Misplaced Pages

:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:External links Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:14, 16 March 2012 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,345 editsm Signing comment by BrigKlyce - "→Link from "panspermia" to panspermia.org.: "← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:30, 28 December 2024 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,768 edits →2024 United States drone sightings: FixTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
] ]
] ]
] ]
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}}
{{/Header}} {{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 11 |counter = 23
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(6d)
|minthreadsleft=8
|archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->
}}


== Bot? Sock? Farm? ==
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->


As I've said over at ]...
== Proposed external link. ==


I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.
{{rfc|media|external link|rfcid=27C6F2F}}


The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{tl|cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.
I would like to add an external link on the Foster and Partners wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Foster_and_Partners).
That external link will be from the Foster and Partners personal profile on the Archello web site. ( An architectural platform for the built environment).


It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. ] (]) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This will be the external link to add on the page:


:Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
*
:I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @], ], ], any thoughts on how to detect this? ] (]) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


*{{spamlink|poolremovalorlando.com}}
I realize that is a minor change and I can added directly by my own, attaching a summary on it.
*{{spamlink|fittingdeals.com}}
However I'm not sure if that is enough, that's why I write this request to ask advise and avoid future requests.
*{{spamlink|agencja-celna.co.uk}}


Found one more account.
Thanks for understanding.
*{{UserSummary|Dutsono}}


The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.
Greetings.


] (]) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC) See also ]. ] 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw by {{user links|Drutohishab}} which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? ] (]) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Why do you feel that that is not enough? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:'''comment''' Add it if the link gives extra content than what is in the artcle. If the link has the same info as the article then don't bother. ] (] ]) 00:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


*{{spamlink|xoompay.com}}
== Confusion regarding some links ==
*{{UserSummary|Eshohor}}
*{{UserSummary|Eidakihesa}}


They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. ] 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I added an external link from a '''copyright website''' to different articles, basically they were from the same website, but totally in context with the articles, but a senior Wikipedian removed them. I don't say that he is wrong but I am a bit confused. He guided me to the '''Misplaced Pages:External links''' page and I read it. I have noticed a point, following which I can add the links under the external links heading in all the articles. I just wanted any senior editor to help me out in this regard and guide me. Just wanted a neutral opinion of some one who is an expert.<br />
The point that I am referring to is '''What can normally be linked'''. They are a lot of articles (May be 10 I guess) so I am going to mention a few of them.
*
*
*
*<br />
Thanks --] (]) 06:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
:To me this looks like a misunderstanding of how to address copyrighted images. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the external links were added to address the concerns that images were under copyright.
:Misunderstanding aside, most of the links were unrelated to the article topic itself. The links added to biographical articles of individuals were to profiles on the companies associated with the individuals, rather than articles on the individuals themselves. The links added to articles about corporations should be evaluated against ] criteria, and if acceptable, added to the article talk pages as potential sources for verification or expansion. --] (]) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::If this is the case then the links should have been only deleted from the pages of the individuals and not from the companies.--] (]) 05:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


:Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- ]] 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think so. So you seem to be adding links like http://www.hedgefundletters.com/category/marathon-asset-management/ to articles like ], along with images like ]. Misplaced Pages needs the URL—but it needs it only on the File page, not in the article, and never under the ==External links== heading. ] (]) 05:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in ]'s header. –] (]]) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::@], @], @], it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? ] (]) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You can see ] activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- ]] 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been to use instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. <b>] ]</b> 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page ==
::::Okay, but it is not for any advertisement and I have placed a copyrighted source. I agree with User:Ronz that caricatures don't belong in an encyclopedia, but can't these links be used as references? And as far as the external links heading is concerned The point that I am referring to is '''What can normally be linked'''. Isn't it supporting what I am saying. You can correct me if I am wrong in understanding the meaning. I'll really appreciate that.</br>Thanks--] (]) 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Let's not try to justify bad links after the fact. We've established they were added in an attempt to address copyright problems with images. Such links simply don't belong.
:::::If someone wants to use some of the links as sources, it would be best to check at ]. I'd say don't use them since the letters might be confused as secondary sources rather than primary and self-published. (From a brief skim, it looks like the site collects and republishes letters from hedge fund organizations, and includes their own profile of each organization.) --] (]) 21:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?
:::::Inlandmamba, ELYES #3 simply doesn't apply. There are two reasons for this:
:::::# Nothing in the entire guideline applies to material that has been added to the article—say, an image placed in the article.
:::::# ELYES #3 specifically says it applies to "material that...'''cannot''' be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues". You '''can''' add these image into the Misplaced Pages article—you arranged permission—so ELYES doesn't apply. ] (]) 15:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::So ], that means that I can add the images to the articles but not the links? Because I have taken permission from the copyright holder and the OTRS volunteer has allowed me to use them. And if I want to add the links I would have to send a permission to Misplaced Pages?<br />--] (]) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


] (]) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::More precisely, the ] guideline does not prohibit you from adding either the images or the links '''as part of the article content''' (that is, '''not''' as part of the ==External links== list). Of course, the EL guideline never prohibits any image or link or other type of article content. It only prohibits (or allows) things that belong under the ==External links== heading.
:::::::Whether you can add the images and/or the links as part of the regular article content ('''not''' part of the ==External links==) is a question for another page. Material added to the regular article content must comply with all of the sourcing and content policies, as well as having general support ("]") from the editors at that particular article. ] (]) 23:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


:@] Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention ], so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, ] likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog ''as a source''. ] (]) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
== Editor adding his YouTube videos to multiple sites ==
::The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university ] (]) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at ].
:::This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of ]?"
:::] is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a ] for Korea in the article?" ] (]) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== Elton John videography ==
{{user|Archaeomoonwalker}} is adding his YouTube videos to various articles - they are of course the equivalent of a personal website. Perhaps someone here could have a word with him? I've reverted one but don't want to discourage him from editing, just from doing this. Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:I've cleaned up the spamming and left a note for him to review WP:COI. At this point, he may simply be unaware of his talk page and the messages there. --] (]) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in ]. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per ]. -- ] (]) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== ingobeautysalons.com ==


:@], there is no ==External links== section in that article. ] (]) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The following is copied directly from ], being moved here to make for a more open discussion where a larger portion of the community can weigh in on the merits of the link.
::They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against ] unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. ] ] 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- ] (]) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They're not banned per ], but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. ] (]) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Computational chemistry ==
Article involved:
*{{la|Beauty salon}}
Link involved:
*{{LinkSummaryLive|ingobeautysalons.com}}


@] and I are having a discussion ] on whether the external links on ], specifically under the section ] and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under ]. We would love to have more input. ] (]) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
''Copied discussion that started following my removal of a link they had added:''
:Hello Barek! Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages intact and free of vandalism - I know it's a tough job and I am glad that there are people out there like yourself who take it seriously. Having said that, I would like to ask you whether you would be able to explain why you believe that this link does not comply with the guidelines. I am a writer and I work with several online properties, but have not linked to any of them on Misplaced Pages because I think I have a pretty good understanding of what's acceptable and what's not. This one, in my opinion, adds a lot of value to the Beauty Salon wiki page and that is why I believe that it should be included. As stated in the description, it's a comprehensive directory of beauty salons in the US (as per the guidelines of links that are accepted; "a well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations"), and furthermore, the site allows for visitors to add salons and owners to update their salon information (which is in line with the whole wiki concept). There are also a lot of people working on it to ensure that everything is accurate. With over 60,000 salons currently on the site, a number that grows on a daily basis, I really do believe that the link adds to the wiki page. Let me know if you think otherwise!
:] <small>(] • ])</small> - 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::The problem is that external links should be to material that adds to the encyclopedic understanding of the article subject, while this link is a commercial directory - simply a business directory of commercial websites. More specifically, the link fails ] criterias #1, #4, #5, #13, and #14. If you disagree and still feel that the link should be added, please bring the link up for discussion at ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


:As a comment, I am cross-posting to both ] and ] since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. ] (]) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your prompt reply. I tried to edit the page you suggested, but I was not sure how to start a new section and didn't want to mess up the structure, so I decided to reply to you here. I know that it may be too much to ask, but maybe you can copy this whole talk into the external link noticeboard so that others can pitch in as well - I wish I knew how to do that. In regards to the criterias that you mentioned:
::@], while this could be argued as a type of ], it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at ] might have some advice for you about how to go about that. ] (]) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::#1 - "unique resource beyond what the article would contain" - I strongly believe that it does. The same way that a DMOZ link would, by being a directory of further resources on the very topic of the article. In this case, the topic is beauty salons, so it would be reasonable to include a directory of beauty salons. Don't you think?
:::For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were ]. I do think that a problem with the ], like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. ] (]) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::#4 - "Links mainly intended to promote a website" - That could be argued for pretty much every external link on Misplaced Pages. All those links are essentially promoting sites whether that was the initial intent or not. Having said that, the ones that are actual spam as explained in the respective Misplaced Pages page are obvious.
::::I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. ] (]) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::#5 - Same as the above. A user tried to replace the link that I added with a spam link and I reverted the change as soon as I saw that. The same user tried to do the same in several other pages and fortunately he/she was caught and those links were removed. Affiliate links, links to videos promoting products or links to pages with excessive advertisements, definitely do not have a place here! These are clearly made for the sole purpose of promotion. Furthermore, if an individual salon were to add their site as an external link, then again, that would not be acceptable. But the purpose of the link that I added is to expand upon the information in the article/page.
:::::To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate ]. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, ]). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. ] (]) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::#13 - "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" - I don't see how the site is indirectly related to the article's subject. They are both about beauty salons - the relation is truly direct.
::::::I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
:::#14 - "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers." - There was no list of links. I just added 1 link to a salon directory.
::::::In the particular instance, ] says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. ] (]) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::And again, I really appreciate you taking the time to go through this with me. I know that it's not your "job" to reply to any of my messages, but I thought that since you were the only respectable person to revert my addition, I should try to talk about it with you. Based on the above, and if you agree, I would like to re-add the link on the page.
:From my understanding of ] and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. '']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>'' 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Let me know what you think.
:::] <small>(] • ])</small> - 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::::To me, the link is simply a business directory - or a directory of spam links, making the directory link itself spam in nature. Obviously, there's a difference of interpretation of both the value of the link, as well as a difference in the interpretation of ], so I suggested bringing the discussion here for input by additional members of the community. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


== 2024 United States drone sightings ==
::::It boils down to the fact that all it is, is a listing of businesses. Even if your other arguments are true, it absolutely DOES apply to #14. The only point of going to the site is to find a business. There's also no "encyclopedic understanding" to be had here. Someone else could explain it in better words, but it's pretty clearly against the EL guidelines. (unlike the above poster I would disagree that it is in fact spam, however) ] (]) 17:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. – ] 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
-- Thank you for pitching in Melodia. And yes, I agree with what you are saying. It is a business directory, so in turn, it is listing businesses. However, I think that #14 refers to spam directories that actually contain long lists of links (links being the keyword here) to businesses. For example, adding a link to the page of a tradeshow listing links to their sponsors would definitely not be acceptable. However, there are no links (or lists of links) involved here. The reason I strongly believe that this link is not against the EL guidelines is the fact that DMOZ links are widely accepted and usually listed as as external links. A great example is ]. Notice the Open Directory link under External Links. If anything, that would be a more questionable link due to the fact that it actually is a list of links which is not true for the link in this case. Don't you agree? ] (]) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
::Just thought I should clarify further - there are absolutely no links to businesses in the directory. There are addresses and phone numbers. ] (]) 22:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:::The fact they are addresses and phone numbers rather than links it pretty irrelevant. ] (]) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

::::Addresses and phone numbers simply aren't encyclopedic information. They're telephone directory information. A person who wants to know more about the idea or concept of a beauty salon isn't going to be further educated by a list of addresses and phone numbers for beauty salons. ] (]) 05:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::I see where you are coming from Melodia and WhatamIdoing. But the issue here goes beyond that. The link was taken down due to the fact that it was considered a "spam" link, and I firmly stand by the fact that it's anything but that. Misplaced Pages is not a simple encyclopedia - I am sure you will agree with that. It is a collective effort to provide up to date and accurate information about anything, whether that's a concept, a person, or a business. And sometimes, directories can help add to that information. As it's specifically stated within the External Links and Point #3 of "What To Link To" ] - "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations" - Isn't that exactly what the link in question is? That is the question. I believe it is and that is why I would like to add it again. If I thought that it wasn't, I wouldn't have added it in the first place because I really respect the work that's being done here. ] (]) 00:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Correction, it was removed as I considered it "advert linkspam", not "spam", there is a subtle difference.
::::::As to the link, the fundamental fact is that the site is a business directory - an on-line yellow-pages. The site is simply not a "well chosen" link, due to the ELNO issues and lack of encyclopedic content. No content of that site would ever meet inclusion criteria on their own, unloading it to a secondary site to bypass the inclusion criteria is likewise not appropriate. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the clarification Barek. Can you please also compare the link to the one from DMOZ listed in ]? In my opinion, the one in ] is definitely of less value, don't you agree? So, if that (and many other comparable links) is acceptable, then wouldn't it make sense for Ingo Beauty Salons to be as well? Furthermore, the link was originally added in December. Since then, several editors have revised the page, including some that deleted actual spam links that had been added to the page, yet none of them removed that link. The bots also removed spam links but did not change this one. I guess that what I am trying to say is that a few people, obviously including myself, believe that the link actually adds value to the page. A small note here - the person who repeatedly deleted the link was a spammer whose first intention was to replace it with a spam link which I removed promptly. Since then, he/she simply decided to start a "game" where they would remove the link and I would add it back on. That "game" stopped when you stepped in and I realized that you weren't simply the same spammer under a different nickname. I really believe that the link should be on the page, but I definitely don't want to be childish and try to revert it back all the time. That's why I am trying to explain my reasoning here. ] (]) 08:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Dear "''''' Nicki Berotto, VP of Marketing of Ingo'''''" you have a ]. As was explained above, '''ingobeautysalons.com''' is a ] and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our ], ] and ] guidelines. Additionaly, Misplaced Pages is '''NOT''' a "'']''". Equally Misplaced Pages is not a place to '''''to promote your site'''''. Thank you for your understanding.--] (]) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Hello Hu12. I will begin by saying that as you can read at the very beginning of this conversation, I never withheld the fact that I work with Ingo. I am only specifying that because your reply seemed a little bit sarcastic, and wanted to clear the air - feel free to disregard it if that was not your intention. Having said that, while there are rules in regards to ], and rightfully so, that does not mean that any editor who is related to an individual/company/group has no right to edit an article that is also related to it. What the rules specifically state is that such editors should not do so if the goal is to promote or advance that individual/company/group and not the cause of Misplaced Pages. What I am trying to explain here is that I do strongly believe that this link would add to Misplaced Pages, so there is no real COI. In regards to the ] and ] guidelines, again, I have to bring up the example from my previous reply about the links to Open Directory/DMOZ. I am sure that there are many other, more questionable links to talk about, but this one is so similar in many ways and it is specifically listed as one of those links that would be acceptable. So, can you clarify how linking to a page from DMOZ is any different (or better) than linking to Ingo? I can definitely list many reasons why the opposite is true, but maybe I am not understanding something. ] (]) 10:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::One of Misplaced Pages's pillars is ]. ] is an important objective at Misplaced Pages, ] isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. Unfortunately your ] editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages under ] and IP ], in order to promote ingobeautysalons.com. Infact, even in this discussion you continue to promote the inclusion of ingobeautysalons.com. You don't see yourself as having an Conflict of interest; You perceive your biases as neutral. I hope you can see the problem here;
:::::::::::::{{Quote|text="''What I am trying to explain here is that I do strongly believe that this link would add to Misplaced Pages, so there is no real COI.''"|sign=] VP of Marketing of Ingo 10:01, 3 March 2012}}
:::::::::::Furthermore, about those links to Open Directory/DMOZ; The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that DMOZ's links exist in articles doesn't prove that '''ingobeautysalons.com''' should also exist. As was explained above, ingobeautysalons.com fails a multitude of Wikipedias inclusion criteria. Unlike Misplaced Pages, DMOZ '''''is''''' a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than wikipedia.
:::::::::::--] (]) 15:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::The general point behind the DMOZ (and similar) links is that we'd rather have one DMOZ link at an article like ] than to have dozens or hundreds of external links in our own article. We would accept many of these links at the article, except that we don't really want to have dozens or hundreds of external links in any article. And how to do you choose between dozens of equally good links to, say, national cancer charities? Whatever you pick will be suboptimal from someone's perspective: the American Cancer Society page isn't as useful to someone in Africa as an African group might be. So we chose a directory listing of lots of links, far more than we could accept here.
::::::::::::By contrast, we would never accept dozens or hundreds of external links to local beauty salons. Consequently, a directory listing of local beauty salons is not going to be acceptable. It provides only information that we would never want to have in the first place. ] (]) 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}It's limited to the United States. It's explicitly commercial and designed to promote, for a price, specific beauty salons. It advertises. But the greatest objection to it is that there's absolutely nothing encyclopedic about it. The only thing someone could learn from this page is where to find a beauty salon in the US, not useful information about beauty salons in general with world-wide merit. Absolutely inappropriate. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

== Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology ==
{{resolved}}
Could I ask for some input on the as an EL at ]? It appears to have some useful material in a wide range of languages.

Recently an EL to was added, apparently by its President. I commented on the article's talk page, asking for other's thoughts, but was leaning toward removing it eventually. Another editor responded by removing all of the ELs except for sexual-medicine.org (and adding DMOZ). Granted, many of the other ELs were long dead or non-English, but the one page I questioned is the only one still there. This seems strange. Should sexual-medicine.org be kept and www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/index.html removed? ] (]) 05:10, 4 March 2012‎ (UTC)
:The ] link has a link to the MH archive . ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 12:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
:I would say MH is much more widely known that sexual-medicine.org. Not sure it is of much use for a casual reader though. -- ] (]) 13:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

::Is this resolved, or do you need more help? ] (]) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Discussions are explicitly closed at AN/I, but I wasn't aware that was the practice here at EL/N. I thought they simply were archived after a while. WhatamIdoing, might I ask why you asked? Since you have joined the conversation, please feel free to share your thoughts on the ELs being discussed. ] (]) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

::::The general goal at ELN is for everyone to get the help they need. It's not always obvious from comments here whether that's happened, especially when the disputants have a long and fractious history.
::::I haven't looked at the links and therefore have no opinion. If Richiez's comments are sufficient to resolve the dispute, then I see no need for me to form an opinion on the links. ] (]) 05:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::"long and fractious history"? I'm curious about why you write that, WhatamIdoing. Sure, I've had past disagreements with the editor who most recently re-added the EL to Magnus Hirschfeld Archive, but it seems hard to imagine a more suitable EL. Another particular editor has included the EL as an RS source in another article. Are you suggesting the EL's removal might not have been about the EL?
:::::Frankly, I'm feeling singled out, and am concerned by the number of comments in this discussion that aren't about the ELs. I accept Richiez's comment, but was hoping for something more explicit. ] (]) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::If you've a serious disagreement with me or James Cantor, bring it up at a user request for comment or some other noticeboard dedicated to behavioural issues. The MH link is still included as a link via DMOZ. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
(This is where WLU declared the discussion closed.)] (]) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I posted here seeking input on some external links; 'edits not editors' and all that. (Although at least based on that past edit, Cantor and I seem to agree about the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive.) WLU, please be aware that the harder you and WhatamIdoing try to end this discussion, the more it will look like there is something you don't wish to discuss. ] (]) 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::You haven't raised any points that justify linking to the archive despite it already being a link in the DMOZ page. You have brought up the contributions of {{user|James Cantor}} from 2009, and my changes to a completely different page - both of which seem completely irrelevant given why I removed it. If you think it's worth re-including it on the page despite being included in the DMOZ, I would suggest justifying it's inclusion per ]. Sexualmedicine.org isn't included in the DMOZ, and is a world-wide agency, I think it qualifies under ] point 3. The DMOZ is mentioned specifically in ] point 3. If you have a question for the noticeboard, you need to formulate it more clearly because I have yet to see anything requiring a clear comment. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Hmm... I hadn't appreciated that Dr. Chakravarthy was both the founder and current president of Sexualmedicine.org as well as the media coordinator. (In addition to, as noted originally, probably also the editor who added the EL.) By what measure is it international?
::::::::::While it might be a worthwhile EL among many, I don't think it should be the only non-DMOZ EL. Additionally, I don't recall inclusion in DMOZ being an WP:ELNO. Were it so, that would be a reason not to get on DMOZ. I think Sexualmedicine.org should go and Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology should be restored, but posted here seeking other opinions.
::::::::::If you'll check, WLU, you'll find that it was WhatamIdoing that brought up some "long and fractious history." She has yet to explain what she meant. I would still welcome an explanation for that, in addition to an explanation about why my request is being handled in a unique fashion. WLU, you were first to mention Cantor, although I added a diff to him reinserting the EL that I think should be reinserted again. Of course, WhatamIdoing and all others are more than welcome to comment on the ELs.
::::::::::Unless, of course, this was never about the ELs... ] (]) 05:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::If this is not about ELs, take it elsewhere. If you're just concerned about the EL, stop bringing up motivations like you do in your closing line, which is an obvious accusation of bad faith. An EL stands or falls on its own merits, not on who adds it. I think inclusion in a DMOZ makes a duplicate link on the main page unnecessary, but that's a question that can be answered at ELN - you may have to start a new section.
:::::::::::Looking into the IASM further, you are correct in that it does seem to be a pretty limited to really just India. The seems a better choice - it is an umbrella organization for four other international organizations (Europe, Asia, South and North America) and sponsors a large number of international conferences . ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 13:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
(This is where WLU might actually have checked the ELs being discussed. He had edited to make IASM/Sexualmedicine.org the only non-DMOZ EL eight days before. ] (]) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC))
::::::::::::Actually, WLU, I think you've just demonstrated that your side of this conflict was never about the ELs. You repeatedly asserted that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page" and "a world-wide agency". Then, you might actually have checked the EL, and found it was not international, exactly as I stated in the original post on the article discussion page. Did you stop to ask why WAID was pushing for closure instead of supporting you on the ELs?
::::::::::::Sadly, this follows the regular pattern of WLU's year-long ] of me. Last time, he stated his intention to cite an article he hadn't read, and only conceded after the edit war that I was right. Like this time, he thoughtlessly reacted to my talk page comment by doing the exact opposite, arguing a lot, and wasting a lot of our time. A absurd example of his argument-for-arguments-sake is WLUs fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM, then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours), (and hijacking a 3O), then zero pages,, and then finally one page at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict. He'll claim AGF for himself, but has stated the conclusion that I should be driven off Misplaced Pages.
::::::::::::And now, WLU and WAID have hijacked my request here.
===Attempting to un-hijack this discussion===
Might I be able get some more input '''about the external links?''' Please check the ELs BEFORE commenting. I continue to believe the is a worthwhile link, with a broad range of resources in multiple languages. It should not be penalized for the absence of the word "International" in the title, or its presence in DMOZ. I didn't add the EL originally, but believe it should be re-added. (I'm open to input about Sexualmedicine.org as well, but now that even WLU has actually checked it and supports my original position, there doesn't seem to be much point to discussing that EL further.) ] (]) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

== A painting at ] ==

On an IP (]) added an external link to ] for a interpretation of the myth of Apollo and Daphne. (It should probably be noted that the IP is in KC, both where the artist lives and where the painting is in a private collection; this IP has ''not'' added any other links to the artist's work.) I reverted with the none-too-friendly edit summary "Spam". The IP kindly instead of just re-adding the link, to which I replied: "I deleted the link because the painting by Mr. Goodrich does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic itself and is not (by Misplaced Pages standards) notable enough to warrant inclusion based upon the its own, or the painter's, notability." Since the IP is clearly editing in good faith, I bring the discussion here, just in case I'm way out of bounds. — <span style="letter-spacing:1pt; font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> &#124; <span style="letter-spacing:1pt; font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> — 02:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

:Overall, I think I agree with you: Your first ] was not especially friendly and probably inaccurate. However, the link really doesn't belong on that particular page, since it doesn't really tell the reader anything encyclopedic (e.g., useful, informative, factual, etc.) about Daphne. ] (]) 05:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

:: The page has three other paintings of the myth, the most recent more than a quarter millennium old. My intention in including Goodrich's treatment of the subject was (and is) to show that the subject matter is still being painted. Would it be acceptable to get a CC release for Goodrich's image, upload that to the commons, and include it as a fourth illustration, showing the continuing trends in painters' treatments of this myth? Because right now it looks like an old myth that nobody has bothered to do anything with since the reign of George II and that is erroneous. ] (]) 16:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::The general threshold for works of art and links thereof is (in my opinion) the ] of the artist. Otherwise everyone with a website and scanner can link to any example even tangentially related to the page. To avoid being ] for everyone who can post something online, we must maintain fairly rigid standards for what can be included as an EL.
:::If there is evidence that Goodrich is a notable artist, that s/he has received sufficient interest and acclaim to merit a wikipedia page, I would suggest creating that page, uploading that image an then discussing whether to include it on ]. Only if the painting itself has been particularly lauded is it worth using an external link. This is how we distinguish between "society still expresses interest in the subject matter" and "one artist still finds the subject interesting". Putting in an external link to a non-notable artist's webpage is indistinguishable from spam, irrespective the intent. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

==]==
"Barry Minkow Beneath the Iceberg" is a multipage website exposé written by Len Clements and hosted at his website marketwaveinc.com. Is this appropriate to be listed as an external link (or under heading "Further reading") in the article about ], perpetrator of a famous case of investment fraud? Since Minkow is a living person, this question appears to raise issues under ] and ]. ], who states that xe is the author of the work in question, and I have been discussing this on the ], and additional perspectives would be helpful.--] (]) 01:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

== mb-soft.com ==

This site has been added to (and then removed from) a large number of articles, e.g. . Although the IP editor doing the removal is suspected to be a banned user, I think his point is essentially correct. This is a self-published source ] in most Misplaced Pages articles. Is it possible to configure the edit filer or a similar tool to reject or warn about adding links to this site? ] (]) 22:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

== Link from "panspermia" to panspermia.org. ==

The Misplaced Pages page on "panspermia" formerly had an External Link link to panspermia.org. It is the number one Internet resource for the topic. This link was approved after a lengthy discussion a year or two ago. Now one of your pseudonymed editors has removed it. Can it be restored?

<A href="http://www.panspermia.org">Cosmic Ancestry</a>
: Yes, it was removed because it doesn't meet ], and because of the obvious ]. <b>] ]</b> 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All of that was already discussed and the link was approved. If you say it is unreliable, you should say where it is unreliable, right? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
How do I sign? I'm logged in with my real name. Brig Klyce. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: The issues with reliability were already covered in the ANI discussion I linked to. I don't see anywhere in that discussion that the link was given consensus approval. <b>] ]</b> 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The link was kept following that discussion of c. Feb 2011. It was only removed by a new party in Oct 2011, if I am understanding the edits log correctly. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Unless you can provide a link to a diff showing where this "approval" was, I'm going to chalk this up to a case of ]. <b>] ]</b> 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The External Link to panspermia.org was actually not the topic of the year-ago discussion. The link sat there known to all, while another link, to a specific page that had content not otherwise available, was ruled out. I am a leading expert on the subject of panspermia. The Wictionary definition of panspermia, linked from your panspermia page, is the one I wrote. Your page lacks a link to the oldest (older than Misplaced Pages), best-maintained and most complete Internet resource on the subject. If you disagree, please say why. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 03:30, 28 December 2024

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Abuse filter

    Bot? Sock? Farm?

    As I've said over at SPI...

    I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.

    The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.

    It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
    I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @Beetstra, MER-C, LaundryPizza03, any thoughts on how to detect this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Found one more account.

    The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.

    See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali. MER-C 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw this by Drutohishab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. MER-C 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- GreenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in WP:AN's header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    @GreenC, @LaundryPizza03, @MER-C, it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    You can see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- GreenC 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been actively updating it in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been encouraged to use this list instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. OhNoitsJamie 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page

    I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?

    Global Cyber University Fanmadehenecia (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Fanmadehenecia Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention Hwang Hyun-jin, so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, WP:BLPSPS likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university Fanmadehenecia (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Fanmadehenecia, you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
    This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of Hwang Hyun-jin?"
    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a goodwill ambassador for Korea in the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    Elton John videography

    I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in Elton John videography. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly, there is no ==External links== section in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against WP:EL unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're not banned per Misplaced Pages:External links#Links in lists, but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Computational chemistry

    @Ldm1954 and I are having a discussion here on whether the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. We would love to have more input. Dajasj (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    As a comment, I am cross-posting to both WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ldm1954, while this could be argued as a type of Misplaced Pages:Further reading, it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals might have some advice for you about how to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were WP:RS. I do think that a problem with the External Links Remover, like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate WP:EL. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, WP:BRD). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
    In the particular instance, WP:ELBURDEN says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    From my understanding of WP:EL and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. Choucas Bleucontribs 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    2024 United States drone sightings

     You are invited to join the discussion at 2024 United States drone sightings § AARO external link. – Anne drew 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: