This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Further reading page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
![]() |
Essays High‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This guideline says, "Use the same citation style that you've chosen for the references in the rest of the article." This gives errors to the script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors if there is no inline citation pointing to it. There are examples at Dilwale_Dulhania_Le_Jayenge#Further_reading. How can these be properly formatted to still "provide full bibliographic citations, including ISBN" as called out here, and not trigger a Harv error? BollyJeff | talk 01:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently had a lively exchange with another editor about whether a “Further reading” section should be linked to “Contents.” In other words, should the “Further reading” heading be made a part of the article heading hierarchy so that the words and link “Further reading” appear in the “Contents” section of every article. I argued that readers should see “Further reading” in “Contents” so readers can click the link and go straight to the “Further reading” list. There doesn’t seem to be a guideline about this. What’s the policy? Chisme ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
==Further reading==
, this will cause it to be included in the TOC. Please also note that the Further reading is not intended for listing works that have been used as references; rather, it lists works which were not used, but nevertheless provide supplementary information. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It is much more helpful to the reader if the entries are arranged by date instead of alphabetically. That makes it easiest to single out what is newest and up-to-date, and to see what writings an author potentially drew from. I cannot see any downside to this. deisenbe ( talk) 15:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Alphabetical order is essential for library card catalogs. Here it does organize, but the organization is from the pre-computer era. The reader is probably not going to be seeing if a resource by D---- is included. And the reader who wants that information can search on the page.
What _IS_ helpful is to put the items in chronological order. Then the reader can easily see what the most up-to-date resources are, something hard to find from an alphabetical list. You can see in some cases the evolution of thought on a topic. I would put oldest first, though I can live with newest first.
(I am the co-author of a book-length bibliography arranged chronologically, which you can see here if you want. It's in Spanish.) deisenbe ( talk) 12:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
In Frankenstein in popular culture, a reference used in Further reading is displayed at the very end of the article instead of in the References section. It looks strange, a single reference trailing at the end there. Something must be wrong... -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 15:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags - all instances must be before the {{
reflist}}
. Since it was clearly intended to be another item in the list, and not a ref to support the first item, I've fixed it with
this edit. On that matter,
this edit is much the same. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarification on whether or not citations within further reading sections should use the |access-date=
parameter, which displays e.g. "Retrieved on 7 April 2020". This question
came up at an ongoing FAC. Personally, I dislike seeing them in further reading sections, since the anti-link rot function they serve for the references section doesn't really apply. They just feel off to me, since they're an artifact of when a page was edited, rather than anything about the subject itself, and therefore I don't feel like they should show up outside of the reference section. What do others think about this? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter is only for use with the |url=
parameter and is the date when the URL was accessed. This is always necessary because the content at the URL can change or disappear. Let's say the item is a web page, and it changes several times and then disappears entirely, but there are several different archived versions of it in the
Wayback Machine. The access date allows an editor to quickly choose the right archived version (if available) without having to analyze the content. I would say the only time a citation with the |url=
parameter does not need the |access-date=
parameter is when it already has |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters (but correct me if I'm overlooking something). And citations without the |url=
parameter never need the |access-date=
parameter. I don't see why all of this wouldn't apply to further reading sections.
Biogeographist (
talk)
20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
being included also means that it should be displayed to readers. Again here, I could see an argument that, because further reading sections are ostensibly monitored a little more closely than general reference sections, there really shouldn't be dead links sitting there unnoticed like often happens for general references, and if such a link does go dead, all that should be needed is for some invisible comment to be present in the code to help locate best date to retrieve an archived copy from. Hmm, having written that out, I'm actually not all that persuaded by myself there either...|access-date=
is not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates. As such many if not most things in a Further reading section would be exempt. As background, the purpose of |access-date=
is for web pages that change, such as "weather.html" with today's weather report would benefit from an access date. --
Green
C
21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)|access-date=
specifies the time when the corresponding |url=
was consulted. So, if a citation features |url=
it is IMO desirable to also include |access-date=
regardless of where the citation is used ("References", "Works", "Biography", "Further reading" or similar).|access-date=
is if the template is used in the "External links" section (rarely, but sometimes convenient), because then it is not used as a reference to a source pinpointed to some specific version in time, but to more general, ever-changing resources or repositories related to the article and where the link is provided to point the reader to the current contents rather than a specific one.|access-date=
wouldn't be used in that section: because citation templates are no longer permitted in that section.
Biogeographist (
talk)
22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Should further reading sections have "retrieved by" dates?. My answer is: they shouldn't. But they may, depending on the style chosen, and I gave a reasoning for it above. If there are several sections in an article doing the same thing, all but one are superfluous. Citations have semantic meaning in their appropriate reference sections. Yet there is no guideline against using the particular style anywhere, to describe any item, in which case you may also choose to apply syntax requirements (regarding access info) as well as stylistic ones. But don't call the result a citation. It may look exactly like one, but it is not. We obviously understand the term "bibliography" differently. 98.0.246.242 ( talk) 20:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"citation", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 2c: A reference providing information about where a particular quotation, text, etc., is to be found; a bibliographical reference; sense 3: The action or an act of mentioning or referring to something, or a series of things; mention, enumeration. Cf. cite v. 3.
"cite", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 3: transitive. Simply: to make mention of or reference to; to put forward for consideration or inspection; to call to mind. Formerly also with †up.
"bibliography", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 4: A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject.
|access-date=
parameter (or non-templated equivalent) is neither required nor forbidden in "Further reading" (since items listed there are not strictly source citations). However it is best to include it, a) because the same rationale applies (we're referring to a page in a particular state, and it might radically change later), and b) items in articles' "Further reading" sections are very frequently later turned into source citations and moved out of that section, so this information will be needed anyway (though the date in it should be incremented to the date the editor looked at it again while using it as an actual citation for something). PS: All of this also applies to listings in "External links", other than: 1) a "permanent" entry there (e.g. official webpage of the subject) that would not be moved upon being used as a citation, but be also done as a citation; and 2) things that do not qualify for use as source citations (e.g. IMDb pages about movies, etc. – IMDb is
WP:UGC), though and access-date is not harmful in such a case, just less important. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter would not be used in an "External links" section because citation templates are no longer allowed in that section per the recent change to
WP:ELCITE.
Biogeographist (
talk)
19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
is for web-only content. If the cite is for a book (books never change) then |access-date=
is not required. Even if the site where the book is located changes! Because all websites change, even Google Books (more than people realize). But the cite is not for Google Book, which is only a convenience link. The cite is for a book, which anyone can verify at a library. --
Green
C
13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Hi, just curious, how to measure the statement "This section is present in fewer than 3 percent of Wikipedia's articles." or what was the reference for it? Wondering when (date) this was mentioned and how situation is today. KR 17387349L8764 ( talk) 10:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I cite complementary media in the "further reading" section and rename it to "further consideration". Other media which can fit includes video documentaries on the subject, podcast interviews of an expert giving an introduction to the topic, multimedia journalism like data visualizations. I could also imagine resources like databases, archives, or web tools being in this section.
I know that sometimes there is not much distinction between "further reading" and "external links", except that perhaps external links often is ideally 1-3 most authoritative or comprehensive sources, while further consideration could be 3-10 good sources, not cited in the article, giving some introduction or contextual perspective. In 2005 when this essay was published and in about 2010 when it became mostly the form it is now, there was much less video online and more text. As technology has changed we could reform this a bit.
Previous discussion on this topic is at Wikipedia_talk:Further_reading/Archive_1#Is_Further_reading_supposed_to_be_paper-only?.
Thoughts? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There is {{ authority control}} in about 2 million Wikipedia pages. I know this template appears on many Wikipedia articles but I do not know how many of those 2 million instances are on articles, as some uses of the template may be on maintenance pages which readers typically will not directly view. Whatever the case, this template is on a lot of actual Wikipedia articles.
Right now this template is in the "external links" section. It might be a more thematic fit in the "further reading" section, as links to databases is closer in purpose to further consideration than the external links section which strives to have a small number of very relevant links.
I propose to move authority control templates and links to the further consideration section. By doing so we raise Wikipedia's interconnectedness with other resources, emphasize that Wikipedia is a research hub, and focus the external links section.
I do not think this is urgent now, but as more time passes and Wikipedia becomes more integrated with Wikidata, I think it would make more sense to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I have wondered what is a reasonable number of further reading. Has this been discussed before? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject, which does not justify your practice of arbitrarily deleting items to bring the count down to three, an arbitrary number. — Freoh 01:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
in no particular order with no particular weightis contrary to the MOS and other WP:PAGs. I'm not sure there's any arbitrary number we can pick to apply broadly in the first place (it depends on article context, per the examples provided above), but when we do decide that a list is too long it should absolutely be trimmed based on evaluation of what provides a relevant and comprehensive overview. A first order analysis of overlap is probably a good place to start: can a source be removed because the other sources in the article or further reading section cover it more comprehensively? Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I still continue to hold the position that further reading should be limited to books that are/were in print by a notable publisher and from a notable author, not ebooks on amazon, not nyt, etc.Continue? This is the first you've made this argument that I've seen. Up until now you've been arguing for a numerical cap, and your edit removed stories by NPR and NYT, leaving the Bloomberg and The Verge (which you seem to have a particular opposition to) in the list. If you had started with a question of source quality, we'd have been able to be more productive from the start.
for our readers to have access to research materialas Moxy said above, and I think the article is worse without the reading list. (You can compare the versions with and without the extra references and judge for yourself.) I removed all uncited references since in this case it would be very difficult to determine which to retain and which to remove. One couldn't just say that 3 is the magic number. Biogeographist ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
In some articles with Further Reading/Bibliography sections the order of an author's names is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Use the same citation style that you've chosen for the references in the rest of the article.and also
they should be consistent within an article. Similarly, MOS:FURTHER says
Publications listed in further reading are formatted in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Further reading page. |
|
Archives: 1 |
![]() |
Essays High‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This guideline says, "Use the same citation style that you've chosen for the references in the rest of the article." This gives errors to the script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors if there is no inline citation pointing to it. There are examples at Dilwale_Dulhania_Le_Jayenge#Further_reading. How can these be properly formatted to still "provide full bibliographic citations, including ISBN" as called out here, and not trigger a Harv error? BollyJeff | talk 01:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently had a lively exchange with another editor about whether a “Further reading” section should be linked to “Contents.” In other words, should the “Further reading” heading be made a part of the article heading hierarchy so that the words and link “Further reading” appear in the “Contents” section of every article. I argued that readers should see “Further reading” in “Contents” so readers can click the link and go straight to the “Further reading” list. There doesn’t seem to be a guideline about this. What’s the policy? Chisme ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
==Further reading==
, this will cause it to be included in the TOC. Please also note that the Further reading is not intended for listing works that have been used as references; rather, it lists works which were not used, but nevertheless provide supplementary information. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It is much more helpful to the reader if the entries are arranged by date instead of alphabetically. That makes it easiest to single out what is newest and up-to-date, and to see what writings an author potentially drew from. I cannot see any downside to this. deisenbe ( talk) 15:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Alphabetical order is essential for library card catalogs. Here it does organize, but the organization is from the pre-computer era. The reader is probably not going to be seeing if a resource by D---- is included. And the reader who wants that information can search on the page.
What _IS_ helpful is to put the items in chronological order. Then the reader can easily see what the most up-to-date resources are, something hard to find from an alphabetical list. You can see in some cases the evolution of thought on a topic. I would put oldest first, though I can live with newest first.
(I am the co-author of a book-length bibliography arranged chronologically, which you can see here if you want. It's in Spanish.) deisenbe ( talk) 12:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
In Frankenstein in popular culture, a reference used in Further reading is displayed at the very end of the article instead of in the References section. It looks strange, a single reference trailing at the end there. Something must be wrong... -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 15:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags - all instances must be before the {{
reflist}}
. Since it was clearly intended to be another item in the list, and not a ref to support the first item, I've fixed it with
this edit. On that matter,
this edit is much the same. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get some clarification on whether or not citations within further reading sections should use the |access-date=
parameter, which displays e.g. "Retrieved on 7 April 2020". This question
came up at an ongoing FAC. Personally, I dislike seeing them in further reading sections, since the anti-link rot function they serve for the references section doesn't really apply. They just feel off to me, since they're an artifact of when a page was edited, rather than anything about the subject itself, and therefore I don't feel like they should show up outside of the reference section. What do others think about this? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
20:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter is only for use with the |url=
parameter and is the date when the URL was accessed. This is always necessary because the content at the URL can change or disappear. Let's say the item is a web page, and it changes several times and then disappears entirely, but there are several different archived versions of it in the
Wayback Machine. The access date allows an editor to quickly choose the right archived version (if available) without having to analyze the content. I would say the only time a citation with the |url=
parameter does not need the |access-date=
parameter is when it already has |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters (but correct me if I'm overlooking something). And citations without the |url=
parameter never need the |access-date=
parameter. I don't see why all of this wouldn't apply to further reading sections.
Biogeographist (
talk)
20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
being included also means that it should be displayed to readers. Again here, I could see an argument that, because further reading sections are ostensibly monitored a little more closely than general reference sections, there really shouldn't be dead links sitting there unnoticed like often happens for general references, and if such a link does go dead, all that should be needed is for some invisible comment to be present in the code to help locate best date to retrieve an archived copy from. Hmm, having written that out, I'm actually not all that persuaded by myself there either...|access-date=
is not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates. As such many if not most things in a Further reading section would be exempt. As background, the purpose of |access-date=
is for web pages that change, such as "weather.html" with today's weather report would benefit from an access date. --
Green
C
21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)|access-date=
specifies the time when the corresponding |url=
was consulted. So, if a citation features |url=
it is IMO desirable to also include |access-date=
regardless of where the citation is used ("References", "Works", "Biography", "Further reading" or similar).|access-date=
is if the template is used in the "External links" section (rarely, but sometimes convenient), because then it is not used as a reference to a source pinpointed to some specific version in time, but to more general, ever-changing resources or repositories related to the article and where the link is provided to point the reader to the current contents rather than a specific one.|access-date=
wouldn't be used in that section: because citation templates are no longer permitted in that section.
Biogeographist (
talk)
22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Should further reading sections have "retrieved by" dates?. My answer is: they shouldn't. But they may, depending on the style chosen, and I gave a reasoning for it above. If there are several sections in an article doing the same thing, all but one are superfluous. Citations have semantic meaning in their appropriate reference sections. Yet there is no guideline against using the particular style anywhere, to describe any item, in which case you may also choose to apply syntax requirements (regarding access info) as well as stylistic ones. But don't call the result a citation. It may look exactly like one, but it is not. We obviously understand the term "bibliography" differently. 98.0.246.242 ( talk) 20:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
"citation", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 2c: A reference providing information about where a particular quotation, text, etc., is to be found; a bibliographical reference; sense 3: The action or an act of mentioning or referring to something, or a series of things; mention, enumeration. Cf. cite v. 3.
"cite", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 3: transitive. Simply: to make mention of or reference to; to put forward for consideration or inspection; to call to mind. Formerly also with †up.
"bibliography", Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.), Oxford University Press, retrieved 2020-11-27 (subscription or participating institution membership required), sense 4: A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject.
|access-date=
parameter (or non-templated equivalent) is neither required nor forbidden in "Further reading" (since items listed there are not strictly source citations). However it is best to include it, a) because the same rationale applies (we're referring to a page in a particular state, and it might radically change later), and b) items in articles' "Further reading" sections are very frequently later turned into source citations and moved out of that section, so this information will be needed anyway (though the date in it should be incremented to the date the editor looked at it again while using it as an actual citation for something). PS: All of this also applies to listings in "External links", other than: 1) a "permanent" entry there (e.g. official webpage of the subject) that would not be moved upon being used as a citation, but be also done as a citation; and 2) things that do not qualify for use as source citations (e.g. IMDb pages about movies, etc. – IMDb is
WP:UGC), though and access-date is not harmful in such a case, just less important. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
parameter would not be used in an "External links" section because citation templates are no longer allowed in that section per the recent change to
WP:ELCITE.
Biogeographist (
talk)
19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
is for web-only content. If the cite is for a book (books never change) then |access-date=
is not required. Even if the site where the book is located changes! Because all websites change, even Google Books (more than people realize). But the cite is not for Google Book, which is only a convenience link. The cite is for a book, which anyone can verify at a library. --
Green
C
13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Hi, just curious, how to measure the statement "This section is present in fewer than 3 percent of Wikipedia's articles." or what was the reference for it? Wondering when (date) this was mentioned and how situation is today. KR 17387349L8764 ( talk) 10:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I cite complementary media in the "further reading" section and rename it to "further consideration". Other media which can fit includes video documentaries on the subject, podcast interviews of an expert giving an introduction to the topic, multimedia journalism like data visualizations. I could also imagine resources like databases, archives, or web tools being in this section.
I know that sometimes there is not much distinction between "further reading" and "external links", except that perhaps external links often is ideally 1-3 most authoritative or comprehensive sources, while further consideration could be 3-10 good sources, not cited in the article, giving some introduction or contextual perspective. In 2005 when this essay was published and in about 2010 when it became mostly the form it is now, there was much less video online and more text. As technology has changed we could reform this a bit.
Previous discussion on this topic is at Wikipedia_talk:Further_reading/Archive_1#Is_Further_reading_supposed_to_be_paper-only?.
Thoughts? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There is {{ authority control}} in about 2 million Wikipedia pages. I know this template appears on many Wikipedia articles but I do not know how many of those 2 million instances are on articles, as some uses of the template may be on maintenance pages which readers typically will not directly view. Whatever the case, this template is on a lot of actual Wikipedia articles.
Right now this template is in the "external links" section. It might be a more thematic fit in the "further reading" section, as links to databases is closer in purpose to further consideration than the external links section which strives to have a small number of very relevant links.
I propose to move authority control templates and links to the further consideration section. By doing so we raise Wikipedia's interconnectedness with other resources, emphasize that Wikipedia is a research hub, and focus the external links section.
I do not think this is urgent now, but as more time passes and Wikipedia becomes more integrated with Wikidata, I think it would make more sense to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I have wondered what is a reasonable number of further reading. Has this been discussed before? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject, which does not justify your practice of arbitrarily deleting items to bring the count down to three, an arbitrary number. — Freoh 01:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
in no particular order with no particular weightis contrary to the MOS and other WP:PAGs. I'm not sure there's any arbitrary number we can pick to apply broadly in the first place (it depends on article context, per the examples provided above), but when we do decide that a list is too long it should absolutely be trimmed based on evaluation of what provides a relevant and comprehensive overview. A first order analysis of overlap is probably a good place to start: can a source be removed because the other sources in the article or further reading section cover it more comprehensively? Bakkster Man ( talk) 16:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I still continue to hold the position that further reading should be limited to books that are/were in print by a notable publisher and from a notable author, not ebooks on amazon, not nyt, etc.Continue? This is the first you've made this argument that I've seen. Up until now you've been arguing for a numerical cap, and your edit removed stories by NPR and NYT, leaving the Bloomberg and The Verge (which you seem to have a particular opposition to) in the list. If you had started with a question of source quality, we'd have been able to be more productive from the start.
for our readers to have access to research materialas Moxy said above, and I think the article is worse without the reading list. (You can compare the versions with and without the extra references and judge for yourself.) I removed all uncited references since in this case it would be very difficult to determine which to retain and which to remove. One couldn't just say that 3 is the magic number. Biogeographist ( talk) 14:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
In some articles with Further Reading/Bibliography sections the order of an author's names is Surname Given Name in the style familiar from outside WP. In others the order is Given Name Surname. Is there supposed to be a WP style? Mcljlm ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Use the same citation style that you've chosen for the references in the rest of the article.and also
they should be consistent within an article. Similarly, MOS:FURTHER says
Publications listed in further reading are formatted in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)