This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The creator of this template wrote an explanation of it here - From Wikipedia to our libraries. This template was reviewed further at Boing Boing at Wikipedia and libraries: a match made in heaven. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor Thumperward has objected to my using the particular box template I am using and unboxed it. Please state specific of objections here so I can respond and/or use a different type of box. Unboxing the template is not helpful; I have already created inlined link templates {{ Library resources about}} and {{ Library resources by}} for those who want inlined links. I have reverted to the old box while discussions and alternative investigations are in progress. JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this consensus changing in the near future, as it's the only way to avoid being barraged by proposals to allow project X to have a floating link. it would probably be best simply to standardise around using the individual inline templates: I'll be happy to work on transitioning any existing uses of this one so that the existing work of adding it to articles isn't lost. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)All templates except those for WMF "sister" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting.
This is interesting, but I can't help thinking (as suggested below) a link to a special page, like the ISBN page, would be better. It would be nice to cut down on some visual clutter by combining the library links with infoboxes or {{ Authority control}} (ideally combining all three).
There is also {{ external media}} which is being used to add links to Khan Academy/ Smarthistory videos across a range of visual arts pages. See Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory, and some feedback on the talk page there that the boxes are too visually intrusive. The discusion here about Wikipedia:External links#Templates for external links suggests that this sort of link should be limited to a "normal, single-line, text-based external link". See for example this versus this. -- Theramin ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There's been an interesting discussion on my talk page about the scope of the Library resources box template. Should the box be added to every single article or ones chosen for some specific criteria? I can see an advantage in having it on all articles but others might disagree. Has this been discussed on the Village Pump (proposals) page? I can't see anything about it there but I haven't used the Village Pump before. If it hasn't been discussed I think we should start a conversation there. I thought I'd mention it here to get JohnMarkOckerbloom's opinion first because I figure this might be something you've thought about.
This may tie in to the discussion above about box vs. inline. Would an inline version be more acceptable to use on a Wikipedia-wide scale? Adding the 'Library link' template to many/all articles may be less controversial than adding the box. Lawsonstu ( talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems rather obvious that library links should be added where there is a reasonable expectation that the article topic will successfully retrieve items in a wide variety of libraries. This ideally means that the person adding the link needs to do a test in more than on library (e.g a small library, a medium-sized library, and a research library) to determine if the link is useful in that case. If WP users experience frequent "link failure" then the impact of the library links will go negative. Someone has suggested that it begin with authors and with books, and this is not at all a bad suggestion. That would create a good test bed of uses and allow the ramp-up of the number of libraries available and some experimentation with a range of topics. LaMona ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm interesting in adding it to subjects that been subject to some exterior validation of their quality, although this shouldn't be taken to indicate any prejudice against wikipedia in general, at least on my part. It's more of a way of sidestepping any critique of excessive wikifocus, and also a way to isolate particular pages that have been analyzed for credibility in some rigorous way other than crowd-review. There is a chart attached to a paper recently-ish published in Nurse Education Today, for instance which analyzed the credibility of sources listed on health topic-related pages to see if they were a reasonable reference resource for nursing students. The chart can be seen here: reference chart. There are a good number of other research articles along the same lines which could provide a starting point for topics. Richardjames444 ( talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Thumperward and Lawsonstu for your comments.
Thumperward cites part of Wikipedia's External Links policy page where there are a couple of sentences on external links in templates:
Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites, even if these websites are also wikis. All templates except those for WMF "sister" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting.
If we read the second sentence here broadly and strictly, then-- unless the library resources links become a sister project, which I suppose is also possible-- the {{ Library resources box}} should not exist at all, and library links should only appear inline and not visually distinguished, as in the {{ Library resources about}} and {{ Library resources by}} templates. (And there's no point in the first quoted sentence, as it's redundant with the more restrictive second.)
Looking at actual usage in Wikipedia, though, I find multiple cases where library-related external links are in fact commonly used in visually distinctive templates. Here are some examples:
One might object that the last two examples are links within the larger main infobox template, rather than forming their own sidebox template. I'm certainly open to having the library links I provide go into the main infobox template instead of having their own box, but as a relatively new registered Wikipedia editor, I was hesistant to propose changes in that main template right off the bat.
In any case, I believe there's a good case that the library resources links featured in my templates should also be presentable in a visually distinguished format, like the other external library-related links I give as examples above. This with make them both easier for readers to find, and also easier for editors to recognize as special features that they can add to relevant articles. (I agree with Lawsonstu that they could in theory be placed in just about any Wikipedia article, though as things stand now they will be more useful in some articles than in others. I have some ideas still in development related to how they could be useful even for obscure subjects not usually explicitly covered in libraries, but that's a topic for another time.)
I appreciate Thumperward's concern that we don't want to have Wikipedia articles cluttered up with lots of templates for every external site. But, even more so in some ways than the other examples I cite, these are not ordinary external links. They don't go to just one site, but to the reader's choice of hundreds of library sites, with more information about (or by) the subject of the article. (Right now, less than 2 weeks after I announced the templates, I have 142 libraries registered; at this rate, we'll have well over 200 libraries enabled in another couple of weeks.) The links help strengthen the existing special relationship that Wikipedia has with libraries, and which Wikipedia has tried to promote in a number of ways, including Wikipedia Loves Libraries, Wikipedian-in-residence programs, and multiple library-related mailing lists. They promote synergies between online ressearch via Wikipedia and offline and institutional research via libraries. And as a result, they have prompted unusual excitement in both the library and online communities. I've gotten requests and thank-yous from dozens of libraries already; the service has been featured (without my prompting) on Boing Boing and Making Light, and I've been asked for an interview for Wikipedia's own Signpost newspaper.
With all this in mind, I think there's a strong argument to be made that these links should be presentable in some sort of visually prominent and distinguished manner beyond simple inlined text. My {{ Library resources box}} was the first form I thought would work for this, but I'm open to other possibilities, as well as counterarguments. In any case, I thank you both for your suggestions and concerns for the development of these links in Wikipedia. JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 01:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
with Forward to Libraries linking to a Wikipedia landing page at Wikipedia:Author sources explaining the service (similar to Wikipedia:Book sources). That way people would be informed that they are using an external service. Looking to the future, If JohnMarkOckerbloom is willing to have the service hosted at WMFLabs that would allay most people's concerns about using this service across all appropriate Wikipedia articles. Or converting the service to a Lua module—as mentioned above—would be even better. Eventually, I would like to see this type of service added to Wikidata so that it could be shared across all WMF projects as it seems like something that our readers would find very useful. Thanks. 64.40.54.61 ( talk) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Find books by Dean Koontz and about Dean Koontz at your local library using University of Pennsylvania's Forward to Libraries service.
I've reverted to the WP:EL-compliant format for the time being, with no prejudice on further work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there examples of the templates in use? I looked at the "What links here" on the template pages and they don't appear to be in use so its hard to understand what they are about. I mean we already have templates for linking to Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg, if that is similar. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The user at 64.40.54.61 mentions Wikimedia Labs above as a place where the forwarding software could run. If I understand what's being proposed, it sounds like I could potentially install the Perl CGI scripts and data for my forwarding service there, so that forwarding to libraries would be done through Wikipedia/Wikimedia's own servers. It sounds like that could effectively turn the service into a sister project, and thereby bypass some of the concerns about external link templates. (And it would also mean that Wikimedia or Wikipedia folks could take the service over later on if I were unable to maintain it, or if they wanted to take on management responsibility.)
If I can easily install my software there, and regularly push out data and code updates, I'd be happy to try installing it there, and changing the templates to point to the Wikimedia-based forwarding service instead of the service at Penn (and otherwise keeping them the same). Is that an acceptable solution for other Wikipedians? If so, how can I get set up there?
(Folks who want to see what some of the code and data looks like can see the FTL Github repository. I don't have all the relevant data and code there yet, but it all should be releasable under various open licenses, which it appears makes it eligible for putting on Wikimedia Labs if it's otherwise acceptable.) JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this template being spammed all over Moxy ( talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This template has been inserted at the head of Elizabeth Goudge#Awards and honours (where is a stray "space comma" in each line of the display).
Perhaps finding such inappropriate placements can be automated.
I would prefer to see the WorldCat link more prominent. I am not sure how widely the name "WorldCat" may be known or its meaning readily inferred. Even so, at the head of {{ Authority control}} it is now almost buried by navboxes in many External links sections. -- P64 ( talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if something has changed but some links seem to be no longer working. See
this box for an example. I see what happened - conversion took a few minutes to work ...Sorry will fix. (
talk)
22:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There is and RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) that is related to this template. Users that are interested may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 ( talk) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Times out. Links in the template box don't work. Not sure if this is transitory, intermittent or long term but wanted to make a notice. -- Green C 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Botteville (
talk)
01:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I suggest |width={{{width|}}}
so we can adjust the width of the box!
Botteville (
talk)
01:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Would anyone object to merging the functionality of this template into {{ Authority control}}? — Ruud 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is this template not displaying in mobile view? -- Obsuser ( talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This template is not helpful and I don't see it being a positive link to resources on pages. When links are clicked there is either little to no information produced. Requiring end-users to select their library is also problematic. I don't think it should be used on pages until it is either refined or completely re-envisioned. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 10:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are unsure of what this template is for, or how it works, I suggest viewing the following video on commons. It was created for the Philadelphia WikiSalon. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Why not pull id data (viaf/lccn) from Wikidata like {{ Authority control}} does? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which may impact this template, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork ( talk) 10:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This template would be more appropriate for article's talk page than the article itself because it is an addition to article like Template:Refideas. Eurohunter ( talk) 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The creator of this template wrote an explanation of it here - From Wikipedia to our libraries. This template was reviewed further at Boing Boing at Wikipedia and libraries: a match made in heaven. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor Thumperward has objected to my using the particular box template I am using and unboxed it. Please state specific of objections here so I can respond and/or use a different type of box. Unboxing the template is not helpful; I have already created inlined link templates {{ Library resources about}} and {{ Library resources by}} for those who want inlined links. I have reverted to the old box while discussions and alternative investigations are in progress. JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this consensus changing in the near future, as it's the only way to avoid being barraged by proposals to allow project X to have a floating link. it would probably be best simply to standardise around using the individual inline templates: I'll be happy to work on transitioning any existing uses of this one so that the existing work of adding it to articles isn't lost. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)All templates except those for WMF "sister" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting.
This is interesting, but I can't help thinking (as suggested below) a link to a special page, like the ISBN page, would be better. It would be nice to cut down on some visual clutter by combining the library links with infoboxes or {{ Authority control}} (ideally combining all three).
There is also {{ external media}} which is being used to add links to Khan Academy/ Smarthistory videos across a range of visual arts pages. See Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory, and some feedback on the talk page there that the boxes are too visually intrusive. The discusion here about Wikipedia:External links#Templates for external links suggests that this sort of link should be limited to a "normal, single-line, text-based external link". See for example this versus this. -- Theramin ( talk) 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There's been an interesting discussion on my talk page about the scope of the Library resources box template. Should the box be added to every single article or ones chosen for some specific criteria? I can see an advantage in having it on all articles but others might disagree. Has this been discussed on the Village Pump (proposals) page? I can't see anything about it there but I haven't used the Village Pump before. If it hasn't been discussed I think we should start a conversation there. I thought I'd mention it here to get JohnMarkOckerbloom's opinion first because I figure this might be something you've thought about.
This may tie in to the discussion above about box vs. inline. Would an inline version be more acceptable to use on a Wikipedia-wide scale? Adding the 'Library link' template to many/all articles may be less controversial than adding the box. Lawsonstu ( talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems rather obvious that library links should be added where there is a reasonable expectation that the article topic will successfully retrieve items in a wide variety of libraries. This ideally means that the person adding the link needs to do a test in more than on library (e.g a small library, a medium-sized library, and a research library) to determine if the link is useful in that case. If WP users experience frequent "link failure" then the impact of the library links will go negative. Someone has suggested that it begin with authors and with books, and this is not at all a bad suggestion. That would create a good test bed of uses and allow the ramp-up of the number of libraries available and some experimentation with a range of topics. LaMona ( talk) 01:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm interesting in adding it to subjects that been subject to some exterior validation of their quality, although this shouldn't be taken to indicate any prejudice against wikipedia in general, at least on my part. It's more of a way of sidestepping any critique of excessive wikifocus, and also a way to isolate particular pages that have been analyzed for credibility in some rigorous way other than crowd-review. There is a chart attached to a paper recently-ish published in Nurse Education Today, for instance which analyzed the credibility of sources listed on health topic-related pages to see if they were a reasonable reference resource for nursing students. The chart can be seen here: reference chart. There are a good number of other research articles along the same lines which could provide a starting point for topics. Richardjames444 ( talk) 00:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Thumperward and Lawsonstu for your comments.
Thumperward cites part of Wikipedia's External Links policy page where there are a couple of sentences on external links in templates:
Do not create large, graphical templates for non-WMF websites, even if these websites are also wikis. All templates except those for WMF "sister" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting.
If we read the second sentence here broadly and strictly, then-- unless the library resources links become a sister project, which I suppose is also possible-- the {{ Library resources box}} should not exist at all, and library links should only appear inline and not visually distinguished, as in the {{ Library resources about}} and {{ Library resources by}} templates. (And there's no point in the first quoted sentence, as it's redundant with the more restrictive second.)
Looking at actual usage in Wikipedia, though, I find multiple cases where library-related external links are in fact commonly used in visually distinctive templates. Here are some examples:
One might object that the last two examples are links within the larger main infobox template, rather than forming their own sidebox template. I'm certainly open to having the library links I provide go into the main infobox template instead of having their own box, but as a relatively new registered Wikipedia editor, I was hesistant to propose changes in that main template right off the bat.
In any case, I believe there's a good case that the library resources links featured in my templates should also be presentable in a visually distinguished format, like the other external library-related links I give as examples above. This with make them both easier for readers to find, and also easier for editors to recognize as special features that they can add to relevant articles. (I agree with Lawsonstu that they could in theory be placed in just about any Wikipedia article, though as things stand now they will be more useful in some articles than in others. I have some ideas still in development related to how they could be useful even for obscure subjects not usually explicitly covered in libraries, but that's a topic for another time.)
I appreciate Thumperward's concern that we don't want to have Wikipedia articles cluttered up with lots of templates for every external site. But, even more so in some ways than the other examples I cite, these are not ordinary external links. They don't go to just one site, but to the reader's choice of hundreds of library sites, with more information about (or by) the subject of the article. (Right now, less than 2 weeks after I announced the templates, I have 142 libraries registered; at this rate, we'll have well over 200 libraries enabled in another couple of weeks.) The links help strengthen the existing special relationship that Wikipedia has with libraries, and which Wikipedia has tried to promote in a number of ways, including Wikipedia Loves Libraries, Wikipedian-in-residence programs, and multiple library-related mailing lists. They promote synergies between online ressearch via Wikipedia and offline and institutional research via libraries. And as a result, they have prompted unusual excitement in both the library and online communities. I've gotten requests and thank-yous from dozens of libraries already; the service has been featured (without my prompting) on Boing Boing and Making Light, and I've been asked for an interview for Wikipedia's own Signpost newspaper.
With all this in mind, I think there's a strong argument to be made that these links should be presentable in some sort of visually prominent and distinguished manner beyond simple inlined text. My {{ Library resources box}} was the first form I thought would work for this, but I'm open to other possibilities, as well as counterarguments. In any case, I thank you both for your suggestions and concerns for the development of these links in Wikipedia. JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 01:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
with Forward to Libraries linking to a Wikipedia landing page at Wikipedia:Author sources explaining the service (similar to Wikipedia:Book sources). That way people would be informed that they are using an external service. Looking to the future, If JohnMarkOckerbloom is willing to have the service hosted at WMFLabs that would allay most people's concerns about using this service across all appropriate Wikipedia articles. Or converting the service to a Lua module—as mentioned above—would be even better. Eventually, I would like to see this type of service added to Wikidata so that it could be shared across all WMF projects as it seems like something that our readers would find very useful. Thanks. 64.40.54.61 ( talk) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Find books by Dean Koontz and about Dean Koontz at your local library using University of Pennsylvania's Forward to Libraries service.
I've reverted to the WP:EL-compliant format for the time being, with no prejudice on further work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 19:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there examples of the templates in use? I looked at the "What links here" on the template pages and they don't appear to be in use so its hard to understand what they are about. I mean we already have templates for linking to Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg, if that is similar. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The user at 64.40.54.61 mentions Wikimedia Labs above as a place where the forwarding software could run. If I understand what's being proposed, it sounds like I could potentially install the Perl CGI scripts and data for my forwarding service there, so that forwarding to libraries would be done through Wikipedia/Wikimedia's own servers. It sounds like that could effectively turn the service into a sister project, and thereby bypass some of the concerns about external link templates. (And it would also mean that Wikimedia or Wikipedia folks could take the service over later on if I were unable to maintain it, or if they wanted to take on management responsibility.)
If I can easily install my software there, and regularly push out data and code updates, I'd be happy to try installing it there, and changing the templates to point to the Wikimedia-based forwarding service instead of the service at Penn (and otherwise keeping them the same). Is that an acceptable solution for other Wikipedians? If so, how can I get set up there?
(Folks who want to see what some of the code and data looks like can see the FTL Github repository. I don't have all the relevant data and code there yet, but it all should be releasable under various open licenses, which it appears makes it eligible for putting on Wikimedia Labs if it's otherwise acceptable.) JohnMarkOckerbloom ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this template being spammed all over Moxy ( talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This template has been inserted at the head of Elizabeth Goudge#Awards and honours (where is a stray "space comma" in each line of the display).
Perhaps finding such inappropriate placements can be automated.
I would prefer to see the WorldCat link more prominent. I am not sure how widely the name "WorldCat" may be known or its meaning readily inferred. Even so, at the head of {{ Authority control}} it is now almost buried by navboxes in many External links sections. -- P64 ( talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if something has changed but some links seem to be no longer working. See
this box for an example. I see what happened - conversion took a few minutes to work ...Sorry will fix. (
talk)
22:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There is and RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Linking subjects to books at your local library (Forward to Libraries) that is related to this template. Users that are interested may wish to comment there. 64.40.54.57 ( talk) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Times out. Links in the template box don't work. Not sure if this is transitory, intermittent or long term but wanted to make a notice. -- Green C 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Botteville (
talk)
01:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I suggest |width={{{width|}}}
so we can adjust the width of the box!
Botteville (
talk)
01:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Would anyone object to merging the functionality of this template into {{ Authority control}}? — Ruud 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is this template not displaying in mobile view? -- Obsuser ( talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This template is not helpful and I don't see it being a positive link to resources on pages. When links are clicked there is either little to no information produced. Requiring end-users to select their library is also problematic. I don't think it should be used on pages until it is either refined or completely re-envisioned. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 10:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are unsure of what this template is for, or how it works, I suggest viewing the following video on commons. It was created for the Philadelphia WikiSalon. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Why not pull id data (viaf/lccn) from Wikidata like {{ Authority control}} does? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which may impact this template, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork ( talk) 10:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
This template would be more appropriate for article's talk page than the article itself because it is an addition to article like Template:Refideas. Eurohunter ( talk) 10:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)