Wikipedia talk:External links#c-WhatamIdoing-20250514205900-Patrick Welsh-20250514203900

Can someone contribute their opinions at this talk page discussion about adding a blog as external link? The edits appears promotional. There is also WP:COI. Shouldn't this be a problem? 2409:4073:38C:3C77:9522:621B:BD20:CF83 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:* There is no COI for Editor A to add a link to a blog written by Editor B (unless you think those two editors have some sort of real-life relationship, e.g., the blogger is paying the first editor).

:* Adding a link to someone's blog is not an inherently promotional action. When we talk about "promotional" links, we're concerned things like about internet petitions and crowdfunding. We are not concerned about informational pages that might get a little higher traffic. Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website; a link could be good (e.g., increase revenue) or bad (e.g., slashdotting) for the website, but what we care about is whether it's good for our readers.

:*

:WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

My immediate issue is whether or not Abolition of monarchy can have a link to wikiversity:Should the monarchy in the UK be abolished?, but I'm sure there are many similar examples in other WP articles. DMBFFF (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:You aren't even arguing the guidelines as they are written. What on earth does "to be considered" do for your case to absolve the actual content of its abject, obvious worthlessness to our readers, expressly at odds with our content guidelines? It has been considered, and rejected! It's unbelievable that this of all disputes has reemerged after months on pause. Remsense ‥ 论 17:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's no better than any other random website which has a page on a given subject, but no indication of why it would be especially valuable as an external link (no expert in the field, no major fan website or especially valuable background) just a collection of a few random people with some random thoughts. I see no reason at all to link to that page anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:@DMBFFF,

:We are usually more generous with interwiki links. For example, you can link to Wiktionary, if you use an unfamiliar word in the middle of an article or to Wikisource if mentioning the name of an old document that we don't have an article on. We link to Commons categories even if it has relatively few or poor images, whereas linking to a non-Commons page for photos would usually require more and/or higher quality images.

:But there are some limits, and one of the limits is WP:ELBURDEN. If someone objects to any external link, then you need to have a discussion on the talk page (or at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, but preferably not on somebody's User_talk: page) and determine whether there is consensus to include it. Once an objection has been lodged, you need positive evidence of consensus to re-add it. You can go through all the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution steps, up to and including holding an RFC at Talk:Abolition of monarchy, but until you get a discussion that says "Yes, let's add this", it needs to stay out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

One of my habits—perhaps it's a bad one that should cease, at least in the cases of linking from WP—is to put interwiki links from and to WP articles. Some are probably good in that they help the article, but even if they aren't, it might help some editors who might want to add content that while may be inappropriate for WP, to take their efforts elsewhere as per Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. As abolition of the monarchy is political, some editors might have arguments, either for or against, that while are bad for a WP article, could enhance a WV resource. Ditto the reverse, with links from WV resources to WP articles. DMBFFF (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Have you run across the Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects guideline yet? Adding appropriate interwiki links is a good thing to do. The only possible concern is that different people sometimes have different ideas about which ones are "appropriate". That should be resolved case-by-case in discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe not until now.

::"Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible."

::So I guess I'll stop much if not most of my interwikiki linking from Wikipedia. 11:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMBFFF (talk • contribs)

ELMAYBE#3 is outdated, it stems from a time when DMOZ was a thing. But that has been spammed to death and then it stopped. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Web directories do not have to be part of a website that specializes in them. For example, http://www.cancerindex.org/clinks7.htm is a web directory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::That page was last updated in 2017, and that website has been used as an external link 3 times:

::*Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia

::*Interleukin 6

::*Epidemiology of cancer

::Twice to a generic search result page, last updated in 2019 and [http://www.cancerindex.org/clinks4e.htm once] to an actual link directory(!) last updated in 2015.

::I wouldn't feel comfortable using it as an external link or reference, because it is the project of a single person and very outdated.

::Google would provide better and more tailored results. I do think it could be a valuable resource for someone who is looking into the history of cancer research, but we don't have an article about that (yet) and we don't need to mention such a once-in-a-lifetime thing here. Also we kinda focus on educating the unwashed masses. Polygnotus (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's nothing wrong with an external link being the project of a single person. All else equal, one would naturally prefer an up-to-date web directory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::All else being equal one would also prefer a website to be ran by a team of experts who check each others work instead of a single expert who checks their own work. Polygnotus (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm less certain about that. A list of relevant web pages is not necessarily something that needs to be "checked". The level of fact-checking involved is kind of "Is that a cancer charity? Okay, then it belongs on Ye Grande List of Cancer Charities". It doesn't need "experts", and it barely needs checking at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wiki is kinda built on the idea that giving others the ability to edit people's work results in a better product. That is not always true; if the first editor is at the level of a god then others can only damage their perfect work. But that isn't the case here (and it very rarely is on Wikipedia). More eyes (or a bit of code) makes looking for 404s easier. And it looks like the webmaster only speaks English. Polygnotus (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Many eyes make all bugs – or 404s – shallow, but large organizations have the most eyes, and also the most opportunity for outdated content. "Oh, we're going in another direction", says the marketing department while they delete or de-link useful pages. Or the manager says "Don't bother updating that; you have more important work to do." A hobbyist, on the other hand, often produces and maintains an web directory simply because they want to, and therefore we have good success with them.

:::::::And, no matter who wrote the page, the fact is that if (when) it falls out of date, or we find a better one, then we can remove it or replace it. This is not a " 'til death do us part" situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Though strongly diminished, I still think that having a good Web directory on a subject is better than having lists of examples. There are still web directories that are maintained, seeing Web directory, including curlie.org (which is deemed synonymous with dmoz). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} You reverted me, but it is unclear why, and it is not an improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Because web directories actually are recommended and encouraged in some cases, even if you personally disagree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::@WhatamIdoing By you, but it is unclear if that is your personal opinion, or if that is the consensus. So is there evidence that that is the consensus? If not we should leave it out. And so far we only got a single example of a very outdated linkfarm, if you want to argue that point it may be nice to have some solid examples. Polygnotus (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There have so far been three editors commenting in this section, and only you favor removal. So we have a guideline that's recommended this since 2005. We have support for the long-standing rule from two editors, both with significant knowledge of spam fighting and this guideline because we've been doing this for almost two decades now. And then we have you.

:::If you think your lone view is the "consensus", then who exactly is agreeing with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing I am, and that means a lot because I rarely do. And claiming that my view is in the minority is weird in the context that they are so incredibly rare on Wikipedia. If you had a large majority who supported their inclusion, then there would be many included. Polygnotus (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you want to claim consensus in the face of direct opposition, you need to find at least one person who is not you and who agrees with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@WhatamIdoing Correct me if I am wrong, but the tradition on Wikipedia appears to be to always claim consensus, despite even overwhelming evidence to the contrary? What would you recommend? WP:THIRD? I am not so sure it has been thoroughly discussed yet, which is one of the requirements (but that may be incorrect). Most of the time when people disagree with me I explain why they are wrong and if they continue I just shrug and move on. Convincing people over TCP/IP is near impossible and rarely a good use of my time. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We've already got three people in this discussion, so THIRD won't accept the request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yet one more reason to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#c-Polygnotus-20250426065000-WhatamIdoing-20250426064100 not believe in numbers]. Polygnotus (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also, if it's necessary to edit these lists, it's important to preserve the numbering. People have been referring to things like "ELNO #10" or "ELMAYBE #3" for years, and rearranging the numbering makes those old conversations needlessly difficult to understand. When we retire an item, it takes its old number with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::@WhatamIdoing I don't believe in numbers so that is fine with me. Polygnotus (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

ELNO lists "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article" as one of the "Links normally to be avoided".

For a biography of someone who posts to a group blog or other such effort: if their individual posts require a subscription to read, but the index thereof (e.g. a list of all their posts) does not, does that run contrary to ELNO, and if not, is it of sufficient value to be included? Thanks, all! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:In my opinion, the list is effectively a bibliography, and therefore has encyclopedic value. Green Montanan (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Fourthords, if you want specific advice, you should post a link to the article and the blog page at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. But in general, I'd wonder about how interesting the list of blog posts actually is, and also whether WP:ELMINOFFICIAL applies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, I'm not trying to ask especially about an instance, but the applicability of WP:EL#EL6 to instances like this in general. I imagine it's applicable to many biographies about bloggers, journalists, and other writers. I'll ask about the specifics at the ELN, if you think that's advisable, though. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::In this particular case, we are not talking about a list of blog posts, but [https://www.piratewires.com/author/ashley-rindsberg a list of articles] written by the subject of a biographical article. Green Montanan (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Usually, for author articles, if the list of works is short, then it'd just be in the article itself as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. When the list is longer, we can usually count on a living author to have an official website that lists all of their works (or at least all the ones they're proud of). If the list is long and there's no official website, then the nearest equivalent is not unreasonable.

:::Consider the general principles in WP:ELYES #2 ("An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy") and #3 ("neutral and accurate material that...cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to...amount of detail") as well as WP:ELMAYBE #3 ("A well-chosen link to a directory"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

File:A Conversation With Oscar Wilde - London - 240404.jpg – a civic monument to Wilde by Maggi Hambling, on Adelaide Street, near Trafalgar Square, London. It contains the inscription, "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".]]

I see an increasing trend for articles to gain a "Further reading" section. At best, these texts are "also rans", sources that weren't good enough to be used as a citation. At worst, it is a list of WP:COI violations. Although WP:ELNO was written for web links, the principle applies equally here:

{{Blockquote|

one should generally avoid providing external links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page,

}}

So the options are these

1. create a 19 point list of prohibitions and exceptions that emulates Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided
2. declare that articles may not include a "further reading" section. Texts that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page. {{small|In the light of responses below, I withdraw this option as unrealistic. Option 1 remains but seems sensible to replace it with Jc3s5h's counterproposal below, but let's await a little more discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Personally I prefer option 2.

Case study: Talk:15-minute city#Further reading.

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Hell no

:**Step 1: Proposal goes down in flames because it is only about external links, and forgets all about paper sources. If there's no "Further reading" there's no place to put paper sources.

:**Step 2: Cart the wreckage to a toxic waste dump by noting that a further reading section may have stellar sources (pun intended) that are more detailed than required by the Wikipedia article. See, for example Tropical year#Further reading.

:Add to my comment: The article given by JMF as an example, "15-minute city", could benefit from {{tl|sfn}} and an alphabetical bibliography, because the current long random list of citations doesn't help the person who just wants to find some good sources and doesn't care much about the content of the Wikipedia article.

:Jc3s5h (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Heavens to Betsy. Further reading sections provide resources and additional sources for the topic, one of Wikipedia's main roles is providing both listings and access to the fullest topic-related literature for readers and researchers. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{rto|Randy Kryn}} I assume your response is to Option 2. So how do we develop Option 1 so that FR lists are an asset rather than product placement? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{rto|Jc3s5h}} First, the options (not steps) I proposed are mutually exclusive. And option 1 proposed to emulate the list at ELNO, witj references to links becoming references to texts.

::Second, if the texts are so stellar, how come they were't cited? But putting that aside, what criteria are used to determine which texts are "stellar" and which are "gutter"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Editors could easily use each text listed as a reference if they are so inclined. Taken that Wikipedia has no time restraint, it is possible that at some point it will have no 'Further reading' sections and all listed sources will be used in the articles (maybe when AI takes over all editing, administrative duties, and oversight, and we all work for the UnMan). But no, I'm not for option two, which essentially does away with Further reading sections used by readers and researchers to explore available information on their topic of interest. The quality of the Further reading entries are defined by individual editors, and as with everything else on Wikipedia, will be removed at some point by other editors who know the topic enough to differentiate. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia does not usually present computer algorithms to implement concepts presented in articles, but sources with such algorithms are useful as further reading. Using "Tropical year" as an example, a source in "Further reading" (Meeus 2009) may be an elaboration of a source that was cited (Meeus & Savoie 1992). Or a source in further reading (Simon et al. 1994) may have been cited in a source that has been cited in the article (Astronomical Almanac for the year 2011) Jc3s5h (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's great when good editors carefully add good further reading links. The problem is that there are people who make a hobby of adding such links. They don't know what the linked text is about, they just link it because it exists. An example is an IP that I blocked when they did not respond to polite requests to engage in discussion. Instead, they kept adding links. For anyone interested, see User talk:Johnuniq#Refspam? where there was an objection to my block. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I looked at a handful of the "links" (i.e., books, of the sort that get printed on actual paper, by reputable scholarly publishers) added by that IP, and I have no idea why you thought that was spam. IMO "a sure sign of someone using Wikipedia for promotion" looks like someone adding 170 links with affiliate marketing codes, or 170 links with all the same author, or even 170 links with all the same publisher. It does not look like what I saw that IP doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Green|if the texts are so stellar, how come they were't cited?}} In some cases I am working on one article, and find a source that would be very useful for another article. Not having time to develop the second article, I leave the source in Further reading. I wouldn't do this for a FA, but there are many less developed articles around. I suspect few of my additions would fail the spirit of ELNO though. Some guidance to consider that spirit is probably not amiss. CMD (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:For starters, I would not make a black-white division between Further reading and External links sections. I have generally considered Further reading sections to be External links sections, and I will refuse to consider that this guideline is talking about anything else than the concept 'external links' (broadly, links that are NOT references that are somewhere in the article, either in-prose, in-infobox or in-specialised-sections). I will not regard external links in a cite template INSIDE the external links section to be exempt from this guideline either. For me, External links and Further reading sections together are 'adding up' to our WP:NOT restrictions.
I will be more lenient on a decent number of links in further reading sections, but if that number (together with those in the External links) add up to what I feel is disproportional to the body/prose of the article then they just go. Move them to talk if they look decent, or just wipe them. In the end, it is just linkfarming, regardless of trying to wikilawyer your way out of this guidelines intentions.
Regarding the excuse "but they can be used to expand the article later", that hardly ever happens, regarding the excuse "but they are not external links" then why do we have WP:ELBODY, regarding the excuse "but noone sees them on the talkpage so I am moving them back", the links were contested, and per WP:ELBURDEN you have to get consensus to put them back, every single one of them (and with the 3rd or 4th you will generally run into problems defending what that one is adding over the previou ones).
So in short, I do not see any reason to change the guideline, expand it or prohibit these sections, we have policy reasons articulated not to have these lists of links, and policy reasons to do the contrary, and policies to enforce that. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is pretty much where I started. The advantage of having an explicit policy statement like ELNO is that, in an edit summary or talk page response, it provides a quick and clear reference to the long explanation. It shouldn't be necessary in each case to have to write a long explanation justification like yours. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I just state "WP:LINKFARM", and (re)move the stuff. WP:EL is the guideline based on (a.o.) those policy considerations. We do not include long lists of external links, and similarly not long lists of further reading (or two medium lists their own section).
But what I mean is, that it does not matter where the external links are in the article, WP:EL is not about the 'External links' section, it is about external links in general. Unfortunately they are homographs.
We do state the 'external links section' in the intro, maybe that sentence should be generalized. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::but you can't declare linkfarm for books. I really don't see any alternative to a guideline that is specific to books. The medium used is not relevant to our substantive concern, true, but it simplifies the explanation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, you can, it is then a directory (of books) ... and also that is wikilawyering, 'it is not an external link if I do not add an url' .. it is still a list of material that is outside of Wikipedia, so still linking to something external. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:JMF, I see that you blanked the entire WP:FURTHER section, citing WP:ELNO#EL1 as the justification. I'm curious why you thought that this book:

:* {{cite book |last1=Moreno |first1=Carlos |title=15-Minute City: A Solution to Saving Our Time and Our Planet |date=2024 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9781394308774}}

:could be fairly described as something that "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". A FA is never going to be 300 pages long, so obviously the book contains material "beyond" what the article should contain. The author's earlier publications get a named section in the article, so this particular book is a natural choice. It seems to me that this sort of book is exactly what a FURTHER section is meant to do, namely to provide a list of books that are obviously relevant and that editors would recommend to people who want to know (a lot) more about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Quite simply because there are no criteria that says that books A, B, C, E and F should not be accepted but book D should. Further, if book D has something unique to say, then why isn't it cited?

::More generally, I've been persuaded by the responses that "no FR section whatever" is dead in the water and have abandoned it. But I remain convinced that we need a concise summary like ELNO that can be given in response to promotional placements without having to show solid evidence of WP:promo or WP:coi. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::and what reason do we have to accept that any of these books have something valuable to say. By listing them, we are telling readers that, in our opinion, they are the most useful to read. But the reality is that they are actually a random list of what individual editors chose to add but how is that choice peer reviewed by fellow editors. It isn't (unless it is already widely known). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This comment reinforces my suspicion that you didn't actually look at the individual items, and your removal was just an indiscriminate blanking. I'm a little tempted to leave you guessing why, but I won't: You removed nine (9) items, of which only two (2) were books (and only one of those was in English), but here you talk about your doubts that "these books" have anything valuable to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing In a way .. this is exactly what WP:ELBURDEN is about. I do the same with linkfarms in external links sections. It is not my task (as the person who blanks) to decide what should stay (beyond very obvious), Blank, move to talk, or copy+announce on talk and remove 1-2 weeks later. At that point, if someone else thinks that one or two of these are in error and have good reason to put it back, then they put those (reasoned) back. You make an inclusion case for Moreno. If you can make a case for a second one, sure. But the third one is often already a stretch. Yes, I understand, every book adds someting that is not in others, but the relative amount of that is getting smaller with every other book, and listing every book that adds something, however minute, is not our task (and long lists have their own problems). We just have to be selective.
That being said .. @JMF, even if the linkfarms are large, and there are no hard rules for inclusion, we should either at least preserve the obvious 'good' material, or (as I suggested) use the talkpage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just to put a line under this part of the discussion, yes, I did mive them to the talk page. There was no basis for a decision on relative merit other than subjective opinion. I am not an RS. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::ELBURDEN applies to ==External links== but not to ==Further reading==.

::::::Personally, I prefer to weed link farms by removing broken links, duplicative links, and the worst websites. Generally, by the time I'm done with those three categories, there is often not much left. (In the areas where I edit, having no external links section, or just one link, is fairly common. Things are different for, e.g., modern films.)

::::::I agree that editors have to be selective. For ==Further reading==, a couple of books is IMO a better idea than a dozen books. A "pro" book plus an "anti" book is IMO often a better idea than two "pros" alone, or two "antis" alone. I believe that editors are capable of using common sense and their best judgment to figure out the right balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::ELBURDEN should apply to Further reading. That it does not is purely the technicality of publication medium. So the correct answer is that we need a FRBURDEN guideline that is pretty much a copy of ELBURDEN. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::ELBURDEN is just ONUS for the ==External links== section. It requires exactly one thing (i.e., a basic level of consensus) for restoring a disputed ==External links==. It is not usually difficult to get that consensus, so contested removals, especially when they are thoughtless en masse blankings, are frequently temporary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is indeed the edge of things, @WhatamIdoing, but I do not agree that WP:ELBURDEN is only for ==External links==, it is for external links (again, the concept, not the strict section). What you say now will just give people the right to rename ==External links== sections to ==Further reading== sections and linkfarm there. I would strictly avoid that loophole wikilawyering. ==External links== often contains (linkfarms of) 'more information' sites, so in your view just moving those to a ==Further reading== section will just exempt them from WP:EL. And we do (re)move questionable material (to talk) for other information as well (or we tag with 'citation needed'). ELBURDEN is formalized for external links sections, but it is just generally a bad idea to plainly revert reasoned removals of materials. Maybe this needs a wider thought, how do we link/point to material external to Wikipedia
I FULLY agree that a thoughtful weeding is often the way forward, but in my experience on subjects where I do recognize the linkfarm but I do not have the knowledge to make a good decision on what to keep and what to remove there are two options: tag and walk away (and nothing happens in general), or almost wholesale move to talk and have matter experts have a reasoned re-addition. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree that reasoned removals should not be blindly re-reverted. WP:ONUS also agrees with us, and is not limited to external links.

::::::::::The more relevant point here, however, is that this:

::::::::::* Moreno, Carlos (2024). 15-Minute City: A Solution to Saving Our Time and Our Planet. John Wiley & Sons. {{ISBN|9781394308774}}.

::::::::::is not an external link, no matter what the section heading is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Why, is the material on Wikipedia? (devils advocate: so if I say "the example.org website" it is not an external link, and because I am not externally linking WP:EL does not apply) And please, lets not stick our heads in the sand, ==Further reading== contains WAY more than just books. To illustrate, some '==Further reading==' (convenience: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Further+reading%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1]):

:::::::::::* Paramilitary#Further_reading, has 1 external link, a non-linked doi (IT IS NOT AN EXTERNAL LINK!!!!), and a book);

:::::::::::* Crow#Further_reading NOOO it is a further reading book, not an external link;

:::::::::::* Nephrozoa#Further_reading .. no, it is further reading, not external links (no external links to see here, move on);

:::::::::::* Master_of_Fine_Arts#Further_reading .. it's not an external link, it is further reading;

:::::::::::* Pejorative#Further_reading - crap, now I have to go to Project Muse and find the external link myself (https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/4/article/40728/pdf);

:::::::::::* Australian_Plant_Name_Index#Further_reading hey, the 4 volumes are not external links (but external link to only those 4 volumes is just above for convenience);

:::::::::::* Organizational_founder#Further_reading no external link;

:::::::::::* Agnostic_atheism#Further_reading nonono .. these are NOT external links, so 'minimize' does not apply;

:::::::::::* Psychoanalytic_theory#Online_papers (IN the further reading; again, WP:EL does not apply, it is in further reading).

:::::::::::The problem is that the problem is the same type of problem as what we do have a problem with in case of external links: 'directory' issues. And then there are cases where further reading does have (web-)links to external documentation (or the books have a google/amazon-link in them; review articles a doi-link, in which case WP:EL would apply - oh, but then we put them in a {{tl|cite}} and it is again not an external link, but a 'reference work'). Or this can venture into a WP:LIST/WP:EMBED problem (or see Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_40#Links_In_Lists_illustration.
(short answer: I see the issue, it is very akin WP:EL but not 100%, and don't know what is the best solution. But this is, all too often, just a hidden WP:EL issue). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::One expects to find the occasional EL problems in FR sections, because when both are "very short", they can be merged up to FR.

::::::::::::I don't think we want to "minimize" ==Further reading== the same way that we have WP:ELMINOFFICIAL (for which "exactly one" is almost always the best answer). The MOS:FURTHER rule is for it to contain "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", not "the fewest possible number of publications". However, I also think that our unwritten rule of thumb that 'more than 10 is too many' also applies.

::::::::::::At Wikivoyage, the rule for list size is The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. I think that's a fair standard for both ==External links== and ==Further reading==, except that I'd say "seven, plus a maximum of two and minus as many as seven". If you need significantly more than that, you need a new entry in the :Category:Bibliographies by subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What I mean is that these above all contain external links, they are not just author/book/ISBN lists. This is not 'the occasional EL problem(s)", they are from the first 50 results I got (and it is not all of the ones that contain external links, I think I hit only one or two with only one or two book-only links). Most Further reading sections contain a large set of what are basically external links. And 7 ==EL==s and 7 ==FR==s is 14 (external) links in total .. also that is excessive.
You could just rewrite WP:EL into a WP:FR and get a near copy with only different numbers, some other things that should not be in ==FR== (but in ==EL==) and vice versa. Or write one combination guideline 'mentions of material external to en.wikipedia' (which then includes non-linking books; though for books, our magic ISBN system is a de-facto external link). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::What divides FR and EL is not whether the source contains a URL – after all, most refs also contain a URL – but whether the source is a more traditional source vs a webpage.

::::::::::::::For example:

::::::::::::::* Paramilitary#Further reading: Two academic papers and one book.

::::::::::::::* Crow#Further reading: One book.

::::::::::::::* Nephrozoa#Further reading: Three academic papers.

::::::::::::::* Master of Fine Arts#Further reading: A five-page committee report, which I'd have described as EL

::::::::::::::* Pejorative#Further reading: Four academic papers.

::::::::::::::* Australian Plant Name Index#Further reading: The book (in four volumes) that the article is actually about

::::::::::::::* Organizational founder#Further reading: One book plus one webpage (probably a case of merging FR and EL so that there aren't two separate sections with just one item each)

::::::::::::::* Agnostic atheism#Further reading: 21 books, plus two academic webpages

::::::::::::::* Psychoanalytic theory#Online papers: A bunch of academic papers, all outside of WP:MEDDATE standards but several looking like seminal papers or famous authors

::::::::::::::These aren't inherently problematic, and the URLs are mostly Wikipedia:Convenience links instead of key components. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The medium should be irrelevant. The standing of a peer-reviewed paper on a reputable journal does not (or at least should not) be different depending on whether the journal publishes on crushed trees or crushed electrons. Your "traditional source" is essentially arbitrary for anything published this century: historically the hurdle of persuading a publisher to invest in a non-fiction book was a high one; now, with publishing on demand, that is no longer an issue{{snd}}Amazon's service will even provide you with an ISBN. That means on-web resources and off-web resources need to be treated with the same scepticism.

:::::::::::::::What I am arguing for is that exactly the same rules should apply to FR as is currently the case for EL. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::JMF, one of our rules with ELs is that if the link goes dead, it should be removed.

::::::::::::::::If the link goes dead for a seminal dead-tree journal article, but it's still available at research libraries, do you think the article should be removed from Wikipedia?

::::::::::::::::What about for a dead-tree book? You could still get it from a library or from a bookseller. Would you remove that, just because the old URL isn't working now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Is that another of your "fundamental" objections? Obviously there are minor differences of detail that would need to be sorted out. But the situation of a permanently dead book is not going to arise outside your hypothetical world of objections unless the only copy in existence was destroyed in a fire, as at Alexandria. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::So you want "exactly the same rules", except for WP:ELDEAD.

::::::::::::::::::When someone lists books – just ordinary books, printed on dead trees – in ==Further reading==, do you think it's okay for them to use Wikipedia:Citation templates, if that's what the rest of the article is using? That's what Wikipedia:Further reading says: "Use the same citation style that you've chosen for the references in the rest of the article". But WP:ELCITE bans them wholesale. Do you want to ban {{tl|cite book}} from FRs, or is this another instance of not actually wanting "exactly the same rules" after all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::This is getting silly. You keep digging up these trivial technicalities and making them out to be fundamental obstacles. Is it really beyond our wit to change ELCITE so that it does permit {{tl|cite web}}, if that is what it takes? No reason is given for the rule.

:::::::::::::::::::Conversely, did I say every sub-sub-paragraph of the EL guidelines must be transcribed word for word, changing only the words "external links" to "further reading". Is this Wikipedia or Holy Writ? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::The reason is right there in the ELCITE section: "Thus, most external links should present details different from citations".

::::::::::::::::::::I do think it's silly to say that you want "exactly the same rules" when you actually only want a small minority of the rules. Specifically, you appear to want rules that discourage editors from adding FR items, that allow you to remove them en masse, and that make it difficult for editors who disagree with your removals to restore them.

::::::::::::::::::::You probably want WP:ELPOINTS #3 and 4, you would probably accept ELYES #2, you probably want ELNO #1, 13, and 15, along with WP:ELPOV, and of course WP:ELBURDEN. I don't know if you'd want WP:NONENGEL, but I'm pretty sure that you don't want any of the rest (i.e., an actual majority of this guideline) because it's either irrelevant (e.g., how to flag rich media in the links) or the wrong thing to do (e.g., how to format external links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Yes, I already read that. {{tq|most external links should present details different from citations".}} is an assertion, not a justification.

:::::::::::::::::::::It baffles me to understand why you cannot engage with principles and sort out the detail later unless there really is a real show-stopper detail in there somewhere. Your list consists of implementation refinements that are medium-dependent. Doubtless you recall other editors pointing out the many cases of web pages being included in the FR section. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::First you ask why citation templates are banned in the EL section.

::::::::::::::::::::::I tell you: citation templates are banned in the EL section because ELs should present different details than sources.

::::::::::::::::::::::Now you say: Your answer only answers my actual question. Why didn't you give me a Five whys answer? You should have read my mind to know that I wanted to know far more than I actually asked you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The examples are not problematic (well, some are properly problematic and already tagged as such), but that is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that 'they are not external links because they are in further reading' is not the case. And what I am arguing is that most further reading sections do not only contain books printed on dead trees, most links (books or not) are directly externally linked. The point is, that further reading is a loophole. If you don't want to have the scrutiny of WP:EL, you put your ELs in further reading and you are done. For whatever reason you can't/won't add your reference as a proper reference, and EL is 'full', make it a further reading. You need a long list of links, put it in further reading.
They are all just external links (mostly; and for the books they are indirect external links as where the link is not available yet you go through the ISBN to go external). Call it 'convenience links', then we should also rewrite WP:EL on the external links in the prose, as those are also convenience links (if no en.wikipedia page exists). And a 'convenience link' is in this case still an external link! I agree that they are 'more traditional' sources, but still that does not mean that it is a way out of linkfarming, an escape from WP:EL, other sourcing guidelines, or whatever (as quite some of the above are problematic, though maybe not for WP:EL reasons).
I am not arguing that we have to be AS stringent as we are for ELs, but I agree with WJMF that we do need some rules. And either we consider a slightly watered down version of WP:EL, or use WP:EL to control all external links (and see, we are already controlling the external links in the body of the article and the infobox, and the ones in the external links section, just not the further reading section). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@Beetstra JMF. Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Precisely. I fail to understand why some editors struggle to see something so obvious. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|15}}The post by Beetstra at 07:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC) has a theme that everything is a link, no matter whether it is in EL or FR. My definition of a link is something that can be read on the internet. I don't consider a link to a site where something can be purchased to be a link (no matter whether one is buying a paper book or a download to a proprietary e-reader). Lots of things are not available on the internet, such as some old books, and many recently-published books. Also, some of the scans of old books are available on the internet, but are much more difficult to read than the paper version. That doesn't mean the concepts of FR and EL can't be merged, just so long as the merged version does not seek to exclude non-internet versions. If there is a merge, the merged version shouldn't have the tone of the 10 May 2025 (UTC) post. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:That is more of a perspective than a theme. I still think that a book linking to google books is also an external link, as are the links in references. WP:EL is not excluding every external link that is outside of the ==External links== section, it is only excluding those used as a reference (e.g. it explicitly talks about external links in the body of the article). That references are excluded from WP:EL does not mean that they are not external links (they often are, they technically do not need to be, and quite some aren't or can't be; and since we do not reference to ourselves, they are all pointing to 'external' to Wikipedia regardless). Part of the issue is that there are typical ==External links==-type external links sometimes in ==Further reading== (or other named list-sections): [https://www.fichansraj.org/post/founders-dilemma-pitfall-for-start-ups this looks like a perpetual student project, possibly spammed]. There do not seem to be decent descriptions of what should be and what should not be in further reading sections, and though WP:EL does not fit, it is the closest.
What we are here looking at is what to include, and what not to include in ==Further reading==(-type) sections. As we argue above, they should not become 'dumping grounds' for anything that does not make it as a reference but still is reliable and to-the-point, they are also not dumping grounds of material that gets excluded from ==External links== sections (which does happen). As we are not writing an internet directory for web presences of a subject, we are also not writing an internet directory of material you can read to catch up on a subject (and if we need something like that, it needs a bibliography article, which, in itself, needs its limits).
Besides a couple of 'mandatory' external links, a defining question is 'what does this add to what is already there (in the article)'. Does the 6th item really add something substantial that is not already covered in the article and in the first 5 items, and if so, what about the 7th? And do we consider links to a blog suitable as ==Further reading==? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::About the claim that {{xt|There do not seem to be decent descriptions of what should be and what should not be in further reading sections}}: It sounds like you haven't read the recommendations about what to include in Wikipedia:Further reading. Wikipedia:Further reading#Considerations for inclusion of entries recommends that FR sections be assembled with these goals in mind:

::* Topical – The book/chapter should be on the same subject as the article; prefers works with full coverage (one entire book covering the article's subject completely, rather than a book mostly about other things or a book only about a small section of the article's subject, e.g., Queen Elizabeth's entire life rather than Queen Elizabeth's love of dogs).

::* Reliable – Not an absolute requirement, because sometimes it's appropriate to have a historical work listed (e.g., a modern translation of Les Prophéties could be added to Nostradamus), but should be the default. Similar to WP:ELYES 2 and WP:ELMAYBE 3.

::* Balanced – similar to WP:ELPOV

::* Available – similar to WP:ELNO#EL7

::* Limited – similar to EL's "minimize" rules; prefers notable works.

::I think that when people follow these recommendations, they end up with a pretty good result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's an essay (well, a how-to to the MOS), if I were to restrict an article content based on that I'd get trouted for not knowing that that does not necessarily have community consensus. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I doubt it. How many times have you been trouted for following WP:BRD, which is "just" an essay? Or WP:SCIRS? Or WP:TE? Or WP:CREEP? Or WP:BLUDGEON? Or WP:RBI? Those are all "just" essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Which is why CONLEVEL should be far more explicit that the "level" is the result of organic growth and does not actually indicate a level of consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that WP:EL is actually considering external links of the further reading type to be 'good' external links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

100% absolutely not. The entire framing of Further Reading as just also-rans that aren't justifiable for inclusion in the article might apply to how it's used in many articles, but that's not always the situation and not how it should be. To toot my own horn, take a look at the Viking metal article, which I brought up to FA status, and see how I used the Further reading section to provide further reading in addition to what is provided in the article and cited sources supporting that content. It becomes redundant to cite all of those sources, and there shouldn't be a need to do that. The entire point of Wikipedia is to be a summary of human knowledge. This is going to include summaries of where readers can find more information about a topic.

:Plus, as has been mentioned, these sources are not always weblinks. Sometimes they are all paper sources.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:We as fellow editors recognise your good faith and your research quality{{snd}}because it was you who brought the article to FA. But the the rest of the world, you are just another anonymous person on the Internet. They are presented with a further reading list: what is its provenance? who decided on this list? on what basis were the works chosen? Neither I nor those arguing for a firm FR guideline are arguing for one moment that there should be a ban on Further Reading sections, but only that a rationale is given for each entry. Such as: it was cited in an RS that we have cited in the article, that it is a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature, that it is a reliable data source. Etc. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::A ban on FR sections would be a good idea actually. Polygnotus (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Whether it is published on dead trees or dead electrons is immaterial. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:In case it's interesting to anyone, a simple Special:Search finds:

:* 250K articles with "Further reading"

:* 350K articles with "External links"

:* 25K articles with both

:for a total of 625K articles that have at least one of these sections. That's about 11% of all articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Those stats were interesting and helpful, thanks!

::Based on the stats, maybe this isn't much of a problem, so doesn't need addressing, but I do see articles which get lots of sources dumped into the Further reading section until that section becomes huge and then other editors randomly remove large numbers of entries in a cyclic fashion; (Capitalism article is one I can think of) but there doesn't seem to be edit-warring over this so maybe we don't need explicit guidelines for what belongs, or how large the section can be; but yes, it currently is arbitrary based on any random editor's opinion of "useful". ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't normally say that using your best editorial judgment is "arbitrary", but yes: When the list gets too long, someone looks through the list and pulls out the ones that seem worse to them. If there's a dispute (my experience aligns with yours: disputes are rare), then editors can talk it out and find a compromise just like anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I said "arbitrary" because from what I've seen the removal or addition of Further Reading links withOUT any meaningful explanation in the Edit summary makes me view those edits as arbitrary, and I rarely have seen good use of the edit summaries for that, which makes it hard to understand someone's justification; but that's a separate issue to what we're discussing here, and you're right about minimal problems and tools already existing to address those issues. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: Nbd, but for "External links" I get [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%3D%3D%3D%3F+%3FExternal+links+%3F%3D%3D%3D%3F%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&fulltext=1 636,000] as a lower bound (the query times out and gives partial results; your results may be more or fewer, depending on server load when you run it). Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did a plain text search on the quoted phrase (because if the section exists, the section heading is visible, not just insource:). I didn't get a timeout error, and I would have expected it to pick up more than an insource: search restricted to section headings. How odd. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Counterproposal: Promote the essay "Further reading" to a guideline and add or clarify points about what should not appear in further reading. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds more achievable, certainly. It does Option 1 without needing to reinvent the wheel. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The advantage of the style used for ELNO is that it sets out the principles clearly and succinctly. Not much wriggle room is left. With books of course we need to be more nuanced but the underlying message needs to be evident prominent. The problem as I see it with WP:Further reading is that it is too 'conversational' and not firm enough for this purpose. IMO, of course. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's our policy that we have Wikipedia:No firm rules, so "not firm enough" is not actually a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think there's clearly room to make sure "Further Reading" sections aren't spam magnets and that they should be curated appropriately. I can't see eliminating them entirely, because there are just too many really good things out there on the web that provide great context that can't or shouldn't be incorporated into Wikipedia. One thing I'd like to see along a similar line is as we collapse non-notable fictional elements into lists (e.g., lists of minor fictional franchise characters), we link to the best stable fan wiki entries, with appropriate clarification or modification of previous ELNO 11/12 guidance. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Jclemens What do you mean when you say {{tq|fan wiki}}? I hope its not Wikia/Fandom because that is a horrible company, and yes I know that Jimbo Wales is the alleged "President", whatever that means. We should remove all links to fandom except the one on the article about the company. We should not create an Ouroboros of user generated trash. We should only link to encyclopedic information that hasn't been incorporated into Wikipedia yet. The only non-WMF wiki I know of that isn't terrible is https://caps.wiki/. Polygnotus (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::One quick way would be limiting it to individually notable sources like Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia, which are well-run sites detailing notable fictional franchises in ways that we do not. Fundamentally, however, I disagree with the premise. It's not just you, but Wikipedia has had a snooty attitude about linking elsewhere, even for topics we don't cover. If someone wants to look up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasshopper (character) or one of the many other minor fictional characters who perennially seem to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, why not link to the non-Wikipedia place that best captures such elements if we've made a conscious decision that that topic will never merit a standalone Wikipedia article. This creates a tiered approach where clearly encyclopedic content is covered here, but as people dive into NN minutae, they are redirected to the best place for such information: not necessarily seamlessly, but transparently. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|Wikipedia has had a snooty attitude about linking elsewhere, even for topics we don't cover.}} Excellent. We need to be more strict about the external links that are allowed, not less. This is an encyclopedia and not an opportunity to spam. {{tq|Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia}} Neither would be appropriate targets for an external link.
• :::As an encyclopedia we are unable to help users who want to read about non-notable fancruft. That is a feature, not a bug. Polygnotus (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This may surprise you, but Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are the usual examples of wikis that easily exceed WP:ELNO#EL12. We actually do want to see those (and not, e.g., weaker forks or brand-new communities) in ==External links==. As an encyclopedia, we want to help readers who want to read about "fancruft", by steering them to sites that editors recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@WhatamIdoing Strong disagree. If its not notable, there are no reliable sources that cover it, an encyclopedia can't help you. And WP:ELNO#EL12 should be deleted.
• :::::{{tq|As an encyclopedia, we want to help readers who want to read about "fancruft"}} No, we don't. This is outside our scope. Polygnotus (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Did you notice that I linked to the Wikipedia articles about those two wikis? They're not just WP:Notable; they're blue-linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@WhatamIdoing I don't think that that is relevant. 8kun and stormfront are also notable and blue-linked. Being notable or not does not make a site a better (or worse!) link target. We can spend a billion years covering everything that is in scope for an encyclopedia, we should not waste our time with irrelevant non-notable fancruft. There are a trillion other websites that focus on irrelevant fancruft. Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::So at 17:40 UTC today, you say that we shouldn't link because if they're not notable, then it's not a suitable link for an encyclopedia. When I point out that they're notable, you say – at 17:45 UTC, a mere five minutes after your first notability-focused pronouncement – that notability is irrelevant.
• ::::::::Maybe spend a day or two thinking about what you actually mean? You might start with considering whether the statement that "Wikipedia is a serious reference work, so I don't want it sullied by anything that feels unimportant or trivial to me, like movies that kids obsess over" resonates with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::@WhatamIdoing Please re-read what I wrote. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I wrote {{tq|If its not notable, there are no reliable sources that cover it, an encyclopedia can't help you.}} but you seem to have interpreted as "all link targets must be notable" but I was talking about information, not link targets.
• :::::::::And fancruft doesn't "sully" the encyclopedia; its just that we made a decision what this site is and isn't (see WP:NOT, which you probably wrote). The amount of work and overhead we have to do for non-encyclopedic stuff is already maybe 100x the actual work (e.g. meta discussions, LTAs, voting, user conduct et cetera). Adding even more offtopic stuff, and its associated overhead, is just a bad idea. Wikipedia is not a search engine, not an indiscriminate collection of alleged information, and not Fandom. And encyclopedias are not in the business of giving book recommendations. Polygnotus (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Information is never WP:Notable. Information can be WP:DUE or WP:RELEVANT, but it cannot be WP:Notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Pointing people away from Wikipedia and towards "Wikipedia:Fancruft" (you might read that essay's note about the term seeming pejorative to some editors) sites is one of the practical ways we keep Wikipedia's contents encyclopedic: We point folks to more suitable venues. We developed this approach during the old Pokémon notability disputes, and it has largely been successful. We have noticeably less struggle now over pop culture details than we used to.
• ::::::::::I'm happy to report that I have written very little of WP:NOT (also very little of NPOV and almost none of AT). I will consider myself lucky if that continues to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::If I explain a misinterpretation, and in response to the explanation you post a new misinterpretation, I lose confidence in your ability to correctly parse English.
• :::::::::::If someone is looking for information about a topic that is not notable, or if there are no reliable sources that cover it, an encyclopedia can't help them.
• :::::::::::I am not saying that link targets must be notable. Nor am I saying that information can be notable.
• :::::::::::Wikipedia is not in the business of pointing people who post fancruft to more suitable places, and that is not how external links should be used (in mainspace). If someone wants to do that on the relevant user talk page that is probably fine. Polygnotus (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::If someone is looking for information about a topic that is non-notable, then we won't have an article to put the link in.
• ::::::::::::These wikis (e.g., Memory Alpha) get linked because they provide additional information (i.e., beyond what an encyclopedia article ought to include) about a topic that is notable (e.g., James T. Kirk, which has an external link to the relevant page on Memory Alpha). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::As I explained, I don't think that that is a valid use of an external link. Disagreeing is allowed. Polygnotus (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::You are allowed to have a different opinion from the rest of the community, but not to impose that opinion on everyone else. It's important, in a discussion about how to write a guideline, to keep in mind the difference between one's own personal opinion and what the community wants/will accept. You don't think it's a valid link. That's fine, but unimportant. It's a relevant example because the community thinks it is a valid link, and wrote the guideline to support it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::@WhatamIdoing I didn't "impose" my opinion on everyone else. The people who impose their opinions on others are those who write the PaGs, right? {{tq|That's fine, but unimportant.}} Wrong. It is incredibly important when discussing a guideline to realize that not everyone thinks the same way. If there is a single thing that is important when (re)writing a guideline it is the fact that there is a diversity of opinion. {{Tq|It's a relevant example because the community thinks it is a valid link, and wrote the guideline to support it.}} That is not how guidelines work, and you shouldn't conflate your opinion with that of the community. There are many guidelines that say things that are not in line with community consensus. As you are very much aware, PaGs are written by a tiny group of people who have very strong opinions (usually because they have much time invested in Wikipedia) which often do not line up with community consensus.
• :::::::::::::::If someone tries to edit a PaG to better reflect community consensus (or to better match their personal opinion) they have to fight a major uphill battle against the tiny clique of people who (re)wrote them. And during that battle having good ideas or being in line with community consensus or divergent from it is basically unimportant, and almost all that counts is how you play the game, which is why 99% of users are unable to improve the PaGs. And I don't even think that tiny clique does that because they are bad people; its just how these things evolve over time. If I spent a lot of time writing PaGs then I wouldn't want my work to be ruined by some idiot who comes along and disagrees, and it is unreasonable to expect me to start an RfC over every comma. So goodfaith people do what they think is best, on all sides. Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::The difficulty with banning links to wikis such as Memory Alpha is:
• ::::::::::::::::* The community supports these links in practice: They're in hundreds of articles. That means some people added them, and more people accepted them.
• ::::::::::::::::* The community supports these links in theory: All past discussions have resulted in the retention of (relevant) links to large wikis. Almost all past discussions have resulted in the exclusion of small wikis.
• ::::::::::::::::I agree that there are sometimes gaps between the written rules and the community view. There are definitely gaps between the written rules and what I think would be best. (For example, I'd split WP:PSTS out of WP:NOR, and I'd reconcile WP:ONUS with WP:NOCON.) There are also times when someone acts as a gatekeeper for a policy or guideline, preventing editors from making the written rules match the community view (WP:PGCONFLICT exists because of such a problem). But, generally speaking, there isn't a way to "play the game" so that you can get your "good idea" added when your good idea is actually the opposite of the community consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} {{tq|The difficulty with banning links to wikis such as Memory Alpha}}, and removing all the book recommendations and website recommendations is mainly the sunk cost fallacy. Ripping the bandaid off gets more and more painful over time. I think the most fundamental problem is that including Further reading sections shows a lack of understanding who our readers are and what they want. Only a tiny subset of readers would actually be interested in a Further reading section; most of 'em are here because of laziness. And of that tiny subset there is another, even tinier, subset that would actually be willing and able to order those books and read em.
• :::::::::::::::::I don't think we should emulate what others do hoping to gain the same success, without understanding why it does or does not work.
• :::::::::::::::::It would be interesting to do a study of Wikipedia readers and observe how they interact with the articles. I am certain basically none of them will care about the Further reading section. Interviewing them wouldn't work, because they would give socially desirable anwers.
• :::::::::::::::::Wikipedia is a dataset. If I use descriptive rule discovery then a lot of common patterns you and I see as (very) undesirable would be codified as rules.
• :::::::::::::::::Therefore we should, in addition to that, also use a prescriptive approach: what do we want Wikipedia to be?
• :::::::::::::::::We want everyone to use reliable sources, we want people to play nice with eachother, et cetera. They don't, but we want them to.
• :::::::::::::::::Like most organisms, Wikipedia is kinda figuring itself out along the way.
• :::::::::::::::::The claims that {{tq|The community supports these links in practice}} and {{tq|The community supports these links in theory}} are descriptive, not prescriptive.
• :::::::::::::::::On articles about companies we got a link to their official website. On articles about people we may have a link to their official website. I think that most will agree that that makes sense. But that is exclusively official links.
• :::::::::::::::::I think that if you start fresh and ask people: "Should we spend a very very large amount of time and effort on creating and maintaining book recommendations and unofficial website recommendations for 275K articles, and do you accept that and its related overhead as a necessary burden, or should we focus on our goal of writing an encyclopedia?" the answer would be clear.
• :::::::::::::::::But you won't be able to convince them to get rid of (on average) very poor content, because the associated sunk cost is so incredibly large.
• :::::::::::::::::Wikipedia's core business scope is already gigantic, and that is a good thing. I think most people will recognize that expanding the scope to cover even more things that aren't core business (e.g. linking to external fancruft/book recommendations/website recommendations) is a bad idea.
• :::::::::::::::::Recommending websites about a topic is the job of a search engine, and Wikipedia is not a search engine. Google sucks, but no one is using Wikipedia search instead, which sucks even more(!).
• :::::::::::::::::Recommending books about a topic is the job of a "book recommendation per topic"-website (a concept that probably does not yet exist, for good reason, no one wanted it to).
• :::::::::::::::::It would make much more sense to have an external (non-WMF) project that focuses on book recommendations per topic. And perhaps an external (non-WMF) project that focuses on website recommendations per topic (aka a search engine). That way, the software can be tailored to that specific purpose. And then if those projects ever produce worthwhile results we may decide to embed them. But I wouldn't count on it.
• :::::::::::::::::I think we want Wikipedia to just be a good encyclopedia, and not also a bad search engine and also a bad "book recommendation per topic"-website. Polygnotus (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|indent=8.0em|bg=khaki|Verbal sparring unrelated to improving the guideline}}

• ::::{{U|Polygnotus}}, you've edited using this account for barely two and a half years. The two people you're disagreeing with have been contributing and participating here for 18 and 19 years. Might I suggest that you appear to have a distinct lack of context that rivals your certainty that your perspective is correct? Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Jclemens I assume you must be joking. And that is in your advantage. Polygnotus (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::No, I wasn't joking. I was being polite. You might try it sometime. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRachel_Corrie&diff=288611130&oldid=288610936] Polygnotus (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{ping|Jclemens}} You called Rachel Corrie who was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer {{Tq|Saint Pancake}} because you disagree with her politically. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::So either you're concealing your identity and hiding with a newer account not associated with your past identity from 16 years ago, or you've gone digging for ad hominem because you disagree with me about whether we should link to NN topics that are covered in fan wikis. You've dug up an incident that was covered in much more balanced detail at Nelken, D. (2024). Wikilegality and legal consciousness. Journal of Law and Society, 51(S1), S13–S29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12484. In short, if reliable sources called Corrie "Saint Pancake", as Salon notes, then it was valid political commentary and should have been included... which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::@Jclemens In my experience, those who demand politeness are often not very polite themselves. And because they aren't other people are also not very polite in return. To a wrong way driver, everyone else is a wrong way driver. The fact that you write stuff like {{tq|valid political commentary}} instead of simply admitting that that was a truly fucked up thing to do is telling, but predictable. It is an assumption of good-faith, but AGF is no suicide pact. Rules for thee and not for me! Polygnotus (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I have no interest in revisiting a dispute from 16 years ago on an unrelated page. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Excellent. I just wanted to explain why it is difficult to take [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#c-Jclemens-20250507010300-Polygnotus-20250507002000 this comment] seriously when you find that kinda stuff [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Corrie/Archive_11#c-Jclemens-2009-05-06T23:02:00.000Z-Kasaalan-2009-05-06T22:58:00.000Z humorous] and repeat it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_8#c-Jclemens-2009-05-08T04:00:00.000Z-Rachel_Corrie AfD] for which there can be no valid reason. The [https://www.salon.com/2009/05/03/rachel_2/ Salon article] wrote about a {{tq|torrent of exaggerated and often shocking verbal abuse}} on {{tq|right-wing bulletin boards and Web sites}}, not {{tq|reliable sources}} as you claim. Polygnotus (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::If someone has made a mistake, and points out to you that they believe you are making the same mistake, should you:
• ::::::::::::* declare that they're a hypocrite with no right to warn you?
• ::::::::::::* Or maybe learn from their mistake?
• ::::::::::::I'm reminded of the comedian from about a century ago, who said "There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::You are not making sense, and you are achieving the opposite of what you want to achieve, but I am too lazy to explain. In my experience meta-conversations are rarely useful. Polygnotus (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Admittedly I kinda regret not having made a list of bad takes/bad opinions/stupid actions by longterm experienced users because if I had we could all have a good laugh. The more edits one makes, the more the chance of a brainfart approaches one. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::This page may be a good start. Polygnotus (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

:I'm about to sign out of Wikipedia for the day, but I would like to say that I too am almost always frustrated by sheer randomness of books that appear in "Further reading" section. Most editors can properly clean up an "External links" section, but only editors with some subject-matter expertise will be sufficiently familiar with the secondary literature to know what is and is not appropriate to recommend to our general audience. Hence the lists just grow and grow—frequently with an inconsistent format and sometimes not even in alphabetical order.

:One suggestion to improve the situation without eliminating the lists altogether would be to require that all entries be accompanied by a brief annotation. (I believe we have a template already?) This would slightly raise the bar for adding to the list, and make the list at least potentially useful to the vanishingly small number of readers who actually go out and read something because it is listed there.

:Will check back in tomorrow. In any case, though, I strongly agree that something should be done to reign these in. I haven't thought enough about what the best solution might be.

:Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If I may put my head even further above the parapet, how's this for an idea? Yes, we retain 'Further reading' sections but every entry has to have a supporting citation in the form of a book review in a reliable source. It would take years of course but I think it is doable. Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:No, for three reasons. First, adding all those book reviews will just create more clutter. Second, not many editors know how to do a citation inside a citation. Third, locating a review is a lot of effort, may be difficult (especially for older publications), and it may be expensive to obtain a copy of the review. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Three responses: (a) another instance of a standard citation is hardly clutter unless the FR list is longer than the article; (b) I don't see how there would be a citation within a citation? I don't mean the sources cited should themselves be cited, but only the books in a "further reading" list. (c) Doing it retrospectively would be a mammoth task but doable going forward{{snd}} on what basis was the book identified as eminently suitable to be recommended to readers?

::In a text book, "further reading" implies that the author has themself read and evaluated the book and considers it to be of particular value to readers who wish to pursue an aspect in more detail. In Wikipedia, editors aren't supposed to express such opinions but only to reflect consensus or at least to report the positions of notable individuals. So my opinion on what visitors should read is essentially worthless and a form of WP:OR. If they want to know which books exist about the concept, there are many search engines. If they want to know which of them are worth reading, then start from a review in a RS. Not here. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Additionally or alternatively, the ref could say "cited in {{cite source |etc etc}}" This would support Jc3s5h's (rightfully) favoured Jan Meeus example, because his book is widely cited by RSs. Fundamentally, it declares who considered it worthy of inclusion. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And of course if the item is a paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, that's all the confirmation we need. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The objection is more fundamental: You can't use "refs" (little blue clicky numbers) because the reflist is above the ==Further reading== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes you can, they go at the end of the section (as I have discovered accidentally by putting notelist after reflist. But fundamental? Seriously? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If you think this MOS:APPENDIX should be treated as article content, then the refs should be with the refs for article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Not a fundamental problem though. That order is just the current convention. Conventions can be changed if the case is strong enough. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hard to see how this could be enforced even if it was desirable. CMD (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::By editors deciding that the list is getting silly, looking to see which ones have support or which ones they personally can add support for, then move the rest to the talk page. But to do that, they need to be able to refer to a guideline like ELNO as otherwise they are open to accusation of disruption. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not really? We can maybe make an argument that your admittedly indiscriminate blanking of the entire section was slightly disruptive, but even that would be a stretch. I don't think I've ever seen anyone make a credible claim that removing most (rather than all) of a long ==Further reading== section was Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I suppose if the result is non-neutral (e.g., removing all the "anti" books) that might draw complaints, but mostly people accept that long lists benefit from maintenance and trimming. As Dirk says above, every book adds something, but by the time you've got more than a couple, the marginal benefit to recommending a sixth (or a sixteenth) book is pretty small. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that {{u|Grayfell}} reverted 79.41.35.95 at Memetics. That is clearly the same person continuing to add citations at a speed that means they have no clue about the content of the referenced book, only that a keyword search has generated a list of titles which they then add. Is that desirable? Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think there are a lot of shaky assumptions there.

:Taking Memetics as the example, we have an IP who:

:* Made 7 edits to the article, two of which were adding one source (each) and five of which were edits to fix the formatting (somebody doesn't know where the Preview button is?)

:* These edits were made over the space of about 7 minutes, with the first one happening about three minutes after the last edit to a different article.

:* Both of the sources appear to be reliable and supported the content.

:Among the shaky assumptions:

:* That the sources were not found and read in advance

:* That 10 minutes isn't enough time to find and add two sources

:* That the editor didn't have a dozen tabs open, so that the timestamps on the edits don't accurately represent the amount of time put into preparation

:* That reliable sources should be removed if you disapprove of the contributor's editing schedule

:The IP's next edit was 4 hours, 13 minutes later. That, too, was reverted, with an edit summary of "IP habitually adds sources faster than any human could read them. Wikipedia isn't a replacement for a search engine or a directory of semi-relevant references". Except it's not apparently "habitual", more than four hours later is not "faster than any human could read", and the cited source is not "semi-relevant". (I've restored that one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Habitually is not the best word for this, and I wish I could figure out how to explain this better in an edit summary. At a glance it would appear that this is reasonable behavior, but this is part of a pattern which is disruptive in a few different ways.

::For one thing, this is the same IP as 87.17.158.221, who was blocked for disruptive editing. Based strictly on behavior and overlapping edits, this is almost certainly also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FutureBuilder14. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1180#Shifting IP block-evasion and CIR issues is another discussion.

::Further, edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KnowledgeSeeker14&diff=prev&oldid=1280614626 this one] are not acceptable, and good faith has been fully exhausted.

::The editor's comments suggest that they are using LLMs to find sources, maybe via Z-library. For their comparatively few substantial edits, I believe they are using machine learning to translate and summarize books sources, and these edits show a very poor understanding of context or WP:TONE. Some of these sources may be fine, and some are not, but this editor is not differentiating between good and bad. This is adding bloat and more work for other editors.

::I have seen a lot of spam and COI, but this specific pattern is something else, so I don't know if or how this should reflect on WP:EL in general. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Grayfell, if you think that this is block evasion, then please report that to the CUs, without publicly connecting the IP to any username.

:::This really has nothing to do with Wikipedia:External links, since you're reverting Wikipedia:Inline citations to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the EL guideline says (nine separate times now, or is it ten?) that it does not apply to reliable sources being used to support article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree that this isn't the right place. I am responding because I was pinged, and because my edit summaries caused some confusion, as demonstrated by your summary of the situation. Now, at least, anyone else who sees this has some additional context and understands that it's not a simple issue. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Compiling further reading sections and ultimately standalone bibliographies is a major activity of academics here on Wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies - Wikipedia:List of bibliographies. It basically centers around how some academics approach the creation of articles. For example Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples is partially based on books that are listed in the further reading section. The information in the article is cited to what was cited in the books in the further reading section. So for example book A cites a source let's call that source C.... the article will list reference C as the direct source and in the further reading section we'll list thr book that originally lead us to source C. If the further reading section gets too big it should be made into its own bibliography..... as has been done with thousands and thousands of pages that cover academic topics. Further reading sections - outside of pop culture articles - really shouldn't be dealt with by fly by editors interested in layout over our purpose of educating our readers by leading them to further sources..... or in some cases the primary sources used to compile all the sources that are listed as references in the article. A well crafted further reading section or bibliographies provide editors with a readily available list of sources that can be used to support creation and expansion of articles on related topics. Some articles even list research history in the further reading section.... why?...because these may be outdated to build the article but are absolutely essential for research history.... which is something you need for most thesis Hybrid regime#Research historyMoxy🍁 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that is the only way ==Further reading== sections are coming to existence, but I would then suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies to adopt Wikipedia:Further reading to match that style of work, set some boundaries and be a referral point for those ==Further reading== sections that do seem to have been generated in a different way. Some of the examples I listed above do seem indeed of the style you describe, but others are just plain 'linkfarms'. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Moxy,

:I support the creation of stand-alone bibliographic lists with context and supporting citations. How could anyone not?

:But if there is any reason to believe that just appending a list of books (even a very good list!) to an article contributes to its development, I would like to see that evidence. I have a hard time believing that anyone with any kind of research training would even consider relying upon such a thing. Everyone here has access to the Internet, and even Amazon product descriptions contain more information. People with even subject matter-adjacent expertise have not only the competence to locate HQRSs, they are going to proceed in this way no matter what other editors might suggest.

:Incidentally, I'm disappointed that no one has responded to my suggestion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=1288996884] above. My assumption is that this is mostly because the conversation went off the rails almost immediately, and partly because this is not the most appropriate forum for a proposal that does not connect directly to the guidelines on external links. I would welcome your thoughts, though, given your involvement in WikiProject Bibliographies, of which I confess I had not previously been aware.

:Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Some countries simply growup with a format they learn in post-secondary education. Further sources sections are a must have in Canada's tertiary education system....so not having them as seen at Canada#Further reading makes the article look incomplete or not academic in nature. They also lead our readers to the main bibliographies. Do I think they help with article explanation - yes somewhat.....but more importantly they give readers (why we are here) an idea of what academic sources are used for reasearch. If a further reading section is full of junk it should be fixed - not blanked. Wikipedia:Purpose "Encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a tertiary source and provides overviews of a topic" and "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively - Wikimedia Foundation" We are very lucky editors like User:Rjensen (Richard J. Jensen) take the time to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rjensen list the best publication for students]. Moxy🍁 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In USA higher education, professors want students to do research papers, especially in history courses. Profs are hostile to using Wikipedia articles as reliable sources (for that matter, so are Wiki editors). The problem for freshmen and sophomores is they have a hard time with research. They knows about Google--and a simple topic will generate tens of thousands of links--so where to start?? . Professors do allow them to use wiki Further Reading -- and students can browse for a topic that interests them. Many cites are linked to the actual text (as in JSTOR), -- but the college librarians can help them get copies of other recommendations. This also goes for advanced high school history courses that require research papers. One clue, by the way, is to look at the page-view data, and watch for high weekday and low weekend usage. That is an indicator of students doing assignments at school. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a good reason to use a citation template, but not a good reason to list suggestions from anonymous people on the Internet. (Incidentally, I graduated from McGill with joint honours in English and philosophy, and at no point was it ever even suggested that something like this would be in any way appropriate to add to a term paper or thesis.)

:::Also, while I appreciate the response, you didn't answer my question: Is there any evidence that these actually contribute to article development? Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::In case anybody missed the irony, we are all [with the possible exception of Patrick] "anonymous people on the Internet". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, and for most practical purposes I am anonymous as well.

:::::::Also, not to put to fine a point on it, but I actually did have a personal website on which I reviewed books related to my academic area of expertise. Would it have been appropriate for anyone to cite this on WP? The answer is No! because the content was self-published.

:::::::So should I be allowed to advertise my recommendations here without even any credentials or discursive justification? In my judgment, I should not be allowed, and (at least in most cases) neither should anyone else.

:::::::If there is any reason to give these sections a pass on our most basic content policies, I have yet to see it. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:SPS does not ban self-published sources; we can WP:USESPS (carefully, sparingly). It is possible that it would have been appropriate for someone to cite your book reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Disagree. There are introductory books about Hegel that include annotated suggestions for further reading. If there is any reason to add a "Further reading" section to an article on Hegel or one of his works, one of these should be used instead. Another good source would be a journal review that expressly says a volume is to be recommended to students. Otherwise, pretty much all you've got is a list of stuff that people on the Internet are aware exists. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::* It is possible for two things to be true at the same time: Your book reviews might be acceptable under our rules about reliable sources, and there might be better options.

::::::::::* Why should FR be limited only to sources for students?

::::::::::* Since different "people on the Internet are aware" of different things, then "a list of stuff that some people on the Internet are aware exists" can be very helpful to the rest of us.

::::::::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq| "a list of stuff that some people on the Internet are aware exists" can be very helpful}} Yes, this is why webdirectories were invented, and then search engines. Polygnotus (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@WhatamIdoing:

:::::::::::* Of course.

:::::::::::* "Students" is just shorthand that appears regularly in reviews to indicate general accessibility. It is not restricted to people formally enrolled as students at an institution.

:::::::::::* Without the regular WP measures of quality control these lists are prone to POV issues undetectable to anyone not already expert. That's bad. Also, everyone on Wikipedia has access to the Internet and knows how to use Google and search Amazon, both of which do a better job of prioritizing and contextualizing than almost all FR lists. Most of us also have easy access to a local library.

:::::::::::Apologies in advance for asking you to repeat something I'm sure you've already said, but would you mind briefly restating the value you see in those "Further reading" sections that do not include annotations and are not supported by any sources? You appear to be in the minority by promoting them in this discussion, and you obviously hold this belief quite strongly. But I genuinely do not understand why.

:::::::::::Thanks, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't see value (for non-editors) in adding citations. Existing research indicates that readers almost never read the citations we add.

::::::::::::I do see value in adding annotations, assuming that the annotation adds something that isn't obvious from the citation alone. I don't want to see an annotation of "Suitable for general audience" after a For Dummies book; I think we can assume people are either familiar with that book series or could guess that correctly from the title. I might want to see "Memoir written by his wife" (but not if the book is subtitled "His Wife's Memoir"). I am most interested in annotations when they provide information that directs readers to the sources they want (e.g., "Official description of diagnostic criteria" or "Technical manual for software development") or that provide something similar to a warning (e.g., "Original text of this law, without the subsequent amendments"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't think that that answers the question.

:::::::::::::Anyway, do you happen to know where I can find that research? It sounds interesting. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::There's a link on my user page to (IMO) the best study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The value to readers would be invisible to most readers. Nevertheless, it would be considerable because it would help to ensure that the lists are of high-quality in a way that is verifiable.

:::::::::::::Agree about annotations. They should not be a strict requirement. I'd like to see the practice more actively encouraged, though. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::MOS:FURTHER says "Editors may include brief annotations." Wikipedia:Further reading mentions annotations three times. The problem here is that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, not that the directions aren't already encouraging the desired behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The problem is at least one step deeper: no one incentivizes you to read the directions, people almost exclusively use them as weapons. They shout acronyms at you and hope you believe in the magic incantations like they do.

:::::::::::::::This is possible because many PaGs are written like you must do this and you shall not do that, instead of explaining why things are a good or bad idea.

:::::::::::::::If you do something wrong, and I sent you a link to a page explaining why it may be a bad idea, you will be far more likely to agree than when I sent you a link to a page that says you are not allowed to do what you've done, and if you continue you will be blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"Further reading" does not exist to contribute to article development. "Further reading" provides a list of articles a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject, but which were not cited to support specific claims in the article. Reasons why a source might be mentioned in "Further reading" but not cited have already been given in this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was responding to the initial comment.

:::::As with other lists provided without context (and usually without sources), they have a place in stubs and start-class articles, but little justification anywhere else.

:::::In any event, since the initial suggestion to connect "Further reading" sections to the guidelines on external links does not appear to have much traction, I don't think this talk page is the right place to pursue the matter.

:::::Also, while these sections are almost always useless, they are also almost always harmless. One-hundred and twelve comments on this thread is bonkers. No need to spike our blood-pressure over this.

:::::Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't want to convolute things, but WP:ELYES actually argues to include FR material into the external links section. We explicitly encourage linking to online material that contain "... neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[d] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." That is the type of material that I am thinking of if you are talking about material for further reading, and that is one reason why I think that the ==Further reading== section is a special kind of ==External links== section, even if we are nitpicking about whether mentioning "* The Bible" or "* Encyclopedia of Needlework" is technically 'linking to external material'. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hmm... This suggests to me (albeit indirectly) that at least some of the disagreement here is probably a consequence of the different kinds of articles that we all variously edit.

:::::::For instance, I mostly edit articles on academic philosophy. I'm the main contributor to the Hegel article, which does not contain a "Further reading" section (probably I deleted it, don't recall, didn't check), but which does link to a selected bibliography[https://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sefd0/bib/hegel.htm] of English (and a handful of major non-English) secondary sources that prints to 118 pages. Included on this list is a two-volume published bibliography of more than 1,000 pages that stops at the year 1990. Without strong supporting sources, even just any dozen suggestions beyond what is already in the "Works cited" is pretty much guaranteed to be fantastically arbitrary—no matter how knowledgeable the editor.

:::::::Many of the other articles I edit have bibliographies on a similar scale. Even if these have not been published or written, the "Further reading" sections of Wikipedia articles is not the place to crowd-source such a project. So, from my perspective, if you can't source it, please, just keep it to yourself. Also, even if you can source it, are you really, really sure this is the right place to share your reading suggestions? Much less it hand it out as research assignment, which apparently is what some editors think these sections are for?

:::::::If we actually are going to produce a revised guideline on MOS:FURTHER, this is something worth taking into account. There are some articles for which "Further reading" makes zero sense, some where it might actually be helpful to someone, and a whole lot of gray in-between. Any official guidance should reflect this.

:::::::In such a hypothetical guideline, it would also be a good idea to explicitly remind editors that "Further reading" sections are lists and need to cohere with MOS:EMBED, which, in my anecdotal experience, they rarely do. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::For me it is more from a different perspective, I encounter random articles from a WP:EL/WP:SPAM perspective. If I encounter articles with both a medium ==External links== list, and a decent ==Further reading== list I do not evaluate both lists independently, they can be individually too long, or combined too long. I have been moving links between them, creating ==Further reading== sections where appropriate, or combining them. I only learned here that the Further reading section is used differently in some cases. Still, as with ==External links==, they have stuff that belongs there and stuff that does not belong there, and the total hits 5-6 you have to start considering if the next is adding more (and whether then one of them is a non-external-link-book or not does not matter for that discussion, it is the number of items, not the number of external links. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Dirk Beetstra, Oh, okay. I don't have a view on the relation between the two categories. In the humanities articles I've worked on, these seem to sort naturally without need for discussion: if it's freely available online, it's a link; if you need to buy something or access via a library, it's further reading. But I can certainly imagine situations where it's more complicated. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Do further reading lists need to "contribute to article development"?

::::What are you willing to accept as evidence? I ask, because sometimes I have a piece of evidence, but it turns out that the person asking for evidence will only accept certain things. For example, I could say "Of course they contribute to article development. I know this because I've personally taken books out of the ==Further reading== section and used them as references to expand the article, and I have seen other people do that, too", but the response will be "Nobody cares about your anecdata. If you don't have a randomized controlled trial showing that adding a further reading section increases the likelihood of a future editor taking the subject to FA, then there's no evidence that they serve the only goal that matters to me."

::::But mostly I think that further reading lists are inherently a type of article development, because they give information to people who might be interested in it (e.g., a list of decent sources, for students who need to find decent sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm fine with lists reliably established as decent. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What does that look like? A source that says "Wow, the Wikipedia article on Widgets has a decent list of sources in Further Reading"? A source for each item that says "This is a book worth reading, if you want to know more about Widgets"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|A source for each item that says "This is a book worth reading, if you want to know more about Widgets"?}} would not be good enough, because then you get 10 books that all cover the same stuff. A theoretical hypothetical "good" Further Reading section would not recommend books that overlap. Once you've read Foobar for Dummies you don't really need Foobar101 and Beginner Foobar. But I would recommend all three equally, so buy whichever is cheapest. See how there is a conflict?

:::::::Also, if the Further Reading section is for book recommendations, why should it {{tq|not duplicate the content of the References section}} (which is what WP:FURTHER says)? Maybe Foobar for Dummies is simply the best book ever and I have used it as a reference over and over again and want to recommend it for people who are interested in reading more about Foobar. If the Further Reading section is for book recommendations then the fact that it is used as a reference is irrelevant, but if Further Reading is used as {{tl|refideas}} then you wouldn't add things to FR that are already used as a source. But in that case you should use {{tl|refideas}}. Polygnotus (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:FURTHER recommends against duplication because WP:EL recommends against it, and when we re-wrote FURTHER years ago, we thought it was a good idea to steal that idea (e.g., to avoid bloating the page length). The recommendation against duplication is not absolute. I understand that the most common exception for FRs is a particularly excellent or seminal source, especially if the article's ref list is so long that it's hard for readers to notice that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Anything that accords with the normal Wikipedia standards for reliability and verifiability would be sufficient. That's not a high bar, but most "Further reading" sections still just slam right into it. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That's not been my experience. Look at, e.g., Cancer#Further reading, Metabolic disorder#Further reading, Encephalitis#Further reading, Plague (disease)#Further reading. See Alexander Bain (philosopher)#Further reading and Naturalistic fallacy#Further reading. I think some need help – Pragmatic ethics#Further reading is much too long – but I'm not seeing unreliable sources generally being used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@WhatamIdoing All of your examples violate MOS:EMBED. Pragmatic ethics, which I will take care of, is a fantastic illustration of why we should insist on on explicit inclusion criteria and supporting RS. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Why do you think that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No supporting sources are provided. Since there are thousands of works that could be listed, we need an RS to recommend these one specifically. Otherwise it's just a worthless list of books someone knows to exist. The length of the thing only exacerbates the problem: any poor chump who tries to rely on such thing for actual research purposes is just going to be overwhelmed. See also this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=1289814501] from above. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I understand that you would prefer that a reliable source is cited to recommend these sources, but the community does not have such a rule, and never has. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Please see MOS:EMBED, in particular, MOS:TIMELINE. My position is that we should clarify that these policies, as well as the first two of WP:Five pillars apply to FR sections. If there is a good reason to give them a pass, I have yet to see it. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::MOS:TIMELINE is about article content, not about appendices. I explained this more below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sounds like FR are misused as {{tl|refideas}} which is yet another reason to get rid of FRs. There is actually a CTA to use Refideas, but not for FRs. Polygnotus (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What is a CTA? I'm sure you're not referring to WP:CTA (which is WikiProject Classical Tamil).

::::::There is no rule against using FR for sources that could be used in the article. There never has been such a rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Call to Action. When you use {{tl|refideas}} in the VisualEditor there is a popup that suggests using them, and when you use the old editor an editnotice suggests you use them. Another advantage is is that you can add comments like "this source can be useful for this purpose" that are invisible to readers but visible to editors.

:::::::{{tq|There is no rule against using FR for sources that could be used in the article. There never has been such a rule.}} Probably true, but there is a better option: {{tl|refideas}}. I do not see the point of Further Reading sections but I use {{tl|refideas}} all the time. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But there is a rule against using ELs for that purpose. "Put them in the talk page". A case of Four legs good, two legs bad logic, if ever I saw one. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Good point! Polygnotus (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Bad point, because it's factually wrong. See WP:ELMAYBE #1. ELs that could be used in the article, except that they aren't needed, and they contain more information than the Wikipedia article should, are acceptable.

:::::::::(This response surprises me, because I regularly see editors claiming that unreliable sources aren't permitted in the EL section. I never expected to see an editor claim that they weren't permitted in that section.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Please explain the relevance of {{tq|... but high-quality professional reviews which are not needed as sources for article content may be suitable for inclusion as external links, subject to the limit described in WP:ELNO#EL1. }}, especially given that WP:ELNO#EL1 already sets an even higher standard. And also especially as you appear to argue that no criteria whatever should apply to "further reading", let alone "high quality" or "professional".

::::::::::And as to your second point, why would we want to give any implied approval to an external source that we know to be untrustworthy? That is seriously unethical. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There is no rule against putting sources that could be used in the article into the EL section. For example, ELMAYBE #1 says that if you have a high-quality professional review that is not needed to support article content (e.g., because another review says something similar, and we don't need multiple little blue clicky numbers to write "The scenery and costuming was praised by opera critics"), and said high-quality professional review contains "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (e.g., copyrighted photos), then you can put that review in ==External links==.

:::::::::::Ergo, it is false to say that "there is a rule against using ELs" for sources that could be used in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I've inquired at the Help Desk – Wikipedia:Help_desk#Best_forum_for_discussion_about_"Further_reading"_sections? – about whether this discussion should be relocated. Since it looks like everyone involved is more experienced than me, I raise the issue here as well under its own heading. For if a consensus attained on this talk page would not be generally binding, we are all wasting our time. Please share any thoughts. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Because discussions evolve, it is pretty common that discussions start in a location that, in retrospect, isn't perfect. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Polygnotus (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:As the instigator, I should explain that initially I considered wikipedia talk:Manual of Style but felt I should test the water first before adding undue load to the top-level forum. WP:EL is the closest related topic that gives a formal guideline rather than an essay. What I expected was either a "no, go away, it is not broken and doesn't need fixing" or "yes, this is an obvious inconsistency and needs to be aligned as it is just another type of EL". I failed to anticipate that I would get both. {{frown}} --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I stated this above just now, unaware of this subsection:

::Quoting myself from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=1289802556 diff] I don't want to convolute things, but WP:ELYES actually argues to include FR material into the external links section. We explicitly encourage linking to online material that contain "... neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[d] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." That is the type of material that I am thinking of if you are talking about material for further reading, and that is one reason why I think that the ==Further reading== section is a special kind of ==External links== section, even if we are nitpicking about whether mentioning "* The Bible" or "* Encyclopedia of Needlework" is technically 'linking to external material'.

:So are we really at the wrong place to discuss this, or was already WP:EL the wrong place to discuss inclusion of FR material. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think maybe we just post to the MOS talk page alerting folks there of the discussion? Also, since the judgment of anyone willing to read and digest this entire thread is inherently suspect, this might be a rare instance in which an AI summary could be productively deployed. I haven't tried to use any of these bots in any serious way, but this might be a good case on which to test the free models. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I did that first (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal:_expand_the_scope_of_ELNO_to_include_"Further_reading"). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@JMF Perfect! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Patrick Welsh Unfortunately, AI technology has not reached the level yet where it could separate the wheat from the chaff which makes making a good summary impossible. Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I only mean that ChatGPT (or whatever) might be able to summarize the views of participants in a useful way, not that we would defer to it on the best approach to adopt. For I include myself when I say that some of us have been repeating ourselves. One post laying all of this out could be quite helpful—at least, if the software is up to the task! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Patrick Welsh Unfortunately it is not (yet). Polygnotus (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree with Polygnotus about AI summaries. The real performance of AI (in most cases, definitely language) does not yet live up to the marketing hype.

:::::If I were to summarize (since I've followed all of this thread) I'd say that we've discussed a lot but have not come up with any ideas or suggestions for improvements that have gotten the support of multiple editors. We have disagreement as to the purpose of the FR section, whether it should exist, whether it is identical to the EL section, whether the Refideas template should be used instead, and whether FR links are even a problem in need of addressing, but no coalescence on support for an idea to move forward.

:::::Of course, if others disagree with my summary, please improve or re-summarize. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That seems about right. But I'm pretty sure there is only one person objecting to the basic point that I want to establish: namely, that FR sections should adhere to the same general policies governing the rest of WP, in particular, WP:5P1, WP:5P2, and MOS:LISTS. Consensus on this would enable us to clarify MOS:FURTHER. As always, the views of dissenting editors may be disregarded if they are unable to supply a clear rationale to support their position.

::::::Please note that I am not proposing we send out a bot to just delete unsourced FR sections. WP has lots of unsourced content that we ignore or tag, especially in underdeveloped articles, and this is just a natural consequence of its open-ended structure.

::::::While clarifying the language in this way would gradually reduce the number of FR sections composed of indiscriminate and unverifiable content, I fail to see why anyone would not think that that's a great outcome.

::::::(I do not have a stance on refideas vs. talk pages. Either is fine with me, and I see no problem preserving both intact.)

::::::Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't see anyone objecting to the idea that FR sections – or anything else in the mainspace – should adhere to the general principles represented in the Wikipedia:Five pillars.

:::::::It's not clear what you think MOS:LISTS says that FR sections don't routinely comply with. Its MOS:EMBED section, for example, says nothing about adding citations to FR sections or any other MOS:APPENDIX. Its MOS:TIMELINE subsection is about non-appendix article "content", and is therefore irrelevant to the appendices, though you might look at it carefully, since it implies that the lists generally shouldn't need inline citations because "it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article". Its MOS:NAVLIST subsection doesn't mention FR. MOS:NAVLIST is IMO more relevant, but it doesn't support your desire to require citations.

:::::::One of the things that mystifies me about this is that we have editors saying that if we put a book under the ==Further reading== section heading, then it needs an Wikipedia:Inline citation to one or more Wikipedia:Independent sources to prove that the book is worthy of inclusion in an appendix, but that if we put the same book under the ==External links== section heading, then it doesn't. Why? Is this just a practical retreat, on the grounds that you know you're never going to get the community to require a citation for an {{tl|official website}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Collections of unverifiable information violate the first two pillars.

::::::::I do not see how FR sections are anything other than lists, and I still do not understand why you are defending them. Also, if the inclusion of a work is supported elsewhere in the article, then it's either been mentioned already or is included in the bibliography. Rarely should there be any reason to bring it up again in a list at the bottom of the article.

::::::::My lack of concern about "External links" is practical, although not in the way you suggest. It is extremely easy for any editor to review them for appropriateness in a very short amount of time and to prune them according to their own judgment. Apply WP:BRD if necessary. (Materials that are not freely available, such as copyrighted books and articles, simply should not be included.) This simply is not possible for non-free content like the books and articles that make up most of the FR sections I have encountered. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If I were to write, in the Wikipedia article about Abraham Lincoln, that it is possible read something further about Lincoln in a book called Abraham Lincoln from Oxford University Press, what exactly is the "unverifiable information" in this statement?

:::::::::You may wish to review the definition of unverifiable in WP:Glossary#unverifiable before answering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Just off-hand, what is unverified is that WP's recommendation of the volume is not WP:UNDUE and that it is not written from a marginal POV. A university press means that it is unlikely to be outright WP:FRINGE, but it could be. Lots of dubious stuff somehow makes it through peer-review. Normal sourcing would very much reduce such risks.

::::::::::Also, FR lists contain lots of stuff that has not been reviewed by anyone outside a sales and marketing department, which is not how we assess sources on WP. (We are, though, at least pretty good about removing self-published material, which is something.)

::::::::::While some editor took some satisfaction in knowing about whatever the book is that they added, what value does it provide to the reader? Someone who just wants to read indiscriminately anything about Lincoln would be better off with the top result of a search or reliance upon the curation of a professional librarian.

::::::::::Addition: Instead of relying on the glossary, please review the policy. I couldn't even decide what to cite. Pretty much the whole thing is at issue here. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Where do you see any words in any FR section that actually claims that the "recommendation of the volume is not WP:UNDUE" or "it is not written from a marginal POV"? In fact, where do you see that for any part of any article?

:::::::::::You need to read and understand WP:Further reading#Reliable, which says that sometimes you actually should consider including what you call sources "written from a marginal POV". The goal of an FR section is to help interested people find interesting sources if they want to read more about the subject. Sometimes that's going to be an original/historical document, even if it's "primary" or "not reliable" by our highest standards. You'll learn a lot about the Constitution of the Republic of Texas by reading it and seeing just how many times "slavery" and "Africans" get mentioned.

:::::::::::Sometimes it's going to be someone making a full-throated argument in favor of, or against, a view of the subject. The FR section can instead be a good place for a pair of sources that each argue cogently and clearly that their team should have won the 1985 World Series instead of one that says "Well, some people say ____ and some people disagree, so {{shrug}} 'cause we're neutral." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::A review (or other RS) would help to provide the sort of context that is required when WP presents marginal views in the body of the article. An annotation supported by the review would be even more helpful in this regard. Even if the review itself is behind a paywall, just knowing the publication venue would often be informative.

::::::::::::Providing at least some minimal, verifiable context would help {{tq|interested people find interesting sources if they want to read more about the subject}}. As things stand, I'm pretty sure the reason editors ignore them, in spite of clear violations of fundamental policies, is that we all know that no one looks at them. So, unless something is a total mess or someone want to bring the article up to FA, the problems are simply ignored. Raising the standards to insure they are not entirely unverified and indiscriminate collections of information would increase the chances of readers occasionally consulting them.

::::::::::::This is not a plot to deprive readers of knowledge about good books. The goal is to make FR sections better so that more people use them. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I'm not sure about that. Constitution of the Republic of Texas#Further reading lists the constitution itself. How much more "context" do you really need, to decide whether you'd be interested in reading that? Do you really need a source to be WP:Glossary#cited (not verifiable, which is different) to figure out whether you'd like to read that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I would say that that item belongs in the "External links" section, except that it appears to duplicate something already there. Probably it should be deleted. If there were some kind of critical edition considered the gold standard, that would be a great addition to the FR section. And if, in fact, the gold standard, it would take less than five minutes to cite this to a HQRS.

::::::::::::::Also, are you familiar with ignoratio elenchi? You keep presenting special cases without ever explaining on policy grounds why FR sections should be given a pass on core, universal WP content policies. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Here is the policy-based reason why ==Further reading== sections should not have citations to other sources:

:::::::::::::::POLICY-BASED REASON #1: Because those "core, universal WP content policies" apply to "content", and appendices (including, but not limited to, Further reading sections) are not "content".

:::::::::::::::POLICY-BASED REASON #2: Because – according to both the WP:NOT policy and the WP:POLICY policy – the true policy is what the community does in practice, and it is the community's long-standing and widely held practice to not cite reliable sources to justify our editorial choices about what (if anything) to put in Further reading sections.

:::::::::::::::If I need to repeat this again, keep in mind that I know how to use a blink tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I still hate whoever decided to deprecate the marquee element. Polygnotus (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::MOS is the right place to discuss how to format or present FR/EL. Here is the right place to discuss what should be included. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is the right place to discuss what should be included in the ==External links== section. What to include in the ==Further reading== section should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Further reading (the page with the most information about what to include in that section) or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout (the guideline with some long-standing general information about what to include in that section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The talk page of an essay of which you are the primary author is hardly the best place to take this discussion. My preference would have been for the MOS talk page, but when I raised the point above I was told it didn't matter. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But the talk page of a supplement largely written by Butwhatdoiknow, Bsherr, and Rjensen sounds like a great place to talk about it. I have never claimed to be the primary author of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Disagree.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Further_reading] Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've not been satisfied with XTools' estimates for "Top 10 by added text", but it proves my point: I've written significantly less than half the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Cannot believe you want to argue about this. I pass. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Um, what "the talk page of a supplement" are we talking about? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Butwhatdoiknow I believe they are talking about Wikipedia talk:Further reading. Wikipedia:Further reading contains an ambox that says {{tq|This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements.}} Polygnotus (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1750456868}}

Do WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources apply to the contents of Further reading sections?

• Option 1: Yes
• Option 2: No
• Option 3: Other (please specify)

Clarification of option 1 in response to comment below: the proposal is that WP's recommendation of a book/essay/whatever in FR should be supported by an RS that shows it to be recommended by a named expert in a legitimate publication. The mere existence of a source should almost always be self-verifying. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Before supporting option 3, please consider whether your objection might be better accommodated as a special exception under options 1 or 2. The application of either option would require the same editorial exercise of case-specific judgment and, in instances of disagreement, consensus-oriented discussion towards which we aspire everywhere else on Wikipedia.

Note in particular that option 1 would not provide license for editors to indiscriminately remove unsourced content from these sections—not any more than option 2 would provide license for editors to add large amounts of content to these lists without any stated justification. In most case, both of these behaviors would be considered WP:Disruptive editing in the same way that they would for such edits made to the prose body of an article, and they would be treated accordingly.

This is the first time I have formally requested comments from the community in this way. I do so in this venue because it is where the precipitating discussion began (which you may find immediately above). I will advertise it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout, and I invite other editors to please do the same at any other appropriately neutral forum.

Thank you in advance for your participation —

Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Most the FR sections that I have seen are provided with no verifiable citations to reliable sources. For all intents and purposes, this makes them indiscriminate collections of information in violation of WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. {{pb}}Policy links not withstanding, my point here is not legalistic. Without a supporting source (such as a book review), our readers have no reason to trust such lists at all; and, even if they do trust them, they have no guidance about which of the sometimes very many suggestions to select for loan or purchase. Applying these core, universal policies to FR sections would make them far more useful to those few readers who actually do confer with these sections for book- or essay-length treatments of the article's subject.{{pb}}Given the forum, I should add that, for practical reasons, the situation for "External links" is different. Their usefulness can usually be assessed within less than 30 seconds. "Further reading" sections, by contrast, can only be assessed by someone with expert knowledge (which it is difficult for the community to assess). I suspect that it is for this reason that, unless they are truly out-of-control, these sections are ignored by pretty much everyone not at the article specifically to promote their own favorite book on the topic.{{pb}}In short, I believe that clarifying that these foundational principles of Wikipedia apply to FR sections would, over time, enhance the quality of these sections and so improve the quality of the encyclopedia and better serve our readers. {{pb}}Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2, in the sense that no claims are being made in the section (so there's nothing for a source to be reliable for), and in the sense that we expect zero sources to be cited. The long-standing and widespread practice is for there to be no ref tags in the ==Further reading== section. If editors want to recommend a book, e.g., to put Alice Expert's The Sun is Very Big into a Further reading section at Sun, we do not need a separate source that says "Oh, look, this book is actually about the Sun, just like it says on the tin" or even one that says "This is a suitable book for the _____ audience". Just like editors are trusted to figure out which sources they should cite in the ==References== section and which websites (if any) they should list in ==External links==, editors are also trusted to figure out which books (if any) they should list in ==Further reading==. This is not a difficult concept, and to be candid, I'm feeling like there is more than a little bit of WP:IDHT behind this request for comments. There are about a quarter million articles with Further reading sections and approximately zero sources in those sections that "endorse" our choice to recommend those books. Editors are doing just fine (including with removals, though the original conversation began with someone mass-blanking a list and ultimately concluding that he should have left at least some of them [speaking only for myself, I would have said just two of them] in the article) and do not need to have extra requirements piled on top to solve a non-existent problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The concern about WP:IDHT is mutual. So probably we should both just keep that to ourselves.
• :In the thread above, you've mentioned some examples that might qualify as exceptions to normal sourcing requirements. Yet, even if found persuasive, they do not speak to the general point at issue. I find this very frustrating.
• :As to there being lots and lots of articles with unsupported lists of recommended works, that is exactly the problem that I hope option 1 might help to gradually ameliorate. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Community practice == community policy. "Policy", as everyone can see by checking their favorite dictionaries, means "thing you regularly do", rather than "Page with a {{tl|policy}} template at the top". According to some pages with that {{tl|policy}} template at the top, whatever the community regularly does is the actual policy. Examples that align with the long-standing and widely supported community practice aren't "exceptions". They're the main point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3: Other. Maybe "Identifying reliable sources" should apply. Trying to apply "Verifiability" makes no sense for most entries. When would a source be unverifiable? When it can't be found anywhere? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What I am proposing is that the inclusion of listed items should be supported by a source (such as a book review) commending the volume. The mere existence of a book or essay is self-validating. But what these lists leave unanswered is the question of why we are listing these specifically. Sources will not guarantee that we're presenting the "best" of the in some cases thousands of candidates for inclusion. But they'll help! Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::FWIW, I misinterpreted the text of the RfC in the same way, thinking "yes, a source listed in Further reading should itself be verifiable (rather than, say, tucked away in non-public archives) and of course should itself be a reliable source." If your intent is to ask whether items listed as Further reading should themselves be cited to an RS, then I'd clarify that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree with {{u|Jc3s5h}} and {{u|FactOrOpinion }} that framing this as a question of "verifiability" doesn't make sense to me, and I think most people seeing this without having read the earlier discussions in detail will be equally baffled. My immediate thought was "do we need to verify that they exist, or that they meet the RS guidelines?"
• ::The RFC as it stands is very confusing and I don't think people's responses will necessarily line up very clearly with what you meant to ask. Am I right in understanding that what you're wanting to get agreement on is something along the lines of anything in 'further reading' should be a work which has some kind of published review in a reliable source to indicate its significance? If so, should we be citing those reviews (etc) in the article? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thank you, everyone, for pointing this out! (And I thought I had done such a good job of keeping everything short, straightforward, and neutral...) If anything remains ambiguous, please tell me now so that I can clarify as quickly as possible. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think ultimately it's still confusing, I'm afraid. It would be a reasonable RFC question to make on its own, but keeping it framed as "do these policies apply" just muddies the water immensely - you'll still get people answering the headline question and not the nuance you are deducing from it.
• ::::This is important, I think, because I don't agree that if you start from "further reading has to be verifiable" you necessarily have to get to "therefore we need a third-party review for everything listed there". You could have someone answering "yes, of course it applies" while taking the position that in this context, verifiability just means "it needs to be a full citation so we can find the work" or "it needs to be publicly accessible". Andrew Gray (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Hmm, okay. I thought that it was clear from the conjunction that what was at issue was whether the inclusion of some given item in an FR section requires verification by an RS other than the item itself being considered for inclusion, which can hardly establish, for instance, its own prominence or accessibility to a general audience.
• :::::It increasingly appears, however, that I was wrong about this and should have taken more time in crafting my RfC. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Patrick, if you want to try again (which I neither encourage nor discourage), then you might ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment for help with framing the question. The regulars there (of which I am one, but only one) are happy to give feedback on question clarity and other issues.
• ::::::Given what appears to be your goal, you might consider a question such as this:
• ::::::"In principle, should the Further reading section list a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject with or without a citation to a book review or similar publication that says that each publication is recommended?"
• ::::::or an example-focused question, such as this:
• ::::::"In a Further reading section, should editors add citations to book reviews?, For example:
• ::::::* Expert, Alice (2020). The Sun is Really Big. New York: Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-123456780.
• ::::::or
• ::::::* Expert, Alice (2020). The Sun is Really Big. New York: Publishing, Inc. ISBN 978-123456780. Recommended in Portant, I.M. (April 2020) "I'm a University Professor, and I Recommend These Books", Book Magazine."
• ::::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

*Option 1: Yes, but on a a case-by-case basis. For example: On Dracula, I created Dracula#Further reading section with two subheadings. No extraordinary or controversial claims are being made there, although the first is essentially one-line inclusion criteria. This could be verified, in some places, but likely with extraordinary expenditure of time if it was required to avoid citing the sources themselves. I believe the first response above hits the nail on the head for me—is there a clear selection criteria? Does the selection criteria involve extraordinary claims? For example, "These are the best scholarly works on Dracula" certainly is an extraordinary claim. "These are the works that make use of Stoker's original notes" is not an extraordinary claim. Regarding reliable sources, there is no doubt that the sources linked must be reliable—if this is not true, I would be able to list my admittedly non-existent blog on Dracula. For my second subheading, it includes articles and studies that were frequently cited, important to criticism, but that were slowly removed from the article during the assessment process. This one is slightly more messy from me, because—in theory—someone could add their favourite Dracula essay to that and I would have no real basis on which to revert. If it was a high-quality source—i.e., if it adhered to WP:RS—I would not contest the addition. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC) I do not understand this RFC and associated outcomes, based on my response to {{noping|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=1290770413 here]. As a result I am striking my vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• :Yes, I did my best to make clear in the request that option 1 would be an !vote to apply these principles in the same judicious way that most of us apply them to content in the bodies of articles. We do not delete or tag every instance of a violation that we encounter, especially if stub- or start-class—or, at the other end of the spectrum, articles that have gone through intensive community scrutiny at FAC.
• :If we do delete something, best practice is always to provide a justification in the edit description. Anyone who objects for any reason should be encouraged to go ahead and initiate WP:BRD. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::: As a comment, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=1290768700 adding clarification] to an in-progress RFC isn't great practice. It probably means the RFC was malformed, which often results in a no-consensus ruling. For any future RFC, I recommend providing example outcomes [in consultation with other parties] for each option in a collapsible table. Refining the position you support—while the other editor can't really edit the RFC prompt—often looks suspect to newly joined participants. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for this advice. I thought it would be okay since the clarification was added with time-stamp only just barely over an hour after the RfC was posted, and so (I assumed) would be seen by everyone, who could easily change their !votes. I certainly take your point, however, and will take greater care with this in the future. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: Other I would say 'Option 2' as this isn't article content but pointers to where readers can find more information, but if editors require they be verified then they already are - as the cites are primary sources for themselves. Either way I would oppose adding references to any 'Further reading' sections.
  It seems that most of the discussion here is about inclusion, but inclusion is a NPOV matter not a verification matter. Further reading sections regularly become bloated and should be cleared down, but which sources should or shouldn't be included isn't a matter of verification and so doesn't need references. If they do then so do 'See also' sections and the decision to whatever else is linked from an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{replyto|ActivelyDisinterested}} Just asking a question to understand your position. If WP:RS does not apply to Further reading, it means other policies governing sources don't. All of our policies regarding what sources are acceptable are part of the WP:RS bucket—like WP: QUESTIONABLE. For example, WP:USERG wouldn't apply, so I could post links to a Steam review I liked for a video game or an anti-vaccine blog on a science article. This would mean WP:AFFILIATE doesn't apply, so I can post a link to a product on Amazon for an article on an object. I am concerned that this would essentially remove the only non-IAR, policy-based way to remove such things. Not applying WP:RS to further reading seems very, very dangerous to me, so I would like to understand a bit more. I care less about WP:VERIFIABILITY because I agree with you that this rarely includes anything that needs verification. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the cites in a Further reading sections need to be verified they are verified by themselves as primary sources. What you are discussing is what sources should be included and that's WP:DUE part of NPOV not V.
Yes if a questionable source would add to a readers understanding of a subject it could be included, because that questionable source is not being used for verification and WP:QUESTIONABLE is part of a guideline that explains what a reliable source is for the purposes of WP:Verifiability. The limitation would be WP:NOBLOGS not WP:QUESTIONABLE. The same is again true of WP:AFFILIATE, just because it doesn't apply doesn't mean you can stuff the Further reading sections with affiliate links as WP:ELNO point 17 applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You make a great point that WP:External links looks comprehensive, so I'll be honest—I don't really understand the intended expected outcomes of this RFC. And it's unreasonable to read the massive thread about to find out. I am striking my vote above. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)