Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

This page was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Proposed clarification to essay WRT Find a Grave

With the above (and many previous) comments in mind – specifically as to Find a Grave cemeteries and "famous" and ordinary people – I propose the following revisions to this essay:

As an External Link in cemetery articles: "Yes". A Find a Grave cemetery link is acceptable when it provides images, location information, and number of graves in the cemetery.
As a Reliable Source for cemetery articles: "Yes". When it provides information about the cemetery, such as location, images, and number of graves.
As an External Link in articles about persons: "It depends". For Find a Grave "famous" persons, the information is usually accessible via other sources. Accordingly, adding a Find a Grave listing is unnecessary if no additional information is provided.
An a Reliable Source in articles about persons: "Maybe". Find a Grave listings for "non-famous" persons are rarely helpful because such names are not notable or WP:noteworthy. But Find a Grave listings about "famous" persons should be evaluated according to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Common issues:
1. Some editors consider it a type of fansite that is not written by a recognized expert (ELNO#11).
2. Some pages contain copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK). Find a Grave requests that contain copyright violations be reported to info@findagrave.com with a link to the relevant page or image. Never link to copyright violations on Wikipedia.
3. Some editors say it should generally be avoided as an External link because it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (ELNO#1).
4. Some editors believe that if reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find a Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include.
5. Some editors say Find a Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS, WP:USERGEN)
6. Find a Grave contains dates of birth, death and place of burial, material which is frequently not cited by other sources in an article (even though it is in theory available from other sources). Since it's not a reliable source, it should not be cited as a source, but having an external link allows others to find where information comes from. Such material is rarely controversial (WP:CHALLENGE).

– S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited IMDb section

Hello, I have restored my edit to the IMDb section which was to make it more in line with WP:Citing IMDb, which "nutshell" says "The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films." This "hard data" is clarified there in the Disputed Uses section, to include cast list, character names, crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, etc. Let me know if any issues. Assambrew (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that usage is disputed, the previous version seems more appropriate here, and is consistent with WP:RS/IMDB. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did mention that the usage is disputed. But if nobody else agrees with me, I will desist... Assambrew (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Assambrew,

I have not looked at the edit in question but verified maintenance is not generally subjected to BRD.

Please note: WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links issues

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: 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: 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: Minimize the number of links. --
ELCITE: Do not use {{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: 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, 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: 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.

Dynamic versus static

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)[reply]

TV Tropes?

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)[reply]

Youtube or video as an illustrative content source

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)[reply]