Welcome to the external links noticeboard
This page is for reporting possible breaches of theexternal links guideline. Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia'sguidelines for external links. Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed. Questions about prominent websites likeYouTube,IMDb,Twitter, orFind a Grave might be addressed with information fromthis guide. Sections older than 10 daysarchived byMiszaBot. Click here to purge this page (For help, seeWikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:ELNWP:ELN WP:EL/NWP:EL/N If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use{{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Concerns with links used asreferences should be handled at thereliable sources noticeboard. For cases involving blatantspamming, please file a report at thespam project. Obvious cases ofcorporate vanity can be tagged with{{db-g11}}. This board is not intended for generalized discussion about the external links guidelines themselves, which should be handled at theguideline talk page. To mark a report resolved, place{{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

Indicators
Defer discussion:
Defer toWPSPAM
Defer toXLinkBot
Defer toLocal blacklist
Defer toedit filter

• readabilityofwikipedia.com: Linksearchen(insource) -meta -de -fr -simple -wikt:en -wikt:fr •Spamcheck •blacklist hits •MER-C X-wiki •gs • Reports:Links on en -COIBot -COIBot-Local • Discussions:tracked -advanced -RSN • COIBot-Link,Local, &XWiki Reports - Wikipedia:en -fr -de • Google:search •meta • Domain:domaintools •AboutUs.com

The URLSpecial:LinkSearch/*.readabilityofwikipedia.com has been hijacked by a pornography site. The current URL ishttps://readability.nl/. I'm not sure what the policy on replacing links on user pages or talk page archives is in this scenario.Toukouyori Mimoto (talk)13:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have discoveredWikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests.Toukouyori Mimoto (talk)14:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toukouyori Mimoto, I agree that this needs fixing. There's alsohttps://readability.toolforge.org/ which is hosted by the WMF instead of being sponsored by a third-party entity. I think either of the links would be acceptable.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a website was been usurped (especially if in a 'bad' way), it is better to (globally) blacklist, disable all links and provide an archive link. If a 1-on-1 replacement exists then that may be an alternative to consider. --Dirk Beetstra^TC04:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm thathttps://readability.nl/ is the 1-on-1 replacement,[1].Toukouyori Mimoto (talk)21:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a blacklist should be requested; editors may unwittingly link it based on memory, copy-paste from another source, or old diff. --GreenC17:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from enwiki perWikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#readabilityofwikipedia.com --GreenC17:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational Force – Ukraine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

• external links:mpo25_1.pdfSIPRIYB25c02.pdf

Could someone who is not me and is notD'Lisye please provide some independent feedback atTalk:Multinational Force – Ukraine#Mostly irrelevant map regarding the two external links atMultinational Force – Ukraine#External links? Please comment over there about whether they are or are not acceptable external links for the topic, to help reach consensus.

You might also wish to comment atTalk:Multinational Force – Ukraine#UK parliament further reading about the external links inMultinational Force – Ukraine#Further reading, and/or edit them.Boud (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)(add external links here for clarityBoud (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC); link to 'further reading' talk page sectionBoud (talk)18:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

This is an example of a Wikipedia page about a Norwegian company:https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinor

In the fact box to the right, there is a direct link to that company's page at The Brønnøysund Register Centre (public state agency) in Norway, where all companies and organisations are registered and are given a 9 digit ID.

The link in this case is:https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=923609016

From now on that link should be replaced with a link to the new web page:https://virksomhet.brreg.no/nb/oppslag/enheter/923609016

More generally, links containing this string:https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=...should be globally replaced with this string:https://virksomhet.brreg.no/nb/oppslag/enheter/...if possible.

Otherwise all such links will most likely return "404 not found" in the future.

I hope this is possible.

• With apologies for terrible formatting due to mobile; I think a request here would help -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests

If you have an opinion, please join.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)16:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit byHipal nuked external links variously citingWP:ELNOT,WP:ELOFFICIAL andWP:ELBURDEN. But I don't see anything in there that would justify the removal of{{Substack pub}},{{C-SPAN}},{{LibraryThing author}}; andOfficial chatbot,Podchaser.

The chatbot is pretty useful, not easily found linked elsewhere, and I found it from a mention at Mearsheimer's blog. And how are non-official CSPAN, Library Thing (comprehensive biblio) and podcast appearances (now a regular thing for Mearsheimer) violative of WP:ELNO? I added these links a while back to what I found to be a barebones EL section, and I don't see any substantive rationale for their removal. And the main outlet for Mearsheimer's regular publications is the Substack not the official website. I don't see a case for its removal either. ... I am not sure how valid external links like those above which give detailed biblios and list appearances on US public TV are detrimental to users or violative of any ELNO criteria. Beyond handwaving at at the EL policies no explanation has to come forward for how these would violate any of them.

These substantive rationales were provided atTalk:John Mearsheimer/Archives/2025/November#External links but beyond a link to the EL guidelines, no explanation came forward for why/how any of these would apply. As such I am bringing this here.

Also pingingИованъ, who was involved in the discussion.Gotitbro (talk)07:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, here's a list of the removed links:

• Official chatbot
• Mearsheimer newsletter onSubstack
• John Mearsheimer at Podchaser
• Appearances onC-SPAN
• John J. Mearsheimer atLibraryThing

How many of these would you classify asWP:ELOFFICIAL links?

Which one or two do you believe is the most important to include?WhatamIdoing (talk)09:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Substack blog is Mearsheimer's primary outlet for regular publications. I would say that is the most important official link (beyond his website). The rest are not official but of these I would say the most important is Podchaser, listing his regular appearances on Podcasts and other shows (not covered by IMDb).

Librarything has an extensive bibliography, but since we already have a dedicated article atJohn Mearsheimer bibliography, it can be entirely dropped (or moved there).

The chatbot is operated by an AI company but licensed by Mearshseimer. I find it to be very interesting and relevant but not the "most important". Though I do not believe it violates any EL policy.

To summarize, the blog and podcast database I find to be the most important here.Gotitbro (talk)09:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that there is a prominent link from his official website to his Substack blog? --Hipal (talk)16:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:ELMINMore than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and arenotprominently linked from other official websites. and... it is prominently linked from his website, at top right. For other stuff, whether they provide "significant unique content" becomes aWP:ELMAYBEGraywalls (talk)16:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the blog is still unique and significant enough to be included. But nonetheless, I can defer to the better judgment of others here.

But the inclusion of the rest of these remains well justified from what I can see.Gotitbro (talk)17:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend omitting the Substack as duplicative of the official website, and I likeyour idea of moving the LibraryThing link toJohn Mearsheimer bibliography. That would resolve two of them right off, plus putting that LibraryThing link in a place where it might be more valued.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added the LibraryThing link toJohn Mearsheimer bibliography when I saw it was removed from the main article.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)00:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know his C-SPAN id? I would certainly support that link here or elsewhere.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)17:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Иованъ: As linked above, it is:https://www.c-span.org/person/?92628.Gotitbro (talk)17:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether C-SPAN, LibraryThing, and even IMDb could be merged into the Authority Control template.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thinkPigsonthewing orMSGJ know things aboutTemplate:Authority control.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could post these suggestions onTemplate talk:Authority control to see if others support them — Martin(MSGJ · talk)22:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect very many editors to see a discussion on a template's talk page.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is the talk page for discussing authority control. I can assure you it will receive attention — Martin(MSGJ · talk)10:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Now to see whether anyone other than you is watchingTemplate talk:Authority control.;-)WhatamIdoing (talk)18:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• theparisianguide.com: Linksearchen(insource) -meta -de -fr -simple -wikt:en -wikt:fr •Spamcheck •blacklist hits •MER-C X-wiki •gs • Reports:Links on en -COIBot -COIBot-Local • Discussions:tracked -advanced -RSN • COIBot-Link,Local, &XWiki Reports - Wikipedia:en -fr -de • Google:search •meta • Domain:domaintools •AboutUs.com

Coming here fromWikiProject Spam to pick your collective brains if I may.

Over the last year, single-purpose accounts have been editing articles about Paris and its environs in the same pattern: adding a photo or correcting a typo (and saying so in their edit summaries) but at the same time silently dropping a link to this site in the external links section. It was the subterfuge of this that caught my eye – sites that are useful to our readers don't usually need to resort to underhand methods.

The issue is… the site itself isn't too bad. A little heavy on selling each tourist trap it's writing about rather than reviewing it; a little heavy on the affiliate links for tickets and so forth, but… well, there arefar worse sites in our external links than this one. It certainly shouldn't be used as a citation, and I'm going to be removing it in the small number of cases where it is,^{done 16:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)} but as an external link… I dunno! So I thought I'd ask people with bigger brains than me. Opinions? •a frantic turtle 🐢13:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deception is irritating and trust-reducing, but if they'd done the same thing avowedly, I'm sure that another editor would have complained about self-promotion and spam. Part of me thinks: At least this way we get some improvement to the article.

Overall, the right thing to do is to consider whether some readers of each individual article might be interested in those links. If so, we should probably keep them. Another option that puts the reader first is for someone to find a similar/competing website, and swap their competitors' links into the same place.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is an external link to an archive of graphic violence by security forces of a state acceptable? To keep the discussion in a single place, please comment directly atTalk:2025–2026 Iranian protests#Proposal: Archive of primary source video evidence for External Links, where the archive maintainer has started a discussion (and I replied).The images/videos show graphic violence.Boud (talk)00:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia dispute resolution

• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed