Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:
    Indicators
    Defer discussion:
    Defer to WPSPAM
    Defer to XLinkBot
    Defer to Local blacklist
    Defer to edit filter

    This is an example of a Wikipedia page about a Norwegian company: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor

    In the fact box to the right, there is a direct link to that company's page at The Brønnøysund Register Centre (public state agency) in Norway, where all companies and organisations are registered and are given a 9 digit ID.

    The link in this case is: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=923609016

    From now on that link should be replaced with a link to the new web page: https://virksomhet.brreg.no/nb/oppslag/enheter/923609016

    More generally, links containing this string: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr= ...should be globally replaced with this string: https://virksomhet.brreg.no/nb/oppslag/enheter/ ...if possible.

    Otherwise all such links will most likely return "404 not found" in the future.

    I hope this is possible.

    Talk:Barbara_O'Neill#WP:ELOFFICIAL

    If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    John Mearsheimer

    This edit by Hipal nuked external links variously citing WP:ELNOT, WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELBURDEN. But I don't see anything in there that would justify the removal of {{Substack pub}}, {{C-SPAN}}, {{LibraryThing author}}; and Official chatbot, Podchaser.

    The chatbot is pretty useful, not easily found linked elsewhere, and I found it from a mention at Mearsheimer's blog. And how are non-official CSPAN, Library Thing (comprehensive biblio) and podcast appearances (now a regular thing for Mearsheimer) violative of WP:ELNO? I added these links a while back to what I found to be a barebones EL section, and I don't see any substantive rationale for their removal. And the main outlet for Mearsheimer's regular publications is the Substack not the official website. I don't see a case for its removal either. ... I am not sure how valid external links like those above which give detailed biblios and list appearances on US public TV are detrimental to users or violative of any ELNO criteria. Beyond handwaving at at the EL policies no explanation has to come forward for how these would violate any of them.

    These substantive rationales were provided at Talk:John Mearsheimer/Archives/2025/November#External links but beyond a link to the EL guidelines, no explanation came forward for why/how any of these would apply. As such I am bringing this here.

    Also pinging Иованъ, who was involved in the discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gotitbro, here's a list of the removed links:
    How many of these would you classify as WP:ELOFFICIAL links?
    Which one or two do you believe is the most important to include? WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The Substack blog is Mearsheimer's primary outlet for regular publications. I would say that is the most important official link (beyond his website). The rest are not official but of these I would say the most important is Podchaser, listing his regular appearances on Podcasts and other shows (not covered by IMDb).
    Librarything has an extensive bibliography, but since we already have a dedicated article at John Mearsheimer bibliography, it can be entirely dropped (or moved there).
    The chatbot is operated by an AI company but licensed by Mearshseimer. I find it to be very interesting and relevant but not the "most important". Though I do not believe it violates any EL policy.
    To summarize, the blog and podcast database I find to be the most important here. Gotitbro (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You realize that there is a prominent link from his official website to his Substack blog? --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ELMIN More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. and... it is prominently linked from his website, at top right. For other stuff, whether they provide "significant unique content" becomes a WP:ELMAYBE Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the blog is still unique and significant enough to be included. But nonetheless, I can defer to the better judgment of others here.
    But the inclusion of the rest of these remains well justified from what I can see. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend omitting the Substack as duplicative of the official website, and I like your idea of moving the LibraryThing link to John Mearsheimer bibliography. That would resolve two of them right off, plus putting that LibraryThing link in a place where it might be more valued. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the LibraryThing link to John Mearsheimer bibliography when I saw it was removed from the main article. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 00:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know his C-SPAN id? I would certainly support that link here or elsewhere. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 17:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Иованъ: As linked above, it is: https://www.c-span.org/person/?92628. Gotitbro (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering whether C-SPAN, LibraryThing, and even IMDb could be merged into the Authority Control template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Pigsonthewing or MSGJ know things about Template:Authority control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could post these suggestions on Template talk:Authority control to see if others support them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't expect very many editors to see a discussion on a template's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the talk page for discussing authority control. I can assure you it will receive attention — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Now to see whether anyone other than you is watching Template talk:Authority control. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    theparisianguide.com

    Coming here from WikiProject Spam to pick your collective brains if I may.

    Over the last year, single-purpose accounts have been editing articles about Paris and its environs in the same pattern: adding a photo or correcting a typo (and saying so in their edit summaries) but at the same time silently dropping a link to this site in the external links section. It was the subterfuge of this that caught my eye – sites that are useful to our readers don't usually need to resort to underhand methods.

    The issue is… the site itself isn't too bad. A little heavy on selling each tourist trap it's writing about rather than reviewing it; a little heavy on the affiliate links for tickets and so forth, but… well, there are far worse sites in our external links than this one. It certainly shouldn't be used as a citation, and I'm going to be removing it in the small number of cases where it is,done 16:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC) but as an external link… I dunno! So I thought I'd ask people with bigger brains than me. Opinions? • a frantic turtle 🐢 13:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Deception is irritating and trust-reducing, but if they'd done the same thing avowedly, I'm sure that another editor would have complained about self-promotion and spam. Part of me thinks: At least this way we get some improvement to the article.
    Overall, the right thing to do is to consider whether some readers of each individual article might be interested in those links. If so, we should probably keep them. Another option that puts the reader first is for someone to find a similar/competing website, and swap their competitors' links into the same place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    2025–2026 Iranian protests

    Is an external link to an archive of graphic violence by security forces of a state acceptable? To keep the discussion in a single place, please comment directly at Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests#Proposal: Archive of primary source video evidence for External Links, where the archive maintainer has started a discussion (and I replied). The images/videos show graphic violence. Boud (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This blog used to host the content of a source for Lake Tauca but was removed because it was on the spam blacklist. Now the source is reliable but I am not sure whether it is OK from a copyright perspective - while anonymous and pseudonymous works from 1976 apparently end up PD next year, this work isn't anonymous/pseudonymous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Just reference the book directly as a publication, but not the blog. The blog was only providing a convenience link and should never have been linked to. The source is not anonymous, it clearly has an author. It's a published book, just reference the book and ignore the blog. Obviously a link to the book copy on the blog/wayback is a WP:COPYLINK violation. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELN