“ An example of heavy wikilinking in encyclopedias is e. g. Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Hudson River. Changing all the extensive internal links into Wikipedia external links would be in accordance with this suggested policy, but the result would be even worse than the current situation. There are often lists of people in some articles and I sometimes meet the situation when some of the people are linked to their author page and others to Wikipedia articles, and you never know where you land prior to trying so. ”

“ We don’t. We transcribe the works and present them in our own formatting, presumably to enhance the readability experience for our readers. At the top of every page, we bother to link the author’s name to their author page because it may be of some informational benefit for readers to be able to click over to that. We close words split across lines or pages in the original work; we mark obvious typos with {{SIC}}; we do allow links for sufficiently obscure terms, for which the cutoff will always be an arbitrary line. ”

“ Recommended links are links to author pages, titles of other works, and internal cross references within a single work. Permitted links that go outside of Wikisource are links to relevant sister projects such as Wiktionary, English Wikipedia, and Wikidata. [1]
Links that are forbidden include external links inside a hosted text, links that are interpretative, and links that for other reasons do not serve the reader or violate our principle of neutrality. A key concept in this policy is that there should be no surprises for the reader when they click a link. ”

“ I wanted to say that modern academics avoid linking to Wikipedia and so it is reasonable to assume that old authors would not choose such a source either, and so we should not do it instead of them and should let readers choose their sources. ”

“ This policy regulates how links should be used on English Wikisource in order to provide the best value to our readers, reusers, contributors, sister projects, and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. Its primary focus is on links in the texts we host and the user-visible namespaces, but also regulates other aspects of using links on the project and their use in project-internal namespaces. ”

“ The default item view on Wikidata is not user friendly or useful for most people, and for this reason direct wikilinks to Wikidata are not permitted in presentation namespaces. In some cases, however, it may be useful to identify a person or work for which a Wikidata item exists, but for which there is no suitable link target on Wikisource or the permitted sister projects. In these cases it is acceptable to link to Wikidata using the {{wdl}} template, which dynamically displays a link to the most suitable destination based on which targets are available. ”

“ If there is an Illustrator, Editor, or Translator, link these to their Author pages. Portal namespace
See Help:Portals for more information. Use the authority control template to link to Wikidata.
The lists of works on a portal should all be linked (whether the work is yet created or not) . If a work is not yet scan-backed, and there is an Index or File available, then use the template {{small scan link}}. If an Index or File is not available but a scan is known to exist in an online repository, use {{ext scan link}} to link to it. ”

“ Heavier wikilinking may also be more appropriate in reference works, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, as the links would enhance the usefulness of such as text.
With poetry or fiction, little or no wikilinking is more appropriate. Archaic or obscure words may be wikilinked to their definitions on Wiktionary to aid the reader. It is more acceptable to wikilink difficult words in children's fiction than in adult-orientated fiction due to the presumed younger readership. ”

“ For example, linking lines of Shakespeare to Wikipedia articles in the body of his pays, except on an Annotated version created for that purpose. The body text of literature should, in my opinion, be largely if not entirely devoid of links. (1) When reading a work of fiction, or a play, the links are distracting to many readers. (2) Links in the body of the text can cause problems for people scrolling on a touch screen, as they will open to the target when the reader touches them and take them out of the work they are trying to read. ”

“ Red links show works and authors that could, and should, exist on Wikisource but are currently not present.
A 2008 study relating to the sister project Wikipedia showed that red links helped that project grow.
Wikilinks to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects will never appear red. Such a link will appear in the same light-blue color whether the target page exists or not, and therefore inactive links are indistinguishable from active links. External links should be created only if the target page already exists, or if the target page will be created in short order. ”

“ Different rules apply for links inside a hosted text, in the header section of a page, a text's talk page, and in project-internal wikipages such as policy pages, discussion forums, and user pages.
Links in presentation namespaces The use of wikilinks within the presentation namespaces (primarily the Main and Translation namespaces, but also the Page namespace by extension) is limited by policy. ”

“ Links to mentioned authors and non-authors who meet the criteria to have a portal are always acceptable. Take care, though, not to overlink. Linking the first mention in a section (chapter or other subdivision) of the text is sufficient. Also, if the work is about a person and the related_author field in the header template has been used, then linking in the text as well is not necessary. Unacceptable wikilinks Links to the Index and Page namespaces and other project-internal pages should not be made within a text. ”

“ I don't think any works, especially ones that are over 95 years old as applies to most works that are here, should be trusted by anyone as arbiters of absolute truth. I always gathered that we keep them here for historical purposes. ”

“ Works published in books had limitations that the web does not. Any reader can still see exactly what Longfellow wrote, but an additional century of scholarship and research provides information that was not available. Forcing readers to do things the 19th-century way on a website in the 21st century is a non-argument for me. ”

“ The risk is (and I have seen this actually happen, though I can't recall an example right now) that somebody transcribes a different work of the same name and doesn't check Special:WhatLinksHere: then the Author/Portal page links to the wrong work, so readers get confused and contributors who are interested in transcribing the work may assume it has already been done and go away again.
However, editors who know what they are doing should not be prevented from adding such links if they consider it appropriate (for example, the work is under construction in the Index: namespace) . ”

“ It will typically not apply within running prose even if the text references the same author or similar multiple times, but might apply to something like a table which includes a column with citations similar to those usually found in footnotes.↑ In particular, no page on Wikisource may link to a website that hosts copyright violations even if such a link was included in the work reproduced. This restriction applies to live (clickable) links, and not website addresses included as text. ”

“ Current Encyclopedia Britannica does not refer to Wikipedia, why should we add such links to their 1911 edition? I believe that original EB11 authors would never have such intentions either.
I do not want to forbid readers seeking further information in WP if they want to, I just think that adding such links to original works is redundant and adds there something which was not there. If somebody wants to go to WP, they do not need our specific encouragement. ”

“ Sometime, the modern equivalent is no obvious at all and takes a bit of digging to work out. I occasionally use WP links for these (when I can be bothered) , because a tooltip can’t be used to select the text. Adding the modern equivalent or the Chinese text has previously been described as annotation: cf. the end of Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-09#Wikilinks, so I have been rather gun-shy about it. ”

“ Some of these are perhaps merely offensive rather than harmful, but that is always going to be something of a judgment call. A disclaimer is not at all a bad idea for works of sufficiently disreputable tone. ”

“ This is imo absolutely undesirable, and this suggested policy would explicitely allow it. We often have person based or topic based portals which can be linked if some clarification is needed. What is more, these portals are interconnected with Wikipedia articles, if the readers need it. ”

“ Well, we do make some changes in the format and way of presentation, but not in the contents, and these changes are often necessary if we want to make the text machine readable etc. Adding explanatory links to WP articles is a different level, and it is absolutely unnecessary, as anybody can visit external encyclopedias of their choice without our assistance too. ”

“ We could make a disclaimer template for works that are very likely to promote dangerous views, and I think I would be in support of that. (Since if we didn't do something like this the entirety of those transcluded white supremacist books would be filled with wikilinks.) PseudoSkull (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC) There are some falsehoods for which there is no honor in letting them be presented as facts. I have seen in my time here a number of debunked racist tropes casually peppered into a work, as well as false claims in other areas, such as old anti-vaccination tropes. ”

“ However, the footnotes are a part of the policy and the guidance and explanations contained in them are intended to inform the interpretation of the policy.
↑ Note that links to Wikidata must always use the {{wdl}} template. See the Wikidata section for details.↑ For a table of contents the chapter title should be linked to the wikipage in mainspace where that chapter is (or will be) transcluded, and for a list of illustrations the equivalent part should be linked to an anchor where that illustration appears on the mainspace page where it is transcluded. ”

“ Brit. ..." But if they chose not to refer to anything in their work, we should not be adding any explanative references (in the form of links to encyclopedia articles) either. It is quite enough that we add there our internal links, why adding more external links too? Not speaking about the fact that many WP articles are too far from excellent and I am convinced that many authors would have never chosen some of the current WP texts to be referred to in their work (many current authors, especially academics, do not do it either, although they do have such a possibility) . ”

“ This is something, which if we are going to allow/encourage/whatever, is IMO better served by something that's clearly an annotation, so that the debunking/refutation intent is clear. Using something like {{user annotation}} with a message like This is an example of w:blood libel (←now it's an obvious Type-A link) and is an anti-Semitic canard. is far more obvious than dropping a wikilink and hoping readers make the deductive leap that the link is itself supposed to be a debunking. ”

“ Indeed, this is how I got hooked on Wikisource: I found on Author:David Herbert Lawrence that an index for The Rainbow had already been created. BethNaught (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this should be harmonised between the Portal and Author sections. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @BethNaught: I believe these are not mentioned for Author: because they are assumed by default; and called out on Portal: because portals should allow much of the same as author pages. In other words, their omission from the section on Author: pages is accidental. ”

“ Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Given their isn't a strong prescriptive intent around this particular topic in the proposal, more reflecting existing wording I agree it is a good follow-on discussion to have around this particular topic given the much broader scope of this policy and given it is a) exisiting wording and b) it is more interpretation than the wording itself. ”