Wikipedia talk:External links

I think the section §Sites requiring registration (that also includes paid subscription) should in some way link to WP:PAYWALL. Horcrux (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This subsection begins with the words "Outside citations" (emphasis in the original), and has a footnote saying "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles."

Are you seeing evidence that this is not clear enough to convince someone that this doesn't apply to cited sources, or are you just hoping to cross-link the pages, so that if someone is trying to find PAYWALL, but they end up here instead, they'll have a handy link to the PAYWALL policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The second one :-) --Horcrux (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad it's the second one. Does this change work for you? (If not, please be WP:PGBOLD. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! I'm a bit reluctant to "be bold" when making changes to guidelines. --Horcrux (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § Further reading and External links sections not exempt?. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In the "handling disputes" section, it says not to reinstate disputed links without explicit consensus to do so. Say there's a consensus that including a certain external link is permissible; would it be necessary to get an explicit consensus if someone wanted to remove that link? If so, under what conditions would it be necessary to do so? In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 15:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Under WP:EL rules, removals are always allowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, it would be better to say "Under WP:EL guidance, removals are always allowed." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you can call it whatever you'd like. But WP:ELBURDEN is definitely and intentionally one-sided, and we're pretty strict about enforcing it if there's a dispute, so there's not much value in suggesting that it might be mere advice instead of a requirement. In practice, you'll have more luck edit-warring uncited text back into the body of an article than edit-warring a disputed link back into the EL section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:AI data center#Random social links in External links Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In WP:ELOFFICIAL we have two criteria that must be met, the linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article & the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. What happens when the subject dies? Since they can no longer control the linked content. Would their official estate be sufficient? Some examples I have seen are Ronald Raegan, other past presidents & as well as certain celebrities that have passed like Oliver Tree. It does not really look like it has been brought up fully before, this was the best I could find. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Under discussion at Talk:Charlie Kirk#'Official website' and YouTube channel. It has been claimed, without providing any evidence, that Kirk's estate is now running the website, though I'm unconvinced that is particularly relevant, given that policy says that the website must be 'controlled by the subject'. Kirk's estate isn't Kirk. And perhaps more concerning, the website discusses subjects of which Kirk would have had no knowledge (see e.g. this discussion on the death of Linsey Graham ). Now clearly anyone can claim to be 'continuing Kirk's mission' or whatever, but we shouldn't be representing an overtly political website with its own agenda as Kirk's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey and that is a great argument for Kirk's page and situation. This is focused on the more general question and if our working here should change. How do you think we should handle this in a general sense or with situations on other pages that still have official links to now deceased individuals? ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Policy needs clarification, I'd say. And it would be better discussed somewhere where the broader community will see it: WP:VPP seems the obvious place. Personally, I'd say that if there ever are grounds for including a link to a website in an article for a deceased individual, it needs to be labelled properly. The way the Reagan article handles it seems reasonable enough - it lists several websites, but explains what each of them is, and doesn't put them in the infobox. It will need to be handled on a case-by-case basis though, to ensure that such links aren't misused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that the rules are principles. See if you can figure out what the underlying intention is, and then do what implements that.

If you're confused about what the goal is ("to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself"), then I'll add that ELOFFICIAL is not meant to result in yanking a URL out of an article the moment someone dies. The two common approaches to this situation are:

• Leave it alone, so long as the ELOFFICIAL goal is more or less being met. This goal obviously isn't met if the domain gets hijacked by WP:JUDI gambling sites, but it can still be met with the website being changed by family members, the decedent's estate, their business, etc.
• Replace it with a good archive copy from the approximately the date of the person's death (or other ending point, e.g., when the business closes, the day after the election, etc.).

Also, even if editors conclude that a dead person's (or defunct company's) website isn't technically still an Official™ Website, it's still very likely a desirable external link. Non-official external links are still permissible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable, then we should probably soften the wording a bit from An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: to something like An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that should meets both of the following criteria: Otherwise, with the current wording as pointed out by AndyTheGrump, it is required that both be met vs the more common sense approach. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is 'should' supposed to add? It does absolutely nothing to clarify how we handle the examples being discussed, and instead leaves room for Wikilawyering about 'official links' in general. What we actually need is an explanation as to handle that specific situation, since it seems to have come up several times. And as I said, I think this is better discussed at WP:VPP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Changes to a guideline are typically discussed on the talk page for that guideline.

What do you think would be a useful thing to tell people? Given that I don't remember this particular dispute coming up ever at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, I don't feel like there's tons of demand for an explanation, but if we can be helpful without being WP:CREEPY, then I'd be happy to add a clarification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest a clarification until I get some idea of what the community thinks is appropriate for the situation being discussed. The community, not three people... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a catch-22: You won't propose a clarification until the community tells you what they think, and the community (probably) won't tell you what they think until you make a proposal. I'm not sure how to move forward from here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I was suggesting we start a discussion at WP:VPP, since there is clearly an issue. I can see no benefit in making any proposal until we have a better idea of what the community thinks. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, not an adversarial system, and I can see no reason why one should need a formal proposal to get a response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of what you are asking for, damn near a formal proposal before you give a response? No, I think WhatamIdoing has it right, VPP isn't required if we can reach a conclusion here. If we can't or the change, if any, becomes controversial then sure we go to the wider audience. But starting at 10 is a waste of everyone's time. Though, I suppose, no one is stopping you from doing that yourself. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Andy, I'm seriously not even sure how we could start that "discussion". What's your actual question? "How dare people keep saying that website is his website, when dead people can't legally own anything?" "When someone dies, should we stop calling it their 'official' link, and use some other label instead?" "When someone dies, should we remove their WP:ELOFFICIAL websites from the articles about them?"

It is the long-standing practice of the community to keep "official" links for dead people. This is so obviously the sensible thing to do that, as far as I know, yours is the only known dispute in Wikipedia's history over whether an WP:ELOFFICIAL website should be removed from the article of a famous, recently (~10 months ago) dead person. I've seen very little sympathy for your claims, which have ranged from legalistic ("The deceased can't own or control things", which is true in most legal systems, but only if one ignores things like legal trusts, which lawyers sometimes describe as "controlling from the grave") to nonsensical (e.g., your claim that the link "would appear to be impermissible" if it's not technically an ELOFFICIAL link – this guideline does not ban all non-ELOFFICIAL links).

Since you have talked about having a discussion at WP:VPP but haven't actually started one, I'm guessing that you're not really sure what you need from such a discussion, either. If you figure it out, I'd be happy to see you start that discussion, or to help you figure out a way to phrase it, if you want that help. But right now, I'm really not sure what you need to learn. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't examined the article (Charlie Kirk) but I don't like the idea of a deceased individual having an official website. Why not display it as a normal link assuming it meets WP:EL while ignoring any pedantic objections? An article on how someone is remembered (legacy or similar), could have an official website. There is no need to change/weaken the guideline as that would lead to further expansion. Bear in mind that the website in this particular case may exactly match the subject's views but there can be no assurance that the same will be true in a few years. A deceased person's website could end up in the hands of someone who disagrees with some of the subject's views and we cannot have a situation where editors decide when a website has drifted too far to be official. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether the dispute there is about:

• Having the charliekirk.com link in the infobox
• Having the charliekirk.com website first in the EL section (generally reserved for ELOFFICIAL links, since that's generally what makes the most sense)
• Labeling charliekirk.com as the "official website" in the EL section
• Having the current charliekirk.com website (rather than a static archive) in the EL section
• Linking to charliekirk.com as an EL at all

For the middle one, I think it's important to remember that reader-facing content should not be decided based on our internal jargon. A website could be fairly and neutrally described as an official website in an article even if it's not the WP:ELOFFICIAL website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

On what basis should charliekirk.com be labelled as an "official website"? No source has been provided that states who currently runs it. What makes it 'official'? What would 'official' even mean in this context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it controversial or do we have concerns about who runs the site? Like seriously, in this instance, are we really worried that someone running the site is not affiliated with the kirk estate? Because unless there is a valid concern I do not see a reason we need a RS saying it specifically, it is kind of a sky is blue situation and I think common sense should win out there. ~2026-40763-89 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Andy, are you worried about the ==External links== section saying:

• Official website

? Would you prefer that it said instead:

• https://charliekirk.com

without using the word 'official'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Brought here from Charlie Kirk talk page ongoing discussion. I would like to weigh in here and say there are a lot of other deceased persons on Wikipedia who have an "official" external website. I think the precedence is to have it listed. This is the correct way to go about things on Wikipedia because it best serves the uninformed reader. I do think the argument that a deceased person can not officially run their own website is semi-valid. I like the idea from WhatamIdoing, just list it as an external, not label it as "official". I think listing the Youtube information such as "views" and "years active" should absolutely be included as it is a key detail of a major aspect of the subjects notability.

MaximusEditor (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, can you respond to WhatamIdoing's question above? We should find a consensus common ground on where we all want to land on for inclusion of Kirks website on his article. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I see no particular reason why I should respond to WhatamIdoing's misrepresentation of my comments. I was hoping that we'd get more input here, but since we aren't, it probably does require discussion at the village pump - I'll start a thread tomorrow. As for the specifics of the Kirk article, it would be helpful if people were to back up their claims regarding who is now running the website with evidence rather than assertions. Vague handwaving at hypothetical 'estates' and 'trusts' are a poor basis for decision-making. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that MaximusEditor refers to these unanswered questions. I don't think you'd consider them to be presenting your comments at all, and therefore cannot be misrepresenting them. There are two questions, and they are simple yes/no questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)