This article is related to the Smithsonian Institution Archives. Learn more about this collaborative project to document the history of the world's largest museum complex, and how you can get involved, here.Smithsonian Institution ArchivesWikipedia:GLAM/SIATemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian Institution ArchivesSmithsonian Institution Archives-related articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Corker1, obviously I disagree with your reversion of my hot linking of the Gutenberg book Borghesi Astronomical Clock. Your reversion is not justifiable, nor did you bother to justify it with a edit summary of 'revise cite'. You are burying the fact you can see the book directly with one click. Instead you are requiring the reader to choose to click on the small reference number, find it isn't really a reference per se but a Gutenberg copy of the book and then access the book with another click. In my opinion are not doing the reader a favour by denying him easy and clear access to the book. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darrell Greewood: The link that you added to the text duplicated a link that was already in the reference section. Wikipedia articles should not contain redundant links. Additionally, Wikipedia articles should not contain external links within the text. Such external links distract readers, especially those that are not interested in the specific link. For that reason, I removed the external link that you added to the text.Corker1 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that when I added the link it was not a duplicate link as it just had been released (...Release Date: July 18, 2010 [eBook #33198]) to the Gutenberg library a few hours before I added the link to Silvio Bedini's article (I have a RSS feed of new Gutenberg releases). I still am of the opinion that the reader is best served hot linking the already listed title of a work available on Project Gutenberg, not burying the fact down in the references. Distraction is minimal, the information valuable. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you originally added the external link to the body of the article, it was not a duplicate (as you stated). However, I moved the link from the body of the article to the reference section when I created the reference. You then restored the link to the body of the article. When you made your restoration, you created a duplicate link, as you did not delete the link that I had placed in the reference section. I then removed the link that you had restored to the body of the article, as I noted in my comment above. As to the question of whether an external link should be in the body of an article, please see Point #2 in WP:ELPOINTSCorker1 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the "Works" section as being in the body of the article any more than a Bibliography, Notes, Reference or External Links section is. If you wish to insist on me creating an "External Links" section and adding the Gutenberg link as an external link rather than just making the text of the already existing listing hot (change the color of the already existing text and add one character) in the Works section, I guess I'll have to do that according the bureaucratic rule you pointed out. A rule which I consider not applicable, inappropriate, and ignoring the reader in this instance. The intent of the rules with respect to external links is related to spamming. Gutenberg is not spam, a clear linking to a Gutenberg copy is only for the reader's benefit and an appropriate exception that the term "normally" in the rule you pointed out allows in my opinion. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Works" section is a type of list (see WP:LOW), as is an "External links" section, a "References" section and a "Notes" section. WP:LOW does not show external links in its examples. Nevertheless, it is open to question as to whether a list of "Works" should have external links. Some types of lists, such as "Notes", do not have external links, while other types, such as "References" and "External links" do have external links. If an external link is not in the "Works" section, it seems better to place the link in the "References" section, rather than in an "External links" section. Footnotes connect to a "References" list, but not to an "External links" list.Corker1 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To help answer the question as to whether the "Works" section in "Silvio Bedini" should contain external links, I surveyed the "Works" sections of a number of biographical articles listed in the "Literature and theatre" section of Wikipedia's "Featured Articles" page (see: WP:FA). (Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia). I could not find any articles in which a list in a "Works" section had external links, except in those articles in which a "Works" section is a subsection of an "External links" section. (You may wish to confirm this by performing a similar search of articles listed in WP:FA.) I therefore conclude that there are two alternatives for "Silvio Bedini". The first alternative is to not place any external links in the existing "Works" section. The second alternative is to create an "External links" section and to move the existing "Works" section into a new subsection that is within the "External links" section. You can choose the alternative that you prefer. (I also surveyed the "Notes" sections in WP:FA articles. I found that some featured articles do contain external links in their "Notes" sections, even where the articles contain both "Notes" and "References" sections. It appears that lists of "Notes" in "Featured Articles" are not the same as lists of "Works" in regard to external links.) Corker1 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the final analysis we are dealing with a guideline which says "external links not in the 'body of the article'". The "Works" section is not in the "body of the article" just as other supplementary sections like a "Notes" section or "References" section are not. My preference is to link the title in that section and I am so doing. Many thanks. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you have restored the external link to the Project Gutenberg site to the "Works" list, I have deleted the link in the reference to the Project Gutenberg website, as the link has become redundant. Corker1 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was edited as part of the SIA edit-a-thon!
This article was created or edited as part of the Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event focused on Smithsonian history! Please assume good faith about the edits made, as the editor who contributed recently to this article may be a newbie! Thanks, and you can learn more about the event here!
