Template:Archive box collapsible

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 WP:ELN WP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
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

The criteria for inclusion in an "External links" section is well established but I ran across Jenna Jameson, a B-class article, and found external links under the section heading "Notes". This seems to be a way around having too many links in the external links section especially since AVN, Biography.com, and playboy.com are listed many times as "External links". Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them and removed the tag. I take on opinion on whether they constitute excessive links. --Izno (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_databases has been a very valuable resource to the scientific community, but recently a huge number of the links were de-activated. It appears this was because of the external link policy of Wikipedia. I am hoping this particular page falls into one of your exception categories because the names of the databases are often not enough to make them easily discoverable. Can the links please be re-instated and granted a waiver of some kind so the site editors don't do this again?

You can convert the links into references. (The links are available in the article history.)

• BioGraph (University of Antwerp, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie) A knowledge discovery service based on the integration of more than 20 heterogeneous databases

becomes

• BioGraph (University of Antwerp, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie) A knowledge discovery service based on the integration of more than 20 heterogeneous databases^[1]

though a more complete reference with title and publisher would be better. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: I believe that you are talking about this old version of the document, before the edits that cleaned it up. That is indeed not in line with our policies and guidelines. Lists of external links are in direct conflict with the pillar 'What Wikipedia is not' - 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files' (point 1) and 'What Wikipedia is not' - 'Wikipedia is not a directory'. There are other solutions, as you say the 'reference', or a table where there is also a direct link to the database.

Note, not-wikilinked items should actually have an independent reliable source per WP:LISTCOMPANY (see also Wikipedia:Spam event horizon - spam is a continuous problem in practically any list). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, this is not a list of companies but of databases as in List of biodiversity databases. The links are not to companies since most of these are provided by groups of researchers. References are needed to show that an entry meets the requirements of the list, but it is standard in software articles that a link to the software web page is sufficient. Whether these lists and their methods of referencing are good or not is another question, but whoever removed the links did not challenge the list, only the external links within the article text. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: No, it is standard in violation with our pillars, see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, Not being a for-profit organisation does automatically not spam. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Knights football. I would like to include two external links that other editors have removed. I think the same rationale exists with both sources, but I'm happy split the discussion and decision whether to include into separate threads.

• "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.

This links to a Carleton College archives page that includes a 14-minute video on the 1992 season, Carleton's last conference championship team. The video contains a wealth of information that would be very valuable to anyone with an interest in the article. Even if there was no narration, the game footage alone would be of great interest. I argue that this link satisfies WP:ELYES #3. It contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and cannot be included in the article due to copyright issues and the information is too detailed. I also think it does not violate WP:ELNO #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The video is obviously unique. And it contains lots of information that would never be included in the text of a featured article on the program as a whole, specifically quotes from coaches and individual game details that should not be included in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*"Carleton College Football Record Book" (PDF). Carleton College. March 30, 2017. This is a permanent link to a PDF of Carleton Knights football team records. The argument is similar to that above. It satisfies ELYES #3, although more from the "too detailed" prong of the argument than the copyright issues. ELNO #1 does not apply because it a unique resource that contains lots of information that should never be included in the article. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mnnlaxer, thanks for opening this discussion. I oppose the inclusion of both links. The first link is focused too much on one specific element (just the 1992 season) of the article's topic (the 100+ year history of Carleton football) to be relevant as a general external link. The second link is a subpage of the team's official website, which is already included in the external links section, as is done by standard. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more specific articles of the subject, so there is nowhere else to put it. This "standard" is not an iron-clad rule, of course nothing is, and can't be used to argue against this particular example. In addition, a slippery-slope argument about too many external links being added in the future is also invalid.- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's "nowhere else to put" these links, perhaps that's because they don't belong anywhere as an external link on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. There's nowhere else to put the video - besides the article where I want it included. So that's where it should go. The video has obvious value, fits inclusion #3, doesn't fit exclusion #1, so the only arguement you've got is "it's not the standard". So what? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: RE: record book – per WP:ELPOINTS #4, " try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." The official website does exactly this and the visitors can find the book easily on the website. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the record book is a weaker case, but still think you're being too strict. Your argument against is we should "try to avoid" it, a weak suggestion, without any mention of the benefits. Sure it's only a bit of menu surfing, but what's the harm? And what do you think about the video? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's so notable about the 1992 season other than it is the last conference championship? If you can give a well thought-out explanation (other then what's above) as to why it's notable, I might consider it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 07:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that can be done, it can be written into an own section in the article and independently referenced. The primary, official records are probably also reasonable references for that. When they have been used as references, they certainly do not need to be used as external links.

I note that the documents mentioned above are on the same server as the official site of the subject. There is no need to deeplink there. For the 1992 season video, that page is indirect to the subject of the page. Regarding the full records, that is a great primary source and can be used as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give up on the records link. For the video, there's no notablility standard for including an external link. But yes, a MIAC conference championship is notable for this program. The entire argument against inclusion is "try to avoid" a second link to the official website. If the video is only a reference, no one is going to see it. Readers who are interested in Knights football also have an interest in seeing the video. The point of an encyclopedia is to share information. The article better informs people with an obvious link to a valuable resource. Does anyone dispute that? Can anyone dispute that the video fits ELYES #3 and not fit ELNO #1? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we get this resolved and/or closed? Do we need an admin? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC) `[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: You have two editors (including me) asking/remarking about the 1992 season video 'What's so notable about the 1992 season other than it is the last conference championship?', and 'For the 1992 season video, that page is indirect to the subject of the page.' I still stand by that remark, and I still believe it does not belong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't legit reasons to deny an external link. Why has every editor who wants to prevent its inclusion failed to address whether the link fits ELYES #3 and ELNO #1. It would be nice to have a debate about actual policy. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual policy: "External links or Internet directories. 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. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." which points to WP:EL, which says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" .. User:Corkythehornetfan asks what is so notable about the 1992 championship that it needs to be singled out in a YouTube movie in the external links, and I have problems with calling that link directly linked to the subject of the page. I mean there, that I do not think that this link is on-topic.

Consensus does not mean that you can just summarily ignore all comments that you do not think to be suitable arguments. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are not excessive links on the page. There is only the link to the official page. Are you arguing that a particular season is not on topic to the team? It seems you are requiring the link and the topic to cover the exact same scope. That is ridiculous. There is no notability standard for content within an article. It is not a Youtube, but a professionally done video that is part of the college's archive. I also ask that WP:COMMON be applied. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly what I think that Corkythehornetfan did. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The common sense questions are "Does the inclusion of the link make the article better?" or "Would readers find the information useful?" Are you saying no? But if we disagree on common sense, could you please directly address the points I made? I am going to ask for an admin to close the discussion and I will abide by that decision. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there isn't a high bar of notability for external links to be included, but for the sake of argument, here is an explanation of the significance of the 1992 season. Even without knowing anything about the background, it is easy to see that the college thinks the season is very significant. Otherwise it would not spend the time and resources to produce the video and include it in its archives. There aren't any other produced videos of any other athletic seasons that I can find at Carleton and I bet this type of project is rare at DIII schools across the country.

The reason it is significant athletically, is that it will likely be the only MIAC championship Carleton wins for the forseeable future. Carleton rejoined the MIAC in 1983, which has St. John's and St. Thomas, two programs that are often ranked in the top 10 nationally. (Interesting sidebar, their game this year was at Target Field and drew over 37,000 fans) Since 1992, those two programs have won 19 of 25 conference championships. Carleton is a highly selective national college and smaller than most MIAC schools. It is very hard to get the athletes to compete for a conference championship. A similar school, Macalester, took their football team out of the conference in 2002.

Finally, the issue is not whether you think the season is significant (and how do you define significant or notable in this case?) but whether an average reader would think so. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great story .. way more than what is in the article, there it is just one sentence without references. I guess there is a section to write in the article, and I guess that the youtube video makes a great reference there. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. However, the goal of this crusade is to get it into external links. No one looks at references. So, are you convinced yet? If not, please respond to my points above. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: No, I am not, actually even less so. 'The goal of this crusade is to get it into external links' .. it does not belong there, so to rephrase 'The goal of this crusade is to ignore our content policies and guidelines' .. our goals are NOT to send people off-wiki to see things that you want them to see (that is the goal of other websites). We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typical, I should have known. It was a joke. You know what else is a joke? That you call adding one historical link a link farm and a soapbox. As to your serious claim, what content policies and guidelines does posting this link ignore? Here's some actual policy for you. WP:ELYES #3 says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues." That entire sentence applies to this link. And you have still not addressed any of my points. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've said that, and I am not disputing that. What I am disputing it the directness of the link. Your whole point is "If the video is only a reference, no one is going to see it. Readers who are interested in Knights football also have an interest in seeing the video." .. And that is the whole point: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." You vehemently insist to have it in the external links section, but "no page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense." Your only justification is that it is informative to the reader, and if it is a reference no-one will read it .. but that is not our purpose, it is not a justification to have the external link. If the 1992 season is so interesting, then the article should write about it, with reliable sources referencing that it is that interesting (and if it is really interesting, it warrants an own article). That is not in the document, it is a mere sentence without references. If it is not that interesting to write out a full part in the document, then it is apparently not of interest to the readers of the document, and hence your whole point whether the average reader would find it interesting can only be gauged to the point whether there is something significant in the article writing that. For all I know, maybe readers find it more interesting to see where and how the club's outfit is being manufactured. To me, that is just as interesting as the 1992 season. For policies: please review our pillar WP:NOT in detail. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "directness of the link" mean? Are you still claiming the 1992 season is not on topic to the team? My whole point is that the link can be included via ELYES #3. It is justifiable to that guideline and you have failed to even try to show it isn't. Come on about the club's outfit. Give me a break. On NOT, please quote the text that you think prevents the inclusion of the link. Because I read "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article." Your obvious disagreement with that policy is clear, what isn't clear is what policy you are using to justify its exclusion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the football team. The link is specific to one season, so I'd agree that it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is about the 1992 season, no reason to single that out. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I missed acknowledging that you agree the link meets ELYES #3. Thanks. Now, please tell me what "directness of the link" means. And where it says an external link has to coincide with the entire article topic. Finally, what ELNO applies to the link. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. .... Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject (my bolding): specific subject = the 1992 season; general subject = the club. Anyway, I still don't see how this is relevant enough for an external link, while it is only in passing mentioned (without references) in the article itself).

Just to note, that something passes WP:ELYES does not mean that we have to link to it either. The point is there in the 'relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject'. If it is so important, then it needs a proper, significant, mention in the article (which, by the way, still does not excuse the external link). After all, that part is then apparently relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. If it is really important, then the whole 1992 season may warrant an own article, and there it is a suitable external link, as there the general subject = specific subject = the 1992 season (and there, the official website of the club is indirect). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general vs. specific point you make in this case is pedantry. There is no general/specific subject dichotomy here, not like chemistry is specific and natural science is general. 1992 is just a point in time of the program. The subject is both cases is a certain college team playing football games. "that something passes WP:ELYES does not mean that we have to link to it either" No, of course not. You'll always find a way of denying a link that meets a YES anyway. It is relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of Carleton football. That's obvious. The importance/significance issue is just a Catch-22 you exploit. If the link isn't important, then it doesn't belong in EL. If it is important, then it belongs in the article text. So you can argue against it regardless of the situation. The 1992 season is not notable enough on its own to warrant an article. You just don't like external links. "External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia." Do you have something against the off-wiki internet? And have you heard of the back button? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a catch 22. It has only a fleeting mention in the article, it is hardly deemed important enough there, and now you argue that it is important enough for an external link. If there is significant mention in the article, then it may actually qualify as an external link if it contains more data than the article can represent (it might even qualify if it is already used as a reference if that extra information is really significant, but that is not often the case). But as it stands now, you say it is relevant without the article showing that it is relevant. If the 1992 season is so relevant, there is independent coverage and hence can be properly referenced, if that is not there, it is not relevant.

So if you think that this is pedantry, why did you even ask here? There are now three editors who don't see the relevancy to a better understanding of the subject. It starts to be clear that you simply disagree with our external links guide and probably with 'what Wikipedia is not'.

Your argument basically means that there is no limit to making external links - anything that is related has to and should be linked, because editors have a back button anyway. We can just replace the whole article about Donald Trump by a link to his official site and his Twitter, and that is it, because people will get the information they need there and then can use the back button. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on some draft text for the article on the talk page to see what exactly you think would thread the needle between coverage in the article and inclusion in EL (but there are always caveats, right?) "if that is not there, it is not relevant" There are boatloads of relevant text that are not currently in articles. To say something is relevant to a subect if and only if it appears in the text is ludicrous.

Your general/specific argument is pendantry. Where has anyone said that watching the video doesn't increase understanding of the subject? Is that even possible? I disagree with your interpretation of EL and NOT, I fully accept what is there. And your surmise that arguing for one external link - that has justifications for being included - means there is no limit to making external links is exactly where you are wrong. It is a non sequitur. The example of Donald Trump's twitter is dishonest and ridiculous. Would still love to see an example of a good external link, if they do in fact exist in your mind. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: Great idea: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources."

This is not my interpretation, Mnnlaxer, how many editors in this thread do you see agreeing with you that the material belongs in the article? Maybe this is how the general public is interpreting the policy and the guideline, and how it is meant to be interpreted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with Mnnlaxer (talk · contribs) There have been too many spurious arguments; that is arguments not based on policy or arguments using highly idiosyncratic policy interpretations to deny this link. It is very clear that the link is pertinent to the article. There is no requirement that links be notable (only articles need to be of notable subject matter). The advice to convert it to a reference is very poor, as any reference will almost certainly be deleted as 'refspam' or 'embedded external links'. Similarly, the advice to turn the link into an article on its own, is misguided. Who will write that article? How long will it take before it is accepted for mainspace? What should users do to learn more in the interim? The comments about being too specific represent a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and are unjustified. The comment that links should not be used to drive users away from Wikipedia is not part of policy - it is however one of Beestra's guiding principles as stated on his user page. The policy states that well-chosen links are a 'standard' feature of wikipedia articles. The link in question is not promotional, it is not persuasive, it is clearly not spam. It should be allowed to stand. Well-chosen links should direct users to places where they can learn more about the subject, or learn about specific facets of the topic in greater detail. Well-chosen links provide a service to users. I see nothing wrong with the link in question. When the people who have taken control of this Noticeboard are losing the policy argument, they resort to this "nobody agrees with you" line. And, if you don't accept their decision, there is worse to come. To date, I have not seen any convincing arguments to remove the link; all I see is a small group of editors who are wasting time. In my view, this matter should be taken to third party resolution or admin as such action might raise serious questions about what has been going on over here at WPELN. BronHiggs (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BronHiggs, it is not anarticle write instruction, it is not an instruction to write a paragraph. As it stands now, User:Jweiss11’ comment says it all: “If there's "nowhere else to put" these links, perhaps that's because they don't belong anywhere as an external link on Wikipedia.” There is material that just does not belong as it does not fit our purpose.

And now you are just as spurious, “the reference will be deleted as refspam” And that it is not spam is not a reason to include either. Mnnlaxer is not a spammer, his additions are not spam, noone accused him of spam.

Per below, go ahead. Ask for another opinion. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, before this request, there was the same dispute on the article itself (going back in time):

• removal by User:Corkythehornetfan - "website in wikidata, WP:ELNO"
• reinsertion by User:Mnnlaxer - "he article is better with these links, important content that should be easily identifiable and accessible, not buried in a ref"
• removal by User:Jweiss11 - "Undid revision 808945546 by Mnnlaxer (talk) restore standard link, remove unneeded links"
• reinsertion by User:Mnnlaxer - "restore 2 external links"
• removal by User:Jweiss11 - "add official website, rem unneeded links"
• insertion (original?) by User:Mnnlaxer - "add video"
• insertion (original?) by User:Mnnlaxer - "added External Links"

During the discussion (after self-close by User:Mnnlaxer - "Marked by original poster. There is a benefit to posting the link to the 1992 season video, the cost is very low, it fits WP:ELYES #3 and does not fit WP:ELNO #1. The best argument below is that we should "try to avoid" two external links to the same site. The video link is a part of Carleton's archives and is hard to find without this direct link. So I'm posting it again."):

• reinsertion by User:Mnnlaxer - "post link to 1992 season video"
• removal by me User:Beetstra - "no, there was no consensus to include it on WP:ELN (though arguably also no consensus to exclude) - still: WP:ELBURDEN"

And that that issue was not discussed on the talkpage first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beetstra, I hate putting stuff like that together. Although I think the main dispute here is resolving the policy difference on EL, not edit warring. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, then you would have been at WT:EL. You have several editors removing the link, and you persisting. That is more a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, and now a case of WP:OTHERPARENT. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Looking forward to your response at the dispute page. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Thanks, @BronHiggs:, for the wet trout slap. I'm too stupid and stubborn to figure out your solution on my own. There isn't admin closure on this noticeboard, just a weird "mark resolved" instruction. So I filed an admin closure request, but that will take forever, if it happens at all. @Beetstra:, which would you prefer, a third party or the dispute resolution noticeboard? I think the latter would be better. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with whatever you like. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I filed the dispute resolution. [1] I also put one more line in the text and posted a draft space on Talk:Carleton Knights football#1992 season text. I can't find any other good sources to use. I also don't know where and how I should expand the text to satisfy those who think it needs expansion for the external link to be allowed. I don't want to simply pad out the paragraph with game scores. In the scope of the article, I think the season has the appropriate amount of text. So I don't agree with the view this subject needs more text, althought I am open to others' suggestions and contributions to satisfy their requests. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll post there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I thought was the best place to have someone outside of this discussion step in and make a judgment closed the request. Since there is nowhere else to go, I'm through with it. I still think this is a ridiculous interpretation of policy, and the the other side's arguments I listed at the dispute page are very weak, but that and $5 will get me a cup of coffee. I still would like Beetstra to show me one example of a good external link that isn't a template, but they don't seem able to find one. Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution discussion now archived here, I think this thread can now be closed, or we wait until it gets archived. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cleanup all additional deep links on the official website’s domain, as all that information is readily accessible through the top domain link. On American Mathematical Society I now was twice reverted, despite WP:ELBURDEN. The history is already clearly laid out in the prose, even if the article is on another server I would argue that all that is there is not pertinent, and, as I said, it is already available in this case through the official link (if it is not of interest for our article prose, then there is also no reason to link).

What is our interpretation of these cases? If a top level link is there, should deeper links be removed (barring a very few exceptions)? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's my interpretation. Additionally, I don't see why the others can't be used as sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally saw your version of this article and the fact that it contained link to commercial website in text. I deleted it, but my edit was reverted by article's author, @Scriptned: [2]. I really didn't know if this is the right place to report it, but it seems that you don't have "report a problem in an article" subpage or similar. IMHO advertising like this should be deleted. Wostr (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: I've killed it again, and some peacock language. That indeed does not belong, we are not writing a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: thanks. Wostr (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question came up during a recent discussion about MetroLyrics. The site, which provides both "official" and user generated lyrics, has changed the manner in which the two are identified. Previously, only those lyrics identified with a LyricFind "LF" logo were licensed and deemed acceptable to link. Now, it is not readily apparent which are official and which are not; one must click on "edit lyrics" on the lyrics page and see if "Locked: X Lyrics The lyrics to this song are deemed official and accurate, and are subsequently locked"[3] or "Edit: X Lyrics ... Submit Corrections"[4] is displayed.

Also, some songs which previously had an LF logo now either show "Unfortunately, we aren't authorized to display these lyrics" or are not "locked" (able to be edited by users). MetroLyrics links were added to thousands of song articles by a bot and now with its change in practices, a large number of articles could be affected.

—Ojorojo (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove links to lyrics sites – The changes at MetroLyrics show that the status of the links is not stable: what one day are "official" lyrics can be replaced with user generated content. The links were added by a bot to many articles that have no or little recent activity. Therefore, they must be monitored by editors-at-large as another maintenance chore. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over what external links, if any, belong in the article about VanderWaal's album.

• Just the Beginning (Grace VanderWaal album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous discussion

• Talk:Just_the_Beginning_(Grace_VanderWaal_album)#Her official site doesn't double as album official site

Related discussion

• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Grace_VanderWaal

  I am hoping by bringing the current dispute to ELN right away, we can avoid the problems with this previous, related dispute.

Links in External links section of the current version

1. VanderWaal's official website

   Official website for VanderWaal, very minimal in content.

2. Album trailer

   A one minute video for the album. The video content is promotional in nature, providing very little information about the album.

   This webpage prominently links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning , which contains samples of each song from the album

3. VanderWaal at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, October 7, 2017, where she introduced several songs from the album

   A 55 second video for her appearance at Austin City Limits. Like the "album trailer" video, it also prominently links to smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning .

Survey

Official website

• Remove per EL, NOT: This website is not about the album, and is focused on basic promotion of VanderWaal's works.--Ronz (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment below) - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The link is useful and helpful to readers. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The artist's website has a page devoted to the album. First Ronz objected to that, so we changed the link to the artist's main page, but I am happy to use the page for the album instead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Album trailer" video

• Remove per EL, NOT: The content is promotional, providing very little information about the album. I don't think has enough relevant content about the album, though the music samples on the smarturl.it/GV-JustTheBeginning website (the site appears to be blacklisted) might be a useful addition. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment below) - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The link is useful and helpful to readers. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an official trailer video from the artist for the album. It is certainly of interest to any reader who is interested in this album. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Austin City Limits" video

• Remove per EL, NOT: Promotional content not about the album. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see my comment below) - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The link is useful and helpful to readers. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is another video from the artist about her concert at the Austin City Limits Music Festival, where she first performed most of the songs from the album -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Note: previous related RfC on External links for this performer - Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is forum shopping of the first order. This editor has not had things go his way on the article talk page, where the discussion has gone against him, and now he seeks an audience to try and overcome the existing consensus. His description of the sites is misleading, and his lack of comprehension of ELNO is shown. These are useful links to a reader, do not fail ELNO in any respect, and deserve to remain in the page to help readers gain further information onthe subject. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC is just another attempt by Ronz to get their own way whenever he/she is editing against consensus. It is perfectly reasonable, under the EL rules, for this album's article to include a few ELs about the album. Obviously, an album is a commercial product, and it is not surprising that the links are intended to promote the album. In addition to the 3 ELs currently listed, I would also include in the ELs the official music videos that were made of two singles from the album, because anyone interested in this album would be interested to see them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]