Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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) Shortcuts WP:ELN WP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

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

I've been taken to task [1] by another editor for removing some of their additions over the past several months [2] of what I considered to be "spammy" external links from articles with professional gamblers and gambling authors and consultants as their subject. I wonder if perhaps I could have some fresh eyes on the external links contained in those articles. My personal inclination, is that if I see a link landing the reader on a site containing flashy banner ads,'sign up' offers or a 'book for sale'; especially if the site itself appears self published, I'm disinclined to see it as "legitimate", even if it does contain material that adds to the biographical details of the subject of the original article. Could I have some advice on this please? Are banner ads always a bad sign in this context? I'm going to let the editor know that I've posted this query here. Thank you for your time. Cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the website has no misleading links to trick visitors, and as you say has valid information about a Wikipedia article about some gambler or cheating method, it should be included as a reference. Perhaps not as a single reference, but if a couple of such sites agree that this is how come card trick is performed, i think it becomes more reliable.

You wont find much useful info on poker cheating methods at a religious school website, but I bet you can find quite a few at some site that's wall-to-wall covered in those annoying blinking square banner boxes. Most organized crime articles are referenced by self-confessed mass-murderers, thieves and criminals. Despite having little credibility, we simply have no one else who can provide the sort of information that they can about the underworld. I think with gambling its the same thing.

Since Wikipedia has NO FOLLOW exit links, the gambling website will not benefit by a boost in Google ratings. Yet someone writing a book or compiling a position paper would be very interested in such links to present a more balanced picture from all sides. Just my 5 cents. Cheers! I disagree. Meishern (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many links on that article where it is not clear at all what additional information is being provided, or to where a reader's attention is being directed. WP:ELNO point 5 deprecates "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contributors history it would appear he is just here to promote his external link, so wp:ELNO #4: "Links mainly intended to promote a website" comes into play as well. External links sections are not supposed to be a collection of interviews, so I will trim the section accordingly. Yoenit (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I believe that I am the editor in question here. The only reason I am posting links to my site is because you were deleting the links to my youtube channel. I am simply trying to post a video interview with the person who the page is about. It is useful information pertaining to the subject matter. And I made the video myself so I know it is not violating any copyright laws or rules of any sort. I am not trying to flood wikipedia with spam links, because I use wikipedia on a DAILY basis to look up information about everything. And I am also aware that there is no benefit to posting links to promote my site as they are all made NOFOLLOW. Please let me know if I am in the wrong. Frugalrhombus (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (EST)

Frugalrhombus, please read Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. It might be best to do so before any other edits. Its advice would apply both to your website and your youtube channel. Regarding NOFOLLOW, there may still be money changing hands due to the traffic generated from the external links viewing pay-per-view ads or sometimes clicking on pay-per-click ads. BitterGrey (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there is no talk page? I've also been trying to get someone to make a page about either our book or the author of our book. It is a yearly guide to casinos throughout the country, that has been published annually for over 20 years. So I believe it deserves its own page. Frugalrhombus (talk) 11:28 6 April 2011 (EST)

The relevant projects seem to be wp:WikiProject_Gambling or wp:WikiProject_Games. These would be the places to discuss gambling or games page creation. BitterGrey (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frugalrhombus, see WP:Notability (books) for our notability guidelines on books and WP:AUTHOR for authors (and WP:N for notability in general - if somethings meets the criteria for WP:N, it probably passes the others). It's generally not simply a person's opinion whether a page exists or not, it must past certain criteria (generally whether independent attention has been paid to it in reliable sources). It is possible that your book and author are simply not notable according to wikipedia's definition, and wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote. If you wish to establish whether your book is a reliable source sufficient to be referenced in a page, I would suggest you bring up that point at the reliable sources noticeboard.

Generally youtube isn't a good source or EL, see WP:YOUTUBE. I would refer you to WP:EL in general, and you must read that page carefully with an understanding that it may prohibit linking to your site. We are not obligated to link to sites, even if you think it's a great idea. That's why we have policies and guidelines, so it's not just one person's judgement call. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, if you were to do a search for "American Casino Guide," the name of the book in question you would see that it IS listed in the notes section for 2 gambling related articles. And many of the people in the "American Gambling Writers" page are listed as contributing authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frugalrhombus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking if the book is a reliable source, that is determined by our guidelines on reliable sources. If it's by a mainstream publisher, this should be uncontroversial. If it's by the publisher "Casino Vacations", I'm uncertain of whether it would be considered reliable and again would point you to the reliable sources noticeboard. If we're talking about a book, we're not talking about external links, and this is the external links noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alright thanks, I'll have to go take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frugalrhombus (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not read "died as a result of heart disease". He died as a result of amyloidosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.75.213 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more information would be helpful, such as the name of the article where the debated EL is or was. BitterGrey (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has been adding links to artbook.com to multiple articles. Sometimes multiple links to artbook.com are added to a single article. I'm tempted to remove them as spam, however I want to ensure that single-purpose linking to the site would be considered an WP:EL violation prior to doing so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if the links are desirable, then the fact that one person has added them isn't a problem... until someone decides that the behavior has moved beyond "happening to" add links to the same site to WP:SPAMMER activity.

In the instant case, the links (to this online bookseller) are not desirable, and should be removed per WP:ELNO #5, "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". Also, my spot check of articles in the list suggest that some serious weeding needs to be done on several {{linkfarm}} pages, so if you choose to remove a few extra links while you're at it, then that would be desirable.

If the problem comes back, then we can set User:XLinkBot on the trail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history pretty clearly suggests that this is a fixed IP address for artbook.com, a/k/a Distributed Art Publishers.--Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links have all been reverted (with thanks to Seaphoto and yourselves). Now that I'm aware of the spammy-nature of the site I will be more stringent when assessing its addition to articles. Thank you both! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, officially outside the scope of this noticeboard: The books might be useful, if actually used as proper reliable sources, or listed under WP:FURTHERREADING, with a standard bibliographic citation and ISBN, but the URL to the bookseller should basically never be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre(ITC), a UN agency that provides latest data on trade. The external links that I have added to some products pages (e.g.: coffee, cotton) and economics sections of country pages have been removed. As an example, the external link that I would add for coffee takes directly to the specific page of our database. I just wanted to know if there is a way to contribute to Wikipedia external links without incurring into spamming. The reliability and transparency of our intentions hinge on the following points:

1)We are part of the United Nations

2)No registration is required

3)Our agency's aim is to share data on trade by country and products

4)The link gives direct access to the trade database for the specific product/country.

At least I would like to know if these external links could be added for a set of 10 products. Thanks Divoc (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Jonkerz[3] is correct that anonymous users adding external links en masse to organizations that they belong to is almost always frowned upon, the links still might be worth considering: They might include data which articles can't due to detail ( ELYES #3 ). Since relevance to the particular article and the marginal value of additional data are factors, it might be best to open a discussion at the talk page for one of the articles, proposing the external link. (There isn't a limit on the number of external links, but discussing them one at a time avoids opening discussions en masse.)

Please feel encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways as well, but please be aware that if a conflict arises between you and another editor, that editor may take it out on pages relevant to or that refer to the ITC. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this links are acceptable under ELYES #3. In particular, I think that the coffee trading data is a particularly appropriate addition to Economics of coffee, since the entire article relates to trading coffee. I have restored that individual link.

We are sometimes a bit aggressive about people who might be WP:SPAMMERs, since unfortunately the English Wikipedia attracts a lot of them. Thank you for calmly discussing the question with Jonkerz, and then posting here, rather than engaging in an WP:Edit war.

BitterGrey's advice about proposing the links at each article's talk page is also a "best practice". Usually, the thing to do is to leave a note saying what the link is, why you think it helpful (refer to WP:ELYES #3), and wait for about a week. If no one objects during that time, then it's usually safe to add the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• historyandpolicy.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is the linking conduct of historyandpolicy.org described in the Signpost within Wikipedia policies of WP:COI and WP:EL#ADV? "three UK professors from "an independent network of nearly 300 historians" wrote that they had "discussed the pros and cons" of doing so, and "decided to insert links in the references of Wikipedia entries" to their own website". From their description (my emphasis): "The aim was to provide Wikipedia users with high-quality historical research, accessibly written and freely downloadable, and to drive traffic to the H&P website" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site has already been blacklisted on en.wikipedia, based on WP:COI/WP:EL/WP:SPAM concerns. I also have concerns about the main account that is used, as the Signpost suggests that the edits are by three professors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editing policies of Answers.com are less exacting than Wikipedia's. There are a few related questions I'd like an opinion about, but the nub is: Should a source that's less exacting than Wikipedia be generally disallowed as a reference or an external link?

1) Quite a few Answers.com articles are nothing more than cut-and-paste versions of the Wikipedia article, and are labeled as such. Such Answer.com links should never be allowed: [4] cited in [5].

2) Some Answers.com articles do not have references and do not establish the credentials of the writers.

3) Some Answers.com articles appear to be straight copies of published sources. Military artists, Grilling. Answers.com claims it's drawing from a licensed database,[6] yet the method they are using -- with no internal article footnoting -- does not make clear what part of the work comes from what source. For example, although in the grilling article three books are mentioned in the Bibliography, there is no explanation how or if they were used.

4) Again using the Grilling article, the quality of writing in Answers.com is often what we would call in Wikipedia informal or essay language and original research. "Virtually every American man either feels himself to be a master of outdoor grilling", "when people say that they love the smell of cooked meat, they are in fact admiring the aromas that accompany browning", "It's a tough decision for many people".

5) Companies use Answers.com as an extension of their corporate Web site. Oddly, sometimes the information on the official Web site is better than Answers.com, yet the Wikipedia article references what is obviously a secondary source. Environmental Waste Controls references the Answers.com article, but the official site is -- especially after clicking around a little -- a far more useful resource Official site.

6) There are Answers.com articles that are less complete than the information in Wikipedia. Wiki version of Ideotype vs. cited Answers.com version. In this case Answers.com has only a brief sentence, while the bulk of their page is promotion and advertisement.

7) There are Answers.com articles that are a combination of the above. [7], [8]

Broadly, the question is whether Answers.com should be allowed as a reference, except in unusual circumstances. Their policy for accountability is quite different from Wikipedia's: They obscure their sources, allow WP:CONFLICT in business articles, and do not provide in-text footnote support. As seen in the Answers.com grilling article, the writing sometimes isn't even intended to be formal or encyclopedic.

Given the many ways that Answers.com does not support core policies WP:SOURCE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, it seems to me they should be generally disallowed as a reference or an external link. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com is imho generally not allowed as a reference, whether an individual case is suitable for an external link might be subject to debate (though afaik many editors might not tolerate it there either (comparing it to forums or blogs which are usually to be avoided).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good, thank you. My intention, if there's consensus, is to remove a good number of them. Unfortunately, Answer.com is misused in several ways, so there's a great deal work involved. (Compared to MySpace, blog or WiseGEEK references.) I'd like to be sure before I invest any significant kind of energy. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the consensus above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of a case where it would ever serve as a reliable source, usually something you remove on sight.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com carries a disclaimer, "Answers does not endorse, approve, or certify such information, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, completeness, efficacy, timeliness, or correct sequencing of such information.... Use of such information is voluntary, and reliance on it should only be undertaken after an independent review of its accuracy, completeness, efficacy, and timeliness. Additionally, please note that WikiAnswers is a community-based question-and-answer service using the "wiki" approach of developing answers that the community constantly improves. Answers allows ANYONE at any time to write and edit content in this service" so, at the very least, it is disqualified by WP:ELNO points 2 and 12. Even though occasional exceptions are allowed to a content guideline, where it might be argued that it provides some unique resource, in my opinion best practice is that it should not be included as an external link and that removing it where it appears is inevitably an improvement. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. To make sure we've covered the bases, in my planned culling of Answers.com references, there are two situations I might hesitate: 1) Where a company is using Answers.com as an extension of its official site -- but Answers.com has a more concise and linear presentation (say, compared to clicking a dozen "Web pretty" pages on the company's official site). Example: Answers.com's American Pad & Paper Company compared to their "official site" [9]. 2) Where an Answers.com reference is given, and is unusually good.

Agreeing that as a general rule ALL Answers.com references and External Links should be removed would make editing much faster. 1,000s of articles may be affected. I plan to do this by hand, and not by writing a program, so I am going to be sensitive to special cases. I just want be relatively sure someone doesn't feel the need to do a mass rollback. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan sounds good to me.

As a piece of standard advice: if someone at any given article happens to revert you, I recommend just letting it go. In the time that it takes to argue with one person, you could clean up 10 articles where people will be grateful for the assistance.

We can always review and mop up any leftovers later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial Result: I started removing Answers.com links, checking them first. 1) It is very time-consuming, compared, say, to evaluating and removing MySpace links. 2) There are often several sources mixed in one article. It's apparent that many Answers.com sources are taken word-for-word from reliable places such as published encyclopedias; the encyclopedias are named. 3) Some sources that Answers.com considers reliable, Wikipedia generally does not (AllMusic, AllMovie).

There's no particular doubt in my mind that the encyclopedia and dictionary sources are generally correctly quoted, and that they are reliable references. I understand and agree that one solution here is simply to remove all Answers.com links. But this other solution I was proposing to evaluate each Answers.com article referenced seems insurmountably time-consuming. For that amount of time and that quality of effort? An editor could be fixing a Wikipedia article, directly. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed by another editor that "Patch.com has been trying to spam their links into various town articles." I have no connection to Patch, but I support the effort to provide online news for under-served communities. Specifically, my town, Los Gatos, California, where Patch provides 24/7 online news. I think an external link to losgatos.patch.com is appropriate to Los Gatos, California because it provides "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article," namely, up-to-the-minute news for the subject at hand. Clearly, a policy change here would be relevant to all of the communities served by a Patch site.Adallas (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the kind of external link that would be acceptable here. Pls see WP:ELNO specifically...

1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. (we dont need to know were the best place to get drunk in town is)
2.Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. (entry after entry is guess work from what i can see) patch.com policy is to encourage our editors to reveal their beliefs to the extent they feel comfortable.
4.Links mainly intended to promote a website. See also WP:ADV as this site has been marked as having been spammed here before
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, 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 always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) [This is a personal blog type site with editor control overseen by one person The Board and is exactly what we wish to avoid.
.Moxy (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Video is shutting down. [10] There are over 4,000 links to the site (I stopped counting).[11]   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a mass removal on or about 13 May. Some videos links could be replaced but that would make the task much greater. Maybe we could get the word out to editors soon to try and replace links where they are acceptable in their articles of interest.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a bot tag them now with some custom made ^{[dead link]} tag? We have 100k dead links or something, so not like it will really make a dent. I will note archive.org will probably get a full archive up eventually, but that might take a while. Yoenit (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact number of links is 6098 [12] btw. Yoenit (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, I forgot a bot could do it. I think SporkBot is up to the task. Would it be better to just remove the link though? If an editor is watching the article, they can notice and replace it.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with using the ^{[dead link]} tag in this way is that editors are encouraged to place this tag when there is a possibility that the link is temporarily unavailable, or that it has moved, and just needs a little research to find the new location. What's being suggested here is a different use, which is a marker for links that probably will never come back, or that might require considerable research to locate a replacement. As it stands, editors are invited to check or fix links marked with ^{[dead link]} tags. The new use suggested here would add 6,000 tags that mostly can't be fixed -- which is a disincentive to investigate the other^{[dead link]} tags that were added in hopes of recovery. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]