:::The problem was, that without  the needed context the helpdesk answer was imprecise. Having read the above, and seen the article, I can give  a somewhat more nuanced answer, . What  says above is quite correct, but IMO not quite complete either. There are some links that are perfectly appropriate in a ref citation. For example in this article, cite 13 (as it stands) reads "Myall, Steve (19 January 2013). "Quite Interesting: 50 amazing facts to celebrate 10 years of QI". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 4 January 2015." with the quoted article title and the words "Daily Mirror" both linked. The latter link goes to Daily Mirror, so people can read the Wikipedia article and form an opinion about the source being cited, if they choose. Similarly, cite 30 which displays as "Mair, Eddie (7 September 2010). "Your perfect dinner date". Radio Times. pp. 10–14." links the title "Your perfect dinner date" and the source "Radio Times", the latter link going to Radio Times. Again perfectly proper. Or cite 41, which reads "Williams, Garry (11 July 2010). "3 Must See". TV Extra. Sunday Herald Sun. p. 3." Here the article title is not linked (perhaps it isn't online) but Sunday Herald Sun the source, is. Again perfectly correct. But then we come to cite 63, and the many like it. It reads: "Series B, Episode 10". QI. Season B. Episode 10. 10 December 2004." I don't recall seeing a cite quite like this. My view, wi8thout consulting any policy or guideline pages, is that while this seems intended to cite the episode itself (which is perfectly proper in many cases) the wiki-link may make it seem to be citing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the cited source, nor the work in which the cited source was published. I think that this link, while proper in the article prose where the episode is discussed, should not be in the citation. But as I said, this is a slightly new situation for me, and i would welcome the views of editors experienced in dealing with citations to TV episodes.