Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Question

Which layout is preferable for the "Standard appendices", this one or this one? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been more than 24 hours since you posted and no one who actually knows anything has responded to your query. So, I'll try:
As near as I can tell at this point (I'm new around these parts myself), the answer to your question is "(c) none of the above." If you have some time to kill you can peruse the discussion above about "Notes," "References," and "Notes and References" to get a feel for the lack of consensus on a preferred format for those sections.
That said, I suggest that featured articles (such as Palazzo Pitti) provide examples of some of the alternative "best practices." Additional illustrative featured articles include Starship Troopers and Jane Austen. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO the first one is preferable, but not perfect. The ==Notes== section should [probably be named ==Footnotes== and] not have any full-length references in it. Items 10-11 and 14-21 should be in the ==References== section. Also, it cites two different authors with the last name of Chiarini, so it's important to identify to the reader which book the "Chiarini" short notes actually refer to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In consensus there is no "preferable" layout for the Standard appendix, we have multiple preferences. So, in a way, the preference is up to you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Caps

Please stop capping talk page discussions on guideline and policy pages. Doing so renders the page unsearchable. If the discussion has run its course, it can be archived; that is the purpose of archives. Capping other people's commentary is disruptive and means one cannot come back to the page to search for particular comments. Please remove the caps and use archives as intended. I've already uncapped comments that I made, and that were capped by someone else, and now they have been recapped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant that the problem with capping arose after the section was archived. I still think the benefit of keeping the page clean outweighs the cost of losing the ability to searh. But I'll defer to you on this one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You can always use a subsection to break things up. ===Arbitrary break 1=== makes editing easier while keeping everything visible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Notes and references" needs more prominence

My edit with the summary "'Notes and references' - needs to be made clear, as it's often ignored" was reverted on the basis "Redundant, the page already states that they may be combined".[1] My whole point is that it needs to be emphasised as it does not stand out and gets easily lost. This is obviously the case because of all the articles that fail to follow it. I suggest it is reinstated for the reason I gave. Ty 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that, somewhere, more guidance should be given regarding the sections containing citations and comments. However, as you may note at Wikipedia talk:Layout#Defer this issue to WP:Cite?, the folks on this page are currently discussing leaving that task to other pages. I respectfully suggest that we should resolve that question before we spend much more time discussing how we should modify this page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We were actually going to address that in #Draft implementation right after we get though with the General format section. Don't worry, I believe your proposal will be implemented right after we finish delving through all the other issues; such as placing emphasis on an Outline oriented method of referencing or a Section oriented method of referencing — and in your case a Combined reduction method of referencing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree; the text belongs primarily at WP:CITE, and if anything, should be briefly summarized here (as it already is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, CC, you use the word "we." That would be you and who else? As far as I know "we" are talking about (a) removing the Links section and (b) changing the text in the Notes and References sections to a very brief summary (supported by links to articles with more depth). At some point I suggested that, in the future, we might want to look at turning the Images and Dividing line sections into subsections of another section. You, and you alone, then proposed a substantial re-write based on that suggestion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time, we were not simultaneously discussing the Referencing sections and the General format section, so the next option would be to do it right right after the General format section was completed. Nevertheless, you are correct, Butwhatdoiknow, and as you stated "we should resolve that question before we spend much more time discussing how we should modify this page", please go ahead and start the section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References & controversial issues

Could someone look at this sentence... I'm surprised we make this recommendation. "If you are dealing with controversial issues, it is useful to point out which sources take which stance, and maybe separate the links by proponents and critics." I don't see how this would help a controversial article just as creating a separate pro / con article structure would not help. This statement seems out of place and while not exactly the same, it could rub against WP:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section. Morphh (talk) 2:32, 06 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that's in here, don't know how it came to be here, and needs to go. Sheesh. That's why we need to stop content overlap on guideline pages and adopt a minimalist approach. Who knows how that got there, embarrassing. Keeping up with this page is becoming a chore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it was added way back in May 2006 by RockOfVictory. It should be removed. Such arrangement would be based on editor opinion with regard to the source's "bias", which seems inappropriate. This could have issues in areas like Poisoning the well, Guilt by association, or just a pejorative implication. Morphh (talk) 3:11, 06 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of these MoS pages are just badly out of control and out of sync with other pages, and I'm constantly battling to keep them from expanding and becoming worse. Two of us agree it should go; third editor who concurs should just delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur. It's deleted. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that you fixed that. I suspect that the editor may have been thinking of WP:EL, where that practice is relatively common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

General format

Images

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Images

You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place.

Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image should not overwhelm the screen; 300px may be considered a limit, as this is approximately half Wikipedia's text space's width on a 800x600 screen. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the width of images and templates on a given page.

When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (this also applies if a template like {{taxobox}} or {{Judaism}} is already stretching the page), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template ({{commons}}, {{commonscat}}, {{commons-inline}} or {{commonscat-inline}}) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

Horizontal rule

The use of horizontal rules (----) in articles is depreciated. They were once used to separate multiple meanings of a single article name. However this is now done with disambiguation pages.

They are occasionally used to provide separation inside some templates or within some discussions (e.g. {{politbox}} derivatives).

This is of course, a draft — I recommend placing it above the Lead section or below the Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc. The Links section is a proposal, and can be delayed before it is implemented into the policy page. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1. My message about not changing section headings on guideline pages unless absolutely essential, because other pages may have linked to them, isn't sinking in :-) Why change "Horizontal dividing line" to "Horizontal rule": is it really necessary?
2. Not above the lead, at the bottom, this text is not that relevant here and doesn't belong at the top.
3. Why "General format"? The rest of the page is general format, this is misc. "stuff".
4. Why "horizontal rule" first: it's deprecated, why not last?
5. Some of the text given in images seems to be at opposition with WP:MOS#IMages; please sync or shorten, referring to that page.
6. Don't understand this new introduction of "h2" etc. terminology, not needed and confusing. What is wrong with the current link text, and again, this is an inaccurate redefinition of linking, not currently supported by other linking guidelines. There is no need to link every term on its first occurence in a new section; depending on the word or article, that often breaches WP:OVERLINKing. Why, again, the redefinition of linking guidelines?
So, again, in summary, I don't see the need for these changes or any improvement from them. What is it about the current that page that you don't like are and are seeking to address? Also, I had to go into edit mode to read your text, so I may have missed something; would you mind taking off the scroll box? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Horizontal rule is necessary: within XHTML coding (the quasi-fundamental language in which every Wikipedia page is written in) the tag is actually <hr /> in which hr stands for Horizontal rule. Horizontal dividing line, is understandable, but incorrect. Once again, links leading to this section will not be disrupted simply add an {{anchor}} tag.
  2. Since I left that open in my proposal I adopt your position. It goes below.
  3. If you read above, I decided on General format since it applies throughout (lead, body, standard appendix if it occurs), we could easily call it Miscellaneous, General, Miscellaneous paraphernalia, Miscellaneous items, whatever we decide that would best suit it.
  4. I arranged it alphabetically since, as you stated, are miscellaneous items.
  5. It was copied and pasted from the current Images section, since you appear to have intimate knowledge of it, write a draft and we will implement it once you're done.
  6. XHTML headings are coded as <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, and so on (h2 stands for second-level-heading): we use it all the time, however, since Wikipedia tries to simplify XHTML in its own "Wikicode" we use two equal signs instead (==)—if you are wondering a h1 is generally reserved for the article title. It is not found in other linking guidelines since this issue is a Layout issues: other guidelines specify how, layout specifies where. It does not encourage overlinking: by the time a reader gets to the next h2, the two section either have enough divergence (if it doesn't it is possible the two sections should be subordinated as h3s and a h2 should be cast over the two) to not reuse the same words of phrases, or the section is long enough in which the reader should not have to double back and hunt for the link. WP:OVERLINK is specified as the main article in the case of disputes. No policy can be universally accurate to every context, and this isn't something so abstract and simple that we could apply a logical rule to it: it calls upon user judgment over relevance and importance. ¶The issue is that: Links, HR, Images, and so on—would cause h2 clutter, encapsulating them would provide an easier outline. I placed it as preformatted code because it would create unwanted entries within the outline (if I took out the scroll box, it would unpleasantly stretch the page). All you have to do it copy (ctrl+c), paste(ctrl+v), and preview(alt+shft+p). ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoa! Slow down please. You are going a bit fast for me. I am not sure that there is consensus yet for having a "General formatting" (or whatever) heading, much less a re-write of the text within the subsections that would make up the contents of that heading. Let's see whether the idea that you and I agree is a good one (having a General formatting section) is accepted and then, if it is, take a look at any re-writing of the sections that are moved into that section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. OK, I'm unfamiliar with anchors, but if you know how to make that work, that terminology seems to make better sense. Since I don't have time to read up on anchors, I'm forced to take your word for it.
  2. Resolved.
  3. Still unsure why we even need a new heading, but not a big deal, although I don't think "General format" is spot on.
  4. Doesn't make sense to me; get the stuff that no longer matters (deprecated) to the bottom of the page, out of the way.
  5. Don't have time to do writing across the legions of MoS pages; just keeping up with the endless tweaking and fiddling across all of them so I can correctly interpret their application at WP:FAC is already a lot of work. My plea is to please fiddle carefully and only as necessary, and to be aware when making changes of staying in sync with other MoS pages. Keeping up with fiddles to MoS pages is already more work than it should be, as individual editors latch on to one page or the other, and work on it in isolation, without considering the ramifications and coordination with other pages, and this happens across all MoS pages. I have long advocated that the central MoS Project should be used for all MoS changes, to avoid this headache.
  6. The introduction of all of this h1, h2 terminology (not common across other guideline pages) will just confuse readers. And your rewrite of link definitely changes common linking procedures. We simply do not ask for terms to be relinked in every new (h2) section, nor in most cases should we, and that recommendation is against WP:OVERLINKing and rewrites a basic premise of linking on a side page. I will remain strongly oppposed to that rewrite. At most, highly technical terms are relinked throughout the article, but typically, once a basic term is linked, it's not relinked in every section. By the way, Tony1 (who wants to be involved in the rewrite of this page) is traveling, and the mere suggestion of overlinking is likely to cause him to jump out of his computer when he returns and sees that :-))
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My overall reaction is that there are a lot of changes here, but not much improvement. For example, I see no actual value in nesting the sections under a heading called "General formatting" (or anything else). What's wrong with leaving them like they are? Are they actually hurting anything? Why should we adopt the personal style of one editor? It feels like we're making changes just because we can.
My overall preference would be to stop this time-consuming process and focus on other issues, like the references section(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Resolved.
  2. Resolved.
  3. We can use that name until we got a better one. I'm open to whatever you got.
  4. Done, it's reordered with the depreciated items at the bottom
  5. It's copied and paste, so there is no harm. If you want simply tag it and we can address this when we've got the other issues corrected.
  6. Ok then, it's omitted now, utilizing comments to remind us where it is.

The value is in the ToC, people are unlikely to read the entire article simply to pull one piece of information out, organizing it so that readers can easily tell what each group of sections are about improves readability. An example would if we were to removed the "Lead sections", "Body sections", and "Standard appendices and description" and upped its subsections. It's not that big of a change, especially now that the Links section is omitted until we can approve it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

C&C, I do not think that changing the header levels for these couple of stray sections actually matters. I don't exactly oppose it -- but I do consider it unnecessary. Your argument is essentially that it's easier to read four indented lines than three plain lines. I say that whether that harms or benefits the reader is anyone's guess, but that in either case, the difference is tiny. So why bother? Why not leave well enough alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It essentially follows the ideal of a Wiki: the edit doesn't have to significant, it only has to make the article better. So my say is that although it's small, it should not be omitted. I've implemented the draft combined with the removal of the Links section. If SandyGeorge or otherwise opposes it, simply revert by removing the header and upping its subsections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

This is in a way the heart of our discussion, here are the elements we appear to be pursuing:

  • Minimalist (no instruction creep)
  • Notes and References (occurs when the referencing sections are too small to be effectively used by the other methods)
  • Outline Oriented design (Notes and Bibliography are subsections under References)
  • Section Oriented design (Footnotes and References as separated second-level sections)
  • Notes, References, and Bibliography (see Jane Austen)

Before we begin to draft its replacement, are there any other elements we wish to include? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about drafting a replacement for the Notes and References sections? If so then that discussion is already taking place at Wikipedia talk:Layout#Defer this issue to WP:Cite?. Please don't complicate things by starting a parallel discussion here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous terminology in use of references

The term references generally applies to all sources of information whereas, notes can clearly be linked to foot/endnotes. A refinement of the term to allow a bibliographical listing (bibliography) is often made within the overall usage of references and further reading. The last term is the ambiguous one in that it implies that the information is in addition to that provided, or leaves the impression that it may be of use to the reader. The format that has been adapted for some articles is to place all sources of information under the general heading (L2) of References, and then define other sources below including: Citations, Notes (End/Footnotes), a Bibliography and if needed, Further reading. Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Duplicate of multiple sections already discussing this here and at WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on Sandy's response for Bzuk's benefit: As demonstrated above, it is clear that (1) there is no consensus regarding what to name sections containing citations and comments and (2) it is unlikely that any consensus will emerge in the forseeable future. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Which means that what currently stands on WP:LAYOUT is the current consensus until changed. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we are not likely to have a consensus on the preferred approach, however in an effort to at least one day achieve a consensus we may state known methods and also that there may also be other methods. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason for that I suspect is that the current system has evolved over time. The bulk of articles on WP actually follow it. The older and older Wikipedia gets, the more articles there are which would have to be changed if the system were modified. The current system is completely functional and understood. Most arguments to change it are based on personal preference "it looks better to me this way" and in no way really increase functionality. There are no gains and in some proposals loss of clarity (for example, using "Bibliography" for things other than works written by the subject of the article). With no value gained, it is unlikely to gain a consensus. Most see no valid reasons to mess with something that is working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that consensus is certainly an elusive target but a number of articles have now "passed muster" with the idea of grouping sources of information under a heading of references, which is still an imprecise term but it does represent all forms of resources. The term "bibliography" for example is now accepted as a bibliographical listing of resources. In the strictest sense, it is a listing of all resources used to create a work. Some editors continue to apply a policy of only including those references that are actually cited, but that is okay, although other editors who read or refer to materials then list them in the bibliography have taken a slightly different "tact." I have even noted that some editors have further refined the notion of citations compared to footnotes, see Battle of Britain for a carefully developed article that uses this format. FWiW, it's an interesting topic and is a highly evolving one that needs continuous discourse. Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
Sure, and this is the place to have that discourse to get changes in the current guidelines. Good luck. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(For what it is worth: The exchanges between Bzuk and Wednesday appear to be a continuation of a discussion that began elsewhere, e.g. User talk:Bzuk#Standard Appendices. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
Correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps we should be centralize the issue into a single section. Butwhatdoiknow in gave a referral to #Defer this issue to WP:Cite? in #Referencing — although the title is not entirely accurate we can centralized there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft implementation

The current WP:LAYOUT does not reflect the current consensus, therefore the a draft has been generated. If there is no opposition, it will be implemented.

There have been several liberal changes including the proposal of an outline oriented and a section oriented method of referencing, both of which are described within the draft. Links, Images, and Horizontal dividing line has been moved into the h2 Body sections; this is the WP:LAYOUT, not the WP:MoS. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please summarize 1) what consensus you feel the current page doesn't reflect, and 2) what are the basic changes of your draft? The last time I checked this page, it did seem to reflect consensus, so based on your brief note above, I'd have to disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the discussion I see on this page involves instruction creep that overlaps with WP:CITE, which has suffered its own unfortunate instruction creep in the last few months, so I will oppose anything that heads this page in the direction of that page, or additions to this page that belong at WP:CITE. From what I can tell of your draft, it is veering into WP:CITE territory; this page is about layout, and I think it's fine as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What aspects of the current version do you feel are not supported by consensus? I disagree with the substantive changes made in your draft, and I think many of your additions concerning references are inaccurate or incomplete and generally better covered at WP:CITE. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Chyran: respectfully, I must ask you not to launch in unilaterally and make major changes without proper consultation as you did in the "Eye movement" series of articles. Given a few days, I can come to grips with the issues you raise here. Tony (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not launching the change, I'm posting that a draft ready: you have plenty of time. The consensus I am referring to is section describing referencing section layout above; it's not a consensus in the usual, it describes how there is more than one consensus and that multiple methods are accepted (the draft details two specific methods, the current project page only details the section oriented method). ¶The WP:LAYOUT, hence the name, describes the general structure of an article and the information held within it. I agree that there is instruction creep, but it is difficult to understand how the Layout is preformed without reaching into WP:CITE. The changes can be summarized above (thee section moved, referencing section reoptimized). ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you CC for your enthusiasm. I certainly agree with you that the current article needs to be re-written to provide more guidance to the uninitiated (and I agree with Sandy that Layout shouldn't contain Cite [or Footnote] information [and vice-versa]). However, as a practical matter, I suspect that an attempt at a complete re-write in a single pass is unlikely to be successful. Instead, if enough people agree with you and me (and, I think, Whatamidoing] that substantial changes are warranted, then we should take on the project one section at a time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To simply the process here is the break down of the changes to the article:

  • Section moves, this is a WP:LAYOUT not the WP:MOS, the following sections should be subordinated to the Body sections of the article to reduce unjustified instruction creep (the WP:LAYOUT provides guidelines for what and where section belong along with what goes in them):
    • Links
    • Images
    • Horizontal dividing line
  • Sections re-written, referencing methods as stated above can be made clearer:
  • Renames, some sections should be renamed to either reduce padding or reduce confusion, it is possible to preserve the link to the older section name by providing an anchor :
    • Body sections to Body, section is unnecessary and is inconsistent with the contents of the h2 section (we don't describe what sections belong in the body of the article, simply how it is formatted or arranged: which is another source of instruction creep not addressed in the current draft).
    • Standard appendices and descriptions to Standard appendix, the title can be simplified as the description is implied (what is the point of the section if it doesn't contain content of descriptions)
    • Notes to Inline citation, because referencing can be done by at least two significantly different methods, Inline citation or Inline notes is more descriptive of its contents without causing confusion (this is where it laps the most into WP:CITE)
    • References to Non-inline citation, since referencing can be done by at least two methods, this reduces confusion between the two sections (this also laps into WP:CITE)

I hope this is helpful. If you want there can be more description on changes, just specify. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I will be a bit more blunt: The chances of getting folks to agree on a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing. Instead, you should focus on one change at at time. For example, your proposal to move "Links" into the "Body" section. I'll start a conversation regarding that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I never implied that "a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing"; in fact in the opening paragraph I stated that the "There have been several liberal changes". Nevertheless, thanks you for your initiative we'll take one issue at time, off the top. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "are next to nothing" was intended to modify "chances," not "revision." So I didn't mean to suggest that you were in any way less than forthright regarding the scope of your proposed changes. I regret that my poor phrasing caused you to think otherwise. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe proposes to move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section. CC's reasoning is that the Links text is more about how and when (rather than where). I'll go CC one further and, for the same reason, propose that the Links section be deleted altogether. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is the only consensus, then yes — there's a significant amount of instruction creep. Though it may be possible to revise the section to allow it to conform. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The page as it is now is basically correct, and I've seen no proposal to change it yet that I agree with. It's unclear if you're proposing deleting links from your draft (which I oppose) or from the current page (which I also oppose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal to delete the entire Links section from the current page is mine, not CCs. While I agree with Sandy that the Links section is "correct," that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Layout article should contain instructions regarding how and when to use links (as opposed to having that information in another article, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). I note that, on July 29, Sandy decried "instruction creep" entering the Layout article. I think that what I am proposing removes a section that is all about instruction and says nothing about layout. Am I wrong? If not then simply saying "it has always been there" would not seem to be a very strong argument for keeping the Links section in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this was added on to an earlier (rewrite) proposal, it was hard to tell what it referred to. I don't disagree that links are out of place in this article; it was just unclear to me if I had to go re-read that entire proposal (which I don't support) to sort this out. I had no idea how to interpret "move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section", since it appeared related to the other proposal. On the other hand, moving "Links" to the "Body" section doesn't make a lot of sense, since Links are also used in the lead. I guess the question is why Wikilinking is included here at all. Is that what you're asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's confined to the bottom of the page, it doesn't bother me as much, but I'm still unsure it's needed. On the other hand, I am loathe to completely delete a section without reading the full archives to understand how it came to be included here, especially considering other pages may link to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For now, I just reorganized to move those miscellaneous sections to below the basic layout info; it doesn't bother me as much if it's done that way (and now we have the silly horizontal deprecated section out of the way, at the bottom of the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering why you didn't discuss this change on the talk page and seek consensus first. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving a section is controversial now? Adding links to the main pages that discuss items, rather than duplicating text, is controversial? hmmm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I just recall that in the past you have spoken out against "fiddling" with articles and your changes look like fiddling to me. So I am a little confused regarding when it is appropriate to be bold and when consultation is the better course. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The "fiddling" I've mentioned before (I believe on other pages) involve major rewrites (and not always to accurate new text). I juggled text around, added main and see also links to tops of sections, and removed some text that was redundant to other sections. I didn't rewrite anything or add any new text or delete any major sections, and as I said above, I would hesitate to entirely delete or rename a section, in case other pages link to it and without reading the archives here to understand why "Links" are included. Do you disagree with any of my edits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Issue no. 1 - O.k. then, I'll feel free to juggle text and to remove what I consider to be redundant text without first seeking consensus. And when I want to make changes such as turning "comments" into "order of appendices," I will not consider that I have re-written anything and I will not seek consensus for that sort of change either.
Issue no. 2 - If saving the link is that important perhaps we could delete all the text under that heading and replace that text with a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
Issue no. 3 - Will you be reading the archives to satisfy yourself regarding the reason the links section appears in this article?
Issue no. 4 - I haven't done an exhaustive review of the changes you made but the review I have done suggests that they improve the article. Remember, I am a self-admited fiddler. So I certainly can't complain when someone else engages in the same behavior. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It took you nine tries to accomplish your edits SandyGeorge, please use the preview: this unnecessarily fills the history. For an article as sensitive as this, please post what edits you are going to make before you make them: acting as autonomously as you did does not show a healthy respect or regard for your colleges involved in the WP:LAYOUT draft.

This section is not about our policy involving how edits should be made on the WP:LAOUT — if you want, I believe it's possible create a section on how this policy page can be edited rather than going to near anarchy every time there is something new. I advocate the removal of the Links section as with Butwhatdoiknow on the grounds of unjustified instruction creep into the WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK, unless SandyGeorge wishes to rewrite the section to conform the the WP:LAYOUT we can remove it on Monday (to give time for Tony or someone else if they want to become involved). No hard feelings SandyGeorge, I do not oppose your edits, but Butwhatdoiknow and I do not approve of an immediate implementation of a consensus in progress. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to tell me to use the preview button; I intentionally edit in small bites, describing each step as I go, so that everyone can easily see exactly what I'm doing each step of the way. In fact, I dislike large chunk edits to policy and guidelines pages precisely because it's then hard to sort out what all was changed. Since I have made no controversial edits, you can quite easily follow what I did by viewing the diffs. I don't care one way or another if you delete the Links section (I only got it out of the way by moving it to the bottom), but as I've already stated, I strongly recommend that you view the archives and try to determine why it's there and if any other guideline page links to it before you delete it. And, since the Links section has been on this page for months or years, I don't see the need to remove it quickly; allowing others time to weigh in before deleting an entire section won't hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Going back in the page history, to 2005, gives a hint about the Links section; my guess is that it's just a hold-over from when the page had a significantly different structure and all of MoS was simpler. My recommendation (feel free to ignore) is that you leave the suggestion to delete it up here for at least two weeks, and then if no one objects, delete it and see what happens. But don't be surprised if someone who's been around Wiki longer than any of us then objects, and gives a reason why it's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I prefer to simply compare the two edits and read the lengthy edit summery. I believe the purpose of the links section was to describe how sections are to be wikifyed. It does not hold strong relevance to Layout. I've compile this section into a show/hide, and now lets move on to the next section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't cap discussion; it invalidates future searches in archives. I've removed the cap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On Thursday 7 August 2008 the Links section will be omitted, and briefly recompiled into the h3 If a section is a summary of another article (possible rename) to describe how articles are inherently connected. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to delete the Links section then I suggest that we should delete it. So, while I am not sure what "recomplied" means in this circumstance, I vote against moving the Links section descriptions to another part of Layout (regardless of the brevity of the text used for that purpose). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Butwhatdoiknow; I can't decipher what is meant by "recompiled into the h3" blah, blah, blah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I thought that rather than completely removing the content we could briefly summarize it and place it in the section If a section is a summary of another article. Here's a draft of what I'm talking about:
Main pages: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Internal links

As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases relevant to the context of the first occurrence within a h2 section; if the phrase or word does not match the name of the article, you may place the exact name of the article following by a pipe "|" (shift forward slash, \) followed by the phrase you wish to see in the context of the article you are editing. This creates a hyperlink linking to other Wikipedia articles: 

Lennie and George came to a ranch near [[Soledad, California|Soledad]] southeast of [[Salinas, California]] to "work up a stake".
which produces:

Lennie and George came to a ranch near Soledad southeast of Salinas, California to "work up a stake".

See also: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles § Layout

When a section is a summary of another article, it should have an italicized link before the text (but after the section heading) referring to it. Templates are available for this operation: 

{{main|Circumcision and law}}
which produces:
Main article: Circumcision and law
We could also rename the h3 from If a section is a summary of another article to Linking articles. How articles are links together can be an important part of Layout, since the method is that links should only be placed on important words or phrases at the first occurrence in a h2. This does not creep into the WP:MoS, since the WP:LAYOUT inherently describes where, rather the the how and what. This idea of providing a paragraph and two example is of course a proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There are several problems with this proposal:

  1. The idea of completely removing discussion of "Links" from this page has some validity (and support on this page, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, although I advise caution), but incorporating them into a discussion involving only the body of articles, when links equally go in the lead section, doesn't. Links apply to lead, body, and appendices (see also).
  2. Please take great care when renaming long-standing sections on guideline pages, as many other pages will have linked to them over time.
  3. Further, unsure where you're getting this wording, which is not univerally accurate and appears to be encouraging WP:OVERLINKing: "As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases of the first occurrence within a h2 section ... " We don't need to redefine linking on this page, and encouraging a new link in every h2 section need not be introduced here.

If the idea was originally to remove discussion of linking from this page, because it's not part of Layout, this proposal is going in the wrong direction, even introducing a new definition of when to link that I've not encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and renew my vote for removing, not moving (and revising), the Links section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1We are removing the Links section regardless, however I am unhappy with the loose of information. 2Renaming long standing sections is of no concern, simply add an anchor. 3WP:OVERLINK specifies how, layout specifies where: it's a proposal in which we can set precedence. It does not encourage overlinking: by the time a reader gets to the next h2, the two section either have enough divergence (if it doesn't it is possible the two sections should be subordinated as h3s and a h2 should be cast over the two) to not reuse the same words of phrases, or the section is long enough in which the reader should not have to double back and hunt for the link. WP:OVERLINK is specified as the main article in the case of disputes. No policy can be universally accurate to every context, and this isn't something so abstract and simple that we could apply a logical rule to it: it calls upon user judgement over relevance and importance. No hard feelings guys, if you really oppose it, I won't push it; but it would be helpful if you give a thoughtout reason of why. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To delete or not to delete

The proposal of rewriting the links section is continued below.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion here, thank you. (The jump leads to a discussion regarding the Images and Dividing sections.) The topic here is whether the Links sectioin should be removed or moved. If it is going to be removed then we don't need to spend any time talking about re-writing. I am voting for remove and, I think, so is Sandy (halfheartedly) and WhatamI. So far only CC is voting for moving. Anyone else care to chime in? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not voting for moving it. The discussion above involves removing the pre-7-August Links section; the one below discusses a potentially new rewritten one — we decided that the pre-7-August Links section contains instruction creep and that the best course of action would be remove it and to start with a new proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure who makes up the "we" in your statement that "we decided ... to start with a new proposal." As near as I can tell, you are the only person still advocating inicluding text regarding linking somewhere in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We are deleting the Links section because it contains an unacceptable amount of instruction creep. I am advocating that we write a new section regarding where links are to be placed since that may be a hole in our policy page. My mistake, and sorry, I shouldn't have hooked the last statement onto the previous. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New General format section

Images illustrate and provide visual context to an article, and should be placed within the Body section. I understand that Images have been placed in the Lead section. However, they are generally contained within an {{infobox}} template, which can be developed into another topic. They cannot be placed in the Standard appendix (template images such as Commons do not count), so by deduction the most appropriate location would be within the Body section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

C&C, I'd like to encourage you to spend time at processes like peer review and good articles to help you become familiar with a broad range of articles, editors, and editing styles. These proposals aren't universally correct (in terms of reflecting practice across articles), which is why care has to be taken when editing guideline pages. First, infoboxes aren't required, many editors object to them, and images are very much included in lead as well as body sections. The way images are placed on this page is fine; there is no need to pigeon-hole them into a specific (head or body) section. Same applies for the discussion above about links, which you want to move to the body section, when discussion of links applies equally to the lead and even appendices (See also). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with Sandy. Scary. (That said, if we keep the Horizontal dividing line section - something to be discussed later - it may make sense to combine that section and the images section as h3 sections under an h2 section (perhaps called "Formating" or "Page elements") - something else to be discussed later.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I think pushing it into the Body section would be over specification. However leaving it as a h2 brings too much attention, and causes h2 clutter. This leaves us with two options: we can redefine Body sections to Body and add a brief lead describing that it can apply the first paragraph or Lead section, or we could subordinate it to another h2 which applies throughout likely titled "General formatting" (me and Butwhatdoiknow are agreeing again). I take back my statement on infoboxes, I agree with you on that SandyGeorge. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Sandy here. I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of images in the lead and not within an infobox. Also relevant: Under C&C's proposal, what would you do in a short article for which no appropriate infobox exists (or will ever exist), and in which the only h2-level sections are about details that are not related to the image you have? Just skip the image because images only belong in the body, and your image illustrates the text in the lead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

C&C, generally, unless we have a very good reason, I hesitate to redefine sections because other pages link to guidelines. I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to adjust the images section (I do see the issue about the links section having little to do with layout). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying, WhatamIdoing; I already receded my earlier proposal utilizing infoboxes (last sentence of last comment). Since we are not going to explore the possibility of redefining the Body section so that leaves us with Butwhatdoiknow's proposal to created a new h2 titled General format (or whatever we decide to choose) and to subordinate the Images section. ¶Going along the lines of creating a General format section, we could rewrite (again) the Links section (see above) and subordinated it along with Images and Horizontal dividing line (utilizing HRs are so depreciated that it is possible to omit it). ¶As for the current Links section, we will still omit it on Thursday. That is, unless we finish the draft for the new Links section before then (assuming we will have it anyway). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the draft the General format section:
== Standard appendices and descriptions → Standard appendicies ==

''Standard appendices and descriptions'' should be renamed to ''Standard appendix''. The current title is unnecessarily lengthy with "and descriptions" automatically implied. With the HTML comment "Please do not change. There are other articles that link to this title." it is likely that it has been desired to do so before. There is no compromise, since an {{tl|anchor}} tag can be added to ensure that other articles linking to it will remain linked. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

:"With the HTML comment 'Please do not change. There are other articles that link to this title.' it is likely that it has been desired to do so before." I do not understand this sentence, please rephrase.

:What the hidden comment means is that if you change this header you should also change the links which will be broken if you change the title. Whether or not there is an anchor is beside the point, as most links will be to the section header, not to an anchor. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 08:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

::Re. "most links will be to the section header, not to an anchor", apparently either you or I have a misunderstanding.  Links are ''to'' an ID, not ''to'' a section header and not ''to'' an anchor. The ID can be provided by a section header, by an anchor, or by numerous other alternative mechanisms. As long as the provided ID matches the target ID of the link, the link will succeed—or such is my understanding of the technicalities rendered in mostly nontechnical language. Examples: I've linked to another section of this talk page by its header name [[#Question|here]], and I've dropped an anchor at another header name with the ID of "Demo of linking to an anchor, see later talk page section" at another talk page section and linked to it [[#Demo of linking to an anchor, see later talk page section|here]]. If a section header name is changed, dropping an anchor with the old name will allow existing links to continue working. The question of whether or not this is a good practice is beyond the scope of my response here. -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:Given that the section describes multiple different types of appendices, the current title seems fine. Making the title singular is odd and it is not clear why you prefer it that way. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::I was thinking the same thing, Chris, so I'm reproposing it as ''Standard appendices''. I believe you do not understand the purpose of an anchor, Phillip Baird Shearer, as Boaracy Bill stated: the link will succeed. If you look into the code window of that section you will find a comment that looks like this after the heading <!--Please do not change. There are other articles that link to this title.-->, this means that this title has likely been changed before and reverted. The comment is somewhat ignorant of the usage of anchors. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 03:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
== See also ==

Shouldn't ''see also'' come at the end of the section content? Logically, a person would want to see something more after reading the text. [[user:Nichalp|<span style="color:#0082B8;">=Nichalp</span>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<span style="color:#0082B8;">«Talk»=</span>]] 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps the ''Order of appendices'' subsection should explain the rationale for the order. -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 11:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
::Ok I should clarify, specifically {{tl|see also}}, not the section ''See also;;. [[user:Nichalp|<span style="color:#0082B8;">=Nichalp</span>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<span style="color:#0082B8;">«Talk»=</span>]] 11:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
:::The {{tl|see also}} should be placed after the section's title, [[Wikipedia:Layout#"See also" for one section]]. This brings precedence that the section also has explanatory information or related information not included in the section, and should be noted before the reader reaches the end of the section's text.
:::Logically, you are correct, "see also" gives the thought of something unrelated and should be noted at the end—and this the reason for the ''See also'' section. However, the {{tl|see also}} template is not the ''See also'' section; it implies that there is related information which is important enough to be noted early on, and in which the other templates: {{tl|main}}, {{tl|details}}, and {{tl|further}}—cannot be appropriately used in its place. I hope this helps. Perhaps, as a potential proposal, we could make it mandatory to link each section within a policy page to a section describing why. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 05:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps we should write a policy asserting that each and every statement needs a written-out justification, even if we're just documenting basic grammar or how the wiki software works?  What exactly would you put in such a section for something like the MoS advice that the proper names of organizations are capitalized, as specified [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Institutions|here]]?  
::::I oppose this suggestion as both being misguided and creating unnecessarily pointless work.  On the relatively rare occasions that someone has a question about why a page recommends a particular approach, they can read the talk page archives or just ask.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:It's not a suggestion, I stated that it was held potential as a proposal, that perhaps when our policy has become more mature we can create brief subpages summarizing our discussions — it's distant, but that doesn't mean its irrelevant. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 02:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
== Page format ==
I have reverted most of the changes made by [[user:ChyranandChloe]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALayout&diff=229916629&oldid=229708233  04:08, 5 August 2008]):

The first reason is minor. It is generally considered unnecessary to alter hidden text like double spaces after a full stop, or spaces before and after the == text in headers == as it throws up unnecessary edit diffs with no difference to the reader.

The second is not so minor and revolves around a difference in interpretation of the section references. Depending on the number of citations and the style, a reference section may or may not have a {{tl|reflist}} template in it, or it may be a list of alphabetically sorted references (with an optional notes section depending on whether there are any ref tag pairs used for footnoting in the article, or there may be no citations or there may be Harvard referencing). --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:Please do not revert edits made for '''coding reliability''' reasons, which are '''automated''' by WikiEd and have no effect on the the page. The second edit was made to improve the visibility of the coding and results example in which <code> tags were replaced with ASCII characters and formatted blockquote tags. Example:
Before formatting:
:==See also==

:*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]<br>
:*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
<div style="background-color: white">
: <span style="font-size: 150%;">See also</span>
:*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
</div>
After formatting:
<blockquote style="color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #8FBC8F"><tt>
== See also ==<br />
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]<br />
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]<br />
</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #999999">
<font size="3">'''See also'''</font>
----
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
</blockquote>  
:Of which one regarded the ''Notes'' (References) section: it does not effectively change the meaning of '''previously''' placed content and cannot be counted as a controversial edit. However, if that section dissatisfies you, please revert '''that section''', rather than the entire page. I have conducted the second revert. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the future, Chyran, please don't make these non-substantive changes like adding spaces in headers, especially not at the same time as you are making substantive changes to the page. It sounds like you are using some sort of tool that automatically makes these changes. Please disable that feature, if this is the case. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::ChyranandChloe please see the box at the top of the guideline "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus", you do not yet have a consensus for the changes you made. I suggest that you make them one at a time as putting them all in in one edit makes it difficult to see what it is that you are doing. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Very well, I do not believe improvements such as increasing the visibility of code and its result requires consensus. Nevertheless please state or restate what you were discontent with. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
::::There is no consensus support for the view that adding such spaces to headers improves anything.  Evidently you are using an editing tool that can make such changes automatically; perhaps this has misled you to believe that such changes are generally considered productive. This is not the case. Continually making such changes after being reverted and asked to stop is disruptive; edit warring over such trivial issues, as you continue to do on this page, is not acceptable. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::I understand your grievances, however the edit does not stand alone: I have changed the coding examples to blockquotes to increase visibility (see above). The code cleanup was packaged with that, and the consensus under [[WP:MOS#Section headings]] is "''paces between the == and the heading text are optional (==H2== versus == H2 ==). These extra spaces will not affect the appearance of the heading, except in the edit window.''" which makes it uncontroversial. ¶It is possible to consider that reverts are distruptive since it oftentimes reverts both the packaged cleanup, the code visibility edits, and links and spelling cleanups. Whether the code visibility is against consensus or otherwise has not been stated and therefore these edits should not be reverted. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 03:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Since you insist on adding pointless whitespace to increase the complexity of your diffs, I have no patience for seeing if there are any valuable changes among the sea of useless ones you are making. I therefore reverted you. If you have actual contributions to make, please make them separately from your null edits. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:The white space is part of the coding cleanup, and your expression that "I have no patience for seeing if there are any valuable changes among the sea of useless ones you are making." only shows indolence. I understand WP:3RR, however if you do not provide reasonable responses, we may require mediation. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::I don't understand what you mean by "the whitespace is part of the coding cleanup." It is not cleaning up anything. If you care deeply about the issue of having spaces in the headers, you are welcome to request mediation. But it would seem easier for you to simply make your edit without inserting those spaces. This would allow people to actually assess the substantive changes you are making. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry for the inconvenience (see [[User talk:Christopher Parham#WP:LAYOUT]], permalink [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Christopher_Parham&oldid=230960571#WP:LAYOUT]) for details. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]])

=== Coding examples ===
Coding examples should be made clearer using formatted blockquotes along with ASCII character codes.
Current:
:==See also==

:*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]<br>
:*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
<div style="background-color: white">
: <span style="font-size: 150%;">See also</span>
:*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]
:*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
</div>
Proposed:
<blockquote style="color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #8FBC8F"><tt>
== See also ==<br />
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]<br />
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]<br />
</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #999999">
<font size="3">'''See also'''</font>
----
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]
</blockquote>
Clearer examples helps readers understand the code and the result faster and more easily. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Blanks spaces ===
There are blanks spaces in the sections Lead section, Formatting, Links (commented out), Images, and Horizontal Rule. However there are none in the other sections. The article should be standardized to only one method. It has been implemented in the NULL EDIT. If you oppose, feel free to revert. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== About ''Further reading'' ==

This has come up several times recently, so here's the story:  The section ==Further reading== is for books and other information that fulfill both of these criteria:
* not being used as references to support any information in the article, and 
* not available online.  

Essentially, it's an offline equivalent for ==[[WP:EL|External links]]==.

The existing text appears to be opaque to normal people, so I propose changing it to this:

<blockquote>
This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of any books, articles, or other publications that you recommend to readers as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information.  If this section solely contains material authored by the subject of the article, then it may be titled "Bibliography".  If an article contains both a list of works by the article's subject and a list of recommended publications by other authors, then the "Bibliography" precedes the "Further reading" list.
<p>
This section does not include publications that were used as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in writing this article; these should be [[WP:CITE|cited as references]].  Publications that are available online should be listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section.
<p>
This section follows the same formatting rules as the "References" section.  
</blockquote>

If you have comments or questions, please reply now.  Unless there are strong objections, I will plan to make this change tomorrow (or any other editor can make this change on Monday if I don't get to it).  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:Your proposed rules for using "''Bibliography''" as a section name seem strange. the [[Bibliography]] article says, in part, "A bibliography is a list, either indicative or comprehensive, of writings sharing a common factor: this may be a topic, a language, a period, or some other theme. One particular instance of this is the list of sources used or considered in preparing a work, sometimes called a reference list. [...] A bibliography may be arranged by author, topic, or some other scheme." (''arranged by author'' suggesting that bibliographies are not generally limited to works of a single author) -- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|talk]]) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I like it, though I oppose the two sentences stating that if the list only contains works by the authored by the subject of the article: ''Further reading'' should be renamed to ''Bibliography''. ''Bibliography'' should be reserved for referencing, ''Further reading'' should be reserved for material that provides background, and as you said: like external links.
<blockquote>
This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of any books, articles, or other publications that is recommend to readers as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information. It is placed after the Referencing block, and before the ''External links''.
<p>
This section does not include publications that were used as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in writing this article; these should be [[WP:CITE|cited as references]]. Publications that are available online should be listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section.
</blockquote>
The last sentence stating that it should be formatted like the "References" section should be removed for two reasons: the references section can refer to inline citations, and if it did receive a format (other than its a list) it should conform to external links. [[User:ChyranandChloe|ChyranandChloe]] ([[User talk:ChyranandChloe|talk]]) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

::Bill:  Yes, in the real world, a bibliography is a flexible creature.  But if you use that title on Wikipedia for anything other than a list of the author's own work, it is likely to cause confusion and complaints and people changing it to something else (=pointless load on the servers).  That sentence represents a Wikipedia convention, not the system that your English lit teacher might support.  I'm not saying that the convention is Right™; I'm saying that this is the actual practice.
::C&C:  ==Further reading== should certainly not be formatted like ==External links==.  Formatting for external links looks like this:
::* [http://artist.com/ Name], the official website for the artist that is the subject of this article
::I'm not even sure how you'd use that format for an offline book.  What we want in ==Further reading== is a proper bibliographic citation for the book/paper/other publication.  We want it to look like this:
::* {{cite book |author=Burgess, Thornton W. |title=The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |year=1993 |isbn=0-486-27565-5}}
::I took this sentence out of the original text, but we can certainly be explicit if you think it's needed.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by what you meant that it should be formatted like the "References" section, so in the derivative of the draft I omitted that altogether. I understand what you mean now. So here's an explicit we could add, "This section should be formatted similar to the ''Bibliography'' section of an article." Then we'll add a brief example:
<blockquote style="color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #8FBC8F"><tt>
== Further reading ==<br />
{{refbegin}}<br />
* {{cite book |author=Burgess, Thornton W. |title=The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |year=1993 |isbn=0-486-27565-5}}<br />
{{refend}}
</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #999999">
<font size="3">'''Further reading'''</font>
----
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |author=Burgess, Thornton W. |title=The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |year=1993 |isbn=0-486-27565-5}}
{{refend}}
</blockquote>
So if we compile it, then it would probably look something like this:
<pre style="overflow:auto;">
===Further reading===
This is a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of any books, articles, or other publications that is recommend to readers as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information. It is placed after the Referencing block, and before the ''External links''.

This section does not include publications that were used as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in writing this article; these should be [[WP:CITE|cited as references]]. It is formatted similarly to the ''Bibliography'' section, in which each entry is cited as if it were to be used as sources to verify an article:
<blockquote style="color: #000000; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #8FBC8F"><tt>
== Further reading ==<br />
{{refbegin}}<br />
* {{cite book |author=Burgess, Thornton W. |title=The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |year=1993 |isbn=0-486-27565-5}}<br />
{{refend}}
</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background: #FFFFFF; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid #999999">
<font size="3">'''Further reading'''</font>
----
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book |author=Burgess, Thornton W. |title=The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |year=1993 |isbn=0-486-27565-5}}
{{refend}}
</blockquote>

With Google books, works are beginning to be easily available online. Thus we should omit the sentence "Publications that are available online should be listed in the External links section instead of in this section." External links should be reserved for websites, such as the subject's official website, and so forth. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

C&C, it's very hard to read things that you stick in a scrolling box like that. I have to read each line by scrolling out to the end. I have serious joint problems, so reading stuff in those boxes is literally painful. Other editors have complained about this, but you don't seem to get it, so let me be very clear: Stop using those scrolling boxes. It annoys many people and is not accessible to disabled people.
As for your proposed text:
We cannot tell people to format it like the "Bibliography" section because this is the bibliography section (when used to list the author's own works). We need to include the text that clarifies the specific convention for a "Bibliography" section on Wikipedia. It's not just me, BTW: Wednesday next independently posted the same information in another section on this page. I'm sorry if your personal preference doesn't line up with the convention, but we're stuck with the convention.
We also do not want to show the code for the citation template, because use of citation templates is neither encouraged or discouraged. A link to WP:CITE#HOW should be good enough.
Thanks for your views. I will make these changes in a little while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
True: if it's a regular book that is incidentally available online through books.google or Gutenberg Press, then it's still "further reading". I've updated the text to be specific to websites and online publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't know WhatamIdoing — I use the scroll box since it wouldn't push on the screen instead. It would be incorrect to state that this is a personal preference and to also state that what you are stating is not your own personal preference. Both methods were established before we arrived, it's only that we've adopted them. I believe that it is possible that both methods are correct: Bibliography can be used to hold the works by the author and non-inline citation. I pulled the citation template from you post to create the coding example; but, yes, you are right, we shouldn't endorse it here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You've implemented the draft rather early, we might need to tweak it still. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "general" reference

Does anyone know the current state of wiki-feeling for the "general reference"? That is, it's the reference that isn't used inline and nobody knows what it actually says or supports, but it's listed at the end (See elephant) and we sort of assume that whatever is in the article and should be supported by a source -- well, it must be in the general reference? Is this considered a violation of "consistent formatting" for references? Do FA-class articles include general references? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this would be considered a violation of consistent formatting. In the past FAs used general references frequently. Not sure about the current crop, but it's worth noting that the guidelines should also accomodate articles that don't have the citation density prevailing in most FAs. Many early-stage articles provide only general references. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
FLs use general references quite often. Take a look at some of the recently promoted ones for an idea of how they are used. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of a few of the featured articles that have both inline citations and general references (copied from Wikipedia:Verification methods):
Eagle Scout · €2 commemorative coins · Acorn Computers · Absinthe · 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane · Aramaic language · 1896 Summer Olympics · Mumia Abu-Jamal · Michel Foucault · Anarcho-capitalism · Algerian civil war
This makes sense to me for some subjects. I (as a reader) would assume that the inline references each verify specific things in the text, while the general references serve to verify the entire article (i.e., they verify dozens of the things throughout the article, and (possibly) also help verify the article's completeness, structure and emphasis.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify part of my question: Is it a violation of "consistent formatting" of references to have one reference inline, using <ref>Everyman, J. 2008. ''My Favorite Things.'' Volume 1.</ref>, and another reference not inline in the same article, simply listed as a general reference: * Everyman, J. 2008. My Favorite Things. Volume 2. That is, should all references use the same format -- either being inline or general -- but not both styles mixed together in the same article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be a violation of consistency since these references are being used to do different things. Consistency doesn't demand that everything be identical, just that similar things be treated similarly. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The better response to this question is should we have general references in Featured Articles? My answer would be no. Facts need to be demonstrated with inline citations in FAs. These general references should be moved to "Further reading" sections. The more interesting question is whether we can do parenthetical and footnote referencing in the same article. I think it is appropriate; the Chicago Manual of Style agrees with me. Under the current orthodoxy, however, this appears to be heavily discouraged, perhaps even verboten. II | (t - c) 02:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I find the "general reference" to be pretty much useless. It seems like "Here, read this whole stack of books, and surely one of them supports whatever it was that you thought was a little off, somewhere. Except maybe the parts that were subtle vandalism, but you can't really tell until you read all of these books."
As for using (Everyman, 2008) in one paragraph and [1] in the next -- yes, that's exactly what the current guidelines prohibit. If you're using author-date-page references, then the only <ref> tags in your article should be for explanatory text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that articles need to be verified through inline citations, and whenever a work or source is cited in more than one location from within the work: the method of using Short footnotes should be used and a General references section containing the full citation should be created. The idea of a reference that applies throughout the article is possible, but this makes verifying difficult, and in a way the purpose of the "Reference" section is verify the article: not show where it came from. The sections Further reading, Bibliography seems the most appropriate, even though it doesn't specifically cover your situation, Phenylalanine. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reopening?

Although WhatamIdoing is characterizing a bibliography as a random list of sources, I am confident that authors who list sources do not do them for frivolous reasons. The "for further reading" list appears to be sending out that message: "here is a list of works that may be of use, since they are not cited, but I thought you might want to read them anyway?" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC).
You'd be surprised. People spam books into reference lists all them time. Some publishers even have PR people doing it. Typically if somebody adds a book under "References" without adding text to the article, it is moved to "Further reading" if appropriate to the article or completely removed if not. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall having characterized anything as a "random list of sources". Bzuk, did you mean to start this conversation here? This discussion is about whether or not a book listed as a reference, without any indication about which facts refer to it, makes sense in a fully developed article. Elephant was used as the example here. There's a sentence in it that says, "An elephant can sink deep into mud, but can pull its legs out readily because its feet become smaller when they are lifted.[citation needed]" Until recently, there were three "general references" that might, or might not, support any and all facts in the article -- but of course no one would know, because the sources weren't matched with any facts in particular. Do you have an opinion on this issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should defer the issue over which words most naturally defines References, Further reading, Bibliography, and so forth in #Bibliography vs. References. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography vs. References

I think we need to address this issue directly. One of the major goals at WP:LAYOUT is to document the current normal practice. I invite you all to run the following pair of searches on Wikipedia, so you can see for yourself the actual current practice:

  • Bibliography -references
  • References -bibliography

Search just the main (article) namespace, and note how many articles turn up in each search. While it's just a back-of-the-envelope estimate, this should give you an idea of the relative use of the two terms in actual, everyday practice on Wikipedia.

The first search will give you a list of all Wikipedia articles that contain the word "bibliography" but not the word "references", so it should find all of the articles where the editor preferred "bibliography" instead of "references" (or mentioned bibliography for any reason, and either provided no references or chose another name, like "Works cited" or "Footnotes" for the list of citations). The second will give you the reverse: "references" but not "bibliography" -- articles that list "references" but don't use the word "bibliography".

I got about 18,000 for bibliography (including at least hundreds of articles that have the word "bibliography" in the title or use it for a list of works authored by the subject), and about 1,220,000 for the second search. That is, for every editor who chooses "Bibliography", there are many, many editors who choose "References" instead.

As you can see, the ==References== label is the current normal practice, and ==Bibliography== is used in a tiny minority of cases (less than 1% of articles). ==Bibliography== is still more common than some other forms (==Works cited== has fewer than 500 uses), but the vast majority of editors clearly favor ==References==.

BTW, I also ran a search on both terms together, in case I'd missed something. It had fewer than 27,000 articles -- and most of them seemed to use ==References==. The articles in this search generally fell into three categories:

Combining these numbers, we find that fewer than 2% of Wikipedia articles mention the word bibliography for any reason. WP:LAYOUT needs to document the actual, current practice on Wikipedia. The actual, current practice does not favor using ==Bibliography==. We should therefore not be promoting the use of this term as a substitute for ==References==.


WP:LAYOUT should also never contradict other guidelines. WP:CITE#Use of terms states, "The terms Further Reading, External links or Bibliography are used as section headings in Wikipedia articles for lists of additional general texts on a topic for those interested, rather than for citations supporting the article." We should not contradict them by introducing the use of ==Bibliography== for the purpose that they have expressly rejected. So long as WP:CITE rejects this use, we cannot legitimately promote it.


I hope that this explains the situation here. If you have questions about this, I'm happy to answer them if I can. If you don't like it -- I can't really help you with that. You could try complaining at WP:CITE that you disagree with their long-standing choices. I'll note, in passing, that back in the real world, I don't use "References" the way that Wikipedia does, so the "Wikipedia way" does not happen to be my own personal preference, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The premise of this argument may be flawed. The reason that the term references predominates is that it is mentioned in the MoS whereas the term bibliography has only recently emerged in usage. BTW, a previous editor appeared to "cherry pick" a definition for bibliography. The usual definition is found in various sources: Meriam-Webster Dictionary, Encarta and Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary. The use of the term to refer to a specific author/subject's works is an example of a type of bibliography. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
Ultimately, the definition of the term does not matter. WP:CITE says no. We cannot contradict WP:CITE here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
and again, who wrote WP:CITE? Is it possible that the first originators of the policy may have been incorrect in the use of terminology? FWiW, we cannot contradict policy is amusing to say the least. Bzuk (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
I also question this. Both CITE and LAYOUT are Wikipedia style guidelines. This guideline, LAYOUT, is an annotated, working guide to the basics of laying out an article. CITE describes how to write citations in articles. (so say the respective lead sentences) From this, it seems sensible to me that LAYOUT should define guidelines regarding section naming within articles, and CITE should use the section namings defined in LAYOUT—not the other way around. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
¶Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree with WhatamIdoing that is has been a somewhat common, although unusual, pratice specific to Wikipedia. I also agree with Bzuk that its usage similar to Futher reading is incorrect. But before we declare that our decisions here are "illegitimate", let's look at our options and look at the background of the situation.
¶"The terms Further Reading, External links or Bibliography are used as section headings in Wikipedia articles for lists of additional general texts on a topic for those interested, rather than for citations supporting the article." The usage of Bibliography as a term used in conjunction with References came about with the introduction of larger articles where short footnotes are used which requires a second section containing non-inline citation.
¶This is a relatively new occurrence, since the new page creation rate is finally ebbing and has been projected to drop. With that, this places emphasis to improve the quality of existing articles, and part of this change is that short footnotes (found as a knack in larger articles) are going to gain greater occurrence as the size of articles increase.
¶That said, we need to place greater emphasis on the differences between a Bibliography section and Further reading section. A lot of editors do not differentiate between the two since there is no need to: most articles only have and need a single References section. Since Bibliography is not a common occurrence, and is only now experiencing increasing growth and attention, this yields the need and opportunity for us to specify that Bibliography should be reserved for the Referencing block, Further reading should be reserved for background information, and potentially Works or Publications for material authored by the subject of the article.
¶There are several options. It is possible to state that WP:CITE is instruction creeping into WP:LAYOUT; WP:CITE specifies how references are managed, WP:LAYOUT specifies how sections are arranged. Part of arranging sections is knowing the alternative names each section could hold. Therefore, WP:CITE's policy over the use of terms in section names is subordinated to WP:LAYOUT: if we pass it here, we would trickle it down into WP:CITE. The next option is the bring up the issue in WP:CITE, however I think that WP:CITE#Usage of terms — especially the part reaching that Further reading and Bibligoraphy (Futher reading and External links is not a policy suppose to be covered by WP:CITE) — was quickly placed there to fill a gap in their policy, and since it should not be covered by WP:CITE it was not fully developed. Whether or not we contradict WP:CITE is not an issue, since this is a WP:LAYOUT concern, we need to develop it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Boracay Bill, you beat me to that point (edit conflict)! But, yes, I uphold Boracay Bill's decision. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to definitions, I see that both the Merriam-Webster and the Oxford both put "the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production" third, after "a list ... of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author". This latter description covers both the use for list of works and further reading, but not the sense in which Bzuk is using it for the references used to create an article, which specific use is a tertiary usage.

I also agree with ChyranandChloe that we should be documenting the most common current usage. Any other agenda would create useless makework. We should encourage moving the exceptions toward the de facto standard, not the other way around. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see my earlier comments: The usual definition is found in various sources: Meriam-Webster Dictionary, Encarta and Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary. The use of the term to refer to a specific author/subject's works is an example of a type of bibliography. FWiW, the usual definitions should apply. Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
I read the definitions. Your usage is also a specific example which comes after use for a list of authors works. They don't make your meaning primary... it's dead last (3rd def) in both M-W (use for list of author's work is 2nd) and OED (use for list of author's works is 1st). Encarta and "Websters" are a joke. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Really?
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Main Entry:bib·li·og·ra·phy Listen to the pronunciation of bibliography, Pronunciation:\ˌbi-blē-ˈä-grə-fē\ Function:noun, Inflected Form(s): plural bib·li·og·ra·phies, Etymology: probably from New Latin bibliographia, from Greek, the copying of books, from bibli- + -graphia -graphy, Date: 1802, 1: the history, identification, or description of writings or publications 2 a: a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author b: a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house 3: the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production — bib·lio·graph·ic Listen to the pronunciation of bibliographic \ˌbi-blē-ə-ˈgra-fik\ also bib·lio·graph·i·cal Listen to the pronunciation of bibliographical \-fi-kəl\ adjective, — bib·lio·graph·i·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of bibliographically \-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
  • Encarta Dictionary: bib·li·og·ra·phy [ bìbblee óggrəfee ] (plural bib·li·og·ra·phies), noun Definition: 1. book sources: a list of books and articles consulted, appearing at the end of a book or other text 2. books on subject: a list of books and articles on a subject 3. list of publications: a list of the books and articles written by a specific author or issued by a specific publisher 4. book history: the history of books and other publications, and the work of classifying and describing them Derivation: [Late 17th century. Directly or via French< modern Latin bibliographia< Greek biblion (see biblio-) + Latin graphia (see -graphy)], bib·li·og·ra·pher noun, bib·li·o·graph·ic [ bìbblee ə gráffik ] adjective, bib·li·o·graph·i·cal adjective, bib·li·o·graph·i·cal·ly adverb
  • Webster's Dictionary: Noun 1. A list of writings with time and place of publication (such as the writings of a single author or the works referred to in preparing a document etc.).
  • Dictionary.com: bib·li·og·ra·phy /ˌbɪbliˈɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bib-lee-og-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -phies. 1. a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer. 2. a list of source materials that are used or consulted in the preparation of a work or that are referred to in the text. 3. a branch of library science dealing with the history, physical description, comparison, and classification of books and other works.
  • Cambridge Dictionary: bibliography,noun [C]a list of the books and articles that have been used by someone when writing a particular book or article
  • Allwords.com dictionary: bibliography, noun (plural: bibliographies)1. A section of a written work containing citations to all the books referenced in the work. 2. A list of books or documents relevant to a particular subject or author.3. The study of books in terms of their classification, printing and publication.
  • Wiktionary: Noun, Singular: bibliography, Plural:bibliographies, bibliography (plural bibliographies) Definition: 1. A section of a written work containing citations, not quotations, to all the books referenced in the work. 2. A list of books or documents relevant to a particular subject or author. 3. The study of books in terms of their classification, printing and publication.
  • Oxford English: bibliography/bibliogrfi/• noun (pl. bibliographies) 1 a list of books or documents on a particular subject or by a particular author. 2 the study of books in terms of their classification, printing, and publication. 3 a list of the books referred to in a scholarly work.— DERIVATIVES bibliographer noun bibliographic adjective.— ORIGIN from Greek biblion ‘book’.

FWiW, Wed, I'm not sure what dictionary definitions you are using since you seem to only pick ones that you like? Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

You are discussing this on the wrong page. WP:LAYOUT's mission is about Page layout, not about whether a collection of citations should properly be called this or that. You need to move this entire discussion over to WP:CITE and try to change their minds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the topic had been brought up there before but it makes sense to revisit the issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
¶I agree with WhatamIdoing in that we need need to expand this to WP:CITE. I, however, advocate that we centralize discussion here, in WP:LAYOUT, since the discussion originated here and contains the bulk of the arguments both for and against.
¶Wednesday Next, I agreed with yours and WhatdoIknow's consensus for a period of time that Bibliography can be defined as containing both: citation (specifically non-inline), works authored by the subject of the article, and so forth. However, Bzuk, brought up a good point — and by deduction Bibliography seems to holds the best option to be reserved as part of the Referencing block despite its multiple definitions.
¶The other usages that WhatamIdoing and Wednesday Next are advocating are (please correct if wrong) for providing background information, and for works authored by the subject of the article. Further reading, holds equal or greater relevance for background information than Bibliography. Works and Publications holds strong relevance for material authored by the subject of the article. Both are not naturally linked to being associated with citation. Bibliography, however does. Since we have deducted its alternative usage, it holds the strongest relevance for the Referencing block. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GTL says the Commons link always must be at the bottom at the external links, but why? The article Interstate 70 in Utah among others has the Commons link inside the infobox, and this is how I prefer to do it too, but not if it will be against policy. CL — 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We had some issues in rewriting the Standard appendices, which has become badly out of date. Usually I see them in the See also rather than External links or infobox since they are part of Wikimedia. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
So, basically, it's not set in stone but in general it shouldn't be in the infobox is what I'm understanding - CL — 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's most commonly placed in "External links". "See also" is a less common, but not entirely unreasonable choice. Certainly the infobox would be a strange place to put that link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there are often good reasons to put the sister project boxes earlier in the article, often near the top. Examples in my view include: (1) articles about news events which are also covered on Wikinews, (2) articles about documents whose text is found on Wikisource, (3) articles about artists or visual artworks whose content may being viewed at Commons, and probably others. I think the guidance given here is normally correct however, and these exceptions represent the normal exceptions that will exist for any guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearing up "Notes," "References," and "Notes and References"

What is the preferred approach?

I am still blundering toward an understanding of the proper use of the “Notes,” “References,” and “Notes and References” sections. Are the following statements correct? If not, what should be changed to make them correct?

1. The References section should contain only full citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in an alphabetized list (Flags of Canada for example) or a linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both. (If this is wrong then should the two lists appear in separate sections? And, if they should, what is the name of each such section?)
3. The Notes section should contain only comments on the text (which may be supported by short citations to materials listed with full citations in the References section).
4. Articles should contain citations to source material (“References”) and may contain comments (“Notes”).
5. The References section my precede the Notes section, or vice versa.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Looks right. 2. Looks right. 3. Looks right, but not written very clearly. 4. Don't know what it's trying to say, but looks wrong, unclear. 5. Correct except for the typo (my --> may). 6. Looks right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) is wrong. Yes, ==References== should always have a full citation to the source. However, it also permits the inclusion of short-form citations such as "Everyman, J., page 157." after the long-form citation. See History of condoms#References and Jane Austen#References for two very clear examples of what I'm talking about, and Acute myeloid leukemia#References for an example in an FA-class article (search for Abeloff in the refs). Also, pushing for separate sections is going to result in stupid-looking articles, with people listing every single reference in both sections because it's "required" by WP:LAY, even if the reference is only used once.
(2) has a very poor example: there is only one reference listed in Flags of Canada. A list of one item cannot usefully be said to be alphabetized. However, what's relevant is that references using <ref> automatically appear in the order in which they are linked. Full references using Harvard style (author-date style) should be alphabetized. A list of short citations (for page numbers) is inappropriate in Harvard style, because the author-date style is actually the author-date-page number style. We can simply reassert that each article must use a consistent style for its references and leave it at that. (Because if they use one style or the other, this problem won't come up.)
(3) might be profitably expanded to include quotations from the source text, to keep it consistent with Wikipedia:Cite sources#What footnotes are used for.
(4) makes sense to me. It attempts to distinguish between a reference (You Must Cite Your Sources) and explanatory text (Avoid Long Parenthetical Explanations in the Middle of the Article).
(5) is probably not best practice. ==Notes== or ==Footnotes== might contain on-Wiki information and thus precedes ==References==, which should always contain off-Wiki information. Furthermore, the reader might actually need to read the notes to understand the text. Therefore ==Notes== always precedes ==References==.
(6) is right.
Now I'd like you to consider the inherent contradiction in what you've just written: Your (1) says that ==References== must only have full citations. Your (3) says that ==Notes== must only contain comments. Where do you expect to put the short citations (page numbers from a book you've used repeatedly)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The following list is better (I hope), but can no doubt be improved. Please let me know what still needs work to make the following statements correct.

1. The References section should contain only citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in a Harvard-style alphabetized list (Starship Troopers for example) or a <ref> linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both.
3. If the <ref> approach is used in the References section then the Notes section should contain only comments on the text or quotes from source materials (either of which may be supported by short citations to materials listed with full citations in the References section). If the Harvard-style approach is used then the Notes section may also contain short citations on their own.
4. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“References”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“Notes”).
5. The Notes section should precede the References section.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is generally so in intent, but not in practice. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Leaving aside editor compliance for the moment, it looks good to me except for (3), which is wrong: Harvard does not use short citations in footnotes. The Harvard equivalent of the short citation footnote "Everyman, J. (2008), page 157." is the inline notation (Everyman 2008:157). Harvard therefore only puts commentary and quotations in the ==Notes== section (although, reasonably enough, a quotation might be followed by an appropriate Harvard-style inline notation about the page number or other source for the quote). The <ref> system might place short citations in the ==Notes== section (although I personally dislike that approach). You might re-phrase like this:
3. In the Harvard style, the Notes section contains only comments on the text or relevant quotations from source material. In the <ref> approach, the Notes section should contain comments on the text and quotations from source materials and may contain short citations for page numbers if editors prefer to list only full-length citations in the References section.
There may be a better way to phrase it, but this seems reasonably clear to me. Also, it might be worth adding a note about the third section, ==Footnotes==. A Footnotes section is used (only) in the <ref> style when there are many explanatory comments (==Notes==), many short citations (==Footnotes==) and a desire to keep the short citations out of the main list of ==References==. There should be no need for a Footnotes section in the Harvard system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In practice I don't think any such specific rules are followed. "References" may describe any section containing either citation footnotes or an alphabetized list of sources. "Notes" or "Footnotes" may be used for any section containing footnotes of any type (citations or explanatory footnotes). It is not generally true that citations and explanatory footnotes "should" appear in different sections; indeed, normally they do not, and they may be combined under the headings "Notes", "Footnotes", "Notes and References", etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the first sentence. The question is whether there should be a "best practices" guide that we encourage editors to use. That question is discussed below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I think I'm pretty close now. How's this:

1. The References section should contain only citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in a Harvard-style alphabetized list (Starship Troopers for example) or a <ref> linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both.
3. If the Harvard-style approach is used then the Notes section should contain only comments on the text or relevant quotations from source material. If the <ref> approach is used then the Notes section may also contain, in addition to comments on the text and quotations from source materials, short citations to materials with full-length citations in the References section.
4. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“References”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“Notes”).
5. The Notes section should precede the References section.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Now have you considered the use of ==Footnotes== in the <ref> style? It's used on occasion to keep short citations separate from both full references and commentary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add that to my next go-round. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(2) is inaccurate; some articles combine general references and citations under one section and nothing currently discourages this. In fact {{reflist}} is specifically designed to enable it. (3) is inaccurate; the Notes section may also contain full-length citations in that situation. (5) is more generally incorrect; Notes and References may appear in either order under the current guideline and neither is preferred. (6) is also not correct; it is not generally true that articles which contain both citations and comments should separate them. (1) and (4) are correct as I understand them, although the section titles indicated by (4) are simply one choice each from multiple options. (1) also needs to be understood broadly, as the section may contain other reference-related material, for instance comments on sources being cited. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A few follow up questions -
1. Regarding "comments on references," I think I know what you mean but I want to be sure. Can you tell me more about that? (Or, perhaps, just provide a link to an article where this is done.)
2. So if I take out the "but not both" language then 2 would be correct? (Even if that does fix it I would appreciate it if you would provide a sample article where this is done.)
3. I'm a bit lost on this one. If the Notes section contains full citations then shouldn't it be called a "Notes and references" section? I am probably missing something; if so then I appreciate in advance your patience in explaining this to me in more detail.
4. Are the "multiple options" equally preferred from an editorial perspective? If so, please provide me the principal additional alternative names for "References" and "Notes" sections. If not, would you agree that "Notes" and "References" are the titles we should be encouraging?
5. The first time I wrote 5 I said, The References section my precede the Notes section, or vice versa. I was told that this was wrong because, as the Layout article says, Any section which concerns material outside Wikipedia (including References, Bibliography, and External links) should come after any section that concerns Wikipedia material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear. On the other hand, now that you mention it, I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management says they can be reversed. So I'll go with your change on my next go-round.
6. How about: If an article contains both citations and comments then they may appear separately (citations in a "References" section and comments in a "Notes" section) or together (in a "Notes and references" section)?
Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) Well, for instance, an article might present a list of general references with a brief description of what is in particular works. For instance, in an article on a famous building, one might note that one book focuses on the process of construction, one book contains large color architectural drawings, etc., which can help direct readers to the most appropriate source.
(2) The example article given at {{reflist}} is Elephant.
(3) See Rosa Parks; here the cite.php elements appear under "Notes" but contain the full citations.
(4) "Notes" can be called "Footnotes", "Citations", etc. See Pericles, which has "Notes", "Citations" and "References" sections. To my knowledge there is no developed editorial preferences for the names of these sections, and personally I see no value in us encouraging any particular names for these sections.
(6) They may also appear together simply as "Notes", or separately with different section names, as at Pericles. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Christopher, per WP:CITE#HOW, Harvard and inline ref styles should not be mixed, so "but not both" is accurate. The list here does not yet address the use of a general reference in an article that also uses inline refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are making a distinction between a "citation" and a "general reference" then I think it is fine, but I don't believe that this distinction is made generally across the relevant guidelines (CITE: "This guideline uses the terms "source", "reference", and "citation" interchangeably"). I still think it is a bit misleading, in that a section may contain both an alphabetized list of references (perhaps identical to that found in Harvard style) and footnotes produced by cite.php or another method. However, I agree that parenthetical citation and footnote citation should not be intermingled. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
References and Notes. If the "Notes" section is being used for short-form citations, then it should come after the full-title citation, so after the "References" section. Jheald (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't cap talk pages; it invalidates future archive searches. If the page is too long, you can archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, caping a lengthy discussion enhances the readability of the page before it is archived. Is there any problem with considering this cap to be temporary while the discussion is active? Once the discussion is complete, and the section is qued for archiving, then the cap can be removed. That seems to be the best of both worlds. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

O.k., back to the drawing board:

1. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“citations”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“comments”).
2. There is no consensus establishing a particular layout or set of layouts for the presentation of citations and comments. Similarly, there is no consensus establishing the names of the sections into which citations and comments are put.
3. Approaches for presenting citations and comments found in featured articles include:
3.a. Putting linked short citations in a “Notes” section followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Starship Troopers (this article has no comments). (A variation on this approach is to put linked short and full citations in a “Notes” section followed by a list of additional full citations in a “References” section as in Palazzo Pitti.)
3.b. Putting linked comments in a “Notes” section, followed by linked short citations in a “References” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “Bibliography” section. See, e.g., Jane Austen. (A variation on this approach is to name the last two sections "Citations" and "References" as in Pericles).
3.c. Putting linked full citations in a “Notes” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Rosa Parks (this article has no comments). (Or reversing the order of presentation, as in Absinthe.)
4. In addition, particularly for articles with fewer citations and comments, the citations and comments may be combined in a “Notes and references” section.

Is this any closer to correct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this increases partisan. However here is another method referencing method, which I am proposing or reproposing:
  1. Providing a "Footnotes" or "Notes" simultaneously with a "References" or occasionally "Bibliography" as a second-level-header (h2):
    1. Over distinguishes the two sections, which present essentially the same content: information that either help verify or elaborate portions that cannot be done from within the article
    2. Increases h2 clutter; which should be reserved for the primary elements of the article
  2. I suggest encapsulating the two as a single h2 likely named "References" with two tertiary-level-headers (h3) named: (1) "Footnotes" or "Notes", and (2)"Bibliography" or "Sources"
  3. If only (1) in-line citations or (2) general references are used, all h3 within the h2 are omitted: leaving only the h2 "References"
  4. In long articles where books or other media are cited more than once from different locations from within the book or media, the "Bibliography" or "Sources" h3 should contain the full citation of the book(s) or other media, with the "Notes" or "Footnotes" h3 containing the relevant locations within them
  5. Explanatory notes and in-line citation can be placed in the same section, however like in the Jane Austen case, it's possible to separate them
This method is outline oriented, which is optimized for the TOC. It does, however, increase the number of sections from potentially two to three. We might not have a consensus on a singular method, but we can consent on what progress we've made.
Here is an example of the proposed method: Link. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As things currently stand (as I understand them) your proposal is as acceptable as any other method. So feel free to implement it on any article you choose to edit. (Keeping in mind that established articles should not be modified simply to make them more acceptable to one editor's sense of aesthetics.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
CC, Both bibliography and sources have been deprecated in the past because they seem to be confusing to readers (and occasionally editors). Source in particular is defined much more broadly under WP:V and WP:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate CC's proposal for a new approach, I'm still waiting for comments on my most recent (July 22) attempt to understand the current reality regarding layout for citations and comments. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :-) It's really hard to sort through these long discussions. I think I see (above) your July 22 proposal. It says in several places that there is "no consensus", which I'm not sure is accurate. There are several different common practices in use, which is different than no consensus. It's hard to tackle this issue here when WP:CITE has been devastated over the last two months, and the pages need to be re-synced. CITE is the main page for that, so it's hard to sort out how to fix this page, when that page is a wreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, now that I've looked it over more closely, I'm afraid that adding all of that wording here will just create future syncing problems with WP:CITE. The problem of duplication of text is an issue across all of the MoS pages, and I encourage that we work towards keeping the text in the "main-ish" place, and only linking to it on other guideline pages. It is a layout issue, but it is also primarily discussed at WP:CITE. Can we find a way to briefly summarize and link here, rather than re-writing this page and always needing to keep CITE and LAYOUT in sync? The summary here would say something along the lines of "many different methods of sorting notes, citations and comments, etc.", and then link to that page. And then we need to tackle that page, which is way out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)\
I wholeheartedly agree. I'll begin a discussion on that topic below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether to modify Layout to state a preferred approach

Generally, because different editors use these sections in different ways in practice, I'm not sure any tightening or change is necessary; it's only a guideline,and guidelines are usually flexible. If someone can show me a problem, we could work on tightening to avoid such problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are the guidelines intended to reflect the range of practices (whether they are preferred or not) or are they designed to reflect "best practices"? If the the former then I agree that the exercise above is for my benefit alone and we don't need to take the next step of working together to make Layout clearer. On the other hand, as the Manual of Style says "One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles." So maybe giving a clear guide to the best practices would be a good idea. What do others think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the "right" answer for these sections depends so much on the style of citations, I've tried a different approach at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox. It splits the sections according to citation style and is intended to replace the existing Notes and References subsections. I would welcome your reactions (on this page, please, so we can keep the conversation here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What he said; how the sections are used depends on the citation method. I don't think we need to complicate the page; I've never encountered a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing - My reaction is that I support the idea of modifying the current text to make it clearer regarding what should go where (and how). Unfortunately, I am still educating myself regarding what should go where (and how) and, accordingly, I can not speak authoritatively regarding the content of your proposal. Once I complete the process of nailing down the "best practices" regarding layout (a process underway above) I will be happy to return to your proposal and give my newly educated opinion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that most of the problems actually appear here, on this page, with editors eager to impose their pet versions on everyone else, despite a complete absence of consensus. To the extent that codifying the actual consensus could cut short those conversations, and perhaps even be useful on occasion to curious editors, I'm in favor of recommending a preferred approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy says "show me a problem." The Question section below shows the problem: There is confusion out there regarding whether there are and, if so, what are the preferred formats for comments and citations. The Layout article should be revised to clear up this confusion. (Even if the consensus turns out to be to tell editors that "there are no preferred formats, do whatever the heck you like.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Butwhatdoiknow, and rather than saying that there is a complete absence of consensus we could say that there are more than one consensus. The current WP:LAYOUT does not reflect this. I have drafted an edit to the policy page, link, however it includes some liberal changes, including moving the Links, Images, and Horizontal dividing line into the Body sections (this is the WP:LAYOUT not WP:MOS). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Defer this issue to WP:Cite?

Above, SandyGeorgia says: Can we find a way to briefly summarize and link here, rather than re-writing this page and always needing to keep CITE and LAYOUT in sync? The summary here would say something along the lines of "many different methods of sorting notes, citations and comments, etc.", and then link to that page. I think this is an excellent idea.
While I believe that this information should be in this article rather than in WP:Cite, the important thing is that it should be in one place or the other (not both). And, as near as I can tell, there is a better chance to get those of us currently working on the Layout article to agree to defer to the Cite article than the other way around. (Then we can all go over to the Cite article and try to fix any problems there.)
We can worry about the exact language later but, for now, what does everyone think of the idea of saying something brief in Layout about References/Notes/etc. and providing a link to more complete information in the Cite article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean swapping in something like this?

===Notes, Footnotes, and References===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN

This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any).

The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above.

For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:

  • The headings are always level 2 headings (==References==).
  • Items in a list should be preceded either with a bullet (if alphabetized) or with a number, letter, or symbol (if it refers to an item in the text that is marked by a number, letter or symbol).
  • For the reader's convenience, text which the reader may need to understand the article, such as an explanatory note, is generally listed separately from and before long lists of references.
  • Please avoid naming these sections "Bibliography", "Publications", or "Sources" as these terms have proven confusing on occasion.
Something like that would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Without getting into specific wording, the first part of your draft (up to "...on the appropriate pages linked above.") is what I (and, I think, Sandy) have in mind. After that your proposal seems to veer into giving instructions, something my proposal would leave for the other articles to do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do this, then. Not having to keep two pages synchronized is always a benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it looks good. I reserve the right to pay closer attention later on :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But should we add single-spaced bullet? I sometimes see editors adding spaces between the bullets, which really lengthens the page. I'm not sure where we deal with that issue as a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Does single-spaced bullet refer to "* Item" (compare "*Item" with no space), or do you mean "Please don't put blank lines between items in a list"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
oops, problem with this text: "Items in a list should be preceded with either a bullet (if alphabetized) or a number (if it refers to a numbered item in the text)." This section refers to Notes, and it is common to use a, b, c ... A, B, C, or Greek letters in Notes. They don't have to be numbers. Re WhatamIdoing, not to put blank lines between items, since bullets automatically space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the spacing issue go in Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists instead? (Perhaps we should add a link to that section here.) I have updated the text to include letters and symbols as well as numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Bingo (that would be the place for it, care to start that discussion ove there :-)). Fix looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
All right: discussion started, and I've temporarily put the main MoS page back on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like where this is going, if I am interpreting this correctly then we are pursuing and nearing a consensus on the following elements:

  • Minimalist approach (exporting the responsibilities to WP:CITE and so on)
  • There should be a single section likely titled === Notes and Citations === or === Notes, Footnotes, and References ===
  • Within the that section we should briefly introduce that WP:CITE determines how information is cited, WP:LAYOUT only defines its arrangements

I understand that a single consensus on which method to utilized would be unlikely in the current climate of this discussion. However, if we can keep track of the variation in referencing, it may hold the potential that there may more standardization in the future:

  • Notes
  • References
  • Note and References (when the number of citations is small enough to fit)
  • Section oriented method (Footnotes and References are two separate sections)
  • Outline oriented method (References is cast over the two subsections: Notes and Bibliography)
  • Separate notes method (see Jane Austen; like similar to section oriented, but explanatory notes are separated from the inline references and lengthy works: Notes References Bibliography)
  • Outline oriented method with separate notes (similar to Outline oriented, but explanatory notes are in a separate section; resulting in Notes, References, Inline Citation, and Bibliography)

The following are interchangeable terms:

  • Inline citation, Notes, Footnotes — they are created with the <ref>...</ref> and {{reflist}} or <references /> tags
  • Non-inline citation, Bibliography, References (if not already used) — generally for long works where it is cited in more than one place, or for citations that has not been placed in inline; should be in a bullet list with some sort of arrangement (alpha by author or title, by order in inline, so on)

So what do you guys think, can begin drafting? Or do we have more elements to vet, discuss, or elaborate on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I already indicated previously, the term "references" is a very ambiguous one and is defined as: 1. A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source. 2.a. The passage or source so referred to. 2.b. A work frequently used as a source. 2.c. A mark or footnote used to direct a reader elsewhere for additional information. In Wikipedia, the term references more often refers to the end/footnote but that is already given as "Notes."
The term bibliography, however, is very specific: 1. A list of the works of a specific author or publisher. 2.a. A list of writings relating to a given subject: a bibliography of Latin American history. 2.b. A list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work. 3.a. The description and identification of the editions, dates of issue, authorship, and typography of books or other written material. 3.b. A compilation of such information.
I am following the logical progression of the meaning of the words to propose:
  • References (L2 heading signifying a listing following of all sources of information)
  • Notes (L3 heading signifying a listing of the source of information noted by footnoting/endnoting numeral and source, given either in shorthand or full bibliographical citation form)
  • Bibliography (L3 heading, giving full notations on all secondary/tertiary sources of information in textual/electronic form)
  • External links (L3 heading, signifying electronic links that were used as additional reference sources) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Draft revision to the Notes and References sections

Well, actually, we've already started drafting. WhatamIdoing suggests:

===Notes, Footnotes, and References===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN

This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any).

The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above.

For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:

  • The headings are always level 2 headings (==References==).
  • Items in a list should be preceded either with a bullet (if alphabetized) or with a number, letter, or symbol (if it refers to an item in the text that is marked by a number, letter or symbol).
  • For the reader's convenience, text which the reader may need to understand the article, such as an explanatory note, is generally listed separately from and before long lists of references.
  • Please avoid naming these sections "Bibliography", "Publications", or "Sources" as these terms have proven confusing on occasion.

I've said that I like What's version (subject to tweaking) up to "... appropriate pages linked above." Sandy appears to have signed off on the full version (subject to tweaking). I suggest we continue to work from What's draft. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree more strongly on the notion that "references" is a clearly understood term while "bibliography" is misleading. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
That said, are you o.k. with the rest of What's draft? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the real rationale for further reading, does it actually refer to sources used in formulating the article? If so, then they should appear as part of a bibliography. Further reading implies that these are in addition to the sources already presented, which is very misleading. I am sure that the original drafters of the wording meant to consider that sources were for the reader to check out because they were important to understanding the article, then that makes them secondary or tertiary sources to be included in a bibliography. The entire concept behind "references" is so nebulous, that a lot of redefinition is required. We already have MoS warriors out there reverting like mad because of their interpretations of the terminology. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Your concerns regarding the references/bibliography issue and your question about further reading are duly noted. Is the rest of What's text o.k.? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that you ask, I find this statement to be confusing, "For the reader's convenience, text which the reader may need to understand the article, such as an explanatory note, is generally listed separately from and before long lists of references." Does that refer to a "Notes" section, which now makes it unclear as to lists of "Citations" as opposed to footnote/endnotes. In publishing, the footnote/endnote often takes on this dual role, which seems to be fairly confused as either "notes" or "notes and references". BTW, the entire passage is written with an extraneous comma (the so-called Harvard comma) in stating lists, e.g. "Notes, Footnotes, and References" which I would have stated as "Reference sources including notes (foot/endnotes), bibliographies and external links." FWiW, my background is as an academic librarian for over 30 years, and now presently an author and editor at various publishing houses, so forgive my pedantic ramblings as to bibliographic notations. Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Every time I ask you come up with at least one more objection. So, unless you tell me I'm wrong, I'll just consider you to be a "no" vote with regard to What's draft. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to sound so contrary, in reiterating some concerns essentially "my revision" would change the direction of the draft as is. FWiW, I have to be a "nope" on this present draft. Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Didn't catch that as a draft. Nevertheless, I'll start with the minor and move up. Try to avoid padding: "For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:", it can be reduced to: "Please observe the following guidelines:". We can simplify the title from Notes, Footnotes, and References to Notes and Citation — thus we've circumvented a comma issue in addition to reducing padding. Other than that, I support the prose and title. ¶Giving a set of general guidelines doesn't effectively express the known permutations of the Notes and Citation section. I suggest that we give a list of methods rather than a set of guidelines:

  • Notes, when only explanatory notes exist. Create a Notes section. example: Wikipedia:Layout
  • References, when only inline citation exist. Create a single References section. example: United States Department of Agriculture
  • Notes and references, when both inline citations and explanatory notes exist. Create a Notes and references section. example: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Outline Oriented, when a reference, usually lengthy, is cited in more than one location from within the work; or when references are not place in an inline manner. Create a single section titled References with two subsections within it titled Notes and Bibliography. Place the inline citations in the Notes and non-inline citations in the References. example: Cockroach
  • Section Oriented, for similar reason to the Outline Oriented method above. Create a two sections: Notes, and References. Place inline citations in Notes and non-inline citations in References. example: Eye movement in music reading
  • Outline Oriented with Separate Notes and Inline Citation, when explanatory notes and inline citations have grown to a point where it is desired to separate the two. Create two sections: Notes and References. Encapsulate two subsections Inline citation and Bibliography within the References section. Place explanatory notes in the Notes section, inline citations in the Inline citation subsection, and non-inline references in the Bibliography subsection. example: Reston ebolavirus
  • Section Oriented with Separate Notes and Inline Citation, for similar reason as above. Create three sections: Notes, References, and Bibliography. Place explanatory notes in the Notes section, inline citation in the References, and non-inline citation in the Bibliography section. example: Jane Austen

I agree with Bzuk, Bibliography should not be confused with Further reading: Bibliography is used to define a list of publications which can be used to verify an article; Further reading is used to define a list of articles or publications which can be used to expand upon the reader's knowledge — used similarly to External links. ¶I don't recommend starting a habit of using L2, L3, and so on. To give you some background: the internet was first developed (in addition to governmental purposes) to help peer-review documents; however, at the time, webpages used to be simply large bodies of text. HTML (actually SGML, its predecessor) was introduced to help divide these large blocks of text into something more readable. Headings was part of the first wave of tags which helped specify what certain pieces of text were. Thus, we have h1 for first level heading (article title), h2 for second level heading, h3 and so on. ¶Perhaps, we should introduce this in Lead section of WP:LAYOUT, or find another method of referring to section headings. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand that you agree with me that the opening text is o.k. (subject to tweaking) but that you have problems with the "following guidelines"? (We can fight over the new title for the subsection if and when we get some consensus on the text change.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the text is essentially ok, it only needs a bit of cleanup; and as you said we can fight over the new title and so forth after we get a consensus on the text change. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose inclusion of C&C's list of methods. The major point here is to avoid inclusion of this complication. The list of methods belongs at WP:CITE, not WP:LAYOUT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CITE states how references are made, different methods of creating references (e.g. <ref>, <cite>, <harv>), and when to use them. WP:LAYOUT states where the sections belong and their arrangement — specifically the different methods of arranging sections. Furthermore, WP:CITE only briefly states that references should be placed near the end of document in a section named Notes or References (or otherwise): no where in its text does it explain how the sections are arranged. I've rewritten the list of methods above to better reflect this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there is a serious problem with using Bibliography instead of References. That is the Bibliography is the preferred heading for a list of the subject's works in a biographical article. In such an article, there would then be two sections titled Bibliography. Let's stick to using References as there is no compelling reason to change it. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We have that worked out, see #About Further reading. Further reading contains all material that is not used to verify the article, but provides good background (note that if it is a website, it goes in the external links) — this can include works written but the subject of the article. In many cases I've also seen a section titled Works devoted to the authors works such as K. A. Applegate. One way of putting is that Bibliography is reserved to help verify the article, where Further reading is reserved for background information. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, we DON'T have that all worked out.
C&C, your personal preference is not the convention used on Wikipedia. We are not going to endorse the use of "Bibliography" instead of "References" just because you personally prefer it. Wednesday Next is right: the convention at Wikipedia is to use Bibliography for books written by the subject of the article. ("Works" is more common for non-book creations, such as visual arts; "Publications" is sometimes used for scientific journal articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I thought we were near the end of our discussion about Further reading's place — that's why you've implemented it so quickly without draft approval. Nevertheless, both methods are established: Bibliography can be used to hold a list of the subject of the article's works, or it can be used to hold non-inline citation (we may need to work this out, it doesn't seem very consistent). ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, more discussion is needed in which definitions must be taken in consideration of the terms in use. This means that the whole concept of referencing should include an evolving rather approach. The term bibliography is normally reserved for the list of reference sources used in formulating a work, but has somehow dual meanings/purposes now in use in Wikipedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC).
I beg to differ. The primary use of the word bibliography refers to "A list of the works of a specific author or publisher" (see [2]). The use you refer to for the term is a secondary one (2b, to be precise). Wikipedia has been encouraging the use of this term for its primary purpose for some time, to avoid ambiguity in headings. There is no real reason to reverse direction here. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion over the usage of Bibliography should be deferred to #Bibliography vs. References. Wednesday Next, the source you provided is derived from "The American Heritage Dictionary", which specializes in the contemporary usage of the word "Bibliography". It's a change, and we need to explore it in depth — so let's resolve this before we continue with passing the Referencing sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Change About To Be Made

Based on the discussion above I'm about to remove the current Notes and References sections and replace them with this text:

=== Notes, Footnotes, and References{{anchors|Notes|References}} ===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN

This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any).

The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above.

I understand that this draft is not perfect. (How could it be? I didn't write it.) And there will be those who will be anxious to "fiddle" with it once it is in the article. (Me, for example.) So please don't object to this change based on wording or phrasing. That said, any reason why I shouldn't plow forward with the change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I'm satisfied with this as a step in the right direction. I do think that we should include a reasonable level of layout-specific information, like the fact that these lists should be bulleted (numbered, symbol-ed, etc.) instead of plain lists, and that the headers should be level 2 headers instead of level 3, but that can be added later.
I suggest waiting at least 24 hours after your announcement, however, so that people who don't check Wikipedia multiple times in one day have a chance to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Agree with WhatamIdoing on bullets, level 2, et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Curious, though, why the link to the ISBN page? That has nothing to do with layout. Does it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an improvement to the current one, which is badly out of date. However I would prefer if you placed a list tacking the different methods in which these sections are organized, thus giving strong examples in addition to general guidelines. I won't revert it, which would make this proposal fall short of consensus, but it still needs work. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered about ISBN as well. And I also agree that we need to provide more guidance in the guide (although my approach would differ from those of WhatamI and CC). However, if we wait until we have text that everyone will agree to then we'll wait forever. Better, I suggest, to make this change "as is" and then refine it over time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented it with a change in title from Notes, Footnotes, and References to Notes and citations (Notes and Footnotes seem too closely linked, we're describing sections which hold explanatory notes and citation: both inline and non-inline). I believe the current sections are unacceptably out of date, and although our draft is imperfect: it's better. However, if this is too early, feel free to revert it. For SandyGeorge and Butwhatdoiknow, the ISBN seems unusual to me as well. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN or International Standard Book Number and ISSN, International Standard Serial (Journal, magazine) Number is essentially a "locator" for book merchants, publishers and the public. As a librarian, I constantly referred to ISBN as a means of ordering material, it gave the location by country, publisher and subject as well as giving a particular item code number(s). Where it has application in Wikipedia, is as an aid to those readers who wished to locate the print material. FWiW, the ISBN was considered optional as a "tracing" in cataloguing until recently wherein the usual bibliographic record tends to be more comprehensive and includes the ISBN as a matter of course. Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
That is all very well and good. The question is whether the Layout article (which is about "where") should point to the ISBN article (which is about a very specific "how"). No doubt the Cite article, and perhaps the Footnotes article, should talk about the use of the ISBN. But, I suggest, we should not clutter up the Layout article with even a mention of it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I support removal of the ISBN link from the (ir)relevant section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes, Footnotes, and References

Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN

Not all articles have citations, but they do or should have a References section. So independent of "Footnotes" and "Citing sources", it is necessary for this guideline to include a mention of a References section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for transferring this discussion to the talk page. I respectfully disagree with your position that all articles have a "References" section. Please see above for examples of articles that illustrate this point. I agree with you that Wikipedia would be a better place if there was a consensus regarding the format and titles of sections containing notes and citations. Unfortunately, the reality is that there isn't. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to re-revert (rather than trying to resolve the issue on the talk page). Shame on you. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The term, "references" can be deined as a listing of reference sources, which all article should have. The term "notes" is also nebulous as it can include in broad terms: endnotes/footnotes which may be explanations or appendices, parenthetical notations linked to citations or quotes as well as "shortened bibliograpical notations." "Bibliography" on the other hand, is much more refined as a llisting of sources of information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes they can be nebulas but as this format (Notes and References) has been in use for months if not years on this page, it has become a standard. I have my own personal preference, which would not order them in the way they have been on this page of a considerable length of time, but for consistency I have been formatting articles in this way. I see no advantage of throwing out the format that this page has been suggesting for a considerable length of time, without broad agreement from the community and which from the number of editors involved in the discussion over the last month or so is not evident. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I agree and that is one of the strengths of this Wikywacky world, in that it is flexible enought to allow for variances and still work. I typically set up a "References" section and then list sources within the general heading, see: Anna May Wong and Amelia Earhart as examples of where this works and is accepted as a useable format. FWiW, the reason for not trying to arm wrestle Wiki editors into a new format is exactly as you have stated it, the discourse must be in place and all interested parties have to have an opportunity to provide input. Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
1. Why did you wait until now, PBS, to voice your opinion?
2. Can you explain how "Notes" and "References" "has beocme standard" when this page (as you have edited it) conflicts with Cite and Footnotes and actual articles are all over the place?
3. How many editors constitute "broad agreement from the community"?
Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

since the start of the month only 13 editors (Butwhatdoiknow, Bzuk, Christopher Parham, ChyranandChloe, CountyLemonade, Morphh, Nichalp, Philip Baird Shearer, SandyGeorgia, Tyrenius, Wednesday Next, WhatamIdoing, Wtmitchell) have edited this talk page. Since July 21 -- the last time there was a major archive only an additional two editors (ImperfectlyInformed and Tony1) have also edited this page making 15 editors in total. Have these proposed changes been widely advertised as they will effect 10,000 of pages?

Until the last couple of days the discussion has been on a section heading of "Notes, Footnotes, and References" not a section heading called "Notes and citations".

Looking at the last 500 edits takes us back to 7 August 2006. and the section on Standard appendices on that date were: 

  1. Quotations (deprecated)
  2. See also (or Related topics)
  3. Notes
  4. References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)
  5. Further reading (or Bibliography)
  6. External links

So yes the section headings have been stable for at least a year. Further if one looks at WP:CITE there is a similar consistency see the sections Making an article use the footnotes system and Shortened footnotes where the sections "Notes" and "References" are used. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1. You have not answered this question.
2. You have answered this question vis-a-vis the Cite page. However you have not responded to this item vis-a-vis the Footnotes article and actual articles.
3. I understand your answer to this question to be "more than 13." How many more?
Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Phil and But, I think this issue is an evolving one as the original guidelines had been inconsistent in the use of reference terms, but a discourse with interested parties is now taking place, which, of course, does not preclude an editor from being WP:BOLD. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

Butwhatdoiknow to answer your questions; (1) until very recently the suggested section header was "Notes, Footnotes, and References" not Notes and citations. If you look at my edit history you will see that I am involved in many other areas and I do not expect to see such radical changes carried out to what has been a stable guideline so quickly. (2) Footnotes suggests using WP:CITE for such information (it is mainly a how to page), but in the examples "Notes" and "References" are the section headers used. (3) more than the number involved in this discussion because although I have listed 15 editors, most of those have not been very active. As for other pages. This is a guideline not a policy, just because some pages do not follow it does not mean that it should not suggest a layout. It is a layout that has been stable for at least a year, that has served its purpose well. When there is a dispute over layout usually people will agree to abide by this guideline. The changes away from Notes, References, Further reading/External links as a format will cause an increase in edit wars over the naming of sections such as whether to call a section notes or citations etc. I don't think that is a good idea. Also as I made clear above. Not all articles have citations but all should have references, and so this guideline should document the use of a section called References independent of the WP:CITE guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think past versions of this page actually recommended the use of the terms "Notes", "References", etc. They were just given as commonly used examples. Any equivalently clear section structure is fine by me, and articles use a wide variety of such structures. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Notes is an example of a losely defined term, is it an endnote, footnote, parenthetical note, citation source, appendices? or what? Sometimes the section on Notes appeared to be a bibliographical record of sources. Similarly, what exactly is an external link if not another source of information, albeit in an electronic form. More to come, if anyone asks? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Taking this one step at a time: So, PBS, based on your response to Question 1 should I conclude that you are comfortable with the recent change as long as we preserve the "Notes, Footnotes, and References" title? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, there is no difference between a note and a footnote unless the term is defined specifically. A note is basically an explanation while foot/endnotes are specifically linked to a statement within a body of text, giving a source, and sometimes a further "note" or explanation. "References" is also a very nebulous term that simply refers to a source of information while "Bibliography" which most editors are using but calling it "references", is a comprehensive notation of the source of information, a listing of all print and non-print references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Not really Butwhatdoiknow, I would have preferred to keep the sections as they were, but rather than just revert the changes, I sought to alter the changes made to day in the spirit of compromise. The section you refer to above recent change is I think closer to acceptable than the new implementation "as edited by Butwhatdoiknow at 16:41, 18 August 2008" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is proabbly best to make incremental steps and look for consensus for change rather than wholesale redrawing of the Magna Carta of Wikipedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
O.k. then, PBS, we'll re-start at the recent change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If memory serves, PBS believes that if you write down the author, book title, publisher, and date of publication, but not a page number, then that's a "reference". If you include the page number, it is magically transformed into a "citation." I've never encountered another person who uses these words in this fashion, but knowing this odd distinction will likely explain most of PBS's complaint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your memory and my memory on this issue are not the same. I must have made a comment on a talk page which was not very clear if that is what you have inferred from something I have written. Or perhaps it was from this edit Revision as of 09:24, 30 June 2007 "Full citations: References do not usually contain page numbers but citations do." As that was a comment adding a request for page to a full citation section. Then I stand by what I wrote as it has to be taken in context of an edit history comment, to Wikipedia:Citing sources when demanding a page number with a full citation. And perhaps edits by me before and after that edit will put it in context for you: [3] [4] That there is an reference list at the end of an article that often do not contain page numbers is I true. My edits to WP:CITE have been consistent in this area I think that books used as inline citations ought to carry page numbers (along with other information, as I added and readded for citations when it was removed). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue at hand is all that should be discussed rather than any characterizations or inneuendo. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, PBS, that's exactly the statement that I'm referring to. Knowing the distinction you make between the two terms explains your assertions that "Not all articles have citations but all should have references" and "Not all articles have citations, but they do or should have a References section". Most Wikipedia editors use "citation" and "reference" interchangeably. (See, for example, WP:CITE#Use of terms, "This guideline uses the terms citation and reference interchangeably.") I only point out that you do not use these terms interchangeably, and that a good deal of the confusion over your statement above likely derives from your unusual use of the term citation -- because, obviously, if you use references and citations as identical, interchangeable terms, then labeling a section Notes and citations or labeling it Notes and references entails no actual difference in meaning.
Bzuk, I'm not sure were the "characterizations or inneuendo [sic]" come into it. The topic at hand, defined as narrowly as possible, is the title for this section. PBS wants a different title because of the way he uses these terms. What exactly is off-topic here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is the terminology widely used by wikipedia editors and is reflected in the wording of WP:BURDEN. (Probably to do with the evolution of Wikipedia. First Articles with no sources, then articles with a reference section, then articles with cited references) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN does not distinguish between a reference and a citation. It fails to define its terms, but appears to use them interchangeably, just like all the other guidelines that I've looked at.
You're right about the evolution of the articles on Wikipedia: a general ref, listed at the bottom of the article and vaguely supporting some statements, is often replaced by an inline ref. Putting the written out description of the source inside <ref> brackets does not change its nature or name, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A new look at the term "references"

I have recently put forward the definition that is most prevalent about "references" in that layout states "This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article" with the additional notation "sometimes called a bibliography." That is the way that a bibliography is also defined, as a "list of the references that support the information." See a large number of definitions derived from contemporary dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Columbia and a host of others. It is not the only definition for the term but it is what editors are often referring to as "references." Can others weigh in on this change in order to see if there is a consensus for the additional statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

Not in WP:CITE#Use of terms. Usually on Wikipedia Bibliography is either used for a the subject of a biography's own work or for a list of further reading books. It may be desirable to change this in Wikipedia, but at the moment I think to many changes are happening too fast to this guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Phil, read up a few sections forward where the term bibliography is defined, it appears to be the way most people use the term "references" when editors were really talking about a list of reference sources, which is most often described as a "bibliography." FWiW, this is the exact quote: "The terms Further Reading, External links or Bibliography are used as section headings in Wikipedia articles for lists of additional general texts on a topic for those interested, rather than for citations supporting the article." Where I see the variance is that a bibliography is not for additional sources but for the sources used in creating an article. Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Bzuk, I know that you personally would like to see the list of sources used to support the article called a Bibliography instead of References. My seventh grade teacher had the same opinion, and it is certainly a standard with a centuries-long tradition behind it. But this is not the convention on Wikipedia, as you have been told repeatedly. Wikipedia, according to the practical consensus of what its thousands of international editors have done, has overall preferred to reserve Bibliography for a collected list of an author's publications. I do not tell you that this is Right™ or the Only True Approach™ -- I only tell you that this convention is so widespread as to form a strong consensus, and that I do not, and will not, support changing the existing convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The history of the terminology, notwithstanding, has no bearing on the usage as applied by Wikipedia editors. The term "references" is already being used to identify a list of sources, which is why the terminolgy "notes and references" appeared. References are closer to the "notes" than anything else. It was a misnomer to keep the term and the use of "further reading" was then instituted with the proviso that it may also be known as a bibliography. A bibliography is a comprehensive source list. Any terms that are in use need clear definitions and both "references" and "bibliography" can be defined. A reference is a source of information (a note) while a bibliography is a fully noted list of sources of information. The authors of the section on citation, layout set up guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules, to assist those making contributions to the project. These guidelines are evolving if you look at the recent efforts to have the autodate linking deprecated, this process is a slow and often tedious one. Arguing that conventional usage must be the deciding factor is not based on reality; the term "references" has already been appropriated for a list of sources, why not simply use the "conventional" reasoning and call it what it is. FWiW, I much prefer this type of discourse in order to allow a free flow of ideas and thoughts. Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

Length of See Also

I reverted a good faith addition to the "See also" section because it's not universally true. Some good articles have a lengthy list under "See also". They tend to be introductory articles, and they use the "See also" section as a way to provide an orderly list of related topics. Robot#See also is a good example of this approach. There are more than three dozen linked articles (plus a category), but it's not an unreasonable list.

For an alternate approach to navigation, compare that style to Medicine, which puts similar information into a template, {{Medicine}}. The two styles are different -- but neither is "right" or "wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is my experience from Featured Articles that to become a FA, article's see also should be prunded down to few entries. Hence, in practice, good articles should have short see also's.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy See also sections are undesirable in featured or "near-finished" quality articles, although See also is a "parking space" for items that remain to be worked into the article on lesser-developed articles. Well-developed articles will already cover almost everything that should be covered with links within the article, eliminating the need for lengthy "See also" farms (which can also turn into POV-pushing venues). If Robot has three dozen linked articles, it's not a well-written article. Featured articles almost never have more than a few See alsos, and they are articles that are there only because it would truly be awkward to work them into the article. Navigational templates are a different story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the Robot article should be better developed, or that content could go to a navigational template or a list. Medicine is out of whack as well; sister links go in external links, not See also. Note that neither of those articles are at good articles standard (Robot needs to be delisted); both need a lot of work and content development, which partly explains why both have lengthy See also farms. I think the current text already explains this, so I don't disagree with the revert (although all of this possibly could be made more clear). Someone should deal with delisting Robot at GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, do you really see a practical difference for the interested reader between using See also to list three dozen related articles, and using a navigational template to list the same three dozen articles? I'm sure we have our own stylistic preferences, but I see no content differences (beyond the fact that I routinely ignore navigational templates, but often look at articles linked in See also). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes; navigational templates are collapsible. And we should be encouraging our best article writing, whereby articles worthy of mention are worked into the prose, not added as lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When there is a separate section, external links should be limited to the external links section.

I removed this because it's not accurate -- one, because external links are allowed in infoboxes, and, two, because convenience links to books in the "Further reading" section are also allowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bring back the notes anchor

CC removed the notes anchor in the new "Notes and citations" section (at least that it what it is called at the moment), saying we cannot have two sections contain the same identifier. This will distrupt the ToC casuing any sections named "Notes" to jump to the first section with that identifier). But we had two sections with the identifier before we made the "big change" edit. And there are links from other pages to "notes" on this page that are not intended to go to the footnotes. I don't understand CC's comment about sections jumping in the table of contents. Perhaps if that was explained to me I would understand. Otherwise, I think we should restore the "notes" anchor. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Approaching this from a different direction, it is my understanding that (1) Wikitext generating section headings with a particular name produce an HTML Anchor element with that name as the element ID and, (2) HTML and XHTML require every instance of an ID attribute in a document to be unique (see e.g., this and this). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But what about the fact that, before the "big change," this article did have two "Notes" headings? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Then it would have generated HTML not compliant with the HTML spec, with undefined handling by the various browsers. In practice, browsers probably targeted either the first or the last occurrence of the ID matching the href rather than e.g., producing nasal demons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are still talking over my head. But I'll try to solve the problem with a work around. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Before the big change, I was wasn't paying attention to see if you guys had two sections with the same name. Therefore the identifier conflict went unnoticed. If you want a work around simply rename the Notes section (the one at the bottom of the page) to Footnotes, and return the anchor. An identifier is specified by the id="" attribute, it is used for section jumping. All sections (headings), all {{anchor}}s, and all inline citations use identifiers to help specify a location within the document; it lets them jump to that part of the document when you click on an entry in the ToC, an inline-reference link, and so on. When you have two identifiers with the same name, you have an identifier conflict. By default the second of two identifiers is omitted. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I "solved" this problem on August 18 by putting the following text in the "Notes" section: If you arrived here from a link on another page then click here to go to the section discussing notes and references. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a really poor way to solve the issue. Since the original Notes section (the one regarding the Standard appendices) was created, all links were redirected to that section rather than the Notes at the bottom. I don't believe that people would be interested in linking to the explanatory notes section of this article rather than the section regarding how Notes should be arranged. Therefore, I've renamed the Notes section at the bottom to Footnotes to avoid an identifier conflict, returned the anchor to the new section, and removed the piece of text at the bottom. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Portals in infobox templates

Portals belong in See also. But some editors persistently add them to the end of infoboxes, which causes them to appear in the lead (and causes an WP:ACCESSIBILITY breach as well). Samples at Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Does the text need to be reinforced to specifically address this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with having the portal link there; the area it occupies is often unused white space and for articles containing those template it's certainly a relevant link. I'm not sure what accessibility issue exists but presumably that issue can be separated from the one of whether the link should exist at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a word search and didn't find "portal" in the Accessibility article. Is the restriction against putting them in the lead implied by some other language in that article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to both. Parham, do you use a screen reader? Butwhat, it's the part that templates go after the text in the lead, before the first section heading. Look at some really bad examples of very long templates added under the infobox. Or look at some articles where three or four or five portals might be added to the infobox; consider the breach of this guideline if taken beyond this one simple example. This is automatically breaching two guidelines at once in every article that uses that infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a word search and didn't find "template" in the Accessibility article. Is the part about templates going after the lead text implied by some other language in that article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The accessibility guideline shows the infobox appearing ahead of the lead and doesn't mention anything about including portal links within the infobox. What are you getting at? Whether putting infoboxes ahead of the lead is actually a good thing from an accessibility standpoint is debatable (I think probably it is not) but that is a matter for another time. I don't much care for the language in this guideline and if push came to shove would support removing it; see also is one appropriate place for portal links but this is another good place since it is often just empty space. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Man. OK, should I post the entire text over here ? Do you see the order of the items on the Accessibility page? Do you see where navigational templates fall in that order? Do you see that first are dab links and maintenance tags, then under the infobox, next comes images, then comes text, then navigation boxes? Navigation templates (which portals are, they aren't images or infoboxes) go under the text. They don't go between an infobox and images, as is forced when adding them to an infobox. Portals go in See also, and the white space Parham is talking about is 1) not universal on every article (it depends on the size of the box, the template, the TOC, the lead, many factors), and 2) not the same as what is seen on screen readers. That's part of why portals go in see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be kind to ignoramuses. So, navigation "boxes" is the same as navagation "templates"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
oh, man, isn't wiki fun ??? Yes, the terminology is all messed up. Infoboxes are standard formats that allow variable input, and are different on each article. Navigational (boxes, templates, aids, whatever we call them) are collections of internal Wikilinks and information that don't vary depending on where they are used, as infoboxes do. I don't know if that's clear, since I never considered before how confusing the variable terminology is. Think of them in terms of function rather than form. Infoboxes summarize a bunch of information (a summary of the lead) in a format that is standardized across articles, but individualized within an article according to the article data provided for the infobox. Navigational aids are always the same, no matter which article they're used in. Is that what you're asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done some editing to Accessibility so that the next ignoramus will have a bit more guidance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is usually composed of several elements, including disambiguation links, infoboxes, images, introductory text, and navigation boxes. All but the text element are optional. When the optional elements are used they should be in the following order:

<!-- CORRECT STRUCTURE OF LEAD SECTION -->
{{otheruses}}
{{unreferenced}}
{{Foo bar Infobox|name=...}}
[[Image:...|Typical Foo bar]]
'''Foo bar''' ...
{{Foo bar Navigation}}
[table of contents]
== First section ==

  • Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox. A text only browser or screen reader presents the page sequentially, and otherwise the dablink will be read between the image and the lead section. For example:

<!-- WRONG CODE -->
[[Image:...|Typical Foo bar]]
{{otheruses}}
'''Foo bar''' ...

The above code is wrong because, although in a graphic browser it will be read OK, a screen reader will start reading the article (the image caption), later it will be disrupted by the disambiguation link, and later it will continue reading the article. Instead, it should be:

<!-- CORRECT CODE -->
{{otheruses}}
[[Image:...|Typical Foo bar]]
'''Foo bar''' ...

This code will be both readable in a graphic browser and by a screen reader.
  • The maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article, and should be presented to the user before the article itself.
  • Infoboxes are a summary of the article, and therefore should be put before any text. A difference between an infobox and a navigational box is the presence of parameters: a navigational box is exactly the same in all articles of the same topic, while an infobox has different contents in each article.
  • Navigational boxes are a collection of links to related articles of the same topic. For the same reason as avoiding the floating TOC, they should be just after the lead section so a Wikipedian using a screen reader can jump to the table of contents without reading the whole navigational text.
  • Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section § Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present.
    • I've read the page, the problem is that this guideline makes no sense. Infoboxes are not "a summary of the article"...the lead section is the summary of the article. Where is the discussion that mandated this order as being best for accessibility? Why would users of screen readers want to hear that Earth has longitude of ascending node of 348.73936° before discovering the minor detail that it is "the only place in the universe where life is known to exist"?
    • In any case, that aspect of your problem can be resolved, if desired, by moving the portal link out of the template and including it separately after the lead. As far as the guidance on this page, where was the consensus established to include the phrase that portals are most appropriately included under "see also"? The issue is basically never discussed in the archives of this talk page and I don't agree that it is good advice. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't have any problem understanding the accessibility page; in fact, I think it's one of the more clear guideline pages. Do you use a screen reader? I'm not in a position to question what those who do use them say, are you? Portals are collections of internal links, like see also, and like other navigational templates. Moving the portal out of the infobox is fine; adding it after the text in the lead would conform with ACCESSIBILITY, but not with LAYOUT. Have you seen articles with five or six portals and templates clunked up in the lead? Is that desirable? Again, don't look at this one example, which has only one portal; consider articles with multiple portals and where they should be placed. See also is the most logical place, and they've been there, in this guideline, for as long as I've been aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Did the person who added the suggested order to the guideline (without any evident discussion then or since) use a screen reader? There's nothing to suggest this is so, and there's ample reason to question the page when it makes obviously false statements; practically no infoboxes constitute a meaningful summary of the article. In general, I think that advice in a guideline is much more compelling if there is an actual discussion where consensus was determined to support it. Neither of the points at issue here have ever actually being discussed on the relevant talk pages, so far as I can tell.
        • I am looking at this one example becuase that's the one you are changing. I don't find the slippery slope argument compelling in this case as articles with five or six portals and templates can be addressed separately by removing all but the most relevant links. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Since the people who have contacted FAC about the ACCESSIBILITY page have consulted the editors on Wiki who do use screenreaders, yes, I think so. Rick Block would know. I suspect it may be the case that not all of that discussion happens on Wiki, as it depends on certain technology. I don't see any false statements; you may disagree that infoxes summarize leads, but that's a strawman relative to this issue and it's a bit of hyperbole to call that untrue. Infoboxes are definitely intended to summarize info in the lead, which is why some of us find them so useless. At any rate, whether they've correctly defined an infobox is tangential to any accessibility issues. If you want to challenge accessibility, I suggest consulting Rick Block, who does have contact with editors who use screen readers. So you're OK with a guideline that allows or encourages stacks of boxes and templates before any text, most often resulting in the very white space you initially objected to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry to jump into this fray, particularly when I am not well versed in the issues. But I wonder about the following phrase in the Accessibility article (set forth above): "[navigational boxes] should be just after the lead section so a Wikipedian using a screen reader can jump to the table of contents without reading the whole navigational text." My understanding is that a portal is a navigational box (or, if you will, template). So wouldn't the rule apply to portals? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, we covered that :-) If you re-read, now that you know the lingo, you'll see it. The problem is that putting a portal in the infobox forces it above the text. Putting a portal below the text in the lead would not violate ACCESSIBILITY (some templates are put after the lead, just not portals), but it does breach LAYOUT, which has portals at the bottom of the article. The difference is that portals are designed to draw you in, taking you away from the article, which is why we want them at the bottom, after you've read the article. Some other vertical navigational templates are placed at the top, after the lead (but they rarely work well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • So are you saying that the use of all navigation boxes in the lead section should be deprecated? If not, is there a phrase differentiates between those that may and those that should not appear in the lead? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not aware if other editors share my personal dislike of vertical navigational templates chunking up the top of articles. But the difference between portals and navigational templates is that portals typically go far beyond the individual article, are for more general browsing, while navigational templates theoretically group articles more directly linked to the article in question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to allow for the possibility that some navboxes have more to do with See also than anything else. We can't change guidelines at ACCESS by complaining here, though, so I've posted my concerns at WT:ACCESS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit history over there jogged my memory: I believe (don't quote me) that Graham87 is the editor who uses a screen reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline usage

The first note in the header is the following: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Please discuss on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

I'm not in doubt that my edits clarify the intention. Thanks for asking, though! Wednesday Next (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is my suggested revision: "As explained in more detail at WP:MOS#Consistency, it is inappropriate to change an article from one defined style to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. However, edits which address deviations from written style guidelines are acceptable, given there are common sense examples and exceptions allowed." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
This give carte blanche to idiosyncratic preferences billed as "improvements". Anyone should be able to conform an article to the style it appears to be based on without being attacked and edit warred against for undoing some idiosyncratic editor's preference. The intent is to choose between styles, like choosing between British and American English (explicit choices). If the article does not conform to some described variant listed in WP:LAYOUT for example, no editor should be made to feel wrong for correcting the variance, and certainly no other editor should edit war to reinstate some unlisted variant. They should either get consensus to get their variation included in the list, or give it up. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This may surpsise you, but I agree with your contention about use of styles. Consensus for decision such as an editing style is important but that is often achieved on the article talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Then you don't seem to agree with me. I believe that choosing between existing styles can and should be done on article talk pages. I don't believe guidelines should be overridden on a per article basis by consensus. If a variant is not listed in any of the guidelines, anyone should be able to improve the article by making it consistent with one of the described styles. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
How can all possible variants and sub-styles ever be listed in one place? Guidelines expressly state that common sense and exceptions are permitted, given that a consensus can be arrived at. FWiW, your suggestion that all variances be referred to the layout or other guideline pages is not an expedient way of dealing with the issues. Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
It's quite practical. Anyone who opposes the correction of layout can point to the guideline which shows that the option used is in fact, one of the style option described. Then there would be no question that it is an accepted style. Easy. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines are such that they are recommended but not carved in stone nor cast in concrete, they are guidelines that do not preclude common sense and exceptions. Editors who can make a case for an editing style and receive consensus from other interested/involved editors are abiding by the guidelines. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
I disagree. Treating guidelines this way is counter-productive. The guidelines allow for some defined variances. Otherwise, consistency should take precedence. Arguments for changes and extension of guidelines should be made not on article pages, but on the guideline talk pages. Changes which are rejected should not be slipped in the back door elsewhere. For example, the substitution of "Bibliography" for "References" has been rejected here, for reasons of consistency with historical usage on Wikipedia, preference that it be used for an author's works on Wikipedia (avoiding having two sections with the same title), and avoiding the creation of extra work for no good reason. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines allow for variances, the fact that many users provide a reference list that is titled a "bibliogrpahy" is already established. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Not defined or established by guideline. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether to provide one example of a reason to change a Notes, Footnotes, and/or References style.

There is an edit war over this addition to the Notes, Footnotes, and/or References section: However, edits which correct deviations from written style guidelines should not be reverted. I vote for leaving this text out of the Layout article. The intent of the current text is to provide a VERY short explanation and let the editor go to the Manual of Style page for details. This addition would be a detail and would begin the process of adding non-layout information to the Layout article. I suggest that Wednesday add this language to the Manual of Style article Consistency section instead of putting it in Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Centralize comments in sub-article, see above note, but much too wordy at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
Agree with ammendedment suggested by Butwhatdoiknow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Further reading question

I know self published sources falls under WP:V with regard to references, but what about the Further reading section. If someone self-publishes a book on the subject, is it acceptable to put it here. It would not seem to fall under source requirements as it's not being used as a source, but I wanted to hear if anyone has run into this question. Thanks Morphh (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable. Think of "Further reading" as "External links on paper". Of course, it would still have to pass muster with the other editors and actually be worth reading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout/Archive_3&oldid=1086389671"