Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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

    [edit]

    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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetilgroven (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kjetilgroven: I didn't find any sources for the claim that these URLs will expire soon. As far as I can tell, both URLs are valid and return pretty much the same information. After a quick look, it seems that virksomhet.brreg.no might have slightly more details, but I may be wrong. Anyway... This isn't the right place for your request. You should post your request either on the Norwegian Wikipedia or on Wikidata. If you look at the wiki source of no:Equinor, you'll find that the URL doesn't appear there. Not even the org number. All that data comes from the Wikidata item Equinor ASA (Q1776022), and the URL is generated by the Wikidata property Norwegian organisation number (P2333). You could change the formatter URL value there. That should change all these URLs in infoboxes on the Norwegian Wikipedia. But you should probably discuss this change first, since it probably affects many pages. But again, since this is the English Wikipedia and there don't seem to be many of these URLs here, this isn't the right place for that discussion. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like something for the Norwegian Wikipedia, rather than the English one. @Annelingua, Orf3us, could one of you make sure that nowiki is aware of this concern? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the notification; will do. Orf3us (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    networkdvd.net

    [edit]

    This is something I’ll work on tomorrow when I’m on a computer rather than my phone, but since there are ~40 links to it that I can see with an insource: search, I thought I’d draw further attention to this news story about the hijacking of this domain. • a frantic turtle 🐢 21:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @A Frantic Turtle, please copy this message to Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests. @GreenC may be able to have a bot deal with all of these for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, with thanks. • a frantic turtle 🐢 22:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through and manually changed most of them to url-status=usurped, adding an archive link. The rest were either links to the front page or to searches on the old website, so I've just removed those entirely. (A couple were naked adverts, so they're gone too now). A lot of the references were in rubbish formats that I don't think a bot could get to grips with, which is fairly typical for our articles on TV shows, alas.
    The hijacked site has taken a copy of the last working version of the real site, so people may not realise it's actually now a scam and add new links to it in future. I don't think there's a way of preventing this? I'd assume that vigilance will have to suffice. (I'll cc this to Link rot too). • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Spammy pages are often eligible for inclusion in the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but the existing links (including the archive links because of how the regex works) would have to be removed entirely before the url string could be added to WP:BED. If they aren't, any time someone edits the page, they'd have to remove the url anyway before they could save it – and the real but now sadly dead site has a lot of accurate and unique information on it... something that our TV show articles desperately need. Damned if we do, damned if we don't! • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Hot Fuzz

    [edit]

    On my watchlist this edit by Laeredis [1] where he removed bot posts from 2017, I saw this weird meta on the page, something about blacklist content links. Was there some links to be removed? Because it was confusing me. Govvy (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The sections I deleted on the talk page were to do with a bot automatically adding Internet Archive links for two sites that no longer exist, after checking the citations were still in the article and supported the text, so I'm a bit confused by this as well.
    To remove both sections at once I edited the whole talk page, is it possible the blacklist warning pertains to something further up that I wasn't actually altering? Otherwise, is it possible the blacklist stuff was a result of the removed links being usurped for a while by a spam domain or similar in the past? I confess I didn't see any warnings myself, but if I've overlooked something it'd be great to have it pointed out. Laeredis (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I use twinkle, and have meta reader for hidden tags, which most editors don't see. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laeredis: If you're interested, if you try an undo on your edit on the talk page. You might see you can't add the bot posts back. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the answer to your question is at Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance. Note that archive.org is not the same as archive.today.
    Also, removing those messages after checking to see whether the bot's edit was correct is a good thing to do. Thanks for doing that, Laeredis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    On the reliable sources noticeboard there's a question about copyright of the scans on timetableimages.com. Copyright advice would be welcomed, see WP:RSN#timetableimages.com - copyright infringement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Honkai Star Rail Wiki (Fandom)

    [edit]

    Recently a few external links were removed from Dan Heng, all three of which were links to the pages for the various forms of him on the Honkai: Star Rail Wiki on Fandom, used by the {{Honkai Star Rail Wiki}} template. When I contacted the editor who removed them, they indicated WP:ELYES footnote D, which is about copyright. I'm sure the material hosted on that wiki is fair use, per Fandom policy. The primary purpose for linking to the wiki was to provide access to material which would be WP:UNDUE to include on Wikipedia, e.g. character build information or very detailed backstories that only actual fans of the game would really be interested in. Do you think linking to this Fandom site would present any issues? Gommeh (talk! sign!) 01:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There probably shouldn't be three links to the same website.
    We've generally not had complaints about copyvios on Wikia-hosted websites. I'm not saying that it never happens, but I've seen very few such complaints over the years, and I don't remember a single one being sustained upon investigation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Decorative images aren't fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which images on https://honkai-star-rail.fandom.com/wiki/Dan_Heng are you identifying as being purely decorative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The page background, for one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a link to the File: page? I can't tell just by looking at it whether it's copyrighted or (e.g.,) properly licensed fan art. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The only link to it I can find is https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/houkai-star-rail/images/0/08/Site-background-dark/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1500?cb=20260402052726, which doesn't say much. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 02:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    here, along with a number of other images with similar decorative usages. Checked several and they either didn't indicate copyright status, or indicated they are copyrighted by HoYoverse. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The wiki's Main Page isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the equivalent of a link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monobook_skin_background.png WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "site background" images don't have a "More information" button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare [3] - either it's copyrighted or it's a close derivative. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.
    They claim that it's fair use. I'm not convinced that they're correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not expecting people to take issue with the background image, I'll be honest. I thought it was something to do with Dan Heng himself. Anyhow, I'm getting into contact with the wiki's admins and I agree, that doesn't seem like fair use at all. I'll let them know that something needs to be done about that image; they're the only ones that can do anything here because it is on the wiki's main page. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 05:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I did think it through again, and now I suppose you could make an argument that the image was transformed from the original when some elements (for example, the characters) were removed from the image, as well as by cropping it, which could be argued as fair use under the transformation doctrine. Regardless, I doubt HoYoverse cares about wikis (or other sites operated by fans, for that matter) using their IP like this anyway. The only time where miHoYo has really gotten involved is in the case of people such as HomDGCat illegally leaking unreleased content, which is not allowed on the HSR wiki.
    As I'm writing this, an admin on the HSR wiki said it's a non-issue for them and they won't be doing anything about the image, and they said it was fair use. I'm assuming they were operating under the transformation doctrine, although they did not specify. They did however say they read the company's ToS and fan creation guidelines and found nothing that prohibited the use of the image as is.
    Terms of Service / Fan Creation Guidelines Gommeh (talk! sign!) 18:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It may or may not be fair use (that's ultimately for courts to decide), but it is probably a licensed use under https://hsr.hoyoverse.com/en-us/news/111203 section III. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would more likely fall under simple copying, and it does not appear that the licensing terms would be met. It's definitely not transformative. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those terms don't say that the image has to be transformative in order for it to be allowed. As a matter of fact, the only time the license even mentions having to add something new is specifically in reference to video content, which this would not apply to as it's an image, not a video. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 00:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nikkimaria: Do you have any other concerns about this? Happy to address them if you do. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 15:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately I don't think you'll be able to, since you've already talked to the wiki admins and they've said they're not interested in changing anything. I don't agree with their conclusion that it's fair use, and it does not appear that the licensed use terms are met - see in particular III.A1.2 from WAID's link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that section deals exclusively with fan creations (e.g. fan art), and it's... questionable whether this would fall into that category since the image currently in use is a direct reposting of officially-produced content, which is not produced by fans. In other words, I'm not entirely convinced that that section, which is for fan-created content, applies here in the first place. It would be different if it was a drawing done by a fan, but it's not. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 01:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What section, if any, do you believe supports the use here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure myself. But the license requires a legal disclaimer saying that the copyright is to HoYoverse, which *is* provided in the file's description page. Regardless, the license clearly says in section 1 that [u]sers can freely re-create publicly published contents from the Honkai: Star Rail series in forms including, but not limited to, text, images, videos, and physical objects. In other words, miHoYo is completely OK with people reposting officially published images. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 02:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's *not* provided in the file description page for all of the images, including for the page background; see above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In situations where the copyright holder has published the material and allows reuse in a context such as this, past discussions tend to lean toward allowing it unless there's a very clear policy conflict, which there doesn't appear to be. I doubt your argument will gain much consensus, based on the above statement that the use is likely covered by the license. And as has been pointed out before, there is also a track record of similar content from Fandom websites not being treated as copyvio in practice, which suggests that this type of content is generally not problematic. So while your interpretation isn't exactly unreasonable, I think it may be an uphill battle to get other editors to support removal. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 03:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we'll see if anyone wants to support inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing you said this was a licensed use, do you support inclusion? Gommeh (talk! sign!) 03:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that the background image violates the fan-focused license. I support inclusion, but would prefer a single link instead of three per WP:ELMIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One is fine by me. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 20:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To make it clear, I support inclusion as well. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 20:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Hello,

    I would like to report that the article Sanctioned Suicide contains external links (including a .net version and a Tor/onion version) to a website that appears to describe methods of suicide.

    This may not comply with Wikipedia’s external links guidelines regarding potentially harmful content.

    Could someone please assess whether these external links comply with Wikipedia’s external links guidelines? Thank you. Cl2637eu282Lt (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your note, @Cl2637eu282Lt. Tor (network) links are normally not acceptable, per "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser" in Wikipedia:External links.
    For the ordinary link, it appears that the most recent discussion was at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#RfC on the inclusion of an external link to the website. If you think that the summary is incorrect (e.g., everyone gave good reasons for "A", but the summary said "B"), then a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE could be possible. If you think that the discussion came to the wrong conclusion (e.g., everyone gave good reasons for "A" but you think "B" is the better answer), then a future discussion is possible,because Wikipedia:Consensus can change. However, it's customary to at least wait a little while (3–6 months) first, and it would be a good idea to read and understand the multiple prior discussions first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    British Institute at Ankara

    [edit]

    There were two external links in the top section of this article, to:

    They are now both in the External links section of the page. I removed the first one, but figured they could be useful to those looking to find out more about. Any opinions on the suitability of these links being in the article body would be great.

    Thanks Harryb7 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't feel strongly about it, but I wouldn't bother keeping that first link. All it does is give one sentence and a link to the official website for the subject. The second is a dead link (gives me a 404 error) and should be removed per WP:ELDEAD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. For some reason neither link is working as they should here. In my view both links are worth keeping but only in the external links section; the first gives information for all the other International Institutes too, and the second is a real link - I just copied it wrong! Harryb7 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate your edits to get the external links out of the body of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No external links in the body per WP:ELBODY unless there is a good reason. Additionally the second link is a subpage of the main website and as a result is not eligible per Wp:ELOFFICIAL as it would be accessible from the main site. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting me know - will remove the second link. Just for future reference, what could constitute a good reason for having an external link in the article body? The policy wording is a bit vague Harryb7 (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much almost never. I think it would have to be contextual to the individual case. Canterbury Tail talk 14:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The community generally accepts dictionary definitions (on Wiktionary), links to historical sources (on Wikisource), and a few standard texts, most notably the Bible (the most common template points to Wikisource by default) and IETF RFCs that we don't have an article about (usually in a list or table, rather than prose). I'd say that the general theme is that sources refer to something by a name or number, and you're just supposed know what that is, except that most people don't, so we're trying to give people a chance to understand. Usually, we can do that with a link to an article (e.g., Sonnet 149 – do you know which one this is, without looking? I don't), but when we don't/shouldn't have an article, and it's important for understanding the sentence, then we sometimes put in a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1350759993"