Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Archives
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III .
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
.
Dynamic versus static
[edit ]- 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
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
- Yes, this is usually fine. External links do not need to be reliable sources per WP:ELMAYBE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
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
WP:EL/P#Amazon says "This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates.
". WP:RS/P#Amazon says "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) Reply
- 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) Reply
- There's also the problem of "Date" meaning "Date for this edition". I've seen reprints of older works given very modern dates. For example, https://www.amazon.com/Romeo-Juliet-William-Shakespeare-ebook/dp/B07F1YF7XY gives the date of publication for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as 26 June 2018. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- With books, the date is always the date of release. That is how they are cataloged by libraries around the world. Rublamb (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Yes, the original is the date we want – but not always the date that automated ref-filling tools or bookselling websites will give us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- I think you misunderstand my point. Books are dated as they are printed, not the by the date that they were first released. So, with your example, a copy of Macbeth by Shakespeare that was printed and released in 2024, would correctly have the date of 2024 for that edition. The error you are describing would happend because someone used a date for the wrong edition, not that Amazon is wrong. I find this mistake also happens when people look at the wrong edition in Google Books. Rublamb (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- Yes, the original is the date we want – but not always the date that automated ref-filling tools or bookselling websites will give us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- With books, the date is always the date of release. That is how they are cataloged by libraries around the world. Rublamb (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- There's also the problem of "Date" meaning "Date for this edition". I've seen reprints of older works given very modern dates. For example, https://www.amazon.com/Romeo-Juliet-William-Shakespeare-ebook/dp/B07F1YF7XY gives the date of publication for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as 26 June 2018. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
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) Reply
- This is a valuable option for an official site of (e.g.,) a defunct company or a completed political campaign. But for the most part, you shouldn't add archived links, and when you see them, you should remove them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
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: 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) Reply
- Further down, Template:Britannica/doc says, "This template may only be used as an inline reference in an article on a related subject." Meaning it cannot be used for external links. Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply
- It's WP:ELNO#EL1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article."
- There is nothing in a (good, modern) encyclopedia article that shouldn't be in ours, so you shouldn't put it in ==External links==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Reply