Page talk:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/284

@Peteforsyth: I am interested in how you see the wikilinking here, aligning with Wikisource:Wikilinks. I do not think that all these deep links to IA are useful or in line with the projects goals, nor existing practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you for asking, and for linking the (apparently newly-adopted?) policy. I had not read that page recently, so it was a timely suggestion. I'll tell you my reasoning, in case you're interested in my thinking process, but I'm going to hold it lightly and back down pretty readily if you don't agree. Basically, when a work is bibliographic by nature, it seems highly useful to have a link to a non-paywalled version of the text. Much more useful than if a work is merely mentioned in passing. If somebody is consulting this specific text, it's likely they have some interest in the source text.

That said, I made the external links a long time ago; if you look at my recent edits, you'll see I was converting external links to internal ones as I finished transcriptions here. If you think I should remove all the external links here, I will. -Pete (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In some cases (e.g., William Henry Gray, a famous pioneer and highly-cited author), perhaps this would be a better approach: linking the author's name to their author page, and listing the work there using {{external scan link}}. That might meet the goals while complying better with WS:Wikilinks. -Pete (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)