Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposed revision to Notes, Footnotes, and References section

This information has got to go somewhere. If it's been rejected by the other guidelines, then I'm okay with sticking it back in here. Would you all please look at this draft and tell me what's missing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like what we have going in the draft if we used the technique presented above in the clarity lost discussion, where this is presented in a show/hide for more information box. The template could be placed on mulitple guides as to not be duplication. Morphh ^(talk) 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After my reply above (Regarding deletion of text), I figured I'd make my suggestions here.

Remove "Footnotes" from the header "Notes, Footnotes, and References". This is rarely used (oddly we use it here) and I don't see we should suggest it or include it as a header. It is not used on CITE or FOOT, which we seem to be using as a basis for what to include in this section. Just state "Notes and References" section. We can leave the term footnote in text as we reference the section.
Add to Location: "When both "Notes" and "References" sections are used, it is suggested that "Notes" be placed above "References".

Morphh ^(talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical note: "Footnotes" is used in this article because other pages link to "wp:layout#notes" because there used to be a subsection in this guide with the "Notes" title that discussed (rather than contained) notes. Now there is an anchor for "Notes" attached to the "Notes, Footnotes, and References" section. More, perhaps, than you wanted to know. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Morphh ^(talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"See also" for one section

The current version of this text is way off. First, it's not always a "see also" template; that terminology overlooks summary style, where the {{main}} template is used, which is completely different than when the other (further info and see also templates) are used. Second, the text doesn't explain the difference between the use of {{main}} for summary style and the other "further info" or "see also"-type templates. Third, "along with any {{Main}} templates" makes it seem like they're all "main" templates, again, not distinguishing that "main" is employed only when this article is a summary of another article using WP:SS. This is often a source of confusion on articles, where editors use main when they intended further info, and the article is not employing summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very pertinent points. Tony (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Still digging for how to fix it: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Layout doesn't even mention section templates, so I don't know why it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest confusion can be minimized by combining the two sections thusly:

Section templates and summary style

When a section is a summary of another article, it should have a link before the text (but after the section heading). You can use the {{Main}} template to generate a Main article: link.^[1]

If another article provides further information or additional details but not a full summary, references to articles that are not wikilinked from the text may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section. Such additional references should be grouped together at the beginning of the section, along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), for easy selection by the reader, rather than being scattered throughout the text of a section. You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:

{{Details}} - which generates For more details on this topic, see
{{Further}} - which generates Further information:
{{See also}} - which generates See also:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions: First, change "{{Main}} template to generate this link" to "{{Main}} template to generate a Main article: link." Second, change "along with any {{Main}} templates" to "along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one)." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; I don't usually make such changes, since my prose stinks. Added above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity lost

Somehow, this page (and in fact, as far as I can tell, all of the MoS pages) have lost all definition of and distinction among Notes, References, Bibliography and Further reading, such as we had way back when. And, I'm seeing the confusion show up in articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Layout, Cite, and Footnotes, each discuss this issue. We recently decided to have this article defer to the other two articles so that, at least, there would be only two (as opposed to three) different sets of "definitions and distinctions" on this topic. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But now it's not over there either. What a mess MoS is; now it's nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a large part of the problem is Wikipedia's decision not to adopt any one particular bibliographic/citation style (or at the very least, a default style with exceptions for particular subject areas where a different style may be more appropriate). Since there's little agreement between even the major styles, this confusion is reflected in our articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the old wording in the link I gave above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you do: I'm afraid that adding all of that wording here will just create future syncing problems with WP:CITE. The problem of duplication of text is an issue across all of the MoS pages, and I encourage that we work towards keeping the text in the "main-ish" place, and only linking to it on other guideline pages. It is a layout issue, but it is also primarily discussed at WP:CITE. Can we find a way to briefly summarize and link here, rather than re-writing this page and always needing to keep CITE and LAYOUT in sync? The summary here would say something along the lines of "many different methods of sorting notes, citations and comments, etc.", and then link to that page. And then we need to tackle that page, which is way out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The link I gave above was many months old; my post above was about more specific detail that was being introduced here (IIRC). We now have basic layout text nowhere. Layout, as in what we call the sections, belongs here. How we build each of those sections (that is specific detail on how to cite, etc.) belongs at CITE. All of these macro issues need to be worked out via a WikiProject view of these guideline pages. Bottom line now is that text we used to have here is now nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's better than nothing (which is what we seem to have right now). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there's something there. I think Sandy's just saying that it's too indifferent about how the sections should be used.

Sandy, you're saying that current section Notes, Footnotes, or References should be replaced with the old sections Notes and References, right? Or, at the least, rewritten along the same lines? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what Sandy is saying, but I definitely support that idea. There is a Notes or Footnotes section, and a References section, and they should be described individually under separate headings. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The text linked there has some glaring inaccuracies, particularly that "References" is often used as the title for the footnotes section where the full citations appear in the footnotes. What do you mean by you are seeing the confusion showing up in articles? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy that we've lost clarity on this section. I think we need to have some basics in there with regard to the layout of those sections. Notes has a bidirectional link to the source supporting the statement. References is usually a bullet list that generically supports the content in the article. I don't know that it needs to be split into other two sections or that examples are needed but it seems we should add some clarity to the recommended use of each. The footnotes section confuses this further as it uses both References and Notes in an example. Cite has it laid out properly in an example but confusing in the text. Under footnotes they say it is usually called References (where they link to Layout). I'm going to try to edit them to correct the inconsistancy but a brief one or two sentence statement here would clarify the point. Morphh ^(talk) 17:25, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

I corrected WP:CITE but I'm not sure what to do with WP:FOOT#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes, where the footnotes have footnotes. Morphh ^(talk) 19:19, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Christopher is right. The following featured articles all use the title References for the section containing citations in footnotes: Acrocanthosaurus, Acetic acid, Aggie Bonfire, 35 mm film, Ahmedabad and hundreds of others. Should these articles all be edited to conform to (the old version of) this guide? Or should the guides be edited to conform to the articles? (I don't really care one way or the other how these titles are used, however I do think it is important that the style guides accurately match our featured articles.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is correct usage when the footnotes contain the full reference rather than just author, date, and page number. The flaw of this style is that typically either page numbers are completely omitted or full citations are repeated multiple times with page numbers added. To describe this would entail making the "Notes" or "Footnotes" section optional. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the use in those FA articles is fine as there are not multiple sections. References can be used in the place of Notes, when that is the only section. If multiple sections exist (two formatting styles), than it should be as we describe. So perhaps we should clarify it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:22, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like everything is on the same page now (WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:GTL). Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Quick_summary might need a little work as it's talking about adding a reference section where none exits. Do we want to recommend the use of Notes or References? I split it for the moment, suggesting Notes when using a footnote format, and References when using bullets, but added a note that References was fine for footnotes as well if it is the only system used. Perhaps this is a bit much for an overview though. Morphh ^(talk) 21:18, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to keep up. I'm seeing Bibliography again being introduced for References, when it used to be for Further reading, mix ups between Further reading and External links, and a silly convention of putting a References heading with sub-headings of Notes and Bibliography. And yes, References is often used for Notes if there is only one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm wondering if we should take a different approach to help the clarity on all these articles. Instead of all these articles pointing at one another in a confusing way, perhaps we should use a template model where multiple articles share a common code. The template subject could have a summary with the ability to choose to show or hide the details when the template is placed. It could default to show on CITE, and default to hide on GTL, and readers could easily expand the details on GTL if they so choose. That way we're all going to one place on a parituclar issue, and we're not playing catch up with one another, and not pointing at one another - we're all using the same examples and explanation (detail determined by template attributes). Just trying to think of ways to better address this issue. Morphh ^(talk) 23:36, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

Is something like this (Wikipedia:Lead section TT text) what you are talking about? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by using Wikipedia:Transclusion - maybe we can unify some of this for multiple articles. My only additional thought was to use the show/hide ability to expand on examples or details (and make the default optional when placing the template). I'll try to create an example. Morphh ^(talk) 0:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Below is an example of another area in the lead section that links / duplicates Wikipedia:Accessibility. I also added the TT text section described above. So we have two templates, one with a show/hide. Morphh ^(talk) 0:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Items in the lead should be presented in the following order: disambiguation links, maintenance tags, infoboxes, images, navigational boxes, and introductory text, moving to the heading of the first section.

More information about lead section elements.

{{otheruses}}
{{unreferenced}}
{{Foo bar Infobox|name=...}}
[[Image:...|Typical Foo bar]] or {{Foo bar Navigation}}
'''Foo bar''' ...
[table of contents]
== First section ==

Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox; if a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first. Text-only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially. A "for topics of the same name ..." disambiguation link is sometimes put at the beginning of an article to link to another article discussing another meaning of the article title. Do not make this initial link a section. In such cases, the line should be italicized and indented using templates. A horizontal line should not be placed under this line. See also Wikipedia:Hatnote.
The maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article, and should be presented to the user before the article itself. Maintenance tags should be used sparingly.^[2]
Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text. The primary difference between an infobox and a navigational box is the presence of parameters: a navigational box is exactly the same in all articles of the same topic, while an infobox has different contents in each article.
Images. An image's caption is part of the article text. If the article has disambiguation links (dablinks), then the introductory image should appear just before the introductory text. Otherwise a screen reader would first read the image's caption, which is part of the article's contents, then "jump" outside the article to read the dablink, and then return to the lead section, which is an illogical sequence.
Navigational boxes are a collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Vertical navigational boxes, sometimes called "sidebars", and horizontal navigational boxes are sometimes placed in the lead, especially when no infobox is present. If an infobox is present, the navigation sidebar may be moved to either the top or bottom of any other section in the article.
Introductory text. As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section § Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present. See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section.
The table of contents (TOC) automatically appears on pages with more than three headings. Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.

As explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Lead section § Introductory text, all but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs. The lead itself has no heading and, on pages with more than three headings, automatically appears above the table of contents, if present.

Neat! I like it. Why don't you turn (Morphh/test) into (Wikipedia:Accessibility TT lead section) and implement it as part of the transclude text experiment? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I put it in place on this article. It could still use a tweak here or there but it is working. If it looks ok, we may want to think of combining it with the Lead section TT text template. They're all used in about the same place and could likely be joined. Morphh ^(talk) 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be successful. Do we want to proceed with other sections? Suggestions? Morphh ^(talk) 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you all should proceed with this plan until the bigger picture of identifying and addressing contradictions and redundancies throughout MoS is undertaken. By linking to certain pages, the implication is made that that page is the "main" page, and there is as yet no such consensus or even a catalogueing of MoS pages. Your approach would work, in fact would be ideal, if the MoS project were first rationalized and decisions were made about how some pages came to be guidelines, which should be retained, how they can be consolidated, etc. For now, I think the approach is premature, forest trees, the big picture needs to be addressed before you can decide which pages link to what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Morph: I do want to proceed with other sections (and I have one in mind). However, I think we need to move slowly. I just added your TT to the accessibility page a few days ago. I think we should let that one digest for a few days more before we introduce a new TT.

In response to Sandy: First, I agree with you that it would be best to solve the problem globally. But when, if ever, will that solution come down the pike? Until it does, the TT concept seems to be a good interim patch. Second, I see your concern regarding associating a TT page to a particular article. The question is whether that concern should doom the whole TT concept. I suggest that, if we view TT as an interim fix pending a global solution then your concern is one that will can be fixed when the global solution is in place (at which point any mis-assigned TT pages can be assigned to the proper "main" article). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reinstated long-standing text on Sister links

I have reinstated the long-standing [1] text on sister links,[2] which was changed with this edit. While it is apparent that Wikipedia:sister projects intends to promote sister links and elevate their status, the fact remains that Sister links are wikis, hence not even on the level of reliable sources, and in the case of most of our sister links, they contain content that we wouldn't even accept in External links under any circumstances because they are so unreliable. I have seen dozens of examples of text that was removed from Wiki articles because it was spam, based on a COI, or unreliable simply move on to a sister project, where it was accepted without question. I vigorously reject any attempt to elevate their presence in our articles to a status we would not even accord of other, non-reliable sources, by allowing the placement of non-reliable external jumps within the text of our articles. They belong in External links, if there; when they are reviewed and deemed to be unreliable and inaccurate, they shouldn't even be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All excellent points, Sandy. Let me make sure that something I like to do is still okay with you and everyone here. One editor might add a proof to a math article or some engineering details to a tech article, then an edit war ensues where they argue over WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK. I prefer to stop these edit wars by linking from the relevant article section to the EL endsection, which gives you a link to click on to get to wikibooks, which gives the proof, so that everyone is happy. Is that still okay? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If we use them at all, I believe they belong in External links. They are, at best, non-reliable external jumps—usually on par with content we normally would not allow even in External links. More importantly, we need to stop the idea that any article must ever accept an advert COI spam link, just because it's a Sister project. What happened at Stuttering should not happen: COI advert spam non-reliable inaccurate text was removed from the article, so the COI editor simply moved the text to WikiBooks, where it stands today as a "featured book" in spite of tags.[3] [4] We should not be obligated to include that link, even as an External link, and we certainly shouldn't be including them within the body of articles (in External links, if at all). The Sister projects 1) are Wikis and 2) can be backdoors for COI spam advert non-RS POV pushing—that is, text that can be removed from Wiki articles. They don't conform even to the level of standards we normally expect even in External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

At the top of the section it says Wikipedia:sister projects is the main guideline, and the wording I introduced is a cut and past from that guideline. The is no point having guidelines that are not singing from the same choir sheet, it only leads to conflict between editors in articles. I suggest SandyGeorgia that you get the wording of the Wikipedia:sister projects altered to reflect your point of view and then alter this page to fit in with that page. In the mean time this page should reflect that guideline even if you think it is foolish advice. However I think that for example if a section in an article is talking about the German surrender in World War II there is no reason why a link should not be placed into the article at that point to the German Instruments of Surrender --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

At the top of the section it says Wikipedia:sister projects is the main guideline, ... Well, of course it says that here after you inserted that text; until your September 10 change, no such text existed, and the present text dates to at least mid-2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been on this page as long as it's been on that page, and this page is more widely accessed and quoted than that page; that page doesn't have precedence over this page, and so far, there is no consensus in your favor. Discuss, don't revert this page because you prefer another version on another page. No one decides anywhere on Wiki which MoS page prevails over any other, and that page is scarecely noticed or quoted, in contrast to this one. Editors can call it a "main guideline" all they want; all MoS pages are main guidelines, where's the hierarch? In usage; this page is the most widely quoted, and reflects practice. Should we equally call it the "main page"? That the contradiction in a sidepage was just noticed means that it has always been out of sync with the more widely quoted page needs to be discussed and resolved. Please do that, instead of reverting and changing this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is equally no consensus for your version at that page. The person seeking to change this page is the person who needs to show consensus for that; so far, there is none, neither here nor there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I stated most of my thoughts here and didn't want to discuss this matter in depth. But the one thing I wanted to point out is that template boxes like the above use really belong at the bottom of the page, as with most information templates besides appropriate page boxes (biography, book templates, etc).I do not mind an intra wikilink, i.e. [[s:Wiki Source link]] (or wiki news, wiki common, etc) for a direct link to a text that may come up in substitute for something that might never have an encyclopedic page (such as a wikitionary definition). But there is a strong aesthetic difference between the two. Thats my two cents. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So User:SandyGeorgia two questions for you are in favour of different guidelines advancing differnent solutions for the same thing or should they be harmonised? Are you suggesting that all images that are moved from the wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons should have their links moved down the page from the sections in which they have resided into the External links section because that is where you logic seems to me to lead? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if you want to change this page, you need to develop consensus for changing this page. Secondary to that, I have been advocating for a very long time that we need to catalog and deal with contradictory and redundant MoS pages, and establish a mechanism to avoid a small group of editors joining together to call some obscure page that only they read a guideline. The text here has been present since mid-2006 in one form or another and this is a widely read page; it reflects consensus and best practice. The other page doesn't take precedence over a widely known and oft-quoted page, which rightly allocates external jumps (often to non-reliable inaccurate POV COI advert material) to external jumps. Sorry, I don't intend to take the bait on Commons images; that's a straw man and a distraction, and I don't know of anyone who doesn't understand the role of Commons in relation to the other Sister projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked two questions yet you have chosen not to answer either of them. Are in favour of different guidelines advancing different solutions for the same thing or should they be harmonised? and are you suggesting that all images that are moved from the wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons should have their links moved down the page from the sections in which they have resided into the External links section because that is where you logic seems to me to lead? The second is far from a "straw man" because "Links to Sister projects should be under the last appendix section" does not exempt images on Wikimedia Commons. Further, it is sometimes useful and elegant, to be able to link to primary sources from the section in which it is mentioned rather than always placing such links in an appendix section at the bottom of an article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think I didn't answer, try to read more carefully or phrase your questions more clearly. The business of filling up MoS pages to win discussions by verbosity because no one will bother to read them is one I'm well familiar with and don't plan to engage. I have never encountered anyone who confused an image within an article and a link to a commonscat that belongs in external links, but if you think that wording needs to be adjusted because you're confused, we should address that explicitly in the text. I am in favor of all of our MoS pages being rationalized and consolidated; if you have a different interpretation of "harmonise", please try to explain, briefly. Further, the new text you have added (otherwise, they are usually placed in either "See also" section or External links section) is at distinct odds with everything else about this page [5], where internal content is placed above external content, so the page is no longer internally consistent. There is no reasoning given for placing external jumps in See also, which is internal links. As to your challenge on my talk page that I should engage in an edit war on the Sister page, or get someone else to revert here, I suggest that's not a productive editing style. You altered the long-standing consensual text on the page, you haven't established consensus for your change, you reverted twice to reinsert a change that no one else has supported; please don't expect others to engage in edit warring on other pages to counteract your edit warring here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The business of filling up MoS pages to win discussions by verbosity because no one will bother to read them is one I'm well familiar with and don't plan to engage." a word count (using the UNIX program wc) above that posting (including the one added on the 14th) and excluding signatures shows SG=717, PBS=361, others=204.

The reason I thought you posted to my talk page to which I replied on your talk page was to keep that conversation discrete/distinct, but now that you have comment here on that exchange: it takes two (or more) to edit war, (in this case, if you consider it an edit war, two) and if I was one who was the other party? Bringing in a third person to "reviewed Philip's edit" does not seem to me to be within the spirit of the no reversal compromise I suggested! Your arguments that "is at distinct odds with everything else about this page" is not true. For example if someone is using Harvard referencing or images then both will include external links interlaced in the text and this page ought not to be restricting those two options. There are also items on some article pages where it is more elegant to place external links higher up a page.

What I wrote on your talk page "I suggest that you alter the sister projects page as the main page on this issue and then alter layout to reflect that."[6] how you decide to go about altering the sister projects page was not specified by me, and I certainly did not suggest on your talk page that "that [you] should engage in an edit war on the Sister page". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I will say this once and not repeat, because it does not need to be repeated after - If you want to make changes, go to Village Pump. Have one central discussion on the concept, and mention the various pages that will be affected. If you can get the community to support the concept, then you can come back here and discuss having the wording conform to the community agreed idea. Until then, you are not following consensus guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is of course no reason why changes should not be advertised on other pages, but changes to pages should be discussed on their talk pages not on some other page. It is better that the pages are in harmony than disharmony. If one page is to be the main page then the other should reflect that page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed Philip's edit at Sandy's request: no no no, it needs to be entirely rethought for the reasons she gives above. I second Ottava's comment. Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1 does that mean you are against using templates but not inline links to things "such as a wikitionary definitions" that will not have encyclopaedia pages? Would you consider the sentence in the external links section to cover this: "Unlike wikilinks, which are often used within the article's text, external links are normally limited to the "External links" section." where to follow User:SandyGeorgia's argument it would need to be changed to "Unlike links to other wikipedia articles"--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So, how long have I been saying this (contradictory pages) was an edit war waiting to happen and asking that we focus on some consolidation and cataloguing of MoS pages? In spite of my years of editing, I have never seen that page referenced at FAC, and until PBS added it here, had never encountered it at all. Some group of editors, unactive in other realms, perphaps developed it in isolation, and now PBS has basically instated a non-consesus change to long-standing text here and is willing to edit war to keep it here and encouraged me to go do the same on the Sister projects page. We don't even know how many similar situations exist throughout MoS because any small group of editors can join together and slap up a page and call it a guideline. Past MoS disputes have been mostly about aesthetics and technical details of commas, dashes, dates and so on, rarely affecting content; this is an issue that affects the integrity of our articles, by allowing backdoor links to external sites that barely monitor COI adverts spam and POV pushing, and have uncited and non-reliable inaccurate info to an extent we wouldn't even accept in most external links, much less within articles. This change to long-standing oft-cited guideline should be vigorously opposed because it affects not just how readers view our pages, but the actual content of our articles; external jumps belong in external links, not in articles. If we need to start specifying that images themselves aren't the same as commonscat links (which is what "links" refers to in the context of this page), we're really becoming literal, but perhaps we need to do that. The elevation of a little known page to the "main" template on this page needs to be addressed, and in no case do we add external links to See also, so the new text is off on many levels. There: now I'm one of the verbose MoS mavens, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SandyGeorgia please see above I have not suggested that you engage in edit warring, and also for my comments on your accusations of edit edit warring, also please consider your assertion that "The business of filling up MoS pages to win discussions by verbosity because no one will bother to read them is one I'm well familiar with and don't plan to engage". Just above you write "Past MoS disputes have been mostly about aesthetics and technical details of commas, dashes, dates and so on, rarely affecting content;" reminds me of Tony Hancock's comment in the The Blood Donor sketch "It may be only a smear to you but it's life and death to some poor wretch." but also the very long debates about national varieties of English has had a impact throughout Wikipeida including policies. "by allowing backdoor links to external sites that barely monitor COI adverts spam and POV pushing" is IMHO way OTT. But most of this is all beside the point, because the two guidelines need harmonising and I think the place to start in in the specific guideline and then reflect that in this guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of text discussing "Notes" and "References" sections

How is this statement not supported by both cite and footnote? "As a general layout guideline, when multiple styles exist, short citations and/or footnotes are placed under "Notes" which typically precedes a list of full citations (usually bulleted) which are placed under "References"." The only thing not directly specified in the other areas (although presented in examples) is the order of the two sections. With regard to the order, we have Cite saying layout doesn't specify an order and Layout saying cite doesn't specify an order. We've specified that Notes is above references since as far back as May of 2006. Is this really controversial? Morphh ^(talk) 21:59, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I see how the term multiple styles could be confusing. Multiple sections is what I was going for. Perhaps we should specify parenthetical referencing and shortened footnotes. Morphh ^(talk) 22:03, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think this question is directed to me. So I'll answer it: The question is not whether the issue is controversial but whether we should talk about it in Layout or Cite. To avoid conflicts the decision has been made for Layout to defer to Cite. So, if Layout is going to talk about the notes, footnotes, and references sections then it should cite to a specific section in Cite for support.

To solve the specific problem you raise I think you should change Cite to say that "Notes" is above "References" and then you can add that text to Layout with a footnote reference to the Cite section (or subsection) for support.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we not the style guide for what order to list common sections? Why should we defer to cite for this, particularly when it does not specify and we've specified it for over a year? We should state it clearly in the "Location" text that Notes precedes References when both exist. Morphh ^(talk) 22:20, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that, in theory, it should be in Layout. But even more important is having it in as few articles as possible (preferably only one). And the path of least resistance seems to be to have Layout defer to Cite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Defer_this_issue_to_WP:Cite.3F Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Even in that section (and several below it) it is clearly discussed that Notes goes before References. Somewhere it was lost, and I can't find that discussion or that agreement. There is nothing in the order to defer to Cite at the moment and I don't see why we should on this particular case. We've historically stated the order and should continue to do so on this. That is the primary function of the layout guide. Morphh ^(talk) 23:08, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we both know where each other stands. Let's give this one some time to see whether anyone else wants to jump in with an opinion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am for defining the section heading options and order of appendices here. This is where it should be done. The text and ordering of the headings should be standardized. It should not be defined at WP:CITE, which should define styles and how they relate to layout, but which should not attempt to define appendix ordering and heading text itself, but rather simply indicate under which heading which citations or references should be listed. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where, in this or a past version, is/was it recommended that "Notes" appear before "References"? To my knowledge it never has, and the summary in the main MOS has always accepted either Notes-References or References-Notes. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found this myself. It appears that from May 5 to May 8 2006, Layout recommended Notes-References specifically; afterwards, the same editor who inserted the advice made clear that either order was acceptable and that language has remained since. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going with the way the sections were structured, which appeared and many assumed gave a clear order (certainly more so than the reverse). Notes has always been above References, which is reflected in most articles and even in the CITE and FOOT guides. Why should we not state it? We state the order of every other major section. This is the intent of uniformity and accessibility. As articles improve, there structures reflect the guidelines which pulls them into some common standards. Morphh ^(talk) 12:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The guideline explicitly said that no order was being given; I don't see how this could have been clearer. Other style guidelines were consistent with this as none recommended an order. I don't see a value to introducing such a recommendation at this stage; I find no compelling reason that Notes-References is superior to References-Notes. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether References-Notes works depends on what you're putting in Notes. Full citations-Short citations is great; All citations-Explanatory text is inconvenient for the reader (who has to get past a long list of references to find the explanatory text). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris, the guideline is explicitly saying that no order was being as applied to all the sections. "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "Further reading" above "Notes and references" or vice versa." Unless you're suggesting we remove the "Location" section from every area, and provide no guidelines for order, than I don't see this has any meaning. We've already achieved consensus across wikipedia regarding the suggested order of these headers. It is clear that EL should go at the bottom, See also should go above Notes and References, etc. This can be seen during changes and recommendations at GA and FA. The guideline is a way to provide some uniformity while articles progress in quality. It makes no sense that we do not specify an order for these particular common headers, but we do so for all the rest. It is a suggestion for order, and I think the order is obvious. Morphh ^(talk) 13:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Notes-References works depends on what you want to include those sections.

If you want a separate section for explanatory notes (see WP:REFGROUP) then you can put these in a section entitled Notes, leaving your citations in a section entitled References.

However, as guidelines stand currently, this same Notes-References section naming split is also suggested for Short citations-Full citations (see WP:CITESHORT).

Suggesting the same "Notes" section name for both explanatory notes and short citations is problematical for what should be a perfectly valid combination of Explanatory text-Short citations-Full citations as here we have three distinct parts, but only two distinct section names.

My naming preference would be to include short citations in a section entitled "Citations". You can see how this works for example in the former featured article "Sophie Blanchard".

I think the implications in terms of WP:Layout needs some further consideration to take this into account.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, provided all headings are kept at level 2 as in the example article. Though the question arises, what if there are not both? Should citations then be under Notes or under Citations?

Also, responding to earlier comments above, I agree that we could eliminate "Footnotes" as an option, but I am not sure the majority would agree. I do think that we should define an established order, which I would propose be "Bibliography", "Notes", "Citations", "References", "Further reading" and "External links". With the exception of inclusion of "Citations", I think a good majority of articles already conform to this, which is an important consideration, I think. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The existing convention on Wikipedia articles is not to have a section named "Citations". Instead, the section name dedicated to short citations is normally ==Footnotes== (when ==Notes== and ==References== are wanted for something separate).

As for the order: generally, that's what I would choose for the order. However, some people prefer to list the short citations in ==Footnotes== after the full citations in ==References==. I don't think we want to tell them that they're not allowed to do this, especially since I can't think of a good reason beyond "Well, I'd do it the other way." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External links and Further reading

This text

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links".

Was until recently in WP:CITE (see Revision as of 02:52, 17 August 2008 and was removed from WP:CITE and a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Further reading/External links started 15 August 2008 see Revision as of 05:19, 18 August 2008, which does not seem like a very long time for a decision to be made, and although I agree that it did not have to reside on that page -- this page is better -- I think similar wording should be placed on this page, as often the two are better off combined. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether they should be combined is strictly a matter of personal preference. But perhaps we should update "Further reading" to say If there are relatively few items in both ==Further reading== and ==External links==, then the two sections can be combined under the heading of ==Further reading== or some such text. Right now, LAYOUT bans a merge, and I think we can all agree that having just one book and just one external link in separate sections is a little silly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there are times when it's not silly and we should leave the option open. Some editors still want to make hard print or scholarly texts stand out in Further reading, recommended to go and buy at a ... <gasp> ... real bookstore or locate in a library, while External links as websites are there for an entirely different reason. One or two of each is fine, and combining them may diminish the importance of hard print books. See Tourette syndrome. I don't know of a basis for "often the two are better combined"; that mentality has contributed to the unfortunate impression (which permeates Wiki even at the level of FAC) that online sources are more desireable than ... <gasp> ... libraries and books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on the type of external link. Some articles have external links that are not readable, in which case the argument for keeping them seperate is sensible. In the case where a news paper article is on line for a time before being removed or put into a pay per view archive, it seems silly to move it from a section called External links to one called Further reading. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked for the date when it was removed but until recently this page included in the external links section (August 1st):

External links may be listed under "Further reading," as suggested in Citing sources, instead of having a separate section specifically for external links,

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, the other argument for an optional merge, at the discretion of the editors, was the problem of the book that's available online (e.g., full view at books.google.com). Is that now a "Further reading" resource, or an "External links" item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing what is your evidence other than personal experience that "online publications are normally listed in the "External links" and that "editors occasionally prefer to merge [only] very short lists of publications"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what your problem is, and therefore I don't know how to answer your presumed objection. Can we agree that an online-only magazine is an "online publication", and that Charles Dickens' Tale of Two Cities is not an "online publication", even though it is available online? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No one can not make that distinction, and as time passes more and more content is available both in print and online publications, for example think of Project Gutenberg, Google Books and the addition of public bodies with sites like ICTY or Hansard. User:WhatamIdoing what is your evidence other than personal experience that "online publications are normally listed in the "External links" and that "editors occasionally prefer to merge [only] very short lists of publications"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get up to speed here. My understanding is that the debate is whether this article should say something along the lines of:

A. There should be only one section containing cites to additional general information. The title of that section is “Further reading” unless it contains only Internet links, in which case it can be titled “External links.”

OR

B.There are generally two sections containing cites to additional general information. Information that does not originate on the Internet is listed in a “Further reading” section. Information that originates on the Internet is listed in an “External links” section. If there are only a few Internet links then they may be placed in the “Further reading” section instead of a separate “External links” section.

Is my understanding correct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither. I really don't know what this section is about; every situation is different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - By "this section" are you talking about this section on the talk page or the "Further reading" and "External links" sections on the Layout page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This section on the talk page. Further reading and External links are used interchangeably and differently by different editors and articles; I'm not sure what we're discussing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being discussed here either, which is why I asked. It sounds like someone other than you will have to give me the answer. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My evidence for the general practice of listing online publications (such as Salon.com articles) in external links -- in addition to my experience, which includes assessing some ten thousand articles for WP:1.0 (a fact that should suggest to you that I have at least looked at a large number of articles) -- is actually checking a handful of links to some online-only publications to see how they were handled, using Special:LinkSearch. Usually, they were used as refs. In the few articles that had both ==External links== and ==Further reading== sections (a combination that appears in only about 1% of Wikipedia articles), and which listed the target link in one of those sections, it was always under "External links". So you can claim that it's my "personal experience" if you like, but I doubt that you'll find very many counter examples. If you can find, say, online publications (1) listed as "Further reading" and (2) in more than a handful (≥10) articles that you have not edited or caused to be edited (3) that also contain a separate "External links" section, then I am willing to revisit this description.

Note, please, that I consider this statement to be a description of the actual practice as defined not by any individual at this page, but by the practice of Wikipedia editors at large. It is not a rule imposed by me on unwilling editors.

Similarly, my description of normal, everyday WIkipedia practice as only merging "Further reading" and "External links" stems from looking at a semi-random selection (i.e., based on "Search" instead of familiar articles) of actual articles in the encyclopedia. In actual practice, the two sections are not usually merged; when the two sections have been merged, it is usually because the lists are very short. I have never seen a list of ten books and ten websites in the same "Further reading" section; have you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by on online publication but I'll take it to mean a link to an article. I made a Google search on ["further reading" "external links" site:en.wikipedia.org] As there were many unsuitable pages on page 1, and as I was looking for more than 10 articles I chose page 10 to start my survey there were 8 pages on that page (2 were not articles):

Norman Mailer -- Further reading did not include any links
Justin Hall -- Only link is dead
Islam and antisemitism -- No further reading section
Cost -- Only FR link is a convenience link to a peer-reviewed journal article.
May 1968 -- No clickable links. Two busted "references" are convenience links to paper-based publications from 1968-1970.
Tom Hanks -- Further reading did not include any links
Necrophilia -- Further reading did not include any links
Sicily -- FR includes only one peer-reviewed journal article and two popular press stories (PBS television, NYT newspaper)

Page 11

Hope Diamond -- Further reading did not include any links
Existentialism -- Only link is a convenience link to a real book (complete with ISBN in citation)
Beshalach -- All clickable links are convenience links to ancient sacred texts or Wikisource
Stephen Oppenheimer --Currently no "Further reading section
1962 in country music -- Further reading did not include any links
Mahamaya -- Only link is a link to an online bookstore
V'Zot HaBerachah -- All clickable links are convenience links to ancient sacred texts or Wikisource
Tzav -- All clickable links are convenience links to ancient writings and sacred texts
Toledot -- All clickable links are convenience links to ancient sacred texts
Ethernet in the First Mile -- Only link is a link to an online bookstore

A page with a list of more than 10 websites and 10 books in "Further reading" section can be found at Further reading for War on Terrorism (or War on Terrorism which has more than 10 websites and 10 books in "Further reading" and an external links section). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've marked my analysis of these pages in bold text. As you can see, I found no online publications in any of them. Every single item with an external link was something that was originally published on paper. Many of them were published before the Internet existed. There are clearly some violations here; items under ==Further reading== should never link to an online bookstore.

Further reading for War on Terrorism is its own list/article, and therefore not subject to this guideline's advice on what to put in the "Further reading" section (because there is no such section on that page).

War on Terrorism's endless list is the only page out of this long list that had any online publications under ==Further reading==, and it actually had very few online publications listed (many convenience links, but not many online publications). I personally would have placed them in ==External links== (or deleted them: there are already 44 items in that linkfarm!) because that is the normal practice in Wikipedia articles. Note, please that the word normally in the existing advice is intended to provide flexibility to editors in these situations. This is a guideline; it provides advice on normal/good practice. Compliance is not actually mandatory in every single case. If the editors of that page felt like a large, formal report distributed online was more like a book than like a website, then we do leave them the discretion to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism was not in the list I provided, as it was not returned on either page 10 or 11 of the Google Search. It was provided to answer your second question of 10 or more URLs.

Your definition of what you call convenience links and on-line publications is artificial. For example what are press releases put out by international organisations? They are probably printed on paper and handed out at a press conference, but are often also placed on their web sites as well. If a newspaper chooses to print the press release, does that alter the release's status from that of a on-line publication to a convenience link? New agencies like Reuters put out articles all the time for publication, but they are not all published by third parties. If the only on-line copy is on the new agency's web site, but there are also off line copies that are not know to the editors of Wikipedia, is that an on-line publication or a convenience link? Surly the status of an article is not determined by the knowledge of Wikipedia editors? If so then the distinction between the positioning of URLS in Further Reading and External links is not on whether something is what you call a convenience link and what you call an on-line publication, but by the limited knowledge and bias of those who edit the page.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor judgment is required in some instances. Note that this guideline doesn't speak to press releases at all; it merely names broad categories such as "books", "articles," "websites", and "online publications". It is up to the editor to decide how to classify any given document. We are providing general advice, not step-by-step, detailed instructions.

Frankly, in most instances I wouldn't consider a press release for either category, as the vast majority of press releases are more useful as cited sources for article content instead of further information on a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes, Footnotes, and References - point only to CITE?

I propose to remove the phrase "Wikipedia:Footnotes and" from the sentence that currently reads "Implementation details regarding different citation styles can be found at Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Adding the citation."
The reason for this proposal is that (a) we should point to one article rather than two, (b) Citing sources is the general article, and (C) Citing sources already includes a link to Footnotes at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnote system).
Any reason why this proposal should not be implemented? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone presents a compelling reason not to, it doesn't bother me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... if this hasn't already been done. I agree. Morphh ^(talk) 0:58, 08 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to sister projects

See Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Reinstated long-standing text on Sister links and Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Disputed

This page should be synchronised with Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this guideline only cares about certain kinds of interwiki links -- not wikt:Bride, but templates like these:

I'm not sure how to best explain the difference, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sibling projects are not reliable sources (although we have an issue in that Commons serves an entirely different purpose). No guideline page should overrule WP:V or WP:RS to encourage insertion of non-RS into the text, and this page has very long-standing consensus (more than a few years); sibling templates belong with external links. How to handle Commons images is a separate issue, but I've never yet encountered someone who misunderstood the difference. Putting a disputed tag on a long-standing page, when no one has supported your position, isn't good practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who has suggested that links should be put into unreliable sources? No one is suggesting that sister projects any more than wikipedia articles should be used as sources. AFAICT following your interpretation of WP:V, as there is a prohibition on using Wikipedia as a source, there would be no in-line wikipedia links, because intra-Wikipedia links are to an unreliable source. Where is the prohibition in WP:V policy (or in WP:RS a guideline) to in-line linking to wikipedia or sister projects? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PBS, can we deal with the easy issue first? Do you agree with everyone else that {{wikiquote}} doesn't belong in the middle of an article? Can you make WP:SISTER specifically and directly acknowledge that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm away for a few days I'll respond early next week. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The other easier issue to tackle (in the event wording needs adjustment) is the difference between images and text (Commons vs. other sibling projects). PBS, we don't insert non-reliable external jumps anywhere into articles: we add them to External links only when justified, and certainly not automatically because the happen to be on a sibling. If we have inaccurate crap on a sibling project, we should be able to reject it (as in the Stuttering case). Your argument about wikilinks makes as much sense as the argument that editors can't distinguish an image from text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view the principle ought to be to put links where they are most relevant and provide the most value to readers. For instance, where a person is covered in an article on a broader topic, a link to that person's Wikiquote page makes most sense attached to the section covering that person. Links to Wikinews articles relevant to a specific section of an article make sense in that section. I don't really understand what principle people are using to justify the argument that every external link should be lumped at the end of the article. I think the rule Sandy describes above tends to degrade articles as they pass through the featured review processes. I recall one article where a geometric principle was described, followed by an external link to a visualization of the principle. This was quite convenient for readers. In order to comply with the MOS, this link was moved to the end of the article, where readers reading the relevant passage would be much less likely to find it. It is hard for me to understand why a reader would find this an improvement to their experience. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Christopher, there are only three possibilities in your wikiquote example. Let us assume that an article is a particular field of mathematics such as descriptive geometry, that it mentions a specific mathematician (we'll call her "N.P. Completer") in passing, and that this mathematician happens to have said something quotable. Here are the three options:

The quotation is actually about the particular subject of the article. Since the quotes are actually on-topic, then linking under ==External links== is the best choice, because the link is about the particular subject at hand instead of about the person mentioned in passing. Furthermore, it would be better to link to a page that has all the quotations about this mathematical subject instead of a page that has all the quotations originating with a single person.
The quotation is on some other topic, and the mathematician is notable: {{Wikiquote|N. P. Completer}} should never be added to the geometry article because the quotes are off-topic (the topic is, after all, descriptive geometry, not NP Completer). Instead, you should add the quote template to an article for the notable mathematician (creating said article if necessary), and link it there.
The quotation is on some other topic, and the mathematician is non-notable: Then we don't really need to be linking to the quotation anywhere on Wikipedia because it has no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of links.

Do you understand my line of thinking? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So Parham, you advocate that we place External jumps to non-reliable sources anywhere in our articles, against WP:EL and against WP:V (we don't even allow them as sources, and we rarely allow them even in external links, why should we include them as external jumps within our article text?). WikiNews is a non-reliable source, doesn't meet WP:V, for example ... why should we encourage that upon our readers when we don't allow it for any other non-reliable source ? What's next, linking blogs within our text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To Georgia, I advocate that we place them in the location where they are most useful to readers using the article. Your argument to me seems to more about whether to link to sister projects at all; I myself personally unhappy with the special authority these links are given. However, given that they are going to be linked, I don't see why we wouldn't want to put them in the most relevant and useful location - next to the text to which they relate. This is the way the rest of the web is structured, for the simple reason that it is most useful for consumers of the content. If links are relevant broadly to the whole article, the end is a perfectly good location, but this is frequently not the case. Frankly I think you are raising issues that are not relevant; while reliability is an important issue, you don't make an article more reliable by separating a link from the relevant text.

To WhatamIdoing, your comment doesn't really reflect the way articles are structured. Notable topics are frequently covered within an article on another topic if the content lends itself to this. Unmerging them simply so that we can make sure every Wikiquote link is at the end of an article is not a good plan, especially when there is no compelling justification for this rule about external links in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to put a link to quotations by a person in the middle of an article about something else entirely. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with WhatamIdoing on this one, placing a link to a sister project in the middle of an article appears more to be self-promotion: especially if the article is about an entirely different subject. These projects should be able to operate independent of Wikipedia and should not need its endorsement to receive more traffic. I would imagine placing a sister project link either in the See also or the External links in general using a similar version of WhatamIdoing's criteria (I actually think See also is more appropriate than External links). The example I'm using for this would be Rabies and animals. The section in Bats on Jeanna Giese begins to stray off the main topic as it discuses an extremely specific cases. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing personally I do not need to link to Wikiquotes because I am not involved in editing that type of article. I would tend to say that as I do not tend to be involved in articles that would need to link to wikiquotes that the editors who do should decide on whether such links are appropriate. I tend to edit military history articles and related articles including treaty articles. In those there are times when it is very useful to link to wikisources at places other than external links. One major reason for this is because there is a prohibition on keeping source in Wikipedia, so being able to place the source into wikisources and then link to it is a symbiotic relationship. I am currently working on expanding the articles on the Waterloo campaign. During that campaign Wellington published a statement about how his army was to treat civilians. Indeed Wellington's views it can be seen as part of the early development of International humanitarian law that would eventually lead to Hague and GVIV. The sentence I intend to write will say something like this.

Wellington has seen the problems that a hostile population could cause an invading army and was not going to make the same mistake that the French had made in Spain during the Peninsular War, so on 20 June 1815 he issued a general order to his army from his headquarters in Nivelles that France was to be considered a friendly country and that nothing should be taken, for which payment is not made (citation).

The red link will go to wikisource which will contain the source of the general order. User:ChyranandChloe the source will contain a link back to the Wikipedia article on Wellington (as signee) and I do not consider either to be a "self-promotion" but both projects doing what they are designed to do. The expanded article on the Waterloo campaign has a number of other notable statements by various players for example Wellington's Malplaquet proclamation, Napoleon's last address to the French army and his announcement of his determination to abdicate. All of these will be on Wikisources and it does not seem that it aids the reader to place them all at the bottom of the article in external links section rather than linking them into the text where appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So you basically agree that it's not normally necessary to place large {{wikiquote}} and related templates in the middle of the articles (in your experience, on your kinds of articles). All you seem to care about is inline links to Wikisource. I think that most, but not all, editors could agree to carefully selected inline links to specific pages at either Wikisource and to Wiktionary.

I asked a few days ago whether we could deal with the easy, meaning fairly obvious, aspect first. WP:LAYOUT does not support dumping big, fat, graphical templates to sister projects like WIkiquote in the middle of articles. It's ugly and distracting to the reader. WP:SISTER unaccountably thinks that's just fine. Would you object to a general rule against (subject as always to WP:IAR on non-inline templates like {{Wikicommons}}? Or do you think that it's generally best to slap a graphical template in the middle of an article to direct readers to all the images in a Commons category on a similar subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I think this needs to be an editorial judgement. I can for example think of times when it is desirable to include {{wikisource}} in places other than the the external links section at the bottom of an article. For example it might be desirable to place such a template in the lead of an article if the article is about a treaty for which there is a copy of the source on Wikisource. Including it once at that top saves having to link to the source (or quote the source) for each section of the Wikipedia article. See for example the article Third Geneva Convention (in mentioning a specific article I am probably stuffing beans up my nose sigh!). I am about one third of the way through in collating and proof reading the sources for the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, when finished the logical place to put {{wikisource}} to the Final act would be at the start of the section Congress of Vienna#Final Act rather than in the external links section of that article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you getting at? I would imagine that most edits would take editorial judgment anyway, from which we would be both correct within our context. Is there a piece of the policy page that needs to be amended? My current presumption is that the policy need clarification (templates go either in the See also, External links, or Infobox; inline templates go in the specific relevant sections to provide original source). ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Links to sister projects" in this guideline and compare it with, Wikipedia:Wikimedia# sister projects#Guidelines. Which is why I wrote at the start of this talk section that these pages should be synchronised. I happen to think that the wording in the sister projects#Guidelines, is closer to what we should synchronise on but User:SandyGeorgia thinks that the wording in this guideline is more appropriate: "Links to Wikimedia sister projects should be under the last appendix section." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy, and I don't support the plan you give for Third Geneva Convention as an example. In articles about books and websites and other things that are available online, we normally link to the text at the end, in ==External links==. I see no reason why an external link at the end of the article is good enough for Hamlet but not good enough for Third Geneva Convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<-- I have reverted Jossi's edit because this has yet to be resolved. Currently we have two different guidelines giving different advice. Better to sort out the differences in the guidelines than have edit conflict in articles where editors cite different guidelines to try to persuade other editors to their point of view. --PBS (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Where exactly is the conflict in the advice given? WP:SISTER says Links to Wikimedia sister projects are best placed in the external links section of the article. WP:LAYOUT says, Links to Wikimedia sister projects should be under the last appendix section, which is always the ==External links== (if it exists). Where's the conflict? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the sister project was changed about the same time as this page was changed. AFAICT Jossi made the change to both pages without reading the most recent debate as Jossi's only comment was added to a section that had had last been edited in May of this year. --PBS (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As no editor has made a case, or argued for, including the boxed templates such as {{wikiquote}} anywhere but in the appendices, I would not oppose wording in both guidelines which was in favour of placing them into the external links sections. But as I have explained about I think there are valid reasons for including inline links to other projects such as wikisource and wiktionary chiefly because other guidelines suggest that certain text and word definitions should reside in sister projects. In some cases it makes it much easier for the reader to have the links to these sister projects in line and easily available rather than placing them at the end of the article. The argument for placing them inline becomes even stronger if a Wkikipeadia redirect redirects to a section in another article such as with Final Act of the Congress of Vienna. For this reason I think this is a decision that should be made locally and not proscribed in these guidelines. --PBS (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a little cleanup

I see a few typos and a few things that could be explained a little better. As always, feel free to revert or discuss. I think we need to ease up on the suggestion that sections should be either chronological or alphabetized; I added "can be helpful". I can just imagine what would happen if someone failed an article in a review because the sections weren't alphabetized! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rividian's edit

Rividian, concerning your point about See also links, do you see this as applying only to WP:BLP material or is it broader? If it's only about BLP stuff, then maybe WP:BLP would be a better place for it. There's also the question of whether this should be policy or not; if so, then it needs to be in WP:BLP, and if not, then it can't go there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it applies to organizations and basically any article. I just don't like the idea of someone going to the, say, Louisville Metro Council article and adding "See also: Nazi Germany" and saying that, under the letter of this guideline, it's okay since the guideline says nothing about a source. BLP is the biggest issue... but it could be done on any article... and note that my example is intentionally over-the-top, but incidents of this on Ralph Nader and Ashley Todd mugging hoax were more subtle. I don't see how policy would allow people to make such uncited comparisons, even if it's not a living person biography. The see also section shouldn't be a loophole to let people make controversial comparisons without a reference... I think we still need this wording. --Rividian (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, although I think this should be in a policy page, not a guideline, specifically WP:NPOV. I quoted you over there and made a specific suggestion, at WT:NPOV#Rividian's comment at WT:Layout. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Recently added paragraph regarding images

I have reverted the addition of the following paragraph which was added in the last 24 hours:

Images within Wikipedia's articles generally do not follow Wikipedia's manual of style for referencing. Most images contain the appropriate referencing within the page description from the author themselves. For example, by clicking on the image Dalli Jordan.jpg in the article on Iraq, a description page explains licencing and acknowlegements. In certain circumstances, such as the afformentioned Iraq example, the licence does not require any acknowlegament because the image was released into the public domain. Nevertheless, there are many images released under various licencing requirements, some going as far to require the recognition of the photographer or authors. For example, in the modification or combination of images under the GNU Free documentation licence (Sections 4 and 5) authors or one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship must list "at least five of the principal authors" of the image "(all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they released you from this requirement." Further guidelines may be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights regarding various image licensing and copyright schemes. Also, Wikipedia's WP:CITE guideline states "Citations are required for quotes, most images, information about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged." These guidelines stipulate that articles should give do respect by properly referencing images. Similar to a discography, which is often used at the end of a document to list audio or music discs, a photo-bibliography may lists the images. If there is no photo acknowlegement section into which to integrate proper image references, the template {{Missing information}} is usually available. See also Wikipedia:Template messages to check whether other templates exist.

I do not believe this was discussed here, nor do I believe we have any precedent for a 'photo bibliography'. The language here is poor - we don't 'recognize' photographers or authors, and it's not about 'do respect' (sic) - it's about attribution, which is given via Image pages according to longstanding precedent. Have I missed a related discussion that arrived on consensus at this elsewhere? Maralia (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the deletion and would add another reason: Except for the last few lines, it has little or nothing to do with "layout." (And, as Maralia points out, the last few lines are introducing a new concept for which there has been no vetting.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Marlia and Butwhatdoiknow have objections to the last part of this paragraph. In fact the last part was recently added today. Whereas the other version was added more then 24 hours ago. Therefore, since there where no objections and in fact some minor corrections, I conlclude that it is the most recent part which is creating objection. The last parts, afformentionned, are "Do respect", "photo-bibliography", "photo ackowlegement... Missing information template".

I believe attribution of images is an important element. There was an interesting discussion which occured at WP:CITE regarding this matter. If you so much as wish we can debate and discuss this all over again! My understanding is that you have an issue with my current POV. This POV is my belief that attribution of images should be done via the regular citation method. Your POV is that it is already done via the Image itself. This conflict of POV is clearly stated within the paragraph, so I see no reason, on why it should be removed. Furthermore, because the minority POV (mine, the one supported by WP:CITE, regarding the "photo-biblio") requires further instruction, it may appear as though I'm giving it Undue Weight. I can respect this complaint and will revise the paragraph. Nevertheless, precedent is not always the way to look at things. I dissent, on Butwhatdoiknow's decission. The first few lines concure with the current "precedent". It stipulates that the images attribution can be found on the image's page instead of in the article. This is a formating issue because it means there is no need to have a "photo-bib". On the other hand, I then precendent the contrast view, that WP:CITE deals with this issue and that every article should utilize proper references and be easilly verifiable. This is not a really new concept, it a basic principle. The principle is that you give due attribution within the proper format. In fact, I beliebe it's safe to assume that everyone who has edited WP:CITE since user:CharlesGillingham reformated the lead section at 06:58, 10 September 2008 concurs with this principle of "citations" for images. Citations/references, I believe, play an important role for the layout of an article. They can also become something quite contreversial. In our case, I believe it's easy to establish a bias which favours the principle of "less work, more fun". A "photo-bibliography", obviously contradicts the idea of less work and if it ever became mandated, as illusioned by the paragraph, could burden administrators and editors. Anyways, my dear colleagues, I put the question back to you... In light of the varying legal requirements for pictures/images, what do you believe we should utilize as a standard layout for referencing images (per WP:CITE)?

--CyclePat (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a 24 hour rule? Is that like the 5 second rule for eating something that falls on the floor? Regardless, I DO have an objection to the earlier text: It isn't about layout and should be discussed elsewhere (CITE?) and, perhaps, briefly referenced here IF there is consensus to add the later text. (And, as I understand it, consensus doesn't mean "no objection within 24 hours.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The 24 hour assumption (Haha!)... No, there is no 24 hour rule but I believe, though I may be making an overstatement, that the concept was first raised by user:Maralia; and you seem to support user Maralia arguments. No matter the case, it's a simple calculation used to predicate the assumption that you disagree with the most recently added sections. In fact it is part of the dispute resolution process whereas I acknowledge (or try to, anyways) part of your complaint and restate what I believe your perceived problem may be regarding this paragraph. The history of a new section, simply put, and its gradual development helps determine what specific sections (or new additions) users, such as yourself, may present objections. But is this an assumption which is erroneous? I don't think so... I think it's fair to assume, that if you add a new section, and someone objects to it, that they are in fact objecting to the new section. There are perhaps conflicting principles though. For example, what if someone comes along 2 months later and figures out that he disagrees. I completely understand because it creates a type of assumption that everyone that edited the article somehow agrees with it, which may not be the case. I believe, most likely after two months, there will have been some type of concensus edits. This principle, (let us call it natural exceptance), I believe is supported by the aforementioned example; The CharlesGillingham edit which shows a type of consensus on behalf of the editors who continued to develop the article since Sept 2008. The principle is simple but, again, the natural excepetance principle, as we just demonstrated, is refutable, if you bring up the issue on the talk page (as we are currently doing). Therefore, let's move on to figuring out the current problem (and concentrate less on my methodology of dispute resolution or my general character). In short, we contradict each other. You believe this “isn't about layout and [it] should be discussed elsewhere", whereas I believe this is an issue of layout (as I have previously discussed). If you are ready, I will be happy to begin the debate regarding this issue. Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I said the "earlier text" wasn't about layout. I agree that the "later text" is about layout. (Just setting the record straight.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Pat: tldr, seriously...I really appreciate your friendly attitude, but could you try to keep your comments succint? As to the meat of the matter: the paragraph you introduced encourages the use of a 'photo-bibliography', which you say above is "supported by WP:CITE". I dispute this. The related portions of WP:CITE are:

"Citations are required for quotes, most images, information about living persons and anything that is likely to be challenged." (from the lead); and
"Images must include source details and a copyright tag on the image description page." and the rest of the section Wikipedia:CITE#IMAGE, which briefly explains how to include the source on the image page.

That is the sum total of all mentions of 'image' in WP:CITE. There is nothing about a 'photo-bibliography'. You said that "There was an interesting discussion which occured at WP:CITE regarding this matter"; please link the discussion. I am aware of many discussions over the years concerning whether to credit photographers within articles (usually the suggested place is in captions) in addition to on the image page itself; the results of those discussions have been consistent with the language in WP:Captions#Credits: "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page." Maralia (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia is correct here: this newly added information is not supported by any other page. We need to provide access to the appropriate information, but neither Wikipedia rules nor the GFDL require that information to be on every single page. Consider, for example, the use of images on the main page. No sources are cited on that page for anything.

I also agree with ButwhatdoIknow: This isn't the page to introduce this kind of a rule, even if there were support for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please bear with me as I find you that discussion from WP:CITE. This section of archive 24 from user:ImperfectlyInformed states "The only subheading worth saving is WP:CITE#IMAGE, which offers technical advice.". That same archive also presentsuser:CharlesGillingham innovative discussion regarding the "new lead section." I looked into some other archived discussion. Archive #18] concures with the first idea that I presented, in that we don't need to have a "photo-biblio". Which appears to be (as I stated) the most common "formating" (or lack thereof of formal reference formating) for image referencing. I trust we understand that a photo-biblio could be "ideal"! But that's obviously not the case. We have to be realistic and no way should we (in this case, I mean most likely myself) imply that a "photo-biblio" is a requirement. Nevertheless, it should, and I believe is a valid option for certain images in certain articles. All in all, I must concede that, I believe a photo-biblio is probably rarelly (if ever) used. Also, it a "photo-bib" would likely be appropriate for images which are copyrighted, mentioned in an article but not used because of some licencing issues. What does this mean? I pretty much just used two hours searching throught the archives to give you those 3 references for not much. They are interesting reads! I believe they support the idea that we should at least talk about this subject (whether it be about proposed layouts, or the lack thereof). Again, I concede with your statement that "this newly added information [such as a photo-biblio] is not supported by any other page [such as wikipedia policy]." However, I must rebut with the afformentioned idea that images can be cited in an article and that WP:CITE (a guideline, not a policy) in fact states that images should be properly referenced. Nothing stops anyone from putting the reference. Also, I believe there are precedent such as the discography or even the basic "notes" vs "references" vs. "bibliography" (to which all 3 are sometimes present within an article). These examples simply show the conflict of different "layouts" which an editors must comme to concensus. --CyclePat (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we're starting with your "idea that images can be cited in an article" and your premise that "Nothing stops anyone from putting the reference". You might want to read the most recent lengthy discussion on giving image credit in articles at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive_25#Photograph attribution in image captions. The consensus of that discussion was that image credit does not belong in articles—any more than editor credit does. Maralia (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat, I've read through the links you've given, plus the Village Pump proposal, and I'm a bit disappointed in the "support" that you're citing. ImpIn's comments, for example, were just a random remark in an unrelated discussion -- and the section in question doesn't support your proposal anyway.

I think we can fairly say that there is a clear community consensus against providing credit for images in articles. There is strong support for making that information easily available to anyone that clicks on the image, but no support for providing it directly in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One more point: WP:LAYOUT is unquestionably the wrong guideline for this proposal. LAYOUT takes the requirements that are created in other pages and tells you what order to put them in. It does not tell you what the content of an article should be. If you're serious about trying to build consensus for this (IMO, doomed) idea, then you must take it to an appropriate page. I'd suggest WP:V, since providing references for an image is essentially an issue of verifiability, but you might find more sympathetic editors at WP:IMAGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal conflict

Wikipedia:Portal conflicts with guidelines here: "individual portals are linked by placing {{portal}} on a page. However, in the main namespace, these templates should not be placed in articles, but instead should be located at the top of an article's talk page" --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if only you'd read the rest of that sentence, you'd see that it is "often due to [something - we aren't saying what] being integrated into WikiProject banner templates." (I wonder whether that clause would make sense even if we knew what was being integrated.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See also the talk section Wikipedia talk:Portal#Wikipedia:Layout conflict --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"but instead should be located at the top of an article's talk page, often due to being integrated into WikiProject banner templates." I interpret this as portals should only go on the talk page, and are often integrated into the banner template of many Wikiprojects. The issues here is that one guideline says portal tags go in the article and another says they don't. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we amend the policies to something like "If a portal is part of a wikiproject, the portal tag should be part of the project tag and at the top of the talk page. If the portal isn't part of a project, it may be placed in See also". Amend both the layout and GTL guides with the same wording. Formatting-wise, they look better in the project tag. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Confused. This page deals with article guidelines, not talk pages ?? Maybe I'm not following your proposal, Rlevse? I oppose loose Portals floating around at the top of articles: they belong in See also (some Infoboxes are incorporating them, and someday this Project is going to have to get a handle on Infobox creep, which is really getting out of control with infoboxes extending into the third sections of articles and becoming so cluttered they impede reability, but that's not a matter for here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like making a distinction between portals that are WP:OWNed by a WikiProject and those that aren't. Also, if we want regular readers to see the portal links -- and it's my impression that this is the entire point behind the existence of portals -- then we shouldn't be 'hiding' the portal links on the how-to-edit-this-article talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the "subtopics" subsection a candidate for deletion?

The "subtopics" subsection reads, in its entirety: The degree to which subtopics should either appear in a single articles or be given their own pages is a matter of perceived logic and of controlling the total length of the article. It doesn't define a "subtopic" (or link to a definition) and doesn't provide much guidance. And, on top of that, it really isn't a layout issue. I say we should just delete the whole subsection. Am I wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There being no champions for the subtopics subsection I plan on deleting it in another four days or so. Now is the time to stop me from doing this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)