Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 3

message: Please stop capping talk page discussions on guideline and policy pages.  Doing so renders the page unsearchable.  If the discussion has run its course, it can be archived; that is the purpose of archives.  Capping other people's commentary is disruptive and means one cannot come back to the page to search for particular comments.  Please remove the caps and use archives as intended.  I've already uncapped comments that I made, and that were capped by someone else, and now they have been recapped.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you meant that the problem with capping arose after the section was archived. I still think the benefit of keeping the page clean outweighs the cost of losing the ability to searh. But I'll defer to you on this one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always use a subsection to break things up.  ===Arbitrary break 1=== makes editing easier while keeping everything visible.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: My edit with the summary "'Notes and references' - needs to be made clear, as it's often ignored" was reverted on the basis "Redundant, the page already states that they may be combined". My whole point is that it needs to be emphasised as it does not stand out and gets easily lost. This is obviously the case because of all the articles that fail to follow it. I suggest it is reinstated for the reason I gave. Ty 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that, somewhere, more guidance should be given regarding the sections containing citations and comments. However, as you may note at Wikipedia talk:Layout#Defer this issue to WP:Cite?, the folks on this page are currently discussing leaving that task to other pages. I respectfully suggest that we should resolve that question before we spend much more time discussing how we should modify this page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We were actually going to address that in #Draft implementation right after we get though with the General format section. Don't worry, I believe your proposal will be implemented right after we finish delving through all the other issues; such as placing emphasis on an Outline oriented method of referencing or a Section oriented method of referencing — and in your case a Combined reduction method of referencing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree; the text belongs primarily at WP:CITE, and if anything, should be briefly summarized here (as it already is).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Once again, CC, you use the word "we." That would be you and who else? As far as I know "we" are talking about (a) removing the Links section and (b) changing the text in the Notes and References sections to a very brief summary (supported by links to articles with more depth). At some point I suggested that, in the future, we might want to look at turning the Images and Dividing line sections into subsections of another section. You, and you alone, then proposed a substantial re-write based on that suggestion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notes and references" needs more prominence

message: Could someone look at this sentence... I'm surprised we make this recommendation. "If you are dealing with controversial issues, it is useful to point out which sources take which stance, and maybe separate the links by proponents and critics."  I don't see how this would help a controversial article just as creating a separate pro / con article structure would not help. This statement seems out of place and while not exactly the same, it could rub against WP:NPOV#Article structure, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section. Morphh  (talk) 2:32, 06 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that's in here, don't know how it came to be here, and needs to go.  Sheesh.  That's why we need to stop content overlap on guideline pages and adopt a minimalist approach.  Who knows how that got there, embarrassing.  Keeping up with this page is becoming a chore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was added way back in May 2006 by RockOfVictory.  It should be removed.  Such arrangement would be based on editor opinion with regard to the source's "bias", which seems inappropriate.  This could have issues in areas like Poisoning the well, Guilt by association, or just a pejorative implication.  Morphh  (talk) 3:11, 06 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of these MoS pages are just badly out of control and out of sync with other pages, and I'm constantly battling to keep them from expanding and becoming worse.  Two of us agree it should go; third editor who concurs should just delete it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It's deleted. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you fixed that.  I suspect that the editor may have been thinking of WP:EL, where that practice is relatively common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References & controversial issues

message: This is in a way the heart of our discussion, here are the elements we appear to be pursuing:
* Minimalist (no instruction creep)
* Notes and References (occurs when the referencing sections are too small to be effectively used by the other methods)
* Outline Oriented design (Notes and Bibliography are subsections under References)
* Section Oriented design (Footnotes and References as separated second-level sections)
* Notes, References, and Bibliography (see Jane Austen)
Before we begin to draft its replacement, are there any other elements we wish to include? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about drafting a replacement for the Notes and References sections? If so then that discussion is already taking place at Wikipedia talk:Layout#Defer this issue to WP:Cite?. Please don't complicate things by starting a parallel discussion here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: The term references generally applies to all sources of information whereas, notes can clearly be linked to foot/endnotes. A refinement of the term to allow a bibliographical listing (bibliography) is often made within the overall usage of references and further reading. The last term is the ambiguous one in that it implies that the information is in addition to that provided, or leaves the impression that it may be of use to the reader. The format that has been adapted for some articles is to place all sources of information under the general heading (L2) of References, and then define other sources below including: Citations, Notes (End/Footnotes), a Bibliography and if needed, Further reading. Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplicate of multiple sections already discussing this here and at WP:CITE.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: To elaborate a bit on Sandy's response for Bzuk's benefit: As demonstrated above, it is clear that (1) there is no consensus regarding what to name sections containing citations and comments and (2) it is unlikely that any consensus will emerge in the forseeable future. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means that what currently stands on WP:LAYOUT is the current consensus until changed. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we are not likely to have a consensus on the preferred approach, however in an effort to at least one day achieve a consensus we may state known methods and also that there may also be other methods. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason for that I suspect is that the current system has evolved over time. The bulk of articles on WP actually follow it. The older and older Wikipedia gets, the more articles there are which would have to be changed if the system were modified. The current system is completely functional and understood. Most arguments to change it are based on personal preference "it looks better to me this way" and in no way really increase functionality. There are no gains and in some proposals loss of clarity (for example, using "Bibliography" for things other than works written by the subject of the article). With no value gained, it is unlikely to gain a consensus. Most see no valid reasons to mess with something that is working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that consensus is certainly an elusive target but a number of articles have now "passed muster" with the idea of grouping sources of information under a heading of references, which is still an imprecise term but it does represent all forms of resources. The term "bibliography" for example is now accepted as a bibliographical listing of resources. In the strictest sense, it is a listing of all resources used to create a work. Some editors continue to apply a policy of only including those references that are actually cited, but that is okay, although other editors who read or refer to materials then list them in the bibliography have taken a slightly different "tact." I have even noted that some editors have further refined the notion of citations compared to footnotes, see Battle of Britain for a carefully developed article that uses this format. FWiW, it's an interesting topic and is a highly evolving one that needs continuous discourse. Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and this is the place to have that discourse to get changes in the current guidelines. Good luck. Wednesday Next (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (For what it is worth: The exchanges between Bzuk and Wednesday appear to be a continuation of a discussion that began elsewhere, e.g. User talk:Bzuk#Standard Appendices. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps we should be centralize the issue into a single section. Butwhatdoiknow in gave a referral to #Defer this issue to WP:Cite? in #Referencing — although the title is not entirely accurate we can centralized there. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous terminology in use of references

message: ::::The proposal of rewriting the links section is continued below.
I'd prefer to keep the discussion here, thank you. (The jump leads to a discussion regarding the Images and Dividing sections.) The topic here is whether the Links sectioin should be removed or moved. If it is going to be removed then we don't need to spend any time talking about re-writing. I am voting for remove and, I think, so is Sandy (halfheartedly) and WhatamI. So far only CC is voting for moving. Anyone else care to chime in? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not voting for moving it. The discussion above involves removing the pre-7-August Links section; the one below discusses a potentially new rewritten one — we decided that the pre-7-August Links section contains instruction creep and that the best course of action would be remove it and to start with a new proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure who makes up the "we" in your statement that "we decided ... to start with a new proposal." As near as I can tell, you are the only person still advocating inicluding text regarding linking somewhere in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are deleting the Links section because it contains an unacceptable amount of instruction creep. I am advocating that we write a new section regarding where links are to be placed since that may be a hole in our policy page. My mistake, and sorry, I shouldn't have hooked the last statement onto the previous. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To delete or not to delete

message: ::Although WhatamIdoing is characterizing a bibliography as a random list of sources, I am confident that authors who list sources do not do them for frivolous reasons. The "for further reading" list appears to be sending out that message: "here is a list of works that may be of use, since they are not cited, but I thought you might want to read them anyway?" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised. People spam books into reference lists all them time. Some publishers even have PR people doing it. Typically if somebody adds a book under "References" without adding text to the article, it is moved to "Further reading" if appropriate to the article or completely removed if not. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall having characterized anything as a "random list of sources".  Bzuk, did you mean to start this conversation here?  This discussion is about whether or not a book listed as a reference, without any indication about which facts refer to it, makes sense in a fully developed article.  Elephant was used as the example here.  There's a sentence in it that says, "An elephant can sink deep into mud, but can pull its legs out readily because its feet become smaller when they are lifted."  Until recently, there were three "general references" that might, or might not, support any and all facts in the article -- but of course no one would know, because the sources weren't matched with any facts in particular.  Do you have an opinion on this issue?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should defer the issue over which words most naturally defines References, Further reading, Bibliography, and so forth in #Bibliography vs. References. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reopening?

message: WP:GTL says the Commons link always must be at the bottom at the external links, but why? The article Interstate 70 in Utah among others has the Commons link inside the infobox, and this is how I prefer to do it too, but not if it will be against policy. CL — 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had some issues in rewriting the Standard appendices, which has become badly out of date. Usually I see them in the See also rather than External links or infobox since they are part of Wikimedia. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically, it's not set in stone but in general it shouldn't be in the infobox is what I'm understanding - CL — 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's most commonly placed in "External links".  "See also" is a less common, but not entirely unreasonable choice.  Certainly the infobox would be a strange place to put that link.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think there are often good reasons to put the sister project boxes earlier in the article, often near the top. Examples in my view include: (1) articles about news events which are also covered on Wikinews, (2) articles about documents whose text is found on Wikisource, (3) articles about artists or visual artworks whose content may being viewed at Commons, and probably others. I think the guidance given here is normally correct however, and these exceptions represent the normal exceptions that will exist for any guideline. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons link location 

message: I have recently put forward the definition that is most prevalent about "references" in that layout states "This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article" with the additional notation "sometimes called a bibliography." That is the way that a bibliography is also defined, as a "list of the references that support the information." See a large number of definitions derived from contemporary dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Columbia and a host of others. It is not the only definition for the term but it is what editors are often referring to as "references." Can others weigh in on this change in order to see if there is a consensus for the additional statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in WP:CITE#Use of terms.  Usually on Wikipedia Bibliography is either used for a the subject of a biography's own work or for a list of further reading books. It  may be desirable to change this in Wikipedia, but at the moment I think to many changes are happening too fast to this guideline.   --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, read up a few sections forward where the term bibliography is defined, it appears to be the way most people use the term "references" when editors were really talking about a list of reference sources, which is most often described as a "bibliography." FWiW, this is the exact quote: "The terms Further Reading, External links or Bibliography are used as section headings in Wikipedia articles for lists of additional general texts on a topic for those interested, rather than for citations supporting the article." Where I see the variance is that a bibliography is not for additional sources but for the sources used in creating an article. Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bzuk, I know that you personally would like to see the list of sources used to support the article called a Bibliography instead of References.  My seventh grade teacher had the same opinion, and it is certainly a standard with a centuries-long tradition behind it.  But this is not the convention on Wikipedia, as you have been told repeatedly.  Wikipedia, according to the practical consensus of what its thousands of international editors have done, has overall preferred to reserve Bibliography for a collected list of an author's publications.  I do not tell you that this is Right™ or the Only True Approach™ -- I only tell you that this convention is so widespread as to form a strong consensus, and that I do not, and will not, support changing the existing convention.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the terminology, notwithstanding, has no bearing on the usage as applied by Wikipedia editors. The term "references" is already being used to identify a list of sources, which is why the terminolgy "notes and references" appeared. References are closer to the "notes" than anything else. It was a misnomer to keep the term and the use of "further reading" was then instituted with the proviso that it may also be known as a bibliography. A bibliography is a comprehensive source list. Any terms that are in use need clear definitions and both "references" and "bibliography" can be defined. A reference is a source of information (a note) while a bibliography is a fully noted list of sources of information. The authors of the section on citation, layout set up guidelines, not  hard-and-fast rules, to assist those making contributions to the project. These guidelines are evolving if you look at the recent efforts to have the autodate linking deprecated, this process is a slow and often tedious one. Arguing that conventional usage must be the deciding factor is not based on reality; the term "references" has already been appropriated for a list of sources, why not simply use the "conventional" reasoning and call it what it is. FWiW, I much prefer this type of discourse in order to allow a free flow of ideas and thoughts.  Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A new look at the term "references"

message: I reverted a good faith addition to the "See also" section because it's not universally true.  Some good articles have a lengthy list under "See also".  They tend to be introductory articles, and they use the "See also" section as a way to provide an orderly list of related topics.  Robot#See also is a good example of this approach.  There are more than three dozen linked articles (plus a category), but it's not an unreasonable list.  
For an alternate approach to navigation, compare that style to Medicine, which puts similar information into a template, .  The two styles are different -- but neither is "right" or "wrong".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my experience from Featured Articles that to become a FA, article's see also should be prunded down to few entries. Hence, in practice, good articles should have short see also's.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  05:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest the Robot article should be better developed, or that content could go to a navigational template or a list.  Medicine is out of whack as well; sister links go in external links, not See also.  Note that neither of those articles are at good articles standard (Robot needs to be delisted); both need a lot of work and content development, which partly explains why both have lengthy See also farms.  I think the current text already explains this, so I don't disagree with the revert (although all of this possibly could be made more clear).  Someone should deal with delisting Robot at GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, do you really see a practical difference for the interested reader between using See also to list three dozen related articles, and using a navigational template to list the same three dozen articles?  I'm sure we have our own stylistic preferences, but I see no content differences (beyond the fact that I routinely ignore navigational templates, but often look at articles linked in See also).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes; navigational templates are collapsible.  And we should be encouraging our best article writing, whereby articles worthy of mention are worked into the prose, not added as lists.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of See Also 

message: When there is a separate section, external links should be limited to the external links section.
I removed this because it's not accurate -- one, because external links are allowed in infoboxes, and, two, because convenience links to books in the "Further reading" section are also allowed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (August 2008) 

message: CC removed the notes anchor in the new "Notes and citations" section (at least that it what it is called at the moment), saying we cannot have two sections contain the same identifier. This will distrupt the ToC casuing any sections named "Notes" to jump to the first section with that identifier). But we had two sections with the identifier before we made the "big change" edit. And there are links from other pages to "notes" on this page that are not intended to go to the footnotes. I don't understand CC's comment about sections jumping in the table of contents. Perhaps if that was explained to me I would understand. Otherwise, I think we should restore the "notes" anchor. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Approaching this from a different direction, it is my understanding that (1) Wikitext generating section headings with a particular name produce an HTML Anchor element with that name as the element ID and, (2) HTML and XHTML require every instance of an ID attribute in a document to be unique (see e.g., this and this). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But what about the fact that, before the "big change," this article did have two "Notes" headings? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it would have generated HTML not compliant with the HTML spec, with undefined handling by the various browsers. In practice, browsers probably targeted either the first or the last occurrence of the ID matching the href rather than e.g., producing nasal demons. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you are still talking over my head. But I'll try to solve the problem with a work around. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Before the big change, I was wasn't paying attention to see if you guys had two sections with the same name. Therefore the identifier conflict went unnoticed. If you want a work around simply rename the Notes section (the one at the bottom of the page) to Footnotes, and return the anchor. An identifier is specified by the id="" attribute, it is used for section jumping. All sections (headings), all s, and all inline citations use identifiers to help specify a location within the document; it lets them jump to that part of the document when you click on an entry in the ToC, an inline-reference link, and so on. When you have two identifiers with the same name, you have an identifier conflict. By default the second of two identifiers is omitted. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a really poor way to solve the issue. Since the original Notes section (the one regarding the Standard appendices) was created, all links were redirected to that section rather than the Notes at the bottom. I don't believe that people would be interested in linking to the explanatory notes section of this article rather than the section regarding how Notes should be arranged. Therefore, I've renamed the Notes section at the bottom to Footnotes to avoid an identifier conflict, returned the anchor to the new section, and removed the piece of text at the bottom. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the notes anchor 

message: The first note in the header is the following: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Please discuss on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in doubt that my edits clarify the intention. Thanks for asking, though! Wednesday Next (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my suggested revision: "As explained in more detail at WP:MOS#Consistency, it is inappropriate to change an article from one defined style to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. However, edits which address deviations from written style guidelines are acceptable, given there are common sense examples and exceptions allowed." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This give carte blanche to idiosyncratic preferences billed as "improvements". Anyone should be able to conform an article to the style it appears to be based on without being attacked and edit warred against for undoing some idiosyncratic editor's preference. The intent is to choose between styles, like choosing between British and American English (explicit choices). If the article does not conform to some described variant listed in WP:LAYOUT for example, no editor should be made to feel wrong for correcting the variance, and certainly no other editor should edit war to reinstate some unlisted variant. They should either get consensus to get their variation included in the list, or give it up. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may surpsise you, but I agree with your contention about use of styles. Consensus for decision such as an editing style is important but that is often achieved on the article talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you don't seem to agree with me. I believe that choosing between existing styles can and should be done on article talk pages. I don't believe guidelines should be overridden on a per article basis by consensus. If a variant is not listed in any of the guidelines, anyone should be able to improve the article by making it consistent with one of the described styles. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can all possible variants and sub-styles ever be listed in one place? Guidelines expressly state that common sense and exceptions are permitted, given that a consensus can be arrived at. FWiW, your suggestion that all variances be referred to the layout or other guideline pages is not an expedient way of dealing with the issues. Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite practical. Anyone who opposes the correction of layout can point to the guideline which shows that the option used is in fact, one of the style option described. Then there would be no question that it is an accepted style. Easy. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are such that they are recommended but not carved in stone nor cast in concrete, they are guidelines that do not preclude common sense and exceptions. Editors who can make a case for an editing style and receive consensus from other interested/involved editors are abiding by the guidelines. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Treating guidelines this way is counter-productive. The guidelines allow for some defined variances. Otherwise, consistency should take precedence. Arguments for changes and extension of guidelines should be made not on article pages, but on the guideline talk pages. Changes which are rejected should not be slipped in the back door elsewhere. For example, the substitution of "Bibliography" for "References" has been rejected here, for reasons of consistency with historical usage on Wikipedia, preference that it be used for an author's works on Wikipedia (avoiding having two sections with the same title), and avoiding the creation of extra work for no good reason. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines allow for variances, the fact that many users provide a reference list that is titled a "bibliogrpahy" is already established. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not defined or established by guideline. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Centralize comments in sub-article, see above note, but much too wordy at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ammendedment suggested by Butwhatdoiknow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline usage

message: There is an edit war over this addition to the Notes, Footnotes, and/or References section: However, edits which correct deviations from written style guidelines should not be reverted. I vote for leaving this text out of the Layout article. The intent of the current text is to provide a VERY short explanation and let the editor go to the Manual of Style page for details. This addition would be a detail and would begin the process of adding non-layout information to the Layout article. I suggest that Wednesday add this language to the Manual of Style article Consistency section instead of putting it in Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Centralize comments in sub-article, see above note, but much too wordy at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ammendedment suggested by Butwhatdoiknow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether to provide one example of a reason to change a Notes, Footnotes, and/or References style. 

message: I know self published sources falls under WP:V with regard to references, but what about the Further reading section.  If someone self-publishes a book on the subject, is it acceptable to put it here.  It would not seem to fall under source requirements as it's not being used as a source, but I wanted to hear if anyone has run into this question.  Thanks Morphh  (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's acceptable.  Think of "Further reading" as "External links on paper".  Of course, it would still have to pass muster with the other editors and actually be worth reading.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading question