Wikipedia talk:Further reading

message: 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)
replies: text: By being consistent in the use of either  or , but not both: . --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harv error 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should "Further reading" be linked to "Contents"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arranging by date 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Default order should be chronological 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's misuse of  tags - all instances must be before the . 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 . On that matter,  is much the same. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay; thanks for your reply. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankenstein in popular culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  3% 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Further consideration" - more content, but not for reading 

message: There is  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: include authority control / database links in this section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What does "names may not be rearranged" refer to ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tower_of_Babel#Further_reading and Janusz_Korczak#Further_reading include the kind of names I'm thinking of . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's my point . 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)
replies: text: Consistency is right there in Wikipedia:Further reading#Presentation as  and also . Similarly, MOS:FURTHER says  --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My surprise  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)
replies: text: That's why my first reply begins with the one-word sentence "No." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The order I'm interested in  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Author's names order