Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 1

message: The following paragraph was on the page, but I find it unclear and unconvincing:
:While it may be preferable to use bullet points within a section instead of using sub-headings, bolded text should not be used; good HTML practice dictates that headers are marked up as such. This aids people using browsers which can highlight (or show only-) headings; blind people and others whose text readers can skip from heading to heading, search spiders such as Google's, and robots which may be used to automatically re-style Wikipedia in the future.
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)
thread_title: Subheadings

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''References'' vs. ''External Links'' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

message: 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===). 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)
replies: text: This only causes a problem if there is no space between the = and the < though  — PhilHibbs | talk 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on a header 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discographies? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I found the definition in Wikipedia:Glossary. I had searched this article for wikify whereas only the word wikified appears in the article. --Singkong2005 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify? 

message: :The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since these can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length.
Is it just me or is that statement just a little ironic? :) Justin 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Users may find bulleted lists most useful. They can print one out and use it as checklist (for example, to see what books are available in theschool library.)  Furthermore it is much easier to insert new titles into a bulleted list that is in alphabetical order.Rjensen 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes bulleted bibliographies don't work 

message: 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)
replies: text: It may have been placed by someone who expected to see every noun rendered in blue.  Or it may have been placed before the article was wikified at all, and no-one has since been WP:BOLD enough to remove the tag after some wikifying.  Article does still need some cleanup, but lack of wikilinks isn't the main concern, you're right.  Jkelly 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikify stubs? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Navigation” as standard appendix 

message: I thought we now have an excellent set of templates. patsw 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is citation style still debatable? 

message: 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
# There really aren't that many links; it's just disorganized.
# Most of the topics branch in different directions, and grouping them would result in too many catergories. This also clutters up the user interface.
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)
thread_title:  Alphabetizing (and otherwise arranging) "See also" sections? 

message: 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?):
:After the entire text of the article (including the References, See also, and External links sections), the order should be: templates (for stubs and the like), then categories, then interwiki links.
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)
replies: text: Stub tags go better at the very end, else the stub category is placed first, which is contrary to the common practice of putting most important categories first. Also stub tags need 2 clear newlines before them, else they become appended to the preceding text, this looks messy unless they are at the very end. Martin 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of templates, categories, and interwiki links 

message: 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)
replies: text: I Agree completely. -Quiddity 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the uses I've seen of "bibliography" were for books written by the article's subject. I certainly wouldn't mind seing "further reading" the actual recommended form. Circeus 00:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See for example the end of history of mathematics.  There is a section for references and a "bibliography" section, which I took to mean the same thing and combined, before reading the rest of this guide to layout. —Mets501 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bibliography is what most users want. They can print it our and use as a checklist against their local library, for example. Therefore it is necessary to include all books users should know about. This will mean duplication with the Notes, but that will help, not harm users. Rjensen 04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading/Bibliography 

message: Adding the shortcut "WP:LAYOUT" for this page seems intuitive and appropriate IMO. Objections? -- intgr 11:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's good.  I'll add that.  —Mets501 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LAYOUT shortcut? 

message: 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  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 .  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)
replies: text: This places the layout under the control of the page author rather than the skin the user applies. As such, I think it should be avoided except in cases where it is absolutely required. What's the compelling reason? If it's purely your own aesthetic, then just use a skin that modifies the placement the way you like. -Harmil 05:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{TOCleft}} vs {{TOCright}}</nowiki> 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Horizontal dividing line" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The navigation boxes also typically show up immediately after the last external link. When I started editing, I wanted to put a horizontal divider bar there, and I have seen many editors put blank lines to separate them. A section heading might work. Gimmetrow 16:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation as a standard appendix 

message: 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)
replies: text: short annotations of the books and articles are a very good idea--Encarta and Ency Britannica both do it. The editors have knowledge of the books that should be shared with users. (To actually get a book or article the user may have to go through inter-library loan, or purchase, and the annotations will help decide which ones to obtain. Rjensen 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading, comments? 

message: I have a bit of a problem with writing up a list of items in "References", ie. as opposed to using example 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.
:You can do both.  Cite each source in a footnote using an abbreviated form.Give the full source in the references. For example Michel & Herget, p. 191. refers to:
:==References==
:* Anthony N. Michel and Charles J. Herget, Applied Algebra and Functional Analysis, Dover, 1993.
:--Jtir 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, the wikimedia software could automatically generate links, in both directions, between footnotes and references.--Jtir 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General references 

message: 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)
replies: text: D'oh, missed this by months which is annoying as the see also sections are a real bugbear for me because they're horrendously non-user friendly. MLA 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "See Also: Wikilink Dump" format hides information from novice users 

message: 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. — Deckiller 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a complete free for all as far as article space is concerned. I don't think even the Featured Articles agree. And even myself I switch back and forth. There isn't even agreement on "proper" uses of references vs. notes vs templates content notes, which is part of the problem. That's why the guideline says "put them in whatever order, but keep 'notes' and 'references' together." Circeus 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the notes to be placed above the references because when the notes contain explicatory material, they act as a direct extension of the article information. And since the references don't have page numbers, they exist at a further remove from the text than notes which cite specific information to particular pages. For me, the material at the bottom of an article makes logical sense by moving further and further away from the specific until it ends up with external links. qp10qp 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uma Thurman is a specimin of a Featured article that places References as a subsection below Notes to enforce the connection between those two groups of content.  I cite this example not because it is authoritative but because it is interesting, and proof that an article can rise to Featured status using these methods. The Featured article The Turk also used an idiosyncratic grouping of both sections together and ran as a Featured article that way prior to the structural variation being noticed and reverted . Buddhipriya 22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's Featured article is Daniel_Webster#Bibliography which uses yet another variant format in which "Primary sources" are a subsection under "Bibliography".  In monitoring the current Featured articles I am getting the impression that there is much more acceptable variation in structure for Featured articles than the guideline would imply.  Buddhipriya 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't "References" go before "Notes"? 

message: On 12th July 2006, this guideline was (changed) to additionally say (wrt Lead section):
:Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points.
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)
replies: text: Strange stuff, don't know where it came from, but it doesn't belong there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is totally, totally wrong and unacceptable to recommend that we somehow force our readers into reading the whole article rather than just the intro. The intro should be a complete and accurate summary of the entire article. Stevage 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stevage (also Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep)--Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid links in the summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introductory Material description 

message: Today's featured article, The Turk used a format that I really liked:
References
*Notes
*Works cited
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)
replies: text: The naming conventions are already covered in WP:CITE. Specifically, notes go in "Notes" or "Footnotes" and a list of reference works goes in "References". There are over 1.75 million articles in Wikipedia. Do you propose to change them all? Yourself? IPSOS (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, I was just asking a question.  Since the above format was in today's featured article, I am trying to understand what is required versus what is recommended. Buddhipriya 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit comments. Remember that there are no emotional cues on Wikipedia or any other internet text format. I'm just trying to get the point across that the ordering and naming conventions being used have been here for some time. Changing them should not be based on personal preference, but on a real and compelling need. I don't believe such a need exists. Please don't take this personally, as I see you are inclined to do... IPSOS (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking if someone might be cranky is a personal attack? Please, GROW UP! - 68.53.215.89 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of subsections for "notes" and "works cited" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The reasoning behind the guideline is to avoid precisely the kind of See also link farms present in those articles.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As suggested  above, I think the reasoning behind the guideline is that the "See also" section is for specifically additional reading, not for general navigation to related articles. Navigation links can be handled by a navigation template, which would go at the bottom of the article. (Older articles, before navigation templates were common, often have the see also at the end.) Gimmetrow 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for comments on this.  I still have not heard a reason why it is undesirable to place key links in one place in the See also section even if they are used in the article.  The replies so far have been along the lines of "because that is how it should be done" rather than explaining benefits of doing it that way.  Can you refer me to some prior discussion on this which was shown to reach consensus that the present approach should be the way it is documented? Buddhipriya 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid "See also" link farms (which become obnoxious very quickly), and to encourage writers to incorporate links into the prose, which is better writing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. IPSOS (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should beef up the wording in the article to explain this better?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to avoid a "see also" link farm is to not have a "See also" section at all! Beyond that, blanketly stating that key links in the test can't be listed there is not a good idea. They should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as with all links in the section. The key links that readers might be interested in finding should be listed. If the list gets to be "obnoxious", then cut it back, like we do with evrything else on Wiki. - BillCJ 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you refer me to some prior discussion on this which was shown to reach consensus that the present approach should be the way it is documented?  I am not arguing with the current rule, I am just asking how we arrived at it.  Perhaps no one knows, which is an OK answer. Buddhipriya 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember, this is a guideline, not a "rule". Policies have to be followed; guidelines don't, if you have a good reason or consensus on the page to break them. - BillCJ 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  You'll just have to dig back into the archives of this page, I guess.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also and repetition of links in article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Notes and References completely ignored ?????  Whoa ... not when I'm reading.  Further reading and External links are extraneous.  References are important.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the thread on Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Order_of_appendices for similar debate on this question. The "Notes" are the footnotes that hold the citations to WP:RS, and thus are critical to the documentation of the article text.  The "References" (which I consider ill-named) is the list of "Works cited", that is, the sources which come up in the Notes.  Thus those two sections logically go together, and if you monitor the daily featured articles you will see a number of variant formats that appear trying to keep them together an explain their connection in ways that I personally think are superior to the current standard.  I am an avid reader of the Notes sections in particular, as the house is only as sound as the foundation upon which it rests.  Some of the articles appear at first glance to be well-referenced by footnotes, but when you examine the Notes many are dubious. Buddhipriya 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to join me in reviewing articles at WP:FAC :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a few days last week I was posting examples of variant formats that made it past the WP:FAC process.  I found it interesting that the articles made it to featured status despite glaring deviations from the orthodox views on these matters.  Some were reverted by orthodox Wikipedians when their genetic variation was noticed (after going on Feature status). Uma Thurman was a specimin of a Featured article that places See also before External links at the end.  That article also uses the interesting variant structure of putting References as a subsection below Notes to enforce the connection between those two groups of content.  I cite this example not because it is authoritative but because it is interesting, and proof that an article can rise to Featured status using these methods.  Perhaps someone has reverted it by now. A novel approach was used last week on Daniel_Webster#Bibliography for the Bibliography. Buddhipriya 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FAC isn't particularly vigilant when it comes to manual of style issues or reliable sources; I'm typically one of only a few reviewers checking for those issues.  And, the order of appendices is only a suggested guideline, so non-standard arrangements don't preclude featured status.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these manual of style issues appear to be suggestions and not laws, based on the evidence of what makes it past WP:FAC.  Buddhipriya 02:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As an editor, I agree with these points about documented sources.  As a reader, I'd like to get the goods upfront. Oh, well. - KSchutte 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, External links should go before References. --Gronky 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes.  See also is typically before Notes and References, because wikified content is preferable to off-Wiki content.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see prior discussions here for the close relationship between Notes and References, two sections which need to remain coordinated.  Notes is for footnotes, and References is a list of works cited in footnotes.  Various heterodox arrangements are used to enforce this connection and sometimes to label the sections more clearly, but these deviations are not recognized in the policy. Buddhipriya 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also after references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Aircraft 

message: 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 , , , , , , 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 ).  
</blockquote>
What's the problem with this lost section? -- by PTNFromm 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  InterWikimedia links 

message: 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 McKayuser talk 00:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles linked in the template aren't needed twice.  Ideally, articles should be linked directly in the text, and See also should be minimized.  A bigger problem with that article is the massive External link farm, which needs to be pruned per WP:EL and WP:NOT.  Looks like a free webhosting site.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section: "it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably, though I'm a bit confused as to why the title is "turnpike", but the article uses "turnpike roads". Also, consider bolding the appropriate parts.Circeus 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this enough context? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's far more complicated than you'd ever think, and bitter debates have occured before as to how to call them. "Notes" turned out to be the simplest solution.Circeus 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely "footnotes" are "footnotes" anything else is just more confusion awaiting to happen. For simpliest I assume you really mean most "dumbed down". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the debates over footnotes/notes/endnotes/whatevernotes occured at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. Circeus 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they never hit this subject head on if you look carefully the subject was more of the "are these References" type. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Plenty of published works use "notes" so I'm not sure why you describe the term as "lightweight". Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I read loads and never seen them used as footnotes and labelled "Notes". However I have seen plenty of notes at the end of a sentence, paragraph, illustration, map etc. But footnotes are footnotes regardless of what you might like to call them. "Fred" would do quite nicely as a name, but footnotes they remain. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when they aren't footnotes at all.  Try printing out an article with such markup; a brief glance should convince you that what you have are, in fact, endnotes rather than footnotes.  Indeed, I'd argue that, on a longer article, they're properly endnotes even when the article is read online; certainly, the ocurrence of dozens of sequentially-numbered footnotes in a single block is something not found in printed works. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, French publishers seem oddly fond of endnotes for books, something that is really infuriating to me. Circeus 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes? surely this should be "Footnotes" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed, see WP:LAYOUT.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple cite.php References tag occurrances 

message: 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?
:Sister links should be in External links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, in lieu (and in some want) of a better convention.  Done. Bob Stein - VisiBone 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also -- Wiktionary links? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've provided a third opinion.Circeus 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also - Ongoing dispute 

message: Specifically, on List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), should there be two sections or only one? --NE2 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When should references and notes be separated? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Bothers me too; if there's nothing to see, it shouldn't be in See also, rather a red link somewhere in the text.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Perhaps better than creating a dangling See-Also link would be to create a stub, then link to that.  Or is the material not even ready to become a proper stub?  Links to examples or other discussions would help. Bob Stein - VisiBone 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this edit in response to the discussion here. To repeat the points above, it's not all that helpful to a reader to be told to also see something that doesn't exist. Please revise the text as necessary. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" links pointing to nonexistent articles