Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Links at Dude

Is {{tl|Canada NTS Map Sheet}} ok to use in article text? I normally see it used in infoboxes instead of in text, but sometimes an NTS map is mentioned in the body of an article (e.g. Nahta Cone). Volcanoguy 21:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Volcanoguy, I'd suggest moving that link to the infobox or the ==External links== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question. The link is provided by the {{tl|Canada NTS Map Sheet}} template when an appropriate map sheet number is provided in the template. I looked at WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO, but I couldn't figure out if such things should be linked in the body of an article. Individual map sheets are unlikely to have their own WP articles and the map sheet numbers aren't very useful in the article body unless they're linked. Volcanoguy 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Second sentence of the guideline, we normally don’t link from the body of the text. There is no need to link to 104G7, the sentence needs a reference to the decision. The link is and can stay in the infobox, where it belongs. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::That's what I meant. I would not put the link in this sentence:

::::* The name of the cone was adopted on January 2, 1980, on the National Topographic System map [https://maps.canada.ca/czs/index-en.html?bbox=-131,57.25,-130.5,57.5&name=NTS_map_sheet_104G7 104G7] after being submitted to the BC Geographical Names office by the Geological Survey of Canada.

::::I would put the link in the infobox. I would consider putting the link in ==External links== (if you thought it had something interesting for a reader). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::And as ref, maybe https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/9012.html or (if findable) the original sources mentioned there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|newmusesproject.com}}

{{userlinks|Yearlongbread}} has been systematically adding links to the New Muses Project - https://newmusesproject.com/. While this is bordering on spamlinking, I looked into it a bit more closely. The New Muses Project appears to have just enough independent coverage to support its own article, if someone were to write it. It seems to be associated with Yale. The links to individual composers, which is what Yearlongbread has been adding, provide lists of reference materials and Youtube links for a sample of their music, as well as brief bios.

What do other people think? If this is a useful resource, I don't want to just rip them all out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I clicked on 4 or 5 addition diffs, and 3 of them were complete lnkfarms already. Not really a decision on the links, but this is spamming and not in line with WP:EL, do these really add so much more? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Plus, sometimes the links are added on top, above subject official website. I say remove all, discuss individual re-insertions by others. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi all, Thanks for opening a topic to discuss this matter. I've been adding links to the Wiki pages of several composer profiles, since the information included on the composers' New Muses Project profiles is the original work of a team of musicology graduate students and young professionals in the music world and often compliments (rather than reproduces) the information included on the Wiki pages. My goal is not to spam Wikipedia but rather to add an additional, original, and tailored resource for those who are looking to explore the composers in question further. I am happy to add new links / move the ones I've already uploaded to the bottom of the External Links sections, as @Beetstra recommends. Otherwise, I could also add these profiles under the References section or anywhere else that may be appropriate. Again, my goal is not to promote New Muses Project but rather to ensure relevant information is available and accessible, particularly since the composers featured New Muses Project are all members of historically underrepresented communities (gender, race, location, etc.). Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks so much! Yearlongbread (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::I looked at https://newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott and I think it's an appropriate link for Hazel Scott. On the basis of this single spot check, I wouldn't bother with a mass blanking. I might recommend a different description, however. It says "[https://newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott Hazel Scott (New Muses Project)]" and I think that something like "[https://newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott Hazel Scott] – videos and recordings at the New Muses Project" would work better. Or even "Yale's New Muses Project", if that's technically accurate.

::Yearlongbread, the point isn't really to put yours at "the bottom" (though that's fine), but to follow the convention that the WP:ELOFFICIAL link should be the first. There isn't a set order for the rest of them.

::I suggest only adding the best pages from NMP. The ones that happen to show off the NMP to its best advantage (presumably a desirable goal for the NMP) are also the ones that are best for Wikipedia's readers (highly desirable for us). In particular, if you have an excellent page and the existing links are lousy, then that's a good article to add the NMP link. And if, while you're doing that, you could please remove any WP:ELDEAD links, then that would be great.

::If you really want to add all of NMP's links, you should be adding them to Wikidata and asking for an entry in Template:Authority control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@WhatamIdoing/Yearlongbread The point I was trying to make is that on George Walker (composer) there now are 9 ELs, on Florence Price 12, and on Amy Beach there were already 15, on Marion Bauer already 11. This is just 'I want to add external links, regardless'. That is not what we do, we don't dump external links just because WP:EL is not specifically prohibiting them. There was an argument made that the added link was similar to other links, that is a specific reason in WP:EL to NOT add the link. We are careful in what we add. I still would consider to revert, and then maybe a considered re-addition in some places (or, indeed, better to Wikidata and get them in Authority control). Or see if you can expand articles and use the material as a reference (and not just put it as a reference), our article on Maria Anna de Raschenau is rather short and lacks an image, and I see material being used on this project that could be used to expand the article, the two arias/oratories on themusesproject are not even mentioned in our Wikipedia article. Or e.g. write Pedro Ximénez Abrill Tirado ... for this composer we do not have an article. And that is what WP:EL is suggesting to do, not finding excuses to just violate WP:NOT/WP:SPAM. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::And I think there is also information in newmusesproject.com/hazel_scott that is not in our article on Hazel Scott yet. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing / @SarekOfVulcan / @Beetstra Thank you all for your comments and thoughts. For now, with your approval, I am going to finish adding the best New Muses Project profiles (which I believe will be a couple dozen), prioritizing both the best NMP pages and composers who don't have extensive Wiki pages. While I am updating these links, I will also make sure to keep the composer's official website at the top of the External Links list and will also check for dead or inappropriate links to ensure that this section of the Wikipedia entry remains professional and organized. At some point (hopefully in the not too distant future), I will look into the "donate data to Wikidata" option and will also begin writing the Wiki pages for any composer who doesn't yet have a Wiki page (such as Abrill Tirado), although these jobs might have to wait until I have a bit more time in summer. Thanks again, and hope you all have a great rest of your week! Yearlongbread (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Yearlongbread Please wait with that until we a better consensus, I still believe that some of the links should be removed, or should be used better as references. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Do you have an example in mind of one that's better suited as a reliable source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I just gave onetwo above. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have just reverted these latest additions. I do not think we have consensus for these additions to external links sections, with suggestions being made for other uses of these links. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm concerned that if we add these as refs, then someone will claim WP:REFSPAM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So back to the original idea, wikidata/authority control. And just be sensible as to how and wher to use them as references. If one really starts to edit it should not be an issue, but if one tries to use any coatrack to hang their hat then yeah, maybe the reality is that this someone is more a refspammer than someone who genuinely wants to improve. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors. Over time, it seems a practice has developed where external links are used in tables on election polling pages instead of references (see for example Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election). Wherever I come across this, I try to convert it (especially the current ones). However, I’ve recently received criticism about it (see Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#External_links), mainly because it would make the pages even larger. I was curious about how you all feel about this. Dajasj (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Now those pages have 'mixed' referencing styles, and the way it is on Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election it gives extreme prominence to the external link over the results which is what the table is about. For me, what are now the external links to the polling entity should be wikilinks to the polling entity, and a column 'references' should be added. That is how generally tables are formatted, we are to avoid external linking in 'prose' (where I think tables are 'prose' here), and it makes a clean referencing style. If you want to group the references, you can even 'split' them into separate reference groups. And if it is only the size of the page, then I don't see any issue (we have way bigger pages). The information is in the polling results, and the size of the page is there not an argument. (Unrelated question, what is gained by being able to sort those columns, formatting in most of them is rather non-uniform?). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:They should be references, not external links. Yes the reference will contain that link, but right now these are tables that are primarily about external links when that isn't the point of them. They're not supposed to be a collection of external links, but referenced polling information. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Absolutely agreed. CR (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Why do people believe that 200 URLs will make 2,000 refs? It is because the article is expected to grow to 10x the size? Articles can easily have two thousand refs, but they can't have two thousand Wikipedia:Citation templates because of the Help:Template limits. You might need specialized (single-source) citation templates, or to manually format all the refs.

:You can get advice about that problem at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:Moved from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)?oldid=1279217212#External_links WP:VPP]

Template:Finance links is used for large-scale violations of WP:EXLINK, specifically WP:ELMIN and WP:ELNO#13. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't end each article about a company with a list of links for finance bros. Can we delete the template and make the guideline clearer that this is not desirable? It has been used 1778 times. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Stock tickers are relevant information for a business to help readers to look them up further. Masem (t) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, but this is an encyclopedia and we are not in the business of helping readers look them up further. We are not Google and we are not DMOZ or Curlie. Polygnotus (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::DMOZ closed, and Curlie's future is uncertain. I wouldn't recommended adding either of them to any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This example is from Ferrari#External links:

{{Finance links|name=Ferrari|symbol=RACE|sec_cik=RACE|google=NYSE:RACE|yahoo=RACE|bloomberg=RACE:US|reuters=RACE|nasdaq=RACE}}

Articles should not normally have a such a spray of external links. It might be worth asking for opinions at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:There is a noticeboard for everything! Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Your claim above about WP:ELNO#EL13 is misplaced. That item says:

::* Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

::A link to business data for a specific company is "directly related to the subject of the article" about that specific company. The links you give are deep links. That is, https://www.google.com/finance/quote/RACE:NYSE is a permissible deep link, and https://www.google.com/finance/ is an example of "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects" and not permitted for this article.

::WP:ELMIN only applies to official links. Google, Reuters, the US government, and Yahoo! are not owned or controlled by Ferrari, so they are not WP:ELOFFICIAL links for the article Ferrari. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@WhatamIdoing A link to a website about company X is directly related to company X. A link to a website about the stock price of company X's stocks is not directly related to company X. {{tq|WP:ELMIN only applies to official links.}} Nope, it says: {{tq|Minimize the number of links -- Normally, only one official link is included.}} If everyone else can wikilawyer then so can I. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm always willing to admire a good bout of wikilawyering, but I suggest choosing your audience a little better. I wrote ELOFFICIAL originally (in 2009), so you're going to have a lot of trouble convincing me that I don't know what I meant. That argument would work better on someone else.

::::The text says:

::::{{tqb|{{fake heading|1=Minimize the number of links|level=3}} Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.}}

::::It's difficult to read that and think that this is about minimizing the number of non-official links. We do actually want to limit the total number of external links, but we don't generally worry about it until the ==External links== section has 10+ entries (and with this formatting, the "Business links" might be considered one entry). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@WhatamIdoing Isn't wikilawyering fundamentally about reading what you want to read and ignoring everything else? This is my preferred interpretation of the holy texts, and therefore it must be true. Polygnotus (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm sure that it's true – at least, it's true that it's your preferred interpretation. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} Exactly! It is true because it is my preferred interpretation and it is my preferred interpretation because that is true. Anyway, if you wrote it, where does WP:EXLINK say that we shouldn't pretend to be DMOZ and add long lists of somewhat-related links to every article? Because it should say that. Right? Maybe you can make that clearer in the text? {{tq|we don't generally worry about it until the External links section has 10+ entries}} That is not true in my experience, and therefore not true. People often restrict the exlink section to 1 or 2. Certainly not ten. And a stock is not a company, so a page about a stock is offtopic on an article about a company. Counting 4 as 1 because they are on a single line is the kind of number magic that gets mathematicians banned from social gatherings. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The line in WP:EL most closely related to DMOZ is WP:ELMAYBE #3, which recommends "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links in articles are not acceptable." Once upon a time (including before my first edit to that guideline), that numbered point specified DMOZ as an example.

::::::::I would not be surprised to discover that some editors believe, e.g., that only official links are allowed. It's not true, and it's never been true, but since we teach the rules via telephone game, fake rules are par for the course. "We only need one official link for that company, so I'm removing these extra social media links" quickly turns into "We are only allowed to have one external link in all business articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::ELMAYBE #3 should indeed be removed. {{tq|Once upon a time (including before my first edit to that guideline), that numbered point specified DMOZ as an example.}} Yeah DMOZ used to be useful back before it got spammed to death. Usually social media links add nothing to a readers understanding of a company, because most companies social media feeds are an endless stream of drivel. There are exceptions tho! Polygnotus (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have not found DMOZ/Curlie links to be very useful (except that once upon a time, they were pretty good spam deterrents). However, web directories that are curated by a responsible person/organization are still valuable. It's better to have a webpage that links to, (e.g.,) all the official UN statements about the subject of the Wikipedia article or all the oral histories from former members of the subject of the Wikipedia article, than to have individual links added here and there by editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is considereed GUNREL, decribed as {{tq |There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.}}

It is occasionally used within the external links sections, primarily for localities within what they consider to be Palestine. Based on WP:EL, specifically WP:ELMAYBE, the permissibility of their removal by me has been challenged in good faith by @Smallangryplanet here, with no consensus except that autocorrection and I aren't friends. Another removal was reverted by @Huldra, but no discussion occured.

I'm slowly tagging/removing most uses of EI, and was wondering whether there is an informal consensus whether or not this source is appropriate for that use, or if both positions are in line with policy. FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Since EL:s aren't exactly sources, this would seem to be a case-by-case thing rather than away with them all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::That makes sense; there are generally links to the entire local reporting bei EI, for example {{diff2|1265742208|here}}. The primary issue I challenged was referring to "occupation authorities" for organisations acting within Israel, but that's just the most obvious example. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you were concerned about readers being surprised, then descriptions can be added, e.g., "a pro-Palestinian viewpoint" or "a pro-Israeli article". Sometimes a pair of links from opposing POVs can be more informative than one that is superficially neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that is so true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::A wikilink to The Electronic Intifada is a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's a good idea for the ones that are kept in the article, linking and clearly categorising them might help adress some of the less severe cases, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I’d say if we were judging on a case by case basis, there’d have to be a very good reason to include a GUNREL source in the ELs, and the onus for gaining consensus would surely be on the editor arguing for inclusion not the editor removing it. No? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{small|coming from rsn noticeboard}} agree. generally seems unwise for most (95+%) cases to include gunrel sourcing in external links. but don’t think we need a hard rule saying no always, in case there is some weird case where we do need to link it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think those weird cases might exist, but I agree with you that they are likely to be <5%. Or even <1%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::No.

::But if you made the comment about "a notorious GUNREL source that is not an WP:ELOFFICIAL source for that article", I'd almost agree, except that it's kind of a pointless rule, because WP:ELBURDEN says all disputed links get removed unless and until consensus exists to include them.

::It's a bit silly of us to talk about "the onus for gaining consensus" being on one editor, since determining what the consensus is everyone's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry I didn’t mean the onus is on the one specific editor, but that the default would be exclusion and anyone arguing for inclusion would need to seek consensus that this is exceptional. (Per WP:BURDEN etc.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::BURDEN applies to ordinary article content. WP:ELBURDEN is specific to external links, and it even stronger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, we include imdb and social media (as ELOFFICIAL) all the time, all EL:s has a bit of a "caveat" sort of built into it. My "question" in a specific case would probably be if it fits per WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm unsure whether EI generally or only situationally meet WP:ELNO Nr.2, but a "not included unless there is consensus in favour" seems to be a very reasonable postion that allows for the removal of most while preserving the few uses that add a lot of value to the reader. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It looks like the discussion above was that this should be decided on a case by case basis. The link [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iqrit&diff=prev&oldid=1282738364 here] is not disputed and can be allowed on the page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I see that User:FortunateSons now deletes EL-link in As-Sawiya referring to this discussion. I disagree with the removal of the article [https://electronicintifada.net/content/my-first-settler-attack/5566 My First Settler Attack]. The article adds a first-hand account of a settler attack, why should wp censor this? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think a somewhat reasonable argument could be made for this link at a (non-existent) article about this or such attacks, but a (as far as I can tell) non-notable person working for a minor activist organisation (indicated by the link being dead) writing about a non-notable attack in a generally unreliable source is IMO clearly undue for the town the attack occurred in, particularly considering it’s 20 years old, and such attacks are sadly pretty routine. If I missed some way in which this is of great significance, I’m happy to discuss it in detail? FortunateSons (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It is exactly because such attacks are "pretty routine" that a first-hand account is important, IMO. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Important in what way? Not to learn about the town, right? I don’t disagree that it’s generally important, but there has to be a better article and a better source than this. And no, first-hand-accounts aren’t great from an encyclopaedic perspective in such cases, a scholarly analysis would be significantly preferable, as this is not one of the cases where a primary source is the best one FortunateSons (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course it is to learn about the town, more specifically how it is to live there. I get it that you don't find that important, but let us hear from what others think. Comments, please? Huldra (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

:User:FortunateSons: could you please stop removing EI links until this discussion have ended? (like Iqrit, Kafr Bir'im) - Huldra (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::This discussion has been stale for almost two weeks prior to your engagement with it, but sure. For the record, those are only the two original removals that started this discussion; the editor who reverted those continued editing despite being pinged here and notified of the reverts, so I’m assuming that they are either fine with this or busy. FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::There are not that many who "watch" this page, and no mention was made about this discussion on the relevant wikiprojects (I have added a link on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration now, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oral histories (or equivalent) can be good ==External links==. However, I'm not sure that the small town were one happened is always the best choice. Perhaps it would fit better into an article like Israeli settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not sure that I agree. Eg.:If I wanted information on As-Sawiya, I would want any oral history linked from that article. We could course have a link to Israeli settler violence, for a "background", but there would be no way of knowing that there were info directly about As-Sawiya, by just looking at the link to Israeli settler violence, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it would depend on the specifics. If it's something like "Let me tell you about my hometown. I've lived here for 50 years, and A, B, and C have happened during that time", then I'd put it at the town article. But if it's "Let me tell you about Israeli settler violence. This event happened in As-Sawiya, but there's nothing special about As-Sawiya in this respect; the same kind of settler violence happens pretty much everywhere", then I wouldn't put it in the town article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well, I'm reminded of Tolstoy's famous words: "all happy families are similar, every unhappy family is unique". Likewise; every unhappy event (ie settler violence) is unique, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::If this information about violence came from a reliable source, then it should be included in the article with a reference.

:::::If the info isn't from a reliable source, then putting it instead as an EL seems like it's an attempt to bypass the rules we have about sources to push a POV.

:::::And looking at the article As Sawiya a number of news articles (Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz) have been included as EL. Those almost certainly don't belong there. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I agree; Maan News, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz: they should be included in the article (if they mention As Sawiya). Huldra (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::From WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

::::::You shouldn't use the ==External links== section for POV pushing, but the fact that it's not reliable is not a problem. For example, if a hobbyist puts up a personal website to show off their photos of their hometown, then that's okay to include (assuming editors form a consensus to do so, or at least that nobody objects), even though we wouldn't ordinarily consider that to be a reliable source.

::::::Looking at that article's ==External links== section, I currently see 13 links. There's Wikipedia:No firm rules, but more than half a dozen is unusual, and more than about 10 is usually too many. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::In that case, I think it's very clear that all 3 of these sources being used as external links on As Sawiya push POV:

:::::::* POICA - "Monitoring Israeli colonization activities"

:::::::* ISM - "...a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population"

:::::::* PalestineRemembered - "To emphasize that the CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are the DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people"

:::::::I think that the only two things in the list which don't clearly push POV are the documents from ARIJ and the survey map from 1880. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: I believe POICA is a EU-funded NGO, while ISM is non-EU funded NGO, while PalestineRemembered is a private web-site, but with interesting and relevant pictures, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's okay for external links to be biased (just like it's okay for reliable sources to be WP:RSBIASED).

::::::::I wonder why the article has so little information about settler violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Well, I have expanded that article with the Haaretz, Maan and Jerusalem Post info. And, without looking at the history, I suspect I was the one who added those WP:RS as EL. I sometimes do that, as it is soooo depressing expanding the article with the info. Same reason why I have written relatively little about the details on how the 1948-villages got "depopulated": just too depressing, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Off-topic, but this might help you as well: I sometimes just add them to the talk page as „might be relevant“ or similar, and they occasionally get written into the article by someone else. It’s not perfect, but probably a better place than EL. FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

User:FortunateSons is now using this discussion as a reason for removing the EI-link, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuldra&diff=1284810879&oldid=1284810500 saying] "I just need there not be a consensus against removal, with the burden being on those arguing for inclusion". Do I need a RfC for inclusion of link? Huldra (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:I could have answered that: you don’t need an RfC, but you do need a consensus, and an RfC is one of the ways to get it. FortunateSons (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::The rule is WP:ELBURDEN. Once an ==External link== has been contested, you need positive evidence of consensus in favor of the link to restore it. Consensus in favor of inclusion means the link can be restored. Consensus against, or no consensus at all, means no link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

TWO recent threads on EL:s, Talk:Raegan_Revord#Official_website and Talk:Raegan_Revord#External_Links. If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

When going to XTools, as I often do, I received the following notice:

Your access to XTools has been blocked due to apparent abuse or disruptive automation. For inquiries, please contact tools.xtools@toolforge.org

I am always suspicious of unknown links and avoid clicking them, so am uncomfortable with going to the site listed above. Hushpuckena (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Hushpuckena See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XTools_down?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Thank you sir! Hushpuckena (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm in a discussion at Talk:Ashley Rindsberg about an external link. Rindsberg writes posts for Pirate Wires (itself previously discussed here and deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=168658959 here]). At that site, [https://www.piratewires.com/author/ashley-rindsberg this page] lists 18 individual posts by Rindsberg, all of which require a subscription to read (and only 4/18 of which are archived w/o a paywall, if that matters). Specifically, the list itself does not require a subscription to access.

• Does WP:EL#EL6 apply such that we shouldn't link this index from the Wikipedia article ("[Links normall to be avoided:] Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article…")?
• If the link isn't prohibited, {{user|WhatamIdoing}} suggested follow-up questions:
• If individual articles aren't accessable w/o subscription, and the site itself isn't notable or reliable, is there value in having the external link at all?
• Does WP:ELMINOFFICIAL apply with its "one official EL allowed", and how does that then jive with the subject's official site being offline (but still linked via the Wayback Machine at Ashley Rindsberg#External links)?

I appreciate everybody's time and attention! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:External links are supposed to be helpful for a general reader. They are not intended to benefit someone providing a subscription service. I have only looked very quickly at this but unless good reasons exist that I've missed, the answer is no and I will watch the article for a while. If I miss something, please remind me with a ping from Talk:Ashley Rindsberg. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.piratewires.com/author/ashley-rindsberg This proposed external link] is not about increasing subscription. It's a list of articles published by the subject of the biography, and therefore serves as a partial bibliography. Green Montanan (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This involves Historic Site of Anti-Mongolian Struggle where I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historic_Site_of_Anti-Mongolian_Struggle&diff=1287001436&oldid=1286978516 removed] a blog post in the external link and the other [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historic_Site_of_Anti-Mongolian_Struggle&diff=1287023382&oldid=1287022857 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).

[https://brunch.co.kr/@jehsk52/65 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 {{tl|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 [https://www.heritage.go.kr/heri/cul/culSelectDetail.do?VdkVgwKey=13,03960000,50&pageNo=1_1_2_0 Heritage Service] or [https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0051473 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 [https://www.heritage.go.kr/heri/cul/culSelectDetail.do?VdkVgwKey=13,03960000,50&pageNo=1_1_2_0 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 [https://english.cha.go.kr/chaen/search/selectGeneralSearchDetail.do;jsessionid=DyyfMKruA1NS4wK8Ka3U10YQ1q1FQHWzQkl31bEiL214Ulv8nvDa6FukvY6qoNC5.cha-was02_servlet_engine4?mn=EN_02_02&sCcebKdcd=13&ccebAsno=03960000&sCcebCtcd=50&pageIndex=36®ion=&canAsset=&ccebPcd1=&searchWrd=&startNum=&endNum=&stCcebAsdt=&enCcebAsdt=&canceled=&ccebKdcd=13&ccebCtcd= 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.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}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)