Misplaced Pages

:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:External links Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:48, 28 February 2011 view sourceSbmeirow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers117,052 edits →PocketBook Reader external links: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:35, 12 January 2025 view source Widr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators303,531 editsm Protected "Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard": Persistent sockpuppetry ( (expires 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)) (expires 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC))) 
Line 1: Line 1:
] ]
] ]
] ]
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}}
{{/Header}} {{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 7 |counter = 23
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(6d)
|minthreadsleft=8
|archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->
}}


== Bot? Sock? Farm? ==
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->


As I've said over at ]...
== A link in Computer_simulation article ==


I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.
May I post this link in the Examples section of this article ]? Why yes? - It is a good practical example of modern application of computer simulation with nice 3D pictures, IMHO. Many of the examples in the article are kind of "dry". Why not? - Well, it promotes our website. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:, for context. --] (]) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:: It looks like there are no further objections. So I post the link, right? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Inserting the link at the top of the list of examples, and adding a second link to the company home page, makes people worry that this is a promotional link. On the talk page of the article (]), please add a new section with a brief explanation of what benefit the link provides to the article (i.e. in what way does it aid to an understanding of ''computer simulation''?). The long list of external links at that article is a reason to look for links to remove, rather than an invitation to add more. ] (]) 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::"Inserting the link at the top of the list of examples, and adding a second link to the company home page, makes people worry that this is a promotional link." - I added the link on the company's home page, because the same is done in the first link (which points on a very specific scientific article which is, on my opinion, not very interesting to a general reader, which is the reason why I put my link before it). But of course, you are right, it also promotes the website. Ok, I'll continue the discussion here: ]. Thank you for your comments. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{outdent}} Briefly reinstated, with the contributor's comment: "...People who do not know what a computer simulation is probably would not hire us...". That's still ], even though it might not be successful spam, and deleted again. Further views welcome, or should I go to ]?--] (]) 08:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
: Kill it and 90% of the other external links in that same article. '''Yoenit''' (]) 09:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for that ] action! --] (]) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{tl|cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.
== List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes ==


It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. ] (]) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to tell users that listing 1-3 external links for each video is a violation of ], but they refuse to agree. Can others weigh in? I was told to come here before I file an ] case. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">]</span> 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
: The links are clearly a violation, see ] point 2 and ]. External links should always be excluded unless a consensus exist they should be kept (]). I don't believe those 5-6 new IP editors turned up at that RFC purely by accident, so there is either canvassing or sockpuppetry going on (]). '''Yoenit''' (]) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::I agree, so how do we "force" the removal of links, if the consensus here is that. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">]</span> 18:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
:::If it's all IPs, you might be able to get a sympathetic admin to temporarily semi-protect the page to prevent edit warring by IPs.
:::Long term, though, I think you need to find a compromise. I've suggested one at the RFC. ] (]) 19:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC) :I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @], ], ], any thoughts on how to detect this? ] (]) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::The talk page RfC isn't going anywhere, except a lot of keepers with no or very few other edits. There are a few users that wouldn't be affected by semi-protect, and one in particular who flat out refuses to do mediation. The best option would be pending changes. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">]</span> 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: is listed on the page, which lists a link to every video, therefore a link to everyone specifically is very unnecessary. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">]</span> 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


*{{spamlink|poolremovalorlando.com}}
== Web of Stories ==
*{{spamlink|fittingdeals.com}}
*{{spamlink|agencja-celna.co.uk}}


Found one more account.
{{user links|Fitzrovia calling}} has been adding links to http://www.webofstories.com/ to numerous articles, or requesting on talk pages that such links be added to articles. It looks spammy to, but asking here for other views. Thanks.&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
*{{UserSummary|Dutsono}}


The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.
:Bueller, anyone?!&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


See also ]. ] 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Clear ] anyway, which when it comes to linking the more civil way of describing spamming/linkfarming. I would remove any links added directly to the article by that editor and give the standard warning, which I will in fact try to do now if it hasn't been done (stupid new editing toolbar is driving me nuts, though, as I have the toolbar turned off in my prefs and it insists on being there and the javascript or whatever is slowing my editing windows to a crawl). ] (]) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw by {{user links|Drutohishab}} which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? ] (]) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::Hi, we have reviewed the Spam and WP:COI pages and would like to make clear a few points:


*{{spamlink|xoompay.com}}
::The videos are not promoting a site or a product they are the life story of a person as told by that person and the links are being added to the wikipedia page of that person as they provide further information about that person.
*{{UserSummary|Eshohor}}
*{{UserSummary|Eidakihesa}}


They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. ] 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::Web of Stories has copyright for all videos on its site.


:Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- ]] 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::There is no banner plastered across the video giving a website address to go to.
:I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in ]'s header. –] (]]) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::@], @], @], it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? ] (]) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You can see ] activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- ]] 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been to use instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. <b>] ]</b> 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page ==
::There are no links on the page to a commercial site or to a spamming video.


I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?
::There is no text that leads the person to a commercial site.


] (]) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::If there are problems beyond these raised, or anything we can do to rectify this, please could you let us know as we didn't mean to intentionally Spam WP.


:@] Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention ], so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, ] likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog ''as a source''. ] (]) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Many thanks, ] (]) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university ] (]) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at ].
:::This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of ]?"
:::] is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a ] for Korea in the article?" ] (]) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== Elton John videography ==
:::If you are connected with the WOS website you clearly have a conflict of interest. Also, you refer to yourselves as "we" - is your Misplaced Pages account being used by more than one person? If so, that is a clear ].&nbsp;–&nbsp;] (]) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in ]. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per ]. -- ] (]) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Hello Fitzrovia,
::::If you are connected to the website, you'll want to read ]. Let me encourage you to suggest the links on appropriate talk pages, but not add any to articles. When you're deeply involved in a website, it's hard to be objective about whether it's a good choice.
::::Also, please remember that video links in general are gently discouraged. They require far more bandwidth and computing power than many of our readers have. So people usually insist that video links be really amazing, even irreplaceable, rather than just okay. ] (]) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


:@], there is no ==External links== section in that article. ] (]) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the concept of linking to videos of interesting people speaking. However, someone unaffiliated with the site should make the determination, otherwise it is spam. Spam doesn't have to be Viagra or direct selling of things, it can also be mass adding links to the same location.
::They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against ] unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. ] ] 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- ] (]) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They're not banned per ], but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. ] (]) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Computational chemistry ==
In general with External links, it's too easy to start filling up on links to printed interviews, podcasts and videos that end up being superficial in the long run. Most of them are just fluff. We are not a web directory, so have no real need to add lots of links.


@] and I are having a discussion ] on whether the external links on ], specifically under the section ] and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under ]. We would love to have more input. ] (]) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't dived into the site too much, but I honestly do like the concept of it and would not be surprised if editors decided links to it were appropriate for certain articles. A lot of the articles in question are lacking strong links. ] (]) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


:As a comment, I am cross-posting to both ] and ] since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. ] (]) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
== Educational YouTube Link ==
::@], while this could be argued as a type of ], it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at ] might have some advice for you about how to go about that. ] (]) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were ]. I do think that a problem with the ], like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. ] (]) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. ] (]) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate ]. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, ]). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. ] (]) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
::::::In the particular instance, ] says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. ] (]) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:From my understanding of ] and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. '']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>'' 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== 2024 United States drone sightings ==
Hello all,


]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. – ] 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
Thought I would copy/paste conversation I have had thus far for the sake of time below.

Main question and/or issue: since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise.

Link in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FvLBY3nmJ0

Article I would like to include external link on: http://en.wikipedia.org/Rainbow

Why? Because the article currently does not include or provide video of a perfect,complete, or unedited rainbow - that is not broken, or photoshopped. This video is unaltered and should be considered educational for someone who has not ever witnessed a complete natural rainbow in their lifetime. Thanks all for your help with this - I am finding this process (the contribution process) itself very educational!

CONVERSATION THUS FAR:

YouTube LinksThanks for the feedback Old Moonraker; I was wondering if you can help me understand the YouTube restrictions. I created the YouTube video myself, and own the copyright. Do I have to indicate that somewhere on YouTube or Misplaced Pages or the link itself? Thanks again for your help with this, my first contribution.Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't own the copyright, but I am the creator of the video and I am allowing free use of the video - I believe I uploaded the video as well to the WikiCommons site. Is there an alternative option I have to include in the rainbow article? Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading media files is way outside my comfort zone, but as far as I know if you have an account on English Misplaced Pages, this is valid on Wikimedia Commons—the WP equivalent of YouTube—as well. Here's the start page. Upload the video and attach one of the free licenses from the drop-down menu. Any video accepted on Commons is automatically acceptable on all other Wikipedias. I haven't done a video, but here's a diagram I made that uses the same licence. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
So I guess my question is, since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise. Thanks again - Painfullybrilliant (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Call at WP:ELN to put yourself in touch with specialists on external links.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

] (]) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:Nice video. You should upload this at the . First you may want to read and follow '']'' so that your login and password are the same as here. Uploading there is preferable to linking to YouTube. The video can be downloaded by others and shared in that way where YouTube embeds the videos and prevents users from truly sharing.
:What do you mean you don't own the copyright, btw?<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 23:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

{{resolved}}...at ].<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

== bishop-accountability.org ==

This website hosts copies of news articles concerning child molestation accusations of clergymen, mostly Catholic. It has over two hundred links from Misplaced Pages pages. Here's a typical page: . The articles appear to be copyright violations - there is no notice of permission. The bottom of many pages has this notice: "Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution." However it's the non-original material that's the concern. In the past, we've removed links to sites like this. None of the citations would need to be removed - just the hyperlinks. Any thoughts? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:I've been slowly working through the links to rickross.com on the same grounds and from similar articles - where the material is a clear copyright violation, we can't link to it per ]. As you mentioned, there is no hassle with leaving the reference - the problem is only with the link. In the case of rickross.com, I've also been finding that the titles don't always match the titles of the original article, so it is sometimes worth checking this when removing the link: in many cases I've found that the articles are still online by the copyright holder, but it is tricky to find it because of the different titles. (In the example you gave above, the original article is still online , so there is no call to link to any other site even as a convenience). From memory bishop-accountability wasn't a necessarily a problem on this score, though. - ] (]) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

: I would be selective. ] explicitly mentions the two corner cases internet archives and clearly illegal file sharing sites. Bishopaccountability.org does not fit the illegal category very well in my opinion - until we become aware of someone actually complaining. A quick search did not turn up anything and they have been around some time so anyone had time enough to sue. Clearly it would be better to link to google news or one of the well known archive sites. ] (]) 13:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::Internet Archive maintains nearly identical copies of the sites, but the issues are murky. I'm not sure how this site is different from illegal file sharing sites. It is sharing copyrighted material. I'm not aware of any requirement for a website to have been sued in order for it to be violating copyright for the purposes of this policy. So long as the rest of the citation is complete, readers can track down copies of the articles without the link. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:Copies of newspaper articles like this are almost certainly copyright violations (>99%). We should not link to such things. It might be worth pursuing ]ing for <code>www.bishop-accountability.org/news/*</code>, since they seem to have grouped most of their copyright violations in a single directory.
:Links to the original are good, but not technically necessary. I've had some luck in the past with searching for a sentence out of the early part of a news story if the headline was changed. ] (]) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

::Also, the SNAP website seems to do the same thing, although as they are better organized, it's (barely) possible that they have actually arranged for proper licenses. I've left a note at ] to see if we can get a few more hands involved in cleaning this up. ] (]) 19:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== ] external links ==

1. There is a dispute on the given page about whether should be there as an external link. Ronz is telling that its off-topic, promotional or smth. Terribly sad to see vandalism and unfair practice on the part of a distinguished editor since similar library links exist for ], ], etc. There are quite a few reasons in favor of this link. 903 and 603 models are locked on this library site and people should be aware of it. The site cannot be off-topic since the subject may not operate without ebook site. If there should be a word about Bookland inside the article, it can be done.

2. There were a couple of additional external (official) sites also deleted by Ronz, however the subject models are not available at one single site but are mentioned in the article. There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed. PocketBook company has a dozen of official sites but only three were listed to cover all the models mentioned. This point #2 is less important, however, than #1 and I'm open to arguments con. --] (]) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for starting a discussion on this.
:In the article body there are very prominent and rather questionable external links to a site for each model.
:Other discussion on the external links section is located ].
:Generally, I'd like to see the problems with the article addressed first.
:Regarding item #1 above: It's a link to a library of books.
:Regarding item #2 above: As the article is, it is unclear how ] should be applied. The one remaining link is a corporate directory. --] (]) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:: You are avoiding all arguments here and there. If you prefer to talk about general problems you need to list specifically the problems. E.g., you inserted advert tag in the article but neither stated what looks like advert nor the neutrality issues mentioned in the tag. Please use short citations from wiki rules. E.g. "prices (which you deleted) should not be given in Misplaced Pages". Please address every point I'm saying.--] (]) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::bookland.net is inappropriate per ] #1, #4, #5, and #13. --] (]) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:::: -----

:::: Thanks you for inviting me over to discuss ] article. Though I have made almost 10K edits since I started Misplaced Pages 8 months ago, by no means does it mean that I'm an expert. The biggest problem with editing articles to trying to remember rules and trying to find edit guidelines for specific types of articles. One problem is the interpretation of rules and guidelines, some seem to be hard facts yet others seem to be suggestions. As a person edits more, they learn more, and what I thought was correct a few months ago is not what I know today.

:::: The state of this article didn't have a perfect layout before I started editing it, and the technical aspects close to 100% accurate. This is what it looked like before I first touched it.
:::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PocketBook_eReader&action=historysubmit&diff=398108069&oldid=397817252

:::: The reason I started editing this article was that I was shopping for an eBook Reader, came across PocketBook products, and went to the article to learn more. As I started reading the corporate web site and looking back at the Wiki article, I noticed a lot of mistakes, thus I started correcting them. I did get out of hand adding all their models to the article, but it nothing more than expanding the format that existed prior to my edits. Is it the right way or wrong way, I have no idea, because I don't have a guideline for these types of articles, but for USA CITY articles I read this ].

:::: My view is that what is useful for visitors is far more important than wikipedia rules. Misplaced Pages rules can and do change, but MOST visitors come here to find accurate and useful information and links, and likely don't give a crap about editing rules.

:::: Concerning the link to , since it is "promoted" by the PocketBook company, then it is a related link, see lower-right side of http://www.pocketbook-usa.com/products/pocketbook-902/
:::: Is this link 100% required for this article, likely no, but it does has more right to be in this article than all other 3rd-party book sellers. Whether or not you decide to leave the link doesn't matter to me.
:::: Concerning links to the product manuals are another issue. I think links to online user manuals are extremely important for wikipedia articles, because they provide users an easy way to learn far more accurate information than can be added to the article. I would argue that all product-based articles on Misplaced Pages MUST provide links to online user manuals (if they exist).

:::: Concerning all the product information, yes I did get out of control adding information, but it is nothing more than an expansion of the same format that existed prior to my 1st edit. If you look at the hundreds of cell phone articles on wikipedia, most of this information is refined down to INFOBOXES, the problem with this article that there are a bunch of products, and the one infobox per product wouldn't work. Maybe we should add a high-level non-product-specific infobox on this article and then summarize the products in a table? (discuss it) • ] • ] • 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brainsteinko, I'm confused by something in your first comment. You wrote, "There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed." ''What'' rule? As far as I know, Misplaced Pages has no such rule. It has one that says almost (but not quite) the opposite at ]. ] (]) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
: Sorry about the confusion. The information was solely taken from and relied on from ] : user Jinnai: "the external links should all the in an External link section also".

:To Ronz attn: Thanks for the links you sent to me. Good point there, that consensus is not about winning. Very unfortunate and unproductive discussion so far... There've been a number of improvements made to the article. The issue is: the tag. We may discuss it here or anywhere else. ''Please'' answer the question, what should be done else, so we can remove it. Anyone else is welcomed to participate in the discussion--] (]) 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

::Ah, I suspect that Jinnai meant that whatever external links were going to be in the article ought to be in corralled under the ==External links== section heading (or in an ]), not that these links were required to exist.
::It looks like the big {{tl|Multiple issues}} tag at the top of the article does not complain about external links. It would be better to take those issues back to the article's talk page. ] (]) 07:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Though Bookland is a little bit related, it isn't critical to the article. Let's just axe http://www.bookland.net and move on. This issue is tiny compared to how much more work should be done to it to make it more like the ] article or some other quality eReader article. • ] • ] • 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

== Musical theatre ==

We've been slowly cleaning up the long list of external links to this article, but they all seem to fail WP:EL per ] #1 and #13 criteria. Mostly, the links tend to be too specific for the topic.

This is the flagship article for ], so I'm also hoping that we can create a better understanding of what constitutes an appropriate External links section, as there are similar problems in the related articles that the project reviews.

Discussion ]. The external links are listed individually for comment ] --] (]) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:I left a response there.--] <small>]</small> 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== John Tyndall - external link - question ==

Dear Editors of Misplaced Pages,

I'm writing on behalf of the ''Tyndall Correspondence Project'' that is run by York Univ. Toronto.

On February 3rd, 2011, my friend "Orlyln" tried to add the link to our project, but it was removed.

In the article-history page the removal is explained by already having this link in the external link: http://transcribingtyndall.wordpress.com.

I wanted to ask you to reconsider this decision for the following reasons:

1. This project is an important academic initiative whose main goal is to publish Tyndall's correspondences
in print and online as well. Through this perspective, the project's contribution to the continuity of Tyndall's work
is crucial.

2. Another goal of the project is to create a community of scholars around themes raised through an intense study of John Tyndall, such as the relationship between science and religion, the popularization and professionalization of science, and advances in physics, glaciology, climatology, and spontaneous generation.

3. The project is a collaboration of several universities (Montana State University, Aberystwyth University, Arizona State, University of Auckland (NZ), Brock University, University of Cambridge, University of Exeter, Harvard University, University of Leeds, University of Leicester, New York University, University of Oklahoma). Our work based mostly on Wiki technology and in that sense we share with Misplaced Pages
the same idea of a communal project that is developed by the contributions of groups of institutions and individuals.
Our use of new technology in the Humanities scholarship is a unique and ground breaking initiative that can serve as a model for future initiatives.

4. The fact that in the external link to Michael D. Barton's blog there is a link to Tyndall Project, is not a sufficient reason
to remove a direct link to our long on going academic project from Misplaced Pages. If you would read the page "About Michael D. Barton" (http://transcribingtyndall.wordpress.com/about/), you would immediately see that this student is not a recognized historian. There is no doubt that people who reach John Tyndall's presentation in Misplaced Pages would be deprived of important information regarding the project and at the same time would be presented with a link that is not supposed to represent our project. Moreover, since Mr. Barton's link leads to a blog, the chances are that people who are looking for more academic material or activity regarding Tyndall, will not use this link in the first place, and hence not know that a link to the Correspondence Project exists there too.

Therefore, I would - on behalf on the ''Tyndall Correspondence Project'' - appreciate your reconsideration regarding an external link to our project (and this is the link: http://www.yorku.ca/tyndall/).

Thank you very much in advance,

Sincerely,

Noa Yaari (MA student at York Univ. working in the project).
noayaari@yorku.ca <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Noa, thanks for posting here. The that your website was compared to appears to be a blog and does not belong in the article per ], unless the blog is a recognized authority on Tyndall. With your project and the website, I am not sure what the link offers readers of the Misplaced Pages article other than a bio and information about your project. The letters are still being transcribed and until they are posted, I don't see much of a reason to have the site linked within the article. Nothing against your project, just the information currently on the site.--] <small>]</small> 08:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:: I agree with NortyNort. The information currently at the York U site is too scant to justify linking to. ] (]) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

==Youtube (not sure where to post this O_O)==
Once again youtube is being brought up. I would like a consensus because i cant find i rule on this. Is youtube to be added to external or infobox for music related articles music videos?
*] consensus wanted the template kept, but videos added to external links.
*] Youtube seems to fall under this category.
*] Actually has its own external links template.

What should we do? Discussion is brought up from ]. - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#273BE2">]</font> - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#CCCCFF">]</font> - 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
: The relevant line in ] is ] point 2: "''An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.''" However, the link in question does not work in my country (]) I am pretty sure it only works in the USA and Canada, which means it should be excluded based on ] criteria 7. '''Yoenit''' (]) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you! - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#273BE2">]</font> - <font face="Malgun Gothic" color="#CCCCFF">]</font> - 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
*In bold, at the top of links normally to be avoided, it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." It seems to me that the only argument here is about whether an official music video posted by it's official author on their official channel can be considered official.--] ] 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

== Paraphilic infantilism ==

At ] I two links on the basis of ] points 2, 4, 10, 11. The two links were to a personal website about (so ELNO 2, 4 and 11) and an (ELNO 10). In the talk page archives there is a discussion involving three editors which seemed to support my removal (]). Currently the edits are being discussed on the talk page (]), but since there are only 2 editors I thought I'd bring it up here for further input. I also removed some books from the further reading section and that edit is also being discussed in the same talk page section, obviously that material is not relevant to this page. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:35, 12 January 2025

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcuts
    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 WPSPAM
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter

    Bot? Sock? Farm?

    As I've said over at SPI...

    I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.

    The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.

    It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
    I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @Beetstra, MER-C, LaundryPizza03, any thoughts on how to detect this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Found one more account.

    The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.

    See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali. MER-C 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw this by Drutohishab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. MER-C 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- GreenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in WP:AN's header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    @GreenC, @LaundryPizza03, @MER-C, it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    You can see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- GreenC 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been actively updating it in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been encouraged to use this list instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. OhNoitsJamie 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page

    I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?

    Global Cyber University Fanmadehenecia (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Fanmadehenecia Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention Hwang Hyun-jin, so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, WP:BLPSPS likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university Fanmadehenecia (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Fanmadehenecia, you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
    This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of Hwang Hyun-jin?"
    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a goodwill ambassador for Korea in the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    Elton John videography

    I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in Elton John videography. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly, there is no ==External links== section in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against WP:EL unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're not banned per Misplaced Pages:External links#Links in lists, but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Computational chemistry

    @Ldm1954 and I are having a discussion here on whether the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. We would love to have more input. Dajasj (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    As a comment, I am cross-posting to both WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ldm1954, while this could be argued as a type of Misplaced Pages:Further reading, it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals might have some advice for you about how to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were WP:RS. I do think that a problem with the External Links Remover, like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate WP:EL. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, WP:BRD). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
    In the particular instance, WP:ELBURDEN says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    From my understanding of WP:EL and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. Choucas Bleucontribs 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    2024 United States drone sightings

     You are invited to join the discussion at 2024 United States drone sightings § AARO external link. – Anne drew 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: