Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
  • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
  • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
  • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard.
  • For cases involving blatant spamming, please file a report at the spam project.
  • Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}.
  • This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at the guideline talk page.
  • To mark a report resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Defer discussion:
Defer to RS/N
Defer to WPSPAM
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter

MusicBrainz Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Is MusicBrainz an appropriate external link to add to a large number of articles? See for example the entry for Don Cossacks Choir Russia. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No link is appropriate to add to a large number of articles, except if a proper consensus exists for that. The external link has to comply with our inclusion standards, which needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: To rephrase: that link is already being added to a large number of articles within {{authority control}}; I'm looking for some input on whether people on this board think that is or isn't a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • MusicBrainz looks like somewhat notable. The entry for the choir mainly mirrors Wikipedia, which is disappointing when you expect new information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently the MusicBrainz inclusion in the {{authority control}} box is too narrow imho, i.e. only musicians. For instance, "Bist du bei mir" has the MusicBrainz work ID in its Wikidata item (Bist du bei mir (Q2904769)), but that authority control number does not show up in the {{authority control}} box at the bottom of the "Bist du bei mir" article. "Musicians" is also only a small selection of mankind, so if only MusicBrainz musician IDs can be included in the authority control box that is imho too much hassle for too small a scope. Either all MusicBrainz IDs, i.e. from all of their categories, are carried by the {{authority control}} box, or none, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (updated, see below 08:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC))
  • It currently appears on Jan van Eyck, who certainly was not known as a musician, and where the link is pretty useless. Unfortunately it apparently isn't possible to suppress display of the link in such cases, except by removing the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree, the Van Eyck link to MusicBrainz is pretty stupid. So, in sum, I'd propose to remove the MusicBrainz ID from the {{authority control}} box until several issues are addressed, including (but not necessarily limited to) [1] possibility to suppress a MBID link on individual pages; [2] possibility to include useful MBID links on other pages than those of musicians. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, there is an interesting connection between Van Eyck and music (e.g. 2015 exhibition, 2016 recording, ...), but since none of that remotely appears on the MusicBrainz page about Van Eyck, linking to it from the English Wikipedia page on the painter is indeed pretty silly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with MusicBrainz as part of the authority control per se. But this problem with van Eyck hints at the larger issue we have with templates that show data from Wikidata. Because of the two projects' differing aims, we sometimes want to suppress displaying some data from WD here at WP. But this shouldn't be an all-or-nothing choice; good templates allow us to suppress individual data entries. The template already allows us to override, but not suppress, individual parameters. We should simply update it to allow suppression as well. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I can work on adding a parameter to the template to suppress MusicBrainz IDs if that would help assuage your concerns. Legoktm (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Legoktm: It would be extremely helpful to add options to suppress individual identifiers of all stripes without requiring them to be removed from Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nickimaria: and that is exactly the solution I don’t want to see: either this solution becomes that we transclude all from WikiData except the fields we suppress, or only fields we explicitly enable. Both are confusing to editors. Only an all-or-nothing solution will do. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agree with my colleagues below: remove MusicBrainz from the {{authority control}} box ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Drop it from authority control. It is a wiki, which should disqualify it immediately. Furthermore, the first example I looked at, for Queen [1], starts since 2012 with an "annotation note": "Note: Please add any 2011 Remaster releases to either Universal Island Records or Hollywood Records and not Island Records. Any previously added releases which fall under this category should be edited." which is irrelevant. Then you get ... the Wikipedia article you just came from. No thanks. Looking at a lesser known musician like Tom Vanstiphout, you get on Musicbrainz a woefully incomplete discography[2]. The Radios links to the wrong Musicbrainz page[3] (a related page, but not really useful). The correct link would have been this, which lists three singles instead of the 15 charting singles they had (plus perhaps non-charting ones). The Waikikis get one album at Musicbrainz[4], but a truckload at our article and at Discogs. De Kreuners released their first five albums between 1981 and 1986, but according to Musicbrainz four of these were released in 1990, and the fifth one is missing. Will Tura had, according to our article, 128 albums released. Musicbrainz lists 4 of them... These are (apart from Vanstiphout) really big names, household names in Flanders (feel free to check with any Flemish editor here), not an attempt to find one obscure thing they have missed.
Basically, it adds little for well-known artists and is utterly unreliable for lesser-known ones (with lesser-known meaning "very popular elsewhere, but not in USA/UK"). Please remove it. Fram (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Deprecate now and remove expeditiously. As above, it is not a reliable source, so fails the definition of "authority". Guy (Help!) 12:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, the term "authority" in authority control mostly refers to that it's a unique ID issued (or generated) by that organization AIUI. Legoktm (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, I originally proposed adding these to the template back in 2013 (discussion). In my experience, MusicBrainz IDs are generally the standard identifiers for artists and albums. IIRC Amazon,, and a bunch of other sites and software use them as the canonical identifiers. I'm not sure whether it's fully within guidelines to include a link to MusicBrainz at the bottom of these articles, but I do think it is valuable to include the identifier itself. Legoktm (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Why? We don't link to amazon,, ... anyway, so why would we need the identifier issued by an unreliable site and used by these other sites? It's on Wikidata, if someone really needs an unreadable long string to connect to amazon or so instead of just using the search function like 99.9% of users do. But we normally don't link to unreliable wikis, and this one clearly is such (see my post above). Fram (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for linking the old discussion, however that discussion is, afaics, way before {{authority control}} started to extract links from Wikidata, and I even doubt that at the time it was recommended to inlude that box on almost any article. Anyhow, under current conditions it leads to widespread linkspam. There are a variety of "external link" type of templates supporting MusicBrainz IDs (e.g. {{MusicBrainz artist}}), but I doubt such templates are usable on a broad scale: in most cases they would obviously be too spammy to be acceptable in an external links section. Including them in the {{authority control}} is defeats the purpose of that box and leads to institutionalised linkspam. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Keep it It's a significant identifier, used, among others, by the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That's their problem. Why would we add an unreliable wiki to our articles? Having the identifier on itself does nothing to help our readers understand the topic better, and using the identifier brings them to unreliable, incomplete, and often wrong information. Such identifiers are fine at Wikidata, but please explain how they help our readers, which is the only reason we should display anything in an article. Fram (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • They help our readers to uniquely identify subjects, which is the purpose of {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Can you give a practical example of where a musicbrainz ID would help our readers identify the subject better than the actual article does? I have e.g. looked at the 3 bands called Nirvana, and I don't see what the musicbrainz ID does for a reader to identify the band which isn't already clear from the very article you start from (and which is the start of the musicbrainz entry anyway). Fram (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
          • If that's your argument, TfD is available. Good luck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
            • No, my argument is that this identifier is a wiki, is unreliable, with too many errors, and that therefor this identifier should be removed from the template. That's not what TfD is for. Your argument to keep is "it is an identifier", which is rather circular reasoning, and doesn't explain how this identifier helps our readers in reality. It doesn't help to uniquely identify the subject (you get a one-on-one with the article you come from in the best of cases, or you get to something wrong in other cases), and the other information it provides is not sufficiently reliable and informative to keep the ID anyway. Other identifiers in the template are much more reliable and (at least with some identifiers) a lot more informative, even though many others are debatable (either shouldn't be shown in this template at all, or are only useful for a subset of all articles they are shown on now). But this discussion is only about musicbrainz, and I ask you to provide some supporting evidence for your statements, just like I have done in my "drop it" above: I have shown multiple cases where the info on musicbrainz is significantly worse than our article, or just wrong. Fram (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Widely used certainly is a conditio sine qua non, but it's not the only thing that matters in this context. ISBN numbers are much more widely used (not only by the BBC and a variety of vendors), but not included in the authority control box. The wider picture is that it is now recommended that {{authority control}} is placed on every article: even if it doesn't show anything at all it is considered harmless. Well, we mass-removed the persondata—harmless, didn't show anything—but if I remember well Andy can relate to the fact that we took the effort to remove them all nonetheless. If it is not in keeping with the WP:EL guidance, "harmless" is not the correct qualification anyhow. A few false positives I could live with too (... if it were only the musical Van Eyck, I'd let it slip), but in general, I'd think that for a template that is thus widely used we have to ask ourselves what it brings to most of the articles. I'd say that then far too often it brings a rather spammy MusicBrainz external link. Thus I'd limit what can appear in the authority control box at English Wikipedia to a few well-chosen high quality identifiers such as BnF or comparable calibre. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • ISBNs identify editions, not works, so are not suitable for authority control. Got any other straw men you'd like me to debunk? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Exactly, there's more to the picture than just "signi[fi]cant identifier" and "used, among others, by the BBC". These are just platitudes, hardly meaningful rationales for inclusion or not in the authority control box. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
          • "Significant identifier" is not a platitude; it is precisely why something should be included in {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
            • As established, ISBN is a "significant identifier", so that's an empty qualifier as far as inclusion in the authority control box goes. Because there's a broader picture. Being a significant identifier does not suffice for inclusion in that box. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No straw man at all: reasons for inclusion in/exclusion from the {{authority control}} box can not be reduced to "significant identifier, used, among others, by the BBC", as I said all along. The given counter-examples illustrate that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Another counter-example: Köchel catalogue (K) numbers:
  • "significant identifier, used, among others, by the BBC"
  • & about "works", not "editions"
... yet, not included in {{authority control}} (nor would I think that a good idea, for clarity)
In sum, "significant identifier, used, among others, by the BBC" is a red herring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, I just found out that CiNii, currently included in the {{authority control}} box, is about editions, not works. And far less used than ISBN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • «[CiNiis] are also assigned to authors of books, and of journal articles» according to the CiNii article, which is likely what they're used for in the context of [[Wikidata] and, by extension, the {{authority control}} box. (Wikidata doesn't identify books and music releases etc. to the level of the specific edition/release, so a CiNii edition identifier doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for WD to begin with.) I don't see how it's relevant for the current discussion about excluding MBIDs. —Freso (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove from the template. En.wikipedia is not a database. Any identifier in that template should be chosen on a case-by-case evaluation, and there is never need to have all of them there (there are over 40 choices, where 2-3 at max will do). The way this is currently implemented overrules our content policies. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Keep it – if MusicBrainz is good enough to be used as authority control for ISNI, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. MusicBrainz is no more and no less reliable than Wikipedia, so the idea that MusicBrainz isn't proper for authority control because it's a wiki seems a bit odd. (Then again, I am biased.) —Freso (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Another thought: MusicBrainz is an open source, open data project (as far as I know the only of its kind to be both). The MetaBrainz Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation's projects have a significant overlap in their goals (and a decent one for contributors) and many projects under the two have a history of working well together too. (One of the contractors of MetaBrainz is even currently on the board of Wikimedia Estonia.) Unless there's a heavy weighing policy reason to remove/block MusicBrainz links from the authority file blurb, I don't see why this teeny tiny way of giving some support and maybe even traffic to a fellow "open everything" project needs to demonised away. (And again, I am biased.) —Freso (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also note that the Help:Authority control page specifically mentions MusicBrainz: «Authority control enables researchers to search more easily for pertinent information on the subject of an article, without needing to disambiguate the subject manually. For example, authority control is used on music articles so that the information in the article can be easily cross-referenced with the popular MusicBrainz database. This enables many media applications to display information from the relevant Wikipedia article when a song is played.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freso (talkcontribs)
  • @Freso: "if MusicBrainz is good enough to be used as authority control for ISNI, it should be good enough for Wikipedia." I see that MB includes the identifier on ISNI, but where does ISNI list the identifier from MB? E.g. Arcade Fire on MB[5] has the link to ISNI[6], but the reverse seems not to be true (it has links to VIAF, DNB and BNF though). Fram (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Tommy Sands' ISNI page has an "MUBZ" link, which is them linking to MusicBrainz. —Freso (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep with option to suppress We should definitely not remove the ability to list MBIDs in the article completely, but maybe MB Artist IDs should be enabled on a per-article basis (or suppressed with an empty |param= if not wanted, like we do with WikiData in infoboxes).
    • I also think that the MB Work IDs should be added to the template, since they would be more useful for song and album articles. Plus, they may have a better accuracy rate, since, at least in my experience, a majority of the editing effort in MusicBrainz happens at the work/release level anyway.
    • And finally, I agree with Fresco's points above. MusicBrainz is a very useful database, and if problems or inaccuracies are found with the data, we could employ the same tactics we use here on Wikipedia, and improve it. Disclaimer: I am also a MusicBrainz editor. — AfroThundr (tc) 16:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep because some people (waves) actually find it useful to have these identifiers. And most those people would never find this obscure back-room discussion page. Plus I don't understand why so many comments above are dead set against reciprocal links to a fellow non-profit wiki, which is a nice thing to do and consist with the CC ecosystem. Plus all this crap about it not being a reliable source is irrelevant bollocks, since it's not being used as a reference, it's not even in the reference section. JLJ001 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it, and allow the template to suppress display of individual parameters if article-level consensus has decided so. There is nothing "confusing" or difficult about it. It's a widely used identification. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Should this be an RfC?

I'm wondering if maybe we should turn this into an RfC covering MBIDs in general, not just Artist IDs. Something like:

  1. Should MBIDs be included in {{authority control}}? - Yes / No
  2. Should MBIDs be suppressed in {{authority control}}? - By Default / By Exception
  3. Which MBIDs should be included in {{authority control}}? - Artist ID / Work ID / Release ID / Any Useful ID

Then we could get the wider community to weigh in on this. — AfroThundr (tc) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We could do that, sure. I'm wondering, was this discussion raised in a MusicBrainz forum of some kind? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware, although maybe if the MusicBrainz staff were aware of our concerns with linking their data, they could work on directing efforts to improve it. — AfroThundr (tc) 21:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
MusicBrainz editors work all the time to improve MusicBrainz data, just as I'm sure Wikipedia editors work all the time on improving Wikipedia's data. I'm not sure what you're suggesting (or trying to suggest). —Freso (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would consider to make this for the whole of the authority control template, per my concerns below. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Challenging MusicBrainz info in authority control box

See below #Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

... and #Bot is organising a linkfarm (which currently also contains a MusicBrainz example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

links to interactive chess games

WP:CHESS has traditionally used the website to link to interactive chess boards so that interested readers can play through notable chess games if they wish. User:Aircorn has raised an objection to this and tagged the article on Magnus Carlsen (the current world chess champion). My view is that the use of these links add encyclopedic value to the article, meaning this is an appropriate exception to WP:ELPOINTS No.2, per WP:IAR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, if this is deemed important I would not object to it being presented in the External Links section (this could even be under its own header if desired). I am not seeing an IAR justification (WP:ELPOINTS contains a few exceptions and this is not one of them) to lead our readers to an external site from the body of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Some thoughts ... Nearly all "Notable games/Illustrative games/Sample games" secs in WP:CHESS bios (and there are many) use these ELs. As a result these secs have essentinally become a sort of secondary "External links" sec. Your suggestion to move to EL sec essentially amounts to moving these secs in bio articles to their own EL sec subsec. (I'm neutral on that idea.) Two minor but related points: 1) In the Magnus Carlsen "Notable games" sec there is the disclaimer All links in this section lead to an external site., which almost never occurs in other "Notable games" secs, but seems to be overlooked by you as possible solution to problem of misleading readers regarding links that lead to outside sites. 2) Most "Notable games" secs are located towards the ends of the articles, many times the last-occurring sec prior to "See also" and "References" secs. Yes they are technically in the article body, but typically at end of the body, close as possible to "External links" sec w/o actually being in that sec. --IHTS (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Last, technically all w/ be well (consistent w/ policy) if the ELs in "Notable games" secs w/ be converted to ref citations ending up in "References" secs. The only "problem" w/ that is it amounts to massive amounts of technical markup busy-work, which hasn't typically been done (I think I've seen only one WP:CHESS bio article that did it), probably because it seems overly fussy & returning minimum payback beyond keeping strict to guideline (no ELs in body). Again the fact that most "Notable games" secs are toward or at the article body bottoms probably explains why those markup efforts have not been done (deemed low-payback/low-benefit/low-consequence). --IHTS (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@AirCorn No there is no explicit exception for this covered by WP:ELPOINTS. This is why it is called "ignore all rules". It comes down to what will make the article/encyclopedia better? Linking to an interactive board so that readers can easily review a chess game for themselves improves our chess articles, and improving the encyclopedia trumps all "rules". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees that this improves the encyclopaedia though. AIRcorn (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To me, these should either be in the external links section - though there it may linkfarm to a significant number. Or, they should be in a list-like format in the text (or as a separate list-article) - say a table with notable matches, when played, opponent, who won, and maybe some game statistics (how long, how many moves, winning situation ..), and that could have a column with an external link, header 'game on', and in each cell a link. Note that I would expect that the list is referenced, as to show why the specific notable game (or all of them) belong in this list in the article. I don't think the links belong in-prose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Are they not currently in a list-like format in the text? A separate article (List of notable chess games, a redirect to List of chess games) exists but I do not think it is the right place for the games in these sections (there has been a long discussion about these embedded lists, see WT:CHESS#'Notable games' inclusion criteria), and separate articles such as List of Magnus Carlsen's notable chess games seem like a non-starter. Carlsen's article is not the best example of the section, but look for example at Bobby Fischer#Notable games. The external links to are supplementary, and allow interested readers to go through the games themselves. As for reliability, is a reputable website, and nearly all chess biographies already link to it in the EL. (There exists a template—{{Chessgames player}}—to link to a player's profile.) In any case, this seems like it could be solved if the widget discussed at WT:CHESS, and already in use at Hebrew Wikipedia, was added. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The format used in Bobby Fischer is exactly what we try to avoid. Linking sentences externally in prose is bad format. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the Bobby Fischer example ism just as bad, if not worse. This is obviously a systemic problem with chess articles. If we can't resolve it here it might need a RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to remember that two people have worked on tools/templates to display interactive chessboards in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards. Attempts to implement either one went off track (more than once), but they're both workable to some degree. As long as it is possible to have these games built into Wikipedia, there's no exigency to include a bunch of external links in an article body. That said, I think there are plenty of ways to format the links to move them out of the body while remaining contextual (e.g. using a ref notes section called "notable games" with a footnote [game 1] pointing down to the EL in that section). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at these again for the first time in a while. We have two pretty solid means of displaying interactive chess boards and have already established a pretty strong consensus to do so. This is unrelated to ELs, though. I'm going to re-re-reopen the discussion at WTCHESS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Using footnotes would work. My main concern is disguising the external links as links to other Wikipedia articles (the small text disclaimer doesn't really cut it). AIRcorn (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, so move forward on the interactive tools so that the chessgames links are no longer required. Meantime, they serve their purpose well and should be tolerated. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You need a consensus if you are going to invoke IAR as the reasoning. AIRcorn (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2: A more functional approach (in my experience with external links) is a form of WP:CHALLENGE. Disrupt the status quo to more-or-less enforce he improvement. Can someone convert all those links into references (so there is loss of functionality, not of data). —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I seem to have missed some of this because I was on vacation.
I was wondering what you meant by, "... disguising the external links as links to other Wikipedia articles", but looking more closely at Magnus Carlsen, I think you have a point. Take a look at Emmanuel Lasker. Do you think the style of presentation of the notable game links there is an improvement? Each one explicitly mentions, and in addition, there are quotation marks just in case the reader doesn't notice. It might be possible to improve on this style of presentation; if there is a style of presentation that really unambiguously doesn't look like a Wikilink, and is not too clumsy, it would be possible to retroactively modify other chess bios, especially popular ones like Magnus Carlsen, to use the superior style.
Chess game scores play a huge role in chess literature. In the print world, it is common knowledge that there is more chess literature than literature on all other sports combined; and most printed chess literature is game scores, with or without commentary (which chess players call "annotation"). There are "chess encyclopedias", such as Hooper and Whyld, and in these, almost every biographical article includes a game score. I have not poked my nose into non-chess encyclopedias in many years, but even they sometimes included game scores in articles about famous chess players.
So the inclusion of "Notable games" sections in Wiki chess biographies is not some aberration, but rather, a logical extension of what chess players are accustomed to seeing in both print and electronic chess literature. The question of how these sections are to be adapted to the standards of scholarship and presentation we expect from Wiki is legitimate and interesting. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: I don't think any of us are against the content, nor the sites used - the problem is the style of linking which is not in line with our guidelines. That is also true for Emmanuel Lasker. For me, such lists should be a bullet list of the games, with either an overall reference or per-point reference of why these are/this is deemed to be worth mentioning in the list. Each of the statements there could then be followed by a template linking to 2-3 of the bigger/more important chess sites that show/analyse the game (or as references). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree. There are many different ways to do these links so I see no reason why they have to be included in the prose. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Not convinced it's an improvement. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not? It seems much more readable to meAIRcorn (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The tabular format is not bad-looking.
It occurred to me that for contemporary players like Carlsen, we could in many cases do better than; we should be going to the "chess press", where there are interactive games with annotation by grandmasters. For example, this: I found another exposition of that game at, but it is a video; I don't know how suitable that would be. For historical players, such as Lasker, we will usually have to refer to some print book or print periodical for grandmaster commentary, but then link to for an interactive version. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
For being big & clunky, it also drops info often contained in the simple list format (i.e. city, player colors, opening, game result). --IHTS (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It is easy enough to add other info if it is deemed important. This is more proof of concept, that there are alternatives ways to display this information. From an asthetic viewpoint I think it looks fine. It allows us to link to other wikipedia articles within the table (like oponent or tournament. It is much cleaner without the long blue link and most importantly is policy complient. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
All those things can be done w/o a table. --IHTS (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Can you show me an example of how you would present it. AIRcorn (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I can, how those things can be done in simple list form. But it doesn't mean that's my recommendation to do. (It'd bury editors in busywork, w/ little payback except adherance to Guideline.) --IHTS (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
If you do one so I can see exactly how you want it, and everyone else is happy, I would be prepared to impliment it on all the Good Article chess biographies at the least. AIRcorn (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, it's not necessarily my recommendation. Ok, I did for Magnus Carlsen#Notable games. --IHTS (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is indeed not a solution, the reference there to chessgames does not support the statement. It is linking to a graphical representation of the game. For the first item, I could see an in-depth analysis with a graphical representation to be of interest to the later statement that he had serious winning chances .. but I do not see why this link has to be used (let alone being linked inline), there is no justification to IAR on the guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The refs don't support "statements", they just ref the fact the game exists (exists on, where the reader can play through the game on the graphical interface). (Refs *follow*, they don't *precede* the material they support. That's basic WP.) The refs put the links in Reference sec, so there are no "inline" links. (What are you talking about?) Comments, annotations, or analysis on games on are never used or referenced on WP, they are not RS. The refs that support game descriptions aren't refs, someone else provided them, I didn't touch or evaluate them. --IHTS (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
'they just ref the fact the game exists' - so they should not be there, that the game exists (and is notable to be mentioned in the list) is in the other refs supplied by others (comments, game descriptions). I still fail to see the actual use for the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The link sends the reader to where she can interactively play thru the game. (That seems to me an advantage, or "use".) Nearly *all* games in all 'Notable games' secs have the ref/link if the game is on Many many many of those listed games do *not* have any other supporting ref. Only recently has the issue of list inclusion criteria come up (at WT:CHESS) along w/ the idea of supporting each listed game w/ a ref, & I'm not sure what the consensus is there or what the new ref requirements are, if any, for listed games. But the idea of dispensing w/ links to completely is a new one, I've never seen it proposed before, except by you just now, so that topic obviously can't be this thread's topic ("the problem is the style of linking which is not in line with our guidelines."). I've explained why they have accumulated in WP:CHESS bio articles 'Notable games' secs to-date & I showed how a table wasn't necessary by converting the refs in Magnus Carlsen from "inline" to References sec, so I rate myself successful here. I'm not going to veer by debating whether refs are desirable or necessary or not. You failed to recognize I removed the inline links from Magnus Carlsen#Notable games, misleading thread readers that I didn't. I won't be responding further, unless something further misrepresentative is stated here. --IHTS (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is an improvement over what used to be there, in that the citations to really look like citations (and use citation templates). The use of conventional citation techniques is an important step forward, yet it is uncontroversial. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

As somebody with no connection to Chess or Chess-related articles I dont see why an exception to adding external links in the body of the article is justifiable. I presume that is a reliable source (although it looks a bit like a fan site and promotes advertising and the like) then it should be just used as a reference. Adding a link to the external site (particularly one that dosnt add anything to the actual article) is not what wikipedia is here for, we should not do it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the tabular format, too. We should use external links to point readers to a resource that extends beyond what Wikipedia can provide. As chess games are not copyrightable, and as we can display interactive chess boards if we wanted to, there's no reason to include them. The solution is to get the interactive boards implemented, not to defer to a third party site for the same thing. (so, to be clear, if we had no way to do this locally, I would not be opposing here FWIW) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • One could make a large .png with all the boards .. not to display but to scroll through (so a link to file). —Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure if there is a better way to display information then we can do it when it is available, but I am looking for a current solution to the current problem. Do you have any issue with the this version of [this version] over this one? AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Aircorn: That is better in the way that it does not display the external link for the text. However, these are not references. I have an idea, which I will try to implement (though I have never done this before). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I have made this version where I group the chessgames 'references' into a notes section here. Now that 'reference' does not necessarily show that the game 'exists' (it does not prove anything), and it nicely groups outside of the 'regular' references. Feel free to revert, or to name the pieces more aptly (groupname to 'interactive game' and rename section that displays this group?).

Authority control

This is running out of hand. The template allows for over 40 identifiers, all linking to external databases. I seriously doubt that these links mostly pass our inclusion standards, and there are articles with complete linkfarms of identifiers (where I even doubt that the data provided by the first one would even provide us with more data than what is already in the article, see intro of WP:EL.

An example coming from above thread: Jan van Eyck currently has 19 identifiers in authority control (and even more external links). At the time of implementing (diff) there were 2 identifiers locally, now all of them (probably ‘because we have them available’) are transcluded, with the potential of more than doubling this number.

Suggestion: bring it back to 2-3, making the other ones invisible to allow for incoming searches (or get rid of them altogether .. most of them will hardly ever result in searches aimed at finding the Wikipedia article (in this language) - people looking for a KulturNav number aree more likely looking for the KulturNav record. (Note - this discussion is likely also of interest to certain infoboxes and similar template systems). —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, a bot was approved earlier today to add the template to every article where it displays something. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
And that is a good thing, but we should have a choice as to WHAT the template displays. I mean, as an external link, VIAF is even useless. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems to be working fine, I suggest discussing individual IDs that are shown on the template talk page, not here. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mike Peel: It may indeed be a good idea to start an RfC on the template page (or somewhere more visible, as this is hitting most of Wikipedia, one of the VPs). The reason I brought it up here is that all translate at the moment to external links, and that by far most of them (including the most important one) fail our inclusion standards as defined by our external links guideline. But you are right, as I realized later in this discussion, I think the whole of it fails WP:NOT as well. (there are ways of displaying only what we deem important, turning the other ones in to invisible, though rendered 'meta tags'. I see, as heavily discussed here, no reason to display, nor link to, MusicBrainz, but I can see that we want to have a Google search on that identifier to show our article as a result. (and as I noted, there are many other similar situations which fail the WP:EL/WP:NOT combo, which are plain 'identifiers', and are not in {{authority control}} - even cases where I have heavily advocated earlier to have as much as possible). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest somewhat less procedural discussion. For the time being this discussion is fine where it is. Yes, it touches upon big policy matters (WP:NOT and WP:BLP have been mentioned), and upon matters with a much finer granularity (whether or not David Shapiro (poet) is also a musician – he reportedly plays the violin pretty well). None of that is a priori excluded from this discussion. This discussion should only move elsewhere when means to reach consensus here would have been exhausted before reaching such consensus. In that case the discussion may as well move to WP:VPT for a broader RfC, or whatever seems most useful at that point. Somewhat more content and less procedure would be fine in the comments, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is basically turning us into DMOZ. There's no significant oversight over the reliability of sources, and in some cases they are earning massive ad revenue from us (though the chances of killing off IMDB links, to name but one are limited, I guess). Adding one of these sites tot he template actively encourages people to add to the link count. There's a huge benefit to getting your site added and autospammed on Wikipedia, but the benefit to the reader is not so easy to see and the benefit to us is very hard to see. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
agree w/ Guy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box

I spent some hours trying to disentangle various David Shapiros:

  • I count half a dozen musicians with that name (a bass player, a composer, a drummer, a music producer, a pianist and a songwriter), nonetheless, according to the MusicBrainz link provided in the {{authority control}} box, a poet with the same name would be a musician, listed among a selection of composers in this release (which would rather be the composer with that name).
  • Then, according to the recently approved bot mentioned above, the bass player with that name (dead since 2011, and according to our article, with "a history of erratic behavior and severe psychiatric problems") would be identical to a filmmaker, Laurie Gwen Shapiro's brother, who, afaik, is still very much alive (at least still gave an interview in 2015), and about whom no external source seems to have claimed "a history of erratic behavior and severe psychiatric problems". So apparently this wanders in WP:BLP-sensitive realms... For me at least enough to temporarily shut down the bot, until such mishaps can be avoided.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC); Updated (filmmaker still alive in 2015) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I now reverted the BLP-offending bot, the "wrong" version is still visible here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • With the method explained at WP:RSN#WikiData source, I WP:CHALLENGEd the apparently erroneous MusicBrainz info in the {{authority control}} box at David Shapiro (poet) ("wrong" version still visible here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC); Updated (both "wrong" versions no longer visible while questionable info was removed from Wikidata) 17:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
A correct action for transclusion of unreliable data .. however, it is in this thread completely besides the point (this is NOT RS/N). What I am questioning is transclusion of up to 40 IDs with external link in the first place. Even if all 40 are correct, it is excessive. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The first example is a perfect illustration that MusicBrainz should be thrown out of {{authority control}} ASAP. This supports your point to reduce the number of included IDs; The second example illustrates that reducing the number of IDs doesn't solve everything. So yes, that second example is also relevant to your proposal to reduce the number of included IDs: it suggests that mere reduction in numbers is a solution in search of a problem. So, based on these examples, I'd say "no" to your proposal as written (because of the second example); but "yes" to remove MusicBrainz (based on the many examples that this often amounts to linkcruft). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The box is a violation of WP:NOT on multiple cases. —Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just looked at the last few entries of the bot (which is already voluntarily on hold, thanks), I saw [7], which I reverted. Not a bot error as such, but another indication of why this bot shouldn't run and why blind (or any?) addition of authority control (or other external links) is a bad idea. The ID added, [8], si the ID for Michael Thompson (photographer), not for Michael Thompson (karateka). This was added by a bot to Wikidata in 2015, and not corrected since. Importing such errors into our BLPs is not the way to go, and it looks as if too many of these identifiers are wrong.

Even when it may be right, it too often is useless. Davie Cooper also had AC added in the last bot run. It links correctly to VIAF, which has one "work", sourced to the Library of Congress. It seems to be impossible to verify this at the LOC site though, and I have no idea what "work" they might be referring to. So not a bot error, not a Wikidata error, but still a useless external link. Fram (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The template documentation currently has (last two paragraphs of the Description section):

If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.

An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.

I'd remove the "harmless"/"should be added..." language:

If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.

An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.

Maybe rather advise against dormant implementation:

If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Dormant use of the template is discouraged.

Further, I'd add some more explicit language to Template:Authority control#Usage that it shouldn't be assumed at face value that links shown in the template are correct or are even appropriate for the article: it is up to the editor who adds the template to check and, if needed, update that before hitting the "Publish changes" button. It is preferable not to include the template over including it with erroneous or misleading information. Similar with inappropriate information, including, but not limited to, information that fails WP:ELNO. Merely redundant information (e.g. doubling what is in an "External links" section) should in most cases be avoided too, should at least not be inserted with a bot operation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: There is the same problem again, Francis: "it shouldn't be assumed at face balue that links shown in the template are correct or are even appropriate for the article: it is up to the editor who adds the template to check ...". The fun of WikiData is that these templates were already in the article years ago (before WikiData existed?), that the template has been edited so it transcludes WikiData after the fact of transclusion (see request below), or that WikiData data is added to WikiData far after the fact that the template is transcluded. Neither of these are checked by the ‘...editor who adds the template...’. Seen that authority control is of prime interest to our BLPs (much less than for, say, Oat) it is of prime interest that the data gets checked when it is added to the article - but we have NO control about that. Per your suggestion: I challenge ALL cases where data from WikiData is added to en.wikipedia through filtered and unfiltered transclusion. We should NOT be transcluding data from WikiData in any form to our articles (especially to WP:BLP) unless WikiData data becomes verified, reliable and unmutable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Another example (regarding "need to check before hitting the 'Publish changes' button"): Einstein Tower apparently has two VIAF numbers: VIAF 236936180 and VIAF 128014082 – the former, however, generates a faulty "WorldCat Identities" link in the {{authority control}} box. Nonetheless, the "wrong" number was used at WikiData. I haven't found a way to check (at Wikidata) whether the derived WorldCat Identity (WCI) is valid, afaik it can only be checked by calling the WCI elsewhere, so that it displays as a link. Problem now solved at Wikidata for this particular example, however not sorted for future similar problems. I agree with Dirk that there are other issues to sort too, however the update to the template documentation can be performed without delay, and would anyway remain valid even after other changes as long as the template exists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh - it is just as possible that the second VIAF is added after Einstein Tower was saved with the transclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken When the {{authority control}} was transcluded it was displaying '236936180'. That transclusion was not "check[ed] before hitting the 'Publish changes' button" - it was transcluded by bot. Similarly, this has implications for updating templates to start transcluding WikiData where they earlier did not - that will result in, sometimes thousands of, changes to pages which are not "check[ed] before hitting the 'Publish changes' button". Such edits to templates, coincidently, will not show up in page history while suddenly transcluding data from WikiData (that fullfils the 'filtering' rules). This is a good example to show how little control we have about what is coming from WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot is organising a linkfarm

You did the wrong thing - the external link fails our inclusion standards, I have reverted and removed the external link. Still besides the point, though. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
In which case both the external link and the authority control box should be removed from that article: the box can not be used as an excuse to insert external links that otherwise would not be acceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Handled – thanks Fram. Now let's get to the real problem: how can the MO of this bot be improved so that it doesn't infringe on a policy every few steps? @Tom.Reding: thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I can see here the bot is just adding {{authority control}} to biographies. This activity is also listed on the bot's page:

Task 6: Add {{Authority control}} to all biographical articles with an identifier on Wikidata.

Perhaps the bot should check for (and possibly remove) an existing external link that duplicates the information first.
I think {{authority control}} is a more useful inclusion than that link, as it can contain other identifiers in the future. Thoughts? — AfroThundr (tc) 15:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyhow current MO of the bot is unacceptable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Another MusicBrainz related revert. Again, linkspam which I removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Francis Schonken: Did you find anything wrong on the MusicBrainz side, or did you just remove it out of principle? —Freso (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not all bad of course, for instance I appreciated this one on a person who is variously known as Lilian Baels and the Princesse de Rhéty: uniquely identifying the person with authority control is a good thing in such case. So, can we have more of that, and less of the questionable {{authority control}} additions? Would appreciate some input on how to make that happen. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:LINKFARM doesn't apply here imo. Broken down into its components:
  1. Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. - if this is the main point of contention then {{Authority control}} should be discontinued
  2. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of External links or Internet directories. - not the case here
  3. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article - ok
  4. however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. - also not the case here
  5. Remaining points regarding Internal links [...] Public domain or other source material [...] Photographs or media files [...] - don't apply
So inaccurately citing policy I don't think is the solution. A reasonable solution, however, can be that the placement of {{Authority control}} be further restricted by omitting IDs which have either 1) no references, or 2) 'imported from <lang> Wikipedia' as a reference. This criteria would have skipped Vampire Lovers (band), but not The Motet. Or, perhaps skip any/all music/band-related pages if that space is not well maintained on Wikidata (as opposed to the taxonomic space, for example).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • While it probably doesn't dwarf the article, having e.g. 13 authority links in William Vance (recently deceased comics artist, famous, but not really a worldwide household name) is excessive. But the problem (to me) with this template is that it is created in an all-or-nothing situation: every identifier which is included in the template is added to every article possible, even when that identifier adds absolutely nothing here. For example, for William Vance we have this, the Italian Catalogo del Servizio Bebliotecario Nazionale. Why, on enwiki, and for a Belgian author, are we giving a link to an Italian database which gives nothing what isn't already in the article, and is already repeated countless times in the other authority links? It isn't even updated, and shows the artist as "living". Looking at the other 12: Worldcat is OK, bibsys[9] is of very limited value, BNE[10] is the Spanish equivalent of the Italian one, BNF is relevant for this artist (and is up-to-date!), though only having the "Data" page[11] and not the other would be sufficient; DNB is not really necessary here (it's up-to-date and in general more interesting than the Spanish and Italian one though); ISNI doesn't contain any useful information for readers; LOC is good for enwiki (but not up-to-date); RKD is somewhat useful here; SNAC[12] starts of with incorrect information (links to collections => archival collections is completely unrelated, and not the first time I notice this); the same applies to the "related names" they have, which are not related to this person at all; IDref is useful though more of the same; VIAF is probably useful though it's a rather hard to navigate site.
    • All in all, there are at least 5 links from the 13 which can be removed without any loss for enwiki readers of this article, even though they may be the best authority we have for other articles. Fram (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tom.Reding: I have nothing against the identifiers being in the article, but the display of them adds nothing to the article, and the same is true for most of the external links. The only problem that I have with the identifiers is that they are (filtered or unfiltered) transcluded from a unreliable source. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed some solutions to this and other concerns at Template talk:Authority control#Should IDs without a reference and/or imported from Wikipedia be hidden? and Template talk:Authority control#Suppressing local display via null parameters.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain that the contents of the authority control template is truly "external links", in the main sense meant by WP:EL. There are a lot of links that go to external websites, and yet aren't "external links" (e.g., links to reliable sources). Some of these are themselves reliable sources. As one example, consider the ICD-10 database for medical conditions, or the CAS registry numbers for chemicals. We have readers who are specifically reading Wikipedia articles because they need those codes. The links are in one sense reliable sources (to verify that this is, indeed, the code for the subject of this article), but they're formatted like external links, and placed either in an infobox or at the end of the appendices. It doesn't make sense to say that they're normal ==External links==, but we also don't really have a carefully defined guideline that says exactly what they are. I am thinking that many of the authority control links may be similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I am indeed also not sure if these are strictly spoken external links as discussed in WP:EL. However, seen that we have articles with up to 22 identifiers in here, I wonder whether that is what we need to be either. We are not writing a database, we are writing an encyclopedia. We are also not a replacement for Google to find any identifier that may be of interest to a certain person (and what are the chances of someone coming to Wikipedia to find the ID for a Spanish database where the person in question has maybe once had one of his books translated in Spanish). Another problem here is reliability: would you really come to Wikipedia to find the identifier of a subject in some obscure database, or do you go to the authority that hands out that ID itself. (however, WikiData could carry all those identifiers, but that does not mean that we have to transclude ALL on Wikipedia, which seems to be becoming current practice).
I agree that other infoboxes and templates have the same problem - for some subjects there are many authorities and there is good reason to make sure that someone on a google-search on identifier X does find the Wikipedia article - I do however wonder whether it is pertinent that we show all, and that we link out to all. My current feel is to include only the ones that are of major importance (VIAF, CAS) standard, and that ALL OTHERS should be on a per-article choice for being displayed (they could be there in a 'vcard' type of way, invisible).
A related discussion is going on on template talk:Authority control where there are ways discussed to curtail the number of displayed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
These identifiers tie topics into other classification systems and many are not really "external link"s. Similarly we often include ICD 9 and 10 numbers as well as the MeSH IDs as these are used extensively by a certain category of users (people billing for medical procedures) as our search engine is way way better than what ICD provides or Google. These details are being placed at the bottom of the page so not taking up important room. ORCID is another fairly important identifier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: but do you think that it is appropriate to have (as is currently the case) 22 identifiers on a subject, of which many will be 'just because it is mentioned in said database and got assigned a number'? (Noting that the template handles about 43 currently, and WD has even more that could be handled). My main problem is that I don't think it is useful/helpful to display all (they do not help understanding the subject in any form). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The idea of having a template of identifiers IMO is not unreasonable. Are the number excessive and are some of these minor such that they need not be mention within the template? Possibly but as it is not my area expertise will not comment on the individual items. I just know we do something similar for medical articles but we use a smaller number of items. The discussion to adjust the number should occur at the template in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It is also discussed there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reddit AMAs

I believe that Reddit AMAs are appropriate external links per WP:ELYES #3 since they can be construed as interview transcripts. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: ELYES, ELMAYBE and ELNO are never blankets per website, they always have to be decided on a case by case evaluated. Even if they do not violate anything 8n ELNO, they can still be inappropriate as to being the umptieth link that is there. Others may be not directly discussing the subject (rather the subject discussing something else). What link were you thinking of? —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, got what I needed. wumbolo ^^^ 19:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Further reading" section in "Contents"

I recently had a lively exchange with another editor about whether the “Further reading” section in an article should be linked to the “Contents” section. The article in question is Alt-right. The other editor did not object to including a “Further reading” section, but he/she said the “Further reading” heading should stand alone – that it shouldn’t appear in the article hierarchy or in the “Contents” section at the top of the article. The other editor thought that "Contents" would be cluttered if "Further reading" appeared there. I disagreed. Unless “Further reading” appears in “Contents,” I argued, readers will likely not notice the “Further reading” section; the section will be lost in the article. Does the community have any thoughts on this? Should “Further reading” always be linked to “Contents,” or can this heading stand alone? (I hope this is the right place to bring up the subject. I also brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Further reading.) Chisme (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:BADHEAD and MOS:LAYOUT. The article should include further reading in the contents section and the user should change his ways. The better place to notify is WT:Accessibility and WT:LAYOUT. --Izno (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA