Wikipedia talk:Further reading

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia essays High‑impact This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages High This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

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)[reply]

@Bollyjeff: By being consistent in the use of either Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2, but not both: like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Chisme: Although not mentioned at Wikipedia:Further reading, MOS:APPENDIX is clear: use a level 2 heading, i.e. ==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)[reply]

there is no policy about not citing the same book twice (this page is an essay not a guideline). When we have a long article with hundreds of footnotes then no reader will be able to figure out the best books to look for in a library to do followup reading. We no longer stress out about 1200 baud modems taking forever to download, which was the origin of anti-duplication. Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the policy of not listing works that have been used as references under the "Further Reading" section. A good list of authoritative books on a subject would be valuable to readers. A researcher could go to the Further Reading list to find works that go deep into a subject. A Wikipedia article can never be as comprehensive or authoritative as a book or in-depth magazine article. Chisme (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very recent example where Robin84F (talk · contribs) has used a book as a reference (good!) and added the same book to the Further reading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought that was against the rules. You yourself wrote above, "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." The policy page says, "Normally, a Further reading section only contains works that have not been used to write the text, as opposed to the works that have been used, which are listed in a section higher up, typically called "references" or "sources." What does "normally" mean here? When can editors list a book under "Further reading" that was cited in a reference in the main text? I think this should be clarified. Personally, I think any book, journal article, or website that tackles a subject authoritatively and comprehensively should be a candidate for listing under "Further reading." Let's clarify this. Chisme (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that I agreed with the whole of Robin84F's edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best to use the section for the best of the best researchable material.... even if it duplicates a few references....I. e. Canada#Further reading...note how there's a bibliography if you wish to read more.--Moxy (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moxy. the rules explicitly allow double listing in a long article. there are two places of relevance: a) Wikipedia:Further reading says "normally don't" (Normally, a Further reading section only contains works that have not been used to write the text) HOWEVER this statement is clearly marked as follows: This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. b) the actual rule says OK you can double link if the article is long. it's at MOS:FURTHER and reads: The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if an article is a long one with many references, listing a book, journal, or website in the "Further reading" section is fine, the idea being that readers won't be able to find the book, journal, or website on their own in a long reference list. Am I correct in stating it this way? Chisme (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes -- when the readers are faced with LOTS of footnotes, they don't know where to begin. It's like the student who wanted to spend a few hours reading up on World War I and turned to the library catalog and was given a list of 250 books. Rjensen (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we reached a consensus here. That means this sentence is now incorrect and should be rewritten on the Project page: "Further reading should not normally duplicate the entries in the See also or External links sections, or any existing alphabetized list of references in the article, such as is commonly used in conjunction with shortened footnotes." Anybody care to rewrite it? Chisme (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK i reworked it a bit. No one ever provided much of a reason to avoid duplication (actually if you look at long articles, many many of the footnotes duplicate each other.) Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the main reason is concision. It would be rather silly in an average article, which has maybe five references, to list the same source twice. In the very small percentage of articles with very lengthy lists of sources, however, the case for listing a particularly valuable source twice is easier to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree. It's a real pain to examine each item to see if it's a first edition or a reprint or a revised edition. Scholarly journals that I real almost always sort a bibliography at the end of an article by author's last name. And we should emphasize to editors to use LAST, FIRST order for names in either method of sorting. Rjensen (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a scholarly journal it's a different audience - more apt to be specialists and know the names involved. deisenbe (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the chronological order is useful if you are highly familiar with the scholarship and want to trace the changes in topics or emphasis or revisionism. A major fault: many undergraduates or AP high school students writing a paper on the topic will start at the top of the list and work down -- that is they will start with the weakest oldest most outdated articles first and never get to the latest scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's misuse of <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)[reply]

Okay; thanks for your reply. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My understanding is that the |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)[reply]

Biogeographist, that largely makes sense. Do we ever use archived URLs for further reading? I could see a school of thought that says that, since further reading sections need to be more comprehensive than just supporting a single fact, generally only live links belong there, and if a further reading link goes dead, it should just be removed. As I think about it, though, I'm coming around more to your view.

The remaining question, then, is if |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...

The last thought I have is that, when a further reading link goes dead, we should be seeking the most recent archived version where it's still available, not the version closest to when it was added to the page. Archive.org and the other sites always have a timeline of when a given link was archived, so it's not as though having a specific date will help with retrieval. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your last paragraph is generally correct. But I also find the access date immediately helpful in figuring out what's going on if I click on a link and don't see what I expect to see, perhaps because the link is changed or usurped. I can click back and look at the access date. If it's an old access date, that's a good clue that it's time to jump in the Wayback Machine. If it's a recent access date, I might click forward first and take another look at the URL to make sure I wasn't missing something. In short, I don't have any problem with access dates in further reading. Biogeographist (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a further reading section that I made: Torsten Hägerstrand § Further reading. One of the URLs has an access date, but several do not. I'm not concerned about the lack of access dates for Internet Archive e-book URLs since if those change it's likely to be something that a bot can fix. But there is one URL in there that doesn't have an access date that should. I probably just overlooked it. No big deal. So upon further reflection I would emend what I said: any URL, such as an Internet Archive URL, that is typically added by a bot probably doesn't need an access date either. Biogeographist (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Template:Cite_book: |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. -- GreenC 21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict) |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).

Where I would not normally include |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.

As some editors don't draw this distinction between "Further reading" and "External links", links to unspecific or dynamic resources sometimes also end up in "Further reading". In this case, I would move those unspecific links from "Further reading" to "External links".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: Since you mentioned "External links" sections, did you know that WP:ELCITE was recently changed to ban citation templates in that section? That's a new reason why the |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)[reply]

The "Further reading" section consists of referrals, not citations, and the entries need not be formatted as citations. The important thing is that correct, understandable information about relevant related works is given. For some editors, it may be convenient to effect this using a citation style. That does not have to be a templated style, or a format based on cs1/2. But in the very narrow case where one:

1. Formats "Further reading" entries as citations, and

2. Uses Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2, and

3. Employs the templated application of that Style

Then I believe that the specific guidance regarding retrieval information should be used. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your claim that a further reading section contains "referrals, not citations". Citation § Concept says: "A bibliographic citation is a reference to a book, article, web page, or other published item." Citations that are cited in an article's text serve to support the claims therein, and citations that are cited in a further reading section refer the reader to further reading, but they are all citations. Accordingly, this very essay, Wikipedia:Further reading, says: "Works listed in a Further reading section are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article." Biogeographist (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in the "Further reading" section must be relevant to the article, but this is not a citation issue. The "Further reading" section refers the reader to... further reading (about the article). The entries do not really "cite" anything, and their relevance could be a matter of opinion, or a majority viewpoint. In contrast, wikitext claims must be cited as unambiguously verifiable at the reference source. Neither can the "Further reading" be considered a bibliography. The bibliography of the article is described elsewhere. In any case, a citation that points to a source that is hundreds of pages (or kilobytes) long is doubtful. You may as well say that what you are claiming can be verified somewhere, out there. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're just arguing about the meaning of terms in a way that doesn't appear to me to be helpful here, but since you insist on doing it, I might as well counter: (1) A further reading section does cite something: it cites the citations that are cited in it! (2) A further reading section is indeed a bibliography in one sense of that term, an organized listing of books (or other publications). Biogeographist (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the section title is 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)[reply]

Citation is a perfectly acceptable term for an item in a further reading section, per Wikipedia's own concept of citation, quoted above. See, for example, the further reading section that I made and mentioned above, Torsten Hägerstrand § Further reading. The items in Torsten Hägerstrand § Further reading and the items in Torsten Hägerstrand § References above it are exactly the same in that all of them are citations. The only difference is that the citations that are cited in Torsten Hägerstrand § References serve to support the claims in the article's text, and citations that are cited in Torsten Hägerstrand § Further reading refer the reader to further reading. But they are all citations, no doubt about it. That's why they all happen to use citation templates. Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we agree to disagree on this peripheral issue (what a "Further reading" section" is) then. I have no problem with the substance of the main question. However, I would not bring up any Wikipedia article as supporting evidence, including my contributions. Like every source, Wikipedia is a priori unreliable, and actually in itself inherently so. You don't need to be an expert to realize that. And I believe this calls for verification (including citations) that is exacting and unambiguous. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem citing Wikipedia articles on a Wikipedia talk page (though not, of course, in article mainspace). "You don't need to be an expert to realize that." But since you insist, and since reliable sources are indeed always needed when challenged, here are citations of the Oxford English Dictionary reiterating what Wikipedia says, emphasis added:

"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.

I agree with the OED, as does Wikipedia in this case. Biogeographist (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, editors are supposed to pick a style and stick to it throughout that article. There is no defined "correct" style. "Retrieved by" dates are usually unnecessary, but they are permissible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we do reviews access dates is not a requirement. However non book publications (website's) would normally be moved to external links during cleanup by project members and during FA reviews. Was a recent talk about removing access dates in Google books as most agree they are not needed as they dont help readers..but in fact make it confusing for them.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it requires a URL, or it serves no purpose (or none that consensus has agreed it serves; I have argued several times to the contrary at WT:CS1 and WT:CITE over the years, without much traction). Using the |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)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the |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)[reply]

Access dates were never allowed in the ==External links== section, no matter how you formatted the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If we've changed it so it no logner applies, we need to change it back, at least in this particular. Access date is important, because websites change, and we need to knowwhat version is being listed. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ==Further reading== usually lists printed-on-paper books and periodicals, and the most common website linked is books.google.com. We don't really expect those websites to be changing the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • |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. -- GreenC 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure either where this came from originally, but I have added a 2016 analysis as reference. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree: The Further reading section should be broadly understood according to the original spirit of it: a select number of materials for those readers wanting to dig deeper into the subject. While traditioanlly that meant print resources (books), now it should be open to any kind of media. A documentary film or a podcast episode on the subject of an article could be a valid source to list under "Further reading". These are my five cents about what makes most sense to me. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Just came across a couple of documentaries about a town that I'll add to its article's "Further reading" section. But we need a broader term: "Further information" ? Or "Dig deeper" ? ;-)

— Protalina (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of these authority control database search links are of very low utility to most readers. As you correctly allude to, this mass of low-value links puts the authority control template in tension with Wikipedia's external links guideline, which asks that links "should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." But the solution is not to move the template to a position in the article where it is distracting readers even more from more relevant information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support such a proposal. Putting navigational boxes anywhere but the very bottom of the page is unsightly. And that's where these templates are, at the bottom of the page, not "in" the "External links" section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: appears to be related to discussion in Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk#further reading againg. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not specifically related to that case mentioned by Bakkster, I have pruned lists of further reading many times, maybe I am in the wrong doing so? Normally I have pruned to 3 (for no reason other than it seemed reasonable to me). However, as Bakkster pointed out, we could certainly use that Musk article as an example for discussion. Normally my reductions of these lists normally are met with the involved editor(s) wanting to adjust the choices of the list rather than simply revert. Thus I thought I would ask here relating to general policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This essay says that 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)[reply]

Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of scholars here on Wikipedia...it's done for our readers to have access to research material. If a bibliography is getting to big.... at first...should be reviewed for the most relevant books on the topic....and if all seem viable a stand alone list should be created as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. As for size Canada#Further_reading is a good size that leads to more research material at Bibliography of Canada. Something like Soviet Union#Further reading is a bit big and could use a split to Bibliography of the Soviet Union.(just my pov of view). Moxy- 04:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting I had never seen something so large. Would you say that this excercise also applies to compiling lists of news articles as well? Say for example this Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk#further reading againg that Bakkster mentioned, should we be adding lists of new york times or washington post articles, or should this be limited to book level depth sources? As Freoh points out above, are we compiling a list of run of the mill news articles or are we compiling Bibliography#Non-book_material information (aka webography). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do what is best for our readers to reach the newest data and/or best academic info.. Academic and old topics will generally have better(peer reviewed) and more publications listed like at DNA#Further_reading vs a new and/or pop-culture topic that may have news sources like Wikipedia_coverage_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Further_reading. Moxy- 07:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh: This is my view as well, that trimming to an arbitrary number in no particular order with no particular weight is 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)[reply]

Difficult to differentiate between reasonable and arbitrary. However, you two editors seem to want to keep the content on the article discussed above. I would prefer to see it trimmed to 3 as reasonable, but it seems you editors have strong opinions on the matter, and I dont. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, 3 is indeed an arbitrary number. It can be far too many for a small and simple article, and far too few for a large multifaceted article. What's reasonable is evaluating on context, rather than just removing half the section arbitrarily.

If you have concerns on the depth or breadth of the specific links on that article, you should note them there. Just saying you think it's too long, without regard for the content, and citing an inapplicable essay as your only justification is a problem. I once again urge you to more carefully read policies and guidelines before citing them as justification for your edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am concerned that the article lists too many run of the mill sources that can also be used to anchor text in the article, the verge, nyt, bloomberg, etc. Imagine if every wikipedia article contained a list of nyt articles that editors found interesting. Refer to this instead WP:LINKFARM. I suspect hundreds, or maybe thousands of publications (some online only such as the verge) have pontificated on the subject of Twitter and Elon Musk. It is absurd to think that it is due to create a list of this dribble. 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. But other editors here dont agree with me on that and thats life. Of course can be some flexibility on this as we are talking a wide range of articles and subjects. But your position that current event links to online publications like verge is far away from reality. I wonder if ChatGPT writes the verge articles? ;-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You need to think more clearly about your reasoning (including carefully reading your cited PAGs), before bringing topics for discussion. Constant shifting of the goalposts makes consensus building harder than it needs to be. It will also make it less likely that you're interpreted as policy shopping, and your concerns dismissed as a result. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent edit on Edge-notched card was to remove all uncited references, prompted by an editor who was hostile toward the length of the reading list. I didn't agree with the hostile editor; I thought the list was a good resource for our readers to have access to research material as 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)[reply]

Non academic editors may not be aware of why scholars compile bibs.....just need to educate ... Bibliographies include formal documentation entries that serve several purposes Moxy- 16:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tens of millions of our regular users are students--especially secondary and early university. They get assigned papers by teachers and come here looking for help. The biggest help we can provide is to books and scholarly articles that can be a basis of FURTHER research. Unless they are at major university they will have a limited supply of books in the library, so in a list of ten books maybe only one or two are on campus. We are not wasting their time by having a range of titles, just the opposite. Journal articles are much more accessible because of electronic access. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we are discussing what makes the grade for these list of sources in a bibliography. I was also discussing quantity, but now I see that there are some articles that do in fact have a huge quantity. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three seems like an arbitrary number plucked out of the air - four really good FRs might well be more useful than two poor ones. There shouldn't be a hard limit at all; I would say that if the entries under Further reading outnumber the reference sources, there are either too many FRs or too few ref sources. Note that the number of ref sources is not the same as the number of refs, if there are two refs that specify two different pages in the same book, this counts as one ref source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. But be consistent within an article, and also be aware that for people from some countries or backgrounds, the names may not be rearranged. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "names may not be rearranged" refer to Redrose64? Where there isn't consistency and I want to add an item/edit for consistency doesn't WP prefer one to the other? Mcljlm (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Ban Ki-moon: rearranging to Ki-moon, Ban is just plain wrong. Same goes for Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tower_of_Babel#Further_reading and Janusz_Korczak#Further_reading include the kind of names I'm thinking of Redrose64. Though most are in Surname Given Name order {which is probably the order in most Further reading and Bibliography sections in articles I've seen} there are inconsistencies in the order of authors' names. Mcljlm (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, these are not consistent with whether templates should be used or not; and where templates are used, they should be consistently WP:CS1 or consistently WP:CS2 (Tower of Babel uses both, Janusz Korczak uses only CS1). Resolve those issues first, then smaller matters (such as the order of names) can be addressed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point Redrose64. I'm surprised there doesn't appear to be anything in the Manual of Style about the order of authors' names. Mcljlm (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is right there in Wikipedia:Further reading#Presentation as 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)[reply]

My surprise Redrose64 is that the Manual of Style doesn't state that WP style in Further reading, Bibliography and External links sections is Smith, John - which it appears most editors use (at least in those articles I've seen) - or John Smith. Mcljlm (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my first reply begins with the one-word sentence "No." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best policy is to follow the usual order in the discipline involved. In history scholarship--books and journals from major publishers--bibliographies are almost always in alphabetical order of surname followed by firstname. The great majority of cites in history will be to one-author items. Not so in science and medicine where you often see an article with many names (everybody on the research team gets listed). Furthermore in science and medicine our Wiki reader wants the latest study regarding XYZ surgery so 2024 items are much more valuable to them than 2014 articles. That is not the case in history, where the 1984 book may be the most important one for our wikipedia readers to know about. Rjensen (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The order I'm interested in Rjensen is that of names in one item but the difference between history {which probably applies to the humanities in general, and possible social sciences} contrasted with science and medicine is interesting. Where articles/books in the latter have several authors would you still enter surname first name order for each item followed by the item's title? Mcljlm (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In science and medicine a common format is surname of 1st author, initial of first name, and then et al. : Jones, M. et al. TITLE. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Nuclear clock, "Further reading" lists a 2020 survey article which is a good overview of the field in more detail than the WP article. The article is also one of 65 references used in several places in the article itself.

This sort of duplication is allowed, even suggested, if the full references list is too long to be a useful reading list. The reference entry includes a number of details (full author list, bibcode, arXiv link, etc.) which the "further reading" reference is missing, so I'd like to link it to include that extra information without too much visual clutter.

The problem I'm having is that if I append <ref name="WenseReview"/> to the further reading, I get "Cite error: The named reference WenseReview was invoked but never defined"; it appears that MediaWiki can't handle a reference appearing after the reference list. But MOS:LAYOUT says that "Further reading" should appear after the references. How should I deal with this?

Direct link to example of problem 97.102.205.224 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading is not article content. It does not need to be referenced. Rather, it should be its own reference. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]