external Links/Noticeboard

Curlie is the successor to DMOZ. We have a long tradition of including links to DMOZ in lots of articles and the current template, {{Curlie}}, has 6,746 transclusions. I saw it recently and thought "who uses these anymore?" Web directories used to be essential tools, and many people have good feelings about the DMOZ in particular, but in 2024 ... I can't remember the last time I used one or heard anyone talk about them except as part of some techno-nostalgia.

The content of these links seems to be a combination of links already easily found in relevant Wikipedia articles, the most obvious links that would come up with any search, and some spam. Over time, we've come to see the external links section as something to be used sparingly, but these remain.

I brought this up at VPI, but it didn't get much of a response. I don't want to nominate the template for deletion, because it's entirely possible there are still good uses of it. What I'm hoping to figure out is under what conditions should we be using it? I'm having trouble thinking of any. After all, if there are good links at Curlie, why wouldn't we just link to those sites directly from our articles? Why risk the low quality stuff that we would decline to include?

This is not an RfC because I'm curious to hear from those who value these links and get some thoughts about the rationale for inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

See also Wiki talk:External links#Curlie as spam and Wiki talk:External links/Archive 41#Rule about the limit to the number of links in an "External links" section? and other prior discussions.
In Wikipedia articles, there are two ways to use a web directory (of which Curlie is merely the most popular example):
• One is to provide a link to a good collection of external links. This would mean finding a particularly good page (Curlie or otherwise) that has a long list of links that you really think would interest readers. This link would represent giving readers a link to a page that is a clear improvement over them just doing a web search. Compare, e.g., this web directory of legitimate online mental health assessments, compiled by a mental health professional, against search engine results, which might include incorrect, outdated, or joke "assessments".
• The other use is to discourage Wikipedia editors from filling the ==External links== section with a long list of links. In this instance, it doesn't really matter what the contents of the linked page are, because our main goal is to solve behavioral problems by telling editors that their link should be submitted to Curlie instead of creating a sprawling linkfarm here. I recommend this particularly when editors are adding "just one more" charitable organization. This is likely the reason editors chose to add a Curlie link to Alcoholism. It doesn't matter if it's any good, so long as it stops the spam for services in each editors' area.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The line at WP:EL which considers web directories as links that can be considered has existed since the earliest versions of the page. That diff is from 2005, though it looks like it draws from other preexisting pages, so the guidance might be older. That would make sense, since in 2005 directories were past their heyday, but still something people used from time to time. It's entirely possible there are some good parts of Curlie, but I'm yet to come across a useful one linked in an article.
I could see some unusual circumstances where a directory is useful, but it's not the norm. Most of the links to Curlie I've seen seem to have been added because the link exists, not because it provides anything useful. I don't see why we'd need to generalize guidance about directories in order to add a link here and there that happen to be a directory. Also, how careful is Curlie about medical topics like alcoholism? Clicking around the site a bit, I find that they have rich resources on e.g. Reiki, which has "Bill's Reiki Page" but nothing about how it's a pseudoscience (beyond its categorization as "alternative"). Hop over to nutrition, and there's a link to Kenny & Joann's raw blog, where they have a handful of posts to help you "restore immunity" and try to sell their services. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It sometimes surprises editors, but external links are not required to be reliable, neutral, or non-commercial.
The general trend towards interpreting advice pages seems to be that anything not explicitly allowed is prohibited, so I think it's valuable to mention it. I don't think we should suggest Curlie by name, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This makes it sound like we have no standards at all if it's not listed at ELNO. That may be true (there may indeed be a lot that feels through the cracks between ELYES/ELMAYBE/ELNO), but it's hard to interpret the spirit of the intersection of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:EL as indicating we should push people to Bill's Reiki page and whatever people or businesses decided to use Curlie for promotion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Reiki might or might not benefit from a link to any web directory (Curlie or otherwise). However, a web directory might be better than nothing (e.g., if the absence makes that section a spam magnet) or than "official" sources (like an organization of Reiki practitioners – an "open" web directory has the possibility of including links from an anti-Reiki POV).
Any external link can be removed by any editor for any reason, and it can't be restored unless and until there is evidence of an actual consensus for it (per WP:ELBURDEN), so I prefer to think of it as "letting editors use their best judgement" instead of "no standards at all". It's okay for someone to add it because they think it will be interesting to readers, and it's okay for you to remove it because you think it's uninformative. (See the line in WP:EL that says Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? if you'd like some ideas about complaints that won't make it sound like you're POV pushing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood often posts the film scripts of Oscar candidates on their site each year. Previous discussions about the use of scripts on Wikipedia are somewhat ambiguous and hinge on readings of WP:ELNEVER. Dune (2021 film) currently links to one of these scripts in the external link sections and I'm doing a GA review. Is linking to a Deadline Hollywood film script appropriate? Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, the Wiki: Good article criteria do not appear to require compliance with Wiki: External links, so I'm not sure why the contents of the ==External links== section could be relevant to determining whether it meets the criteria.
If you are concerned about copyright issues, then what I see at https://deadline.com/2024/03/oscar-nominated-screenplays-2024-scripts-1235802192/ (the introductory article for this series) suggests that the news outlet is posting these both openly and legally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The use of external links are covered in various places, such as criterion 2d, "it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism". All of the policies and guidelines interact with each other in various ways. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Télam is a state-owned news agency from Argentina. It was closed by president Javier Milei, as part of a program of fiscal austerity to deal with an ongoing crisis. The official page is https://www.telam.com.ar/ which is currently displaying a message that it is closed. A group of former workers started the site https://somostelam.com.ar/ ("we are Telam"), similar to the former Télam page. Should it be included? It makes no mention of its nature, and seems to me as if it was trying to usurp the brand (which still belongs to the government, closure or not). Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider that link if there were a significant amount of information about the employee group (e.g., at least a substantial paragraph). On the other hand, if it's not worth space in the article, I'd consider it similar to a fansite and wouldn't bother adding the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How to get external link Alimohmed23 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki English. I do not understand what you want to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Does the info at WP:EL help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)