Talk:Railway dams and reservoirs of Western Australia

References, sources and notes

Re this edit separating "References" into "Sources" and "Notes" - there's an obvious distinction between general sources and specific inline cites, so I can see why you might want to separate them, but it appears that the {{reflist}} entries are actually sources/references, not just explanatory notes. Unfortunately I can't find a suitable example in H:FOOT or WP:CITESHORT that matches either of our versions. While examples separate inline cites from general references, the former refer to the latter in the examples, but not in yours. Note also that in all the examples the numbered notes come before the unnumbered refs/sources.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your enlightening us on your superb knowledge of the correct way to do things.

Your delightful collection of notes remind me that in future, my contributions to the western australian project 'new articles' will not be posted there, and if I find similar exercises of treating such items with such pedantry, I will simply try another subject for a while... there is plenty to do elsewhere...

Something as simple as:

• A title such as references
• followed by some items that fit into the reflist (ie numbered)
• and then followed by items that are footnotes with no numnbers that go against them

• (A) looks dumb
• (b) looks untidy

Which is why the sources (which were hard to separate as all three involved were placed as such) were that way. It was necessary to have them in somewhere. In future, it is clear they will have to be in the cite format, if I am prepared to even locate them. sats 07:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Bold in the lead sentence

I suggest that the use of bold in the lead sentence (re-applied by these edits) is directly contrary to MOS:BOLDTITLE, which says "If the article's exact title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". (I did try, but I can't think of any sensible way of putting the exact title in, and "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you know the right way to do things Mitch, and I am sure you are a value to the project. I simply do a lot of article creation only to be followed by your infinite wisdom.

I think about if someone is trying to view the subject quickly with a limited time/space/issue - that breaking the lead sentence up into either 'links' or unbolded items is not something that I find when I am checking a wikipedia article when I am on the run. I honestly think that abiding by rules to every letter loses the plot of useability. sats 07:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the links (dams, reservoirs) are unnecessary, fair enough. If you disagree with MOS:BOLDTITLE, perhaps you should raise the matter on WT:LEAD. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Public Works Department

Now we know what the PWD / Public Works Department is, but where is it? The context (in particular the preceding word "to") suggests that a location is required but the PWD is not a location. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the PWD acronym or article - and the WAGR information suggested that a railway dam was transferred to the PWD at the location that precedes the usage. Simple. sats 07:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)