Talk:Siemon Muller

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Geology

	Geology portal Talk:Siemon Muller is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External Links[edit]

After a quick read of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking, I am reverting the May 22, 2019 change that removed external links in the "Selected Publications" section. Online links to source material referenced in a scientific biography are very useful to the end user, and it is not clear that links included in a *list* outside of the "External Links" section is in any way a violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking (if it is, please point out the exact text). Further, even if it *is* a violation, I will claim it as an allowed exception (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking)Finney1234 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo:, @Bbb23: I think clarification of the issue would be interesting, because (so far, to me) it appears to be an incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking to say that external links, as currently used in Siemon Muller, are disallowed. Please reply on this page. Finney1234 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a more explicit "External Links" section in the MOS, which states that external links should not be included in the "body" of an article, but also states "Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article".

One question is, what is the definition of "body" of an article.

I personally feel quite strongly that a list of publications is useful in biography articles, and that if it's possible to link to an online version of the text (ignoring issues about link failure) that that is a very good thing. I had missed this section on the previous read (I was pointed to the very broad "Linking" section), but if there's an issue, I would like to go through channels to explicitly allow this use.Finney1234 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: @Bbb23: @MarnetteD: According to MOS:ORDER, a publications list in a biography is an appendix which is outside the body of the article, so the restriction againt external links in the body does not apply.Finney1234 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External Links in a Publications List: Conclusion[edit]

Here is a summary of the outcome, in case it needs to be referenced elsewhere in the future. The issue is whether external web links are allowed in a Publications List in a biography. The external links in this case provide web access to publications in the Publications List; these publications are often *not* referenced in the body of the article, and thus are not References. Siemon Muller is where the disagreement occurred. See User_Talk:Finney1234 for a record of the discussion.

1. Nothing in the MOS disallows such links. A Publications List is defined as an appendix outside the body, so the rule against external links in the *body* of an article does not apply.

2. That said, such links are ugly to some people, and in some cases it is reasonable to move the links into the references section. User:MarnetteD's latest edits to Siemon Muller are a nice example.

3. My own Wikipedia esthetic sense, however, doesn't like this approach in an article such as Henry G. Ferguson, where about 2/3 of the entries in the long-ish Publications List have external links. As a scientific reader, I find on-line access to the scientific publications to be invaluable, so the external links are important. But moving all the links to the References section unnecessarily clutters up the References section (again, these are usually *not* works referenced in the body of the article). It also requires duplicating significant amount of information across the Publications List and the References(e.g., author, title, date). Not worth doing in such cases, IMHO.

Finney1234 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you had discussed this at WP:VPP to get WP:CONSENSUS from the project rather than making a declarative statement here which few will see. You probably should have pinged Ponyo and Bbb23 so they will be aware of your decision. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: "Here is a summary of the outcome" The "outcome" of what?--(talk) 23:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same question came to my mind Bbb23. If you haven't already seen it their is a thread about this on my talk page - not that there is an answer to your question there either. MarnetteD|Talk 01:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @MarnetteD: The conclusion, for the Nth time, is as follows:

1. Some senior editors seem to believe that WP:MOS has a prohibition against external links in a "Publications" section; this is factually incorrect. I have provided the references in this discussion previously; look for the words "body", "appendix", "publications", and "external links" in the WP:MOS.

2. MarnetteD seems to think that even if nothing explicitly forbids the use of links in a Publications section, one should not do it without achieving consensus. This makes no sense to me, can you point to a Wikipedia reference supporting this? At least dozens of person-years went into developing the MOS, so it seems reasonable that anything not prohibited is allowed. For instance, nothing in the MOS explicitly states that I can use the word "mugwort" in an article, but I assume you wouldn't object.

3. To go even further (although I have no supporting data), I suspect that every point in the WP:MOS has been debated extensively, so the fact that Appendices such as Publications are explicitly not part of the article body suggests that WP:Consensus might have explicitly intended to allow external links in Publications sections.

I love consensus, I think it's great. But I like facts even better. So please point out any errors in the above reasoning, with pointers to written references.

So: MarnetteD's May 22nd edit to Siemon Muller was done incorrectly, and my reversion of it was justified. Now, MarnetteD has a strong preference for putting external links in references, and he/she edited Siemon Muller on June 28 (at my request) to format the 2 links that way. That is just a question of personal preference, there is no policy requiring that. I think it worked well, looks good, and I have not reverted it.

HOWEVER:

1. Nothing in the MOS requires this.

2. That approach has two severe issues:

A. It clutters up the References section (which I normally interpret as a section providing references for the *body* of the article, which the Publications are not).

B. It requires duplication of information in the Publications and References section, which is both a pain in the ass and error prone.

In addition, doing this type of edit does not significantly help with link rot issues: the link will be rotted no matter where it occurs.

So: I don't think the edit approach of MarnetteD in Siemon Muller should be used in an article like Henry G Ferguson (which I am the primary author of). The large number of on-line links and unnecessary added references would be ugly.

This process of discussion has been somewhat painful, so I have no desire to go to VPP unless it's really necessary. WP:Consensus states that if an edit is done and not reverted, then consensus has been reached. If you disagree with anything I've said above, please provide *references* for why it's wrong. Also feel free to edit Henry G Ferguson to remove all the external links in the Publications section. I will revert the edit, and then we will move to WP:VPP or arbitration or whatever (if you revert my "undo" edit, then *you* will be starting an edit war, and we'll go through channels to resolve it). Otherwise, I will assume that WP:Consensus has been reached that external links in a Publications section are acceptable. Some senior editors may dislike them, but the preference of a single senior editor is not equivalent to consensus or Wikipedia policy.

Please respond with substantial facts, not negative personal slights, nor nitpicking comments about my formatting. I wouldn't be this verbose if it didn't appear to be necessary to get the point across.

If either of you choose to raise the issue elsewhere (e.g., WP:VPP), please do me the courtesy of letting me know. I consider the issue to be resolved unless you can provide some factual counter-information.Finney1234 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External Links: A Conclusive Conclusion[edit]

MOS:WORKS#Online books makes it clear that the MOS explicitly sanctions external links in a Publications/Bibliography section (contrary to a widely held opinion).

(Pardon my tone in the "Conclusion" section above, but it was annoying having to repeatedly argue with editors who would/could not provide Wikipedia documentation backing up their claims. I appreciate Marnetted's moving the discussion back to a positive direction on User_talk:MarnetteD#Links_FYI. See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#External_Links_in_a_Publications_Section, if it's still accessible).