Template talk:LCAuth

Template:LCAuth is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

I have started to notice these {LCAuth} links populating in the external links sections of biographical entries that I am interesting in cleaning up and/or editing.
I would very much like to understand the rationale behind adding these. I went to library school so I understand what the link is representing, but I find it VERY odd that there's a number of entries listed within the link and also don't see the value-add to including something like this that seems to duplicate the established LC Authority Control element.
Concern #1: It is pretty arcane for most end-users of Wikipedia, seems needlessly wonky for external links. I guess it seems problematic that if I as someone trained in library science am confused by the value and reasoning behind this implementation -- and I know what it is -- then why is it something helpful to add to the page for casual readers?
Concern #2: It's a nifty template obviously but I don't understand what it's doing that clicking through Authority Control does not essentially do.
Concern #3: I also wonder if it might be better suited as an element of the Authority Control template instead. But again, the granularity of the results (is it updated constantly or only on demand?) seems a bit odd / overkill. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse, this current links to the generic LCCN so usages of the template could point to LCCNs other than just LCAuth (e.g., works, etc.) 50.53.1.33 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which may impact this template, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to move the space at the end of the author URL. It's currently in the wrong place in the examples e.g. <url>Molly Bang<space></url>at <url>Library of Congress</url>, when it should be <url>Molly Bang</url><space>at <url>Library of Congress</url> Throughthemind (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I hope to revise the template message from, for instance,

Jez Alborough at Library of Congress Authorities, with 41 catalogue records

to

Jez Alborough at Library of Congress, with 41 library catalogue records

This addresses the point that few visitors know what "Authorities" (LC or otherwise) may be, so the message is arcane. By repeating the word "library" it helps the visitor grasp that the target is a point of entry to Library of Congress catalogue records of books credited to the identified author name (routinely, books credited by LC to the author, routinely the subject of the Wikipedia article where the message appears in section External links).
--P64 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxed this, which yields:

Jez Alborough at Library of Congress, with 41 library catalogue records

and wonder if it should have a full stop at the end as I've added? Editor P64, is this essentially what you propose? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paine. Yes, but no full stop, as the predominant use is in section External links. Full stop can be appended manually by anyone who uses it elsewhere. --P64 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and  edited. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]