User talk:SilkTork/External links to library resources

RfC: External links to library resources
'''This is a RfC to get clarity and consensus on how and when we should provide external links to libraries and archive resources or finding aids. '''

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

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

Questions to resolve:

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

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

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

4) If direct links to library and archival resources are appropriate, clarify the criteria by which links may be added:
 * ai) Archives/finding aids which independent, reliable sources have identified as notable resources for the article topic?
 * aii) Archives/finding aids which a Wikipedia editor finds useful?
 * aiii) Archives/finding aids which are agreed by consensus on the article talkpage to be useful?
 * b)  That there are no other archival external links in the article?
 * c)  That there is a limit of one/two/three/.... archival links?

5) Clarify the size and formatting of an archival link:
 * Are these an appropriate size and format?:

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

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

SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * The intention is to be open and free-ranging with the topic, and to pool information and skills. The questions are examples which can be used to frame the discussion, though nobody is obliged to respond to all the questions, and new questions can be added. The aim is to have a guideline on the use of library links to amend or update WP:ELMAYBE#6. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My responses to the questions:
 * 1) Yes, we should link to appropriate and useful library resources.
 * 2) If possible, and to avoid Wikipedia articles becoming overloaded with external links (Shakespeare, Aristotle, Dickens, Sunshine Mine, Acceptance of evolution, etc), one link to a centralised resource would make sense.
 * 3) I am very sceptical of the value of Library resources box and Archival records - it appears to me that Authority control does a better job.
 * 4) If there are no other archival links in an article, and no Authority control template, and there is an independent reliable source that says an archive is notable, then linking to that archive would be appropriate - though the ultimate aim should be to use a link to a central resource like Wikidata, so that stand alone link should be removed when Wikidata and/or Authority control templates which include links to the archive are used.
 * 5) I feel the size and format of the Library resources box and Archival records templates are innappropriate - drawing too much attention to themselves, and taking up too much space. A collapsed Authority control template appears appropriate.
 * 6) My preference would be to use one template (such as Authority control), and to discourage inserting individual links into articles (and so amend WP:ELMAYBE#6)
 * 7) Technical matters such as creating a link repository (Wikidata) are WMF matters; decisions regarding which links are used in articles is a Wikipedia community matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion with Tim
SilkTork, thank you for so cogently bringing together the points that need addressing. I can't think of anything that needs adding, and will happily be a spear-carrier when you open the RfC. I think we will both be in the happy position of being open-minded and not wedded to any one result. I'm temporarily watching your talk page, but do please ping me if there are developments on another page.  Tim riley  talk   11:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Tim, would you look over the above with an eye to reducing the amount of text. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a fair bit of text, it's true, but I've been through it carefully twice and wouldn't want to cut anything. You seem to me to say everything that needs saying and nothing that doesn't.  Tim riley  talk   07:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)