Wikipedia talk:External links

RfC: External links to library resources

This is a RfC to get clarity and consensus on how and when we should provide external links to libraries and archive resources or finding aids. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Background: Wikipedia has long been ambivalent about external links; we recognise that linking to certain resources can be a valuable aid for readers, yet we are uncertain about just how many links we should allow, and we resist being a mere repository of such links. The whole area of external links is broad and complex, with an ongoing tension between those who wish to add links, and those who wish to keep links manageable. We have a guideline that we should not add links to websites that either duplicate or provide less information than we do (WP:ELNO#1), yet at the same time we create templates to facilitate linking to such websites ({{AllMusic}}, etc). And then we tag thousands of articles with concerns regarding the number of external links that are being added - with a number of tagged articles dating back to 2012: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. However, this RfC is not about external links in general, nor cleaning up excessive links. This RfC is specifically about library links, and how we ensure such links comply with our policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY and Wikipedia:External links.

Info: Linking to library or archive sources can be done by a conventional link to the website: *Example.org, or by using one of several templates that provide links - such as {{Library resources box}}, which links to books available at a library, but does not include unique archive material, or {{Archival records}}, which links to unique documents housed in a library, but does not link to books; and {{Authority control}}, which aims to hold all available library data on the topic. Wikipedia is always evolving, and linking to library material is one area in which we are evolving, though there appears to be no clear consensus on how we do it. Looking on the talkpages, Template talk:Library resources box, Template talk:Archival records, and Template talk:Authority control, concern has been raised regarding all three, and there is some uncertainty moving forward as to which should be used, and how. There appear to be teething problems with {{Authority control}}, which is presumably why {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} have been brought in. After a discussion last year (Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_39#Request_for_comment_on_finding_aids), the EL guideline was adjusted to allow Finding aids: WP:ELMAYBE#6 - what is not clear from that discussion, is what qualifies as an appropriate finding aid/archive/library resource, and how we should link to the resource.

Questions to resolve:

1) Clarify/confirm if it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host links to finding aids/archives/library resources.

2) If it is appropriate, then clarify if Wikipedia should host individual links, or use a centralised resource, such as that provided by Wikidata and/or {{Authority control}}.

3) Clarify if {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} are appropriate alternatives/additions to Wikidata and/or {{Authority control}}.

4) If direct links to library and archival resources are appropriate, clarify the criteria by which links may be added:

ai) Archives/finding aids which independent, reliable sources have identified as notable resources for the article topic?

aii) Archives/finding aids which a Wikipedia editor finds useful?

aiii) Archives/finding aids which are agreed by consensus on the article talkpage to be useful?

b) That there are no other archival external links in the article?

c) That there is a limit of one/two/three/.... archival links?

5) Clarify the size and formatting of an archival link:

Are these an appropriate size and format?:

6) Is it possible to have one template which provides one link to a central resource? And for that template to be of a proportionate size and format?

7) Is this an issue which WMF should be involved in?

SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The intention is to be open and free-ranging with the topic, and to pool information and skills. The questions are examples which can be used to frame the discussion, though nobody is obliged to respond to all the questions, and new questions can be added. The aim is to have a guideline on the use of library links to amend or update WP:ELMAYBE#6. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from SilkTork

• • 1) Yes, we should link to appropriate and useful library resources.
  • 2) If possible, and to avoid Wikipedia articles becoming overloaded with external links (Shakespeare, Aristotle, Dickens, Sunshine Mine, Acceptance of evolution, etc), one link to a centralised resource would make sense.
  • 3) I am very sceptical of the value of {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} - it appears to me that {{Authority control}} does a better job.
  • 4) If there are no other archival links in an article, and no {{Authority control}} template, and there is an independent reliable source that says an archive is notable, then linking to that archive would be appropriate - though the ultimate aim should be to use a link to a central resource like Wikidata, so that stand alone link should be removed when {{Wikidata}} and/or {{Authority control}} templates which include links to the archive are used.
  • 5) I feel the size and format of the {{Library resources box}} and {{Archival records}} templates are innappropriate - drawing too much attention to themselves, and taking up too much space. A collapsed {{Authority control}} template appears appropriate.
  • 6) My preference would be to use one template (such as {{Authority control}}), and to discourage inserting individual links into articles (and so amend WP:ELMAYBE#6)
  • 7) Technical matters such as creating a link repository (Wikidata) are WMF matters; decisions regarding which links are used in articles is a Wikipedia community matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

The work that SilkTork has put into bringing together the various strands of this hydra-like question should not go unacknowledged. This is an important matter on which an agreed policy, consistently applied, has been sorely lacking and is highly desirable. I'll return in a day or so with any detailed comments after a good ponder. Meanwhile, thank you, SilkTork! Tim riley talk 10:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts after watching comments coming in, below. We are all, I think, agreed on the broad aim, albeit with slightly differing preferences as regards admissibility, but the mechanics remain elusive. I am attracted by the idea that libraries can be challenged to confirm that they are one of the two leading repositories of the material in question, though whether "leading" is measured by quantity or quality is tricky, and the earnest young interns who add the acres of links we are beset by will swear their institution is the most important resource. @SilkTork:, have you any thoughts on they way forward from here? Or perhaps leave the discussion open a while longer? Tim riley talk 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the scope of the RfC is probably too large. It might be helpful to look at areas where there seem to be interest and agreement, and to narrow down on one or two of those to get some consensus moving forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks right to me. It puts a burden on you, though, and we'll owe you a collective debt of gratitude if you do boil the issues down to the do-able. I will, as before, gladly carry a spear in your infantry. Tim riley talk 17:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Dirk Beetstra

This is indeed a hydra of a question. Some general points, I do see these more as 'further reading' than external links (though the two sections are generally judged combined), and also more like 'authority control'. Distinction will need to be made as well for 'a work by the subject' (where hence the 'work by the subject' is the subject of the Wikipedia article, where I would regard 'the work by the subject' to be inappropriate on the page of 'subject') vs. 'a significant collection of works by the subject' (WP:ELNO - direct vs. indirect linking; if there is a page where the 'indirect' link is 'direct' then we should not duplicate it here - I do not think that Vincent van Gogh should carry links to archives where his paintings are hosted since most/all of his works have individual pages which already tell where that work is hosted, as well as that we likely have a list of paintings by Vincent van Gogh which specifies locations and maybe links individually to them).

My couple of bucks:

1) Yes, we should link to useful and appropriate library resources. Focus on 'useful' though.

2) The material should be useful and significant. Not 'look, we also have a quilt in our collection', but a link to 25 meter of boxes filled with original letters written by Shakespeare should be there on the subject's page. WP:EL notes this as 'common sense' in its intro.

3) If the link is through authority control then there is no need to duplicate it (unless it is of really particular interest; reasoning alike that for the inclusion of Donald Trump's Twitter is of interest there: every other tweet by Donald Trump was world news, so we override WP:ELMINOFFICIAL there).

4) With other external links (for example for interviews with the subject) I generally feel that 'the next' interview is adding less than the previous, with such lists often losing significance after the 5th or 6th interview. 'But we also have a quilt in our collection' is not a reason for inclusion. Generally bulk of materials are located in one main location (one archive has most of the material). With every next finding aid being smaller than the previous, and hence giving less extra information. See WD below. Note that for subjects where their work is truly scattered around (paintings everywhere) a 'list of works by <subject>' article (with for most/all of the works their current location) could easily overtake the need for all links to individual works on the article of <subject>.

5) Depends completely, if one archive contains 25 meters worth of material, and the next only 2 A4s then the first one can be an external link and the next ones are not needed. If there are works in 3-4 major places then grouping them in a box is probably better. If works like paintings are scattered everywhere a 'list of works by <subject>' article serves the purpose better than a linkfarm. If it is likely that there is material in your local library then a link to that search would be interesting to add (i.e. a generic link similar to Worldcat).

6) Difficult, are you referring to a template like {{Official website}} here?

7) WikiData policies are different from our policies. I feel that WD should link to all locations individually as that is data that they can have. That does not automatically mean that we have to use all that data (we don't link to Twitter because WD has the Twitter handle of the subject, we link to Twitter (or not) because it fits with our inclusion standards). I don't think that that is an issue that we should be concerned with except for staying away from the 'WD has it, so we have to use it' discussion.

All in all I am afraid that this will not be a black-and-white result, there are too many aspects which may be different for each subject under discussion (the original works of painters are on displays in different musea, whereas the original works of Shakespeare are all in well protected archives and we use copies or even WikiSource hosted digital copies). Thank you Silktork for opening this discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re your response to Question 6, Dirk. I am thinking only of external links to libraries/archives (finding aids) - templates which link to other resources, such as official websites or Twitter or other encyclopaedias are not intended to be part of this discussion, as I think that would be too broad a scope. And a link to the official website is clearly encyclopedic, so should be allowed somewhere prominently in the article. SilkTork (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Sorry, I wasn't clear in my confusion :-). I meant to ask whether you were thinking of a typical wrapper template like we wrap the official website ({{Finding aid}}?), or wrap them in an archive-dependent wrapper (which then is more like the {{Twitter}} where you add only the 'identifier'). I guess the bigger archives are all already in the {{Authority control}} so those are linked from there (and I would exclude replication with very few exceptions), the unusual ones (where an artist has left their works to a local museum which does not have significant works from others) will not be in the authority control. I'm not convinced by a {{Finding aids}} similar to {{Authority control}}, those are rapidly deteriorating to show literally all remotely available archives just like Authority Control is doing now (a gibberish of identifiers only useful to those researching the subject, but with very little use for the general public and with way too much overlap). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I wasn't thinking of a wrapper. I was thinking only of reducing the number of individual links or templates, and the best way of managing that while keeping access to the finding aids that are felt to be encyclopaedic and useful. For me, ideally, there should only be three external links: 1) The official website, 2) The work being discussed (if available legally and free online - such as a music work via Spotify, or a book via the Gutenberg project), and 3) A link to an off-Wikipedia resource, such as Wikidata, which holds links to libraries, museums, archives, and statistics. I think for the bulk of our readers, links to 1) and 2) would be the most useful, while 3) would be there for those who wish for a little more information. SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Ssilvers

Famous writers and creators have produced so much material that numerous archives and libraries often hold them. And every archive has an enthusiastic archivist who thinks that their collection ought to be linked in Wikipedia. Sometimes, they add a link ALL of their collections to the dozens or hundreds of relevant Wikipedia articles with obvious pride. I can see adding an EL to something that is acknowledged by everyone to be a writer's *main* collection or repository, but we cannot add a long list of ELs to articles simply because they exist. The EL guidelines should state clearly that before you add an EL to a collection, you have to show that it is the subject's main archive, or at least one of the top 2. The "library resources"-type boxes/templates are way over the top and should be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Wugapodes

1. We should link to finding aids. It helps with WP:V. If more readers can quickly and easily check citations for statements we increase the chance that errors are found and corrected.
2. We should use a centralized source where possible, but links to individual resources should be used where it is the only viable option such as niche archives.
3. Both of those templates seem like reasonable solutions.
4. I think it's too soon to establish criteria, but I think it should be something closer to aii and aiii. If someone thinks an archive is useful, then it probably is. If it's disputed or there are too many then a talk page discussion can establish a local consensus on what to include or exclude. If it turns out that that plan causes too much conflict, I would be fine with ai.
5. We should format these similarly. If we're going to have authcontrol as a page-wide collapse box, I would like the option for the other boxes to be included within it or at least of a similar format.
6. Probably? I don't know the code for authority control, but presumably it could handle a feature similar to nested infoboxes.
7. I doubt they could help much.

06:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Biogeographist

1. Yes, we should link to appropriate and useful library resources. Wikipedia loves libraries.
2. A centralized resource would be great, but there should be an easy-to-find instructional page (if there isn't already?) for new archivist/librarian (or other) editors to learn how to do it.
3. I already noticed that {{Library resources box}} does not do very much, and is not precise enough to replace the kind of links that we're discussing here, if I understand correctly. I wasn't sure what {{Archival records}} does, so I had to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Archival records to find examples. The examples I examined only included one archive, so including multiple archives in {{Archival records}} could be a problem? So neither appear to be good alternatives to a centralized resource that could include links to multiple archives.
4. The first criterion (Archives/finding aids which independent, reliable sources have identified as notable resources for the article topic) looks most reliable, though I imagine an exception should be made for Wikipedia articles about a person or organization when there is only one archive (all the person's or organization's papers went to one place): in such exceptional cases, no independent, reliable source would be needed. That is, if a library says that they have received most of a person's papers, and the content of the archive makes it obvious enough that it is true, no independent source would be needed.

Biogeographist (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment from ProcrastinatingReader

I still believe in the position I outlined at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_180#Authority_control. The {{Authority control}} template is a large dump of links in violation of WP:NOTLINK and the WP:External links guideline. It has been added to 2 million articles, and on many of those all the links in it provide no useful information. Often it is (uncollapsed) longer than the longest section on the article. In many cases the article has no sections (ie is a stub). I don't mind with the template being on talk pages or people being directed to Wikidata, but the English Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, and nothing else like it is visible on article pages. I much prefer the idea of Template:Library resources box personally, especially since the presentation seems more often to provide relevant/useful links. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Blueboar

We have “discography” articles where we list the recorded works of musicians and bands… I would suggest similar “bibliography” articles where we would list the works of writers, and (not sure what to call it… “corpus of work”?) articles where we would list the works of artists. If we have our own internal lists that we can link to, then there is no need to link to external databases. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Formal guidance on links to collected writings of journalists/columnists

There seems to be no clear guidelines regarding or discouraging the use of links to collections/archives of news or opinion articles of journalists, columnists, and commentators who don't have an official/personal website. Examples include works of Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times, Steve Deace at Blaze Media, Neil Patel at The Daily Caller, and McKay Coppins at The Atlantic or BuzzFeed News (or alternatively, verified meta-collections like Muck Rack). My view is these are reasonable links that are directly relevant to the subject in an area where they are notable, offer readers a unique perspective (straight from the horse's mouth) in the spirit of WP:ELOFFICIAL and MOS:FURTHER, and aren't in violation of other policies or guidelines. They are often more educationally rich than perennially-debated Twitter links. But I have seen some occasional pushback, e.g. claiming it lends undue weight to the subject's own views (especially when the writer is controversial, fringe, or unpopular among Wikipedians), or invoking WP:LINKFARM or WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some objections claim these are search results contra WP:ELNO #9 (when in fact they are often stable, dedicated links to curated content), or that links to deprecated/unreliable sources but not-blacklisted sites like Blaze Media or The Daily Caller are violating some other guidelines. I'd like to see some discussion and clarification here and maybe the eventual addition of this to WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, or somewhere in WP:ELOFFICIAL (if not in a bullet point, then perhaps in a footnote clarifying when it would or would not be appropriate). The number of such links should of course be kept to a minimum just like WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and local consensus on a case-by-case basis can determine which links and how many are most appropriate for a given article, e.g. a longtime staff writer of a single periodical who has a few op-eds or scattered articles in other publications might only link to the author page for which they're most prominently associated. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty, it sounds to me like you're looking for an WP:ELYES #2 for authors. (It is currently written to explicitly apply to a book [such as Black Beauty] but not to apply to the book's author [Anna Sewell, whose biography contains links to her book].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see some encyclopedic value to the reader to have links to collections of online accessible works by an author (any author, not just columnists) - though, referencing my discussion above, should those links be provided directly by Wikipedia, or by a central resource such as Wikidata or Authority control? Such links appear to me to come under the field of "library resources", and webpages holding links to works would qualify as finding aids, which are currently allowed under WP:ELMAYBE#7. Unfortunately, ELMAYBE#7 offers little clarity or advice on when and how to link to such resources, which is one of the reasons why the above discussion was started. We do need more clarity in these matters. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

My instinct here is to say that I would favour such a link over other archival links, as long as they are accessible (the NYT's link, for example, is not accessible as it requires registration, something we would normally disallow, per WP:ELREG). As with WhatamIdoing, I see such a link as being similar to WP:ELYES#2. Problems could arise if an author has multiple publishers, and archives of their works are scattered over multiple sites, which is where I come back to the above discussion. One such link seems a good idea to me, but each separate link reduces the value of the first and subsequent links as the reader becomes overloaded with too much choice. SilkTork (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELREG is worth considering. But in the absence of an official website, a link to collected articles could be considered "as official as it gets," per WP:ELOFFICIAL #2, and may be warranted. Note that registration is not required to view the landing page for Nicholas Kristof, nor to view the biographic information, sign up for his newsletter, or contact the author. Other author pages may have links to social media sites and other resources, which could make the page considerable per WP:ELMAYBE #3. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Television station translator lists

I nominated KTVK for GA, and in the review, Tayi Arajakate suggested that the external links in the Rebroadcasters section needed to be moved.

We have a lot of link lists that look like this for TV translators, and some of them are being rescued from being in hidden boxes. This is the one from KPHO-TV, for instance:

The links are to technical records about the TV rebroadcasters and are generated by a specific template. Some of these lists can be very long (look at KSL-TV#Translators). Is this a permissible use of external links or should the standard be changed for this type of page? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, have you two looked at Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that's what I'm asking. Is it acceptable as a citation to a reliable source? (I'd imagine so as a link to official record) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ELLIST suggests that you format it more like this:

but otherwise I think it is acceptable, and I don't think that the formatting is extremely important (although it would help people understand that if they click that link, they won't end up in a typical customer-oriented website).

That's separate from the verifiability concern that SilkTork raises (which is more like "How do we know that these are associated with this article's subject at all?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, I looked at the links (with a view that they could be turned into cites), but couldn't see a reference to KPHO-TV in the links. I did a search for the first station on the list, K05MR-D, and found this: [1] and this: [2], which does mention KPHO, along with other stations, so is more useful, though it may not be a reliable source. A query that occurred to me while I was looking, is regarding the encyclopedic value of listing all the rebroadcasters. Is there a reliable source, other than mere listings, which have mentioned the rebroadcasting when talking about the parent station? At the moment a section is devoted to information which appears to be rather minor, and if it is worthy of note, could perhaps be summed up as "KPHO-TV's CBS transmissions are rebroadcast by 12 other Arizona stations", with a reliable source which says this. Not this source, because it's old and out of date (1975), but something like this: Federal Communications Commission Reports. SilkTork (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

SilkTork, the last document I have that would be definitive is linked here as "List of TV Translator Input Channels as of November 8, 2017". That might seem recent, but unfortunately two events have occurred since that require major updates since then: spectrum reallocation (aka "the repack") and the end of low-power analog TV in July 2021. Many of our lists need rebuilds for both anyway, and that's a task I've been taking on (though it's been a bit harder of late). FCCdata used to have a list in its records, but that has disappeared. RabbitEars is used as a source in the subchannel tables in almost all pages, and I trust it; it may be a worthy stopgap. I have emailed the FCC in hopes that a more updated list can be built and supplied. It would resolve many of these problems. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that RabbitEars has an article on Wikipedia, and that it has been cited by reliable sources. As such, it does appear to be reliable, and so could be used as a source. SilkTork (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Links to copyrighted material on Open Library

For those interested: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Links to copyrighted material on Open Library. Paradoctor (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ELs to Wikia via interwiki links

I see a number of pages that include text-embedded ELs to Wikia (now Fandom), in form of interwiki links using the centralwikia: Interwiki prefix. For example, Alice (name) has numerous links like [[centralwikia:w:c:disney:Alice Kingsleigh|Alice Kingsleigh]], which creates Alice Kingsleigh, a link to a Disney fan wiki on Wikia.

I don't see anything in WP:EL suggesting that Wikia pages are special with respect to external linking in text; the fact that there's an interwiki mechanism in the software is a separate issue from where it is appropriate to be used.

I propose to begin removing them when I see them, just as I would any other in-text EL that's not exempted from the general rule in WP:EL. Am I missing anything? TJRC (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Embedded external links of any type are discouraged per WP:ELPOINTS. Open Wiki sites (e.g. Wikia (now Fandom.com) are mentioned in WP:LINKSTOAVOID #12. I think wikia links should generally be removed, although there hypothetically might be rare cases where EL to a wikia is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; my only concern is whether the presence of interwiki support specifically for Wikia suggests different treatment for those links. I don't think it does, but this is a sanity check. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, there's no special rule for them. Everything goes by the same rules, even if there is (or used to be, in the case of Google Search) an interwiki shortcut for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Official website § Pencil icon

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Official website § Pencil icon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"Robochurnalism"

I think this category is implicitly covered in the existing criteria ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."), but autogenerated youtube "news" seems to deserve a special mention. Example videos here and here. Note the synthetic voice, automatically generated video montage (where the relationship to the text is generally superficial, sometimes to the effect of great humor). Could this type of content be added to the project page? I don't know the proper, if one exists, name for it yet ("robochurnalism"?). Maneesh (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Automated journalism. Paradoctor (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Not quite it, no? Video isn't prominent in that article (cite of AP's efforts..which I can't really find an example of). "Automated journalism" seems too broad, as one could imagine more and more automation in the production of RS...it's the "junky" quality of those videos that makes them bad I think. Maneesh (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you having trouble getting inappropriate links removed from articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)