Wikipedia talk:External links

Notes formatting

Can someone take a look at this edit made by CopperyMarrow15 in August 2023? When the "notes" were converted to WP:SRF#Explanatory notes in change their numbering from numerical (1, 2, 3, etc.) to alphabetic (a, b, c, etc.). Since these notes are are referred to using Wikilinks in edit summaries or on other talk pages, all of the links no longer work. If there's a way to use {{efn}} with numbers instead of letters of the alphabet, then that might be preferable so that links to the notes still work. If not, then perhaps the bold change should be reverted to re-establish the WP:STATUSQUO and allow it to be discussed a bit. If using "efn" is the way to go here and it's impossible to convert them to a numerical system, then perhaps WP:ANCHORs should be added so that links to the old system work again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Such links can't be preserved forever anyway; even if the old formatting style were restored, the numbers change every time an earlier ref is added to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but "anchors" can be updated each time a note is added or removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to replace all of the links in past discussions that currently link to something like "WP:EL#cite_note-6" to a newly created, permanent anchor? When that footnote becomes #cite_note-7, we can't add an anchor to its old #cite_note-6 location, as that number will be needed in for a different place on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought just updating the anchors for the efns being used in the EL page would work; however, after thinking about it a but more, you're right that there's much more involved than that. As long as there's a way to link to the notes like before, things should be fine. Thanks for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCs and Bible verses

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Template:IETF RFC exempt from WP:NOELBODY? is the most recent discussion about whether WP:NOELBODY bans all external links in the body. I think that one is largely going to resolve as "Huh, I didn't know that Template:Cite IETF existed and has all the functionality I want", but I think that the questions reveal a shift in editors' thinking towards the idea that everything that is not permitted is forbidden.

If memory serves, we have historically permitted external links to non-WMF-hosted websites, in the middle of sentences/paragraphs, in five instances:

• Internet RFCs,
• PMIDs,
• ISBNs,
• Media that fails NFCC (via Template:External media), and
• Bible verses (via Template:Bibleverse).

The first three used to be hardcoded as magic links into the MediaWiki parser; you couldn't avoid them even when you wanted to. The last was used widely enough that it couldn't be described as anything other than the community's widespread and long-standing practice. (These days, the Bible verse template has an option to point to Wikisource.)

My impression is that PMIDs and ISBNs aren't normally used in the text of an article, but the other three use cases are still valid. In addition, some lists correctly contain external links (see, e.g., the many Lists of websites as well as the examples in WP:ELLIST).

I am wondering whether it's time to write down some of these "unwritten rules", so that good-faith editors (as well as any editors seeking to win a content dispute by objecting to the formatting) can see that the most common "Other exceptions" that this guideline mentions really are permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found another: Template:United States Code and related law templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection for over a month, I have added some additional examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted part of it. If I understand the above correctly, the argument being made is that historically Bible verses have been widely linked - but I'm not seeing a reason why that should be the case, if that is still true at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, I think if you click this link: Genesis 1:15–16 you will understand why that particular template is not banned.

The usual context is something like "Alice says that Genesis 1:15–16 is meant to tell a story, but Bob says that it's more properly understood as a poem or song lyrics". It's too long to stick the text in, and the title is too obscure to assume that the reader knows what it means (like saying "Sonnet 130", as if we all have the numbering scheme for Shakespeare's sonnets memorized). Of course, if we had an article at Genesis 1:15 (as we do at Sonnet 130), then linking to the article would be preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really. I can see a benefit to understanding what Alice and Bob are referring to, but that same argument could apply to anything they might be referring to, whether musical lyrics or part of a novel. What we would do in those cases is quote the passage if particularly relevant, or link to the article on the broader work. I don't see a reason to treat Bible verses differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can't see why a link to Wikisource is okay, then could I encourage you to go review the original form of the footnote?

What we do in cases where we believe the reader will get some "benefit to understanding what Alice and Bob are referring to" is:

1. quote the passage if particularly relevant,
2. link to the article if one exists, and
3. for certain fixed, famous works (usually ones whose titles are cryptic), for which directly quoting the passage is inappropriate (so we can't use option 1) and for which no article exists (so we can't use option 2), link to the relevant text.

This is fundamentally about putting the readers' benefit ahead of thoughtless compliance with The Rules™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I question your basic premises here: if a reader cannot understand an article without reference to an external source, then we are doing a poor job of serving that reader, regardless of whether linking that source is in accordance with the rules or not.

An article on the Book of Genesis exists. You're proposing a scenario where the reader needs to understand something more specific yet somehow something that we can't quote, and also where we know what version is being referenced (because it's definitely not fixed). And you're also suggesting this scenario is unique to "certain fixed, famous works". I don't think that logic makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the phrase "certain fixed, famous works" risks opening a whole can of worms. Even in this instance, as noted, there are many different versions of the bible. DonIago (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago, the edit in question did not include the phrase "certain fixed, famous works". It just expanded a single example of an accepted template to four examples of accepted templates (and also added examples of templates that aren't used this way).

@Nikkimaria, I don't say that the scenario is unique to "certain fixed, famous works". The same scenario applies to (e.g.,) memes and movie quotes, which in a social media context might be posted with a link. But the community doesn't accept external links to memes and movie quotes. They do accept external links to a handful of other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your own response above used the phrase "certain fixed, famous works". If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? DonIago (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase I used above is relatively unimportant, because it's not part of the proposed footnote.

What I mean is that the footnote used to say:

• Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.

and that I think it would be better to give more than one example of a template, e.g.,:

• Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates that link to original documents being mentioned by name/number in the article (such as – but not limited to – {{Bibleverse}}, {{IETF RFC}}, and {{United States Code}}) and templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.

We have a problem with editors reading "other exceptions include..." and thinking that it means "the sole acceptable deviation from standard practice". Listing more than one should reduce this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And cause the opposite one: encouraging the use of inline external links for primary sources as a default, even where another solution serves the reader better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't found this to be generally the case, but I agree with you that the goal is the best solution for the reader.

Using the example above ("Alice says that Genesis 1:15–16 is meant to tell a story, but Bob says that it's more properly understood as a poem or song lyrics"), I suggest that having neither link nor explanation is not usually the best solution. Do you agree with me on that point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that what you've presented in isolation isn't particularly helpful for the reader, but without context it's difficult to assess the most appropriate solution - whether quoting, linking externally, linking internally, explaining, or omitting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the best choice would depend on the context.

Your reply indicates that linking externally could (sometimes, perhaps rarely) be the most appropriate solution. Have I understood you correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Rarely, but sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So in that rare situation, which method do you want editors to use to provide the link? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, would be highly context-specific - if it's a major touchpoint for the text use of {{wikisource}} may even be warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We try to constrain that particular template to the ==External links== section, because it's bulky. (The general thinking is that if it's worth that much space in the main article, then you ought to be considering a blockquote instead.)

For inline links, the Bibleverses template is the normal approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

{od}

To continue this:

• It is sometimes acceptable to have an external link to Bible verses (and some other things) in the middle of a sentence.
• Template:Bibleverse is the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses).
• IMO this guideline should just say that. This should not be an "unwritten rule"; it should be written down where people who don't know that the template exists, or who just learned about it, can find out about it.

So: Why not just say that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Because saying that makes it look like this is a standard, when it is rarely if ever the best solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are adding the link, then using this template is the standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments: I just ran across this and my internet is down. I would like to state that the bulleted form of (first comment), ::(second comment), back to :(first comment) etc, is far easier on the eyes.

I will have to reread things to really be abreast of things. One thing about the comments "So: Why not just say that?" and the reply "Because saying that makes it look like this is a standard, when it is rarely if ever the best solution.", leaves me a little confused.

If I am not off base: First, there are editors that have extensive command of verbiage to note that something is "rarely used" as an exception. Second, I surmise it would ultimately be a decision of consensus on a particular article, if a "seldom used" or less than "best solution", should be in an article or not. I will have to look at a Bibleverse template example but ATM I am hamstrung with internet issues.

I will note there is Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. In the External links guideline the lead paragraph states, "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article", and This page in a nutshell: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." Not "normally" and "With rare exceptions" indicate there can be, "rare" exceptions, but I would have to look at some. I apparently and simply must have continually missed that the template is for "External links". If that is so (and I am sure it is), and it "is the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses)" then it is not "rare exceptions", as there are many instances of Bible verse content (if some, many, or all are in a template) on Wikipedia. It seems then that there is a need for discussing some agreeable solution. I perform a lot of work in (as in the "inside") the External links section so am one of those that didn't know about this. I also consider myself extremely well "versed" concerning the Bible, and not being timid decided a long time ago to steer clear of most Biblical articles or discussions.

• There are two arguments or comments that stand out. I suppose two ways of looking at this:
  • 1)- "It is sometimes acceptable to have an external link to Bible verses (and some other things) in the middle of a sentence.", with "If you are adding the link, then using this template is the standard.", and
  • 2)- "And cause the opposite one: encouraging the use of inline external links for primary sources as a default, even where another solution serves the reader better.

The second comment is in line with a saying in a TV movie. Something like, "If you build it they will come". If you provide a reason to use a template, it will become everyday common. It is like the plague, it will spread quickly. However, placing a binder on those wishing to cite Biblical passages only seems normal to those on the other side of the fence. There is such a mainstream move against anything about the Bible that what Nikkimaria stated, "I don't see a reason to treat Bible verses differently.", is likely the reason. I mean, Guinness World Records states "the Christian Bible" is still the best selling book of all time, if it is believed or not. Possibly between 5 and 7 billion copies? We can quote books of pure fiction but not works considered by many to be non-fiction. A criteria for a source is that it is published. ::::Also, A template could have a place to list which Bible a source is used from. However, there is a BIG can of worms looming around this discussion. The "External links" section has a particular set of criteria that "generally" is for that section only. Now we have that citing Biblical passages in an external links template is "normal". Anyway, that is all I am going to state about that. Let me know what you figure out. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

About '"the usual way to provide that link (for Bible verses)" then it is not "rare exceptions"': Providing a link is (or should be) fairly rare. However, whenever you do that rare thing, then using this template is the common way to provide that link.

If you are using it to "cite", or "as a source", then you should not put that in the text. Compare:

• Revered Rae referred to Genesis 1:15–16 when claiming that the Sun, Moon, and stars are the source of light for the world.<ref>Rae, Rev. (2012) "Let There Be Light: Symbolism in the Genesis Creation Story" Bible Magazine. p.14</ref>
• The Bible says that God made the Sun, Moon, and stars.<ref>Genesis 1:15–16</ref>

In the first, the link shows you what the text/passage/poem is. You should first link to any article that provides the same information; you should next consider whether a link is necessary (probably, for a sentence like that, since most people don't know what those numbers mean, though you should consider re-writing the sentence to avoid the numbers); finally, if a link is deemed necessary, then you should use this template instead of placing the link manually.

In the second, the link is being used as a citation to support article content. You probably shouldn't do this at all (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion; consider the potential problems of original research with this class of primary sources), but if you're going to rely on this primary source for such a statement, then it belongs in ref tags and not in the sentence itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, according to that rationale it would be "rare", possibly somewhat controversial, but not common. I tend to stay away from OR. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Which rationale do you think is the one about a controversial action? The rationale for providing a link to 'tell the reader which passage is being talked about' is not the rationale for 'editors should avoid using ancient religious texts to support claims in articles'.

For the WP:EL issue, if you would write "Shakespeare used imagery of the Sun and Moon in Sonnet 21", then you should equally write "Revered Rae says Genesis 1:15–16 talks about the Sun, Moon, and stars".

And if we didn't have suitable Wikipedia articles (which, as it happens, we have one for the Shakespeare sonnet but not one for the Genesis passage), you should write "Shakespeare used imagery of the Sun and Moon in Sonnet 21" and equally write "Revered Rae says Genesis 1:15–16 talks about the Sun, Moon, and stars". (Both of these links point to Wikisource.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Singer

Faiz Muhammad Chachar was a Sindhi folk singer. He was born in 2006 in the village of Muhammad Umar Chachar near Pano Akil District Sukkur.singing style made him popular among Sindh and all of Pakistan Faiz Muhammad son of Khan Muhammad Chachar tiktok.com/@faizmuhammadchachar17 Faiz Muhammad Chachar (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Faiz Muhammad Chachar, it sounds like you might be looking for the Wikipedia:Autobiography rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Links to own works when you are the only person writing about a topic...

In the world of plants, there are some that only grow in one place or a very small area, and tend to just have a short botanical description given for them. I'm in an area where there are a good many, so I get to see them first hand, and I've started writing descriptive articles describing the habitat, range etc of the ones around me, with added Turkish translation, because otherwise there is often absolutely nothing written about them, a sort of niche need to fill I've become aware of. I'm happy to be making the wikipedia article itself based purely on formally published botanical descriptions etc, but that creates the awkward matter of being the only one writing about the given plant in any extensive way, such that it's my own work that would be very helpful to go in as an external link, and I know that can obviously look questionable, although it is a practical reality in this case with endemic plants. I'm not sure what your advice should be on the matter. An example of the kind of article is this (I'm actually intending to call them drafts because I feel that indicates nicely to readers that such information is always a work in progress and there's always more to be added and improved, otherwise people have a habit of reading articles in too finalistic a way). Many thanks for your advice here! Meteorquake (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest we usually recommend that you suggest the links on the talk page, and let someone else add them. As species articles are generally underwatched, you may wish to talk this over with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

“Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources”

What is that supposed to mean? That sounds like it’s saying “unreliable sources can be linked if they’re reliable”, which is an obvious logical contradiction. It either needs clarification or needs removing. I personally support the latter, as well as tightening the criteria to be more stringent in general. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus of mainly adding official links, links between sister sites, and links to certain high-profile websites like IMDb for movies. Curating lists of random websites that would not otherwise be used in the article, no matter how educational, is fundamentally not neutral, especially given the fact that arbitrarily capping these link farm sections is explicitly encouraged by current guidelines. Who gets to decide and why? And why do we even need to? Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: the bar for including an external link is less than what is required to source an assertion in the article. A good external link is one that includes useful and accurate information on the topic, beyond what is likely to be in the article (for example, it may have a lot of detail what would be regarded as WP:UNDUE here). "Accurate" just means that an informed editor believes the information is good and there are no significant known problems. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s not simple at all. I can get WP:UNDUE, but why do we allow random editors to insert their personal value judgments about “good” information sources into what is basically the definitive web page on a subject? Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything at Wikipedia is based on personal value judgments. Someone believes that a source is reliable and therefore uses it with an assertion they believe satisfies WP:DUE and other policies. The "truth" of the matter is resolved when others challenge the edit. At that time, consensus is required about the source and the assertion. The same applies for an external link. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

We have a curated list of respected and not-so-respected sources, not to mention a ton of other stuff on the concept of reliability as it pertains to articles. The external linking guides seem to say, based on your interpretation, that no such vigor is required and essentially anyone can put anything there as long as it seems good enough. Do you not see the double standard and circular logic here? Dronebogus (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The first mistake you're making is that the sources listed at perennial sources are the only sources we can use/link to. That's just flatly incorrect. Secondly, I think I can trust people's editorial judgment in determining which external links are valid or not. Not everything needs to be so rigid. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said we only could link from perennial sources. My point is that external links should be subject to the same scrutiny as sources. They should be linked to for a reason. Otherwise they seem like the reference desks— a relic of Wikipedia’s days of being the only major educational site on the web and editors being expected to act as librarians as well as editors. Nowadays I think people can seek out this sort of thing themselves and we don’t need to curate lists of this stuff. Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave the reason for an EL to be used above: includes useful and accurate information on the topic, beyond what is likely to be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t feel like that acknowledged anything I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, is there anything wrong with the latter? If anything, I feel like Wikipedia being a reference desk is going to matter more and more as more AI slop gets churned out and search engines get degraded like Google's has. For the former, like sources are, external links should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it's reliable/from a source matter expert, it should stay. If it isn't, it should go. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia’s job is to be an encyclopedia. If someone wants to make a Wiki-link-directory, or a Wiki QnA, then they can try and get it made. But Wikipedia doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a link farm or one of those QnA Reddits. It’s enough work being an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If you take part in WP:RSN discussions you'll soon find editors regularly mention that it's not the place to determine if a source can be used in external links and their comments are not addressing if their sources can be used in external links. RSN is where RSPS entries come from. So..... 13:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

IMDb is a site "that fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources”. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

But it’s been very well established by consensus. Other sites are literally just some random editor’s personal opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Your first sentence was "What's that supposed to mean?" I was answering your question. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Fandom sites for and some other UGC for works of fiction are other examples of sites which often contain useful additional content but which are not reliable. While some of these like Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia have had some discussion, I'm fairly sure for less known works there is little or none about the specific sites. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Should there maybe be a “perennial external links” guideline? It obviously would do nothing for weird outlier fringe cases like the ones I’m complaining about, but it’s a start. Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No… the “Perennial” part of RSP means that the listed sources have been discussed multiple times… with the same consensus as to reliability - over and over again. It isn’t intended to be a complete list of “good” and “bad” sources, but simply a handy reference guide of consensus … so we don’t have to repeatedly discuss those sources (yet again). I think it is unlikely that the external links you are concerned about will have been discussed repeatedly (ie Perennially). Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites in 2010. The list is short and should stay that way. Very few sites get discussed repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from editing external links until you can get a better grasp that there are gray areas in the wiki that don't have hard and fast rules that are easy to follow. If you are not an "informed editor", that is, knowledgeable in the subject, I would state you shouldn't be removing links. I have basic knowledge about Physics and refrain from editing links on a subject I don't have solid in-depth knowledge about. spryde | talk 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

About the only hard and fast rule there is around EL other than it should be related to the topic on hand is "if you are the owner of the site, don't go adding it as that's COI". If it is that good, someone else will add it. spryde | talk 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy pinging @JD Gale: @Rachel Helps (BYU): as involved in the general subject. Dronebogus (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe this is getting somewhat off-topic. My main question is not so much why we have such lax standards for external links (though I do seriously question that); it’s who gets to determine what gets linked and why. When I see a hidden message loudly proclaiming “DON’T CHANGE THIS” above one of these sections, I’m inclined to ask “who’s telling me this and why?” Even when I don’t, I still ask myself something similar. I’d like objective impersonal standards, that’s all. Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Suggest you edit another website since pretty much none of our policies or guidelines aims to be objective. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  That’s a pretty unimpressive non-answer. If there’s no objectivity how can policies and guidelines even exist, let alone be enforced? What is the point WP:NPOV, if not to promote objectivity? Telling people to go away because you disagree with them is not helpful to anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  The point of NPOV is not to promote objectivity. The point of NPOV is to require editors to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" in each article. The words "as far as possible, without editorial bias" mean "This is a subjective goal that will require you to use your best judgment and compromise with others, because neutrality is not a universal, objective, measurable state". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I hate these philosophical arguments about what something is and how it’s therefore impossible to achieve and not moving towards that thing as an ideal. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe we wouldn't have such arguments if you stopped asserting that the main purpose of our WP:SUBJECTIVE policy is objectivity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) As to the answer, editors engaging in good faith discussion based on our policies and guidelines get to decide what's in the external link section just as they get to decide what's in the rest of the article. As always discussion should take precedence over edit warring and unless there's something extreme egregious like a BLP violation bold but not reckless is the standard to apply. Meaning you can make a reasonable change without asking but if you encounter resistance, stop and discuss. If you find you interpretation gets little support, then consider careful if your change is really reasonable in the future or discuss first might be better. The guidelines are fairly vague and since there's only limited or sometimes no RS guidance, it's trickier to decide what's in EL. However any editor who acts like there should be basically nothing in the EL section or that the links must be RS are unlikely to gain much traction since it's one of the things not supported by our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  No one “owns” an article… which means editors are free to both add and remove things from an article. The thing is, editors often disagree on what should be added or removed.

  That is where the article talk page comes in… when there is disagreement, we go to the article talk page and discuss our disagreement. We explain why we think something should (or should not) be included in the article, and try to reach a consensus.

  That can be difficult when only two or three editors (each with strong opinions) get involved in the discussion. In those situations we need to call in more editors… ideally those who are knowledgeable about both the topic and our policies.

  See our WP:Dispute resolution page for more on this process. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  In situations this minor wouldn’t a guideline that clearly says what to do be a lot more efficient? Why is there such a resistance to standardization, and such a reverence for the opinions of elite editors, on Wikipedia? Instead of having an easy-to-learn flowchart of rules we have this exegesis and case law system that can only really be learned by bumping into it in the dark. Dronebogus (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  “What to do” is simple - edit Wikipedia. Add things… change things… remove things… all with the goal of making our articles better. Occasionally there will be disagreement - when that happens, remember that this is supposed to be a collaboration, not a competition. Discuss the disagreement and try to reach a compromise. If compromise proves too difficult, get help from others. Then follow the consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  If it were possible to write Wikipedia articles from an easy-to-learn flowchart of rules, then editors could be replaced by a computer script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  The guideline already clearly says what to do. Would you prefer that we copyedited that line?

  It currently says:

  • Links to be considered: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

  It could instead say:

  • Links to be considered: Sites that are not suitable for use as reliable sources, but any editor personally believes to contain information about the subject of the article from one or more knowledgeable sources. BTW, all the other policies, guidelines, processes, and principles apply, specifically including WP:ELBURDEN and Wikipedia:Consensus (so other editors can remove an individual link if they don't believe it should be included), as does the rule that you can get blocked for the en masse WP:POINTY removal of external links that you personally deem unreliable (so you should be talking about removing an individual link, not "all of them from here to infinity").

  As an example, this line supports the inclusion of things like:

  • If the article is about a notable event, a self-published video of that event
  • If the article is about a historical time or event, an oral history collection (or an individual story) from ordinary people who remember it.
  • If the article is about a place or building, a real estate or tourist-type webpage with many photos of it.

  These are not the kind of sources that should be used to build the article content, but they are not banned, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is clearly meant to be a witty put-down about how I am too thick to make even the most basic inferences and need to be blocked but when you remove the snark it’s actually a major improvement. Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not meant to be a put-down, witty or otherwise. However, I do think that most editors have been able to figure this out from the existing wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)