Talk:Bibliography of Idaho history

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bibliography of Idaho history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405085823/http://www-lib.uwyo.edu/db/bio/search.cfm?BookID=2 to http://www-lib.uwyo.edu/db/bio/search.cfm?BookID=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Horse Eye's Back I think this meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles guidelines. Do you disagree? (Thanks for prompting me to check! Looks like I need to add a bibliography section to my pet Bibliography of the slave trade in the United States!) jengod (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not a guideline. Nor does it support the notability of this topic. What exactly am I disagreeing with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Gee. OK. So confusing. Thanks for sharing your concerns about this list. jengod (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the section at Bibliographies is helpful even if its not endorsed, do we have anything like the given examples for Idaho? I have no doubt you will be able to find such coverage for the slave trade in the United States. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there were a couple there and I added some more. I don't entirely understand our standard but hopefully they'll help someone. jengod (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes... No now have a clear understanding that Bibliography of Idaho history does not meet our notability standards. Note that none of the sources you've added or where there already count. They're either too old or don't cover Idaho specifically. If you wouldn't use it in an article why would it count here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back OK. I find bibliographies useful generally and a state-level bibliography seems like a valuable resource. I don't really understand the nuances of notability law so I'll leave that to your good offices. Best, jengod (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

More modern Bibliographies could exist, with the tag I'm not saying for sure that I think the topic isn't notable its saying that I can't currently demonstrate its notable with the provided sources and the ones I know. There will be no rush to deletion on my part, if nobody improves it in the next decade we can revisit deletion then. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)