Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

Linking to 1960s commercial audio recordings at the Internet Archive[edit]

I'd be glad of advice on the propriety of the link added here. The recording was made by EMI in the 1960s and I'm not at all sure it's out of copyright. A steer from an editor who knows the rules about copyright and links would be v. gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate, as the copyright is not clear. Internet Archives does not assure material uploaded is appropriately licensed, we need to check that. That's likely an improper upload under their terms but we should assume that the sound recording is still copyrighted (to at the latest 2067). --Masem (t) 19:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that advice. I rather thought it might be so. I'll delete, and explain why on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 20:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter .. again[edit]

Again a discussion on twitter, which anyway always go the same way. Is the addition of the twitter, here by User:Pigsonthewing in line with our inclusion standards. The official website of the subject is there, the official website has a link to the twitter, this twitter hence makes the second external link on the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The link has already been removed by another editor, and I agree that it should be allowed per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. There's a clearly visible link to the Twitter page on Smythe's official website; so, I'm not sure how or what policy/guideline would allow it despite the edit sums claiming its OK each time it was re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Where'd the website links go?. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it looks like it's everyone against you. Have you considered whether this battle is worth your time? I mean, it'd be easy to find a couple of people who will pound on the table about a strict interpretation of the guideline, but WP:IAR is a real policy for good reason. Unless you like this kind of thing, it might be better to think about Wikipedia:How to lose, or at least to turn a blind eye towards that liminal space between pure external links and true inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I just posted the notice to let others know about the ongoing discussion, not to try and win the discussion. If the community consensus is that using the links in such a way is OK per WP:EL, then that's fine with me. WP:IAR doesn't mean ignore established policy just for the sake of ignoring it as explained at WP:NOTIAR. Anyway, I explained why I removed the links and posted that if the community feels otherwise, then [the] links can easily be re-added; however, at least a few of the arguments in response in favor of re-adding the links seem to be more of "I like it" or "it's useful" types of arguments than not. Even so, if you or someone else feels they should be re-added, then you or they can be WP:BOLD and do so; however, since the article is being transcluded into the main article about the 2020 election, there's more than one article affected which might mean that a broader consensus should be sought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: we have had discussions on campaigns in elections now a gazillion times. Every time the way they are implemented is different, and there is no common way to include the links (and on many of the past elections' Wikipages the links are, by definition, outdated). 'Everyone is against you', yes, another brilliant example of a local (micro-)consensus that is contradicting our policies and guidelines. And this local consensus is again completely different from our previous local consensus on another set of election pages (actually, we seemed to have a consensus here on this page, which is bluntly never implemented and ignored). And my comparison with car brands, viagra, banana brands, or whatever still holds. Yes, it is extremely useful to have an external link to the university website and to their athletics department website for each university in List_of_universities_in_Turkey, but the community has decided that that is NOT what we are doing. These are local microconsensuses (of which there are many different ones) all based on WP:IAR and WP:ILIKEIT. Yes, there are good ways of linking, but there is no consensus on how to, and all of these are certainly not the way to do it. IAR is fine, but we do seem to have constant disagreement whether these campaign websites improve Wikipedia or not - whether we follow the rule or IAR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is: the relevant WikiProject(s) should start an RfC and get to a consensus on how to represent the candidates in election pages. My suggestion still is to have tables with the candidates, where one of the rightmost columns is either a link to the Wikipedia page on the campaign (which then has the campaign as an official site), or (not and) a link to the campaign website locked in time through an internet archive at the date of election or date of withdrawal. That is what we do on all Wikipedia lists, and I do not see why these lists should be in any form be an exception to these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's exactly those gazillion past conversations I'm thinking of. Maybe resolving this properly is hopeless right now. The situation might be different later (e.g., after an RFC hosted by a relevant WikiProject, assuming said RFC came to a conclusion, and that the conclusion was specific enough to be helpful and something that editors at the local articles were usually willing to implement – for example, the proposal you outline here, which you have recommended before), but, right now, trying to keep those links out of that list feels like a waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah, never a waste of time. Mass cleaning of social network linkfarms is of a similar nature, just keep going. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#Answering machine, voicemail, etc. copyrights. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Musixmatch lyrics pages – user generated with minimal oversight?[edit]

Musixmatch promotes itself as a website with a "lyrics catalogue [that] is created, synched, and translated by millions of contributors from the Musixmatch community. The final version of the lyrics is edited and validated by a team of international curators."[1] Additionally, it asserts "to assure a standard of quality, Musixmatch shows the quality status of the lyrics".[2]. However, after going through 50 or more lyrics pages, a large majority do not actually show that they have been verified. So, if Musixmatch were able to squeak by WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12 (open wiki-type sites), should there be a restriction on linking lyrics that don't indicate "Verified by so-and-so"? (assuming of course that the lyrics are properly licensed). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should avoid those in general, especially for lyrics that are still under copyright/not properly licensed (which is probably most of them, for songs that are less than ~50 years old). I'm not sue that a total ban is needed, but for all of those "not verified" pages, I'm pretty sure that you'll be able to find a better option elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Musixmatch doesn't indicate whether an individual song is licensed and only includes that it "is the largest lyrics platform allowed for worldwide licensing with deals with top Music Publishers as Warner Chappel, Universal Bmg, Emi Publishing, Sony ATV, Bmg Rights, Kobalt Music and much more".[3] Other lyrics sites have used similar language when in fact a significant percentage of their lyrics are actually for unlicensed songs. One option may be to only allow links to lyrics that indicate that they have been verified and hope that the verification process includes a license check. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Advertising link in "Business Case"[edit]

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_case , one of the links claims to be "Official Business Case Template" but leads to this site (http://www.projectinabox.org.uk/registration/) that is just selling some services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.97.186 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's been fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

http://musicabrasilis.org.br/[edit]

Nivia Zumpano (talk · contribs) has been adding this [4] to a number of pages in various places. I've been removing it as spam - these are clearly good faith additions but I don't think they are appropriate. This has been described to me as a cultural project to get Brazilian music known around the world. I'd like other views please. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)