Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 4

Archive 5

specify the scope of "See also"

Would anybody oppose specifying that "See also" links should ideally not be already linked from in the body of the article? Circeus 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would oppose. I think a "See Also" section should be a list of related topics, even if they are mentioned in the body of the article.

1. You don't have to read the entire article to find other similar topics. Related material can be identified quickly.

2. This is how paper encyclopedias do it.

Rearden9 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I prefer to find a list of related topics in one place. I don't want to have to slog through an entire article looking for blue words in order to find a related article that better describes what I am looking for. -AndrewDressel 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk about raising a dead fish. Right now you would rather have to please start a new discussion if you want to make a point of havingtopic prominently discussed in the article in the see also, because the convention (which, like any MoS is not absolutely, and is actually not even worded absolutely) has been well accepted for over a year and a half now. Circeus 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image layout:proposal for the "Images" section

I am offering to expand the image section with material about how to you know, position images for best, and I'd like opinions:

When placing images, it is recommended to be watchful of not stacking too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid moving the edit links in some browsers. Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. Images should have an explicative caption.

In general, it is considered poor layout practice to squeeze text between images on the let and right (this sometimes also causes images to overlap text due to interference from surrounding templates or tables), to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section, or to cause a header to be moved by an image placed on the left.

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

What do you think? All of these are practices I've been applying regularly at Wikipedia:Peer review, Featured article candidates, and on articles appearing on Did you know?, and I have yet (with a few exceptions) to encounter true opposition to them. Circeus 23:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea to discuss visual layout at this page! I think there might be a word on creating a satisfactory balance between left and right, siting images in proximity to corresponding text, varying image sizes depending on emphasis and content, avoiding "foto-strips" down the right-hand side-- a favorite mutilation-- and positioning the vanishing point within the page. All the worst Wikipedian character flaws seem to be elicited when the visually impaired browbeat the rest of us on such simple matters of basic visual coherence. --Wetman 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

a satisfactory balance between left and right

How about "Some user prefer images to be evenly spread between the left and right, but you should then mind even more the above comments about moving headers and placing text between images on each sides."

siting images in proximity to corresponding text

It's already saying "Images should ideally be spread within the article, and relevant to the section they are located in."

varying image sizes depending on emphasis and content

I don't know. I want to suggest that 250-280 is a maximum, as 300px is half the text space's width on a 800x600 screen... But a word about appropriate size is probably a good idea, also about not stacking images of completely different width. How would you go about that?

avoiding "foto-strips" down the right-hand side

I think that is covered by being "watchful of not stacking too many of them within the lead or a single section," maybe specifying "multiple images within a section should not spread over the next one in 1024x800 resolution"?

positioning the vanishing point within the page

What does that mean??

Circeus 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would take the last to apply to details of paintings - the vanishing point of the perspective, if not contained in the detail, should be on the page, not off it. It seems sound - like having heads face in not out of the page. Johnbod 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing point - this disagrees with "facing into the page": Something that faces into the page will have its vanishing point off the margin; also, (1) you can have more than one vanishing point in a painting, and (2) the major vanishing point may not end up on the page in any case, because it could lie beyond even the farther margin. Finally, as Circeus points out, this is difficult to explain and therefore unlikely to be followed. I suggest scrapping the idea; there is nothing stopping you from following it where it doesn't conflict with the "facing into the page" guideline.

Image size should not vary unless there is a strong reason for it. Variable size makes for a choppy, uncomfortable, less readable layout. 82.71.48.158 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical formulae

I have suggested this elsewhere - and it is probably applicable in other cases.

I have occasionally come across mathematical formulae which show the formula and nothing more: for those of us who are not familiar with the field (which might include mathematicians in other areas for all one knows) a brief intro "This formula is used in context X to do/produce Y" would be useful. Jackiespeel 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, project mathematics is the place to bring examples. Rich Farmbrough, 17:53 24 March 2007 (GMT).

There are some formulae whose application isn't so obvious, or isn't for just a single purpose, e.g. Price equation. 82.71.48.158 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose to change External links section to Further reading

see above #Further reading/external links

I think it is time to change all mentions of the section ==External links== to ==Further reading== on this page. A couple of years ago this was not necessary as there were often two section, one for online texts and one for external links. But with the growth in the use of ==Reference== section and a ==notes==or==footnotes== section, that include web based articles, there is a need for another section which contains further reading with both online and offline sources that are recommended reading but are not currently used as references and are not cited. But before I made such a change I would like to see if we can build a consensus on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That misses much of the point of external links. These are to online sources exclusively, and often for purposes other than to provide further reading about the subject of the article. External links are for web content that is not used as a source and would not be appropriate to the article. See the WP:EL guideline on this. Wikidemo 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reading is not approriate. Links to videos and photos are obviously not "reading". It ain't broke so there is no need to "fix" this. 2005 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This change would be incorrect. Articles include an external links section at the end in order to list links to websites that are outside of Wikipedia, for purposes of providing additional information as opposed to onsite "reading". "Further" reading is facilitated by the "See also" section. External links specificaly identify a link which briefly summarizes a website's content and why the website is relevant to the article.--Hu12 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some years ago the move was to take external links out of the text of Wikipedia article and move them down to the bottom of the article, because they were seen as unstable and polluting to the Wikipeida text. So in the past people used to place paper articles in "References/Bibliography/Sources" and "External links" contained both referenced and unreferenced links. But in the last two years with the move to much more cited text (See WP:PROVEIT), there has been a move to placing external links that are referenced in the "References" and "Notes" sections. This leaves the external links as a further reading section. To call it "External links" is a now a misnomer as so many external links are in other sections.

User:2005 in what section does one place videos and photos that are not available by a link on the net? I concede that occasionally there may be cases where there are no external sources to be read where "External links" may be appropriate, but in the vast majority of articles the links are to external readable sources.

User:Hu12 Further reading is not synonymous with "See also". External links is used to contain external sources that are not in the reference section, while "See also" contains links to Wikipedia articles that have for one reason or another not been integrated into the text of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

External links are completely different from sources or references. You are confusing the terms. You should read WP:EL. The term external links only refers to the end section, plus any misplaced links not properly placed. There should never be "external links" in other sections. The usage of external links is very clear now so making a section that is not just confusing but flat out wrong doesn't make sense. 2005 11:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific is better than vague. "Further reading" is vague and "External links" is specific, so the latter phrase is what should be used. I'm sure the suggestion was made in good faith, but I think the reasoning behind the suggestion might be faulty. Rray 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am confused see the section in the guideline WP:EL#References and citation and the guideline WP:CITE and also see the Wikipedia content policy WP:PROVEIT and as an example reference tag ^[3] attached to the quote. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. It makes sense to distinguish between printed works and external links. 82.71.48.158 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference other than one is on line and the other is not? I think what matters is the quality of the resources (WP:RS) rather than the media on which it exists. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In general I like the the idea of putting both online and offline resources that are external to Wikipedia and aren't references for the article into one section instead of two. Not so sure about the "Further reading" heading though - seems a little too caught up in a paper world mindset. The gudielines for external links could be used as a starting point for the whole section. Would be nice to show we expect books in that section to be well considered too - I've seen quite a few books added to further reading lists that aren't appropriate (COI additions and tangentially related mainly), and some of the lists get a bit on the long side. I'm also seeing more and more uses of external links to texts of books in further reading sections - making the overlap even greater. -- SiobhanHansa 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a term like "More sources"? but that is a larger change than changing from "external links" to "further reading" because it involves a change to WP:CITE as well as this page.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think using the word "sources" is problematic - we've seen confusion between citation links and non-citation links on the external links talk page when using that word. Maybe "Explore further", "More information elsewhere", "Continued study", "And if you have a lot more time..." -- SiobhanHansa 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It would not work well for the visual arts articles I mostly edit, where many links are to pages largely or entirely with images. I also think the distinction is useful; further reading should cover primary or standard secondary sources that have not actually been used, and maintain a high standard of quality and relevance. For external links sections, even when regularly weeded, we know the threshold for acceptable links is rather lower - often mostly tertiary sources like WP itself. Johnbod 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower standards may have been acceptable in previous years, but Wikipedia is not a link farm and those links that are provided in external links/further reading should be reliable. As I said above there may be a few subjects where the term "External links" is a better term than "further reading" acceptable, but at the moment it is the tail wagging the dog. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That continues to confuse the difference between sources (for which RS applies) and external links (for which RS is simply not the issue). It's not a matter of degree. They are different things. Most links that are allowed per EL would not be considered further reading, and most links that are further reading would not be appropriate as external links. It sounds like you're talking about the bibliography section. We already have that so I'm not sure what you're proposing to change Wikidemo 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is an issue. WP:V applies to all of an article including the links that are put into a collection at the end of an article. Many of the links in an articles as further reading are external links. See Genocide#Further reading, Torture#Further reading and Battle of Waterloo#Further reading for examples of where external links and further reading are amalgamated into further reading. The dichotomy stands out in articles that use both online and offline news papers articles, particularly where initially a new article is free to view and then becomes subscription based or when they are removed from the net and are only available via a library. Should online and offline newspaper articles be kept in two different sections? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format. They show what happens when people are undiscliplined about article format. In the torture article, the "museums" section is clearly external links and should be noted as such. The "Definitions" seem to be a references section. My guess is that they should be referred to only if used as a source of material, and otherwise not included, in that we're not an arbitrary list of links. The "further reading" section is a bibliography. With the battle of waterloo, it is not clear whether "References" is truly references (in which case the article is using the relatively uncommon Harvard Citation method, or it mixes in uncited bibliography works as well. The further reading is, then, a bibliography too. I can't tell from looking at that whehter there are any external links proper. The genocide article suffers from an occasional problem, the mixing of different reference styles - it has both "references" and "footnotes" (which are a reference or note section). The "Further reading" is again, a bibliography, but the "research programs" subsection is really an external links section and should be evaluated (and possibly pruned) as such. Some of the overviews are external links as well, and some should probably be removed per the el guideline. None of these argue for why "External Links" should be renamed or the standards changed. WP:V does not apply directly to external links. It never has. It"s for verifying article content on Wikipedia, not the content that may be found other places on the web.Wikidemo 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where in the content policies it says that any specific section of an article is exempt from the content policies. FYI the Waterloo article uses references for those articles and books that are cited in the article, but as the citations come in any old order (and there is a limit on space) the cited sources (particularly those cited more than once) are listed alphabetically in the references section. As to your comment "Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format" I am suggesting a change in this guideline to bring it closer to that of WP:CITE, because this guideline is out of kilter with what happens in many articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exempt, inapplicable. I'm not going to get into how rules work but verifiability covers article content. The external links guideline covers external links. That's a longstanding (1+ year) and broadly accepted distinction. The norm is for external links to be a distinct section of....well, you can read the guideline for what's in that section. Putting external links anywhere else, calling them something else, or putting sources/references or bibliographical links in external links doesn't seem to be very common and seems to run against that guideline. If anything, this guideline ought to indicate which article sections are almost universal for articles (see also, references, external links), and which ones are optional, or deprecated but allowed (bibliography, notes, further reading, etc). There's also a question of whether we should even have further reading and bibliography sections if they aren't used in the article, with all the emphasis against link farms and random collections of data. I don't see the harm but some people might object to the untidiness Wikidemo 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Johnbod. Flyer22 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - often the external links are to sites not really describable as "reading", for example when a model's official site is mostly a picture gallery, or when a musician's music is on line. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, "Further Reading" refers only to something readable but the Internet and today's publications are multimedia, including pics, videos, audio, visualizations, or clickable demos. Maybe "More Information" would be the better name for the section.--Mic-ro 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"External links" is the better name for the section. It is accurate, clear, accepted by long-standing convention, and well understood. There is no problem here that needs fixing. Finell (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: If used correctly, the External links, Further reading, and References sections serve different purposes. The distinctions promote clarity and should be preserved. Also, it is unwise to make millions (literally) of articles that have proper External links sections, including (almost?) every FA, suddenly non-conforming by changing a long stable MoS guideline. Finell (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: If used correctly, the External links, Further reading, and References sections serve different purposes as above. If created correctly some external links will justify inclusion as further reading or references. However that does not hid the need for a general other content "External links". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed: See also - alphabetical ordering by first name or surname?

I think this is important to clarify, as it can lead to articles being unstable, and having a clear guideline will improve the usability of WP. 82.71.48.158 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to select a format and stick with it, or at least stick with it for as long as it doesn't seem broke. I'm not much for changing the layout guide, because that means after changing it, all other articles on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect the new format, and not every editor keeps up with the changes. After getting used to things being outlined a certain way, it's not that easy to want change and sometimes not that easy to get used to change. Flyer22 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

sequence of these appendices

"It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices." Shouldn't the References have to come before the External links? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is being used to remove See also sections

Threeafterthree is misinterpreting this guideline to mean that See also sections shouldn't exist. His reasoning is that, either the link is already in the article, and therefore he deletes it; or it should be in the article, and therefore he deletes it until he can find a way to work it in. He is going through articles removing the See also sections based on this reasoning.

In fact, it's fine to have See alsos that are related to the article without being mentioned within it. That, indeed, is the whole point of the See also section. I'm therefore removing the following:

"Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section"

because it's this part of the guideline that is confusing him. But he is reverting my removal of it.

Does anyone else have a view? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to "clean up" articles by removing articles fron the See also section of articles that have already been linked to in the article per this guideline. Now an editor who disagrees with this has come here and changed this guideline to support his/her opinion of how this section should work. Can we please discuss this change here first? The guideline seems to make alot of sense as written. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I see that this was touched on before above. anyways,--Tom (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Tom, you are removing links that are not in the article, on the grounds that they ought to be in it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I removed the links since they were already linked at the bottom of the article. I then added them back saying that I would try to add them to the article per the guidelines over the next couple of days. You then came here and edited this guideline to support your position. I have now removed them again since you said the article was going to get a major rewrite and it wasn't worth arguing over. --Tom (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For example, here. I'd really appreciate some other input here, as I find it hard to cope with this kind of editing without resorting to a tone of "voice" I recently decided I'm not going to engage in anymore. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My feelings on the removal of the See also sections is that a See also section should not be removed until its link or links are already internal-linked within the article. In some cases, there is no way to internal-link a See also link or links within the significant body of the article, and in those cases...the See also section and its links that cannot be incorporated into the significant body of the article should remain as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin has now distorted my original point with this edit. Is this appropirate to change a discusiion this way? I do NOT want to remove See also sections entirely UNLESS the artlicle(s) listed in them has been already linked to. See also sections SHOULD exist as the current guideline points out. Can I make that ANY clearer. SlimVirgin, please do not change discussion titles and put your comments ahead of mine and distort this. I really didn't appreciate that. --Tom (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not what you're doing. Here you removed the section, even though neither of these links is in the article, but both have direct relevance. And it's the third time (or so) that you've removed it, citing this guideline. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted that since there is an ongoing disagreement.What is up with changing the title of the discussion here and inserting your comments in front of mine?--Tom (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting on that particular article, but could you address the broader point? You can't go around removing See also sections just because you think the links ought to be in the article. If they're not, they're not, and links can't always be forced in, and shouldn't always be forced in. Sometimes it's a good thing to draw people's attention to internal links that are related to the article, but not in a way that dictates they be included in it. That is the whole point of See also sections. The part of this guideline that implies otherwise does need to be removed, if that's how you're reading it -- or reworded in some way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Again Slim, I have ONLY been removing links inside of See also sections that are linked higher up in the article. The Mann article was an exception since we went back and forth. Please review my edit history and you will see that is the case. I understand the guideline as it is currently written and agree with it. Basically See also links are relevent articles that have not been incorporated into the article YET. Once and if they can be worked into the main article, the See also should be depopulated and removed. If a See also link is already linked in the article it should be definately removed, correct? Anyways, maybe if necessary that section of the guideline could be rewritten here and consensus reached on the best wording? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As the section reads now: The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A "See also" section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, include links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section.

A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "See also" section deprecated and removed once those topics have been added).

Links are presented in a bulleted list and should usually be listed in alphabetical order.

A less common practice is to name the section "Related topics". "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with

It should be a heading of level 2 so that it appears in the table of contents. --Tom (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally disagree with Tom's opinions. Since this talk section is over month old I proose that it'll be moved to Proposed change to 'See also' guideline section. CrZTgR (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Camargue

This seems to be the most suitable place to put this. Something in the layout of this article that I am working on is placing the [edit] buttons for the Background section and the Prelude to the battle section next to each other, just below the line of the latter section. The image of the typical Viet Minh ambush is also partly covering the first sentence. Is this a layout issue? Does anyone know what I can do to fix it, or where I should ask? SGGH ^speak! 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about see also links

If a Section has subsections, should all the see also links go at the beginning of the main section rather than under the subsection heading where they apply? An example is here [1] where the subsections printing and photography have main articles link under the header. I was told they all have to go at the top of the main section but this seems a bit confusing and less clear than the way they are currently. However, the guildeline on the page just says "section" with no reference for what to do with subsections. Thank you. pschemp | talk 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they can go under the subsection headings that they're most relevant to. That's the way I do it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood, pschemp ("There are Further details and See also templates in the middle of sections: they belong at the top."), as in this version. These templates go under the section heading before the text, per this and, for example, the instructions on each template (see {{See also}}). What you have in the article now is correct. Someone else may have corrected them before you saw the comment, which may have confused you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

Why is there a link to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes? This seems unorthodox for several reasons. First, it's a talk page without an accompanying article, even though its content is intended to be an article. Secondly, the small number of edits to that page combined with a lack of discussion seems to indicate that this did not result from a collaborative editing process. Finally, it introduces a method of combining notes and references in a manner which I have not yet seen in the wild, and is not elegant enough to encourage adoption (over simply combining a "Notes and references" section). Was this added by consensus? If not, I think it ought to be removed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to remove the links since no one has commented. I raised questions about it on the author's talk page and he did not respond either. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about inline citations

I'd like clarification on a point in order to (hopefully) put an end to an incredibly slow edit war. Note 2 under the section "Standard appendices and descriptions appears to suggest "Notes and references" is the recommended heading for footnotes which are both comments and citations, yet the paragraph under "Notes" gives an example of a citation which is headed "Notes". (And then there's the further confusion supplied by Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes, which I see has already been brought up.)

Question is simple: Given that its footnotes are both citations and commentary, should Regina's historic buildings and precincts have "Notes and references" or just "Notes"? --Sturm 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Either; it doesn't much matter. If I were Jimbo, I'd probably make it "notes", because "Notes and references" suggests footnotes and a bibliography, and this is only footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't really matter, but one thing you could do is determine if the non-reference notes are really necessary -- if they can be moved into the article without disrupting its flow, then do so; if the commentary is not NPOV, it should be deleted. Note #38 in particular seems to be synthesizing a lot of information instead of properly sourcing it or deferring to another wiki article. If you're able to get rid of all the notes, then you're just left with "references" and that solves that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stylization

What is the guideline for the stylization of links appearing in See also? Should it be considered as "see these articles" or "see these subjects"? To illustrate, this is a problem I see often (ignoring the problem that these are redlink examples):

==See also==
*Uniquely Titled Movie
*Movie With A Common Title (1999 film)
*List of similar films

The problem, to me, is that the disambiguation tag in the second link should not be italicized, as it is not part of the movie's title. On the other hand, if you italicize only the actual title, the resulting link has a somewhat awkward appearance since it has mixed stylization. This is assuming that the link should be italicized at all. The other option would be that all links in this section be treated as article names rather than as prose; thus not requiring any stylization. That is, the links in this section should be read as "see the Uniquely Titled Movie article" rather than "see the article on Uniquely Titled Movie". Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also be worth discussing whether the links in See also should be piped, or whether it is preferable to show the actual article name for the same reasons as in disambig. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Movie With A Common Title (1999 film)

—Random832 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On style

The header to the page starts "This page documents a style guideline" yet the lead goes on to say "This guide is not... about style". Could this be clarified, it seems a bit contadictary. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--how bizarre! I changed the second instance to "nor is it about writing style". Libcub (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to 'See also' guideline

Excerpt:

The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

I think that See also sections are useful in their own right, since sometimes one has neither the time nor inclination to read an entire article to discover other related subjects. I oppose this "rule of thumb" and suggest that relevant topics are included in the See also section, regardless of whether or not references to those articles are hidden away somewhere in the main body. ----Seans Potato Business 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Seans Potato Business and I do not find anything wrong with repeating references to other articles in main body and then in See also section. If See also section becomes too long it could be sorted into one or more templates but not removed. CrZTgR (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. I often go to the See also section of an article, hoping to find links to closely related articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time I disagree with Tom's opinions as presented in December 2007 (see above) CrZTgR (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I find the advice in here very unhelpful, and it's being used by at least one editor to go around systematically removing not only links that are already in the article, but links he thinks ought to be in the article. Every time he does it, he links back to this page in his edit summaries. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, yes. I think there's a reasonable underlying point about not duplicating relatively unimportant wikilinks in the "see also" section. But if a link is really important and fundamental, the fact that it's also included inline in the text of a section should not mean removing it from the "see also" section. Two different issues. Wikidemo (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "See also" sections should contain important links even if they are linked in the article although I think templates would definately be preferable wherever possible. Guest9999 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. I seldom have time to read a long article carefully, and I imagine that most people are the same. I think the "See also" section should be a compendium of links to related articles, preferably with brief annotations for each link. This would be really useful for any encyclopedia, and especially for Wikipedia, which tries to make maximum use of the hyperlink concept. Let's be useful, folks. — Aetheling (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Although, if the same link appears in a template at the bottom of the article, that link probably shouldn't be repeated in the "See also" section. If a reader was looking for related links, most of the related links are found in the template(s) at the bottom of the article. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

People might still want to highlight it for some reason. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If articles are already displayed predominantly using the {{see also}} and {{main}} at the start of the appropriate sections I see no need to put them into a see also section at the bottom. I use the see also section to put in relevant links for which I do not have the time or the inclination to embed into the text in the hope that in the future someone will come along and integrate the link into the text. But unfortunately some use selective links in the "see also" sections to push POVs. Does one then delete them saying an unbalanced POV or does one enter into an arms race of adding more and more links to a "see also" section? I think it is better if the "see also" sections are kept as small as possible (internal link farms and all that) "and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article." is useful in helping to police "See also" sections. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As people have said above, there are times when it's good to highlight certain links for readers' interest. Adding and removing links can both be used by POV pushers, unfortunately. All we can do is make sure the See also sections stay within a reasonable length. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If the section "See also" is to be used the way some are suggesting then perhaps it should be renamed "Internal links" or some such name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this change; it furthers POV wars and link farms within See also. Articles should be incorporated in the text and listed as See also only in very limited cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Since this guideline has been in place for at least a year and a half (I didn't check further back), broader discussion before removing it would be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a "See also" section is very helpful and should list links to closely related articles. I often can't think of what the title would be for a concept I'd like to read about, so I go to a related title and hope what I really want will be listed in the "See also" section. If these sections are being used in POV wars, delete the POV articles that are being linked to. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy - as a general rule links should not be repeated in the See Also section. As it is, many See Also sections are horribly long, and repeating links that are in the article is going to make them even longer and repetitive. If it's that necessary to have a large number of articles linked, put them in a list or a category and link to that (and only to that) in the See Also section. If the underlying issue is POV problems on specific pages, then this needs to be addressed on those pages - WP:NPOV always applies. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and Karanacs. I feel "See Also" sections should only list additional links, over and above those linked from the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Sandy as well. Let's not clutter up the bottom of every page with a long list of links that, while possibly relevant, have been linked probably twice already (once in the lead and once in the article body). — Dulcem (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the long-standing version. Before changing, broader discussion should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is not to "clutter up the bottom of every page with a long list of links", it's not working. The effect is to encourage filling navigation templates with tons of links, repeating links from the article body and one or more tables. "See also" is a form of navigation for readers, and even if a topic is mentioned in the article body, a reader may not read the entire article. Some allowance should be made for listing related topics, even if they are linked somewhere in the text. I would rather see a short list of key related topics in "see also" than more bloated nav. templates. Gimmetrow 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, we'll get the navigational templates anyway, and end up with both. I've gotten stuck with nav templates I don't want, and fortunately, they can be made collapsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. See also sections as they stand are not especially useful, as they usually contain links to unimportant, loosely related articles while missing out on other pages that would definitely be of interest for the reader. The purpose of "see also" sections generally is to indicate other material that complements what you just read, but the way they are employed on Wikipedia seems to miss that point. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of POV pushing applies to both options here. The current wording is being used by editors to remove links they don't want to see highlighted, which they do by adding them to the article, then removing them from See also, citing this guideline.

Having important links buried in the text and not listed in See also forces readers to look through the whole article to find them. But lots of people only want to scan articles quickly, and the See also section is something they're likely to look at to find related material. We should therefore offer it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In general one shouldn't repeat a link if it's not likely to be helpful, and repeat it if it is helpful and not otherwise easy to notice and get to for someone quickly perusing the article. That's a matter of article length, organization, the link in question, the nature of the other links int he see also section, and a bunch of other things. It's an editorial decision. Do we really have to spell this out? Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but I think it would be helpful to say what you've just said, instead of the current advice, which is leading to helpful links being removed. You're also right that we shouldn't have to spell these things out, but sadly ... :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. But Wikidemo's language does more than protect against abuse. Some people will always treat our suggestions mechanically; we should encourage editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his language would be helpful because it does encourage editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Can someone put up some exact proposed wording so we can come to consensus without multiple changes? The concern is See also link farms, duplicating links already in the text and in navigational templates, used to push POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. As a rule of thumb, links already included in the body of the text are not repeated in See also, but they may be repeated if particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice. Red links should not be added to this section.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Current:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at them side by side, I don't see any difference, but I do see WP:CREEP in the proposed change. What is the difference? Both recommend editorial judgement, common sense, and rule of thumb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this version explicitly says links may be repeated. The previous version didn't make this clear, so people were using it to go around removing links simply because they were already in the text, and in the case of one editor, was systematically going through articles removing links that he felt ought to be in the text. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I see in the new proposal is subjective instruction creep; the problem of one editor should be sorted out via "should be approached with common sense" and "rule of thumb", which aren't prescriptive. This new wording opens the door to all kinds of disagreement over what constitutes "helpful, interesting and relevant". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten people have posted above wanting to see the guideline changed to explicitly allow links in the text to be repeated in See also. So that's what this wording does. As a compromise, it also retains your preference that, as a rule of thumb, this shouldn't happen unless the links are particularly interesting. My own preference would be not to have the rule of thumb language at all, and I think that was the preference of all or most of the ten people who posted. But I retained it in my suggestion as a compromise between the two positions.

I agree that people will argue over what is "helpful," but people will argue regardless of the wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that, as Wikidemo says, we're trying to legislate for common sense, which isn't possible. But what we want to stop are people removing links in the See also section for no reason other than this guideline saying links shoudn't be repeated i.e. for no editorial reason. That's the aim of any new wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"forces readers to look through the whole article to find them"

Readers who know what they are looking for should just go to the article. Readers who don't know what they are looking for aren't going to look through an article to find it. See also sections should be used minimally, and removed when possible. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"Readers who don't know what they are looking for aren't going to look through an article to find it.". Exactly, but they might glance at the See also section. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in providing links to those who read Wikipedia in a state of free association. That certainly is not the point of See also. We have sidebar templates on topics, we have nav templates on grouped articles, we have categories for loosely hierarchical organization. See also sections are a tacit admission that Wikipedia is perpetually incomplete and should be limited to topics the article does not already cover or link to. If we've already linked everything in a see also it should be removed, it's not there as an internal link farm. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

But people disagree with that, as you can see above. Therefore, we're trying to find compromise wording. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People do disagree with that, which is why the current wording is already a compromise. What's wrong with it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I meant that people disagree with the current wording, which is why this section was started. See above for the reasons. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a variety of opinion in the discussion without any overwhelming call for change. So as to your specific proposal, I oppose it. The added sentence will add to internal links farms, POV pushing, and even spam. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why is the "particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant" phrase back? I don't see any new consensus for that, only opposition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are ten people above who want that section changed. If you can propose better wording, please do, but there's no consensus not to allow links to be repeated. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are not ten people who've shown consensus for your proposed change. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The proposed wording seems fine. As an example of an article where I think the current wording causes problems, take a look at right triangle. In this article I think that if Pythagorean theorem isn't linked in the first few sentences, it should appear in see also, but this is prohibited by the current wording because the term is already linked deep within the body of the article. All in all, I agree that links should not be repeated if they are already in the lead, but otherwise believe that important links ought to appear in see also even if they are being repeated. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added your point about the lead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SV, you've got two people saying they oppose the wording, and two people saying it is ok. That's not a discussion with consensus for you to insist on making the change. You want this change to get the upper hand in your own edit wars on other articles. It's not good faith to push the issue here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How on earth would this change give me the upper hand in edit wars, and what edit wars? I'm actually not keen on long See alsos with lots of repeated links. Your assumption of bad faith is astonishing.

We have 11 people saying they don't want the current wording. I'm going to remove the sentence people are objecting to, then we can discuss what to replace it with, if you don't like the wording I added. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between the two versions, except the current version uses 'should', which I like. Here's a suggestion:

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Though generally this section should not repeat articles already linked in the body text, links that editors agree are particularly helpful, interesting or relevant may be repeated, particularly if they are not prominent in the body. Red links should not be added to this section.

I like it because it places emphasis on editorial consensus and relative prominence, and uses 'should', which is proscriptive enough to make people think. My ¥0.5 WLU (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the "links that editors agree" part of that wording. That can, and in some cases will, be read as empowering one disagreeing editor to assert a veto. I also disagree with wording saying, e.g., "where there is a consensus", which can be read as requiring a consensus to be demonstrated in order to reverse the removal of a link. I haven't been following this discussion, but the current wordding,

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

looks fine to me. Thnkering with that in an attempt to explicitly define "editorial judgment and common sense" in this context invites wikilawyering, IMHO. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I strongly disagree with the removal of the long-standing consensus wording, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article. Also, the edit warring that occurred today is inexcusable; I believe SV knows that WP:3RR doesn't excuse three reverts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "additional" necessary in the proposed wording? It seems to assume that there's already a list of links in the article, which may not be the case. I'm unsure I can see the advantage in the change, in any case. Tony (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people understand phrases like "rule of thumb" and "generally" as allowing for differences. I think we're in agreement that the rule discouraging repeating "links" is not absolute, if "links" means any wikilink in the text. If we're clear on that, fine. I was wondering about the context of this rule of thumb: was it perhaps added when the majority of featured articles were fairly short? Or by "links" did it mean {{main}} links? Or was this back when articles were not filled with wikilinks, and you could pick out the valueable links on sight? Gimmetrow 02:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw this at ANI, so how about just changing the order of the sentences so that people realize how things are generally done but emphasizes that good judgment is necessary (descriptive not prescriptive). I suggest this order:

"Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."

Does that satisfy everyone's concerns? R. Baley (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, although it would need to be two sentences or a semi-colon if you use "however"; if one sentence, "although" instead of "however." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm liking "however" and semi-colon more than "although". . .but I can't exactly articulate why . . .something about the two ideas needing to be linked tighter than 2 separate sentences would allow. . . R. Baley (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"But" could also link them, as in: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also", but whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I'm fine with whatever you decide though. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the "but" wording seems a little strong to me, I'm going to go ahead and add it with the "however" phrasing (does a comma go after the "however" part? It's clear that you have a better feel for this type of thing than I do). Let me add that I'm not married to this, and I hope that Sandy Georgia, and others, support this edit as well. If not, well, I guess we'll keep talking. R. Baley (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw this at AN/I: can I object in the strongest possible manner to the removal of "and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article"? That is a pretty good rule of thumb. I also think we need to encourage people to actually write rather than link enormous numbers of articles in a list. And if they are forced to write, then they are forced to cite how those things are actually linked, which cuts down on OR an POV-pushing. Weakening this restriction is completely unjustifiable. 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that there has been a massive change since Dec 6. That's unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the compromise phrasing? It keeps the phrasing (which I agree with by the way) but it also allows for common sense exceptions (no rule is ironclad. . . well, almost no rule is ironclad :-) R. Baley (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the wording on Dec 5:

"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A "See also" section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, include links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a "See also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "See also" section deprecated and removed)."

This is what is current.

"The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Eviscerated, pointless, dangerous, and completely unacceptable. Relata refero (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relato, the wording you're pointing to was added quite recently without discussion, in September, by Schmucky the Cat. [2] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I read the thread that lead up to this, and am surprised that none of this was included (or noted) in the objections. I'm going to have to take this up a bit later today (if something isn't worked out in the meantime) since I really can't spend any more time on it right now. R. Baley (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, SV, that makes more sense. However, here's the revision that seems to have lasted a long time:

"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links."

That should be the basis of comparison, then. Relata refero (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And what has been added to that is: "however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, though that is either redundant or inappropriate. (Depending upon how you look at it.) Also, the word "additional" has been excised; and it has removed the line "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article...." Which is absolutely correct. This isn't a minor tweak, its changing the meaning. Relata refero (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the meaning is changed. What the additional clause does is stress "ideally" or "generally," whichever word is being used now. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous version (before Schmucky's Sept 3, 2007 edit) [3]	Current version [4]
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.	The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Oo, that's clever formatting.

Come on, SV, one makes a suggestion, and the other wimps out. You know that. There's a big change in meaning. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a style issue, where editor discretion is needed. Clearly we don't want a link farm in the "See also" section, nor a repetition of many or most wikilinks already in the text. We need to explain that in general we don't repeat, but it is up to the editors to decide, depending on specific circumstances. Crum375 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glad you like it. :) Well, for a start, the writing is now better, which is something. The only suggestion missing is "Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links." This is exactly the kind of advice I dislike. We should write articles the way they need to be written, not according to all these recipes. But I won't squeal if you want to restore it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to R. Baley's version, although I prefer the original wording that said ideally not repeat links. It more clearly specified the standard of neutral writing expected on Wiki's best articles, which is to incorporate meaningful links into the text for comprehensive, neutral articles.[5] Weakening this wording is an invitation to move edit warring from within the article to the See also section, without engaging good, neutral writing. What I am concerned about is the 3RR violation that occurred here yesterday; three reverts are not excused by WP:3RR, and each time this occurs it shouldn't have to go to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But will that apply to you too, Sandy, when you ask your friends to turn up to revert and argue and insult other people on your behalf? Or should it apply only to people who get in the way of what you want? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that outburst contribute to improving this article/guideline? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Does yours? And why don't you use four tildes? Crum375 (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with R Baleys change, as it is simply different wording for what existed before the edit war. The objectionable part is the expansion that was added during part of the edit war. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Case studies

Sometimes, looking at specific cases can help clarify matters. 7 World Trade Center is the first article listed on WP:FA, and it has two links in "see also": List of tallest buildings in New York City and World Trade Center in popular culture. Neither seem to be in the article text, but the second is in the nav. box. Do both links belong? Going down a few sections on WP:FA, what about 0.999...? This article has no nav. boxes, and seven "see also" links. I would be surprised if at least one were not already linked in the text, and some could probably be incorporated into the text. Gimmetrow 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ACK! 7 WTC passed with two supports, one oppose, no thorough review (looking at the footnotes alone makes me want to get to work on cleanup), so this article may not be representative of FAC. But ... I think both of those could be considered appropriate under a rule of thumb for See also, as they both represent links that probably don't have a place in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from accessdates, what's the big problem with the footnotes in 7? Yes, I think "sister" articles, like "X in popular culture", fit into "see also", though a short section with a {{main}} link could be written for those. The "see also" in 0.999... is not in the promoted version. Gimmetrow 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing accessdates, missing publishers, date formatting in citations all over the map, and MOS:CAPS#All caps. So far (first two sections only). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on the Red links should not be added to the section. It may be obvious to experienced editors, but for new editors not familiar with wiki, it's a good bit of guidance. Since this is being reviewed anyway, perhaps we could plug in something from WP:EL - "a small number of links or lack of a see also section is not a reason to add to the page/section." A policy I like for this is WP:PROVEIT - the onus is on the adding editor to convince others that they are necessary, not the other way around, but I could be in the minority on that one (in case it's not obvious, I'm more than a bit of a deletionist and hate long see also sections).

So, what are the central issues? 1) how much do we want to restrict links already in the body text? Right now there is rule of thumb' (moderately proscriptive) vs should not (much more proscriptive) vs generally does not (weakly proscriptive) 2) When should links be duplicated? particularly interesting, helpful or relevant and not otherwise easy to notice vs including no criteria (essentially making it a 'should not repeat').

Another point - any of the 'particularly interesting, helpful or relevant' links should probably be in the lead or {{main}}'s themsevles, making them quite prominent indeed. WLU (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"particularly interesting, helpful or relevant" is inviting people to make link farms out of repeat and POV "relevant" links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed, I would rather the statement be something like 'exceptional cases only' or flatly 'don't repeat links.' WLU (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Why not push it all to nav boxes then, and get rid of see also? (I don't actually want this, but it seems to be where this is headed.) Gimmetrow 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some articles don't have enough related links to have nav boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the argument seems to be they should be incorporated into the text. If necessary, can create a generic "related links" navbox. Gimmetrow 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Incorporation into the text has been the default position for a while I believe, and one that I'm happy with. There are cases where it's impossible or very difficult to integrate into the body (such as List of ... links or similar incidents in different geographic areas). See also sections can be useful, but they shouldn't be glutted with a duplication of every link already in the page. Some links on loosely related articles only make sense on one page, and a see also link is much easier to add than building a template box. WLU (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I had previously wrote into the guideline that See also links should often be treated as work items: unfinished text that needs to be incorporated into the text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

'Should be if possible' is reasonable, but 'needs to be' is a bit strong to me. Sometimes the links just can't be included, and that's OK, but not ideal. The see also section is a useful one, but one that should be handled carefully. WLU (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the very strong opinion that the current wording is fine. It does not prevent links being included again in the section if there is a case for it. I'm not sure if I was the user SlimVirgin was referring to above, but if you browse my contribution history, you will see many of my edits are removing redundant links (edit summary usually "rm redundant section" or "rm redundant links"). Most of them are clearly over the top (such as the article Australian Open having "See also: Tennis" on it). I've never had anyone show opposition to these changes until today, which is why I checked this talk page. In the example, another user is reinstating removed links which are mentioned both in the introduction to the article, and in a navbox directly below the 'See also' section. Since the entire point of navboxes is to provide links to other articles in a consistent manner, I think navboxes are effectively a 'standardised See Also' section. The article in question is Newcastle United Jets season 2007-08 (and also the 2005-06 and 2006-07 articles). If anyone wants to share their opinion, either on those articles or my "rm redundant links" edits in general, please feel free (either here, article talk page or my talk page, as appropriate). -- Chuq (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on a new proposal

I would welcome comments on this proposal Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Policy_amendment_request_-_addition_to_what_Wikipedia_is_not--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This is WP:LAME - just saw the thread on AN/I - well, since WP:BRD seems to have broken down, there's only one way left to determine consensus... —Random832 15:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Add link to ANI.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In favor of change

proposed version

The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Links already included in the body of the text, particularly in the lead, are generally not repeated in See also, but they may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

Regardless of any behavioral issues, this is in my opinion a good change. —Random832 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes repeating links so that they are in the body and see also section is a good idea, think about how a reader is going to be reading it. Are they really going to find links in See also that easily? It is hard to explain why repeated links is a good idea, it just is. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Editors should be allowed to repeat links that are especially interesting or relevant if they're not easy to find in the text. Any problems can be dealt with using NPOV and UNDUE. Schmucky, please let people comment here. You can make arguments against elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. A short organized list of related topics, all together, is quite helpful. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. The 'See also' section is useful in itself, as a separate entity to the rest of the article. If I don't know the name of a topic, but I do know the name of a topic very closely related then there used to be a good chance of finding it in the 'See also' section, but the current wording of the Layout guidelines would require that I read/scan the entire article. The 'See also' section can be useful, without even reading the rest of the article (which may not meet a readers requirements). ----Seans Potato Business 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. As much as some may hate to admit it, Wikipedia's major strength is its list of relevant, high quality, vetted links and sources for a given subject. This is true for external links (as footnote references or separate), as well as internal links into other WP articles as in 'See also'. We should not hamper editors who are trying to provide readers with the best possible and easiest to access information about (or related to) the subject. Crum375 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Against change

current version

Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.

I think the current wording, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" is more appropriate. We do not want to run the risk of encouraging a link farm in the See Also section. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Against change to long-standing consensus, which encourages See also link farms, POV wars in See also, and non-comprehensive writing. Long-standing consensus was that good writing incorporate meaningful links into the text for comprehensive, neutral articles. [7] I'm also concerned that SV's change to this guideline arose out of a content dispute she was having at Keith Mann;[8] it's a concern if someone edit wars to alter policy and guideline pages to gain an edge in a content dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Against link farms and excuses for POV See also lists. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Don't like the change, and hate polls. Relata refero (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. I agree with my colleagues above. — Dulcem (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry about the edits, easier for me to understand the difference if I can compare on the same page) Prefer this version. Simpler, less wiggle room for sliding in links that aren't needed. If the link should be more prominent, this means the page isn't putting enough emphasis on it and should be edited accordingly. Duplication isn't a good thing, neither is lengthening a page with duplicate content. WLU (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer this version, labeled against change. The other version seems to encourage see also bloat and is a green light to those that want to see them grow. Further, how could one easily distinguish the unique links from those repeated from the main text? They would be less obvious and thus the value of the see also section, IMO, would be significantly diminished. This version still leaves room for exceptional links to be repeated. David D. (Talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am against the change to the new wording for the reasons I gave higher up the page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Just so I understand clearly, the proposal here changes the order of the sentences/phrasing a bit, and adds:

". . .but they (See Also links) may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice."

the above is an argument to be made for inclusion of a 'See Also link', but is it necessary to suggest arguments in the guideline itself? I don't see the necessity for this change and still think that the current wording is fine because it discourages link farms while explicitly permitting the addition of links when merited. But it's hard for me to get worked up over this either way. R. Baley (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed by its very nature the current version allows see also links to be added as a rarity, while the former version invites it. The change is minor, but is it significant? Stick with the old. WLU (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the old version:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between them can be measured in mustard seeds. I come down on a side that discourages duplicating links in the see also. I'd say 'current version' is preferable, but either of these are OK to me. WLU (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (moved from responses in vote sections)

(re Karanacs) I don't see that issue with the proposed wording; it's just trying to prevent something from being kept out of See Also just because it's an obscure piped link in a subsection of a subsection. —Random832 16:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you identify this text with the edits of the person proposing it, it clearly is meant to be an excuse for POV entries on See also lists and link farms. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

P.S. - Can someone explain why POV can't be stopped by, you know, referring to the WP:NPOV policy; instead of using "they're linked elsewhere in the article" as a reason to remove the links? —Random832 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because of all the whining. Putting wikilawyer language like "considered helpful" or "considered relevant" will encourage the POV links, and encourage whining about their removal. You can hear their chorus now: "It's not POV, it's relevant." I try and neutralize a lot of articles where nationalism runs high. If there is some independence movement in a country, you will find links to it in the See also section of dozens of articles about that country and it's government. Of course linking to a political movement everywhere is NPOV because of undue weight. If the nationalist come here and see "helpful, interesting, or relevant" they (and their socks, and their friends, and their friends socks) will campaign that linking to the movement is all of those things.

To that I say, soundly, NO! Like all content decisions, See also is bound by our policies, and by editorial judgment. When something is truly helpful, interesting, or relevant and under-represented in the main text it will be linked to in See also. We don't need any encouragement to do that, it's natural. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(re 209.244) Articles have dozens of wikilinks. We have no idea which link any particular reader is looking for. Readers who don't know what they are looking for are not going to be helped by a link farm of a dozen freely associated links. Readers who DO know what they are looking for have navboxes, infoboxes, categories, and a helpful search box. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(re SandyGeorgia) Stop these bad-faith assumptions and personal attacks. Show me diffs to how anything at Keith Mann relates to this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] I've never edited this article. All I did was scan the first 50 edits for your name. Behind the Mask should be written into the article. It's a good See also candidate UNTIL a sentence is put in the Keith Mann article saying he was in the film. But why should Veganism be there at all? That's link spam. If he's a vegan, it should be a sentence in the article. Veganism shouldn't be in the See also for every vegan, not even the activist ones. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

All good points from SmuckyTheCat. SandyGeorgia's comment just states the obvious, I don't see how AGF does not preclude her from making such an observation. David D. (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(re SchmuckyTheCat) I didn't start this proposal, in case you hadn't noticed. You really ought not to let yourself be used in this way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A side issue

It looks like the actual content dispute that sparked this was someone removing links from See Also because they were present in a navbox. Should navboxes be considered "article text" for purposes of this guideline? —Random832 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As with the rest of this guideline, common sense and rule of thumb apply. If something is important enough to be needed in See also, and doesn't have a place in a nav template, then it should be worked into the article. If something is already linked in a nav template, there's often little reason for it to be in See also as well. (My samples supporting this view are the autism and Asperger syndrome articles, and {{pervasive developmental disorders}} and the entire series of articles relating to {{autism rights movement}}; there are numerous links in the nav templates which don't need to be repeated in See also. A navigational template more than serves the purpose of leading the reader to related topics. If they are significant enough to be mentioned, they are already in the article.) On the other hand, there are probably common sense exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A navbox places a fair amount of emphasis on anything contained therein - it is by nature a large box saying "These topics are all related in a particular way, and here is the structure". I'd say it's more useful than a generically alphabetized see also section because of the structure inherent to all navboxes, and accordingly would not need to be duplicated in the see also section. If it's major, it should be embedded as well. If it's not, it shouldn't be repeated in a see also as well as a navbox. If it's somewhere in between and not embedded, that's when a discussion should take place. WLU (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banner blindness. The fact that SlimVirgin, in describing the other user's actions, didn't even realize the links were present at all would seem to support my point. —Random832 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely different kind of banner (advertising). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From the article: The information that was overlooked was both external advertisement banners and internal navigational banners like e.g. quick links. (emphasis mine). And, anyway - I don't agree that "it should be embedded as well" is valid if it is _not_ at present time embedded. —Random832 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is, if the link is highly relevant to the page it is on, it should be linked somewhere already. If not, this suggests to me that the page content requires expanding to include the link's topic to show that it is relevant to the page. Banner blindness is something worth thinking about and it seems like there is value in discussing. I'm tempted to argue that given what wikipedia is and the uniformity of many aspects of various page, people may seek out navboxes rather than tune them out, once readers realize what they are. But I'm sure that's what web designers use to comfort themselves as they drift of to sleep. We need Benway and Lane to do a study of wikipedia... Wouldn see also sections themselves result in a form of banner blindness? They are akin to quicklinks for wikipages after all. WLU (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Notes"

This style guideline currently says:

"Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise "Notes and references" should be combined.

Numerous Wikipedia articles have sections (often named References) which contain alphabetized lists of works cited in the article and which also contain sections (often named Notes) containing both footnotes and links to internal and/or external URLs and/or unlinked citations of external works (e.g., Book of Mormon, Bengali language, Brabham, Brigham Young — just a few examples turned up by searching for pages which link to {{harvnb}}). Should this guideline be modified so as not to disallow both notes and references in sections named Notes? If not, then what? Should such articles have all of this material in one section headed Notes and References? If so, what about the myriad of existing articles such as those mentioned previously which do not follow this convention? Personally, I would favor not disallowing the common current practice of placing both notes and references in a section named Notes. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that language is only referring to situations where two footnote systems are used to create separate sections for content footnotes and citations; even in those situations I'm not sure the rule is widely followed. The system you describe is in wide use, and the text on the guideline should be adjusted to reflect existing practices. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Citing sources guideline seems to disagree with this one; they should be harmonized. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the featured article for today you will see that it only contains footnote style reference and this becoming the standard expectation at Wikipedia:Featured articles. If you are going to build towards a FA article (and we are all doing that I hope) that includes footnote notes, you don't have any choice but to combine References and Notes. There is no way I am aware of to use <ref></ref> to populate a reference section and notes section seperately. Jeepday (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case being discussed here, the References section would contain a list of works, and Notes would contain the citations, made using <ref> or another footnote technology. Only the Notes section is populated with inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some articles split annotations and citations and list of works, and so need three section headers. That can mean "Notes" for the annotations, "Citations" for citations and "References" for the works, but I've also seen "References" for citations, and "Works cited" or even "Bibliography" for the works. Gimmetrow 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is an article with a hundred references or more. The notes/footnotes section is of no use as a reference section as the entries are in whatever order they appear in the text. In such cases having a list in the reference section in alphabetical order on author for articles, and in particular books, that are cited more than once is useful for the reader of the article if they wish to delve further into a topic than a Wikipedia article can go. It also has the practical advantage that it reduces the length of the article as only the author and page number needs to be given in the citation rather than a full citation every time. See the Battle of Waterloo for an example of this system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of See Also, but a different issue

WP:ALSO currently says, "Links....should be listed in alphabetical order" and also that "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation." In longer lists, it is often not possible to comply with both guidelines simultaneously. Which rule has priority? Should we alphabetize, even if it means that related topics aren't kept together, or should we group by topic, even if it means that list isn't alphabetized?

As a matter of editorial sense, I think that topical groups are more important than alphabetical order, although I'm happy to do as much alphabetization as possible within that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. For instance, at WP:WPA, of the 15 most recent good articles, 10 have no See also section, 1 has 1 such link, and 4 have 3 or 4 See also links...and not one of the 4 is alphabetized, but then, you hardly need help finding your way through 4 links. That suggests that good articles don't tend to have a lot of See also links, and also that alphabetization is not something people care about a lot for this number of links. OTOH, I have noticed a tendency to have more See also links in science and tech articles. For instance, on the upper end of the wikilink scale, Robot (which passed its GAR a while ago) has around 60 See also links. Only three links weren't alphabetized...and this might be instructive, all of them should have been (and they are now). This suggests, maybe, that if the rule is "don't alphabetize if you want to group things together", you might go for a long time (as Robot did) with the links in the wrong order, because proofreaders will be assuming that someone knew what they were doing when they grouped things together...and, in science and tech articles, almost no one knows what all the words mean or which words might possibly have connections to other words, so it seems to me, in an article with 60 See also links, it might be counterproductive not to put them in alpha order. I suppose we could say that related groups of links get sub-bullets...but when you've got 3 columns of links already, wouldn't that get messy?

At any rate...although usually in a MoS-related article like this I wait for consensus before I do anything, in this case, the two rules in the article that you mention contradict each other, and we can't let that stand, so I'll change it at least to something that's not contradictory for now...going by the pattern in the GAR-articles, how about "It is helpful to alphabetize the links if there are more than a few of them."? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. WhatamIdoing, Robot broke the See also links into two sections, and alphabetized in each section. Would it make sense to do this in general, that is, to break things up into separate sections in those cases where you want to keep like things together, to keep copyeditors from coming through and re-alphabetizing by mistake, and also to keep people from wondering when things are out of alphabetical order if it's for some non-obvious reason related to grouping? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that having sixty items in the ==See also== section is poor form in general. As alternatives, they could be incorporated into the article, or dropped into a collapsible subject-area template. But yes: subgroups on such a list are really useful. Also, if editors add the half-sentence explanation of why a reader might want to click on the link, that may also make the chosen order clear. On those articles with enough links to make some kind of formal organization useful -- well, it's not like we have a horde of alphabetizing editors out there. If you grouped by topic, and it gets alphabetized, then you can undo it and leave a note on the talk page. I'd be surprised if that happened to the same article twice in any year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps either separate subsections, or doing sub-bullets (wikicode **), would be the way to go, to clearly represent the subgroups the editors are thinking of. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

STYLE1.0

Version 0.7 decisions are being made now, and the printed and DVD Wikipedia Version 1.0 is not that far off. Wikipedians don't have absolute discretion in formatting decisions (where the periods should go, where the lines should break, end section format, etc) in the printed version; there's also the publisher to deal with. Why formatting decisions in the printed version might affect Wikipedia style guidelines is a bit complicated (short answer: "Jimbo said so"), so anyone interested in either is encouraged to join the discussion at WT:STYLE1.0. Some of the discussions above do seem to involve these kinds of issues. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Notes and references sections

Notes are what people use to annotate.

References are what people do to reference.

The template used for the references is {{reflist}}, not {{notelist}}

I title these section ==References== because they are linked to ==Sources== that are the subject of the policy on Wikipedia:Citing sources, and not Wikipedia:Citing references.

Now, there is no particular policy or even guideline or convention to add footnotes that "expands on a specific portion of the text", but there is a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that demands citation of sources, and their correct referencing to the page numbers.

So why is it that the section that contains a list of books=sources is called References? And why is it that the section that usually predominantly contains page number references is called Notes?

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of sources is called ==References== because the editor is supposed to have referred to these sources when writing the page. As to why some editors separate the full bibliographic listing from the repeated page numbers, it appears to be a matter of personal preference. You don't have to use that style if you don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate what References are supposed to mean, but looking at many articles what one finds is books listed in References, and no actual pages from them to referred to. Moreover inexperienced editors think that their article is now referenced although it really only suggests Further reading. Given that actual explanatory notes form a small part of the Reference sections, and that Notes are not mandated while page references are, I would like to propose that for clarity the sections are renamed

==References and notes== (per WP:REFNAME) to emphasise that page numbers are required

and {{reflist}} or other is always included

==Sources== (per WP:SOURCE) to remind the author/editor that anything they add to Wikipedia is subject to WP:V

and {{find}} is always included Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying everyone should go on a renaming spree. What I am doing is adding the following structure to any new article, or those I edit

==See also==

==References and notes==

==Sources==

{{find}}

==Further reading==

==External links==

The suggestion being that the editors should at least make an effort to find sources online using Google, that Sources are not same as References, and that Sources are not same as Further Readings. Also, External links are not sources unless they are referenced in the text of the article. My frustration is that many new article are submitted with the understanding that almost anything goes in terms of a source for it. However, the police in WP:SOURCE is that statements made in articles need to cite page numbers. I am not going to go and read every book someone suggests for a two paragraph article so I can find the reference myself! Nor do I think that is the suggestion of the policy that requires citing sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference is a book or article that is used to create a Wikipedia article. Often this will involve also citing information from a reference which may be placed in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section. A source is any Primary, or Secondary source that is used in creating an article. For example, a book used as a reference in an article may cite half a dozen sources including primary sources. We do not list those sources in the section usually called "References" instead we only list the articles that are used as references.

A secondary reason which can be found in the archives for not using the term sources is it would be confusing in cookery articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mgr3105, I understand that you have drawn a very fine line between a source and a reference. Importantly, nobody else draws a distinction between "the book I referred to for this information" and "the book that I sourced this information from". The use of ==Sources== has been considered and rejected by community consensus. It adds nothing, and in rare cases does introduce confusion with other issues (usually where to buy supplies).

I understand from your description above that you hope that listing everything twice -- once in short form under ==References and notes== (with the relevant page number) and once in long form under ==Sources== -- will encourage editors to include page numbers. This is likely a vain hope, as you doubtless are aware, but it's also a largely irrelevant hope in many cases. Websites do not generally have page numbers. Nearly all scientific journal articles can be found with their PMID number in the absence of page numbers -- indeed, in the absence of any other identifying information. Most references/sources/whatever you choose to call it do not need page numbers for the correct text to be found. Additionally, you have advanced no reason why the existing alternative -- short form under ==Notes== and long form under ==References== -- is in any way inferior to your proposal, except that you don't happen to like it.

Finally, you seem to have a haphazard method of implementing your changes along these lines, so that the citations within any given article are no longer consistent. Rather than creating confusion by putting your book in a section that is completely separate from all other references, I ask that you follow the recommended style until such time as you can gain a consensus for changing the recommended style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for below comes from widely accepted standards in academic writing and publishing editorial best practice

==See also== ==References and notes== {{reflist}} ==Sources== {{find}} ==Further reading== ==External links==

See also - used to broaden the scope of reader's reference in the subject area outside of those articles that are linked in the text.

References and notes - References are a source of information (as a book or passage) to which a reader is referred. Information obtained from any source, including the Internet, is covered by copyright law. We must acknowledge any source that we refer to in our articles, both within the text of our articles, and at the end of them (by including a list of references). Referencing our sources also enables the reader to view our sources and follow our article.

Citing page numbers in-text (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Provide_page_numbers)

Page numbers are essential if we are directly quoting someone else’s words. Insert page numbers after the author name, separated by a comma. When paraphrasing or summarising, page numbers may be also be included.
If a work being referred to is long (i.e. a book or a thesis), page numbers might be useful to the reader though most come with indexes. In this case, include them in the in-text citation, separated from the author name by a comma.

Sources - Ordinarily the listing of where the ideas came from is called the reference list, normally headed 'References', and should appear at the end of our article, and should include details of all the sources of information which we have referred to, or cited, in our text. However, because people confuse this with the citing of page numbers, and because the relevant Wikipedia policy is called Wikipedia:Verifiability, and says in a nutshell that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.", and consequently much of that policy is called Wikipedia:V#Sources, I use Sources. In that same article there is a section called Notes and references, but references are mandated by policy, so I place References ahead of notes, though I don't care either way. However I note that in the Citing sources style guideline the section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes comes after citing references.

There is also Wikipedia:Citing sources which doesn't say Wikipedia:Citing references or Wikipedia:Citing bibliography, although many editors use these. Is consistency too much to ask for in an encyclopaedic work?

Further reading - This is a section that recommends sources which were not used in the preparation of the article either because it was not available to any of the editors, or because it is not as relevant as the cited sources.

External links - This is for external online links that can be recommended as additional sources of reference which were not used in the preparation of the article. Wikipedia strives to provide a quality reference publication for the users, and should not need to off-load this responsibility to other online sources, however it is possible that in some cases other sites may be better at presenting material then Wikipedia, such as for example those displaying lots of graphics. Because these external sites were not used in the preparation of the article, they are in a sense in competition with Wikipedia, although Wikipedia is not a commercial service provided and therefore does not compete in the market.

In any case, the layout is a guideline. I can choose to follow a guideline or not. My structure is not dramatically different from that offered by the guideline, and is well within the accepted standards in the academic world as well as conforming to Wikipedia policy, I dare say more closely then the existing guideline.

Quite frankly changing the titles of these sections does not breach any editing policies. Far be it from being disruptive, it sets a logical and consistent approach to presentation of materials used to construct an article, and encourages others to use the {{find}} feature to use the special relationship Wikipedia has with Google to its fullest. So, in summary, I don’t need to do anything Philip says I need to do because quite frankly I do more then he does by using this format. If he doesn't like me editing the section titles, he can write his own articles, but all articles are subject to editing, so given I have offered my rationale, and all he has to say is "there is no consensus" I can acknowledge that no consensus can exist on a set of guidelines and conventions that are not binding on editors as policy is.

The explanation why I use this structure is simple, and far from "haphazard". I edit several articles simultaneously within the narrow subject range and often use same sources and even references (page numbers) across several articles. This means that I can readily add citations to multiple articles. Its called being productive. I note Philip's opposition to my productivity, but there it is. In general I would encourage Philip to edit articles more than spend time on insisting that editors keep strictly to guidelines, because they are guidelines, and not rules carved in stone.

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

So if I understand your argument, you want Wikipedia to pick either "References" or "Sources" and use the single term consistently through all pages. Thus, either WP:Reliable References, and WP:V#References, and ==References==, or WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:V#Sources, and ==Sources==.

However, these two words have been chosen for their use in each context precisely because they have slightly different meanings (which are clear to the native speaker, at least). The relevant definition of reference for WP:LAYOUT is "something (as a sign or indication) that refers a reader or consulter to another source of information (as a book or passage)".[10] Thus this is a perfectly correct, valid reference:

Karp, Richard. Personal communication, June 23, 2008.

Source, by contrast, which you find featured in WP:V and WP:RS, is used in its journalistic sense: where the information comes from. To quote WP:V, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." If your question involves NP-completeness, Karp is a truly reliable source. Personal communication, however is not verifiable: it fails as "the piece of work itself" test. However, the fact that it is not valid as a source does not affect the correctness of the reference in the least degree.

Thus the choice of ==References== here: The Manual of Style does not concern itself with what the reference says: you could be quoting an anonymous blogger for all that it affects the layout. WP:LAYOUT only cares that you list your references for the purpose of providing this desirable sign or indication for the reader. This page is therefore concerned with references, not sources, and it labels the list of references as references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...and the fact that you have to explain it to me says something about the choice of words!

Quite simple, the word reference is commonly defined as

In academic literature, a reference is a previously published written work within academic publishing which has been used as a source for theory or claims referred to which are used in the text. References contain complete bibliographic information so the interested reader can find them in a library. References can be added either at the end of the publication, or as footnotes.

Now, in order that the reader can find exactly where the idea expressed in the article comes from, books have page numbers. So what do you call them?

The above mentioned footnotes are the

note comments on and may cite a reference for part of the main body of text.

and

Footnotes are most often used as an alternative to long explanatory notes that can be distracting to readers. Most literary style guidelines (including MLA and APA) recommend limited use of foot and endnotes. However, publishers often encourage note references in lieu of parenthetical references. Aside from use as a bibliographic element, footnotes are used for additional information or explanatory notes that might be too digressive for the main text.

The most common meaning for a "note" does not include page citation, and in fact the page on Footnotes notes

For the usage of footnoting on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes.

However, I have never ever seen a section in a book or a thesis that is called "Cited sources". They are all called either references or, more commonly, notes. However, people seem to misunderstood the use of Notes. Notes are for both, the comments on the main body of text, and citation of a reference for part of the main body of text.

Consequently, because "References" are rarely seen in printed works (due to indexes), and Bibliographies do not cite page numbers, we end up with the worst of both uses...notes that do not cite page numbers. Now I don't know about you, but I refuse to read each and every book listed in "references" just to verify one sentence in the article. So far as I'm concerned, anything that does not have a page number attached is unreferenced, and if no reference is produced within 3 months, I can delete it even if there are 20 books listed in the Bibliography, because a bibliography can be built by just doing a search on Amazon.com!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mgr2105, the fact that I have to explain it to you does not mean that we're using the wrong words; it means that your grasp of English is more limited than you want to believe. There is not just a single definition for the word reference, and your preferred definition is not the one that is relevant.

Unlike you, I have read books and theses that list "Cited sources" at the end. See this, this, and this for a variety of examples in different contexts. But the fact that some people use this format does not mean that title complies with the house style. And, importantly, neither does your pet version.

Note also that I'm not arguing against the inclusion of page numbers when there are page numbers to be had (how did you ever get that idea?). I'm merely telling you that ==References== as the term is used on WIkipedia, according to the house style guide, means the written out description of the work, not the work itself. The work itself, its author and publisher, is the source, in the sense that this term is used on WIkipedia, as explained in the WP:V policy. The written out description -- the name of the author, the title, the publisher, the date, the page number, or whatever else is useful and appropriate -- is what Wikipedia means when its guidelines talk about a reference. I have already provided links that show that these definitions are valid uses of these terms, even if they are different from the sole definition that you're aware of.

In a last effort to make this clear, this is what Wikipedia consistently calls a reference:

Lyell, Charles (2004). The Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man. New York: Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-43576-8.

For comparison, click here to see the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of English, WhatamIdoing. Nor is there anything wrong with my "pet" version found in any dictionary, and sourced from three different university sites, of the meaning of the word references.

Quite frankly, I do not care what the sections are called. The point I was making, which seemed not to have come across, is that there has to be clarity in how these definitions relate to Wikipedia policy. As they are used now, their usage results in articles that are largely unreferenced in the sense that no citations are provided although often there are many potential sources listed. :Given that anyone can pull up any number of works in Amazon.com, and format them to suit the "house rules" to create an instantaneous "referenced" article, the house rules as they are, are a waste of time, because the article, though "referenced" remains completely unverifiable, and therefore unsourced according to Wikipedia policy.

So, rather than trying to find fault with me and my interpretations, would you care to suggest another practical way to get editors to provide citations from their "references" other then the one I have suggested?

I think that inclusion of clearly named sections which correlate with Wikipedia policy and the accepted academic standards, which induce the editors to add cited sources and not just a list of works they referred to in their editing, is a practical solution.

If you can not suggest another solution, then I guess I will just be bold and start deleting anything that has a fact/cite-tag older then 3 months on it, and that may get the wider WP community attention to the issue of 2.5 million articles of which only 10% (if that) are actually authoritative through cited sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. The ultimate irony - the "house rules" are tagged This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 please see WP:PROVEIT: "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page." If an article has no references I suggest putting a {{unreferenced}} placed in a ==Reference== section at the bottom of the page. If the page has some references but they are not cited I suggest you create a ==Notes== sections above the ==References== section and add {{refimprove}} with {{reflist}} under it in the ==Notes== section. If the article is not a basket case as far as references goes because only some facts, opinions and quotations are not cited, then use the {{fact}} template next to the uncited material. (BTW the {{fact}} contains a list of other useful templates such as {{Page number}} and {{Verify credibility}})--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Philip, please don't insult me like this. Do you think I had not looked all the other options before I begun to add the sections structured in this way? All these unreferenced and fact templates stay on for years! Who is going to reference them? I can not reference every article that comes into the MilHist Project, so the onus has to be on the initial creator and subsequent editors that expand it in the first place. What should a reader think when they pull up an article with these sort of templates? I think they are not worth reading, so why are they in a reference work like Wikipedia? - What is the point of using these templates? Unreferenced articles can be considered OR, and sections of articles without citations also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult you, it was my intention to answer the question you posed "would you care to suggest another practical way to get editors to provide citations from their "references" other then the one I have suggested". The advantage of using the layout as described in WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE is that you do not have to explain why you are using ==Sources== you can just direct them on the talk page to these two guidelines to explain why one uses "==Notes and references==" or "==notes== and "==References== without a roll your own explanation needed on the talk page. Also if you lay it out this way and use the templates {{refimprove}} with {{reflist}} you do not leave empty looking sections ({{reflist}} is invisible unless there is a citation), as empty sections are discouraged.

BTW the MOS also includes "The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed. See also is an exception to the point above that wording comprises nouns and noun phrases. For information on these optional sections, see Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions and Wikipedia:Citing sources." in a section called "Section management", so if you want to start to use a section called ==sources== you are more likely to confuse the very people you are trying to persuade to add citations than using the standard section names that appear in three different guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mgr3105, an editor that does not provide complete references will not read WP:LAYOUT. Renaming the list of ==References== to ==Sources== will not produce the desired behavior. There are many actions that might have the desired effect, however, including inserting fact-tags, deleting entirely unreferenced material, leaving a note on the talk page, leaving a note on the user's page, and putting hidden text in the article to request the information you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop me before I edit again.

SandyGeorgia points out that the text "Notes" contains footnotes of source citations or commentary for matter within the main text that are created with the <ref> tags. is not correct. I would like to fix that error but, in light of the flurry of exchanges I have had with Sandy and others, I hesitate to do that without "consensus." So, how's this for an alternative: "Notes" contains footnotes of source citations or commentary for matter within the main text that are created with embedded tags, such as the <ref> tag. If you don't like this change please suggest a better correction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with that wording, but I'm not sure Tony will be pleased with words like "matter"; he may wordsmith it more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please remove "for matter" and it works OK. TONY (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that Sandy has restored earlier bits of the page: this makes the job of cleaning up much easier. I must ask Butwhat to consider not reverting this. TONY (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am properly browbeaten at this point, so I'll do a lot more talking before I edit. Here is one thought that might accomplish the goal of giving the reader a hint that "Notes" is a term of art without adding any text: putting in a link to the explanation that follows, i.e., changing "Notes" to "Notes". Would that not interfere with your work too much? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, and my problem is that my time is going to rapidly tighten over the next two weeks. Can you hold off for a little while, or offer comments on the copy-editing I do over the weekend? I didn't mean to elbow you out: you're much more familiar with this territory than I am, so please stay around. TONY (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that I am not at all as familiar as you are regarding this territory. Regardless, I will honor your request. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First para of "Standard appendices and descriptions"

"Certain optional standard sections should be added at the bottom of an article." "Optional" and "should be added" appear to conflict.

"Changing section names breaks links, so it is best not to change already-established article section names." So, for example, "Reference" should not be changed to "References"?? Surely this sentence should be deleted. Nurg (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should is a problem, but apparently it's always been there. All of those sections (except References on FAs) are optional. Agree with deletion of sentence about changing names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it means to say that the sections are optional, but their location is not: ==See also== does not belong at the top of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. How about "Certain optional standard sections go at the bottom of an article."? Nurg (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, "Certain optional standard sections may be added at the bottom of an article."? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "Certain optional standard sections, when used, should be placed at the bottom of an article." (Better than my first suggestion.) Nurg (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence about changing names and put in my last suggestion. Nurg (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Those who think my copy-editing contains NO substantive changes should revert ButwhatdoIknow's revert. The original is very poorly written and requires even more editing. If substantive changes are found, please point them out here. Wahrmund (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I am absolutely wrong. I apologize. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to before this fiddling began because the page was deteriorating; guidelines pages need to have very clear writing and be based on consensus. They also rarely dictate what should or shouldn't be included. Please take greater care to discuss changes here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fiddling" is not bad if it improves the article. You say the page was "deteriorating" (i.e., becoming less clear). Those folks who made the changes thought they were making it more clear. Can you provide more support for your position? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. This is a most important page, and we can't afford to have its expression degraded. At a glance of the diff over the past few weeks, I see the introduction of a disappointing number of prose glitches ("disproportionally" was the first I laid eyes on). I wonder whether proposed changes might be flagged here first unless editors are absolutely sure they are not weakening the text. I'll have a good look in the next day. TONY (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word "disproportionally" appears in both the pre-Sandy reversion and the post-Sandy reversion versions. So that probably is not an example of the text that Sandy found objectionable. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Sandy's poodle. I'm talking about what I see. I don't care whether it's before or after Sandy raised her concerns. What I'm saying is that I'm concerned myself about what I see as a tendency towards loose expression. I'll make more comments tomorrow. TONY (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that you asked, but I certainly have no objection to you making whatever specific changes you believe will tighten up the article. My concern is with Sandy's wholesale reversion of changes that appear to me to improve the article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now Sandy's cautious about reverting pages. It bothers me a lot that Sandy is bothered, and I haven't got time at the moment to sift through the whole thing. Why is it, do you think, that she is concerned? The FAC process can be very difficult to run if there's instability in a page as critical as this one. My instinct is to go along with Sandy's reversion and work through it again, with consensus. TONY (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, please read WP:BRD and refrain from editwarring on policy and guideline pages, which need to be stable. Once your changes have been removed once, you should discuss before re-inserting. Also, note that WP:3RR doesn't give license to revert up to three times. Policy and guideline pages need to be stable; discusss your edits here, please, so other editors won't be confused by unclear writing and instability on guideline and policy pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

List them here, please. I'll start with mine:

Under ==Standard appendices and descriptions==: "A References (or Notes and References) section should be added at the bottom of an article and other sections can be added there too."

At a minimum, this statement would require a comma before the conjunction. However, I think it would be better expressed like this: "A References (or Notes and References) section should be added at the end of every article. Other optional sections may also be included at the end of an article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. But then you shouldn't need approval to make a copy edit. If other editors believe the article has "deteriorated" as the result of your change (or that it is, in fact, a substantive alteration) then they can revert or modify the offending portion of the change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not fine; no idea what that refers to or when that text got added to this page, but adding unspecific "stuff" at the bottom of the article is not a good idea and I can't recall seeing it in FAs. What does that text mean? This provides but one example of how this page is deteriorating. And all of the sections are optional (avoid "should"). An earlier version said:
Certain optional standard sections should be added at the bottom of an article. There is consensus that the plural form of the section name should be used. Changing section names breaks links (hence the utility of permalinks), so it is best not to change already-established article section names. Common appendix sections:

I probably should have reverted much farther back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. TONY (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

From text elsewhere in this discussion I conclude that "further back" means some point in April. Is it really fair to all those who have contributed to this article since then to simply obliterate their work because it is "new" (one of the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia below).Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ButwhatdoIknow, now you know why I proposed it instead of being bold. ;-)

Sandy, if it's easier to go get April's version and start over from there, I'm okay with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See the note that goes along with every Wiki edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Clarity of the guideline is our concern here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if anything I have said appears to suggest that you or anyone else should not edit mercilessly. The position I am trying to advocate is that folks should not revert indiscriminately. So I support your right to make targeted changes to a current version to make it more clear (or to revert specific language that does the opposite). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Monthly update

Butwhat: can you summarise the substantive changes—the ones that really matter to editors at large—here? By next Tuesday I'll be perusing the June diff for the monthly update of styleguide and policy pages: will it be hard for me to make sense of what is important and what is not? TONY (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding a copy edit changes the wording or grammar (presentation) but not the meaning (substance) of text. Using this definition I don't believe the recent modifications include any substantive changes. (If others believe that substantive changes are included then they should undo only the substantive portions of the changes and refer those portions to this Talk page.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On guideline and policy pages, it is a rare copyedit that doesn't change the meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By my definition a copy edit doesn't change the meaning (so, if the meaning is changed then it isn't a copy edit). If you want to use a different definition of copy edit then we're going to have trouble communicating. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the Standard appendices section was altered this month, and it would be even better if it could be fixed before month-end, so you wouldn't have to summarize it in the Updates: Monthly diff so far. The vague and "should" wording I raised concern about above was introduced this month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer at that diff, a wholesale revert and starting over may be the fastest way to get some meaningful text back here, but I'm not the word guru. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, we need to get back to the cleaner layout with less excessive markup that was here at the end of April; the page has been gummed up with markup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, this new text is just wrong:

Notes (or Footnotes) This may be combined with References into Notes and references. "Notes" contains footnotes of source citations or commentary for matter within the main text that are created with the <ref> tag.
References (or combined with Notes into Notes and references) "References" is a list of materials (books, websites, etc.) cited directly in the main text that are created by typing a bulleted list.
Further reading (or Books)

I don't know how or when these changes were introduced, but they are new, they are unclear, some are wrong, and perhaps the best way back is to go all the way back to end of April and rebuild from there. Notes don't have to use ref tags (they are other ways of creating them), Notes and references is repeated (redundant and unclear text), we lost Bibliography, which many articles use, and so on. I don't know why any of this fiddling happened; I suggest we get back to end April and then discuss changes from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good, some specific concerns to respond to: Can you give me an example of an alternative way of creating a note? I can't find one at Notes. If you find the repetition of "Notes and references" to be wordy then copy edit to fix that problem. If you think Bibliography needs to be restored then restore it (something you didn't accomplish with your recent wholesale reversion). The reason why "all this fiddling" happened is that the fiddlers thought the article could be improved. Please let me know if you have any other specific issues that concern you regarding the recent changes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Butwhatdoiknow, it's not very useful for you to tell me to fix something when you revert me when I do just that. I'm in no hurry to muck up this page, and am quite willing to wait until Tony has had a chance to take a closer look, since he's one of Wiki's best wordsmiths. An example of other notes can be found at Gettysburg Address; we don't spell out citation methods at LAYOUT, that belongs in another guideline to avoid redundancy. When you're ready to work with others, we'll get the job done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have been so far unsuccessfully trying to make clear, I do not object to specific reversions but I do object to wholesale reversions. So the problem wasn't that you were fixing "something" but that you were fixing everything. So, for example, if you had changed the text regarding the ref tag and provided a note in the edit summary explaining your change with a citation to Gettysburg Address then I would not have reverted it. What I would have done (to change topics) is ask you whether the Gettysburg Address article violates the Layout article distinction between "Notes" and "References." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really fixing anything; I'm restoring what was here in earlier versions so we can begin to work together (hopefully with Tony) to fix it. The page deteriorated over the last two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for working together to fix problems, what I am having difficulty understanding is why we need to go back to some indefinite point in time to begin that process. Rather than restoring and fixing an earlier version, can't we just fix the current version? Granted, the current version may include some changes that weaken the article (the bathwater), but it also may contain some improvements (the baby). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, at this point the month's main changes are

copy edits you did to the intro and "lead section"
a small edit to "Headings and paragraphs" saying that sections should not be very long
changes to "Standard appendices and descriptions"
1. first para changed
2. "Quotations" reinstated
3. "Further reading (or Books)" changed to "Bibliography (or Books or Further reading)"
4. note about "==" headings changed and expanded, but not a substantial change
5. the long and discursive guideline for the See also section that you referred to in the last monthly update has been reinstated
6. the changes re the "Further reading" section that you mentioned in the last monthly update have also been reverted
7. insertion of "normally" to make "external links are normally limited to the "External links" section"
8. addition of a subsection "Navigational footers, categories, interlanguage links etc." Nurg (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Nurg. Since this page is highly likely to undergo a lot of renovation in July, I think I'll mention three or four of those points, and warn editors that there are likely to be further changes soon. Copy-editing of itself isn't suitable for inclusion in the monthly update. TONY (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC) PS, and the stuff Sandy says is "wrong" above, well let's hold off notification that it has been changed in the first place until the July update. The updates are vulnerable to clutter, and people will switch off if they're long. Simplicity is the primary aim, although hard to achieve. TONY (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good plan; the main point is, Tony, that this page needs to be copyedited as soon as you have a free moment and we can all discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Section terminology

Lead section? I find it strange that the text then refers to "the first section" as the one coming after this. Is there a problem in just calling it "the lead"? TONY (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, our article calls it Wikipedia:Lead section. Even though it's not properly a "section". <sigh> ... Sometimes I hate these pages; one battle at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead is a section. It is "one of the portions into which a thing is cut or divided" (OED). "Lead section" is more readily understandable than simply "lead". I suggest "the first section" should be changed. Nurg (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, "the first section after the lead"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, "section" appears to refer to text under a heading or subheading. The lead has no such heading, not even "Introduction". The proof of the pudding is that the ToC lists No. 1 as not the lead but the first "headinged" section. It is indeed strange to call the lead a section when it appears above the ToC and is neither numbered or present in the ToC. TONY (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's only strange in certain dialects of Wikienglish. The Wikipedia:Lead section guideline uses real English. ;-) Nurg (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A matter of logic rather than dialect or variety of English. I'd already posted a query there suggesting a name change. It's slightly fuzzy to the newcomers. TONY (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By Nurg's logic, from now on, everyone's banned from using "sentence" (jail sentence) and period (period of time). TONY (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

further query

"If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance."

Recently, the question of bolding foreign-language equivalents came up at MOS talk. Can I write in not bolding these as an exception? TONY (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the order of items in the lead is very important per WP:Accessibility, so that needs to be worked into this page somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is, according to accessibility, order in the lead is:

Disambiguation links
Maintenance tags
Infoboxes
Images
Text
Navigational boxes
First section heading

Maybe you can summarize it to a sentence saying something about "Elements in the lead are order per WP:Accessibility ... "SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be what WP:Accessibility says (today, at least). I've created a short new section with the information I found on the accessibility page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, in the link section, we have this dab finder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. It's not a change in WP's overall guidelines, since it merely duplicates what's elsewhere. No idea what this dab finder is, and it looks temporary. TONY (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been using the dab finder at FAC, as part of the Featured article tools; it's been very handy, so I hope it sticks around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What does dab stand for, and what does it do? TONY (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation; it locates links on an article page that go to a disambiguation page rather than to an article. It helps locate faulty links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For example (not to pick on Cas, who is working on the page currently), click on the dab finder and type in Bipolar disorder, and you'll see links that need repair in that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

←Got it, and it's case-sensitive, I see (that should be pointed out). So what's the relevance here? We want to encourage people to use dab in the ... layout? TONY (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

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

It has been more than 24 hours since you posted and no one who actually knows anything has responded to your query. So, I'll try:

As near as I can tell at this point (I'm new around these parts myself), the answer to your question is "(c) none of the above." If you have some time to kill you can peruse the discussion above about "Notes," "References," and "Notes and References" to get a feel for the lack of consensus on a preferred format for those sections.

That said, I suggest that featured articles (such as Palazzo Pitti) provide examples of some of the alternative "best practices." Additional illustrative featured articles include Starship Troopers and Jane Austen. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO the first one is preferable, but not perfect. The ==Notes== section should [probably be named ==Footnotes== and] not have any full-length references in it. Items 10-11 and 14-21 should be in the ==References== section. Also, it cites two different authors with the last name of Chiarini, so it's important to identify to the reader which book the "Chiarini" short notes actually refer to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In consensus there is no "preferable" layout for the Standard appendix, we have multiple preferences. So, in a way, the preference is up to you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)