Wikipedia talk:External links

External links as references

 * Within the "Longevity of links" section, the "What can be done with a dead external link" subsection begins with: "Within the ==External links== section, dead URLs are of no use." There is no mistake as to the meaning.
 * The subsection has a "main articles" Citing sources and Link rot. The first "main article" points to preventing and repairing dead links --- as sources, and can be confusing.
 * The second actually states "About|(primarily) link rot in Eternal links", that omits "section".
 * It is my understanding that Wikipedia has evolved (a fairly long time ago) towards it not being acceptable to use a link in the "External links" section as a general source. Sometimes a determination requires some exploring but sometimes a link in the "external links" section is factored as a citation. On some articles it is more clear if there is no other sourcing and only a link in the "External links" section.
 * It could be just my misunderstanding but it seems to add a level of confusion to use a "Main" link to the Citing sources (WP:DEADREF) when the subject is the External links section in articles. There is an obvious difference between an "External link" and a link in the "External links" section. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this address your concern? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do like that better. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the more general subject, for the purposes of Template:Unreferenced, any URL anywhere on the page (to a webpage that contains something relevant to the article) should be treated as a source. What makes something be a source is whether it contains information that verifies any part of the article.  Obviously, some ways of formatting the citation for a source are better than others, but the formatting isn't what makes something be a source.  Articles aren't wholly unreferenced merely because the formatting is suboptimal.  (The no footnotes template is used for URLs that are in a list at the end instead of being properly formatted into ref tags.)
 * Editors also have to watch out for people (including me, back in the day) who changed ==References== sections to say ==External links== if the contents of that section were just WP:General references instead of WP:Inline citations. Genrefs have never been banned, though they are not adequate substitutes when inline citations are specifically required.  You can "legally" use a genref for some simple material ("The capital of France is Paris") but not for something like a direct quotation, because WP:V specifically requires an inline citation for all direct quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ WhatamIdoing. A blank "References" section would show as not having a source even if there was a source in the "External links" section. "Any URL anywhere on the page" would be with the assumption that a url or link didn't have copyright violations.
 * I just recently changed an "External links" listing to general source at St. Nicholas Church, Louny. That was before I was going to convert the url's and found both to be 404 errors. My justification was basically that an "External links" section is one of the optional appendices and can be deleted. Plus, a general source is a source. Wikipedia has gravitated to it not being acceptable to source through the external links section. There was an article that showed to be unsourced and my attempting to correct this ended basically with an unsourced article. WOW! It is a good thing that the current state of the article does not determine notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you were starting with a no footnotes article, and ended up with an unreferenced one. If you thought the URLs were genrefs, then leaving them in the article, but tagging them with dead link would be an intermediate option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I had to stop but was looking for sourcing whoch I plan to resume. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Author's names order
In some articles when an external link is to an item with a named author sometimes the order is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mcljlm, are you asking about Citing sources? In the ==External links== section, there usually isn't any author's name given. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about citations.
 * In External links sections authors are usually mentioned when the link is to a book at the Internet Archive/Google Books or an article. Mcljlm (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mcljlm, can you give me a link to an example or two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel#External_links, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain#External_links, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Slovo#External_links and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lubbock,_1st_Baron_Avebury#External_links includes examples of named authors . Mcljlm (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mcljlm, most of that appears to be due to people incorrectly using WP:Citation templates like cite web in the ==External links== section. Usually, authors aren't included in the ==External links== section.  If they are named, then it most often looks something like this:
 * Relevant Page by Alice Author in The Newspaper
 * There is no prescribed format, but there is a preference for having them look obviously different from the citations (e.g., don't use citation templates). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Such links can't be preserved forever anyway; even if the old formatting style were restored, the numbers change every time an earlier ref is added to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but "anchors" can be updated each time a note is added or removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you want to replace all of the links in past discussions that currently link to something like "WP:EL#cite_note-6" to a newly created, permanent anchor? When that footnote becomes #cite_note-7, we can't add an anchor to its old #cite_note-6 location, as that number will be needed in for a different place on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought just updating the anchors for the efns being used in the EL page would work; however, after thinking about it a but more, you're right that there's much more involved than that. As long as there's a way to link to the notes like before, things should be fine. Thanks for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)