This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Support proposal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:09, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
Another point raised recently was the title of the "External links" section in the OOU LG. To be consistent, I suggest the LG be amended so that that section is titled "External links" instead of "Further reading." —Unsigned comment byCade Calrayn (talk • contribs).
Now that we're really starting to put the OOU LG into practice, I find "Further reading" to be awkward. We're so accustomed to "External links" that I'd rather just see it stay consistent. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:10, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
While I understand and sympathize with the reasoning for this, the term "further reading" allows something that "external links" does not: offline information such as autobiographies or third-party books about the subject. For example, Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking could be listed in her "Further reading" section; likewise, a third-party scholarly book that critically examines the Star Wars films and their impact on popular culture can be listed in the relevant articles. Such offline books would not be appropriate in IU articles, but in certain circumstances they are appropriate in OOU articles. Not every OOU article needs to have offline information listed, and there are many that probably shouldn't, but there are a few cases where it is appropriate. A possible compromise here might be to separate the two and have both an "External links" section, for online stuff, and "Further reading", for offline stuff. I would be willing to support that. —MJ—Comlink 21:52, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the "Further reading" section from the OOU LG does not stipulate including autobiographies or third-party books, and frankly, I don't see why we would need to list those anyways. Using them as reference material is one thing, but listing them in our articles seems extraneous to our purpose here, and such a section is guaranteed to get really out of hand, when you consider just how broad the array of unofficial Star Wars publishing material is, from books to magazines to news stories. I would compromise if doing so was practical, but we shouldn't be listing this stuff. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:04, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I feel readers could benefit from having small, carefully selected lists of further reading material. We need not and should not list everything. Setting a formal recommendation along the lines of no more than three to five items, none of which should substantially duplicate information from others in the list, would be an easy way to keep the lists at an easily manageable size. Many encyclopedias use this section, and I see no reason we shouldn't either. —MJ—Comlink 05:32, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
The potential addition of such a section need not impact this vote, since you would need a new CT to allow OOU articles to list unofficial sources anyway. If you want to start another CT after the conclusion of this one to try and create a new section for unofficial sources, be my guest. But our difference in opinion here shouldn't preclude you from supporting this proposal, which is merely designed to rename this section for its specific purpose of listing only external links. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:44, February 24, 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a problem with this, but I'm not sure opposing is the right way to go about it. Let's say I'm writing the article on Carrie Fisher, and there is a really good biography I find in the university library on her. If I use this to assist in writing the article, it needs to be listed. Currently, "Bibliography" only seems to allow for official LFL material. I had always thought non-official material used was supposed to go in "Further reading," but that doesn't seem to be stated. It seems to be for just unofficial sites, regardless of academic credibility, much like "External links." We need a place to list unofficial, academically credible material, such as books. I personally would suggest amending the "Bibliography" section to include these unofficial sources, but only the ones that are referenced in the article. Like Tope said, it could get out of hand (though the same problem can currently occur with "External links"). So...I guess I'm fine with renaming "Further reading" to "External links," but I feel we do need a place for these other unofficial sources to be listed. MasterFred(Whatever) 06:04, February 13, 2014 (UTC)