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 11:07, 27 May 2015 view sourceDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,283 edits →Link removal without the possibility of improving the contribution← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:35, 12 January 2025 view source Widr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators303,536 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:
] ]
] ]
]{{Archive box collapsible|auto=yes}}{{/Header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config ]
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}}
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 16 |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 --> }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->


== Bot? Sock? Farm? ==
== Linking to YouTube where the subject film is for rent/purchase ==


As I've said over at ]...
* {{la|Star Trek (film)}}
* {{YouTube|FTzIaSQwxCU|''Star Trek''}}


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'.
An external link was recently added to YouTube, claiming to link to the full film. This seemed an immediate red flag for copyright issues. However, the YouTube page in question is from a verified source, the film's studio. The content is a two-minute trailer with a link to buy the full film.


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.
Is this an appropriate link for an article, or is this too much of a promotional link to an item for sale? —''']''' (]) 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


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 still would argue that such links do not add anything beyond what is already told in the prose ''about'' the movie (when you want to know ''about'' the movie, you go to Misplaced Pages, if you want to see the movie you Google it and see whether it is available on YouTube, Netflix, or whatever. I also think that this fails WP:ELNO on the point that we should avoid linking to pages where one has to pay to see the content, and that this would be available on many 'rent movie'-sites (Netflix?) so this would end up to be a choice to where to link and to who to promote so they make money of it. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:19, 21 April 2015 (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.)
== omniglot.com ==
: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)


*{{spamlink|poolremovalorlando.com}}
There is a discussion to blacklist omniglot.com at ]. Please read and join if you can help resolve it. ] (]) 20:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
*{{spamlink|fittingdeals.com}}
*{{spamlink|agencja-celna.co.uk}}


Found one more account.
== Links in Webby award lists ==
*{{UserSummary|Dutsono}}


The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.
In our lists of Webby awards (see ] for the overall article which includes links to the individuals), I notice some of the lists linking the website. I and received responses on my ] as well as them being removed from the specific article .


See also ]. ] 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd hope we can quickly agree that it is inappropriate to link to the current websites of the award winners.


: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)
I can see some editors might find it acceptable to link archived copies of the award winners websites.


*{{spamlink|xoompay.com}}
I'm unaware of any discussion on this, but haven't looked extensively. --] (]) 17:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
*{{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)
*I think that this is an unusual situation in that the article is about an award ceremony where the award winners are websites, so it is directly helpful to readers to link to the award-winning website instead of just the wikipedia article on the parent company. For example if the 2005 award winner was www.cocacola.com then readers would gain a lot more from being linked to the website than being wikilinked to the article on the Coca Cola Company. But I really can't think of a good reason why the ''current'' website should be linked. While it is helpful to link readers to the websites honored in the ceremony, the relevant aspects of these websites only exist until the websites are updated (which happens rather frequently). www.cocacola.com looked much different than it does . So I think the thing to do is to remove the links to the ''current'' websites and retain only the links to the ''historical'' websites (via Internet Archive). This should benefit the reader with almost zero concern for commercial influence (since historical products are usually no longer for sale). I've worked a bit on these articles in the past so if this seems like a good idea then I'd be happy to implement the consensus on the relevant pages. Anyone care to weigh in? -] (]) 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
**Hmm... Well it's difficult to find a consensus when nobody is interested in discussing the matter. What say you, {{u|Ronz}}? It's been a week now and according to the page stats there are 318 people watching this page who haven't objected to my suggestion. Should we take this as ]? Just to reiterate, I'd like to remove the links to the current versions of the websites and only leaving the links to the historical versions (i.e. from the Internet Archive) of the websites. I'd be glad to take care of it myself if that sounds like a good idea. Shall I go for it? -] (]) 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
**:Disappointing that there's been no response.
**:Can you think of parallels in other articles? When a movie wins an award, it doesn't justify a link to view the movie. The more I think about it, the more I'm against it. --] (]) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
**::The closest thing I can recall is ] where consensus was found to link emulated versions of old abandonware video games to their respective articles. I think the main concern with linking to copies of films related to film awards is that such links would in most cases violate ]. In other words if it was a film award for non-COPYVIO-implicating public domain films then I ''do'' think it would be helpful to readers to link to a reliably-hosted (e.g. at Archive.org) copy of the film. I have a hard time seeing the downside actually. Is the concern mainly that Misplaced Pages might be used for commercial promotion if we link to the historical versions of the relevant websites? -] (]) 00:53, 11 May 2015 (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. -- ]] 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Well it seems that there is general consensus (even if largely ]) to do away with ''at least'' the current (non-historical) exlinks, right? Given my 2005-era examples above, I just made {{Diff2|661880687|this example edit}} at the "2005 Webby Awards" article. I'll refrain from doing any further edits to these pages until consensus is reached, but hopefully that's a helpful illustration for those who would consider my earlier comments re: the usefulness of providing readers with historical links to stable and accurate copies of the actual website designs that were honored at the ceremony. -] (]) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (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 ]'s header. –] (]]) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely do away with the current links. --] (]) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (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)
::OK that sounds good. I'll get to work on it. -] (]) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (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 ==
== culture.pl ==


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?
{{IPuser|87.206.148.160}} has been adding ELs to culture.pl to relevant articles. I reverted the link added to ] and ] as not adding anything to the article. The links seem on-topic, in the case of stubs they seem to be adding information, in the case of longer articles they strike me as linkspam, but other than the two Nobel Prize articles, I cannot really judge. ] (]) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah it is not a spam link. Check article. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
::Seems like spam to me... I didn't check each of IP's ~40 edits, but they all appear to be in External Links or adding the EL section. And, the ones I spot checked all were pointing to the same culture.pl site. ] (]) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
:::It's definitely an ip spamming links. --] (]) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


] (]) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*{{LinkSummary|culture.pl}}
*{{ipuser|217.153.112.162}}
*{{user|Grachagracha}}
*{{user|Ewa Bender}}
:While it may at times be appropriate as an external link or a source, it's been spammed a great deal to articles that aren't being reviewed closely. Lots of review and cleanup are needed. --] (]) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


:@] 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)
== Internet Movie Database ==
::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)
{{Archive top|result=IMDb is generally okay if the subject of the article and the subject of the IMDb page are the same (e.g. film articles using the imdb link for that specific film). See also: ] {{nac}} &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px">&nbsp;]&#124;]&nbsp;</span>&nbsp; 22:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)|status=withdrawn}}
:::@], you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at ].
Is ] an ok external link? It appears to fail 1, 2 and 12 ] ] (]) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
:::This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of ]?"
:It doesn't fail #1 and #12. It's actually a very unique resource in that it pools information that usually is not contained within a single resource i.e. links to news stories and professional reviews, release dates and age ratings for different countries, soundtrack listings, awards, a synopsis and parents guide, alternate versions, technical specs, filming dates and locations etc. I can't think of a single resource that offers all of that, which makes it unique in my book. Even though it is built via user contributions it is not "open" i.e. contributions have to be accepted. It arguably fails criterion #2 which is why we don't accept it as a reliable source per ], but generally the information is useful if not entirely accurate and provides a good starting point for any potential research or extra corroboration of a source. It often appears as an external link on film articles, but given the questionable editorial oversight it is probably not a good idea to stick it on articles about living people. ] (]) 18:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
::] says, "Generally yes, if the subject of the entire page is exactly the same as the subject of the IMDb page that you're linking." --] (]) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC) :::] 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)
:::] and ] your feedback and advice is appreciated, thanks ] (]) 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== Elton John videography ==
== Link removal without the possibility of improving the contribution ==


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)
Dear Sir or Madam,


:@], there is no ==External links== section in that article. ] (]) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
My intention is to add a web link to certain Misplaced Pages fungus pages redirecting readers to an external webpage describing clinical cases of fungal infections. The website in question is www.fungiquest.net, where the user can look through a database to find clinically valuable information. Unfortunately I added the web link redirecting Misplaced Pages reader to the main page, whereas it should have been adapted so the reader will immediately reach the webpage showing only the cases of a certain subgroup of the respective fungus. Ohnoitsjamie removed the links. I discussed this topic with Ohnoitsjamie and proposed to change them to deep-linking directly to the respective fungus cases. He insisted it is link canvassing and that I try to spam these links thus, without valuable information. FungiQuest is a tool for clinicians directly linked to FungiScope, an international study on rare invasive fungal infection internationally recognized and appreciated in expert audience. This work is endorsed by all leading scientific societies in the field of medical mycology including ISHAM (International Society of Human and Animal Mycology), ESCMID (European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Disease) and ECMM (European Conference on Medical Mycology). Thus, to me it is incomprehensible that such valuable information for clinical doctors to improve patient care might be considered spam. There are other external links accepted like Pubmed subpages (biggest journal database). Trough FungiQuest you are able to access the biggest Database of invasive fungal infections cases, not available through Pubmed.
::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 ==
This links are not an advertisement and just should offer more information to readers. I do not try to promote a website or a product, just a direct access of clinical case data related to the fungus. I work in Infectious Diseases and since a while with rare invasive fungus. I did contribute with the Geotrichum page and I was surprised nobody checks it before it got public. Nonetheless, my intention to offer direct available clinical cases is considered spam? Decisions like this do not encourage further contribution to Misplaced Pages or the correction of erroneous information published on these invasive fungal infections. For most clinicians Misplaced Pages is the first source of information when facing such rare disease in their patient. I would herewith like to demonstrate the need and importance of including the link to Misplaced Pages.


@] 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)
Thank you for your consideration.


: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)
*
::@], 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)
] (]) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (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've explained to this user multiple times to the user that we do not allow ] with a ] (in this case, affiliation with a university project) to canvass links, regardless of the quality of the links. Besides, links of high-quality/high relevance are inevitably added by numerous other high-volume editors that don't have single purpose agendas. In addition to ], this is a case of ]. <b>] ]</b> 13:33, 22 May 2015 (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)
::LuisaDG, please follow our conflict of interest policy by making a case on the article talk pages, rather than adding the link yourself. --] (]) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (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)
:::Yes not appropriate per ] ] (] · ] · ]) 11:07, 27 May 2015 (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 ==

]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. – ] 02:33, 28 December 2024 (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: