Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

I have ran into an issue. The listing of 1,000's of minor planets almost all have the same mass used sites in the "External links" section. There is little variation but some of the websites have multiple internal links that can grow the section from 17 to around 27 links.

• ELpoints #3) states: {{tq|Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.}}
• LINKFARM states: {{tq|There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.}}
• ELMIN: {{tq|Minimize the number of links}}. --
• ELCITE: {{tq|Do not use {{tl|cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.}}

:External links This page in a nutshell: {{tq|External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.}}

:Second paragraph, {{tq|acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.}}

• Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: {{tq|Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them}}.
• See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force#External links for discussion. Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links#Mass links.

:There seems to have been confusion between a dynamic link (changing website) and a static one as a reference.. Bots were used to create many so I am not sure where the mass copied "External links" came from. Without the assistance of a bot the mostly improper links will be a long term perennial issue. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I know that TV Tropes is normally an unreliable source (and that (before you start telling me that) Wikipedia is not TV Tropes), but is it OK to externally link that site? I see no section about it on this page. 67.209.129.70 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, it would be helpful to explain when YT can be used as a source of CC-By illustrative content (ie, not as a source). See this Village pump discussion. Factors could include: (a) is it a good "performance"; (b) is it intelligible; (c) if it is reproducing source material, eg public domain music or public domain texts, is this properly sourced / identified; (d) are captions needed, eg because the material is in a language other than English.

If this isn't the right place for this advice, then a line to say that Youtube videos are the same as any other source of material that is public domain or creative commons licenced, and not precluded due to other policies relating to sources. Jim Killock (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:EL/P#Amazon says "{{tqi|This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates.}}". WP:RS/P#Amazon says "{{tqi|Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)}}". Is Amazon a reliable source for the publication dates of books? It often includes specific dates when other sources only provide years, so I have no other source with which to verify it's information or fact-check it. Where does this information come from? Daask (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:The pre-publication information originally comes from the publishert. There are several publications that librarians use to pre-order books. These are all secondary sources and are considered reliable; although pre-pub release dates are subject to change. The one that is most accessible to non-subscribers is Publishers Weekly. Others with varying levels of access include Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Book Links, The Horn Book Magazine, Library Journal, and School Library Journal. Once the book is released, WorldCat is the easiest place to look for all publication details; this is the OCLC database of cataloging records created by librarians from around the world. Rublamb (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is rarely used in external links section that is Wikipedia:Link rot. It can be only used as a reference for archived source. Absolutiva (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Should Encyclopædia Britannica can be used as an external link? In 2021, it began removing links to Encyclopædia Britannica from "external links" section as per WP:ELNO, stated in Template:Britannica/doc: {{tq|This template can be used to provide a link to the Encyclopædia Britannica's article on a given subject.}} Absolutiva (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)