![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I cannot understand why User:WilliamJE wishes to delete a group of references that refer to Tulk v Moxhay. These were in the "See also" section with links so that the pages can be created. Those cases, as an undergraduate student will know, discuss and apply the case. What possible ground for deleting them from the page?
Wik idea 13:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
As explained in the Manual of Style's
section on "See also" sections, The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Any cases here without articles on Wikipedia should not be placed in the See also section. There are articles for Halsall v Brizell and for Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster, and while I am no expert in British law, these two cases appear to be relevant and could thus be included in a "See also" section. Wikidea and WilliamJE, would you have any objection to including only those two cases in a "See also" section? It would also be possible to include the other cases in a "Further reading" section, if there are readily available online versions of the cases. Again, whether a case is relevant will depend on common sense and editorial judgment. However, that is a content discussion that should be had on the talk page if there is any disagreement. Thanks, /wia🎄 /tlk 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
full bibliographic citations to sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the articlein a "References" section per WP:FNNR. If these cases were used when writing the article but not explicitly cited, then it is acceptable to add them to a "References" section. They could also be included in a "Further reading" or "External links" section, provided that they do actually contain a weblink to the content. My personal preference is a "Further reading" section but I do not see any problem with putting them in a "References" section, so long as the parties agree that they were indeed used for that purpose.
@
Wikidea and
WilliamJE: It appears the discussion was more wide-ranging than I thought. I'm aware that there is a possible conflict in wording between
WP:SEEALSO (which states The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)
and
WP:REDNOT (which states Red links generally are not included in See also sections
). That contradiction might be one to raise on the talk pages of those articles. Until that red link issue is fully resolved, I would probably avoid adding redlinks to the "See also" section. I would also avoid reverting each other's edits, instead working out the issues on talk page as they occur. It seems like there may be local consensus here to shift such links to a References section, which I think is a good start.
There are more comprehensive dispute resolution procedures at the Noticeboard if needed, as 3O is a rather informal process. (I would recuse myself from this case if it were to appear at the Noticeboard.) Just a note about DRN in case you are unfamiliar: a case generally requires extensive discussion on talk pages before it can be accepted, and the discussion must focus on content, not conduct. It is certainly an option, although if we are making headway here, perhaps it is not necessary. Thanks, /wia🎄 /tlk 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I cannot understand why User:WilliamJE wishes to delete a group of references that refer to Tulk v Moxhay. These were in the "See also" section with links so that the pages can be created. Those cases, as an undergraduate student will know, discuss and apply the case. What possible ground for deleting them from the page?
Wik idea 13:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
As explained in the Manual of Style's
section on "See also" sections, The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Any cases here without articles on Wikipedia should not be placed in the See also section. There are articles for Halsall v Brizell and for Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster, and while I am no expert in British law, these two cases appear to be relevant and could thus be included in a "See also" section. Wikidea and WilliamJE, would you have any objection to including only those two cases in a "See also" section? It would also be possible to include the other cases in a "Further reading" section, if there are readily available online versions of the cases. Again, whether a case is relevant will depend on common sense and editorial judgment. However, that is a content discussion that should be had on the talk page if there is any disagreement. Thanks, /wia🎄 /tlk 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) |
full bibliographic citations to sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the articlein a "References" section per WP:FNNR. If these cases were used when writing the article but not explicitly cited, then it is acceptable to add them to a "References" section. They could also be included in a "Further reading" or "External links" section, provided that they do actually contain a weblink to the content. My personal preference is a "Further reading" section but I do not see any problem with putting them in a "References" section, so long as the parties agree that they were indeed used for that purpose.
@
Wikidea and
WilliamJE: It appears the discussion was more wide-ranging than I thought. I'm aware that there is a possible conflict in wording between
WP:SEEALSO (which states The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)
and
WP:REDNOT (which states Red links generally are not included in See also sections
). That contradiction might be one to raise on the talk pages of those articles. Until that red link issue is fully resolved, I would probably avoid adding redlinks to the "See also" section. I would also avoid reverting each other's edits, instead working out the issues on talk page as they occur. It seems like there may be local consensus here to shift such links to a References section, which I think is a good start.
There are more comprehensive dispute resolution procedures at the Noticeboard if needed, as 3O is a rather informal process. (I would recuse myself from this case if it were to appear at the Noticeboard.) Just a note about DRN in case you are unfamiliar: a case generally requires extensive discussion on talk pages before it can be accepted, and the discussion must focus on content, not conduct. It is certainly an option, although if we are making headway here, perhaps it is not necessary. Thanks, /wia🎄 /tlk 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)