekera, both of which are examples of notable and widely recognized scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I did not add the external links in question, but I am a concerned fellow editor who believes deletion of these non-commercial translations is unwarranted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Shashank5988's characterization of these links. The translations and resources hosted by these websites are the product of leading scholars in the translation of Pali, as well as hosting publications by notable groups in terms of the history of English-language Theravada studies (Access to Insight publishes material from the archives of the Buddhist Publication Society, for instance). These aren't personal websites or blogs, but rather are non-profit groups- ATI is hosted by the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, Sutta Central is operated by an Australian non-profit trust. Palikanon is individually operated, but publishes work from the Vipassana Research Institute and Pali Text Society. Links to these sites are common on Wikipedia because they are the largest and best organized archives of these primary source materials and translations available on the web. The statement from ATI is simply an indication of editorial self-awareness, and may refer to a decision made relatively early in the sites life to focus on carrying content related to the Sutta portion of the canon rather than Vinaya and other texts (which are hosted on Sutta Central), not to the quality of the content within individual pages, which is sourced from notable scholars and organizations. Providing links to a primary source when it is available is a good practice in external links, since it allows the reader to verify what they have read, and Sutta Central particularly has the advantage of also frequently providing the source text in the original language. I see no reason to remove these links or regard them as spam unless they can be replaced by links to comparable sources for the original text and translations of the material in question. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Spasemunki on this. These websites are suitable for external links on certain pages. These are not random people providing these translations, a lot of the names on these sites have big name Pali scholar's credited in their translations, I've seen published print works use these same translations of the primary sources. Plus, as Spasemunki stated, the websites mentioned are run by or publish work from reputable orgs, not random people. I don't think these can justifibly be called personal blogs. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
External links are external links, not sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Translations or articles from these websites may sometimes be useful in an EL section. I agree with Farang Rak Tham, the addition should be considered on a case-per-case basis. We should follow WP:EL (complex); [5] may be relevant. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Shashank5988, I'm going to guess here that your personal experience with scholarly publishing is minimal. Stating that all errors are mine is a commonplace courtesy in some academic fields. First you thank the people who helped you with your research, and then you remind the reader to blame you, and not them, if the reader disagrees with your article. This appears in thousands of articles in scholarly journals.
More relevantly, the author does not admit to errors. The author admits to being slightly biased, (i.e., human). Thinking that Paper #1 is more important and worth linking that Paper #2, or emphasizing the third point in Paper #3 rather than others is what makes biases intrude. You do not need "errors" to have "biases". If you won a Nobel prize for work in your specific sub-field, and you post a list of articles that you think do a particularly good job of explaining something in the terms of your specialty, then you are "biased" (against all the other sub-fields) but you are not wrong, and there need be no errors involved.
A source can be biased and still 100% reliable (see the WP:BIASED section of WP:RS). Which would be very interesting, of course, if ==External links== needed to be reliable sources, except that they don't. It doesn't actually matter whether those websites are reliable, so long as they're external links and not Wikipedia:General references that are supposed to be supporting article content. Your belief that "Per WP:EL, we can't use an unreliable source for the articles that cannot be used as sources for the texts" is entirely mistaken. See, in particular, WP:ELMAYBE #4, which explicitly accepts "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to in-copyright books hosted on archive.orgEdit

Please see Talk:Internet Archive#Links to in-copyright books hosted on archive.org for details. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Percy GraingerEdit

I left comments at Talk:Percy Grainger#External links (a featured article) concerning a review because eight "External links" could be considered link farming. Local consensus is that not only was eight acceptable but one was missed so added making nine. If some would be so kind as to take a look at this from a more broad Wikipedia perspective and policy, especially since it is a featured article that could end up demoted on a review, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Otr500: Linkfarming is not a specific number, and a local consensus would not necessarily trump the local policies and guidelines about what is acceptable. Some articles are not linkfarming with 25 links, others are linkfarming with 3.
Looking at the article:
  • I believe that the two societies are both not directly linked to the subject of the article: they are the websites of the societies not of the subject. Moreover, only one has a fleeting mention in the article itself. If those societies are of importance, then they should at least have a significant mention in the article itself.
  • Then there is "Country Gardens": Performance by Grainger on pianola, 1919 which is completely cherry-picked, why this one work.
  • The museum is indirect as well, that is covered by Grainger Museum.
This is plain old linkfarming. I suggest to re-start the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Eight is more than average, but not necessarily unreasonable. I notice that the last one is a link to search results, which is not generally considered an appropriate type of link (as documented at WP:ELNO#EL9) ...except that we do want to link to lists of works by an author, which I suppose could sometimes be done via a search tool. If the results are useful/usable, I'd probably keep it; if it's hit-or-miss, I'd kill it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Opinions linking Europeana and en:WikipediaEdit

please comment see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editor_consensus_regarding_Europeana_and_Wikidata_Property_7704 - Salgo60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fraternity website; Fraternity FB; Fraternity InstagramEdit

For a Greek Letter Organization (social/professional/honorary), I often see National Website, National Facebook page and National Instagram as the External Links:

  1. ) Should the FB and Instagram links be there?
  2. ) What other EL are reasonable? the only ones that jumps to mind is a location for an archive of the fraternity magazine/journal and if the alumni have a separate nationwide website.Naraht (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This sounds related to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL in which generally only one "official link" is given for an organization, particularly if links to an organization's other "official websites" can be easily found on its primary website. There may be exceptions to this, but generally one is considered to be sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Naraht: I would drastically clear those out. There should, indeed per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, be only one official website with very very few exceptions. That should then probably be their main outlet, which could be their facebook or twitter (but not both, and certainly not all of them). Some do have an official website themselves ('<subject>.com', as practically every reasonable organisation has). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)