Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 208309 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to the external links noticeboard
    This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
    • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
    • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
    • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
    		 Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia: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 edit filter

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

    [edit]

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

    I don't know but Google Sites (sites.google.com) appears to be a website where anyone can post stuff, aka random website. That makes it unsuitable for use in an article, even as an external link, except if there is good reason to believe that a known expert in the field is responsible for the page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering whether it may be a republication of some old written source but couldn't find anything on a quick search. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 15:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:External links does not technically ban "random" people's websites. We don't want to send people to the main page of a personal website from a random person (e.g., www.WhatamIdoing.net), but it's acceptable to provide specific, individual pages (e.g., www.whatamIdoing.net/my-subject-photos.html) that editors have determined "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy".
    I assume that this link was added because of the photo at the top. It's possible to deeplink to the photo (but losing the identifying caption and rather ugly: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZJPnkH8PAEpivBBRct8v5ikXNlvdssd-wMWT3wWPTpmELyc7r_P8kWwFoLe5BUafH1ol0Co71kNobUU31Ei0yqE5ZF-W34iwPJyeEgJIvO30El7px0lS17VUPKwWhXdIll0tRT9VuSbvR3h5XgNxh8vPYEMmZFpfMgxNEsYhKytgXn8var6Avw=w1280 ). If you want to keep the link, I'd focus on re-writing the description, to say something like "1997 photo of the caldera" (naming which of the two caldera it is).
    Alternatively, you might decide that there's already a photo of the caldera in the article itself, so this is superfluous, or at least not such an important contribution that it's worth bothering with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Javadoc:SE

    [edit]

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

    Editors could choose to form a consensus to allow this, and there are times when they still do (e.g., IETF RFCs, especially in lists/tables), but it's not my preferred way to approach for most purposes. I'd suggest changing it to an ordinary ref. For example (from Double-ended queue#Language support),
    • As of Java 6, Java's Collections Framework provides a new Deque interface that provides the functionality of insertion and removal at both ends.
    becomes
    • As of Java 6, Java's Collections Framework provides a new Deque interface that provides the functionality of insertion and removal at both ends.[1]
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would ease this conversion if there were a replacement for the template that took the same parameters and formatted the result as a reference. If it doesn't exist, maybe it should be created? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

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

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

    This is not a question about the ==External links== section, as whole books are rarely wanted in that section. It sounds like your concern is focused on the occasional use of a Wikipedia:Convenience link in a <ref> tag. I suggest therefore that this is better discussed somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing I was told to discuss it here, and we do also have several dedicated EL templates for this same thing, {{OL book}}, {{Internet Archive}}, etc. Same issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give me a link to the discussion in which someone told you that a problem that is mostly not in the ==External links== section needs to be discussed at a noticeboard entirely dedicated to Wikipedia:External links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing This discussion at FAC [1]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like that discussion is 100% about sources used to support article content, which Wikipedia:External links says repeatedly is not covered by the EL guideline. Not only is it not about ELs, the links don't appear to have ever been in the article in the first place, so there is no action to be taken at all.
    I suggest that you take your complaint elsewhere. Diannaa or MER-C might be able to suggest a sympathetic forum for hypothetical WP:LINKVIO concerns in ==References==.
    Alternatively, if my recollection is correct that you've already brought this up in the past without other editors agreeing with you, you should seriously consider dropping it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never brought this up prior to the FAC thing, though I vaguely recall someone else may have somewhere. In any case, it was irrelevant to the FAC, as having a link is not an FAC criterion, it just seemed to spark much disagreement, so if it's not relevant here I am content to be silent on the matter. I am not going to remove them it just seems a bad idea to add them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA Fwiw, there's a related discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Internet_Archive_takedowns. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA/@WhatamIdoing For me, there is just not much reason to discuss. WP:COPYLINK is rather clear: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Even if rare or not a common problem in ==External links== sections, we should try to get rid of links to the links that we have i these sections that may be a copyright violation (and/or in ==Further reading== sections, for that matter). Either link to the original, to a 'generic' site (including our own Booksources), or even just no link at all (though the latter is does make it 'not an external link' - but generally books should be in further reading sections). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I'm not a fan of putting archive links in the ==External links== section, except for defunct WP:ELOFFICIAL sites. However, no relevant articles or links have been identified. There is nothing actionable here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the germane question is more along the lines of "is there a ruling that says Wikipedia isn't allowed to link to Internet Archive pages?" jp×g🗯️ 19:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue we should not be linking to any copyrighted work (known to still be under copyright) that is at IA, at all. It would be like linking to a research paper hosted at academia.edu or the like. Now, on the "hush hush", an editor can use that work to fill in the details, sourcing the work but not linking it directly, we don't have to know how they got the source and assume in good faith they got it legitimately. Masem (t) 20:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, except instead of known to still be under copyright, I'd say the presumption should be copyrighted unless it is known to be in the public domain. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The starting premise of this discussion, "All of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are accessible through "controlled digital lending"", is blatantly untrue. Many of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are out of copyright and openly available to all without controlled lending. I think we should not remove such links and should leave it up to IA to police its copyright issues (just as we police our own here). I would however not particularly mind the removal of all controlled digital lending IA links. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly everything is copyrighted (works created after 1978 lasts for the author's life plus 70 years and copyright is automatic). I think we should not demand that someone must hire a lawyer and sue, but find out ourselves the same as we do with images. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatantly untrue, again. Nearly everything recent is copyrighted. We link to many books created before 1978 or before 1929. And copyrighted ≠ unlinkable; many recent books are under open access licenses. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to edit in "the last half century", but thought it was obvious. And I don't think much of the start of your edit. Yes some many recent books are under open access licenses and some images are public domain. It's up to us to determine this as we do with images -- not just assume we can use everyone else's works. Wikipedia respects copyright. And as WP:CV states: "Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to." I'll refrain from sayin copyrighted ≠ unlinkable is "blatantly untrue again". O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not whether most books are in copyright or most books are out of copyright or accessible under other licences. Point is that for those that are in violation of copyright we should not be linking, even if that is only one or two examples. If the archive does their job properly, those links anyway will have short lifetimes as they will remove the link. Material has to properly link to/identify the original source of the material (also when there are no copyright issues, or when the material is not available from the original or behind a paywall), so that we can always identify and consider alternatives to resolve copyright issues, pages being taken down, companies folding or whatever.
    (still, this is not a specific WP:EL issue, it is just Wikipedia-wide, we should not link to work in violation of copyright in ==External links==, but also not in ==Further reading==, ==References==, or in the prose). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    itunes.apple.com/

    [edit]

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

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I've informed the team who works on Dumps, and they'll remove/update that link soon. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link has been removed with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/1182203. As part of that it has been noticed that the other 3 links on that page are also broken. I created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T402976 for that. Mutante (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Dear editors,

    I’d like to propose the inclusion of a GitHub repository I maintain: [https://github.com/PopeyeURS/ulyssescaballes-mpv.config MPV Configuration by PopeyeURS on GitHub] in the External links section of the mpv (media player) article.

    This repository offers a comprehensive and well-documented configuration for mpv, designed to enhance playback quality, usability, and customization.

    It includes:

    • Optimized `mpv.conf` and `input.conf` files

    • Custom scripts and filters for advanced video control

    • Clear setup instructions for users of varying technical backgrounds

    The project is open-source, actively maintained, and intended to help users get more out of mpv’s powerful features.

    I believe it could be a valuable resource for readers seeking practical configuration examples or advanced usage tips.

    I welcome feedback and will gladly revise the proposal to meet Wikipedia’s external link standards.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Best regards,

    Ulysses RS Caballes (GitHub: PopeyeURS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysses RS Caballes (talk • contribs) 10:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1315385666"