Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Layout archive

message: What constitutes the definition of "major intersection" as utilized in the interstate infobox? There's a little back and forth editing at Interstate 80 in Nebraska and I just wanted some clarity on the style rule there. • Freechild'sup? 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On state specific interstate articles I would say only intersections with other freeways, but keep it to less than 10 max.  So if you have to start cutting them, cut state highways first, than US highways, than 3 digit interstates.  Bottom line, if it's not a freeway, it shouldn't be in an interstate's infobox.  --Holderca1 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major intersections

message: Rschen7754 has brought it to my attention that some members of this project may not be following the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings. In particular the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style#References may need to be realigned with Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Place the  tag or  tag  in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here. (The choice between  and  is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule.)
For more detail see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading.  I note that the heading "References" is an ambiguous heading being used for either footnotes or general references or both.  Personally, I seldom use the "Reference" heading except for the 1911 template and foreign Wikipedia as source template. I hope that this is considered as a constructive comment. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I personally prefer "References" because it's less ambiguous, referring only to citations of sources. I avoid "Notes" and "Footnotes" because those seem to me to refer to things that you'd see set off in a book by asterisks or superscript numbers, which I don't think I've ever used, really. "Notes" is sometimes used as a holder for bullet points that don't fit in somewhere else, but as those are discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines anyway, they'll gradually disappear as articles are rehabilitated. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Scott, I pretty much use "References" exclusively since it is pretty clear as to what goes there.  I have used the notes section for footnotes in list articles but not to list a reference but to make a not about an entry in a list.  --Holderca1 talk 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am talking about the ambiguity of the use of the field References.  Some editors put their footnotes there and others put the alphabetical, or chronological, list of references there as one would at the end of a scientific paper.  Some editors mix their list of references and their footnotes together. The Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout presents a very clear picture of best practices. --Bejnar (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay, I misunderstood, yes the References section should only list the references cited in the article, any foot notes should be put in a notes section.  I do look for that during our A-Class reviews.  --Holderca1 talk 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References/Notes