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:
All of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are accessible through "controlled digital lending", which the Internet Archive lost over inHachette v. Internet Archive, that their specific model of scanning and lending full book copies of in-copyright books was not fair use. The ruling did say that their version of CDL (where they offered full books, not snippets for search, and did not pay the owners, unlike most libraries) was a copyright violation. Since they were only sued by the specific companies, they removed from accessible lending those specific companies' in-print books, but to my understanding the rest of the in-copyright books in IA are the same legally, their authors just did not bother to sue.
The only books in the IA program that don't use controlled digital lending are ones that are out of copyright, which are not an issue to link, but many used as sources onwiki are still in copyright. They only removed the books from the specific companies that sued them, but that doesn't make it not a copyright violation for the others, and "the copyright owner probably won't sue us" is not an accepted defense for that onwiki.
I'm not proposing anything drastic like removing all of them but since realizing this it has seemed uncomfortable to me to link full books from IA, givenWP:COPYLINK. I doubtlogically anything will come of it, but that goes for many copyright issues, and for the principle are we not, technically, linking to copyright violations?PARAKANYAA (talk)18:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question about the ==External links== section, as whole books are rarely wanted in that section. It sounds like your concern is focused on the occasional use of aWikipedia:Convenience link in a <ref> tag. I suggest therefore that this is better discussed somewhere else.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that discussion is 100% about sources used to support article content, whichWikipedia:External links says repeatedly is not covered by the EL guideline. Not only is it not about ELs, the links don't appear to have ever been in the article in the first place, so there is no action to be taken at all.
I suggest that you take your complaint elsewhere.Diannaa orMER-C might be able to suggest a sympathetic forum for hypotheticalWP:LINKVIO concerns in ==References==.
Alternatively, if my recollection is correct that you've already brought this up in the past without other editors agreeing with you, you should seriously consider dropping it.WhatamIdoing (talk)01:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never brought this up prior to the FAC thing, though I vaguely recall someone else may have somewhere. In any case, it was irrelevant to the FAC, as having a link is not an FAC criterion, it just seemed to spark much disagreement, so if it's not relevant here I am content to be silent on the matter. I am not going to remove them it just seems a bad idea to add them.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA/@WhatamIdoing For me, there is just not much reason to discuss.WP:COPYLINK is rather clear:However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Even if rare or not a common problem in ==External links== sections, we should try to get rid of links to the links that we have i these sections that may be a copyright violation (and/or in ==Further reading== sections, for that matter). Either link to the original, to a 'generic' site (including our own Booksources), or evenjust no link at all (though the latter is does make it 'not an external link' - but generally books should be in further reading sections).Dirk BeetstraTC08:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I'm not a fan of putting archive links in the ==External links== section, except for defunctWP:ELOFFICIAL sites. However, no relevant articles or links have been identified. There is nothing actionable here.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the germane question is more along the lines of "is there a ruling that says Wikipedia isn't allowed to link to Internet Archive pages?"jp×g🗯️19:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue we should not be linking to any copyrighted work (known to still be under copyright) that is at IA, at all. It would be like linking to a research paper hosted at academia.edu or the like. Now, on the "hush hush", an editor can use that work to fill in the details, sourcing the work but not linking it directly, we don't have to know how they got the source and assume in good faith they got it legitimately.Masem (t)20:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, except instead ofknown to still be under copyright, I'd say the presumption should be copyrighted unless it is known to be in the public domain.O3000, Ret. (talk)20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The starting premise of this discussion, "All of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are accessible through "controlled digital lending"", is blatantly untrue. Many of the books we link to from the Internet Archive are out of copyright and openly available to all without controlled lending. I think we should not remove such links and should leave it up to IA to police its copyright issues (just as we police our own here). I would however not particularly mind the removal of all controlled digital lending IA links. —David Eppstein (talk)20:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything is copyrighted (works created after 1978 lasts for the author's life plus 70 years and copyright is automatic). I think we should not demand that someone must hire a lawyer and sue, but find out ourselves the same as we do with images.O3000, Ret. (talk)20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly untrue, again. Nearly everythingrecent is copyrighted. We link to many books created before 1978 or before 1929. And copyrighted ≠ unlinkable; many recent books are under open access licenses. —David Eppstein (talk)21:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to edit in "the last half century", but thought it was obvious. And I don't think much of the start of your edit. Yes some many recent books are under open access licenses and some images are public domain. It's up to us to determine this as we do with images -- not just assume we can use everyone else's works. Wikipedia respects copyright. And asWP:CV states: "Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to." I'll refrain from sayin copyrighted ≠ unlinkable is "blatantly untrue again".O3000, Ret. (talk)21:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether most books are in copyright or most books are out of copyright or accessible under other licences. Point is that for those that are in violation of copyright we should not be linking, even if that is only one or two examples. If the archive does their job properly, those links anyway will have short lifetimes as they will remove the link. Material has to properly link to/identify the original source of the material (also when there are no copyright issues, or when the material is not available from the original or behind a paywall), so that we can always identify and consider alternatives to resolve copyright issues, pages being taken down, companies folding or whatever. (still, this is not a specific WP:EL issue, it is just Wikipedia-wide, we should not link to work in violation of copyright in ==External links==, but also not in ==Further reading==, ==References==, or in the prose).Dirk BeetstraTC08:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the links used inTemplate:National Library of Medicine reference do not match the link used on the target website. The template directs to a url ending in "condition=exampleexample", but the website currently uses "condition/example-example" in its url. I edited the template so it uses the slash instead of the equals sign, but the links are still broken individually where the template parameter needs a hyphenated input.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸17:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally we're looking for encyclopaedic information on External links, not configuration and user tips. We're not a how to guide, or here to help people get configured with software etc, we're an encyclopaedia and the links need to have encyclopaedic content. Everything you're saying unfortunately suggests it doesn't add anything encyclopaedic to the article.Canterbury Tailtalk18:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
External links do not have to contain encyclopedia information. In fact, if they're encyclopedic, then they're at risk of violatingWP:ELNO#EL1. Instead, they need to be interesting to readers, including readers who are looking for an official software repository. I've read that the official link (e.g., in an infobox) is the #1 destination for readers, across all articles.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your last, here's my answer to your query: "mpv" is the basic foundation while mine is all the enhancements. It is like saying, "mpv" is the calf's skin while mine is the shoe. Thank you.Ulysses RS Caballes (talk)00:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulysses RS Caballes. I have removed the official github, that one is prominently linked from the official site that is there. You want to link an alternative github, which I think is also failing our inclusion standards. We are not writing an encyclopedia to optimize something external. We are not extensively linking to game mods either. I don’t believe that not having your optimization is detrimental to understanding the subject.Dirk BeetstraTC04:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you so much for your last. Kindly please do allow me to quote you, if I may, quote: "Not having your optimization is detrimental to understanding the subject." unquote. You wrote that, not me. Thanks a lot for that bold statement. How so very kind of you.Ulysses RS Caballes (talk)05:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ulysses RS Caballes there are two things here: 1)we are writing an encyclopedia here, where we want information that is helping usunderstanding the subject (WP:EL even calls it 'encyclopedic understanding'). Most of that we incorporate, sometimes we link to it. 2)you want to have users of the software get theoptimal experience with the software. Those are not the same goals. (note that you are quoting me wrong, ripping it out of context - what you quote is not what I said) As I said, I removed theofficial github from the Wikpedia page, as it does not fit our inclusion standards. We do not link to download places for software subjects, we do not link to shops where you can buy the subject, we do not link to mods of games, we do not link to everything that is somehow related to a subject, in fact, we are focussing on incorporation and with that minimizing external links. So to rephrase: the subject as it stands gives a good encyclopedic understanding of the subject, your configuration gives a good optimization of the software, but your configuration is not expanding the encyclopedic understanding of the subject.Dirk BeetstraTC10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(came here to post a link to this) This discussion would benefit from some outside perspectives. Please take a look and join in. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)04:21, 4 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 BeetstraTC04:47, 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]
Defer toWPSPAM