Wikipedia talk:External links

I'm discovering at Talk:Patricia Highsmith#Link farm that the examples I added to WP:ELDEAD in January 2024 are perhaps capable of being misunderstood. It doesn't help that User:InternetArchiveBot is incapable (by design) of staying out of the ==External links== section, so it spammed unnecessary archive links into thousands of ==External links== sections, even when the links were formatted in compliance with WP:ELCITE.

The end result is that we have many articles with utterly useless links to Archive.org, such as https://web.archive.org/web/20090717091118/http://wiredforbooks.org/mp3/PatriciaHighsmith1987.mp3, and of course editors don't always check the links when they revert them back in. @Pyxis Solitary restored all (IMO) bad archive links to that article the other day, but after actually looking at this one, now agrees with me that this archived link is worthless, and has even been able to find a functional URL for the original page.

The current text of the guideline says:

Within the==External links== section, dead URLs are of no use. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. Updates may sometimes include adding an archive URL, but only if a suitable replacement is not available and the archived copy has substantially the same content, user experience, and function as the original. For example, if the official website of a now-defunct company is no longer functional, then a good archived copy could be preferable to no link; however, if the article links to a page with many relevant photos of the subject, then it would usually be better to change the link to a different website that also has many photos than to link to an archived copy.

Pyxis has been telling me that "For example, if the official website of a now-defunct company...", no matter what I intended, actually means any website at all, not just WP:ELOFFICIAL websites. I think this lack of clarity is an open invitation to spammers and POV pushers, so I'd like to see if we can tighten this up.

Over the years, the usual reasons for wanting an archive link are:

1. the website is permanently dead, not just rearranged/reorganized/updated and
2. the website is an WP:ELOFFICIAL link for a subject whose official link would be relevant to researchers, explicitly including:
   • notable websites,
   • political campaign websites, and
   • corporate websites for notable but now-defunct businesses and organizations.

Can anyone think of a common or usual reason for wanting an archive link that isn't in my list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that any dead link that meets WP:ELYES is likely a good candidate to retain as an archived copy, provided the link is permanently dead and the material can't be found elsewhere. Would that be a simpler way of phrasing things? - Eureka Lott 01:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

ELYES means:

1. an ELOFFICIAL link (for articles about websites, businesses, etc.),
2. a copy of a book, musical score, etc. (for articles about books, music, etc.), and
3. stuff we can't put into a Wikipedia article (e.g., copyrighted photos, extensive sports statistics, online textbooks...).

In the case of #1, I think we might want to keep the archived link.

In the case of #2 and #3, it sounds like you believe we should prefer replacing it with a 'live' webpage, but consider keeping it otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair summary, except that official websites are sometimes moved, and we don't need an archived copy if there's a new URL. Former official websites should be listed on Wikidata, but that's probably outside the scope of this guideline. - Eureka Lott 01:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We don't usually even want the old/former link if the company has been bought by another. We'd want "www.merged-company.com/old-brand-name" instead of "old-company.archive-copy".

In terms of the ELDEAD text, perhaps this is a start:

• Within the==External links== section, dead URLs are of no use. Such dead links should either be updated or removed. → Within the==External links== section, dead URLs are of no use. Such dead links should be removed or replaced with a working link.

This feels like it would be a baby step in the right direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Suggest instead: "should either be updated, replaced or removed". Sometimes updating is the correct action, like https://example.com/amp/index.htm --> https://example.com/index.htm .. the website made a minor syntax change in the path that needs updating. "Replacing" would be like your example where the entire domain has changed. It should probably have updating as the first option and the most radical change solution removing last. -- GreenC 21:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

oldname.com → newname.com is "updating".

example.com → web.archive.org/web/20200101123456/https://www.example.com is not "updating".

In many non-ELOFFICIAL cases, though, what we really need is wholesale replacement: Alice.com/calculator.php → Bob.com/NewCalculator.php or simple removal: DeadSite.com/Relevant.html → (nothing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Updating, replacing and removal - all valid actions when the links is not working as desired (I hesitate to say "dead" because it could be a soft-404, a crunchy-404, an archival soft-404 etc.. so many possibilities). -- GreenC 05:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you have a more nuanced understanding of a dead link than I do. ;-)

I have completely re-written the section. Please take a look at the new version and tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Among the Wiktionary help pages, there is this useful page that shows shortcuts for how to quickly link to pages on other sites in the Wiki universe. I vainly searched for such a page among the Wikipedia help pages, but I couldn't find one. If one exists, we should be able to find it by searching for Related Sites. If not, why not? This is a useful thing to know for Wikipedia editors. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects or Help:Interwiki linking. - Eureka Lott 03:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There are links in the box at the top of the guideline, though you have to know that what you're looking for is called an "interwiki" or "interlanguage" link.

Or you can just use the Wiktionary page, if you like it. The interwiki and interlanguage linking methods are the same on all the WMF-hosted wikis (with the exception of a few local templates, so use, e.g., [[:s:en:Main Page]] instead of anything with {{}}). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interwiki map links to m:Interwiki map and in that document is m:Help:Interwiki linking on Wikimedia wikis
We don't really consider these as 'external links', though people do have a tendency to put templates linking to sister projects in the external links section (which I then regard falling under the WP:EL rules, and I will remove them if they are not bringing extra content at that time - most are linked anyway from the main menu (top left)). In the prose they have limited use, sometimes it is necessary to link specifics to e.g. wiktionary (but it is silly to do that for all wikt:words), and sometimes links to a wikipedia article on another language wiki is functional (but generally, those should be local redlinks, and the other language article should be ported here). That situation is distinct from a.o. Wiktionary, where it likely makes much more sense to link to encyclopedia articles. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The article for Christopher Pike, an author of young adult fiction, contains a list of all his works. Most of the works had an external link to the internet archive for each work. However, none of his works are in the public domain, and the links basically lead you to a paywall on the Internet Archive site. (You can see the links in this version of the page A link to a version of the article with the external links

I removed all these links because I feel like they aren't encyclopedic. I don't see this on other pages, and I don't see any value in having a bunch of links that take you nowhere. But I felt like I should get advice of other uninvolved editors to see if I am understanding Wikipedia's rules on external links incorrectly. Angryapathy (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Angryapathy, WP:ELNO#EL6 is the standard advice about paywalls in the ==External links== section, but what you're editing is a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, which has different recommendations.

I'd suggest that instead of either:

• Slumber Party (1985)

or

• Slumber Party (1985)

that editors of that article may wish to consider a proper bibliographic citation such as:

• Slumber Party (1985) Scholastic. ISBN 978-0590430142

Proper citations can include a Wikipedia:Convenience link if editors choose to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)