Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 34

message: I think I was the first person to comment on the thread National Spelling. I basically said that people accept country-specific spelling on websites, but not inconsistency. I can't find any record of my post in the History section. I'm pretty sure I manually signed it "Barry" and used five squiggly things for a date stamp. Can someone tell me what happened to my post? Barry 23:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually seen your comment hit the server? Looks like it never reached it... PizzaMargherita 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure. I think I would have confirmed that it was posted because I'm new at this. I guess it's possible I changed my mind and didn't save it. At one point I thought I might have been hard on the British. I'm not sure. Barry 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither are we. Anyway, welcome. PizzaMargherita 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my comment deleted from the National Spelling thread? 

message: Why have the external links been made to look really bad? External links used to look good. They were professional looking and everything, but now I am seeing them being changed to show all the stupid www.etcetc.com garbage that only a true computer nerd would love! What's up with that. Wikipedia is moving backwards!!! Anyone who wanted to know all the details of the address could easily find out. It looks like crap! --Dwain 04:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dwain, I think you are being a bit unfair to the editors; oftimes a link does not have a title, and it is difficult to think of a name or description that would do it justice.  It is better to show all the "garbage" than leave it looking like . --Maru  (talk) Contribs 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it looks like I made a mistake!!! I noticed that a Bluebot worked on the links of Saint Genesius of Rome and thought that it had changed it to what it currently is, but I was wrong! It was already looking like crap when the bot changed something!!! Can I remove my whole gripe or do I have to forever look like an idiot? Dwain 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you remove it now, it will remain in the history... forever... Bwa ha ha ha! --Maru  (talk) Contribs 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Browsing through countless articles, I've seen quite a few non-standard date forms. For example, sometimes, I've seen all of the following:
*(1 January 1999 – 1 January 2005)
*(1999–2005)
*(1999-2005)
*(1999 - 2005)
*(1999—2005)
I propose that we add a section on dates to the Manual of style, but what do you guys think? Has this been discussed before? - ElAmericano | talk 02:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A date standard 

message: The MoS, Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Cite sources only refer to "Reference" sections, saying that sources should be in the "Reference" section. Is it ok if I use my bot (which is just about to finish fixing "External links" and "See also" discrepancies as mentioned above) to change ==Sources== sections into ==References==? I am fairly sure they are synonymous, but I just want to make sure. thanks Martin 20:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have manually done this on some articles, and i think it is fine. But ther may be soem cases that have both, and those may need manual attention.  Note that a "Further reading" or "Further information" section should not be merged. DES (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sure, why not, go hard, I think.  Neonumbers 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it is the wrong thing to do. Please stop immediately until you have achieved concensus for this move.  Noisy | Talk 09:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, hence I am not doing it yet. Martin 09:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Somewhat harsh there.  violet/riga (t) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Go ahead, I would say, unless somebody explains why "it is the wrong thing to do". PizzaMargherita 10:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong opinion about this, but "References" implies that the article has some sort of specific "reference" (e.g., footnote, etc) to one of the works listed. "Sources" is a more generalized description. For example, many articles include template:1911 to indicate that the 1911 encyclopedia was the initial basis for some portion of the article (though it may have since been heavily edited). It may become difficult or impossible to trace any specific assertion in the article back to the 1911 article or to some other source.  Similarly, many articles on U.S. politicians include template:bioguide to indicate that the initial source for some information in the article came from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, though it is often extensively reworked. In neither case is there a specific fact or detail "referenced". However, I'm not sure that that most readers would care about or recognize such a subtle distinction--so I really don't care all that much whatever happens. older≠wiser 12:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1911 template is a slightly different issue, but see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I think the MoS needs to specify when to use "Sources" instead of "References" or else they should all be changed to "References". Martin 12:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with older: an article may have certain sources which are used so often that it is inappropriate to have numbered references at each point of use, and other references which are used for only a single piece of information and hence numbered. Running a bot would create two "References" sections for these articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clever enough not to make one if one already exists, but maybe we do still need to specify a "Sources" section in the MoS. Martin 12:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree  with older on the distinctions that shouldn't be blurred. I often add Further reading to distinguish titles that one really ought to have already consulted for an article, but hasn't (because it's all a work-in-progress). --Wetman 07:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "References" and "Sources"