Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Discussions

Here we go again. Have at it folks. Ortolan88 23:35 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. :-) -- Tarquin 09:18 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)

I hope that it's more clear now when I'm claiming that first paragraphs should be short. There's nothing wrong with a stub that consists of nothing but a single paragraph with four sentences, but an article that goes on and on should limit the first paragraph to very basic information (definition, birth date, population, etc) -- just as this article's first paragraph does. Or am I wrong? — Toby 18:47 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer. I edited the other version because we had two separate injunctions on short paragraphs. This is fine. Ortolan88

I wonder whether we need a style for interwiki links. Now they are put in rather randomly, without any plan or order. Ought they be ordered in some way ? Kpjas 2002-11-12

I proposed some points at Wikipedia talk:Embassy a few days ago. I'd prefer alphabetical sorting. --Elian

I have always used alphabetical order by language code. --Brion 20:52 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

which alphabetical order? sorting by language code is IMO a good idea bc then you don't have to think in every wiki:

- english - french - german
- Deutsch - Englisch - Französisch
- Allemand - Anglais - Français (I am sure in Polish and Dutch the order is different, too)

Disadvantage: the sorting order is not evident at first glance. --Elian

Top or bottom of the wiki text? I've seen both in use, and both have advantages.

Top is the most common, at least in the German wikipedia. followed by one blank line and the actual article. --Elian

Most french do it by alphabetical order. Without any previous discussions. Problems are

it is far quicker to just copy and past links from another wiki, where the order is not the same...
when a non-specific language do the links, he/she doesnot necessary know the alphabetical order of that specific language

So, in the end, it's a bit messy; but I think most french would prefer the alphebetical order anyway.

I think it is not logical to do so, for you can't even rely on the habit of always finding the german one on the left...since it will be in another place in another wiki. So, my feeling is that langage code is best for usability. user:anthere

Ideally is should be "sorted" out by the Phase III software. Kpjas 2002-11-13

Would it be possible to have a convention on references where we site them within the text like so: [1] Pizza Puzzle

The convention (unwritten as far as I know) is to have naked wikirefs within the text that are then numbered. All other external links go in the External link section. --mav

But how do we number them? If somebody adds one, its easy for all the numbers to get changed up. Also, it might be useful to have a link to an article on the source.

Don't they automatically number themselves? Lemme try... [2] [3] [4]... yep, they sure do. -- Wapcaplet 22:50 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But mav says not to do it that way... Pizza Puzzle or are those naked wikirefs? Pizza Puzzle

Which reminds me: Is there any way of inserting an anchor <a name="foo">bar</a> in Wiki text? I've looked in obvious places like Manual of Style and Cite Your Sources, but it doesn't seem to be there.

What I'm thinking of is the difficulty of citing specific material from a long printed source, meaning a book. If you have several references, you don't want to repeat the whole gory bibliographic listing in each place. If you put that in a Bibliography, there's the problem of putting a page reference in each place while linking it to the proper item in the bibliography. I see that the Cite entry suggests a Wiki entry for the book itself; but is that really what you want for every work cited? What I'd rather see is something like

...not putting him to torture (NEL, pp. 400, 406). On the other hand,...

Bibliography

<a name="NEL">NEL</a>: Orio Giacchia, Nel Terzo centenario..., Università Cattolica etc etc

where a click on the NEL link would take you to the biblio item to find the publication data. One could use this reference style without the hyperlink, as is done in many books, but that seems so twentieth-century. Any comments?

Dandrake 23:02 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I personally like the [1] [2] citation style (the standard in many journals), with a bibliographic listing at the end. Auto-hyperlinks and auto-numbering would be helpful, but would require code changes. See Depleted uranium for an example of doing this manually, which has the problem of re-numbering your references when you add another one anywhere other than the end of the list. --Delirium 23:13 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Manual renumbering would be a major problem, absolutely. That sort of thing was behind my proposal to use abbreviations of the document name in place of numbers. But I'm not proposing that somebody make code changes to support the anchor capability; just checking that it wasn't already there, obscurely.

Naturally, when the footnote is one of several to pages in a book, I can write a full footnote with biblio data and page numbers in the first one, then use good old loc. cit. and op. cit. in the rest. A pity, though, about having the numbering of footnotes set in stone as the order in which you created them and appended them to the numbered list. Makes the auto-numbering of the list a dubious advantage: arguably, if you're manually numbering the [nnn] references, you should do the same to the footnote bodies, to reduce the chance of crossing them up. Just rambling here, but it seems there might be reason to discuss a more automatic design for footnotes. Should I be on some list or watching some page in order to keep up with any discussion that might arise?

Dandrake 01:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually the naming sounds okay too, and that also is fairly common in journals. Something like [Smith], or [Smith 1998] if disambiguating is necessary (the latter is sometimes used even when disambiguating isn't necessary if it's in a context where the date of the reference might be of particular importance). That avoids the renumbering problem, without having to put full unwieldy citations in parentheticals. Of course, I personally still prefer a standard footnote method (with superscript footnotes instead of [1]), but that would require the auto-numbering changes just like the [1] method would. --Delirium 02:22 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Subheadings

The following paragraph was on the page, but I find it unclear and unconvincing:

While it may be preferable to use bullet points within a section instead of using sub-headings, bolded text should not be used; good HTML practice dictates that headers are marked up as such. This aids people using browsers which can highlight (or show only-) headings; blind people and others whose text readers can skip from heading to heading, search spiders such as Google's, and robots which may be used to automatically re-style Wikipedia in the future.

Namely: "good HTML practice dictates that headers are marked up as [bolded text]" doesn't seem correct as written. --The Cunctator 05:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find your removal of that pargraph (which I wrote) surprising. Which part of it do you find unclear, or dispute? And what is the relevance of the fallacious quote, which you claim "doesn't seem correct as written" ? Andy Mabbett 19:45, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'Related topics' header - Should it be changed to 'See also'???

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IMO a more proper title would be 'Related articles'. That's what listed under it: articles, not topics. Topic is a broad term. Mikkalai 20:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Many people appear to have used See also. A google search for "see also" on the wiki give 122,000 hits [5]; a search for "related topics" gives 2,240 [6]. Do we need to wait for a thunderbolt from on high before we consider that the guidance should change to reflect the actualite? See also has the advantages of being broader (not restricted to "articles" or "topics") and more flexible. --Tagishsimon 20:24, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just inserted a sentence about "See also", for more informal feel. Ortolan88 07:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

De novo, I don't particularly care one way or the other, but since "See also" is a de-facto Wikipedia standard, I feel we ought to recognize that formally.

A question: a lot of people put "See also: [[Article1]], [[Article2]]", as opposed to using a separte section. Which one is correct? Noel 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see the difference between the two forms of "See also" is nicely explained ~~here~~. Noel 19:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References vs. External Links

Why are these two separate sections? Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate ("Things should not be multiplied without necessity"). —Steven G. Johnson 06:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

External link vs. External links

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If there is just one, is it still "External links" ? -- User:Docu

I advocated plural s regardless for a while, but some feel strongly against it, so I just leave the header as is, unless "link" has more than one under it. Dysprosia 06:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wise policy! :-) That's what I do too. Noel 18:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this was established policy. I have been changing it whenever I saw it. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is in a MoS somewhere.

References

1. Since some articles have all three types of references (Wikipedia articles, external Internet links and printed literature), it seems rather aggressive to give each type its own top level heading. Would it better to organize the references into a hierarchy such as:

References

See also

(Wikipedia articles)

External link(s)

(external Internet links)

Literature

(printed literature)

2. To avoid the nuisance of changing words between the singular and plural forms depending upon the number of references, could we change External link(s) to Internet and always use References regardless of the number of references. GreatWhiteNortherner 03:33, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

References vs external links again

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

In Talk:Barbus, Ram-Man asserted that authoritative reference-type websites ought to go in "References" while interesting but less authoritative sites should be in "External links", a rule that I hadn't heard before, and when I go to look here, I see that both the references and external links sections say that "web sites that one has used or recommends" should be listed in those sections. This is rather ambiguous, and needs to be changed.

Empirically, I think most articles use "References" for printed works, and "External links" for links elsewhere on the web, irrespective of relative authority or reference values. This is a useful distinction for readers, because if they want to click somewhere, they can skip over the references and go straight to the link section; but if they're preparing to visit the library, they'll visit the References section that they previously ignored. For the cases in which the external links include authoritative and less-authoritative links, the notations should indicate the nature of each link. I'd like to make this policy, so if everybody's amenable, I'll draft something on the policy page. Stan 16:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

In reading the proposal about having a general "References" section and then the 3 subcategories, I think this solves this problem in some respects, although I think it adds unnecessary header material to an article. There is the additional problem of sources which are both internet links AND some other media (books, CD-ROM, magazine, etc). I've worked on a number which are also published elsewhere but I specifically quote the link because that is the source I used (but enough information is included to look it up in the other medium). To summarize my preference: References are for those areas that are direct citations for content in the articles, External links are for other general external links of interest, and See also is for internal wikipedia links of interest. The reason I prefer this is to keep the citations separate from the non-citations. It may mix some links, but which is more important: verification of the data by looking at citations OR being able to quickly access those same external links? Internet links are capable of being cited in a format along side regular paper-bound versions in a standard format. Of course I believe that integrity of authoritative works should be maintained. See Zebra Danio for an example of what I believe is the ideal format. -- Ram-Man 16:34, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Given my views on this area, I do not think that we should go through every article and try to change it to a single format. I am not advocating that my way be the only way and that every article must conform. Certain articles, like Schizophrenia, are so heavily cited that mixing the books with the external links really works well by mixing in all of the authoritarian sources. There are plenty of external links which are not cited directly by the article but still have plenty of good information. It should be noted that internet links were not actually necessary in the creation of that page because there were so many journal articles (with internet links to abstracts) used of higher quality than internet sources, however, if an internet link were added that was specifically cited, it would only make sense to put it in the references, since the external links are not in standard citation format. External links as citations should be in references. -- Ram-Man 16:47, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Geez the citations in Schizophrenia are ugly - somebody didn't think the reader experience through. Given that the audience of readers is much larger than the audience of verifiers, we should be writing and formatting for readers, not editors or reviewers. It does point up the interesting situation of printed references that happen to be online also. I would say that those should be in References, but that the URLs should be unobtrusive "[1]" etc at the end of the conventional biblio info. Extlinking from author names is just nonsensical - what if one of the authors has a WP article and you want to link the name to it? Another way to think about the distinction is that printed work references are permanent - the 19th-century books mentioned in 1911EB articles can still be found in libraries - while websites are rather evanescent; a lot of the sites mentioned in older WP articles have already vanished, or have changed addresses with no forwarding, and one has to go to Google just to re-find them. So the two kinds of references are not only used by the reader differently, but they have qualitative differences as well. It's not a life-or-death issue, we could leave it up to individual taste, but then this page needs to say that so I won't feel compelled to "fix" references on random pages. :-) Stan 18:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems so far that no one else will weigh in on this discussion, but I suppose they will eventually. In any respect, I don't mind making the links unobtrusive, as I noticed you did on the Barbus page. I was kind of annoyed at how long they were anyway. Most, but not all, of the sources that I use have some sort of non-internet published form as well. It is probably a good idea to avoid using internet only links as references as much as possible when the same information can be found in a less volatile location. I'd like to see the authoratative sources all be under references, but i'm willing to allow for a "policy" that places internet-only sources under "external links", but even so this does not fix the volatility problem. I think it is implied that citations should go under "References" due to the link to Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and dispite your like of the Schizophrenia page, these citations are really expected, although surely not fully standardized. -- Ram-Man 16:21, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

My objection to the Schizophrenia citations is just with the awful layout. For instance, no distinction is made between books which might be suitable for the nonspecialist reader, and cutting-edge research which may not even be generally accepted in the scientific community. Stan 20:33, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Here's what I had to say on the subject over there:

I would strongly oppose melding "Further reading" and "Links", not just for the immediacy, but because "Further reading" implies a level of quality control (as is usual with printed books, etc), permanence, etc that is one level above many (most?) web pages. How many times have you clicked on a link and found that the target wasn't there any more? Now, how many times have you gone to find a book listed in a biblio and found that it doesn't exist in the world anymore? And I won't even get into the editing, etc, etc. Look, I have nothing against the Web (see my bio :-), but in practical terms there is a real difference. Noel 18:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In-text Reference Format

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't agree with any URL citing policy that treats them differently from "regular" reference. Moreover, the whole [1] scheme is currently poorly thought out, because even URL citations need more than just a URL -- they need a descriptive title, author and date (if possible), and to be listed at the end of the article as text so that they print properly. In the absence of better support for numbered links for all references, (Author, Year) in-text pointers still seem the best bet. For proper in-text numbered citations, we need a new named & numbered list format like:

#name1# Name1, ''Blah'', 1998.
#foobar# Foobar, http://blah.baz.com

...so that in-text references like [[#foobar#]] automatically expand to [2] (or whatever the current number of that reference is). I'm not attached to any particular syntax, however. —Steven G. Johnson 18:28, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that it doesn't matter to readers that URLs and printed works are mixed together randomly, or that you don't care if it does matter to them? I agree that URLs need annotation; my rule of thumb is that the annotation needs enough info for Google to hit the page accurate if it still exists - for instance "FishBase info for Sciaenidae" or "ITIS 5551212". I don't hold with in-text references in any case, those are appropriate for research papers but not encyclopedia articles, the latter being synthesized summaries in which every statement should have multiple sources saying the same thing, so there's no reason to cite any particular one of them - you just need the best sources at the end of the article. Stan 20:33, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

In general, URLs should be just another reference type (especially since many references exist both in print and online), and the in-text pointer should be the same and (if numbered) numbered consistently. This is orthogonal to the issue of the ordering of the reference list. I agree that it might make sense to put pure web references at, say, the end of the reference list, at least in some articles, or even with another heading in some cases. Except for articles like Linux that are URL factories, though, I don't think it really matters to readers if online and print references are mixed, since the links are hilited and obvious. —Steven G. Johnson 22:41, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that, in many cases, in-text pointers should not be necessary. I've written articles for (specialized) print encyclopedias, and there also the editors generally recommend avoiding them, but there are exceptions. One exception comes when it is not clear which reference to look in for more information on a particular item. Another exception is if, in the text, you specifically want to refer to a particular work's contribution in discussing the history of a field. The key, as usual, is to be as helpful as possible to the reader. The issue is, when in-text pointers are desirable, the current Wikipedia support is inadequate, and the URL handling is completely unacceptable for the reasons I already described. —Steven G. Johnson 22:41, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

References vs Further Reading

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On looking close at this page, I find (to my complete horror) that it has (for a long time) called for the section of further reading entries to be called "References". Following the examples on countless pages I've edited, on new pages I wrote, or pages I worked on, I've always titled them "Further reading", and I think that should be the standard. (I see from the discussion of "See also", above, that this page is out of touch with real practice in the 'Pedia in a number of ways... Sigh, too much replicated content across to many page, e.g. this and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)

To me, "References" means "list of specific citations for specific facts cited in the article". If you look at a real scholarly book, in addition to references (usually called "Notes", or "Footnotes" - although academic papers almost invariably call them "References", go figure), it also has a section called "Bibliography", which is more akin to our "Further reading" sections. It's never called "References"! I would strongly oppose use of the term "References" for anything except i) lists of specific sources for specific statements, or ii) definitive reference works (e.g. the "PDP-10 Processor Manual" on the PDP-10 page. Noel 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bull. First of all, in a short scholarly work, such as a journal article, "specific citations for specific facts" are almost invariably mixed inextricably with citations listed for context and further reading, all in the same section (typically called, yes, "References"). In longer books, there are a variety of names used for this section in each chapter (e.g. "References" or "Cited Works and Further Reading" or "References and Suggested Reading" all appear in respected books on my shelf), but they typically mix both types of citation. Moreover, when there is a separate "Bibliography" chapter at the end, in many of my books it merely is a collection and repetition of all of the works listed in all of the individual chapters. (Not that such a collected bibliography for the whole encyclopedia is likely to be useful for WP.) —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

We should definitely cite (whether for specific facts or for further reading) in general only credible, respected sources. Requiring them to be "definitive", however, is going to far — for example, an introductory textbook is unlikely to be regarded as "definitive" in a field, but is a probably excellent reference to suggest for most readers. —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I did not suggest that all sources, or suggested reading, have to be "definitive"; far from it. The whole point of "Further reading" is that it contains things that are not definitive - the latter being, by and large, far too much for the average reader who simply wants to know a bit more than is in the article. Clearly (to use the example I gave) one would not send the average reader wanting more information about PDP-10's off to read the PDP-10 Processor Manual. But it is the definitive reference on the topic. Noel 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(As I said, placing too much importance on the title of the section is a red herring. A "reference" is just something you "refer" to, and works cited and suggested reading are both things you refer to, for somewhat different but overlapping reasons.)

From the fact that a variety of names are used in, yes, real scholarly publications, I think we shouldn't get too hung up on the name. It's more important to encourage people to cite good references in the first place. Along these lines, we should discourage the tendency to fret over classifying which sources were "used" to write the article vs. just finding useful references that help readers — real scholars actively search for related work in a field to which they can point the reader in order to provide a broader context and a deeper background, rather than just citing what they "used". —Steven G. Johnson 00:50, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

But the people using an Encyclopaedia aren't, by and large, "real scholars". For such users, it is important to distinguish between:

i) things they might find useful to go find and read, if they want more information about the topic than what is available here (what I am calling "Further reading"), and
ii) the material used to create the article, which quite likely are detailed academic materials which would be of little use or interest to them (what I am calling "References").

I think it's really important that we not forget who our audience is. Noel 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, it sounds like you essentially want an "advanced references" and a "introductory references" section. In practice, I don't believe that this is the same thing as the breakdown between works cited and suggested reading, because often an article will be written from a textbook or review article that makes good introductory reading. Moreover, in practice I think that readers, given a list of credible references, are pretty capable of selecting the ones that are most appropriate for them (which is not just a matter of advanced vs. introductory...it also depends on physical accessibility etc.). Furthermore, the most important reason to avoid the distinction you are suggesting is this: there is no easy breakdown, in general, between works used as sources to write an article and works suggested for further reading, since many references will server both purposes. —Steven G. Johnson 03:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with the model where "works used as sources to write an article" is the conjunction of the "suggested reading" and "advanced references" sections? Also, I can tell you, from my experience in exploring fields by going through bibiographies in books and getting items (something I have done in a very large number of fields) that the (sadly uncommon) bibliograhies which include comments about which items are good for what are a zillion times easier to use productively than the ones that just provide a barren list. I've lost count of the number of times I've ordered a book based on solely the listing in a bibliography, only to find out when it arrived that it was a waste of money. The article writers have (or should, if they are any good) an excellent understanding of which readings are best for "average people", and I think it's our duty to pass that very valuable information on. Noel 14:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see the advice (my bold hilighting)

Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and/or recommend as sources of further information to readers.

The first part are indeed references. The second part is a Bibliography, or Further reading. These should be clearly separated. For example, somethingshould be in references only if it is actually cited as the authority for a fact in the main body of the article - and a specific part should be cited. --Nantonos 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 20:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments on a header

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I just found an article that had all the "Edit" links messed up, most of them edited the next section after the one they should have. I tracked it down to a comment that was after a heading, (===Heading===). Should this be pointed out in this guide, or is this too trivial a point to mention? Alternatively, should this be considered a bug in MediaWiki? — PhilHibbs | talk 15:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This only causes a problem if there is no space between the = and the < though — PhilHibbs | talk 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Discographies?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Also posted at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Albums:

Can we get a consensus on discography formatting. The general standard way to do it in the past was to simply list the albums, the year of release ,and possibly a chart oposition or two. But now, we have articles like Mariah Carey albums discography and 50 Cent which seem intent on including album cover artwork, and multiple facts about the album. Such a system is image-heavy and slow loading ,and can also very quickly take over ap age for any act with more than four or five albums. It also only works if you find album cover artwork for each and every album (which may not always even exist). What should be done about this? --FuriousFreddy 20:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Introductory material

I rewrote this section in response to a question on the Village Pump for more clarity. It is my intention to have it reflect de facto policy, not to introduce new policy: all featured article I've seen follow these guidelines. Also, I've removed the sentence that confusingly named "Overview" as a common title for the first section (is it really? Any prominent examples?) but simultaneously called it not to be preferred. Either "Overview" is a decent and acceptable title for the first section, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be mentioned, or else explicitly forbidden. A guide is not the best place for wishy-washyness. JRM 17:46, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. I generally call this first section "Overview". But recently, because of this "Guide to layout", I am now having to deal with people coming into an article and removing the first section's header! Please change the Guide to layout to reflect proper technical writing practice: if there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z

Wikify?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikify redirects to this article, but it doesn't explain the term. Could someone add an explanation, please? I've seen it used, but unsure if it refers specifically to making internal links using double square brackets, or if it's more general. Thanks --Singkong2005 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I found the definition in Wikipedia:Glossary. I had searched this article for wikify whereas only the word wikified appears in the article. --Singkong2005 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irony...

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.

Is it just me or is that statement just a little ironic? :) Justin 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes bulleted bibliographies don't work

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I prefer when including notes on works in a bibliography to use prose. (See this Britannica article on T.S. Eliot as an example.) Using prose makes it easier to give details on the sources. Using bulleted lists makes series such as these too long and confusing. Listing works for further reading using bullets works when the items don't need comments, but otherwise, it's best to use prose, in my opinion. Perhaps we could add a note to the Bibliography section of the "Guide to layout" aticle on this? --Primetime 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Users may find bulleted lists most useful. They can print one out and use it as checklist (for example, to see what books are available in theschool library.) Furthermore it is much easier to insert new titles into a bulleted list that is in alphabetical order.Rjensen 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

wikify stubs?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm finding several stub articles that are tagged wikifiy, but they already seem to be formatted as well as can be expected given their very brief length. An example is Angiology -- it has an introduction, a body, and a list of references. Key terms are wiki links to related articles. It's too short to have any headings or subheadings beyond the one References section. How does one wikify this sort of stub article? Wesley 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It may have been placed by someone who expected to see every noun rendered in blue. Or it may have been placed before the article was wikified at all, and no-one has since been WP:BOLD enough to remove the tag after some wikifying. Article does still need some cleanup, but lack of wikilinks isn't the main concern, you're right. Jkelly 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On Wikipedia talk:Section#“Navigation” as standard appendix, I am proposing the addition of a new standard appendix. Since it is relevant here as well, I thought I should make a note of that proposal here.

— DLJessup (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

bullet points

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just want to query the recomendation about bullet points. In Jakob Nielsen web usability website useit.com there is an article on How Users Read on the Web

People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In a recent study John Morkes and I found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word.
As a result, Web pages have to employ scannable text, using

highlighted keywords (hypertext links serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others)

meaningful sub-headings (not "clever" ones)

bulleted lists

one idea per paragraph (users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph)

the inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion

half the word count (or less) than conventional writing

I certainly find myself doing this with wikipedia articles, big blocks of text tend to phase me (perhaphs because of my dyslexia). I would contend that we have to remember our primary medium is the web and not print and we should write articles accordingly. So

Bullet points are good.
They allow users to scan pages
which allows them to get the idea of the whole article
and also find the information they are looking for more easily.

Thoughs? --Salix alba (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree, but bullet points can also be abused. I disagree with the notion of breaking a single sentence apart into multiple bullets, as you did with the last 3. On the other hand, a simple edit can fix that, especially with sub-bullets. So

Bullet points are good.
They allow users to scan pages

Users get the "big picture" easier
Users find the information they are looking for more easily.

--Joe Sewell 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is citation style still debatable?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought we now have an excellent set of templates. patsw 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

the disambiguation subhead

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe I'm blind – I don't see anything about the italicized line that appears at the top of a number of articles, This article is about Foo in the context of Baz. For that other kind of Foo, see elsewhere. The usage is obvious from examples, but I was looking for what to call that line! —Tamfang 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's called a hatnote. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51 7 September 2006 (GMT).

Alphabetizing (and otherwise arranging) "See also" sections?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On several pages, like Standard deviation, the See Also section is a bit unruly. That is, there are no descriptions and the order seems to be random. On the other hand, it might not seem logical to divide the links into groups, because

There really aren't that many links; it's just disorganized.
Most of the topics branch in different directions, and grouping them would result in too many catergories. This also clutters up the user interface.

So perhaps the best solution is alphabetization (or alphabetisation). If this rule was to be added to this page, however, instead of just applying to one article, it would have to be a standard and all pages similar to Standard Deviation would have to conform. How should one go about organizing See also sections? --Gracenotes ^T § 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of templates, categories, and interwiki links

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't see mention of this anywhere, in my quick search for it, so I propose the following addition to the Guide to Layout (or is it a Manual of Style issue?):

After the entire text of the article (including the References, See also, and External links sections), the order should be: templates (for stubs and the like), then categories, then interwiki links.

The logic being that stubs are part of the article itself, so they should be within the boundaries of the article text. After that come the categories, because they are describing and sorting the article. Finally, come the interwiki links, because they (ideally) contain everything above them, but in a different language. Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub tags go better at the very end, else the stub category is placed first, which is contrary to the common practice of putting most important categories first. Also stub tags need 2 clear newlines before them, else they become appended to the preceding text, this looks messy unless they are at the very end. Martin 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've crosslinked this section from Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Order of listing of categories within an article. jnestorius^(talk) 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal lines

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not sure when the specific injunction not to separate a dablink from the articles was introduced, or where it was discussed, but what is the rationale? As I find it both sensible (in that it clearly divides off the article from material that isn't part of it) and aesthetically acceptable, I always use it. I've come across those who claim to find it jarringly hideous – something I find difficult to understand – but I take it that that's not the reason for its being "forbidden".

Ah, I've just discovered when it appeared in the article: five days ago. No wonder that I didn't remember seeing it before. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the line, too. — Omegatron 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am considering merging this page with several others. Please discuss at this page. Gareth Aus 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

While I haven't completely merged the two articles, I'm looking to at least cut down on redundancy of this page and the "Guide to writing...". Please see Gareth's page above if you have any objections. User:RockOfVictory/Appendices order draft. --J. J. 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the overhaul. In revising this page, I've attempted to retain all existing section names. This is why, for example, I did not rename "Bibliography" as "Further reading", although I did make a note that either can be used for a section name.

I removed a lot of the "External links" material because there are too many differing opinions on syntax to include on a general guide like this. Relevant pages and discussions are referenced, however. Additionally, as the Citing sources page mentions, any rule applying to "References" also generally applies to "External links," "Notes," and "Further reading." For this reason, I added something like, "This section follows the same formatting rules as the 'References' section" to each one. --J. J. 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks really good :) -Quiddity 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Elaborating on "See also" entries

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should "See also" entries just include a link, or would they benefit from some text explaining how they relate to the article at hand? Many "see alsos" leave me perplexed until I actually bother to read the articles. --Smack (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought it back ;) -Quiddity 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And what does the cat symbolize?

Granted, it's not bad to be perplexed once in a while. The more problematic case is when the name of a "See also" link does not explain how it relates to the article at hand. --Smack (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes should go at the very end

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

I suggest that the endnotes, NOTES, should go at the very end. They are not meant for ordinary reading and should not go ahead of items (like References and External links). Rjensen 08:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is complete disagreement one this particular topic anyway. some users will prefer notes to go before references, other prefer it theother way around. Circeus 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Notes to come before References (it follows a common practice of printed articles).

Even if I didn't, it's been implemented on many pages and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

--SteveMcCluskey 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the note/references order ends up being in any given article, I usually don't care. Caring would be pure pedantry. I have switched back and forth in opinion several time since I started dabbling in these sections.

At the very least, there is no reason for notes to go after "see also", a change that was made without consensus and that I reverted (though I don't think your comment is related to that). Circeus 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The notes are not designed to be read as a group, so they should not block or interfere with other items that are supposed to be read. Put the end notes at the end -- solves the problem. (People who do like to browse the notes can immediately find them). The problem is that it is very confusing for people looking for bibliography to have these footnotes coming first. Rjensen 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is clear that due to lack of consensus, there will be no statement as to which of "notes" or "references" should come first, and has always been. Nothing keeps you from placing notes after references (although I would argue that the references are not "designed to be read as a group" either, but I digress).

As far as I can tell, the only reason ntoes are after references in this guideline is that tehre need to bean example of some sort. And besides, if they were ordered otherwise, somebody else would still be complaining on this talk about the order. In any case, unilaterally altering the guideline to put "notes" after "see also" is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Consensus. Circeus 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good there is some flexibility. Users want bibliographies they can print out and use to find articles & books in their library or online, so I suggest the main books and articles should all be together in an accessible place (outside the Notes section). Rjensen 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not to group references outside the Notes section is, again, far outside the scope of this guideline. As far as wikipedia is concerned, what is needed is citation. Although ideally, we want them to be consistently presented (hence why we have citation templates), their exact location will probably forever remain a subject of contentious between users. Circeus 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#"Notes" section states:

Technically, footnotes appear at the bottom of a page; endnotes appear at the end of a chapter or book. Since Wikipedia articles may be considered to consist of one long page, or of no pages at all, Wikipedia footnotes appear at the end of an article, but are nevertheless called footnotes.

This guideline should follow the advice given in the citation guideline as that guidline is more specific than this one on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"End of article" is not the same as "end of page" Also, potentially placing entire sections between notes and references is piss-poor usability. Of all recently featured article, none (or at least very few,I stopped at Torchic) appear to follow the convention that you require. Cnsensus is clearly against putting other sections between "notes" and "references". Circeus 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I will conceded Battle of Midway as the single exception amongst 33 articles that are supposed to be the best of Wikipedia. And the numerous ones that do not have "See also" or "external links" obviously do not count. They are not even all consistent as for the exact location of "see also" (before or after notes and references), but only one places "external links" between notes and refs, and even then, that's only because "external links" is a subsection to "Sources and further reading" (and rankly, I find that organization terribly awkward.) Circeus 23:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep stating a consensus, but clearly other people agree with me, so where is your consensus? Do you think it a good idea that different guidelines are not in harmony with each other? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no consensus either way; hence the disclaimer that either ordering is valid. WP:CITE is not a layout guide, in any cas, and the use of "end of article" there shouldn't be treated as an exact location.

Regardless of the relative order of "Notes" and "References", though, the "External links" section should be kept at the very bottom, since it's hardly an integral part of the article itself. Kirill Lokshin 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the third time I state it: there is no consensus as to which of references or notes ought to come firs. However, your moving of "notes" below external "links" clearly goes against consensus. These are two completely separate issues and I don,t see where there is disparity between policies. Circeus 23:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External references belong at the very end. I prefer (foot)notes before the references/bibliography, as they would be in a book.

--William Allen Simpson 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no agreement that extenal links should be called external links. What is your position if the extenal links and further reading are combined? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess there must be *some* consensus, since external links are already called so in this november 2003 version of the page. It has been consistently called so for 2 years. How can that be "no agreement"? THe guideline is self-contradicting in list web links as an element of "further reading":

web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers.

and just after, write, under "external links"

any web sites that you have used or recommend for readers of the article.

That should probably be clarified. Especially as Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/external links adds more confusion. Circeus 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It remains the same, quite frankly. Footnotes are a critical part of the article, since they form the underpinning of the entire idea of citing sources. "Further reading"/"External links" is just a bonus listing of materials; but even if that section were entirely removed, the quality of the article would not be degraded, which is not the case for either "References" or "Notes". Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Circeus you might find this archived conversation and straw poll (from November 2005) interesting; Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/archive2#References title misread as non-web External links --Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you want to go with this, so I will make myself clear, while discussion of the nature of what should be inluded in the sections is healthy (and appears to be what our current discussion is moving toward), I will continue to revert your moving of "notes" below "external links". I will also add that the above discussion did not create any consensus for changing the MoS pages. Circeus 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just to show you that a number of editors agreed to the idea that the distinction between external links and further reading should be removed (and for that matter that References should be changed to Sources) -- also you might like to note that I voted against the idea in that poll, However I do agree that the arguments for combining further reading and external sources has grown as more and more articles get footnotes and the habit of expanding external links to include author source and date has become more common.

BTW Circeus stating I will continue to revert your moving of "notes" below "external links" is IMHO not constructive with helping to build a consensus as it puts down a marker that you will be confrontational. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your moving of Notes without consensus to be confrontational.

As to "References", they should NOT be called "Sources", and any links would be to ISBN or an on-line copy of the actual research book or paper that was cited in the Notes above. Many Notes => one Reference.

As to "Further reading", those would be material NOT cited in the article, but related information.

As to "External links", they should have only external links, nothing else, and generally to information already in the previous Reference sections, or to related publications. For example, the hp-lexicon for Harry Potter articles.

--William Allen Simpson 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Philip, I felt compelled to make that comment because you appeared to make it seems as if two different issues were one and the same so your opinion on the location of the "notes" would be justified. With this comment I clearly marked where one issues ended and another began, and why I might continue reverting some of your edits. Circeus 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Notes" allows for both footnotes and citations, while "References" connotes just that - citations and nothing but. For ease of reading, writing, and manipulating, esp with the 'ref' system, "Notes" is convenient and meets the needs. In terms of sequence, 'See Also' should be first, as it is still learning about the matter at hand. then Notes/Further Reading/External Links in that order because it takes us further and further from the subject at hand, though I'm not "totally" obsessed with that last 3 sequence - there may be some sense in the "Notes" being last, I just don't think it looks as good. Bridesmill 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The references section should be at the very end. "External links" is a section that should be read. The reader can then decide if they want to continue their learning on the external site. More specifically, it is for sequential reading, after the main article text body, the reader reads the External links section. On the other hand, the refs section is not for sequential reading. In fact, it's not for reading at all except for the special case where someone wants to verify the basis of a particular statement.

The refs section is therefore "small print" that should sit right down the bottom just above the other small print such as the copyright info and disclaimers. I never use "Notes" sections, but if they have to go next to a refs section, they should go above. Thus: Text body -> See also -> External links -> Notes -> References. --Gronky 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT shortcut?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adding the shortcut "WP:LAYOUT" for this page seems intuitive and appropriate IMO. Objections? -- intgr 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I'll add that. —Mets501 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Leading with links

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In a fairly large number of articles, now I've begun to see a move toward the sort of intro that is embodied in this example from the guideline:

In [[quantum physics]], the '''Heisenberg uncertainty principle'''

The problem is that this sort of lead-in often ends up preventing the reader from quickly scanning the intro to determine that the article is, in fact, what they were looking for. A couple of real-world examples:

In mathematics, especially in set theory, the terms, subset, superset and proper (or strict) subset or superset are used to describe the relation, called inclusion, of one set being contained inside another set.
-subset

and

In the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, the Amedio Jungle is a large stretch of tropical rainforest located in the southwestern Flanaess, on the continent of Oerik.
-Amedio Jungle

As you can see, in both examples there's already a fair amount of complexity, and injecting links in the intro, before the subject, just adds to the cognitive load that the article imposes on the casual reader. If the reader has clicked on "random article", then this is probably not a big deal (perhaps even helpful), but if the reader has come upon an article with a general understanding of the subject area (this seems to me like it must be the most common situation), then this cognitive load comes with no benefit.

I can appreciate that there are times when the text would be "clunky" without leading with the topical links, but would it be possible to at least indicate that this style is deprecated, and should only be used when no other wording is clear enough? -Harmil 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "try to keep the number of links preceding the article name to a minimum". For example, I rewrote the Amedio intro:

The Amedio Jungle is a fictional jungle in the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. It is a large stretch of tropical rainforest located in the southwestern Flanaess, on the continent of Oerik.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 July 2006

Well, I think that's a fine re-write, but your suggested wording seems to push the idea of a "minimum" (10 ok?) of links as a good idea. I'd feel a lot better if we discouraged the notion entirely except where it's really required. I can't think of an example right now, but I've worked on a few articles where a link really wanted to go first, just for clarity of wording. Still, I think we should make the point clearly that that is, by far, the exception, not the rule. The way the guide is worded now, it sounds like either will do just fine in all cases. At least in my experience, this is not the case. -Harmil 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

{{TOCleft}} vs {{TOCright}}

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there a layout guideline regarding left vs right placement of a TOC? For articles with a longer TOC but without an infobox or image in the top right corner (e.g., Asian American), I think that {{TOCright}} looks better, since it places the article lead on the left rather than the TOC. Plus it avoids the expanse of whitespace to the right of a longer TOC when the TOC goes below the lead (e.g., Microsoft). Either way, I think a reader should see text at the top left corner, so I avoid {{TOCleft}}. Many of the featured articles feature images (e.g., Mosque, Flag of India) or infoboxes (e.g., Gray Wolf, Tamil people) simply avoid a TOC template. Of course, the TOC could be shortened, too. --ishu 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This places the layout under the control of the page author rather than the skin the user applies. As such, I think it should be avoided except in cases where it is absolutely required. What's the compelling reason? If it's purely your own aesthetic, then just use a skin that modifies the placement the way you like. -Harmil 05:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Horizontal dividing line"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find that the advices of section Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Horizontal dividing line must be deprecated. It is bad for wikilinking when different topics are written in the same page. Wikipedia is not paper. It is especially bad when one topic is very long and the second is one sentence at the very bottom of 4 screens of text. No one will ever find an alternate meaning. Wikipedia has mature disambiguation style. No reason to mix Orion (mythology) and Orion (constellation) into one page.

Also, after second reading I find the advice quite confusing. Mukadderat 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Navigation as a standard appendix

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that there is a minor problem with the navigational templates that appear at the end of an article. First of all, while a navigational template is supposed to be visually separable from the preceding text, I have found that that often isn't the case in practice; the navigational templates often appear to part of one of the other standard appendices, usually “External links” or “References”. Moreover, most edits to the navigational templates show up under those standard appendices in the page history because the editor almost invariably uses the section edit link. (Who wants to deal with more wikitext in the edit box than they have to?)

Additionally, some newbie editors (such as myself, long ago) want to put the navigational templates under “See also”, which would seem to be the natural location for a collection of wikilinks to related articles.

Therefore, I propose that there be a separate standard appendix, named “Navigation”, for navigational templates. This addresses the issues above. As a bonus, the categories and language links will also naturally fall under “Navigation” in the edit history, and categories will be visually part of the “Navigation” section.

I should note that this is not the first time I have made this proposal, but I have found that I haven't gotten a satisfactory amount of feedback, possibly because I have previously made this proposal on Wikipedia talk:Section, rather than here. I made a tentative version of this proposal in late January when a different solution to the navigational templates solution was shot down. This version received one response, essentially saying that I had not justified the proposal; added justifications met with no response. I made a more fully fleshed out version of this proposal in early March. No responses were immediately forthcoming. I decided to shelve the idea while I figured out how to get some better feedback.

And I now come back to try to get that feedback. If you think that my proposal is lame, please tell me why.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The navigation boxes also typically show up immediately after the last external link. When I started editing, I wanted to put a horizontal divider bar there, and I have seen many editors put blank lines to separate them. A section heading might work. Gimmetrow 16:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography as an alternate to References

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I think of a "bibliography" as a list of works actually cited, rather than a list of "further reading". I've seen a number of articles that use the cite.php references for "short" citations rather than full bibliographic references, sometimes keeping these separate from text expansions which may be handled by the {{ref}}/{{note}} system. Thus some articles are written

Notes (containing only text comments)
References (containing short citations, like Smith, Smith's Book, p.123)
Bibliography (containing full reference: Smith, Bob. (1999). Smith's Book. Publisher.)
Further reading (containing works not cited, possibly including web links)

I'm not sure how to reword the descriptions to fit this idea. At the minimum, I would like to see the term "Bibliography" listed as an alternate name for the "References" section, rather than an alternate name for "Further reading". Gimmetrow 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

See #Further Reading/Bibliography a few threads up. Bibliography is more commonly used to refer to an author's works, similar to a discography or filmography, and that is one of the reasons why its use as an alternate to "Further reading" is deprecated. --Quiddity 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I would like "Bibliography" not to be an alternate name for "Further reading". Gimmetrow 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my statement? The thread above is suggesting that "Bibliography" not be used as alternative for "Further reading" or "References", as it is already being used to refer to an author's published writings.

I think your suggestion that we use "Bibliography" as an additional citation section heading, is needlessly complicated (WP:CREEP), and also confusing considering its more common usage as a list of an author's works. --Quiddity 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does the section you cited mention anything about "References"? In fact, that section supports what I am saying, as it affirms quite clearly that a bibliography is a "list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work" rather than a list of writings that were not used. I am certain that style guides support calling a list of "Works cited" a "Bibliography". In fact, in my field this is by far the "more common usage"; it would be extremely rare for a list of an author's works to be titled "bibiography" - this would typically be "Works published" or just "Publications". In any event, is there anything objectionable about the four sections as given above? I fail to see how it is instruction creep to list an alternate name for a section that already exists in the GTL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmetrow (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's the ambiguity of language then! Because I read that thread as an endorsement for the removal of "Bibliography" as a recommend heading for any 'citation'-like section; and hinting that it's use is preferred "as a listing of the subject's works." That's the sentiment I was agreeing to, anyway. Perhaps someone else can explain it from a better perspective than I. --Quiddity 00:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Circeus said that "Most of the uses I've seen of "bibliography" were for books written by the article's subject" and Bridesmill opinioned that "I like the idea of "Bibliography" being in the body as a listing of the subject's works." The topic however was the inappropriateness of the heading "bibliography" for works not actually used to make the article, and should be interpreted in that context. I'm not saying that such a use for a bibliography section can't be done; that's not my issue.

The issue is that many articles (FAs even) have a section which lists all works cited with full citation information, but also have a previous "References" section containing notes and short citations. The section containing full citations is then called "Bibliography" or "Sources" or "Works cited". This use should be reflected in this GTL which professes to be "a summary of what some articles look like". Gimmetrow 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

General references

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have a bit of a problem with writing up a list of items in "References", ie. as opposed to using <ref>example</ref> throughout the article. The problem is that future editors don't know what that reference was used for, and so 1) don't know what still needs to be sourced, and 2) whether they can delete that reference item as no longer necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShaiM (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 September 2006.

You can do both. Cite each source in a footnote using an abbreviated form.
Give the full source in the references. For example <ref>Michel & Herget, p. 191.</ref> refers to:

==References==

* Anthony N. Michel and Charles J. Herget, ''Applied Algebra and Functional Analysis'', Dover, 1993.

--Jtir 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In principle, the wikimedia software could automatically generate links, in both directions, between footnotes and references.--Jtir 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of appendices

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The Standard appendices section currently says It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, and 5... where 3-5 are "Further reading", "References", and "Notes". So "Further reading" may go either above or below the notes and references section(s).

However, "External links" are restricted to the very end of the article? Aren't "External links" basically the same thing as "Further reading" (just all the suggested reading is online)? Why should it be treated any differently? I support changing the statement to It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, 5, and 6...

I have also started a discussion at Talk:WP:CITE stating my support for the option of putting external links/further reading type sections above the references in some articles. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The sequence shown has See also as the first appendix, but in some articles it makes sense to place it at the end immediately before full width templates which contain a group of article links which would otherwise appear in the See also section. What's wrong with it being at the end? Also, shouldn't "change the orders" read "change the sequence"? ...dave souza, talk 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - oops, this is not a vote, sorry ;)

Seriously, I saw in several articles that people are changing order of appendices, probably because they are following this page. It seems to me that this recommended order is an artifact from a previous time, before the Cite extension, when footnotes and references were hard to make and so they were few, so they weren't really stopping the access to Further reading or External links. Now, they are easy to make, and it is recommended that they are plenty of them - so they visually block the access to any sections that follow them.

So, I agree that the order should be changed, so that they are at the very bottom of the article. Nikola 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and references may still be separate, most often there are both "inline" and "general" references. Sometimes, non-referencing footnotes are still created with the template system so they are separate from the references themselves (e.g. List of European Union member states by political system) or so that there are several sections of notes (e.g. List of UN peacekeeping missions). Circeus 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, footnotes and references sections should be right next to each other, however the question is whether both should be above or below external links and further reading. Nikola 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I say only between references and notes the order is variable. God knows even I am not stable. But External links go last, no questions asked. personally, I'd put "further reading" after both "notes" and "references," because that puts the material used in building the article in a more prominent fashion, although I am personally not a big proponent of the "further reading," because I see too much actual references plopped there, much like people tend to plop web references under "external links," which drives me up the walls. You see good articles with a "further reading" section, but no references on a regular basis. Circeus 00:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For me, references go last, no questions asked. Why should material used in building the article be more prominent than material recommended as further elaboration on the subject of the article?

As a compromise, if References section is short, it might go anywhere, but if it is long, it should go to the bottom. Nikola 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understood it, See also was always the first appendix because Wikified content was preferable to off-Wiki content. Most articles are written that way, expressing preference for Wiki content over external information. Sandy (Talk) 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree to that. Nikola 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just posted the identical question at WP:CITE, for identical reasons. Copy of post:

I'm thinking that external links at the end, has dated back to the days before cite.php. WP:LINK states that the "most common" way to place external links is "at the end of an article".

Some articles now have quite extensive references sections, and it often looks better to place these after the article proper (including external links) rather thasn above the "see also" or "external links" sections. Otherwise one potentially has the following article finish:
Article

See also

Long section of footnotes, comments and citations

External links (lost between footnotes and categories)
It seems better that with extensive referencing and citations coming to be the norm, then references should generally go at the end of the article proper, that is after the (usually shorter) sections for notes, links and the like. Would this be acceptable to others to change the MOS slightly to suggest cite.php and similar references should usually be placed after all other sections, or at least may be placed there if 'long'?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I support putting "External links" before the "References" section. --Gronky 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This can't be right...

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

From "Further reading":

When there are more than five references about the article, you may want to include them here so that there is a complete bibliography for users in one place. This makes it easier for users to print out all the references at once. To maintain the integrity of the bibliography, make sure all major titles are there even if they are listed elsewhere. (emphasis added)

So if there are 80 refs and 5 other books the editors recommend as further reading, all 85 of them should be listed in one place? It seems to me this paragraph recommends either repetition of 80 sources or a mixed References/Bibliography system (which is instituted in a distinct minority of articles, even those that could really use it—see FA Hungarian Revolution of 1956). --zenohockey 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Or does that paragraph use "references" in another way? --zenohockey 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While this section allows duplication of references, over at WP:CITE such duplication is prohibited #: "An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers... that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article."

I don't really have an opinion either way, but two policy pages should be consistent with each other. Which way should it be - duplication prohibited or allowed? Note: I've also asked this question on the WP:CITE talk page: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Duplication of refs in the "Further Reading" section? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "See Also: Wikilink Dump" format hides information from novice users

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the "See Also" section, user-friendly articles include links to both the wikilink dump and related articles, but less user-friendly articles only include a link to dump.

The practice of not including related links within the article hides information from novice users, who rely upon their browser's 'find' tool to locate specific information quickly. If a 'find' search fails to locate the keyword within the article, novice users are likely to assume that Wikipedia does not contain the information they seek. [This happened to me when I tried to find a list of Philippine holidays; I am sure that this situation has happened to others as well.]

Some articles are more useful than others because the "See Also" layout guidelines do not specify that the "See Also: wikilink dump" format can not be used to fulfill the requirements of the See Also section. 70.112.29.65 12:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This proposal clarified here. 70.112.29.65 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, missed this by months which is annoying as the see also sections are a real bugbear for me because they're horrendously non-user friendly. MLA 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't "References" go before "Notes"?

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Shouldn't the "References" section go before the "Notes" section? My logic is that some of the notes will be pages/sections taken from the references listed under the "references" section. Therefore, wouldn't it be best to place "references" before "notes" to describe the source of these notes first? I know it's nitpicking, but I'm wondering what everyone thinks. — Deckill er 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a complete free for all as far as article space is concerned. I don't think even the Featured Articles agree. And even myself I switch back and forth. There isn't even agreement on "proper" uses of references vs. notes vs templates content notes, which is part of the problem. That's why the guideline says "put them in whatever order, but keep 'notes' and 'references' together." Circeus 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the notes to be placed above the references because when the notes contain explicatory material, they act as a direct extension of the article information. And since the references don't have page numbers, they exist at a further remove from the text than notes which cite specific information to particular pages. For me, the material at the bottom of an article makes logical sense by moving further and further away from the specific until it ends up with external links. qp10qp 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uma Thurman is a specimin of a Featured article that places References as a subsection below Notes to enforce the connection between those two groups of content. I cite this example not because it is authoritative but because it is interesting, and proof that an article can rise to Featured status using these methods. The Featured article The Turk also used an idiosyncratic grouping of both sections together and ran as a Featured article that way prior to the structural variation being noticed and reverted [7]. Buddhipriya 22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured article is Daniel_Webster#Bibliography which uses yet another variant format in which "Primary sources" are a subsection under "Bibliography". In monitoring the current Featured articles I am getting the impression that there is much more acceptable variation in structure for Featured articles than the guideline would imply. Buddhipriya 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoid links in the summary

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

On 12th July 2006, this guideline was (changed) to additionally say (wrt Lead section):

Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points.

I'm not convinced about the first point. The second point/instruction is completely at odds with other guidelines, current practice, and the whole way wiki articles work. Readers will continue with the article if it is well written, not based no the colour of words. The other changes made during that edit don't IMO help and may encourage the first paragraph to be too big if there are lots of "important points". In summary, I believe this edit should be undone. Thoughts? -- Colin°^Talk 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange stuff, don't know where it came from, but it doesn't belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is totally, totally wrong and unacceptable to recommend that we somehow force our readers into reading the whole article rather than just the intro. The intro should be a complete and accurate summary of the entire article. Stevage 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stevage (also Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep)--Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Material description

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The introductory material in this example (the material that comes before the TOC) describes this page, but I'd like to know a little more about what should, and should not, go there (as opposed to the introduction section after the TOC). Are there any Wiki style instructions on this that I missed?

Along these lines, the comment at the top of this page said "the first section MUST have a section header" (and asks for that to happen), but this one does not. Can someone comment in-line about why that is? I am Way too much of a newbie to be bold and change this page...

--metaJohnG 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of subsections for "notes" and "works cited"

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Today's featured article, The Turk used a format that I really liked:

References

Notes
Works cited

This is really clear to me and seems to address some of the confusion about what goes where. "Notes" are footnotes, and "works cited" are the ones in the footnotes. Since this made it into a Featured Article and the roof did not fall in, I guess it is ok to do it this way? I just tried it on an article and it got reverted, so I am trying to see if there are other opinions. Buddhipriya 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions are already covered in WP:CITE. Specifically, notes go in "Notes" or "Footnotes" and a list of reference works goes in "References". There are over 1.75 million articles in Wikipedia. Do you propose to change them all? Yourself? IPSOS (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I was just asking a question. Since the above format was in today's featured article, I am trying to understand what is required versus what is recommended. Buddhipriya 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit comments. Remember that there are no emotional cues on Wikipedia or any other internet text format. I'm just trying to get the point across that the ordering and naming conventions being used have been here for some time. Changing them should not be based on personal preference, but on a real and compelling need. I don't believe such a need exists. Please don't take this personally, as I see you are inclined to do... IPSOS (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Asking if someone might be cranky is a personal attack? Please, GROW UP! - 68.53.215.89 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I'm just curious, why do we want the "Further Reading" and "External Links" sections (both potentially interesting and useful to the reader) to follow "Notes" and "References" (which usually aren't useful and are often completely ignored)? Is this a case of beauty/style being more worthy than utility? - KSchutte 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References completely ignored ????? Whoa ... not when I'm reading. Further reading and External links are extraneous. References are important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See the thread on Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Order_of_appendices for similar debate on this question. The "Notes" are the footnotes that hold the citations to WP:RS, and thus are critical to the documentation of the article text. The "References" (which I consider ill-named) is the list of "Works cited", that is, the sources which come up in the Notes. Thus those two sections logically go together, and if you monitor the daily featured articles you will see a number of variant formats that appear trying to keep them together an explain their connection in ways that I personally think are superior to the current standard. I am an avid reader of the Notes sections in particular, as the house is only as sound as the foundation upon which it rests. Some of the articles appear at first glance to be well-referenced by footnotes, but when you examine the Notes many are dubious. Buddhipriya 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to join me in reviewing articles at WP:FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For a few days last week I was posting examples of variant formats that made it past the WP:FAC process. I found it interesting that the articles made it to featured status despite glaring deviations from the orthodox views on these matters. Some were reverted by orthodox Wikipedians when their genetic variation was noticed (after going on Feature status). Uma Thurman was a specimin of a Featured article that places See also before External links at the end. That article also uses the interesting variant structure of putting References as a subsection below Notes to enforce the connection between those two groups of content. I cite this example not because it is authoritative but because it is interesting, and proof that an article can rise to Featured status using these methods. Perhaps someone has reverted it by now. A novel approach was used last week on Daniel_Webster#Bibliography for the Bibliography. Buddhipriya 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAC isn't particularly vigilant when it comes to manual of style issues or reliable sources; I'm typically one of only a few reviewers checking for those issues. And, the order of appendices is only a suggested guideline, so non-standard arrangements don't preclude featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these manual of style issues appear to be suggestions and not laws, based on the evidence of what makes it past WP:FAC. Buddhipriya 02:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editor, I agree with these points about documented sources. As a reader, I'd like to get the goods upfront. Oh, well. - KSchutte 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, External links should go before References. --Gronky 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is using its own system of formatting pages by placing "External links" as the second-to-last section, and then having a last section called "Related content", which is their name for "See also" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for details). I don't think that it is appropriate to have a group of pages deviate from the standard like this, especially when editing a page results in being instructed to read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft pages. Is there a consensus that pages covered by a WikiProject should stick to general Wikipedia standards? — Reinyday, 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

InterWiki links never be External links.

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

w:Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, w:Act Against Slavery, ... are very kind for readers and preferable to sister-projects. These two examples above are from Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources.
w:A Modest Proposal, w:Articles of Confederation, Constitution of Japan, ... are extremely bad cases for readers who want to know the truth and to read the original source first, before being biased.
q:Upper Canadian Act Against Slavery, w:A Modest Proposal, q:Articles of Confederation, ... are very good case for Wikipedians.
q:Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, q:Constitution of Japan, ... are not good cases for Wikipedians.

How about? I have to say,

InterWikiProject links should be placed in the Lead section and/or appropriate section(s), if you recognize how the articles are formed on the basis of the original sources. The sources, including the quotes, which are producing Wikipedia articles, should be mostly respected in the Wikipedia articles.
There is another problem. Are Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, ... are realy sister-projects of Wikipedia? You should respect sister-projects as sister-projects. And you should handle InterWiki links, such as {{wikisource}} , {{wikiquote}} , {{wiktionary}} , carefully. In other words, you should support InterWikiProject links much more than external links.
If not, all of you may lose your most important fortune, judged by God.
For the above reasons, I propose that InterWikiProject links should be placed in the Lead section and/or appropriate section(s).

Good luck. -- PBeaver 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis after External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't know what you are talking about. Please perform your Wikipedia:Accountability. -- PBeaver 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with PBeaver completely. More InterWikimedia links should be put on the top of the articles rather than excessive indications such as "For the wiki software used and developed by the Wikimedia Foundation, see MediaWiki" on the top of the article of "Wikimedia Foundation". Who can confuse a foundation with a software? {{Wikisource}}, {{Wikiquote}} , etc. are more important essentially. -- by PTNFromm 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We do this sometimes; for instance, in an article about a document or book, if Wikisource has a copy then the Wikisource box may appear at the top of the article. Or if Wikinews has content related to a specific section, the box may be attached to that section. However, not all sister-project links are of great significance and many belong in the external links section. Much of the rest of your comment is impossible to understand. It seems unlikely that God will be judging me based on my actions at Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't decipher any argument in the comments preceding yours, so I'm sticking with any external content belongs in External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed SandyGeorgia's vandalistic reverting edit due to Wikipedia:Use common sense, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Consensus, etc. SandyGeorgia haven't still performed his own accountability and his edit apparently contradicts even the Image section in WP:LAYOUT itself. -- JungianPPP 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me ? I can't decipher your intent or English in the post above, but it is not wise to call someone else's edits "vandalism". Civility, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy that the arguments given above are hard to decipher. So far, I also agree with Sandy that all external content should be down at the end of the article. Can you clarify and gain some consensus here before making these edits? Mike Christie (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to decipher. Perhaps, "SandyGeorgia's edit" plus "vandalistic edit" plus "reverting edit" equals "SandyGeorgia's vandalistic reverting edit." -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please decipher my comment, too. I fixed it. -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An article like United States Constitution makes more sense with the link to the text at the top, because there is an excellent chance that people will want to refer to the text while reading the article, or that they will be looking for the text in the first place. Most sister project links are of relatively low value, however, and belong with the other external links. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that one either; it's a bad precedent, and once you add one sister link to the lead, you can end up with all of them there. They're ugly, and disrupt the lead, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't disrupt the lead any more than infoboxes (far less, in fact) and are quite useful. I don't see how a precedent of structuring pages in the way most useful to readers is dangerous. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki templates go in the external links section. That's how we've been doing it for years. JungianPPP is just making this up as he goes along. Raul654 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my ... Do you mean you've been doing it in such a rude and unreasonable manner for years? I guess, you haven't said anything reasonable to be respected, unfortunately, therefore, there can't have been any reasonable Wikipedia:Consensus by which you can justify reverting edits by JungianPPP to current version. I think, some new people are just saying about five truths.

Wikipedia:Interwikimedia links, including links to Wikimedia sister project, is apparently different from ordinary external links such as THE WHITE HOUSE and BBC,
because, from the viewpoint on how to link, it is very clear that there is three type links: Wikipedia:Internal links, Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links and Wikipedia:External links.
They often find that it is preferable to change its current unreasonable guideline on where a link to Wikimedia sister projects should be placed,
and that editors should be recommended to put it in Lead section rather than in lower section such as External links section usless it is meaningless,
because it is by far more useful to invite readers(positive editors) into other Wikimedia projects and have them edit there.

In short, guys adhering to strange view that InterWikimedia links are Wikipedia:External links, violently ignore the differnces between Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links and Wikipedia:External links, and unreasonably treat them as if they were the same type links and they had the same meaning for readers and editors.

== Wikilinks ==
Internal links

Adding square brackets ([[...]]) around a word or phrase is an important part of Wikifying articles. This links significant words to a corresponding article that contains information that will help the reader to understand the original article. For example, an article might mention 'pancakes' without explaining what they are, although a brief phrase explaining the term might be more appropriate in many instances. An article about laser beams might provide helpful background material when mentioned in passing. It is important to follow the links that you have added and check that they lead to the right page. Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section.

See also: Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) § Internal links, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) § Date formatting

InterWikimedia links

Look up archive 1 in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

InterWikimedia links has two types.

One is prefix type which is created by adding a specific prefix to the internal link above, just as [[commons:...]], [[Image:...]], [[b:...]], [[n:...]], [[s:...]], [[q:...]], [[wikt:...]], ... , [[:de:...]], [[:fr:...]], [[:ja:...]], etc.

Another is template type which is created by typing such as {{Commons}}, {{Wikibooks}}, {{Wikinews}}, {{Wikisource}}, {{Wikiquote}}, {{Wiktionary}}, etc.

Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links are another important Wikifying operation to introduce readers to the Wikimedia sister projects similarly supported by "Wikimedia Foundation" as well as Wikipedia. These Interwiki link templates should be placed eithier on the top of the article ( this is, Lead section) or the appropriate section ( like this section and #Images ). Convention is to include each reference, link, or definition only once within an article, at the first appropriate point. Links to "Wikimedia sister projects" are best placed in the section of the article to which they relate, including Lead section, if possible; otherwise, they are usually placed in either "See also" section ( e.g. Autism#See also ) or External links section ( though InterWikimedia links cannot be External links ).

See also: Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects, Wikipedia:InterWikimedia link, Category:Interwiki link templates, and Help:InterWiki linking

What's the problem with this lost section? -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"References"

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The description of the "References" section states:

Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article. [emphasis added]

I know citing specific facts is strongly preferred, but what about books, etc., an editor uses in constructing an article but doesn't reference/cite in the article? --zenohockey 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with those sorts of materials which are not mentioned in inline citations is that you just can't tell what role, if any, they actually had in the formation of the article content. Personally I think that strict enforcement of the References guidance is critical to good sourcing, so I always move books that may be valuable, but which are not cited, into Further reading. If the books really are great sources, why aren't they cited in notes? Buddhipriya 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right. Thanks. --zenohockey 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this crept in but that language certainly doesn't reflect current practice. General references are provided in the references section all the time. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. Follow-up (because I think this should be discussed in the article)—one solution to this dilemma is having separate Notes and References sections. Which (if any) of the below arrangements of <ref> references and a list of other references, all of which I remember seeing, are preferable?

1.
==References==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.

General Reference: The Book
General Reference: The Sequel

2.
(Same as #1, but order flipped, so that general references come first)

3.
==Specific references==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.

==General references==

General Reference: The Book
General Reference: The Sequel

4.
(Same as #3, but order flipped, so that general references come first)

I think either #3 or #4 is best; when #1 or #2 is used, I often have to take an extra second to understand why some references are numbered and the rest are bulleted. --zenohockey 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say they are all acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

personally, I separate them using subheaders (if there are many) or colon lines:

==References==
;Specific
</references>
;General
*A book
*Another book

Circeus 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this enough context?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On List of turnpikes in New Jersey, there is a link to turnpike in the first sentence. Is this enough context? --NE2 04:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably, though I'm a bit confused as to why the title is "turnpike", but the article uses "turnpike roads". Also, consider bolding the appropriate parts.Circeus 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes? surely this should be "Footnotes"

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Why oh why are we using the "lightweight" term "note", surely if we are trying to make wikipedia a respected resource we should be using the more usual term "Footnotes" as a section heading. Even in the discussion of the content we are continually referring to "footnotes" so why use this "notes". This opens the section up to use for all kinds of notes other than proper in-line citation style footnotes. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's far more complicated than you'd ever think, and bitter debates have occured before as to how to call them. "Notes" turned out to be the simplest solution.Circeus 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely "footnotes" are "footnotes" anything else is just more confusion awaiting to happen. For simpliest I assume you really mean most "dumbed down". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the debates over footnotes/notes/endnotes/whatevernotes occured at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Circeus 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But they never hit this subject head on if you look carefully the subject was more of the "are these References" type. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of published works use "notes" so I'm not sure why you describe the term as "lightweight". Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I read loads and never seen them used as footnotes and labelled "Notes". However I have seen plenty of notes at the end of a sentence, paragraph, illustration, map etc. But footnotes are footnotes regardless of what you might like to call them. "Fred" would do quite nicely as a name, but footnotes they remain. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Except when they aren't footnotes at all. Try printing out an article with such markup; a brief glance should convince you that what you have are, in fact, endnotes rather than footnotes. Indeed, I'd argue that, on a longer article, they're properly endnotes even when the article is read online; certainly, the ocurrence of dozens of sequentially-numbered footnotes in a single block is something not found in printed works. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, French publishers seem oddly fond of endnotes for books, something that is really infuriating to me. Circeus 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When you look at a Wikipedia article online, it is technically only one page, so Footnotes would be accurate, since the notes are at the foot of the page. However, as someone pointed out, if you print out a long article, it is many pages and the notes are at the end, making them Endnotes. I suppose Notes would be a satisfactory compromise. The main problem I see in a lot of articles is that some people use the generic heading References for the notes, which isn't a specific enoough title. Spylab 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They're definitely endnotes and not footnotes. Notes is a pretty standard description in many professional publications. Someone whining that it should be footnotes is not only being unnecessarily pedantic but is incorrect. DreamGuy 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple cite.php References tag occurrances

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed a recently-added occurrence of this in Constitution_of_the_Philippines#Significant_Features_of_the_1987_Constitution. What say about OK-ness? -- Boracay Bill 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, see WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When should references and notes be separated?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Specifically, on List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), should there be two sections or only one? --NE2 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"See also" links pointing to nonexistent articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Am I correct in thinking that it's undesirable to have a link in a "see also" that points to a nonexistent article? It seems strange to tell me to "see" something that doesn't yet exist. I understand the point in having links to nonexistent articles; what I'm wondering if such links belong in "See also" sections instead of being inline with the article's text. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bothers me too; if there's nothing to see, it shouldn't be in See also, rather a red link somewhere in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps better than creating a dangling See-Also link would be to create a stub, then link to that. Or is the material not even ready to become a proper stub? Links to examples or other discussions would help. Bob Stein - VisiBone 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I made this edit in response to the discussion here. To repeat the points above, it's not all that helpful to a reader to be told to also see something that doesn't exist. Please revise the text as necessary. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Notes and Citation sections

Latest comment: 17 years ago42 comments11 people in discussion

Recently there was a change to the Hinduism article that resulted in the creation of two sections called Notes and Citations. The section which contains the inline references is called "Citation" and the "Notes" section contains remarks that are generally comments. I have objected to this change because it is not consistent with WP:LAYOUT. Can anyone please help me understand the policy issues with this non-standard structure? Buddhipriya 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an uncommon practice and seems quite reasonable if there are a lot of citations, most of which are useless to readers. I don't see any policy issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any kind of policy/guideline issue, but my personal preference would be to have them together. Regardless of whether something is a text note or a citation, it's purpose is the same: to supplement or support something stated in the main text. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the use of two sections in this way is contrary to the stated structure in WP:LAYOUT, is there any other guideline, policy, or other Wikipedia documentation on this practice? I understand that it happens here and there, but is there any documentation supporting this practice? The use of two sections seems confusing to me, so I am trying to understand if there is any actual specification for it. Buddhipriya 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Christopher Parham, and think what is currently in place at Hinduism makes sense, considering the number of Notes, Citations, and References. (I recently changed Tourette syndrome to a similar layout.) It's what works best for the reader, and I don't think this is a matter for policy. Also, the Guide to Layout isn't really clear on the matter anyway. At one point, it says Notes are only for true notes, but later it indicates that Notes is where we use cite.php, so even this page is confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. "possible" is not the same as "advisable", "permitted" or "recommended". It's still an extremely bad idea. WP:CITE says that the citation style should be determined by consensus of the regular editors of the article. It appears that editors working on consensus for overall style have perhaps been unaware of this discrepency between WP:LAYOUT and WP:FOOT. I believe WP:FOOT should simply be changed to remove this "possibility." IPSOS (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that WP:FOOT should be changed to eliminate the use of this confusing two-section setup, which is not consistent with the typical critical apparatus found in academic texts. Buddhipriya 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Why demand such rigidity? Footnotes and citations are not the same thing, and in some articles it makes sense to clearly distinguish between them. Any changes to guidance should give helpful suggestions on how to achieve this where appropriate, and not dictate that both be lumped together regardless of circumstances. .. dave souza, talk 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In the types of academic sources that I personally use most often, I do not recall ever seeing the use of two sections in this way. Perhaps it is common in some other fields. Can anyone point to a MOS for an academic publisher that recommends the use of two sections? Regarding the statement that "footnotes and citation are not the same thing", that is what I am challenging. The use of terms in that statement is based on the belief that they are inherently different, but in typical practice in academic literature no such difference exists. Can you help me understand why you believe that having two sections is beneficial? I still have seen no positive argument for their use and find them confusing and unclear. Buddhipriya 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that on the basis of your own experience, you want to impose the MOS for print based academic publishers on web-based wiki articles, regardless of the consensus of the editors working on these articles and the guidance that's available: see Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes, and "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text)." The system of having notes under a separate heading from citations has been successfully used for featured articles. Don't you think that your proposal needs consensus? it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly any change to the current documentation would need consensus. That is why I am raising the issue for discussion here, to see what the various views are. Thank you for expressing your opinion on the matter. I am also asking for information regarding the factual question of whether or not this mixed system is actually in use in any publication MOS outside of Wikipedia, or if it is something unique to Wikipedia. If it's use can be cited in some other place, that would strengthen the case for its use here. Buddhipriya 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In academic publishing one might expect the audience to have a strong interest in the citations, so standards in that field might not be useful here. Our audience is much less likely to care about the citations (especially given the level of citation being adopted on many articles here), so it is useful to split the footnotes they may be interested in reading from those they are unlikely to care about. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that clarification and it's appreciated that a formal precedent in a MOS would be of interest. Books for the general public seem to have a variety of approaches, some using footnotes for clarification and having a separate bibliography. However, in the particular circumstances here, having notes distinct from citations and references means that the inline link can be distinct so that the reader can pick up which link down for further detail and which lead only to "Brown (2000) p. 264". The latter is very useful for establishing that points in an article are well referenced, but for many readers are of little interest. Another point which shows in the Hinduism article is that notes can themselves have links to citations. Obviously these are just my opinions, but other editors evidently find this approach helpful. One point which could be considered for guidance is whether it's preferable to have Notes / Citations / References as in Hinduism, or Notes / References / Sources as in Tourette syndrome. My personal preference is for the former, should we encourage one or the other? ... dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the use of wikipedia:footnote3 (of which "Ref_label" as used in the Hinduism) is depreciated, because it is much more difficult to maintain than the current Wikipedia:Footnotes. So what one gains with the clarity of separation one looses with the maintenance effort. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual editors may deprecate the Ref/Note templates but, AFAIK, they are not deprecated as a matter of policy. Thanks for pointing out the Hinduism article — I've been looking for a good example of notes vs. cites. My criticism would be about section naming in the WP:GTL#Standard appendices and descriptions sections. Oh well. -- Boracay Bill 23:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Note being able to point to a Citation, to me this seems extremely convoluted. How does it benefit our readers to make them look in two different places to hunt down one information trail? The complexity of this system seems to greatly increase the maintenance effort, and calls upon editors to understand the interconnections in ways that are just unrealistic for the majority of articles. A well-done citation may not just say "Brown (2000) p. 264", it may say: "For a complete review of the proofs of life on Venus, see: Brown (2000) p. 264" which puts the citation into context and helps establish a clear linkage of what content is actually in the citation being pointed to. If I put an uncited statement into a Note, can't that unsourced statement be challenged as unsourced? If so, eventually all significant Notes will require citations, resulting in two entries for each statement. What is the benefit of this novel system, which seems to have no clear precedents. Buddhipriya 02:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-academic, the benefit is that it clearly distinguishes between notes which form an expansion or aside to the article, and citations which merely show the source for the statement in the article. Your suggestion of a well-done citation would imply a massive expansion in the size of articles which commonly have over 100 citations: where citations are demanded for every paragraph, and often for every clause in a sentence, keeping most cites brief is necessary to minimise article bloat. Since I don't have your familiarity with academic publications a precedent didn't come readily to hand, but as it happens I've just had occasion to look up this document which, as you'll note, has inline citations as well as frequent footnotes at the foot of pages. The footnotes themselves include inline citations. For those not wanting to download the original, it can be viewed here (link to page showing a typical footnote). .. dave souza, talk 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I had looked into the convention of separating explanatory notes from citations a few days back, when this issue was raised on the Hinduism talk page. Here are a few Featured articles/lists that also follow this convention: Rabindranath Tagore, List of Harry Potter films cast members, Beagle, Scouting, Galaxy, Jerusalem, Solar System, Supernova, Thylacine, Ziad Jarrah, Antarctic krill, Demosthenes, Cat's Eye Nebula, Galileo Galilei, Harry McNish, The Four Stages of Cruelty, Red Barn Murder, Four Times of the Day, Elizabeth Needham, Ladakh, Peter Jennings etc
Perhaps a sentence needs to added to WP:LAYOUT to clarify that this option is permitted, althout not required ? Such a change would also bring this guideline in line with WP:FOOT. Any suggested wording ? Abecedare 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The current standard for layout clearly calls for one Notes section containing both types of critical apparatus. The use of two sections may be a permitted variant but it should not be suggested as the preferred form. The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia do not use the two-section approach, and the majority of FAC articles do not use it. I can see that there is no support for the idea of stamping it out entirely, but I do not agree that it should be encouraged any more than it is now. The idea that you can put any sort of content into a "Note", without a citation, is inconsistent with WP:V. Whether a statement is in the main article body or in a "Note", it must be defended with a citation if challenged. Particularly for articles that are trying to meet a high standard of source quality, I cannot see how you would have any "Notes" whatsoever that were not cited. Buddhipriya 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps my wording above was not clear:

I am not suggesting that the separate Notes + Citation sections be listed as a preferred option in the MOS guidelines. Clearly for a vast majority of (short and stubby) wikipedia articles this will make no sense. The issue IMO is similar to Citations v/s Reference sections, which are usually combined into one, except in lengthy high-quality articles where they are separated for clarity. To summarize: WP:LAYOUT should explicitly permit separate citations and notes section without requiring it.
Any contents in the notes should undoubtedly be verifiable - this should not even be open to discussion here! The only debate is on matters of style and not content policies.

Hope that clarifies my thoughts on the issue. Abecedare 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have great respect for your views and always find dialog with you helpful. I do not agree that the two-section arrangement works best on long and well-developed articles. In fact, I think it is most likely that the problems with it will be most apparent on those articles which have made the greatest effort to provide very strong sourcing. The basic idea of putting an unsourced statement into a Note is what I am challenging. Since we both agree that "Any contents in the notes should undoubtedly be verifiable", how is it possible that on a hotly-contested article there can be any Note that has no citation? Consider what would happen if this method were used on an article like Vedas or Out of India theory which are magnets for POV and unsourced content? The creation of two sections seems to encourage the additioon of unsourced content and may be suitable only for those articles that are short and where demands for sourcing have not been high. I do not see this as similar at all to the Notes versus References issue. In the current standard, the section title Notes should contain citations to reference works or details. The References section is a "list of works cited" in Notes. That division enables the use of the equivalent to an op. cit. remark in a Note, and it is makes complete sense to me. Buddhipriya 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding content policy, IMO Wikipedia:Footnotes and the related Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes explicitly tells us that the splitting is permitted. Regarding verifiability of remarks in "Notes", yes of course remarks should be having citations for themselves when needed. As an example, please see Demosthenes. So, here I see nothing to challenge at all! Let's not put unsourced comments/remarks in "Notes". That's it!--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that splitting is permitted, and I see that there is no support for the idea of completely ending the practice. Because something is permitted does not make it desirable to do. If I have understood your comment above, you agree that unsourced material should not be put into "Notes". If that is so, do you agree that any statement in a Note that is challenged will require the creation of two entries, one for the Note, and another for the Citation? Buddhipriya 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because something is permitted does not make it desirable to do or not to do. Yes, I agree that if needed a remark (in "Notes") should be cited, and two entries (one for Notes and one for Citation) may to be created, unless the source of the remark (say, a page number of a book, or a Harv or Harvnb style link) is given along with the remark itself, avoiding the need to create another citation entry. For example, see the notes section in this sandbox. Under Notes, entry "b" gives its source in the same place; entries "d", "e" and "f" have citations. However, this sandbox is under work, so may not be a perfect example :( --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for the info, hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox – please revert if you want to restore it. To see if it worked, I've added a repeat of a "ref name=" pre-existing reference to note a. and a "harvnb" template reference without the "ref" tags to note b. so that it links directly to the "References" section rather than via a separate citation. Both seem to work pretty well, and so I don't see how referencing a statement in a Note that is challenged will require the creation of two entries. Looks good to me. A lot of the problem is that Wikipedia:Guide to layout does not seem to give any suggestions for the the situation where Harvard citations are used, now made more useful by inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets templates generating citations linked to the sources listed in the "References" section, provided the sources use Template:Citation (or the now deprecated Harvard template used in the sandbox). The three common situations would be keeping the citations in the "References" section immediately above the cited sources, having the citations in the "Notes" section with the cited sources in a "References" section, and where suitable keeping the "Notes" section for notes, having the citations in a "Citations" section and the cited sources in a "References" section. There are variations on this theme: Wikipedia:Footnotes links as its example to Johannes Kepler which has Harvard references without the templates, and so without the links. It has the cited sources in a "Bibliography" section. Anyway, some clear guidance on layouts for Harvard citations would encourage more consistency. .. dave souza, talk 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, "raf name=", "<ref>", "Harvnb" all work pretty well for statements in "Notes". Yes, there are three possible schemes, as you have enumerated. I am noting them serially for rapid readability!

keeping the citations in the "References" section immediately above the list of cited sources.
having the citations in the "Notes" section with the list of cited sources in a "References" section.
where suitable keeping the "Notes" section for notes (that is, mostly explanatory or commentary-style remarks), having the citations in a "Citations" section and the cited sources in a "References" section.

IMO, options 2 and 3 are better to use as applicable/needed. As you have told, there are variations on this theme,. The sections may be named in different manners. Bye the way, I have added Rabindranath Tagore as another example in the relevant section in Wikipedia:Footnotes. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of Harvard references are themselves a protestable issue, and their introduction should be a matter of consensus. This is further evidence that the dual-section method forces a much increased complexity on the critical apparatus, and imposition of the dual system on an article where it is not currently in use apparently also requires consensus on the movement to Harvard references. Again, this dual system is a variant method, not the recommended main style, which calls for one section for all Notes, and does not impose the complexity of the Harvard referencing system. Buddhipriya 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally am in favor of the KISS principle. If experienced editors can't navigate this, how can we possibly expect less experienced editors to understand it. I say strip the "options" and stick to a basic recommendation. IPSOS (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of Harvard referencing on Wikipedia is widespread and substantially predates all the significant footnote systems in use here, so it's not clear what you are talking about. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment this guide to layout seems to pretend that Harvard referencing doesn't exist, which is why people keep reinventing ways to accommodate it. It was something new to me that I didn't much like when the cites were unlinked, as at Johannes Kepler, but now the links are available it's really very easy to use, and has the huge advantage that all the references (in template form) are in the "Reference" section instead of being scattered through the article, so it's very easy to copy them for use on another article: see The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby for an example where I've just done that using option 1 for a fairly short section – no doubt not ideal, but a lot better referenced than it was before. .. dave souza, talk 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the layout guide needs to say anything about Harvard referencing. The ordering and titling of sections (layout) is independent of whether or not Harvard citations are used. The correct place to discuss them is WP:CITE, where I believe they are discussed. IPSOS (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of Harvard referencing belongs in WP:CITE and not in the layout guide. The fact that many editors do not like using the complex Harvard referencing templates is even documented in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing which says: "There is no requirement or recommendation to use citation or footnote templates in Wikipedia, and many editors find them unhelpful and distracting." The fact that some editors like these templates and others do not is the reason why a change of referencing systems should be discussed in advance prior to implementation. I agree with the point about the KISS principle. To return to the main point of this thread, it now seems that a decision to use the dual citation variant will indirectly result in a need for the Harvard referencing to deal with the demand for documentation of statements. Imposing both a non-standard format and a particular referencing method at the same time is a major change to the skill level needed to edit articles. It is so difficult to get editors to provide any references at all, we should be making things simpler, not more difficult to participate. Buddhipriya 03:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, discussion regarding use of Harvard template should take place in talk page of WP:CITE. So, like Buddhipriya, let's return to the main point. You have said, "...it now seems that a decision to use the dual citation variant will indirectly result in a need for the Harvard referencing to deal with the demand for documentation of statements." No, it may or may not result. That's what the example (the sandbox) showed. In fact, the sandbox shows three options for sourcing the remarks in the "Notes" section—(1) citation superscripts (eg, Note a,d, e); (2)Harvard (Note b); (3) stating the source in at the end of the remark itself, without the need of any double entry or Harvard referencing (Note c).

One thing should be clarified. No particular referencing method is recommended in wikipedia. So, any method can be used. I must tell you the dual splitting is not at all complex. Remember your early days when even simple referencing seemed tough. Just some experience, and you got to know how stuffs work. That happens with everybody. The same is true for the splitting style. It may seem tough at first. But it is nothing new at all. It's the same old referencing method, split in order to differentiate remarks-like notes from simple bookpage/website citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My objections to the dual system are not just based on personal convenience. I see the dual system as 1) inconsistent with the primary standard of using one section (and I value consistency across Wikipedia articles, hence view this as a problem), 2) inconsistent with typical academic practice, 3) excessively complex, 4) leading to redundancy, 5) more difficult for the average editor to learn and implement, 6) more likely to lead to maintenance problems. Regarding notation for citations within a "note", of the three methods you suggest, the third method seems equivalent to me of the practice of just putting an explanatory statement into a regular reference, as I have previously illustrated (E.g., "For a review of the health benefits of asbestos, see: Jones (1932), p. 4.) and so if all citations in notes were done that way you would have the same effect as using the single References section which is called for by the standard layout. The other two methods require two entries for each item, one for the comment, and another for the citation supporting the comment. Why is this extra overhead needed? Buddhipriya 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose to signal to readers the difference between mere citations (which they are unlikely to care about) and footnotes containing information? The main virtue of this system is that it makes clear the distinction between what is usefully read and what is usefully ignored. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Parham has rightly said the rationale. The goal is to differentiate explanatory remarks from mere bookpage/website citing. The method is not at all complex. Yes, the majority of the articles in Wikipedia do not use this way, because those articles probably do not need it. This method is very useful in case of articles with loads of citations (that does not mean it is necessary for all articles with loads of citations), where an average reader may not be interested to see the citation of a particular page number of a particular book, but may be befitted by a series of explanatory remarks that help to understand some concept or term used in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As a reader, I don't want a signal. I want all the notes to be in the same place. If there is something important enough to make a non-citation footnote about it, I'd rather see it integrated into the article. IPSOS (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with IPSOS. The fundamental point is that every single footnote is of significance and "explanatory remarks" require the same citation standard as any other content. I think this difference in view may stem from different expectations about the level of challenge which content must survive. I do not want anyone to separate out what citations they consider important. I will make my own decisions about article quality based on the sourcing. On some articles, I glance over the Notes and References sections before even reading the article, just to get a flavor of what the source quality is. What some are calling "mere citing" is the heart of academic discipline, and since Wikipedia is expected to comply with WP:V and WP:RS there is no avoiding the need to meet academic standards for soucing. Buddhipriya 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While you may be interested in looking over the sources of the article, I have no doubt that you are the exception among Wikipedia users. We are replacing other encyclopedias, not academic literature; most encyclopedias provide no footnotes whatsoever. Since most readers are here for quick-reference information on a topic, it is useful to distinguish the footnotes that contain such information from those that do not. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>
I totally agree that citations are very important to judge the article content and are the backbone of any wikipedia article. But I don't believe that academic conventions dictate that citations and explanatory notes be combined into one section at the end of an article. In fact a quick survey indicates that splitting the two is by far the more common academic journals (although there are exceptions). To make sure that I was not being swayed by publications in my own academic field, I looked through some highly ranked journals, in sociology, politics, engineering, management and law and all the journals in my somewhat random sample-set used footnotes for explanatory notes while references were cited separately (either using Harvard referencing or not). Among books (in my home library) the picture is more mixed - most books did use footnotes for explanatory notes (and rarely for stand alone citations), but mixing of notes and citations in an appendix was not all that rare; of course this sample set (unlike the one for journals) was very skewed by my tastes and is perhaps not representative. Abecedare 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not challenging what the checking you did showed you, but I cannot figure out how to replicate it given the link which you have provided. Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but I can't get to the actual articles for anything. Regarding books, I am unable to replicate your findings at all, as not a single one of the reference books that I have on hand, including several that are published within the last few years, use a mixed system, with the possible exception of some use of inline Harvard references, which present their own problems (e.g., Flood, 2003, which I know you have on hand). In all other cases there is a single place to look (either at the bottom of each page, or at the end matter) to find every single citation in linear order. I am not sure what you mean when you say "mixing of notes and citations in an appendix was not all that rare." Perhaps that means that in some section of end matter, both literature citations and unsourced comments both appeared in the same list, in linear number order. If that is what you mean, that is the "one section" method that I find in all of the books I have checked here, with the exception of those that use inline Harvard references for a citation with involves only at page number and no expository content.

To repeat, I understand that Wikipedia permits this dual system as a permitted variant. I also understand that some people like it, others do not. It is also likely that use of this method will vary by publication. Let us assume for a moment that you can find an online MOS somewhere for the Journal of Whatever that specifies the style as mandatory. That would not establish the prevalence of that style. When we began this dialog no one could name a single MOS where the dual format was specified. Now we know that at least some journals use it. That is fine, I still think it is a bad system, and that Wikipedia should stick with the current primary standard, which is one Notes section. However I do understand that others in good faith may see things differently, and that consensus should be reached before changing from one method to the other. Buddhipriya 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but my opinion is that the method currently used in Hinduism is admirable for reducing the amount of reference clutter that makes editing articles difficult. I suggest that this method be promoted and used more widely, especially in long articles with numerous references. older ≠ wiser 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 1

Discussions

Subheadings

'Related topics' header - Should it be changed to 'See also'???

References vs. External Links

External link vs. External links

References

References vs external links again

In-text Reference Format

References vs Further Reading

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

Comments on a header

Discographies?

Introductory material

Wikify?

Irony...

Sometimes bulleted bibliographies don't work

wikify stubs?

“Navigation” as standard appendix

bullet points

Is citation style still debatable?

the disambiguation subhead

Alphabetizing (and otherwise arranging) "See also" sections?

Order of templates, categories, and interwiki links

Horizontal lines

Merge

Elaborating on "See also" entries

Notes should go at the very end

Further Reading/Bibliography

WP:LAYOUT shortcut?

Leading with links

{{TOCleft}} vs {{TOCright}}

Further reading/external links

"Horizontal dividing line"

Navigation as a standard appendix

Bibliography as an alternate to References

Further reading, comments?

General references

Order of appendices

This can't be right...

The "See Also: Wikilink Dump" format hides information from novice users

Shouldn't "References" go before "Notes"?

Avoid links in the summary

Introductory Material description

Use of subsections for "notes" and "works cited"

See also and repetition of links in article

Question

See also after references

WikiProject Aircraft

InterWiki links never be External links.

Internal links

InterWikimedia links

See also section: "it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."

Infoboxes

"References"

Is this enough context?

Notes? surely this should be "Footnotes"

Multiple cite.php References tag occurrances

See Also -- Wiktionary links?

See Also - Ongoing dispute

When should references and notes be separated?

"See also" links pointing to nonexistent articles

Separate Notes and Citation sections