![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Here we go again. Have at it folks. Ortolan88 23:35 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
I hope that it's more clear now when I'm claiming that first paragraphs should be short. There's nothing wrong with a stub that consists of nothing but a single paragraph with four sentences, but an article that goes on and on should limit the first paragraph to very basic information (definition, birth date, population, etc) -- just as this article's first paragraph does. Or am I wrong? — Toby 18:47 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
I wonder whether we need a style for interwiki links. Now they are put in rather randomly, without any plan or order. Ought they be ordered in some way ? Kpjas 2002-11-12
Most french do it by alphabetical order. Without any previous discussions. Problems are
So, in the end, it's a bit messy; but I think most french would prefer the alphebetical order anyway.
I think it is not logical to do so, for you can't even rely on the habit of always finding the german one on the left...since it will be in another place in another wiki. So, my feeling is that langage code is best for usability. user:anthere
Would it be possible to have a convention on references where we site them within the text like so: [1] Pizza Puzzle
But how do we number them? If somebody adds one, its easy for all the numbers to get changed up. Also, it might be useful to have a link to an article on the source.
But mav says not to do it that way... Pizza Puzzle or are those naked wikirefs? Pizza Puzzle
The following paragraph was on the page, but I find it unclear and unconvincing:
Namely: "good HTML practice dictates that headers are marked up as [bolded text]" doesn't seem correct as written. -- The Cunctator 05:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
IMO a more proper title would be 'Related articles'. That's what listed under it: articles, not topics. Topic is a broad term. Mikkalai 20:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why are these two separate sections? Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate ("Things should not be multiplied without necessity"). — Steven G. Johnson 06:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If there is just one, is it still "External links" ? -- User:Docu
1. Since some articles have all three types of references (Wikipedia articles, external Internet links and printed literature), it seems rather aggressive to give each type its own top level heading. Would it better to organize the references into a hierarchy such as:
2. To avoid the nuisance of changing words between the singular and plural forms depending upon the number of references, could we change External link(s) to Internet and always use References regardless of the number of references. GreatWhiteNortherner 03:33, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
In Talk:Barbus, Ram-Man asserted that authoritative reference-type websites ought to go in "References" while interesting but less authoritative sites should be in "External links", a rule that I hadn't heard before, and when I go to look here, I see that both the references and external links sections say that "web sites that one has used or recommends" should be listed in those sections. This is rather ambiguous, and needs to be changed.
Empirically, I think most articles use "References" for printed works, and "External links" for links elsewhere on the web, irrespective of relative authority or reference values. This is a useful distinction for readers, because if they want to click somewhere, they can skip over the references and go straight to the link section; but if they're preparing to visit the library, they'll visit the References section that they previously ignored. For the cases in which the external links include authoritative and less-authoritative links, the notations should indicate the nature of each link. I'd like to make this policy, so if everybody's amenable, I'll draft something on the policy page. Stan 16:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Here's what I had to say on the subject over there:
I can't agree with any URL citing policy that treats them differently from "regular" reference. Moreover, the whole [1] scheme is currently poorly thought out, because even URL citations need more than just a URL -- they need a descriptive title, author and date (if possible), and to be listed at the end of the article as text so that they print properly. In the absence of better support for numbered links for all references, (Author, Year) in-text pointers still seem the best bet. For proper in-text numbered citations, we need a new named & numbered list format like:
#name1# Name1, ''Blah'', 1998.
#foobar# Foobar, http://blah.baz.com
...so that in-text references like [[#foobar#]] automatically expand to [2] (or whatever the current number of that reference is). I'm not attached to any particular syntax, however. —Steven G. Johnson 18:28, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
On looking close at this page, I find (to my complete horror) that it has (for a long time) called for the section of further reading entries to be called "References". Following the examples on countless pages I've edited, on new pages I wrote, or pages I worked on, I've always titled them "Further reading", and I think that should be the standard. (I see from the discussion of "See also", above, that this page is out of touch with real practice in the 'Pedia in a number of ways... Sigh, too much replicated content across to many page, e.g. this and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
To me, "References" means "list of specific citations for specific facts cited in the article". If you look at a real scholarly book, in addition to references (usually called "Notes", or "Footnotes" - although academic papers almost invariably call them "References", go figure), it also has a section called "Bibliography", which is more akin to our "Further reading" sections. It's never called "References"! I would strongly oppose use of the term "References" for anything except i) lists of specific sources for specific statements, or ii) definitive reference works (e.g. the "PDP-10 Processor Manual" on the PDP-10 page. Noel 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the people using an Encyclopaedia aren't, by and large, "real scholars". For such users, it is important to distinguish between:
I think it's really important that we not forget who our audience is. Noel 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What's wrong with the model where "works used as sources to write an article" is the conjunction of the "suggested reading" and "advanced references" sections? Also, I can tell you, from my experience in exploring fields by going through bibiographies in books and getting items (something I have done in a very large number of fields) that the (sadly uncommon) bibliograhies which include comments about which items are good for what are a zillion times easier to use productively than the ones that just provide a barren list. I've lost count of the number of times I've ordered a book based on solely the listing in a bibliography, only to find out when it arrived that it was a waste of money. The article writers have (or should, if they are any good) an excellent understanding of which readings are best for "average people", and I think it's our duty to pass that very valuable information on. Noel 14:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see the advice (my bold hilighting)
The first part are indeed references. The second part is a Bibliography, or Further reading. These should be clearly separated. For example, somethingshould be in references only if it is actually cited as the authority for a fact in the main body of the article - and a specific part should be cited. -- Nantonos 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 20:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just found an article that had all the "Edit" links messed up, most of them edited the next section after the one they should have. I tracked it down to a comment that was after a heading, (===Heading===<!-- Comment -->). Should this be pointed out in this guide, or is this too trivial a point to mention? Alternatively, should this be considered a bug in MediaWiki? — PhilHibbs | talk 15:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Also posted at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Albums:
Can we get a consensus on discography formatting. The general standard way to do it in the past was to simply list the albums, the year of release ,and possibly a chart oposition or two. But now, we have articles like Mariah Carey albums discography and 50 Cent which seem intent on including album cover artwork, and multiple facts about the album. Such a system is image-heavy and slow loading ,and can also very quickly take over ap age for any act with more than four or five albums. It also only works if you find album cover artwork for each and every album (which may not always even exist). What should be done about this? -- FuriousFreddy 20:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote this section in response to a question on the Village Pump for more clarity. It is my intention to have it reflect de facto policy, not to introduce new policy: all featured article I've seen follow these guidelines. Also, I've removed the sentence that confusingly named "Overview" as a common title for the first section (is it really? Any prominent examples?) but simultaneously called it not to be preferred. Either "Overview" is a decent and acceptable title for the first section, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be mentioned, or else explicitly forbidden. A guide is not the best place for wishy-washyness. JRM 17:46, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. I generally call this first section "Overview". But recently, because of this "Guide to layout", I am now having to deal with people coming into an article and removing the first section's header! Please change the Guide to layout to reflect proper technical writing practice: if there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z
Wikify redirects to this article, but it doesn't explain the term. Could someone add an explanation, please? I've seen it used, but unsure if it refers specifically to making internal links using double square brackets, or if it's more general. Thanks -- Singkong2005 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or is that statement just a little ironic? :) Justin 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I prefer when including notes on works in a bibliography to use prose. (See this Britannica article on T.S. Eliot as an example.) Using prose makes it easier to give details on the sources. Using bulleted lists makes series such as these too long and confusing. Listing works for further reading using bullets works when the items don't need comments, but otherwise, it's best to use prose, in my opinion. Perhaps we could add a note to the Bibliography section of the "Guide to layout" aticle on this? -- Primetime 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm finding several stub articles that are tagged wikifiy, but they already seem to be formatted as well as can be expected given their very brief length. An example is Angiology -- it has an introduction, a body, and a list of references. Key terms are wiki links to related articles. It's too short to have any headings or subheadings beyond the one References section. How does one wikify this sort of stub article? Wesley 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia talk:Section#“Navigation” as standard appendix, I am proposing the addition of a new standard appendix. Since it is relevant here as well, I thought I should make a note of that proposal here.
— DLJessup ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to query the recomendation about bullet points. In Jakob Nielsen web usability website useit.com there is an article on How Users Read on the Web
People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In a recent study John Morkes and I found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word.
As a result, Web pages have to employ scannable text, using
- highlighted keywords (hypertext links serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others)
- meaningful sub-headings (not "clever" ones)
- bulleted lists
- one idea per paragraph (users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph)
- the inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion
- half the word count (or less) than conventional writing
I certainly find myself doing this with wikipedia articles, big blocks of text tend to phase me (perhaphs because of my dyslexia). I would contend that we have to remember our primary medium is the web and not print and we should write articles accordingly. So
Thoughs? -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought we now have an excellent set of templates. patsw 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind – I don't see anything about the italicized line that appears at the top of a number of articles, This article is about Foo in the context of Baz. For that other kind of Foo, see elsewhere. The usage is obvious from examples, but I was looking for what to call that line! — Tamfang 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
On several pages, like Standard deviation, the See Also section is a bit unruly. That is, there are no descriptions and the order seems to be random. On the other hand, it might not seem logical to divide the links into groups, because
So perhaps the best solution is alphabetization (or alphabetisation). If this rule was to be added to this page, however, instead of just applying to one article, it would have to be a standard and all pages similar to Standard Deviation would have to conform. How should one go about organizing See also sections? -- Gracenotes T § 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see mention of this anywhere, in my quick search for it, so I propose the following addition to the Guide to Layout (or is it a Manual of Style issue?):
The logic being that stubs are part of the article itself, so they should be within the boundaries of the article text. After that come the categories, because they are describing and sorting the article. Finally, come the interwiki links, because they (ideally) contain everything above them, but in a different language. Thoughts? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've crosslinked this section from Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Order of listing of categories within an article. jnestorius( talk) 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure when the specific injunction not to separate a dablink from the articles was introduced, or where it was discussed, but what is the rationale? As I find it both sensible (in that it clearly divides off the article from material that isn't part of it) and aesthetically acceptable, I always use it. I've come across those who claim to find it jarringly hideous – something I find difficult to understand – but I take it that that's not the reason for its being "forbidden".
Ah, I've just discovered when it appeared in the article: five days ago. No wonder that I didn't remember seeing it before. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am considering merging this page with several others. Please discuss at this page. Gareth Aus 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Should "See also" entries just include a link, or would they benefit from some text explaining how they relate to the article at hand? Many "see alsos" leave me perplexed until I actually bother to read the articles. -- Smack ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the endnotes, NOTES, should go at the very end. They are not meant for ordinary reading and should not go ahead of items (like References and External links). Rjensen 08:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:CITE#"Notes" section states:
This guideline should follow the advice given in the citation guideline as that guidline is more specific than this one on this issue. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep stating a consensus, but clearly other people agree with me, so where is your consensus? Do you think it a good idea that different guidelines are not in harmony with each other? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no agreement that extenal links should be called external links. What is your position if the extenal links and further reading are combined? -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Circeus you might find this archived conversation and straw poll (from November 2005) interesting; Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/archive2#References title misread as non-web External links -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It was just to show you that a number of editors agreed to the idea that the distinction between external links and further reading should be removed (and for that matter that References should be changed to Sources) -- also you might like to note that I voted against the idea in that poll, However I do agree that the arguments for combining further reading and external sources has grown as more and more articles get footnotes and the habit of expanding external links to include author source and date has become more common.
BTW Circeus stating I will continue to revert your moving of "notes" below "external links" is IMHO not constructive with helping to build a consensus as it puts down a marker that you will be confrontational. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Notes" allows for both footnotes and citations, while "References" connotes just that - citations and nothing but. For ease of reading, writing, and manipulating, esp with the 'ref' system, "Notes" is convenient and meets the needs. In terms of sequence, 'See Also' should be first, as it is still learning about the matter at hand. then Notes/Further Reading/External Links in that order because it takes us further and further from the subject at hand, though I'm not "totally" obsessed with that last 3 sequence - there may be some sense in the "Notes" being last, I just don't think it looks as good. Bridesmill 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The references section should be at the very end. "External links" is a section that should be read. The reader can then decide if they want to continue their learning on the external site. More specifically, it is for sequential reading, after the main article text body, the reader reads the External links section. On the other hand, the refs section is not for sequential reading. In fact, it's not for reading at all except for the special case where someone wants to verify the basis of a particular statement.
The refs section is therefore "small print" that should sit right down the bottom just above the other small print such as the copyright info and disclaimers. I never use "Notes" sections, but if they have to go next to a refs section, they should go above. Thus: Text body -> See also -> External links -> Notes -> References. -- Gronky 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should change the use of Bibliography sections to be called "Further Reading" sections. "Bibliography" can imply works that were used in preparing an article, as in this dictionary definition: Bibliography – A list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work. In fact, this section on Wikipedia is specifically supposed to be works that were not used as references. Further, Bibliography limits itself to only books, but Further Reading can involve web sites, newspaper, magazines, etc. as well as books. — Mets501 ( talk) 23:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Bibliography" being in the body as a listing of the subject's works. I can live with "Further Reading" as the better name for the end section; the implication should be that a decent writer would likely have perused the listed works or used them passim, and should be able to defend the choice of "Further Reading" books. If a user wants a library listing, then if 'Notes' and 'Further Reading' are listed in sequence (as per suggestion above) then they just print off the 2 sections; with the benefit then of also knowing which were the cited works & which pages were cited etc. Bridesmill 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've always invisioned "Further Reading" as being those references which a reader who is interested in the subject would find helpful. Hence it may contain some overlap with "References", but may also contain works not sourced in the main article. ShaiM 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding the shortcut "WP:LAYOUT" for this page seems intuitive and appropriate IMO. Objections? -- intgr 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In a fairly large number of articles, now I've begun to see a move toward the sort of intro that is embodied in this example from the guideline:
The problem is that this sort of lead-in often ends up preventing the reader from quickly scanning the intro to determine that the article is, in fact, what they were looking for. A couple of real-world examples:
and
As you can see, in both examples there's already a fair amount of complexity, and injecting links in the intro, before the subject, just adds to the cognitive load that the article imposes on the casual reader. If the reader has clicked on "random article", then this is probably not a big deal (perhaps even helpful), but if the reader has come upon an article with a general understanding of the subject area (this seems to me like it must be the most common situation), then this cognitive load comes with no benefit.
I can appreciate that there are times when the text would be "clunky" without leading with the topical links, but would it be possible to at least indicate that this style is deprecated, and should only be used when no other wording is clear enough? - Harmil 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a layout guideline regarding left vs right placement of a TOC? For articles with a longer TOC but without an infobox or image in the top right corner (e.g., Asian American), I think that {{TOCright}} looks better, since it places the article lead on the left rather than the TOC. Plus it avoids the expanse of whitespace to the right of a longer TOC when the TOC goes below the lead (e.g., Microsoft). Either way, I think a reader should see text at the top left corner, so I avoid {{TOCleft}}. Many of the featured articles feature images (e.g., Mosque, Flag of India) or infoboxes (e.g., Gray Wolf, Tamil people) simply avoid a TOC template. Of course, the TOC could be shortened, too. -- ishu 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, this page has to be consistent with WP:CITE, which is the relevant guideline. The further reading/external links section are the same thing. It used to be called External links, and contained only links, but with the advent of the References section, which also contains external links, many editors switched to References (material on- and offline used as a source) and Further reading (relevant material on- and offline not used as a source). See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CITE#Further reading/External links The wording from that section, or very similar, should be incorporated into this article.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that the advices of section Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Horizontal dividing line must be deprecated. It is bad for wikilinking when different topics are written in the same page. Wikipedia is not paper. It is especially bad when one topic is very long and the second is one sentence at the very bottom of 4 screens of text. No one will ever find an alternate meaning. Wikipedia has mature disambiguation style. No reason to mix Orion (mythology) and Orion (constellation) into one page.
Also, after second reading I find the advice quite confusing. Mukadderat 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is a minor problem with the navigational templates that appear at the end of an article. First of all, while a navigational template is supposed to be visually separable from the preceding text, I have found that that often isn't the case in practice; the navigational templates often appear to part of one of the other standard appendices, usually “External links” or “References”. Moreover, most edits to the navigational templates show up under those standard appendices in the page history because the editor almost invariably uses the section edit link. (Who wants to deal with more wikitext in the edit box than they have to?)
Additionally, some newbie editors (such as myself, long ago) want to put the navigational templates under “See also”, which would seem to be the natural location for a collection of wikilinks to related articles.
Therefore, I propose that there be a separate standard appendix, named “Navigation”, for navigational templates. This addresses the issues above. As a bonus, the categories and language links will also naturally fall under “Navigation” in the edit history, and categories will be visually part of the “Navigation” section.
I should note that this is not the first time I have made this proposal, but I have found that I haven't gotten a satisfactory amount of feedback, possibly because I have previously made this proposal on Wikipedia talk:Section, rather than here. I made a tentative version of this proposal in late January when a different solution to the navigational templates solution was shot down. This version received one response, essentially saying that I had not justified the proposal; added justifications met with no response. I made a more fully fleshed out version of this proposal in early March. No responses were immediately forthcoming. I decided to shelve the idea while I figured out how to get some better feedback.
And I now come back to try to get that feedback. If you think that my proposal is lame, please tell me why.
— DLJessup ( talk) 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think of a "bibliography" as a list of works actually cited, rather than a list of "further reading". I've seen a number of articles that use the cite.php references for "short" citations rather than full bibliographic references, sometimes keeping these separate from text expansions which may be handled by the {{ ref}}/{{ note}} system. Thus some articles are written
I'm not sure how to reword the descriptions to fit this idea. At the minimum, I would like to see the term "Bibliography" listed as an alternate name for the "References" section, rather than an alternate name for "Further reading". Gimmetrow 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does the section you cited mention anything about "References"? In fact, that section supports what I am saying, as it affirms quite clearly that a bibliography is a "list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work" rather than a list of writings that were not used. I am certain that style guides support calling a list of "Works cited" a "Bibliography". In fact, in my field this is by far the "more common usage"; it would be extremely rare for a list of an author's works to be titled "bibiography" - this would typically be "Works published" or just "Publications". In any event, is there anything objectionable about the four sections as given above? I fail to see how it is instruction creep to list an alternate name for a section that already exists in the GTL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmetrow ( talk • contribs) .
While I realise that this is not generally done, is there any reason not to have, as an optional extra, in the "Further reading" section, some descriptions following each item. Eg. Book name + details - book of this that and the other This would make it easier for those viewing the list to identify which item would be most useful. ShaiM 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem with writing up a list of items in "References", ie. as opposed to using <ref>example</ref> throughout the article. The problem is that future editors don't know what that reference was used for, and so 1) don't know what still needs to be sourced, and 2) whether they can delete that reference item as no longer necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShaiM ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 September 2006.
The Standard appendices section currently says It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, and 5... where 3-5 are "Further reading", "References", and "Notes". So "Further reading" may go either above or below the notes and references section(s).
However, "External links" are restricted to the very end of the article? Aren't "External links" basically the same thing as "Further reading" (just all the suggested reading is online)? Why should it be treated any differently? I support changing the statement to It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, 5, and 6...
I have also started a discussion at Talk:WP:CITE stating my support for the option of putting external links/further reading type sections above the references in some articles. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As I understood it, See also was always the first appendix because Wikified content was preferable to off-Wiki content. Most articles are written that way, expressing preference for Wiki content over external information. Sandy ( Talk) 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I just posted the identical question at
WP:CITE, for identical reasons. Copy of post:
I'm thinking that external links at the end, has dated back to the days before cite.php. WP:LINK states that the "most common" way to place external links is "at the end of an article".
Some articles now have quite extensive references sections, and it often looks better to place these after the article proper (including external links) rather thasn above the "see also" or "external links" sections. Otherwise one potentially has the following article finish:
- Article
- See also
- Long section of footnotes, comments and citations
- External links (lost between footnotes and categories)
It seems better that with extensive referencing and citations coming to be the norm, then references should generally go at the end of the article proper, that is after the (usually shorter) sections for notes, links and the like. Would this be acceptable to others to change the MOS slightly to suggest cite.php and similar references should usually be placed after all other sections, or at least may be placed there if 'long'?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I support putting "External links" before the "References" section. --
Gronky 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From "Further reading":
So if there are 80 refs and 5 other books the editors recommend as further reading, all 85 of them should be listed in one place? It seems to me this paragraph recommends either repetition of 80 sources or a mixed References/Bibliography system (which is instituted in a distinct minority of articles, even those that could really use it—see FA Hungarian Revolution of 1956). -- zenohockey 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In the "See Also" section, user-friendly articles include links to both the wikilink dump and related articles, but less user-friendly articles only include a link to dump.
The practice of not including related links within the article hides information from novice users, who rely upon their browser's 'find' tool to locate specific information quickly. If a 'find' search fails to locate the keyword within the article, novice users are likely to assume that Wikipedia does not contain the information they seek. [This happened to me when I tried to find a list of Philippine holidays; I am sure that this situation has happened to others as well.]
Some articles are more useful than others because the "See Also" layout guidelines do not specify that the "See Also: wikilink dump" format can not be used to fulfill the requirements of the See Also section. 70.112.29.65 12:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This proposal clarified here. 70.112.29.65 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "References" section go before the "Notes" section? My logic is that some of the notes will be pages/sections taken from the references listed under the "references" section. Therefore, wouldn't it be best to place "references" before "notes" to describe the source of these notes first? I know it's nitpicking, but I'm wondering what everyone thinks. — Deckill er 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On 12th July 2006, this guideline was ( changed) to additionally say (wrt Lead section):
I'm not convinced about the first point. The second point/instruction is completely at odds with other guidelines, current practice, and the whole way wiki articles work. Readers will continue with the article if it is well written, not based no the colour of words. The other changes made during that edit don't IMO help and may encourage the first paragraph to be too big if there are lots of "important points". In summary, I believe this edit should be undone. Thoughts? -- Colin° Talk 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The introductory material in this example (the material that comes before the TOC) describes this page, but I'd like to know a little more about what should, and should not, go there (as opposed to the introduction section after the TOC). Are there any Wiki style instructions on this that I missed?
Along these lines, the comment at the top of this page said "the first section MUST have a section header" (and asks for that to happen), but this one does not. Can someone comment in-line about why that is? I am Way too much of a newbie to be bold and change this page...
-- metaJohnG 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article, The Turk used a format that I really liked:
References
This is really clear to me and seems to address some of the confusion about what goes where. "Notes" are footnotes, and "works cited" are the ones in the footnotes. Since this made it into a Featured Article and the roof did not fall in, I guess it is ok to do it this way? I just tried it on an article and it got reverted, so I am trying to see if there are other opinions. Buddhipriya 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:LAYOUT says that See Also "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", which is a suggestion that I find unhelpful because in a long article like Hinduism or Ganesha it is a service to the reader to have a quick summary of internal links at the bottom. Could some of you who are experienced with variations in See also formatting please take a look at those two articles and comment on this question about the guideline? Buddhipriya 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious, why do we want the "Further Reading" and "External Links" sections (both potentially interesting and useful to the reader) to follow "Notes" and "References" (which usually aren't useful and are often completely ignored)? Is this a case of beauty/style being more worthy than utility? - KSchutte 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at thousands of Wikipedia articles, I feel safe in saying that the "See also" section comes after the "References" and additional optional sections ("Notes" and "Further reading") but before "External links". Despite the fact that this guide suggests it should be the first sub-body sections, i think it is clear that there is a fixed precedent for "References" to be first. Am I missing something? — Reinyday, 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is using its own system of formatting pages by placing "External links" as the second-to-last section, and then having a last section called "Related content", which is their name for "See also" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for details). I don't think that it is appropriate to have a group of pages deviate from the standard like this, especially when editing a page results in being instructed to read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft pages. Is there a consensus that pages covered by a WikiProject should stick to general Wikipedia standards? — Reinyday, 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How about? I have to say,
Good luck. -- PBeaver 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We do this sometimes; for instance, in an article about a document or book, if Wikisource has a copy then the Wikisource box may appear at the top of the article. Or if Wikinews has content related to a specific section, the box may be attached to that section. However, not all sister-project links are of great significance and many belong in the external links section. Much of the rest of your comment is impossible to understand. It seems unlikely that God will be judging me based on my actions at Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
An article like
United States Constitution makes more sense with the link to the text at the top, because there is an excellent chance that people will want to refer to the text while reading the article, or that they will be looking for the text in the first place. Most sister project links are of relatively low value, however, and belong with the other external links.
Christopher Parham
(talk) 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki templates go in the external links section. That's how we've been doing it for years. JungianPPP is just making this up as he goes along. Raul654 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In short, guys adhering to strange view that InterWikimedia links are Wikipedia:External links, violently ignore the differnces between Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links and Wikipedia:External links, and unreasonably treat them as if they were the same type links and they had the same meaning for readers and editors.
== Wikilinks ==
Internal links
Adding square brackets (
[[...]]
) around a word or phrase is an important part of Wikifying articles. This links significant words to a corresponding article that contains information that will help the reader to understand the original article. For example, an article might mention ' pancakes' without explaining what they are, although a brief phrase explaining the term might be more appropriate in many instances. An article about laser beams might provide helpful background material when mentioned in passing. It is important to follow the links that you have added and check that they lead to the right page. Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section.InterWikimedia links
Look up archive 1 in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.InterWikimedia links has two types.
- One is prefix type which is created by adding a specific prefix to the internal link above, just as
[[commons:...]], [[Image:...]], [[b:...]], [[n:...]], [[s:...]], [[q:...]], [[wikt:...]], ... , [[:de:...]], [[:fr:...]], [[:ja:...]], etc
.- Another is template type which is created by typing such as
{{Commons}}, {{Wikibooks}}, {{Wikinews}}, {{Wikisource}}, {{Wikiquote}}, {{Wiktionary}}, etc
.Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links are another important Wikifying operation to introduce readers to the Wikimedia sister projects similarly supported by " Wikimedia Foundation" as well as Wikipedia. These Interwiki link templates should be placed eithier on the top of the article ( this is, Lead section) or the appropriate section ( like this section and #Images ). Convention is to include each reference, link, or definition only once within an article, at the first appropriate point. Links to "Wikimedia sister projects" are best placed in the section of the article to which they relate, including Lead section, if possible; otherwise, they are usually placed in either " See also" section ( e.g. Autism#See also ) or External links section ( though InterWikimedia links cannot be External links ).
What's the problem with this lost section? -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
On Legal issues of cannabis, the See also section has many links to articles that are present in the Template:cannabis resources at the bottom of the article. Should I remove these articles? Also, there are links to articles about American marijuana activists, is it really necessary to list marijuana activists? That list would be really long if you included all the activists world-wide; is there any kind of guideline on this? Am I proper to remove the links that are already on the template and to remove the links that are not directly related to the article? Thank you. — User:Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The description of the "References" section states:
I know citing specific facts is strongly preferred, but what about books, etc., an editor uses in constructing an article but doesn't reference/cite in the article? -- zenohockey 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Follow-up (because I think this should be discussed in the article)—one solution to this dilemma is having separate Notes and References sections. Which (if any) of the below arrangements of <ref> references and a list of other references, all of which I remember seeing, are preferable?
1.
==References==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.
2.
(Same as #1, but order flipped, so that general references come first)
3.
==Specific references==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.
==General references==
4.
(Same as #3, but order flipped, so that general references come first)
I think either #3 or #4 is best; when #1 or #2 is used, I often have to take an extra second to understand why some references are numbered and the rest are bulleted. -- zenohockey 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
==References== ;Specific </references> ;General *A book *Another book
On List of turnpikes in New Jersey, there is a link to turnpike in the first sentence. Is this enough context? -- NE2 04:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why oh why are we using the "lightweight" term "note", surely if we are trying to make wikipedia a respected resource we should be using the more usual term "Footnotes" as a section heading. Even in the discussion of the content we are continually referring to "footnotes" so why use this "notes". This opens the section up to use for all kinds of notes other than proper in-line citation style footnotes. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They're definitely endnotes and not footnotes. Notes is a pretty standard description in many professional publications. Someone whining that it should be footnotes is not only being unnecessarily pedantic but is incorrect. DreamGuy 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed a recently-added occurrence of this in Constitution_of_the_Philippines#Significant_Features_of_the_1987_Constitution. What say about OK-ness? -- Boracay Bill 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose legitimizing Wiktionary links in the See Also section, i.e. adding "or Wiktionary":
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia or Wiktionary that are related to this one...
Case in point, I added the term knock-on effect to Unintended consequences. Someone removed it, I presume because it violates this guide. The deeper issue: knock-on effect is not Wikipedia-worthy; it's not complex enough for its own Wikipedia article. Yet it clearly IMO belongs with the other entries in the (Wikipedia-worthy) Unintended consequences See-also section.
Alternatively, do you think Wiktionary citations belong instead in a "Synonyms" or "Related" sections?
Should we include See Also links in one article to another article, when the latter article (where the link leads) is not relevant to the former article (with the link in it), but the former article (with the link in it) is relevant to the latter article (where the link leads). I think we should only include See Also links if the pages they link to are relevant to the page they are on. Another editor ( User:Vassyana) argues that we should also include see also links if the page they are on is relevant to the pages they link to.
Also, how should we mark disputed See Also links? Jacob Haller 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, on List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), should there be two sections or only one? -- NE2 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that it's undesirable to have a link in a "see also" that points to a nonexistent article? It seems strange to tell me to "see" something that doesn't yet exist. I understand the point in having links to nonexistent articles; what I'm wondering if such links belong in "See also" sections instead of being inline with the article's text. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently there was a change to the Hinduism article that resulted in the creation of two sections called Notes and Citations. The section which contains the inline references is called "Citation" and the "Notes" section contains remarks that are generally comments. I have objected to this change because it is not consistent with WP:LAYOUT. Can anyone please help me understand the policy issues with this non-standard structure? Buddhipriya 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Why demand such rigidity? Footnotes and citations are not the same thing, and in some articles it makes sense to clearly distinguish between them. Any changes to guidance should give helpful suggestions on how to achieve this where appropriate, and not dictate that both be lumped together regardless of circumstances. .. dave souza, talk 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that the use of wikipedia:footnote3 (of which "Ref_label" as used in the Hinduism) is depreciated, because it is much more difficult to maintain than the current Wikipedia:Footnotes. So what one gains with the clarity of separation one looses with the maintenance effort. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I had looked into the convention of separating explanatory notes from citations a few days back, when this issue was raised on the Hinduism talk page. Here are a few
Featured articles/lists that also follow this convention:
Rabindranath Tagore,
List of Harry Potter films cast members,
Beagle,
Scouting,
Galaxy,
Jerusalem,
Solar System,
Supernova,
Thylacine,
Ziad Jarrah,
Antarctic krill,
Demosthenes,
Cat's Eye Nebula,
Galileo Galilei,
Harry McNish,
The Four Stages of Cruelty,
Red Barn Murder,
Four Times of the Day,
Elizabeth Needham,
Ladakh,
Peter Jennings etc
Perhaps a sentence needs to added to
WP:LAYOUT to clarify that this option is permitted, althout not required ? Such a change would also bring this guideline in line with
WP:FOOT. Any suggested wording ?
Abecedare 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Thanks for the info, hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox – please revert if you want to restore it. To see if it worked, I've added a repeat of a "ref name=" pre-existing reference to note a. and a "harvnb" template reference without the "ref" tags to note b. so that it links directly to the "References" section rather than via a separate citation. Both seem to work pretty well, and so I don't see how referencing a statement in a Note that is challenged will require the creation of two entries. Looks good to me. A lot of the problem is that Wikipedia:Guide to layout does not seem to give any suggestions for the the situation where Harvard citations are used, now made more useful by inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets templates generating citations linked to the sources listed in the "References" section, provided the sources use Template:Citation (or the now deprecated Harvard template used in the sandbox). The three common situations would be keeping the citations in the "References" section immediately above the cited sources, having the citations in the "Notes" section with the cited sources in a "References" section, and where suitable keeping the "Notes" section for notes, having the citations in a "Citations" section and the cited sources in a "References" section. There are variations on this theme: Wikipedia:Footnotes links as its example to Johannes Kepler which has Harvard references without the templates, and so without the links. It has the cited sources in a "Bibliography" section. Anyway, some clear guidance on layouts for Harvard citations would encourage more consistency. .. dave souza, talk 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
<reset indent>
I totally agree that citations are very important to judge the article content and are the backbone of any wikipedia article. But I don't believe that academic conventions dictate that citations and explanatory notes be combined into one section at the end of an article. In fact a quick survey indicates that splitting the two is by far the more common academic journals (although there are exceptions). To make sure that I was not being swayed by publications in my own academic field, I looked through
some highly ranked journals, in sociology, politics, engineering, management and law and all the journals in my somewhat random sample-set used footnotes for explanatory notes while references were cited separately (either using Harvard referencing or not). Among books (in my home library) the picture is more mixed - most books did use footnotes for explanatory notes (and rarely for stand alone citations), but mixing of notes and citations in an appendix was not all that rare; of course this sample set (unlike the one for journals) was very skewed by my tastes and is perhaps not representative.
Abecedare 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but my opinion is that the method currently used in Hinduism is admirable for reducing the amount of reference clutter that makes editing articles difficult. I suggest that this method be promoted and used more widely, especially in long articles with numerous references. older ≠ wiser 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Here we go again. Have at it folks. Ortolan88 23:35 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
I hope that it's more clear now when I'm claiming that first paragraphs should be short. There's nothing wrong with a stub that consists of nothing but a single paragraph with four sentences, but an article that goes on and on should limit the first paragraph to very basic information (definition, birth date, population, etc) -- just as this article's first paragraph does. Or am I wrong? — Toby 18:47 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
I wonder whether we need a style for interwiki links. Now they are put in rather randomly, without any plan or order. Ought they be ordered in some way ? Kpjas 2002-11-12
Most french do it by alphabetical order. Without any previous discussions. Problems are
So, in the end, it's a bit messy; but I think most french would prefer the alphebetical order anyway.
I think it is not logical to do so, for you can't even rely on the habit of always finding the german one on the left...since it will be in another place in another wiki. So, my feeling is that langage code is best for usability. user:anthere
Would it be possible to have a convention on references where we site them within the text like so: [1] Pizza Puzzle
But how do we number them? If somebody adds one, its easy for all the numbers to get changed up. Also, it might be useful to have a link to an article on the source.
But mav says not to do it that way... Pizza Puzzle or are those naked wikirefs? Pizza Puzzle
The following paragraph was on the page, but I find it unclear and unconvincing:
Namely: "good HTML practice dictates that headers are marked up as [bolded text]" doesn't seem correct as written. -- The Cunctator 05:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
IMO a more proper title would be 'Related articles'. That's what listed under it: articles, not topics. Topic is a broad term. Mikkalai 20:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why are these two separate sections? Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate ("Things should not be multiplied without necessity"). — Steven G. Johnson 06:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If there is just one, is it still "External links" ? -- User:Docu
1. Since some articles have all three types of references (Wikipedia articles, external Internet links and printed literature), it seems rather aggressive to give each type its own top level heading. Would it better to organize the references into a hierarchy such as:
2. To avoid the nuisance of changing words between the singular and plural forms depending upon the number of references, could we change External link(s) to Internet and always use References regardless of the number of references. GreatWhiteNortherner 03:33, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
In Talk:Barbus, Ram-Man asserted that authoritative reference-type websites ought to go in "References" while interesting but less authoritative sites should be in "External links", a rule that I hadn't heard before, and when I go to look here, I see that both the references and external links sections say that "web sites that one has used or recommends" should be listed in those sections. This is rather ambiguous, and needs to be changed.
Empirically, I think most articles use "References" for printed works, and "External links" for links elsewhere on the web, irrespective of relative authority or reference values. This is a useful distinction for readers, because if they want to click somewhere, they can skip over the references and go straight to the link section; but if they're preparing to visit the library, they'll visit the References section that they previously ignored. For the cases in which the external links include authoritative and less-authoritative links, the notations should indicate the nature of each link. I'd like to make this policy, so if everybody's amenable, I'll draft something on the policy page. Stan 16:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Here's what I had to say on the subject over there:
I can't agree with any URL citing policy that treats them differently from "regular" reference. Moreover, the whole [1] scheme is currently poorly thought out, because even URL citations need more than just a URL -- they need a descriptive title, author and date (if possible), and to be listed at the end of the article as text so that they print properly. In the absence of better support for numbered links for all references, (Author, Year) in-text pointers still seem the best bet. For proper in-text numbered citations, we need a new named & numbered list format like:
#name1# Name1, ''Blah'', 1998.
#foobar# Foobar, http://blah.baz.com
...so that in-text references like [[#foobar#]] automatically expand to [2] (or whatever the current number of that reference is). I'm not attached to any particular syntax, however. —Steven G. Johnson 18:28, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
On looking close at this page, I find (to my complete horror) that it has (for a long time) called for the section of further reading entries to be called "References". Following the examples on countless pages I've edited, on new pages I wrote, or pages I worked on, I've always titled them "Further reading", and I think that should be the standard. (I see from the discussion of "See also", above, that this page is out of touch with real practice in the 'Pedia in a number of ways... Sigh, too much replicated content across to many page, e.g. this and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
To me, "References" means "list of specific citations for specific facts cited in the article". If you look at a real scholarly book, in addition to references (usually called "Notes", or "Footnotes" - although academic papers almost invariably call them "References", go figure), it also has a section called "Bibliography", which is more akin to our "Further reading" sections. It's never called "References"! I would strongly oppose use of the term "References" for anything except i) lists of specific sources for specific statements, or ii) definitive reference works (e.g. the "PDP-10 Processor Manual" on the PDP-10 page. Noel 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the people using an Encyclopaedia aren't, by and large, "real scholars". For such users, it is important to distinguish between:
I think it's really important that we not forget who our audience is. Noel 02:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What's wrong with the model where "works used as sources to write an article" is the conjunction of the "suggested reading" and "advanced references" sections? Also, I can tell you, from my experience in exploring fields by going through bibiographies in books and getting items (something I have done in a very large number of fields) that the (sadly uncommon) bibliograhies which include comments about which items are good for what are a zillion times easier to use productively than the ones that just provide a barren list. I've lost count of the number of times I've ordered a book based on solely the listing in a bibliography, only to find out when it arrived that it was a waste of money. The article writers have (or should, if they are any good) an excellent understanding of which readings are best for "average people", and I think it's our duty to pass that very valuable information on. Noel 14:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see the advice (my bold hilighting)
The first part are indeed references. The second part is a Bibliography, or Further reading. These should be clearly separated. For example, somethingshould be in references only if it is actually cited as the authority for a fact in the main body of the article - and a specific part should be cited. -- Nantonos 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 20:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just found an article that had all the "Edit" links messed up, most of them edited the next section after the one they should have. I tracked it down to a comment that was after a heading, (===Heading===<!-- Comment -->). Should this be pointed out in this guide, or is this too trivial a point to mention? Alternatively, should this be considered a bug in MediaWiki? — PhilHibbs | talk 15:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Also posted at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Albums:
Can we get a consensus on discography formatting. The general standard way to do it in the past was to simply list the albums, the year of release ,and possibly a chart oposition or two. But now, we have articles like Mariah Carey albums discography and 50 Cent which seem intent on including album cover artwork, and multiple facts about the album. Such a system is image-heavy and slow loading ,and can also very quickly take over ap age for any act with more than four or five albums. It also only works if you find album cover artwork for each and every album (which may not always even exist). What should be done about this? -- FuriousFreddy 20:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote this section in response to a question on the Village Pump for more clarity. It is my intention to have it reflect de facto policy, not to introduce new policy: all featured article I've seen follow these guidelines. Also, I've removed the sentence that confusingly named "Overview" as a common title for the first section (is it really? Any prominent examples?) but simultaneously called it not to be preferred. Either "Overview" is a decent and acceptable title for the first section, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be mentioned, or else explicitly forbidden. A guide is not the best place for wishy-washyness. JRM 17:46, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. I generally call this first section "Overview". But recently, because of this "Guide to layout", I am now having to deal with people coming into an article and removing the first section's header! Please change the Guide to layout to reflect proper technical writing practice: if there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z
Wikify redirects to this article, but it doesn't explain the term. Could someone add an explanation, please? I've seen it used, but unsure if it refers specifically to making internal links using double square brackets, or if it's more general. Thanks -- Singkong2005 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or is that statement just a little ironic? :) Justin 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I prefer when including notes on works in a bibliography to use prose. (See this Britannica article on T.S. Eliot as an example.) Using prose makes it easier to give details on the sources. Using bulleted lists makes series such as these too long and confusing. Listing works for further reading using bullets works when the items don't need comments, but otherwise, it's best to use prose, in my opinion. Perhaps we could add a note to the Bibliography section of the "Guide to layout" aticle on this? -- Primetime 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm finding several stub articles that are tagged wikifiy, but they already seem to be formatted as well as can be expected given their very brief length. An example is Angiology -- it has an introduction, a body, and a list of references. Key terms are wiki links to related articles. It's too short to have any headings or subheadings beyond the one References section. How does one wikify this sort of stub article? Wesley 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia talk:Section#“Navigation” as standard appendix, I am proposing the addition of a new standard appendix. Since it is relevant here as well, I thought I should make a note of that proposal here.
— DLJessup ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I just want to query the recomendation about bullet points. In Jakob Nielsen web usability website useit.com there is an article on How Users Read on the Web
People rarely read Web pages word by word; instead, they scan the page, picking out individual words and sentences. In a recent study John Morkes and I found that 79 percent of our test users always scanned any new page they came across; only 16 percent read word-by-word.
As a result, Web pages have to employ scannable text, using
- highlighted keywords (hypertext links serve as one form of highlighting; typeface variations and color are others)
- meaningful sub-headings (not "clever" ones)
- bulleted lists
- one idea per paragraph (users will skip over any additional ideas if they are not caught by the first few words in the paragraph)
- the inverted pyramid style, starting with the conclusion
- half the word count (or less) than conventional writing
I certainly find myself doing this with wikipedia articles, big blocks of text tend to phase me (perhaphs because of my dyslexia). I would contend that we have to remember our primary medium is the web and not print and we should write articles accordingly. So
Thoughs? -- Salix alba ( talk) 20:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought we now have an excellent set of templates. patsw 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind – I don't see anything about the italicized line that appears at the top of a number of articles, This article is about Foo in the context of Baz. For that other kind of Foo, see elsewhere. The usage is obvious from examples, but I was looking for what to call that line! — Tamfang 02:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
On several pages, like Standard deviation, the See Also section is a bit unruly. That is, there are no descriptions and the order seems to be random. On the other hand, it might not seem logical to divide the links into groups, because
So perhaps the best solution is alphabetization (or alphabetisation). If this rule was to be added to this page, however, instead of just applying to one article, it would have to be a standard and all pages similar to Standard Deviation would have to conform. How should one go about organizing See also sections? -- Gracenotes T § 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see mention of this anywhere, in my quick search for it, so I propose the following addition to the Guide to Layout (or is it a Manual of Style issue?):
The logic being that stubs are part of the article itself, so they should be within the boundaries of the article text. After that come the categories, because they are describing and sorting the article. Finally, come the interwiki links, because they (ideally) contain everything above them, but in a different language. Thoughts? — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've crosslinked this section from Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Order of listing of categories within an article. jnestorius( talk) 23:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure when the specific injunction not to separate a dablink from the articles was introduced, or where it was discussed, but what is the rationale? As I find it both sensible (in that it clearly divides off the article from material that isn't part of it) and aesthetically acceptable, I always use it. I've come across those who claim to find it jarringly hideous – something I find difficult to understand – but I take it that that's not the reason for its being "forbidden".
Ah, I've just discovered when it appeared in the article: five days ago. No wonder that I didn't remember seeing it before. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am considering merging this page with several others. Please discuss at this page. Gareth Aus 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Should "See also" entries just include a link, or would they benefit from some text explaining how they relate to the article at hand? Many "see alsos" leave me perplexed until I actually bother to read the articles. -- Smack ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the endnotes, NOTES, should go at the very end. They are not meant for ordinary reading and should not go ahead of items (like References and External links). Rjensen 08:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:CITE#"Notes" section states:
This guideline should follow the advice given in the citation guideline as that guidline is more specific than this one on this issue. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep stating a consensus, but clearly other people agree with me, so where is your consensus? Do you think it a good idea that different guidelines are not in harmony with each other? -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no agreement that extenal links should be called external links. What is your position if the extenal links and further reading are combined? -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Circeus you might find this archived conversation and straw poll (from November 2005) interesting; Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/archive2#References title misread as non-web External links -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It was just to show you that a number of editors agreed to the idea that the distinction between external links and further reading should be removed (and for that matter that References should be changed to Sources) -- also you might like to note that I voted against the idea in that poll, However I do agree that the arguments for combining further reading and external sources has grown as more and more articles get footnotes and the habit of expanding external links to include author source and date has become more common.
BTW Circeus stating I will continue to revert your moving of "notes" below "external links" is IMHO not constructive with helping to build a consensus as it puts down a marker that you will be confrontational. -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
"Notes" allows for both footnotes and citations, while "References" connotes just that - citations and nothing but. For ease of reading, writing, and manipulating, esp with the 'ref' system, "Notes" is convenient and meets the needs. In terms of sequence, 'See Also' should be first, as it is still learning about the matter at hand. then Notes/Further Reading/External Links in that order because it takes us further and further from the subject at hand, though I'm not "totally" obsessed with that last 3 sequence - there may be some sense in the "Notes" being last, I just don't think it looks as good. Bridesmill 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The references section should be at the very end. "External links" is a section that should be read. The reader can then decide if they want to continue their learning on the external site. More specifically, it is for sequential reading, after the main article text body, the reader reads the External links section. On the other hand, the refs section is not for sequential reading. In fact, it's not for reading at all except for the special case where someone wants to verify the basis of a particular statement.
The refs section is therefore "small print" that should sit right down the bottom just above the other small print such as the copyright info and disclaimers. I never use "Notes" sections, but if they have to go next to a refs section, they should go above. Thus: Text body -> See also -> External links -> Notes -> References. -- Gronky 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should change the use of Bibliography sections to be called "Further Reading" sections. "Bibliography" can imply works that were used in preparing an article, as in this dictionary definition: Bibliography – A list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work. In fact, this section on Wikipedia is specifically supposed to be works that were not used as references. Further, Bibliography limits itself to only books, but Further Reading can involve web sites, newspaper, magazines, etc. as well as books. — Mets501 ( talk) 23:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Bibliography" being in the body as a listing of the subject's works. I can live with "Further Reading" as the better name for the end section; the implication should be that a decent writer would likely have perused the listed works or used them passim, and should be able to defend the choice of "Further Reading" books. If a user wants a library listing, then if 'Notes' and 'Further Reading' are listed in sequence (as per suggestion above) then they just print off the 2 sections; with the benefit then of also knowing which were the cited works & which pages were cited etc. Bridesmill 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've always invisioned "Further Reading" as being those references which a reader who is interested in the subject would find helpful. Hence it may contain some overlap with "References", but may also contain works not sourced in the main article. ShaiM 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding the shortcut "WP:LAYOUT" for this page seems intuitive and appropriate IMO. Objections? -- intgr 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In a fairly large number of articles, now I've begun to see a move toward the sort of intro that is embodied in this example from the guideline:
The problem is that this sort of lead-in often ends up preventing the reader from quickly scanning the intro to determine that the article is, in fact, what they were looking for. A couple of real-world examples:
and
As you can see, in both examples there's already a fair amount of complexity, and injecting links in the intro, before the subject, just adds to the cognitive load that the article imposes on the casual reader. If the reader has clicked on "random article", then this is probably not a big deal (perhaps even helpful), but if the reader has come upon an article with a general understanding of the subject area (this seems to me like it must be the most common situation), then this cognitive load comes with no benefit.
I can appreciate that there are times when the text would be "clunky" without leading with the topical links, but would it be possible to at least indicate that this style is deprecated, and should only be used when no other wording is clear enough? - Harmil 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a layout guideline regarding left vs right placement of a TOC? For articles with a longer TOC but without an infobox or image in the top right corner (e.g., Asian American), I think that {{TOCright}} looks better, since it places the article lead on the left rather than the TOC. Plus it avoids the expanse of whitespace to the right of a longer TOC when the TOC goes below the lead (e.g., Microsoft). Either way, I think a reader should see text at the top left corner, so I avoid {{TOCleft}}. Many of the featured articles feature images (e.g., Mosque, Flag of India) or infoboxes (e.g., Gray Wolf, Tamil people) simply avoid a TOC template. Of course, the TOC could be shortened, too. -- ishu 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, this page has to be consistent with WP:CITE, which is the relevant guideline. The further reading/external links section are the same thing. It used to be called External links, and contained only links, but with the advent of the References section, which also contains external links, many editors switched to References (material on- and offline used as a source) and Further reading (relevant material on- and offline not used as a source). See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CITE#Further reading/External links The wording from that section, or very similar, should be incorporated into this article.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that the advices of section Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Horizontal dividing line must be deprecated. It is bad for wikilinking when different topics are written in the same page. Wikipedia is not paper. It is especially bad when one topic is very long and the second is one sentence at the very bottom of 4 screens of text. No one will ever find an alternate meaning. Wikipedia has mature disambiguation style. No reason to mix Orion (mythology) and Orion (constellation) into one page.
Also, after second reading I find the advice quite confusing. Mukadderat 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is a minor problem with the navigational templates that appear at the end of an article. First of all, while a navigational template is supposed to be visually separable from the preceding text, I have found that that often isn't the case in practice; the navigational templates often appear to part of one of the other standard appendices, usually “External links” or “References”. Moreover, most edits to the navigational templates show up under those standard appendices in the page history because the editor almost invariably uses the section edit link. (Who wants to deal with more wikitext in the edit box than they have to?)
Additionally, some newbie editors (such as myself, long ago) want to put the navigational templates under “See also”, which would seem to be the natural location for a collection of wikilinks to related articles.
Therefore, I propose that there be a separate standard appendix, named “Navigation”, for navigational templates. This addresses the issues above. As a bonus, the categories and language links will also naturally fall under “Navigation” in the edit history, and categories will be visually part of the “Navigation” section.
I should note that this is not the first time I have made this proposal, but I have found that I haven't gotten a satisfactory amount of feedback, possibly because I have previously made this proposal on Wikipedia talk:Section, rather than here. I made a tentative version of this proposal in late January when a different solution to the navigational templates solution was shot down. This version received one response, essentially saying that I had not justified the proposal; added justifications met with no response. I made a more fully fleshed out version of this proposal in early March. No responses were immediately forthcoming. I decided to shelve the idea while I figured out how to get some better feedback.
And I now come back to try to get that feedback. If you think that my proposal is lame, please tell me why.
— DLJessup ( talk) 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think of a "bibliography" as a list of works actually cited, rather than a list of "further reading". I've seen a number of articles that use the cite.php references for "short" citations rather than full bibliographic references, sometimes keeping these separate from text expansions which may be handled by the {{ ref}}/{{ note}} system. Thus some articles are written
I'm not sure how to reword the descriptions to fit this idea. At the minimum, I would like to see the term "Bibliography" listed as an alternate name for the "References" section, rather than an alternate name for "Further reading". Gimmetrow 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does the section you cited mention anything about "References"? In fact, that section supports what I am saying, as it affirms quite clearly that a bibliography is a "list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work" rather than a list of writings that were not used. I am certain that style guides support calling a list of "Works cited" a "Bibliography". In fact, in my field this is by far the "more common usage"; it would be extremely rare for a list of an author's works to be titled "bibiography" - this would typically be "Works published" or just "Publications". In any event, is there anything objectionable about the four sections as given above? I fail to see how it is instruction creep to list an alternate name for a section that already exists in the GTL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimmetrow ( talk • contribs) .
While I realise that this is not generally done, is there any reason not to have, as an optional extra, in the "Further reading" section, some descriptions following each item. Eg. Book name + details - book of this that and the other This would make it easier for those viewing the list to identify which item would be most useful. ShaiM 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a bit of a problem with writing up a list of items in "References", ie. as opposed to using <ref>example</ref> throughout the article. The problem is that future editors don't know what that reference was used for, and so 1) don't know what still needs to be sourced, and 2) whether they can delete that reference item as no longer necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShaiM ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 September 2006.
The Standard appendices section currently says It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, and 5... where 3-5 are "Further reading", "References", and "Notes". So "Further reading" may go either above or below the notes and references section(s).
However, "External links" are restricted to the very end of the article? Aren't "External links" basically the same thing as "Further reading" (just all the suggested reading is online)? Why should it be treated any differently? I support changing the statement to It is okay to change the orders between item 3, 4, 5, and 6...
I have also started a discussion at Talk:WP:CITE stating my support for the option of putting external links/further reading type sections above the references in some articles. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As I understood it, See also was always the first appendix because Wikified content was preferable to off-Wiki content. Most articles are written that way, expressing preference for Wiki content over external information. Sandy ( Talk) 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I just posted the identical question at
WP:CITE, for identical reasons. Copy of post:
I'm thinking that external links at the end, has dated back to the days before cite.php. WP:LINK states that the "most common" way to place external links is "at the end of an article".
Some articles now have quite extensive references sections, and it often looks better to place these after the article proper (including external links) rather thasn above the "see also" or "external links" sections. Otherwise one potentially has the following article finish:
- Article
- See also
- Long section of footnotes, comments and citations
- External links (lost between footnotes and categories)
It seems better that with extensive referencing and citations coming to be the norm, then references should generally go at the end of the article proper, that is after the (usually shorter) sections for notes, links and the like. Would this be acceptable to others to change the MOS slightly to suggest cite.php and similar references should usually be placed after all other sections, or at least may be placed there if 'long'?
FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I support putting "External links" before the "References" section. --
Gronky 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From "Further reading":
So if there are 80 refs and 5 other books the editors recommend as further reading, all 85 of them should be listed in one place? It seems to me this paragraph recommends either repetition of 80 sources or a mixed References/Bibliography system (which is instituted in a distinct minority of articles, even those that could really use it—see FA Hungarian Revolution of 1956). -- zenohockey 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In the "See Also" section, user-friendly articles include links to both the wikilink dump and related articles, but less user-friendly articles only include a link to dump.
The practice of not including related links within the article hides information from novice users, who rely upon their browser's 'find' tool to locate specific information quickly. If a 'find' search fails to locate the keyword within the article, novice users are likely to assume that Wikipedia does not contain the information they seek. [This happened to me when I tried to find a list of Philippine holidays; I am sure that this situation has happened to others as well.]
Some articles are more useful than others because the "See Also" layout guidelines do not specify that the "See Also: wikilink dump" format can not be used to fulfill the requirements of the See Also section. 70.112.29.65 12:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This proposal clarified here. 70.112.29.65 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "References" section go before the "Notes" section? My logic is that some of the notes will be pages/sections taken from the references listed under the "references" section. Therefore, wouldn't it be best to place "references" before "notes" to describe the source of these notes first? I know it's nitpicking, but I'm wondering what everyone thinks. — Deckill er 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On 12th July 2006, this guideline was ( changed) to additionally say (wrt Lead section):
I'm not convinced about the first point. The second point/instruction is completely at odds with other guidelines, current practice, and the whole way wiki articles work. Readers will continue with the article if it is well written, not based no the colour of words. The other changes made during that edit don't IMO help and may encourage the first paragraph to be too big if there are lots of "important points". In summary, I believe this edit should be undone. Thoughts? -- Colin° Talk 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The introductory material in this example (the material that comes before the TOC) describes this page, but I'd like to know a little more about what should, and should not, go there (as opposed to the introduction section after the TOC). Are there any Wiki style instructions on this that I missed?
Along these lines, the comment at the top of this page said "the first section MUST have a section header" (and asks for that to happen), but this one does not. Can someone comment in-line about why that is? I am Way too much of a newbie to be bold and change this page...
-- metaJohnG 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Today's featured article, The Turk used a format that I really liked:
References
This is really clear to me and seems to address some of the confusion about what goes where. "Notes" are footnotes, and "works cited" are the ones in the footnotes. Since this made it into a Featured Article and the roof did not fall in, I guess it is ok to do it this way? I just tried it on an article and it got reverted, so I am trying to see if there are other opinions. Buddhipriya 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:LAYOUT says that See Also "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", which is a suggestion that I find unhelpful because in a long article like Hinduism or Ganesha it is a service to the reader to have a quick summary of internal links at the bottom. Could some of you who are experienced with variations in See also formatting please take a look at those two articles and comment on this question about the guideline? Buddhipriya 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious, why do we want the "Further Reading" and "External Links" sections (both potentially interesting and useful to the reader) to follow "Notes" and "References" (which usually aren't useful and are often completely ignored)? Is this a case of beauty/style being more worthy than utility? - KSchutte 00:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at thousands of Wikipedia articles, I feel safe in saying that the "See also" section comes after the "References" and additional optional sections ("Notes" and "Further reading") but before "External links". Despite the fact that this guide suggests it should be the first sub-body sections, i think it is clear that there is a fixed precedent for "References" to be first. Am I missing something? — Reinyday, 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft is using its own system of formatting pages by placing "External links" as the second-to-last section, and then having a last section called "Related content", which is their name for "See also" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for details). I don't think that it is appropriate to have a group of pages deviate from the standard like this, especially when editing a page results in being instructed to read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft pages. Is there a consensus that pages covered by a WikiProject should stick to general Wikipedia standards? — Reinyday, 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How about? I have to say,
Good luck. -- PBeaver 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We do this sometimes; for instance, in an article about a document or book, if Wikisource has a copy then the Wikisource box may appear at the top of the article. Or if Wikinews has content related to a specific section, the box may be attached to that section. However, not all sister-project links are of great significance and many belong in the external links section. Much of the rest of your comment is impossible to understand. It seems unlikely that God will be judging me based on my actions at Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
An article like
United States Constitution makes more sense with the link to the text at the top, because there is an excellent chance that people will want to refer to the text while reading the article, or that they will be looking for the text in the first place. Most sister project links are of relatively low value, however, and belong with the other external links.
Christopher Parham
(talk) 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki templates go in the external links section. That's how we've been doing it for years. JungianPPP is just making this up as he goes along. Raul654 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In short, guys adhering to strange view that InterWikimedia links are Wikipedia:External links, violently ignore the differnces between Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links and Wikipedia:External links, and unreasonably treat them as if they were the same type links and they had the same meaning for readers and editors.
== Wikilinks ==
Internal links
Adding square brackets (
[[...]]
) around a word or phrase is an important part of Wikifying articles. This links significant words to a corresponding article that contains information that will help the reader to understand the original article. For example, an article might mention ' pancakes' without explaining what they are, although a brief phrase explaining the term might be more appropriate in many instances. An article about laser beams might provide helpful background material when mentioned in passing. It is important to follow the links that you have added and check that they lead to the right page. Useful links that are not mentioned in the prose paragraphs can be added to the "see also" section.InterWikimedia links
Look up archive 1 in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.InterWikimedia links has two types.
- One is prefix type which is created by adding a specific prefix to the internal link above, just as
[[commons:...]], [[Image:...]], [[b:...]], [[n:...]], [[s:...]], [[q:...]], [[wikt:...]], ... , [[:de:...]], [[:fr:...]], [[:ja:...]], etc
.- Another is template type which is created by typing such as
{{Commons}}, {{Wikibooks}}, {{Wikinews}}, {{Wikisource}}, {{Wikiquote}}, {{Wiktionary}}, etc
.Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links are another important Wikifying operation to introduce readers to the Wikimedia sister projects similarly supported by " Wikimedia Foundation" as well as Wikipedia. These Interwiki link templates should be placed eithier on the top of the article ( this is, Lead section) or the appropriate section ( like this section and #Images ). Convention is to include each reference, link, or definition only once within an article, at the first appropriate point. Links to "Wikimedia sister projects" are best placed in the section of the article to which they relate, including Lead section, if possible; otherwise, they are usually placed in either " See also" section ( e.g. Autism#See also ) or External links section ( though InterWikimedia links cannot be External links ).
What's the problem with this lost section? -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
On Legal issues of cannabis, the See also section has many links to articles that are present in the Template:cannabis resources at the bottom of the article. Should I remove these articles? Also, there are links to articles about American marijuana activists, is it really necessary to list marijuana activists? That list would be really long if you included all the activists world-wide; is there any kind of guideline on this? Am I proper to remove the links that are already on the template and to remove the links that are not directly related to the article? Thank you. — User:Christopher Mann McKay user talk 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The description of the "References" section states:
I know citing specific facts is strongly preferred, but what about books, etc., an editor uses in constructing an article but doesn't reference/cite in the article? -- zenohockey 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Follow-up (because I think this should be discussed in the article)—one solution to this dilemma is having separate Notes and References sections. Which (if any) of the below arrangements of <ref> references and a list of other references, all of which I remember seeing, are preferable?
1.
==References==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.
2.
(Same as #1, but order flipped, so that general references come first)
3.
==Specific references==
1. ^ Monastery of the Jerónimos and Tower of Belém in Lisbon (English). Retrieved on March 5, 2007.
2. ^ Martins, António. Portugal (1185–1248). Portugal. Flags of the World. Retrieved on February 22, 2007.
==General references==
4.
(Same as #3, but order flipped, so that general references come first)
I think either #3 or #4 is best; when #1 or #2 is used, I often have to take an extra second to understand why some references are numbered and the rest are bulleted. -- zenohockey 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
==References== ;Specific </references> ;General *A book *Another book
On List of turnpikes in New Jersey, there is a link to turnpike in the first sentence. Is this enough context? -- NE2 04:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why oh why are we using the "lightweight" term "note", surely if we are trying to make wikipedia a respected resource we should be using the more usual term "Footnotes" as a section heading. Even in the discussion of the content we are continually referring to "footnotes" so why use this "notes". This opens the section up to use for all kinds of notes other than proper in-line citation style footnotes. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 09:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They're definitely endnotes and not footnotes. Notes is a pretty standard description in many professional publications. Someone whining that it should be footnotes is not only being unnecessarily pedantic but is incorrect. DreamGuy 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed a recently-added occurrence of this in Constitution_of_the_Philippines#Significant_Features_of_the_1987_Constitution. What say about OK-ness? -- Boracay Bill 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose legitimizing Wiktionary links in the See Also section, i.e. adding "or Wiktionary":
The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia or Wiktionary that are related to this one...
Case in point, I added the term knock-on effect to Unintended consequences. Someone removed it, I presume because it violates this guide. The deeper issue: knock-on effect is not Wikipedia-worthy; it's not complex enough for its own Wikipedia article. Yet it clearly IMO belongs with the other entries in the (Wikipedia-worthy) Unintended consequences See-also section.
Alternatively, do you think Wiktionary citations belong instead in a "Synonyms" or "Related" sections?
Should we include See Also links in one article to another article, when the latter article (where the link leads) is not relevant to the former article (with the link in it), but the former article (with the link in it) is relevant to the latter article (where the link leads). I think we should only include See Also links if the pages they link to are relevant to the page they are on. Another editor ( User:Vassyana) argues that we should also include see also links if the page they are on is relevant to the pages they link to.
Also, how should we mark disputed See Also links? Jacob Haller 20:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, on List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), should there be two sections or only one? -- NE2 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that it's undesirable to have a link in a "see also" that points to a nonexistent article? It seems strange to tell me to "see" something that doesn't yet exist. I understand the point in having links to nonexistent articles; what I'm wondering if such links belong in "See also" sections instead of being inline with the article's text. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently there was a change to the Hinduism article that resulted in the creation of two sections called Notes and Citations. The section which contains the inline references is called "Citation" and the "Notes" section contains remarks that are generally comments. I have objected to this change because it is not consistent with WP:LAYOUT. Can anyone please help me understand the policy issues with this non-standard structure? Buddhipriya 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Why demand such rigidity? Footnotes and citations are not the same thing, and in some articles it makes sense to clearly distinguish between them. Any changes to guidance should give helpful suggestions on how to achieve this where appropriate, and not dictate that both be lumped together regardless of circumstances. .. dave souza, talk 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that the use of wikipedia:footnote3 (of which "Ref_label" as used in the Hinduism) is depreciated, because it is much more difficult to maintain than the current Wikipedia:Footnotes. So what one gains with the clarity of separation one looses with the maintenance effort. -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I had looked into the convention of separating explanatory notes from citations a few days back, when this issue was raised on the Hinduism talk page. Here are a few
Featured articles/lists that also follow this convention:
Rabindranath Tagore,
List of Harry Potter films cast members,
Beagle,
Scouting,
Galaxy,
Jerusalem,
Solar System,
Supernova,
Thylacine,
Ziad Jarrah,
Antarctic krill,
Demosthenes,
Cat's Eye Nebula,
Galileo Galilei,
Harry McNish,
The Four Stages of Cruelty,
Red Barn Murder,
Four Times of the Day,
Elizabeth Needham,
Ladakh,
Peter Jennings etc
Perhaps a sentence needs to added to
WP:LAYOUT to clarify that this option is permitted, althout not required ? Such a change would also bring this guideline in line with
WP:FOOT. Any suggested wording ?
Abecedare 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Thanks for the info, hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox – please revert if you want to restore it. To see if it worked, I've added a repeat of a "ref name=" pre-existing reference to note a. and a "harvnb" template reference without the "ref" tags to note b. so that it links directly to the "References" section rather than via a separate citation. Both seem to work pretty well, and so I don't see how referencing a statement in a Note that is challenged will require the creation of two entries. Looks good to me. A lot of the problem is that Wikipedia:Guide to layout does not seem to give any suggestions for the the situation where Harvard citations are used, now made more useful by inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets templates generating citations linked to the sources listed in the "References" section, provided the sources use Template:Citation (or the now deprecated Harvard template used in the sandbox). The three common situations would be keeping the citations in the "References" section immediately above the cited sources, having the citations in the "Notes" section with the cited sources in a "References" section, and where suitable keeping the "Notes" section for notes, having the citations in a "Citations" section and the cited sources in a "References" section. There are variations on this theme: Wikipedia:Footnotes links as its example to Johannes Kepler which has Harvard references without the templates, and so without the links. It has the cited sources in a "Bibliography" section. Anyway, some clear guidance on layouts for Harvard citations would encourage more consistency. .. dave souza, talk 07:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
<reset indent>
I totally agree that citations are very important to judge the article content and are the backbone of any wikipedia article. But I don't believe that academic conventions dictate that citations and explanatory notes be combined into one section at the end of an article. In fact a quick survey indicates that splitting the two is by far the more common academic journals (although there are exceptions). To make sure that I was not being swayed by publications in my own academic field, I looked through
some highly ranked journals, in sociology, politics, engineering, management and law and all the journals in my somewhat random sample-set used footnotes for explanatory notes while references were cited separately (either using Harvard referencing or not). Among books (in my home library) the picture is more mixed - most books did use footnotes for explanatory notes (and rarely for stand alone citations), but mixing of notes and citations in an appendix was not all that rare; of course this sample set (unlike the one for journals) was very skewed by my tastes and is perhaps not representative.
Abecedare 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but my opinion is that the method currently used in Hinduism is admirable for reducing the amount of reference clutter that makes editing articles difficult. I suggest that this method be promoted and used more widely, especially in long articles with numerous references. older ≠ wiser 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)