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. (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: 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 edit filter

Blogs in external links

This involves Historic Site of Anti-Mongolian Struggle where I removed a blog post in the external link and the other reverted it. After two more reversion there was a discussion in this usertalk page. The other editor claims this link is helpful to reader, and that I misunderstood WP:ELNO (which I pointed out for blogs listed as links to avoid).

This is the link to the blog. After contemplating about this, I still think I'm making a right call to remove this. Brunch is a blog hosting website that anyone can write on with zero editorial oversight, and I've discussed with others on WP:KO/RS that this is unreliable. The author is not an official authority or anything remotely close to it. He's a writer of tourist essays. This blog has his portfolio with his book's advertisement, so linking to this post means promoting his book. I don't see how this link can be an exception to the guideline in WP:ELNO, but it's unlikely this matter is gonna be resolved between two, so I thought it's better to come here and ask third opinions. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Emiya Mulzomdao, I'm glad you found this noticeboard. It's the right place to ask. Pinging CMD so he can join us here.

For the ==External links== section, we are not concerned about "editorial oversight" or being "unreliable". External links are not required to be reliable sources. You are correct, though, that we have a WP:NOBLOGS rule, though it is not an absolute ban, and if the content would be acceptable if it appeared on, say, a business website, then we can accept an individual blog post (NB: individual blog post, not the front page to the whole blog, and no editor knows what the blog's newest post will say tomorrow).

We do want an {{official website}} (if relevant), but usually only one, and all the others are allowed to be unofficial.

We are not concerned about ordinary amounts of advertising (including ordinary amounts of advertising for the site's own benefit). We are only concerned about "objectionable amounts of advertising".

This link, therefore, is not absolutely banned. But: WP:ELBURDEN is quite strict: If there are objections, the link stays out unless and until a consensus forms to include it.

What I'd really like you to do is to think about a reader who is completely unconcerned about Wikipedia's rules and just trying to get more information about the subject of the article. What does that link offer, and is that something that a reader might be interested in? Is there another webpage that does a better job of offering that kind of information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As I have explained, the blog is not used as a source. ELNO does not need exceptions, it goes out of its way to stress its generality. As I conveyed, the link offers a concise and illustrated list of places within the site, clearly laid out alongside photos which are presumably copyrighted and thus we cannot copy onto en.wiki ("information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright"). The External links guideline notes that "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum", and as I have stated this particular blog covers a lot of different items. It would be possible to add individual links to non-brunch.co.kr sites that cover similar information, but that really goes against that minimum ideal. I've asked if there is a better link that does similarly, but Emiya Mulzomdao stated "I'm not obliged to provide anything". Emiya Mulzomdao has also stated that it "Doesn't matter what the lead [of Wikipedia:External links] says or if it [the link] helps the reader", and on both of these points they are incorrect. The purpose of the guideline is important, as is the overall purpose of helping a reader. CMD (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a travelling diary written by a non-expert, not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (people) since he doesn't show up on RS. A lot of what he's saying is reparaphrasing other guides, without sources, and it's verbose and not very helpful on getting more information. Except photos, but those aren't worth a lot without context.

You usually go to something like Heritage Service or Encyclopedia of Korean culture if you need more official documents. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

One of the "more official" sites has 4 small photos. The other has 6 small photos. The blog post has 20 big photos. Do you think that a reader would be happier with 4 small photos than with 20 bigger photos? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It has a lot more than 4 photos. Check again. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0051473 has a section titled "관련 미디어 (4)", which has four (4) small photos. I don't see any other photos on that page. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about this one. Go to the Image and Video sections. There's a button named "더보기" between those sections. This is "See more". Click on this and it loads 30 more photos or so. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Useful photos, although with less context and not a strict overlap with the other EL. Readers currently have access to both. (As an aside, I believe most of the images on the heritage page are actually not under restrictive copyright, being shared under KOGL1, so they could be directly uploaded when someone has time.) CMD (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There are captions for those photos in the text paragraph above, which are partially translated into English. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't find this, but that doesn't affect the utility of the other link. CMD (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you expect most readers to know that 더보기 means "See more"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an alternative English page if this is what you prefer. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That's better. It's not as pretty as the blog post, but it's IMO acceptable. (We officially prefer ==External links== to be in English, when possible.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

As with the other mentioned government pages above, that is used as a source in the article. (Oddly, it doesn't caption its images, when a simple conversion to latin would at least replicate the very basic labels in the Korean page.) CMD (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject, but I think I support the removal. There are already sufficient photos on the Wikipedia article. Without knowledge of Korean, the linked photo's don't give information I think is missing in the article. So because it adds little value, I think the section should be kept to a minimum. Dajasj (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Being familiar with the subject, there are many items not covered in the Wikipedia article. I encourage the use of machine translation to get an idea, it suffers a bit on names but it does okay. CMD (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Well the website doesn't make it easy to machine translate it (maybe I need a browser plugin? I'll check that later), so that's not really a plus... But if I understand correctly, the text is necessary to appreciate the added value of the images? Or is the text itself the added value, and in that case, is it information we might want added to the page? Dajasj (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Might be browser dependent, my google chrome does it natively? Believe me, if there was an English language blog... Anyway, this blog is particularly well laid out going through various points of interest, linking photos to explanations and covering both the historical and recreational aspects. The other sources generally have a simple gallery or a wall of text, so this is a nice piece that properly uses the images as a way to help explain the text. I probably wouldn't add an EL just for that concept, but the specifics included are really helpful for understanding the site.

The blog opens with a good picture of the Jangsumul spring, you can judge for yourself whether the spring looks like a footprint. The spring is covered in the article text, but that paragraph really could use a more familiar eye. (This image I think we could replace with a KOGL1 image, although it's not as good.) The picture showing the north wall and the ocean is extremely useful for understanding the geographical positioning of what was a fort built to watch the sea; the equivalent image in the article is from a day when you couldn't see the sea due to the weather, deeply unfortunate. The tea fields are not something we have a photo for, the article mentions the private land but this adds some proper context. The well is another item mentioned that we don't have an image, although possibly like the spring this one is KOGL1able. The photo towards the oreum defending forces retreated is helpful geographic context (again that whole paragraph could use more eyes) that we don't have from our images, and I haven't found a free equivalent. The wheat fields similarly to the tea show the private use of the site and how closely it runs to the wall. The general coverage of the Sambyeolcho rebellion is in line with the reliable sources, some of it slightly out of scope of this particular page, but it's correct and contextualises the directly relevant info, and there's even coverage of a small inscription at the site. The blog also mentions some critical analysis of the patriotic positioning of the site (blatantly apparent by its modern name), and I wouldn't directly source the blog and wouldn't add it as an EL just for this, but it's a nice perk given the rest.

There is a lot of information we do want added to the page. As an example, the aforementioned better coverage of the spring and retreat, which might even be doable with the sources present. There should probably be better coverage of the patriotic meaning given to the site, and in this particular case the blog does go beyond what I've read, so presumably there's sources out there somewhere. Further to that, I have posted a substantial list of ideas, items in the sources I didn't understand, and sources I couldn't access at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#New draft for Historic Site 396 if anyone wants to take a crack. On the pictures, a couple as I mentioned can possibly be effectively replicated with KOGL1 images, but I haven't found equivalents for the rest. Presumably it would be easy for someone to take them, but there is apparently a general lack of Korea photos on Commons and this is one specific example of that. Overall, not an irreplaceable EL, and I have noted what could replace it and can imagine a situation where the article is much more developed and illustrations helpfully provide their 1000 words, but at the moment the article is not there. CMD (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a post from blog hosting website (Brunch Story) written by non-expert, making it likely that the text contents are something the author read off from other sources, like a lot of personal Korean blogs do. As is, the texts don't hold much credibility. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Entirely possible, which is why it was not used as a source. CMD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao, the purpose of linking this page is to let readers see some photos. Do you think the photos are bad? Do you think readers should not have an opportunity to look at some pretty pictures of this place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the mini-bludgeon, but I feel the need to stress: pretty and informative. CMD (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the govermental organization's websites as such the ones I mentioned do the job well already if we're talking about photos. If you want more photos, Jeju province institution has hundreds of them. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do you prefer the government websites? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Because they have more relative authorities, no copyright issues, and editorial standards? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that an Argument from authority is weak.

We have no reason to believe there are any copyright issues at https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65, so that is irrelevant.

AFAICT the editorial standard applied to this one page is sufficient. It is obvious that someone took some time and effort with the page. (Of course, if someone saw a significant error, then would be undesirable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Authority is a word mentioned verbatim in WP:NOBLOGS as a reminder.

How do you know the editorial standard is sufficient? This is a single-author blog. No other editor went over it. You'll have to back up on why this is "obvious".

This blog claims there's an academic hypothesis that the site is possibly named after "Fang Baatar". As far as I know, either this is something the author made up, or this claim is such an obscure internet hearsay that I can't find anywhere else except his blog. I don't think the author did much research for his writing, and claims like this don't belong to Wikipedia. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The "authority" in NOBLOGS refers to WP:SPS rules, "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".

We joke about this being the Einstein rule: If Albert Einstein had a blog about physics, then it would be a Wikipedia:Reliable sources, even though it's self-published.

This rule is not relevant for a collection of photos. It also isn't really relevant for a government website, and it is impossible to evaluate for a webpage with no listed author. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If it were to be treated as a contextless collection of photos, there're less reasons to keep it. Wikipedia is not a repository. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK we don't have an option for "a contextless collection of photos". We have the option you prefer, which is photos in the context of a government publication, and we have the option that other editors prefer, which is photos in the context of a travel blog post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The travel blog post may as well be a collection of photos without texts since we've gone to the direction that Korean texts are not helpful to English Wikipedia. Machine translation doesn't work well on informal blogs, either. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all of the links suggested are primarily useful as collections of photos because all of them are pages written in Korean. Switching https://www.jeju.go.kr/hangpadori/data/gallery.htm?page=1 takes me to a different website for automatic translation, which doesn't work well. Half the photos are labeled "The Hangmon..." or "The Hangmon rema..." None of them showed a complete or useful caption. I had better luck using machine translation myself.

Using machine translation myself worked equally well (or "equally badly", if you prefer) on both the government website and on https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65 WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you prefer this one, then? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the English-language government web page over the Korean-language government web page.

Why do you want a government web page? Are there no trustworthy historical societies, travel clubs, or non-government groups in Korea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Korea Heritage Service is a major participant in the country's excavation projects that frequently invites area experts, which makes their contents trustworthy. I also don't think the site of anti-Mongolian struggle is controversial enough a topic to exclude the government-related sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't oppose a government web page. I want to know whether any non-government web page is acceptable to you. Do you believe that it must be a government web page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the government page is more desirable in this case unless you have some other non-government web page in mind that has as credibility as this. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: May I take down the link for the moment and wrap this up, since this fizzled out without consensus. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that removing a link that provides photos of the site would genuinely improve the article?

If so, you are allowed to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do, for the reasons I illustrated above. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The other person reverted it again as Special:Diff/1297938213, edit summary "per extensive reasons given". I'm out of option and I don't want to start a edit war. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

{outdent} Emiya Mulzomdao, you could start an Wikipedia:Requests for comment discussion on the article's talk page if you want to pursue this. You could also look into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but I don't think that would be as effective, since both of you seem to be determined to 'win'.

(User:Chipmunkdavis, why did you add a Korean-language name to the link?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add anything in the link, it has the original title and an English explanation of use. I'm determined to have the useful link help inform people of the topic, if that's what you mean. My extensive explanation above has remained unaddressed. Meanwhile, the arguments against have varied from "making it likely that the text contents are something the author read off from other sources" to " I don't think the author did much research for his writing", so it is unclear what the core issue is. CMD (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think that the core issue is that the web page is "unofficial" (non-governmental, non-expert, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned here that the blog is making at least one unusual claim that can't be found anywhere else. That this is written off as " I don't think the author did much research for his writing" is uncivil. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, "I don't think the author did much research for his writing" is something you said. CMD (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I've elaborated on that while you weren't here. Did you see it? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. Something you wrote is written off by something else you've wrote and this is uncivil, and you elaborated on this? Can you clarify what you meant in your 11:48 comment? CMD (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you read this? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I've read the entire discussion, I would repeat my previous question. CMD (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The linked comment says Emiya objects this particular blog post because it mentions an idea about the name which may be factually wrong (i.e., that it might be named after "Fang Bataar"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, which is both speculation, and directly contradictory to their other claim "making it likely that the text contents are something the author read off from other sources". CMD (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not speculation. When you check something the author claims like it's a common knowledge, only to find nothing in return, it's a pretty considerable red flag. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in the blog that this is common knowledge, and frankly there's little common knowledge about the subject at hand. It has only received dedicated research for about a decade from what as far as I can tell is a small team of local historians and enthusiasts. The literal length of the wall wasn't known until recent times. CMD (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The author sells this as if it has a real academic basis, despite being no known mention in everywhere else. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The blog post says: 다른 하나는 슬픔을 간직한 놀라운 가설이다. 황파 두리(Fang Baatar)는 한자차용표기 홍발도(洪拔都)의 음이고, 바아투르는 영웅이다. 즉 홍영웅(洪英雄)이다. 삼별초를 섬멸한 원나라 앞잡이 홍복원의 아들 홍다구를 기념하기 위해 항파두리라고 붙였다는 설이다.

DeepL Translator gives this machine translation: "The other is a surprising hypothesis with a touch of sadness. Fang Baatar is the yin in the Chinese character for Hong Baldao, and Baatar is a hero, or Hong Hero. It is said that the name Fang Baatar is in honor of Hong Dagu, the son of Hong Bokwen, a Yuan Dynasty warlord who destroyed the Three Starweed."

It does not say "academic". However, perhaps one of these words implies it?

"No known mention" presumably means "I did not find this in Google". Many old academic ideas cannot be found online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

"Three Starweed" there is Sambyeolcho, "Hong Bokwen" is Hong Pok-wŏn, and "Hong Dagu" is Hong Ta-gu. Automatic translators often have trouble with Korean nouns, although the two personal names are very understandable transliteration differences. I'm unsure how well Jeju research is digitized, although the archaeological group researching the site ([1]) may know more, and they seem to sporadically hold public events (not all about this one site though). CMD (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I can fully understand what that blog is talking about. That section is prefaced by him saying these are the existing theories from etymology. He is clearly stating this has an academic basis, not just his personal conjecture.

If this author's claim is in fact a real hypothesis derived from Korean academic journals, can you tell us where this is from? WhatamIdoing already pointed out WP:ELBURDEN. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming by the mention of WhatamIdoing that this is meant to be a reply to me. If so, there is no reason to chase down a red herring, as there's no part of ELBURDEN or any policy which requires unpicking the sources of sources, let alone of ELs. CMD (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:ELBURDEN precisely says Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. You're the one who wants to include this. Whether you answer to people why this should be in, or you stop reverting. This discussion already ran its course once while you're out, and you refuse to drop the stick. Stop ignoring guidelines. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of this means, but I am not the one with the stick. It is still unclear how you came upon the link and how you think you are improving the article, especially as the reasons have changed a few times, but the ways the link helps are noted above. Replacing it with better material is possible, I have laid out a few ideas. CMD (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

If what you're asking for is a further English explanation, I have added one. CMD (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't usually put the non-English titles on external links at all. "Official" titles for web pages are not required for Wikipedia:External links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah the many wonder of guidelines, I appear to have included both the unneeded title and the recommended description. If removing the title makes that better per the guideline then I suppose that's fine, although it's probably worth indicating it's in Korean. CMD (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we usually include a label such as "(Korean)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Emiya Mulzomdao, I just learned that the Korean tourism board has hired some Wikipedia editors. Are you one of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No. If you're asking me if I'm a COI on this matter, I'm not. I focus on cleaning up poor sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This discussion already died a natural death once without a consensus.[2] Should WP:ELBURDEN be enforced or not? I request this since it isn't so much a content dispute as that everyone got different ideas of whether to follow the guidelines, whether to make exceptions to the guidelines, and so on.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You don't need admin help. Enforcing ELBURDEN would only be a temporary measure anyway. You need to form a consensus for or against including the link. I'll start Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Historic Site of Anti-Mongolian Struggle#External link. All editors are encouraged to share their recommendation. All editors are also discouraged from arguing with RFC respondents who disagree with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL once or twice?

Is there some written guidance on having the ELOFFICIAL both in the infobox and EL-section, or is it a "whatever" thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes: Linking in both places is permitted, and even officially encouraged: "The official website should be included in infoboxes such as {{infobox company}}, and by convention are listed first in the ==External links== section".

The official link is the #1 most clicked-on link in articles. Please make it easy for readers to find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

sites.google.com/view/racines-tchadiennes/

This URL was just added to Emi Koussi. Is it just a random website or a legitimate thing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know but Google Sites (sites.google.com) appears to be a website where anyone can post stuff, aka random website. That makes it unsuitable for use in an article, even as an external link, except if there is good reason to believe that a known expert in the field is responsible for the page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it may be a republication of some old written source but couldn't find anything on a quick search. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 15:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links does not technically ban "random" people's websites. We don't want to send people to the main page of a personal website from a random person (e.g., www.WhatamIdoing.net), but it's acceptable to provide specific, individual pages (e.g., www.whatamIdoing.net/my-subject-photos.html) that editors have determined "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy".

I assume that this link was added because of the photo at the top. It's possible to deeplink to the photo (but losing the identifying caption and rather ugly: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZJPnkH8PAEpivBBRct8v5ikXNlvdssd-wMWT3wWPTpmELyc7r_P8kWwFoLe5BUafH1ol0Co71kNobUU31Ei0yqE5ZF-W34iwPJyeEgJIvO30El7px0lS17VUPKwWhXdIll0tRT9VuSbvR3h5XgNxh8vPYEMmZFpfMgxNEsYhKytgXn8var6Avw=w1280 ). If you want to keep the link, I'd focus on re-writing the description, to say something like "1997 photo of the caldera" (naming which of the two caldera it is).

Alternatively, you might decide that there's already a photo of the caldera in the article itself, so this is superfluous, or at least not such an important contribution that it's worth bothering with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Javadoc:SE

{{Javadoc:SE}} is transcluded in some 88 articles. In all of the ones I checked, it was in the text of the article. It creates an external link (not a footnote) to the Oracle online java documentation, and in all of the instances I checked that external link was in the body text of its article. Can someone explain to me how this complies with WP:NOELBODY? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Editors could choose to form a consensus to allow this, and there are times when they still do (e.g., IETF RFCs, especially in lists/tables), but it's not my preferred way to approach for most purposes. I'd suggest changing it to an ordinary ref. For example (from Double-ended queue#Language support),

• As of Java 6, Java's Collections Framework provides a new Deque interface that provides the functionality of insertion and removal at both ends.

becomes

• As of Java 6, Java's Collections Framework provides a new Deque interface that provides the functionality of insertion and removal at both ends.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It would ease this conversion if there were a replacement for the template that took the same parameters and formatted the result as a reference. If it doesn't exist, maybe it should be created? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Due to the Hachette v. Internet Archive case, aren't most books in the Internet Archive lending program legally problematic?

All of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are accessible through "controlled digital lending", which the Internet Archive lost over in Hachette v. Internet Archive, that their specific model of scanning and lending full book copies of in-copyright books was not fair use. The ruling did say that their version of CDL (where they offered full books, not snippets for search, and did not pay the owners, unlike most libraries) was a copyright violation. Since they were only sued by the specific companies, they removed from accessible lending those specific companies' in-print books, but to my understanding the rest of the in-copyright books in IA are the same legally, their authors just did not bother to sue.

The only books in the IA program that don't use controlled digital lending are ones that are out of copyright, which are not an issue to link, but many used as sources onwiki are still in copyright. They only removed the books from the specific companies that sued them, but that doesn't make it not a copyright violation for the others, and "the copyright owner probably won't sue us" is not an accepted defense for that onwiki.

I'm not proposing anything drastic like removing all of them but since realizing this it has seemed uncomfortable to me to link full books from IA, given WP:COPYLINK. I doubt logically anything will come of it, but that goes for many copyright issues, and for the principle are we not, technically, linking to copyright violations? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a question about the ==External links== section, as whole books are rarely wanted in that section. It sounds like your concern is focused on the occasional use of a Wikipedia:Convenience link in a <ref> tag. I suggest therefore that this is better discussed somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I was told to discuss it here, and we do also have several dedicated EL templates for this same thing, {{OL book}}, {{Internet Archive}}, etc. Same issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the discussion in which someone told you that a problem that is mostly not in the ==External links== section needs to be discussed at a noticeboard entirely dedicated to Wikipedia:External links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing This discussion at FAC [3]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion is 100% about sources used to support article content, which Wikipedia:External links says repeatedly is not covered by the EL guideline. Not only is it not about ELs, the links don't appear to have ever been in the article in the first place, so there is no action to be taken at all.

I suggest that you take your complaint elsewhere. Diannaa or MER-C might be able to suggest a sympathetic forum for hypothetical WP:LINKVIO concerns in ==References==.

Alternatively, if my recollection is correct that you've already brought this up in the past without other editors agreeing with you, you should seriously consider dropping it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I have never brought this up prior to the FAC thing, though I vaguely recall someone else may have somewhere. In any case, it was irrelevant to the FAC, as having a link is not an FAC criterion, it just seemed to spark much disagreement, so if it's not relevant here I am content to be silent on the matter. I am not going to remove them it just seems a bad idea to add them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Fwiw, there's a related discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Internet_Archive_takedowns. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA/@WhatamIdoing For me, there is just not much reason to discuss. WP:COPYLINK is rather clear: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Even if rare or not a common problem in ==External links== sections, we should try to get rid of links to the links that we have i these sections that may be a copyright violation (and/or in ==Further reading== sections, for that matter). Either link to the original, to a 'generic' site (including our own Booksources), or even just no link at all (though the latter is does make it 'not an external link' - but generally books should be in further reading sections). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not a fan of putting archive links in the ==External links== section, except for defunct WP:ELOFFICIAL sites. However, no relevant articles or links have been identified. There is nothing actionable here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the germane question is more along the lines of "is there a ruling that says Wikipedia isn't allowed to link to Internet Archive pages?" jp×g🗯️ 19:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I would argue we should not be linking to any copyrighted work (known to still be under copyright) that is at IA, at all. It would be like linking to a research paper hosted at academia.edu or the like. Now, on the "hush hush", an editor can use that work to fill in the details, sourcing the work but not linking it directly, we don't have to know how they got the source and assume in good faith they got it legitimately. Masem (t) 20:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree, except instead of known to still be under copyright, I'd say the presumption should be copyrighted unless it is known to be in the public domain. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The starting premise of this discussion, "All of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are accessible through "controlled digital lending"", is blatantly untrue. Many of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are out of copyright and openly available to all without controlled lending. I think we should not remove such links and should leave it up to IA to police its copyright issues (just as we police our own here). I would however not particularly mind the removal of all controlled digital lending IA links. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Nearly everything is copyrighted (works created after 1978 lasts for the author's life plus 70 years and copyright is automatic). I think we should not demand that someone must hire a lawyer and sue, but find out ourselves the same as we do with images. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Blatantly untrue, again. Nearly everything recent is copyrighted. We link to many books created before 1978 or before 1929. And copyrighted ≠ unlinkable; many recent books are under open access licenses. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was about to edit in "the last half century", but thought it was obvious. And I don't think much of the start of your edit. Yes some many recent books are under open access licenses and some images are public domain. It's up to us to determine this as we do with images -- not just assume we can use everyone else's works. Wikipedia respects copyright. And as WP:CV states: "Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to." I'll refrain from sayin copyrighted ≠ unlinkable is "blatantly untrue again". O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The question is not whether most books are in copyright or most books are out of copyright or accessible under other licences. Point is that for those that are in violation of copyright we should not be linking, even if that is only one or two examples. If the archive does their job properly, those links anyway will have short lifetimes as they will remove the link. Material has to properly link to/identify the original source of the material (also when there are no copyright issues, or when the material is not available from the original or behind a paywall), so that we can always identify and consider alternatives to resolve copyright issues, pages being taken down, companies folding or whatever.
(still, this is not a specific WP:EL issue, it is just Wikipedia-wide, we should not link to work in violation of copyright in ==External links==, but also not in ==Further reading==, ==References==, or in the prose). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

itunes.apple.com/

• itunes.apple.com: 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

While patrolling on fr-wp I came upon a commercial downloading I tunes link. I checked the occurrences on fr-wp and then did the same for en-wp. results here. Here is the discussion on fr-wp patrolling board. You might want to check out these links Nattes à chat (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Broken links with Template:National Library of Medicine reference

It appears that the links used in Template:National Library of Medicine reference do not match the link used on the target website. The template directs to a url ending in "condition=exampleexample", but the website currently uses "condition/example-example" in its url. I edited the template so it uses the slash instead of the equals sign, but the links are still broken individually where the template parameter needs a hyphenated input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Tay–Sachs disease, this: {{NLM|taysachsdisease|Tay–Sachs disease}} points to https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/taysachsdisease but probably ought to point at https://medlineplus.gov/taysachsdisease.html. If that pattern is consistent across all the articles, then I would expect it to be easy to update the template to fix them all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Spam link at dumps.wikimedia.org/dvd.html

• dumps.wikimedia.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

The link for "Wikipedia 0.5" on dvd leads to an online casino site.☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 14:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've informed the team who works on Dumps, and they'll remove/update that link soon. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The link has been removed with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/1182203. As part of that it has been noticed that the other 3 links on that page are also broken. I created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T402976 for that. Mutante (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)