Talk:Andrew Johnson

External links

While not as bad as some, there were 11 links. I moved the Library of Congress "guide" here for review. It is a compiled (guide) of links to digital materials.

• Andrew Johnson: A Resource Guide – Library of Congress

There are a host of reasons why the external links should not be bloated:

Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.

• WP:ELDEAD may apply.
• In some cases ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.

The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

A complete review is warranted to ensure this "featured article" does not run afoul of any of the above. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not copy/paste large sections of Wikipedia policy to article talk pages. Linking to the policy is much preferred. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not see that the Library of Congress resource guide falls afoul of any of the rules enumerated in WP:EL. Could you explain why you think it is an inappropriate link to include? Bruce leverett (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I answered that question there. Otr500 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I submit WP:NOTPORTAL #4: In the External links section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website, as if to provide a portal to that website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site. That link states, "This resource guide compiles links to digital materials related to Andrew Johnson such as manuscripts, letters, broadsides, newspapers, government documents, and images that are available throughout the Library of Congress website."

The Miller Center of Public Affairs link has some information, but links have to be followed (Essays on Andrew Johnson and His Administration) to the essays.

The entire process of limiting links would be to provide the best of likely hundreds to prevent excessive links. The box trying to be formed is not that many links may or may not be acceptable, but when there are an excessive number, what can be constructively edited out, that would leave a minimal number that is meritable and directly relevant to the article. If trying to keep all links, which certainly, in many cases, are not considered minimal, that is where consensus plays a part. It should not take an RFC to try to determine if 5, 7, or 10 is just too many. Almost a certainty, it is probably not hard to envision that somewhere between those numbers and 11 to 19 links would very likely be considered excessive. If there are an excessive number of links, which ones can be trimmed? How far can the numbers be pushed, say 20 to 25, before WP:LINKFARM (part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy) comes into play? I consider 15 far too many and 19 egregious. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The idea of the Library of Congress Resource Guide is to serve as a starting point for someone who wants to do research into Johnson and his life and times. Many of the links it leads to are probably not easy to find anywhere else. Far from being something we should remove from our external links, it's more like something we must have in our external links. Any Wikipedia article is itself a starting point for research; that's why our citations are so important.

WP:NOTPORTAL discourages us from using separate links to two (or more) different items from the same website. In Andrew Johnson I see that we are linking to two different sections of the Miller Center website. This is not desirable, but of course, before trying to "fix" it I'd have to consider whether there was a better, easier to use, way of organizing our links.

In the External Links section of an article about a U.S. President, you should expect to see quite a few links. Andrew Johnson may even have fewer than most. I would discourage you from just counting the links and deciding that some number is "excessive". Consider each individual link and decide whether it's "excessive". It's a lot of work, but it worked for you at James Buchanan. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)