Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (external links)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of topics relating to external links, references and further reading

"I'm puzzled by external links. Two things:
(1) I haven't managed to find a clear style guide to how they should be presented, but using '== External Links ==' seems common at the end of an article.
Having said that we come to
(2) Some pages appear to have == External Links == in the page source and yet display as
== External Links == whilst others display apparently the same source text as == External Links == As an example, try Swedish towns Sunne and Karlstad. "SGBaileyDone using 'br' rather than blank lines so it is easy to see which chunk I've added - if this is bad form, sorry.

(1) Wikipedia:Manual of Style has a small section on external links recommending the == External Links == heading.
(2) This looks like a bug. Usually, the problem is due to having text appear on the same line before '== Heading ==' characters. But this is not the case here -- hitting Save page again fixes the problem (which I tested on Bengtsfors).
The problem only seems to affect some of the pages created by the original contributor of those Swedish towns (a bot, apparently). I hope that helps. Mrwojo 06:57 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


I got rid of the example for the "External links" section - it looked too much like an actual section. Now that part doesn't follow the pattern of the rest of the examples, but I think people will get it. --GG

The convention I had been following was to have the "real" headlines in each section include the word Style so they wouldn't be confused. In this case, instead of ==External Links== it read ==URL and World Wide Web Style==. I find the failure to follow the pattern more confusing than the heading, but I think if I change the heading to ==External Link Style== then we can follow the pattern of presentation followed by encoding. Ortolan88

Why is the standard "External links" and not "External Links"? It looks out of place, since most people capitalize the worlds in headings (the headings in the style guide itself are all mixed up however, some are all capitalized and some are not).

For the sake of consistency might it not be a good idea to change it to "External Links"? (Related Topics is already capitalized). - stewacide 10:05 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I would rather change the all-capital headings, and add a rule not to capitalize all words of a heading. The capital S in Manual of Style is okay, though, it is a proper name. - Patrick 12:05 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
In fact, we have already Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for article names. It would be good if headings within an article follow the same rule. - Patrick 12:27 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
That convention is for page titles - it doesn't make much sense to extend that to other headings esp since we discourage wiki links in headings. If we we not a wiki then our H1's would be capitalized far more often. But I do see some logic in keeping all headings consistant so I should be an easy person to convince. --mav 19:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)
It makes sense because we generally use a "down style" (nothing but first word and proper nouns capitalized) anyway. Already added to MOS. When in doubt, don't capitalize, and while you're at it, don't italicize either if in doubt. Ortolan88
I agree with using the "down style" for headings within articles, if we're doing it for article titles, as it makes things look more consistent. So can I change the headings in this page? :) -- Oliver P. 04:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)


I think the preferred name for references that are external links should be "References" rather than "External Links". "External Links" should be used for pointing the user at other sources of information that were NOT used in formulating the article rather than actual references for the article. Reboot

I agree but all links are often thrown together into a ==References and external links== section which is usually consensed by copyeditors to just ==External links==. All references for the article should be listed under a ==References== section. The ==External links== section is really designed for further reading. So IMO articles that have a lot of online references, book references, online external links to further reading and print further reading entries should have this format:

Contents

References

Print references

  • Print reference 1 (Anywhere; 9999), pages 0-1000 ISBN 123456789
  • Print reference 2 (Anywhere; 9999), pages 0-1000 ISBN 123456789

Online references

Further reading

Print reading

  • The uber guide to Axme 1 (Anywhere; 9999), pages 0-1000 ISBN 123456789
  • The uber guide to Axme 2 (Anywhere; 9999), pages 0-1000 ISBN 123456789

Online reading

But I also see no reason not to continue supporting the much simpler ==External links==, ==References== and ==Further reading== sections in cases where there are not a large number of mixed entries like above. BTW I always put print references/further reading entries before online ones and references before both types of further reading in order to emphasize our content and how it was derived before giving readers the option of going someplace else. --mav 03:21 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

PS there is a related problem of mixed types; what if a reference is also a great entry for further reading? Do we list that entry twice? --mav

Too complicated. ==External links== for web links and ==Further reading== for hard copy books is clear and simple.Ortolan88
You are probably right. But what about references that happen to be external links? I guess we can mix the two no problem... ---mav 03:33 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Since the Wikipedia is (presumably) intended for serious use (one day) (maybe), I think it's important that we cite references more often. Mixing them in with the external links and further reading just makes it unclear what the actual references are. People often remove links to webpages that they don't like the look of, not realising that they were used as sources of information in the article. To avoid this happening in future, it would be best if all references were marked clearly as such. -- Oliver P. 03:52 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
Both are guides to further reading. The distinction is "click right here to read it" versus "it's a book,track it down (or click on this handy ISBN)". It is pretty rare that either one is irrelevant to further research. Ortolan88
I agree about encouraging references and marking them correctly so that they are not removed. But I have come across a big problem that I know others are also faced with; for example, in the elements articles (see lithium) the links I have listed under ==External links== are both for further reading and were used as references. Should they be repeated in two different sections or just placed in a ==References== section? Also, if I did create a ==References== section then there are other things I should also list there as well (see talk:lithium) which would dilute the 'further reading' value of the two links that are now in the ==External links== section (the reason is that the other references have almost no information in them that is not already in the corresponding element article). Right now I have all the references on the talk page and that was OK for me for a while but I'm having second thoughts. Thoughts? --mav
If it is really important that a source has been used as a reference, then use the footnote form of external link. [1] If the content is very similar, or overlaps, then we are morally bound to include that as an explicitly called out external link so people can see our sources. Sometimes I put further information on the talk page to help future people working on the same article, but in the article proper all we need to do is put in the further references and external links that help our reader do better, either by giving actual further information or by making clear what our sources were. I don't think the really big bad bibliography is expected in an encyclopedia article. Ortolan88
But a simple wikiref wouldn't do because the entire table, most of the ==Isotopes== section along with some of the ==History== and ==Occurances== sections also used the listed external links as references. --mav

Further Reading

Many articles also end with a list of books that are either important to the topic, or just provide a more in-depth treatment of the topic (see Evolution). Should the author's name be included with the title?

For example The Beak of the Finch, by Jonathan Weiner

-adam


It wouldn't hurt. I personally would take it a step further and add dates as well. Oh, and don't forget that book titles are italicized. Mrwojo 05:50 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
A number of entries use ==Further Reading==. Remember that including an ISBN gives an automatic link to a bookfinder. The style guide should probably have a section on referencing books anyway. Ortolan88 17:04 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
I feel that the recommendation of "Further Reading" has the potential to develop into a problem. I've seen things recommended as "Further reading" which are badly-written and poorly-researched, but are referenced because they happen to reinforce the POV of the contributor. Personally, I've tried to avoid referencing anything but standard biographies and "official" web sites. Are there any guidelines on this subject? Deb 22:16 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Style of External links section

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

I would like to add something to the style guide Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but am not sure how to do this and with whom I have to discuss this. My question is about "external links": sometimes it is handy to add additional information than just the URL. Unfortunately there is no standard about that and at the moment I am aware of three different methods:

  1. Adam Bede
  2. http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/qt.php -- History of Qt and Harmony
  3. City's own website: http://www.hannover.de/

examples: George_Eliot, Harmony toolkit, Hannover

-- mkrohn 23:05 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think the Adam Bede method is the preferred method. See external links on this page: [2] -- Notheruser 23:13 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
#1 is the standard. Note that the "printable version" of a page reveals the URL. --mav 23:49 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

I object very much to the proposal suggesting two different styles for "External links" heading. Wikipedia is far too confused as it is wrt. the style of the external link heading, and it certainly does not help to confuse the matter further by having two different styles in the "Manual of style". If it is believed that a smaller font size is suitable when there are no other headings in an article (something which in my view looks odd and inconsistent, but that is another issue), then that must certainly be handled by the Wiki markup to html converter. The Wiki markup *must* be consistent. -- Egil 18:55 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and I've changed it to say that two equals signs should be used, not three apostrophes. The external link header is just like any other header, so this is how it should be treated. I've very rarely seen "external links" marked up any other way, and I change it if I do. --Camembert
Agreed. -- Tarquin

I've had a post on my talk page about link style, I'm reposting the reply here: Personal I really think that the URL should not be shown. It is ugly, and confusing. It would be acceptable to put

  1. Example.org - Snuggle Bunnys

But then if the site has a "name", that should be used instead:

  1. Example Media Inc - Snuggle Bunnys

The styles

  1. Example.org/Articles/SnuggleBunny - Snuggle Bunnys
  2. [3] Snuggle Bunnys
  3. http://www.example.org/Articles/SnuggleBunny Snuggle Bunnys

IMO should never be used. While inline can use [4], I personally don't like it, and will change it to some text. Unless someone objects. ~ Mlk 00:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Longer Articles and references

Comments please:
First let me apologize for going over some old ground, but I'd like to suggest an approach that seems better to me. The subject is the bottom of article references. I prpose to expand or adjust the style manual. First, for short articles with one or two references, I see no problems with the current general approach of *See also: [[article]], [[article]]. For mega-articles such as countries, I also really like the Main article: [[Article name]]. under a subheading. Enough preamble, I propose that long articles with several references get an ending structure like:

==Additional information== (we could be folksy and use ==To learn more==)
===Wikipedia articles===
*[[article 1]]
*[[article 2]]
===Reference material===
* Book 1 citation (ISBN nnnnn)
* Book 2 citation (ISBN nnnn2)
* Periodical reference
* CD, DVD, VHS tape, etc.
===External links===
*[URL1 description]
*[URL2 description]

I haven't adopted this yet, but the idea was prompted by two articles. Daniel Morgan is already too busy at the bottom of the page. I've also got material to update the Battle of Trenton which would make it as bad or worse. The material is in pages of stuff on my growing to do list,  ;-). ....Lou I 18:03 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding another level of hierarchy; I don't think anybody capable of reading the article is going to have trouble understanding that the different kinds of end material are for "additional information". I could go with merging external links with references, since there are now many websites that are as good as or better than printed works as authoritative sources. For my part, I would abolish "Further reading" and just use "References", can't see any useful difference between the two. Stan 18:24 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You're right, I like your proposal better than my own. I've tried it at the Artemas Ward article. ....Lou I 08:33 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Ah, but "references" are works that were actually used for developing the article. "Further reading" is more comprehensive works that can be read by the reader to get more information. Very often a reference is from a textbook or part of another work that doesn't focus on the subject of an article. So many times all or most of the information that is in the reference has been inputed into an article. But a "further reading" selection should always have way more information than is in the article. So we need both sections. --mav
Thanks, Mav. I agree about Further reading, unless of course the reference is to a video, ;-). Also, I think that if we need the references I'd just as soon call it Sources, since many times you can't take everything in them at face value. I may need to see some longer lists before even having an intelligent preference, so I guess this subject will stay open a while longer. Lou I
To me that's a distinction without a difference. By nature an encyclopedia article is supposed to be a condensed version of the original material, so a reference used to build the article is also legitimate as "further reading", irrespective of whether it's a complete work or not. Conversely, what kind of valid "further reading" would there be that is not also a useful reference? Consider the case of a relative newbie like myself - if I see an existing article mentioning a book in "further readings" that happens to be on my bookshelf, I then dig out the book and add a missing factoid or two, does that mean the book now has to be moved from "further readings" to "references", or do I instead list it in both sections? A distinction based on how the material was used originally becomes pointless after several generations of edits. If a reference work is recommended as an better-than-average read, then just say so in a comment. Stan 21:09 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You missed my point. I said that often most or all the good information in a particular reference has been incorporated into the article. There is no reason to direct our readers to those sources when that is the case. What I often do when a reference also happens to be a good choice for ==Further reading== or ==External links== is I place the reference only in one of those two sections and then after the listing (in parenthesis) I say "also used as a reference." That prevents the need for a double listing. --mav
Ah, I see the sentence now. Perhaps it's just my style, but aside from lifted PD text, I rarely run into a reference that I use everything from. Stan 04:16 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

External links -or- External Links

I have a question about headers and subheaders in articles. Obviously, the first word should be capitalized, but should the subsequent words be capitalized? Obviously if the words are part of an official title, it should be capitalized, but what about in general? I've seen it both ways, and I didn't see this issue addressed anywhere. I know article titles are not supposed to be capitalized, but what about headers in those articles? Which should it be:

==External links==

or

==External Links==

-- 136.152.197.237 06:28 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

My impression is that the general convention is not to capitalize subsequent words in section headers (unless they're proper names, of course). I suppose it doesn't really matter, but "External links" etc fit in better with the house style. --Brion 06:32 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
And if there is only one link, use ==External link== Bevo 21:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)