Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 2

message: :see above #Further reading/external links
I think it is time to change all mentions of the section ==External links== to ==Further reading== on this page. A couple of years ago this was not necessary as there were often two section, one for online texts and one for external links. But with the growth in the use of ==Reference== section and a ==notes==or==footnotes== section, that include web based articles, there is a need for another section which contains further reading with both online and offline sources that are recommended reading but are not currently used as references and are not cited. But before I made such a change I would like to see if we can build a consensus on the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That misses much of the point of external links.  These are to online sources exclusively, and often for purposes other than to provide further reading about the subject of the article.  External links are for web content that is not used as a source and would not be appropriate to the article.  See the WP:EL guideline on this.   Wikidemo 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Further reading is not approriate.  Links to videos and photos are obviously not "reading".  It ain't broke so there is no need to "fix" this. 2005 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This change would be incorrect. Articles include an external links section at the end in order to list links to websites that are outside of Wikipedia, for purposes of providing additional information as opposed to onsite "reading". "Further" reading is facilitated by the "See also" section. External links specificaly identify a link which briefly summarizes a website's content and why the website is relevant to the article.--Hu12 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: External links are completely different from sources or references.  You are confusing the terms.  You should read WP:EL. The term external links only refers to the end section, plus any misplaced links not properly placed. There should never be "external links" in other sections.  The usage of external links is very clear now so making a section that is not just confusing but flat out wrong doesn't make sense. 2005 11:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific is better than vague. "Further reading" is vague and "External links" is specific, so the latter phrase is what should be used. I'm sure the suggestion was made in good faith, but I think the reasoning behind the suggestion might be faulty. Rray 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: In general I like the the idea of putting both online and offline resources that are external to Wikipedia and aren't references for the article into one section instead of two.  Not so sure about the "Further reading" heading though - seems a little too caught up in a paper world mindset.  The gudielines for external links could be used as a starting point for the whole section.  Would be nice to show we expect books in that section to be well considered too - I've seen quite a few books added to further reading lists that aren't appropriate (COI additions and tangentially related mainly), and some of the lists get a bit on the long side.  I'm also seeing more and more uses of external links to texts of books in further reading sections - making the overlap even greater. -- SiobhanHansa 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a term like "More sources"? but that is a larger change than changing from "external links" to "further reading" because it involves a change to WP:CITE as well as this page.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using the word "sources" is problematic - we've seen confusion between citation links and non-citation links on the external links talk page when using that word.  Maybe "Explore further", "More information elsewhere", "Continued study", "And if you have a lot more time..." -- SiobhanHansa 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lower standards may have been acceptable in previous years, but Wikipedia is not a link farm and those links that are provided in external links/further reading should be reliable. As I said above there may be a few subjects where the term "External links" is a better term than "further reading" acceptable, but at the moment it is the tail wagging the dog. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That continues to confuse the difference between sources (for which RS applies) and external links (for which RS is simply not the issue).  It's not a matter of degree.  They are different things.  Most links that are allowed per EL would not be considered further reading, and most links that are further reading would not be appropriate as external links.  It sounds like you're talking about the bibliography section.  We already have that so I'm not sure what you're proposing to change Wikidemo 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is an issue. WP:V applies to all of an article including the links that are put into a collection at the end of an article. Many of the links in an articles as further reading are external links.  See Genocide#Further reading, Torture#Further reading and Battle of Waterloo#Further reading for examples of where external links and further reading are amalgamated into further reading. The dichotomy stands out in articles that use both online and offline news papers articles, particularly where initially a new article is free to view and then becomes subscription based or when they are removed from the net and are only available via a library. Should online and offline newspaper articles be kept in two different sections? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format.  They show what happens when people are undiscliplined about article format.  In the torture article, the "museums" section is clearly external links and should be noted as such.  The "Definitions" seem to be a references section.  My guess is that they should be referred to only if used as a source of material, and otherwise not included, in that we're not an arbitrary list of links.  The "further reading" section is a bibliography.  With the battle of waterloo, it is not clear whether "References" is truly references (in which case the article is using the relatively uncommon Harvard Citation method, or it mixes in uncited bibliography works as well.  The further reading is, then, a bibliography too.  I can't tell from looking at that whehter there are any external links proper.  The genocide article suffers from an occasional problem, the mixing of different reference styles - it has both "references" and "footnotes" (which are a reference or note section).  The "Further reading" is again, a bibliography, but the "research programs" subsection is really an external links section and should be evaluated (and possibly pruned) as such.  Some of the overviews are external links as well, and some should probably be removed per the el guideline.  None of these argue for why "External Links" should be renamed or the standards changed.  WP:V does not apply directly to external links.  It never has.  It"s for verifying article content on Wikipedia, not the content that may be found other places on the web.Wikidemo 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me where in the content policies it says that any specific section of an article is exempt from the content policies. FYI the Waterloo article uses references for those articles and books that are cited in the article, but as the citations come in any old order (and there is a limit on space) the cited sources (particularly those cited more than once) are listed  alphabetically in the references section. As to your comment "Those articles are all nonstandard and don't follow the typical Wikipedia article format" I am suggesting a change in this guideline to bring it closer to that of WP:CITE, because this guideline is out of kilter with what happens in many articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exempt, inapplicable.  I'm not going to get into how rules work but verifiability covers article content.  The external links guideline covers external links.  That's a longstanding (1+ year) and broadly accepted distinction.  The norm is for external links to be a distinct section of....well, you can read the guideline for what's in that section.  Putting external links anywhere else, calling them something else, or putting sources/references or bibliographical links in external links doesn't seem to be very common and seems to run against that guideline. If anything, this guideline ought to indicate which article sections are almost universal for articles (see also, references, external links), and which ones are optional, or deprecated but allowed (bibliography, notes, further reading, etc).  There's also a question of whether we should even have further reading and bibliography sections if they aren't used in the article, with all the emphasis against link farms and random collections of data.  I don't see the harm but some people might object to the untidiness Wikidemo 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's true, "Further Reading" refers only to something readable but the Internet and today's publications are multimedia, including pics, videos, audio, visualizations, or clickable demos. Maybe "More Information" would be the better name for the section.--Mic-ro 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "External links" is the better name for the section. It is accurate, clear, accepted by long-standing convention, and well understood. There is no problem here that needs fixing. Finell (Talk) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to change External links section to Further reading 

message: I think this is important to clarify, as it can lead to articles being unstable, and having a clear guideline will improve the usability of WP. 82.71.48.158 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to select a format and stick with it, or at least stick with it for as long as it doesn't seem broke. I'm not much for changing the layout guide, because that means after changing it, all other articles on Wikipedia should be changed to reflect the new format, and not every editor keeps up with the changes. After getting used to things being outlined a certain way, it's not that easy to want change and sometimes not that easy to get used to change. Flyer22 08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed: See also - alphabetical ordering by first name or surname? 

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

message: Threeafterthree is misinterpreting this guideline to mean that See also sections shouldn't exist. His reasoning is that, either the link is already in the article, and therefore he deletes it; or it should be in the article, and therefore he deletes it until he can find a way to work it in. He is going through articles removing the See also sections based on this reasoning.
In fact, it's fine to have See alsos that are related to the article without being mentioned within it. That, indeed, is the whole point of the See also section. I'm therefore removing the following:
:"Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section"
because it's this part of the guideline that is confusing him. But he is reverting my removal of it.
Does anyone else have a view? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to "clean up" articles by removing articles fron the See also section of articles that have already been linked to in the article per this guideline. Now an editor who disagrees with this has come here and changed this guideline to support his/her opinion of how this section should work. Can we please discuss this change here first? The guideline seems to make alot of sense as written. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Tom, you are removing links that are not in the article, on the grounds that they ought to be in it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I removed the links since they were already linked at the bottom of the article. I then added them back saying that I would try to add them to the article per the guidelines over the next couple of days. You then came here and edited this guideline to support your position. I have now removed them again since you said the article was going to get a major rewrite and it wasn't worth arguing over. --Tom (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, here. I'd really appreciate some other input here, as I find it hard to cope with this kind of editing without resorting to a tone of "voice" I recently decided I'm not going to engage in anymore. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feelings on the removal of the See also sections is that a See also section should not be removed until its link or links are already internal-linked within the article. In some cases, there is no way to internal-link a See also link or links within the significant body of the article, and in those cases...the See also section and its links that cannot be incorporated into the significant body of the article should remain as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but that's not what you're doing. Here you removed the section, even though neither of these links is in the article, but both have direct relevance. And it's the third time (or so) that you've removed it, citing this guideline. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted that since there is an ongoing disagreement.What is up with changing the title of the discussion here and inserting your comments in front of mine?--Tom (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reverting on that particular article, but could you address the broader point? You can't go around removing See also sections just because you think the links ought to be in the article. If they're not, they're not, and links can't always be forced in, and shouldn't always be forced in. Sometimes it's a good thing to draw people's attention to internal links that are related to the article, but not in a way that dictates they be included in it. That is the whole point of See also sections. The part of this guideline that implies otherwise does need to be removed, if that's how you're reading it -- or reworded in some way. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again Slim, I have ONLY been removing links inside of See also sections that are linked higher up in the article. The Mann article was an exception since we went back and forth. Please review my edit history and you will see that is the case. I understand the guideline as it is currently written and agree with it. Basically See also links are relevent articles that have not been incorporated into the article YET. Once and if they can be worked into the main article, the See also should be depopulated and removed. If a See also link is already linked in the article it should be definately removed, correct? Anyways, maybe if necessary that section of the guideline could be rewritten here and consensus reached on the best wording? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: If a Section has subsections, should all the see also links go at the beginning of the main section rather than under the subsection heading where they apply?  An example is here  where the subsections printing and photography have main articles link under the header. I was told they all have to go at the top of the main section but this seems a bit confusing and less clear than the way they are currently. However, the guildeline on the page just says "section" with no reference for what to do with subsections. Thank you. pschemp | talk 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they can go under the subsection headings that they're most relevant to. That's the way I do it anyway. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about see also links 

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

message: I'd like clarification on a point in order to (hopefully) put an end to an incredibly slow edit war.  Note 2 under the section "Standard appendices and descriptions appears to suggest "Notes and references" is the recommended heading for footnotes which are both comments and citations, yet the paragraph under "Notes" gives an example of a citation which is headed "Notes".  (And then there's the further confusion supplied by Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes, which I see has already been brought up.)
Question is simple: Given that its footnotes are both citations and commentary, should Regina's historic buildings and precincts have "Notes and references" or just "Notes"? --Sturm 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about inline citations 

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

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

message: I don't understand the current suggested default ordering. It seems to me that the default ordering should go specific -> related, whereas we're going specific, related, specific, which seems a bit odd.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the "See also" section comes before "Notes", "References", and "External links" due to the fact that it contains internal rather than external links. In other words, it directs readers to other articles within Wikipedia rather than to external websites. – Black Falcon (Talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That effectively is saying that the wikipedia is more important than the topic, that we should reference ourselves, rather than reference according to the needs of the topic. Shouldn't importance refer to the topic, since the article is about a particular topic, and the contents of 'see also' is inevitably peripheral to the topic?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just saying to the reader at the end of the article, "Now that you're here, you might also want to see this and this on the same site." Then we move on to what's on other sites. The order has been that way ever since I started editing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an advert. Great, so the wikipedia has advertising breaks in the middle of the article, by policy... ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also share Wolfkeeper's skepticism. If we say that See also should come before References because it points to internal pages, wouldn't that also justify placing stubs and navboxes above external links? Keeping in mind of course, that navboxes generally replace overgrown See also sections -- why does putting them in a box cause them to move down the article? There doesn't seem to be much logic in this ordering -- especially since the internal links of a stub/navbox are listed under External links. I'd also agree that Notes/References, which pertain to the article at hand, should be located closer to the article's content than a section that explicitly points outside the article (not all Notes/References do). It's strange to have to skip over See also every time you click on a footnote link. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that much of a hassle to skip over the See also section every time you click on a footnote or a reference, since clicking on a footnote or reference skips over it for you. Anyway, I've thought of the points you've brought up as well, but still see logic in the way the layout for the See also section already is. Plus, changes like this are a hassle, because it means that we'd then have to change a lot of articles accordingly. And there's plenty of editors who won't be aware of the new placement for the See also section, if this were to take effect, unless they somehow get word. It's not like most editors check the layout format constantly, not when the layout guide is not supposed to be something that constantly changes. Some aren't even aware of the exact proper formatting for the layout guide anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's really a problem, plenty of things aren't done right anyway; maybe it's more a question of what the reader really wants, I suppose in most cases they would be more interested in 'see also' sections than the references, so it makes more sense for the reader to have see also first.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The Guide does allow some change of the order of the bottom sections.  The Layout Guide, standard appendices shows the order of standard appendices as See also, Notes/references, External links & navboxes, but the Note 1 says that order can be changed as long as the Notes precede References. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also should go in the middle? 

message: [ proposed version]
The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Links already included in the body of the text, particularly in the lead, are generally not repeated in See also, but they may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.
# Regardless of any behavioral issues, this is in my opinion a good change. —Random832 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In favor of change

message: [ current version]
Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist.
#I think the current wording, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" is more appropriate.  We do not want to run the risk of encouraging a link farm in the See Also section. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Against change

message: *Just so I understand clearly, the proposal here changes the order of the sentences/phrasing a bit, and adds:
::". . .but they (See Also links) may be repeated if they are particularly helpful, interesting, or relevant, and not otherwise easy to notice."
:the above is an argument to be made for inclusion of a 'See Also link', but is it necessary to suggest arguments in the guideline itself?  I don't see the necessity for this change and still think that the current wording is fine because it discourages link farms while explicitly permitting the addition of links when merited.  But it's hard for me to get worked up over this either way.  R. Baley (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed by its very nature the current version allows see also links to be added as a rarity, while the former version invites it.  The change is minor, but is it significant?  Stick with the old.  WLU (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The "See also" section provides an additional list of related internal links to other articles in Wikipedia.  As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist, and a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between them can be measured in mustard seeds.  I come down on a side that discourages duplicating links in the see also.  I'd say 'current version' is preferable, but either of these are OK to me.  WLU (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It looks like the actual content dispute that sparked this was someone removing links from See Also because they were present in a navbox. Should navboxes be considered "article text" for purposes of this guideline? —Random832 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As with the rest of this guideline, common sense and rule of thumb apply.  If something is important enough to be needed in See also, and doesn't have a place in a nav template, then it should be worked into the article.  If something is already linked in a nav template, there's often little reason for it to be in See also as well.  (My samples supporting this view are the autism and Asperger syndrome articles, and  and the entire series of articles relating to ; there are numerous links in the nav templates which don't need to be repeated in See also.  A navigational template more than serves the purpose of leading the reader to related topics.  If they are significant enough to be mentioned, they are already in the article.) On the other hand, there are probably common sense exceptions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A navbox places a fair amount of emphasis on anything contained therein - it is by nature a large box saying "These topics are all related in a particular way, and here is the structure".  I'd say it's more useful than a generically alphabetized see also section because of the structure inherent to all navboxes, and accordingly would not need to be duplicated in the see also section.  If it's major, it should be embedded as well.  If it's not, it shouldn't be repeated in a see also as well as a navbox.  If it's somewhere in between and not embedded, that's when a discussion should take place.  WLU (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Banner blindness. The fact that SlimVirgin, in describing the other user's actions, didn't even realize the links were present at all would seem to support my point. —Random832 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely different kind of banner (advertising).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  From the article: The information that was overlooked was both external advertisement banners and internal navigational banners like e.g. quick links.  (emphasis mine). And, anyway - I don't agree that "it should be embedded as well" is valid if it is _not_ at present time embedded. —Random832 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is, if the link is highly relevant to the page it is on, it should be linked somewhere already.  If not, this suggests to me that the page content requires expanding to include the link's topic to show that it is relevant to the page.  Banner blindness is something worth thinking about and it seems like there is value in discussing.  I'm tempted to argue that given what wikipedia is and the uniformity of many aspects of various page, people may seek out navboxes rather than tune them out, once readers realize what they are.  But I'm sure that's what web designers use to comfort themselves as they drift of to sleep.  We need Benway and Lane to do a study of wikipedia... Wouldn see also sections themselves result in a form of banner blindness?  They are akin to quicklinks for wikipages after all.  WLU (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A side issue 

message: This style guideline currently says:
Numerous Wikipedia articles have sections (often named References) which contain alphabetized lists of works cited in the article and which also contain sections (often named Notes) containing both footnotes and links to internal and/or external URLs and/or unlinked citations of external works (e.g., Book of Mormon, Bengali language, Brabham, Brigham Young — just a few examples turned up by searching for pages which link to ). Should this guideline be modified so as not to disallow both notes and references in sections named Notes?  If not, then what? Should such articles have all of this material in one section headed Notes and References? If so, what about the myriad of existing articles such as those mentioned previously which do not follow this convention? Personally, I would favor not disallowing the common current practice of placing both notes and references in a section named Notes. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that language is only referring to situations where two footnote systems are used to create separate sections for content footnotes and citations; even in those situations I'm not sure the rule is widely followed. The system you describe is in wide use, and the text on the guideline should be adjusted to reflect existing practices. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Citing sources guideline seems to disagree with this one; they should be harmonized. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at the featured article for today you will see that it only contains footnote style reference and this becoming the standard expectation at Wikipedia:Featured articles.  If you are going to build towards a FA article (and we are all doing that I hope) that includes footnote notes, you don't have any choice but to combine References and Notes. There is no way I am aware of to use  to populate a reference section and notes section seperately. Jeepday (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case being discussed here, the References section would contain a list of works, and Notes would contain the citations, made using <ref> or another footnote technology. Only the Notes section is populated with inline citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some articles split annotations and citations and list of works, and so need three section headers. That can mean "Notes" for the annotations, "Citations" for citations and "References" for the works, but I've also seen "References" for citations, and "Works cited" or even "Bibliography" for the works. Gimmetrow 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notes" 

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

message: SandyGeorgia points out that the text "Notes" contains footnotes of source citations or commentary for matter within the main text that are created with the <ref> tags. is not correct. I would like to fix that error but, in light of the flurry of exchanges I have had with Sandy and others, I hesitate to do that without "consensus." So, how's this for an alternative: "Notes" contains footnotes of source citations or commentary for matter within the main text that are created with embedded tags, such as the <ref> tag. If you don't like this change please suggest a better correction. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problems with that wording, but I'm not sure Tony will be pleased with words like "matter"; he may wordsmith it more.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, please remove "for matter" and it works OK. TONY (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I am properly browbeaten at this point, so I'll do a lot more talking before I edit. Here is one thought that might accomplish the goal of giving the reader a hint that "Notes" is a term of art without adding any text: putting in a link to the explanation that follows, i.e., changing "Notes" to "Notes". Would that not interfere with your work too much? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know, and my problem is that my time is going to rapidly tighten over the next two weeks. Can you hold off for a little while, or offer comments on the copy-editing I do over the weekend? I didn't mean to elbow you out: you're much more familiar with this territory than I am, so please stay around. TONY (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect that I am not at all as familiar as you are regarding this territory. Regardless, I will honor your request. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop me before I edit again. 

message: "Certain optional standard sections should be added at the bottom of an article." "Optional" and "should be added" appear to conflict.
"Changing section names breaks links, so it is best not to change already-established article section names." So, for example, "Reference" should not be changed to "References"?? Surely this sentence should be deleted. Nurg (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, should is a problem, but apparently it's always been there.  All of those sections (except References on FAs) are optional.  Agree with deletion of sentence about changing names.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means to say that the sections are optional, but their location is not:  ==See also== does not belong at the top of an article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right. How about "Certain optional standard sections go at the bottom of an article."? Nurg (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, perhaps, "Certain optional standard sections may be added at the bottom of an article."? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "Certain optional standard sections, when used, should be placed at the bottom of an article." (Better than my first suggestion.) Nurg (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've deleted the sentence about changing names and put in my last suggestion. Nurg (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First para of "Standard appendices and descriptions" 

message: Lead section? I find it strange that the text then refers to "the first section" as the one coming after this. Is there a problem in just calling it "the lead"? TONY (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, our article calls it Wikipedia:Lead section.  Even though it's not properly a "section".  <sigh> ... Sometimes I hate these pages; one battle at a time.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a section. It is "one of the portions into which a thing is cut or divided" (OED). "Lead section" is more readily understandable than simply "lead". I suggest "the first section" should be changed. Nurg (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps, "the first section after the lead"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, "section" appears to refer to text under a heading or subheading. The lead has no such heading, not even "Introduction". The proof of the pudding is that the ToC lists No. 1 as not the lead but the first "headinged" section. It is indeed strange to call the lead a section when it appears above the ToC and is neither numbered or present in the ToC. TONY (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only strange in certain dialects of Wikienglish. The Wikipedia:Lead section guideline uses real English. ;-) Nurg (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A matter of logic rather than dialect or variety of English. I'd already posted a query there suggesting a name change. It's slightly fuzzy to the newcomers. TONY (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By Nurg's logic, from now on, everyone's banned from using "sentence" (jail sentence) and period (period of time). TONY (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section terminology