Wikipedia talk:External links

Question about WP:ELOFFICIAL

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)

I have started a discussion at WP:VPP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 214#'Official website' in infobox for deceased individuals now. Do you feel like your question was answered? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed ELNO on site software updates

@Superb Owl has suggested the following as a new entry in WP:ELNO:

• Sites that contain signs of technical debt (ie deferred maintenance) that indicate increased cybersecurity risks for those visiting the site (for example, sites that have not upgraded to https are also unlikely to promptly and proactively install other security updates)

What do we think about this? If we adopt this, should it be a separate item, or part of the malware item? How can editors differentiate between actual security risks and an old-fashioned appearance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The goal is being more cautious and careful about where we link to on the web as AI has made cyberhacking cheap while starving sites of revenue that would help them to justify investing in site maintenance.

Another concern includes the integrity of the information on the website - if a website is not following security best-practices or regularly monitored/maintained, then can editors has sufficient confidence that the information shown is the same as when the link was added? At the very least, those sites should be encouraged to have an 'unfit' or similar tag on the external link that takes readers to the Internet Archive version of the site.

Old-fashioned appearance certainly seems like an indicator of security risk (as does not supporting https). Superb Owl (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that old-fashioned appearance is a good indicator of security risk. Consider, e.g., http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/ which is run by Eric S. Raymond. It has a 1990s appearance, but I suspect that he keeps the security patches up to date. Supporting https can protect users against certain kinds of censorship and tracking, but I don't think it has a role in preventing the website from getting hacked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also note that that site also does not support https. Per my Firefox "You’ve enabled HTTPS-Only Mode for enhanced security, and a HTTPS version of www.catb.org is not available." Superb Owl (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

When I tried going to just the plain domain, I got this warning from Firefox:

"Be careful. Something doesn’t look right.

Firefox spotted a potentially serious security issue with www.catb.org. Someone pretending to be the site could try to steal things like credit card info, passwords, or emails." Superb Owl (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Firefox doesn't give me that warning, but that sounds like a warning that it's not an https:// connection, and therefore there's a chance of a Man-in-the-middle attack to intercept anything you typed into the website. However, since there's no place for you to type anything into that website, that risk would be irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That is still concerning enough that it is something I support us linking to. Would you support a bot that automatically labels all http urls to 'unfit' and adds an archive of that site? Superb Owl (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I would not support that, because I don't think that the use of an https: connection makes a website {{unfit}}. We're not talking about links to pages that have been "hijacked or defaced to show spam, malware, or phishing content". We're talking about links that simply do not provide as much privacy to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like we're not aligned on where to draw the line on dangerous/unsafe websites. Curious to hear what others think Superb Owl (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

A plain http link is dangerous or unsafe in the same way that crossing a road is dangerous or unsafe. An external link has to be justified in terms of its content, not whether viewing the content might be intercepted by others (unless there is reason to believe the site is set up for malicious reasons in which case we don't need a special rule to remove it). Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If it's set up for malicious reasons, then we already have WP:ELNO#EL3, "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but regardless of whether or not there is a rule, we would still remove a link to a malicious site. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The question here appears to be not about a malicious site, or even an already-hacked one, but rather about a site that, based on whatever characteristic feels risky to an editor, appears (in that editor's personal opinion) to be at risk of potential problems in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The suggestion is not just about problems in the future but also problems in the present that are not known. It is really a question about whether we should apply the precautionary principle to sites that carry certain indicators of risk. What those indicators are could of course be hashed-out first through consensus and could change over time. The broader question that was posed is whether we want to reduce our tolerance for risk posed by external links or are comfortable with the status quo? Superb Owl (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"Old-fashioned appearance" suggests that the website has a relatively small attack surface, because it doesn't use a giant pile of potentially-vulnerable frameworks to make it look "modern".

I take it from User:Superb Owl/Future draft#Security and User:Superb Owl/Security#External links that you've convinced yourself that AI-mediated cyberattacks hijacking websites will make it unsafe to browse the World Wide Web, in general, in the near future. I do not think this is a realistic scenario, and I think most other editors would also be skeptical. Discussing "indicators" is premature until you've actually presented a convincing case that there is a significant risk here that can't be managed by our current processes. Choess (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

We are all now agreed that old appearance is unlikely to be the best indicator of security. A more refined proposal will likely include some sort of automated ranking of websites based on a few quantifiable security characteristics that hopefully can recommend different outcomes based on the severity of the risk (warning vs. archiving vs. blocking). I can move this conversation over to the Spam blacklist or a more appropriate forum to see what existing processes could benefit from, before bringing back a more detailed proposal to this page that can try to address the concerns expressed (which have been helpful and are appreciated).

ps - @Choess, If I believed the entire internet would soon become unsafe, I would not be bothering with this effort. Superb Owl (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was hyperbolic and a bit snarky and exaggerated your position, which I should not have done in response to an obviously good-faith proposal. You're certainly welcome to find a different venue for the discussion, where editors with more security experience might weigh in. I do think others will also be skeptical. If you can find some examples of sites used in Wikipedia external links being attacked in a way harmful to a reader browsing them, I think that would help others estimate the frequency and magnitude of the risk at present. Choess (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Superb Owl, I doubt that the spam list itself would appreciate any kind of chatty discussion. You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (scroll way down to get past the automated reports) or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). You might start with asking whether they can recommend the best place to have the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

So the current plan based on advice here is maybe to start with User:InternetArchiveBot (will give them a week as they seem to be dealing with a serious security fix) to learn more about how successful it has been in flagging/fixing dead links then may ask a more specific question to Wikipedia talk:Link rot and WikiProject Spam about any efforts to create a bot that flags potentially usurped links before bringing a broader conversation to Village pump (technical). Superb Owl (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could algorithmically detect a usurped domain. You might want to look at WP:JUDI, which is one of the places that usurped links get handled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the mea cupla, @Choess, and looking into it further can understand why editors might be skeptical as the sharp rise in vulnerabilities discovered has not yet resulted in as sharp a rise in attacks as I had thought. While patching vulnerabilities has severe bottlenecks, apparently exploiting them has some as well. I will keep researching the latest risk assessments to see how things progress and keep learning about our existing processes Superb Owl (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar ID

I noticed {{Google Scholar ID}} at Patrick Schnable. Hearing Google, I think WP:ELNO#EL9: Any search results pages. Now, Google says: You can choose to have your list of articles updated automatically or review the updates yourself, or to manually update your articles at any time. So, many, if not most instances of this template violate EL. Given that we have no way of knowing the bad from the good, unless the author is contacted and is willing to go through WP:VRT, it seems we ought to nuke this template. Thoughts? Paradoctor (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a type of Wikipedia:Authority control.

There is no realistic chance of that template being removed. IMO the most you could hope for would be a bot to merge it into {{authority control}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I have no "hopes" either way. My point is, if we keep it, ELNO 9 should be changed to note this and similar exceptions. Paradoctor (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

No, we don't need to change the guideline, because most people see that page as not being search results. They see it as being a (sometimes curated) list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You realize that Google is a search engine? Paradoctor (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Google is a multinational corporation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You consider that an appropriate reply? Paradoctor (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes: it is relevant, intelligible, and polite. To expand upon the inference, when you "Hear Google", you should think of a lot more than Google Search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

One out of three. You might want to talk to someone who understands tone. Paradoctor (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

And context. Paradoctor (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: most Paradoctor (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It's already in auth control - that seems redundant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. Shall we take it to TFD for a merge? I think that's the best place for us to find a bot op for this kind of task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd say so. Though, in any case where it is manually specified it might not be linked to Wikidata yet? We might need to add the ones that aren't. Ideally we could have some bot task that matches the ones that manually specifies it and so no information is lost. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)