wikipedia talk:external links

What is that supposed to mean? That sounds like it’s saying “unreliable sources can be linked if they’re reliable”, which is an obvious logical contradiction. It either needs clarification or needs removing. I personally support the latter, as well as tightening the criteria to be more stringent in general. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus of mainly adding official links, links between sister sites, and links to certain high-profile websites like IMDb for movies. Curating lists of random websites that would not otherwise be used in the article, no matter how educational, is fundamentally not neutral, especially given the fact that arbitrarily capping these link farm sections is explicitly encouraged by current guidelines. Who gets to decide and why? And why do we even need to? Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's pretty simple: the bar for including an external link is less than what is required to source an assertion in the article. A good external link is one that includes useful and accurate information on the topic, beyond what is likely to be in the article (for example, it may have a lot of detail what would be regarded as WP:UNDUE here). "Accurate" just means that an informed editor believes the information is good and there are no significant known problems. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::That’s not simple at all. I can get WP:UNDUE, but why do we allow random editors to insert their personal value judgments about “good” information sources into what is basically the definitive web page on a subject? Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Everything at Wikipedia is based on personal value judgments. Someone believes that a source is reliable and therefore uses it with an assertion they believe satisfies WP:DUE and other policies. The "truth" of the matter is resolved when others challenge the edit. At that time, consensus is required about the source and the assertion. The same applies for an external link. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::We have a curated list of respected and not-so-respected sources, not to mention a ton of other stuff on the concept of reliability as it pertains to articles. The external linking guides seem to say, based on your interpretation, that no such vigor is required and essentially anyone can put anything there as long as it seems good enough. Do you not see the double standard and circular logic here? Dronebogus (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::The first mistake you're making is that the sources listed at perennial sources are the only sources we can use/link to. That's just flatly incorrect. Secondly, I think I can trust people's editorial judgment in determining which external links are valid or not. Not everything needs to be so rigid. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I never said we only could link from perennial sources. My point is that external links should be subject to the same scrutiny as sources. They should be linked to for a reason. Otherwise they seem like the reference desks— a relic of Wikipedia’s days of being the only major educational site on the web and editors being expected to act as librarians as well as editors. Nowadays I think people can seek out this sort of thing themselves and we don’t need to curate lists of this stuff. Dronebogus (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I gave the reason for an EL to be used above: includes useful and accurate information on the topic, beyond what is likely to be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don’t feel like that acknowledged anything I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I mean, is there anything wrong with the latter? If anything, I feel like Wikipedia being a reference desk is going to matter more and more as more AI slop gets churned out and search engines get degraded like Google's has. For the former, like sources are, external links should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it's reliable/from a source matter expert, it should stay. If it isn't, it should go. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think Wikipedia’s job is to be an encyclopedia. If someone wants to make a Wiki-link-directory, or a Wiki QnA, then they can try and get it made. But Wikipedia doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a link farm or one of those QnA Reddits. It’s enough work being an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you take part in WP:RSN discussions you'll soon find editors regularly mention that it's not the place to determine if a source can be used in external links and their comments are not addressing if their sources can be used in external links. RSN is where RSPS entries come from. So..... 13:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:IMDb is a site "that fail[s] to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources”. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::But it’s been very well established by consensus. Other sites are literally just some random editor’s personal opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Your first sentence was "What's that supposed to mean?" I was answering your question. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Fandom sites for and some other UGC for works of fiction are other examples of sites which often contain useful additional content but which are not reliable. While some of these like Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia have had some discussion, I'm fairly sure for less known works there is little or none about the specific sites. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Should there maybe be a “perennial external links” guideline? It obviously would do nothing for weird outlier fringe cases like the ones I’m complaining about, but it’s a start. Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::No… the “Perennial” part of RSP means that the listed sources have been discussed multiple times… with the same consensus as to reliability - over and over again. It isn’t intended to be a complete list of “good” and “bad” sources, but simply a handy reference guide of consensus … so we don’t have to repeatedly discuss those sources (yet again). I think it is unlikely that the external links you are concerned about will have been discussed repeatedly (ie Perennially). Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I created Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites in 2010. The list is short and should stay that way. Very few sites get discussed repeatedly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest that you refrain from editing external links until you can get a better grasp that there are gray areas in the wiki that don't have hard and fast rules that are easy to follow. If you are not an "informed editor", that is, knowledgeable in the subject, I would state you shouldn't be removing links. I have basic knowledge about Physics and refrain from editing links on a subject I don't have solid in-depth knowledge about. spryde | talk 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:About the only hard and fast rule there is around EL other than it should be related to the topic on hand is "if you are the owner of the site, don't go adding it as that's COI". If it is that good, someone else will add it. spryde | talk 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Courtesy pinging {{ping|JD Gale}} {{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} as involved in the general subject. Dronebogus (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe this is getting somewhat off-topic. My main question is not so much why we have such lax standards for external links (though I do seriously question that); it’s who gets to determine what gets linked and why. When I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knitting&diff=prev&oldid=1271266678 a hidden message] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitman_shorthand&diff=prev&oldid=1268711046 loudly proclaiming] “DON’T CHANGE THIS” above one of these sections, I’m inclined to ask “who’s telling me this and why?” Even when I don’t, I still ask myself something similar. I’d like objective impersonal standards, that’s all. Dronebogus (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Suggest you edit another website since pretty much none of our policies or guidelines aims to be objective. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::That’s a pretty unimpressive non-answer. If there’s no objectivity how can policies and guidelines even exist, let alone be enforced? What is the point WP:NPOV, if not to promote objectivity? Telling people to go away because you disagree with them is not helpful to anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::The point of NPOV is not to promote objectivity. The point of NPOV is to require editors to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" in each article. The words "as far as possible, without editorial bias" mean "This is a subjective goal that will require you to use your best judgment and compromise with others, because neutrality is not a universal, objective, measurable state". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I hate these philosophical arguments about what something is and how it’s therefore impossible to achieve and not moving towards that thing as an ideal. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Maybe we wouldn't have such arguments if you stopped asserting that the main purpose of our WP:SUBJECTIVE policy is objectivity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• :{{ec}} As to the answer, editors engaging in good faith discussion based on our policies and guidelines get to decide what's in the external link section just as they get to decide what's in the rest of the article. As always discussion should take precedence over edit warring and unless there's something extreme egregious like a BLP violation bold but not reckless is the standard to apply. Meaning you can make a reasonable change without asking but if you encounter resistance, stop and discuss. If you find you interpretation gets little support, then consider careful if your change is really reasonable in the future or discuss first might be better. The guidelines are fairly vague and since there's only limited or sometimes no RS guidance, it's trickier to decide what's in EL. However any editor who acts like there should be basically nothing in the EL section or that the links must be RS are unlikely to gain much traction since it's one of the things not supported by our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::No one “owns” an article… which means editors are free to both add and remove things from an article. The thing is, editors often disagree on what should be added or removed.
• ::That is where the article talk page comes in… when there is disagreement, we go to the article talk page and discuss our disagreement. We explain why we think something should (or should not) be included in the article, and try to reach a consensus.
• ::That can be difficult when only two or three editors (each with strong opinions) get involved in the discussion. In those situations we need to call in more editors… ideally those who are knowledgeable about both the topic and our policies.
• ::See our WP:Dispute resolution page for more on this process. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::In situations this minor wouldn’t a guideline that clearly says what to do be a lot more efficient? Why is there such a resistance to standardization, and such a reverence for the opinions of elite editors, on Wikipedia? Instead of having an easy-to-learn flowchart of rules we have this exegesis and case law system that can only really be learned by bumping into it in the dark. Dronebogus (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::“What to do” is simple - edit Wikipedia. Add things… change things… remove things… all with the goal of making our articles better. Occasionally there will be disagreement - when that happens, remember that this is supposed to be a collaboration, not a competition. Discuss the disagreement and try to reach a compromise. If compromise proves too difficult, get help from others. Then follow the consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::If it were possible to write Wikipedia articles from an easy-to-learn flowchart of rules, then editors could be replaced by a computer script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The guideline already clearly says what to do. Would you prefer that we copyedited that line?
• ::::It currently says:
• ::::* Links to be considered: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
• ::::It could instead say:
• ::::* Links to be considered: Sites that are not suitable for use as reliable sources, but any editor personally believes to contain information about the subject of the article from one or more knowledgeable sources. BTW, all the other policies, guidelines, processes, and principles apply, specifically including WP:ELBURDEN and Wikipedia:Consensus (so other editors can remove an individual link if they don't believe it should be included), as does the rule that you can get blocked for the en masse WP:POINTY removal of external links that you personally deem unreliable (so you should be talking about removing an individual link, not "all of them from here to infinity").
• ::::As an example, this line supports the inclusion of things like:
• ::::* If the article is about a notable event, a self-published video of that event
• ::::* If the article is about a historical time or event, an oral history collection (or an individual story) from ordinary people who remember it.
• ::::* If the article is about a place or building, a real estate or tourist-type webpage with many photos of it.
• ::::These are not the kind of sources that should be used to build the article content, but they are not banned, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::This is clearly meant to be a witty put-down about how I am too thick to make even the most basic inferences and need to be blocked but when you remove the snark it’s actually a major improvement. Dronebogus (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It is not meant to be a put-down, witty or otherwise. However, I do think that most editors have been able to figure this out from the existing wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:External links|answered=yes}}

Bittscanada (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

https://medium.com/@bittscanada511/preparing-for-the-met-michigan-english-test-in-canada-bitts-is-your-official-partner-5030b73d2706

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

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)
• ::::{{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)

: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)