"talk)]] 
Zoe, thank you for the kindness of your reply. I can't help wondering if your answer is to the point, however, since my question was about the use of  in articles and the reference you cite is about the talk pages. Moreover, it seems not to discuss comments. DreamGuy cites the use of comments in Wica (see his edit summary). I might add Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. These examples suggest to me that some use of comments may be appropriate in articles. The Katrina article was edited frequently by many distinct editors. I don't think comments would have been retained without support for their use. 
I wonder if you might be willing to reply to my query regarding the comment wording (and caps use) that I proposed in my previous message?
May I say that I don't agree with the reversion by DreamGuy of your deletion of my comments? My preference is to resolve this matter through discussion and dialogue. Best wishes,  (talk) 
 (... two editors want them here, one does not, so far that means the two editors win.... these guidelines are useful and used elsewhere, so no reason to remove them) copied from editorial summary DreamGuy (Talk) 
As a gesture of good faith, I'm going to put the wording I proposed above into the article in place of my original wording. I think my original might be considered shouting because of use of caps. Zoe and DreamGuy, please show restraint and don't revert my wording for now. Once we've agreed on a final version, one of us can edit the article to suit. Zoe, is there an editor whose judgement you trust that might be willing to take a look at this dispute and comment? Thank you both,  (talk) 

 In fiction and In music consensus 

The consensus (painfully) reached here is that the In fiction and In music sections should contain short representative lists of the most notable instances of chimera in fiction and music (see the article edit history and the arbitration on the article discussion page). These sections should not include every instance since the lists would become so long as to have little or no value and would give the impression that such uses are more important than mythical or scientific uses. Wikipedea is not mere collections of internal links. See what not to put on disambiguation pages, as well.

Consequently, before adding to this section, please take the following steps:
be sure that the article that you are linking mentions chimera. We should not be sending readers that are looking for information about chimera to articles that do not mention the term. 
verify that your addition is at least as notable as the examples already listed and that chimera plays a major, not just a tangential role in the work. 
consider replacing an existing less-notable entry. 
justify your edit on this page.

Finally, if you disagree with my opinion of the consensus, leave your comments here. Please don't edit the article to make your point.  (talk) 

Page move request
To move the page to its classical Latin spelling Chimaera. It is of course a classical creature / concept, which has nothing to do with the US, so why should it be at a recent US variant spelling? -  
I think this is a reasonable argument. On the other hand, the majority modern usage is with the Chimera spelling, I think.  Google finds 3,230,000 (Chimera) v. 1,010,000 (Chimaera). If Google is an indication of use frequency among Internet users, a majority of readers will be searching for Chimera. That is a weak argument; redirects are relatively cheap, or so I think.  (talk) 
Gee, why should it use a recent US spelling? Well, there's Wikipedia:Use English policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy that say we use the most common version, and a conspicuous lack of any policy that says Wikipedia:Use archaic Latin. We spell it the way it's spelled in the real world, it's a little thing called Wikipedia:Use common sense.  
NEWLIN