Template talk:External links

Template:External links is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the External links template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

This template was considered for deletion on 15 July 2021. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Wording: Converting links

I removed, "or by converting links into footnote references" from the template, made 01:43, 16 January 2010 without discussion. The new wording is too suggestive of editors to simply reformat improper links, in violation of WP:REFSPAM without regard to whether or not the link verifies anything of note. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notion of nudging people to use links appropriately as inline references is a solid one. While external links do contain links to inappropriate sites, they also contain links that would be appropriate as inline references though not as external links. A number of users do not know how to create an inline cite, but they have found a useful source, so they put it in External links. Also, in the early days of Wikipedia, we didn't use inline cites much - sources were frequently listed at the end of the article, which over time have been grouped as External links. It does seem wrong to simply remove a source without first checking that it could be used as an inline cite. I support replacing the statement, though perhaps slightly reworded: Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references.

It might be even better to put the appropriate policy & guide in the appropriate place while we're at it: This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this disputed phrase get put back into the template? It's almost never the intent of editors adding the tag. When you are warning people that the links don't meet our rules for links, the last thing we need is to encourage anyone to use them as sources instead, which have an even stricter set of guidelines. DreamGuy (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why spam

This template add not only the logical Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup, but also Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup. I may be misunderstanding the word "spam", but I thought that "spam" referred to intentional advertisement-like adding of external links. If that is so, then this category seems unjustified on this template. Your reactions, please. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(some time later) I echo Debresser's concern; the 2nd category should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that superfluous external links may be the result of link spaming, but that is definitely not always so. Removed. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links in the body of an article

This template is frequently – more often than not, I've found – applied to articles which have inappropriate external links inline with the article text. In such cases, the tag is usually placed at the top of the article, which makes sense. I think the documentation should be amended to reflect this usage of the template (unless this is considered a misuse of the template, in which case I suppose another template could be created instead). DoctorKubla (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody's objected, I've amended the documentation accordingly. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please put {{tfd}} on this template's page since I've listed it at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 15. And please do participate in the discussion, too. — Mike Novikoff 02:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done firefly ( t · c ) 08:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

Insights for Investors: Bitcoin and Ethereum Price Declines Insights for Investors: Bitcoin and Ethereum Price Declines, Bitcoin and Ethereum, the leading cryptocurrencies in the market, have recently experienced price declines, leaving investors concerned about future trends. While these dips may seem alarming, understanding the underlying factors driving these movements is crucial for informed decision-making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzamilkhan158 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]