Wikipedia talk:Layout

 

Zobacz też:
Archive
Layout/Archives
Editors should feel free to revive a discussion topic from the archive.
Shortcut:
WT:GTL

Contents

Clearing up "Notes," "References," and "Notes and References"

What is the preferred approach?

I am still blundering toward an understanding of the proper use of the “Notes,” “References,” and “Notes and References” sections. Are the following statements correct? If not, what should be changed to make them correct?

1. The References section should contain only full citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in an alphabetized list (Flags of Canada for example) or a linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both. (If this is wrong then should the two lists appear in separate sections? And, if they should, what is the name of each such section?)
3. The Notes section should contain only comments on the text (which may be supported by short citations to materials listed with full citations in the References section).
4. Articles should contain citations to source material (“References”) and may contain comments (“Notes”).
5. The References section my precede the Notes section, or vice versa.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Looks right. 2. Looks right. 3. Looks right, but not written very clearly. 4. Don't know what it's trying to say, but looks wrong, unclear. 5. Correct except for the typo (my --> may). 6. Looks right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) is wrong. Yes, ==References== should always have a full citation to the source. However, it also permits the inclusion of short-form citations such as "Everyman, J., page 157." after the long-form citation. See History of condoms#References and Jane Austen#References for two very clear examples of what I'm talking about, and Acute myeloid leukemia#References for an example in an FA-class article (search for Abeloff in the refs). Also, pushing for separate sections is going to result in stupid-looking articles, with people listing every single reference in both sections because it's "required" by WP:LAY, even if the reference is only used once.
(2) has a very poor example: there is only one reference listed in Flags of Canada. A list of one item cannot usefully be said to be alphabetized. However, what's relevant is that references using <ref> automatically appear in the order in which they are linked. Full references using Harvard style (author-date style) should be alphabetized. A list of short citations (for page numbers) is inappropriate in Harvard style, because the author-date style is actually the author-date-page number style. We can simply reassert that each article must use a consistent style for its references and leave it at that. (Because if they use one style or the other, this problem won't come up.)
(3) might be profitably expanded to include quotations from the source text, to keep it consistent with Wikipedia:Cite sources#What footnotes are used for.
(4) makes sense to me. It attempts to distinguish between a reference (You Must Cite Your Sources) and explanatory text (Avoid Long Parenthetical Explanations in the Middle of the Article).
(5) is probably not best practice. ==Notes== or ==Footnotes== might contain on-Wiki information and thus precedes ==References==, which should always contain off-Wiki information. Furthermore, the reader might actually need to read the notes to understand the text. Therefore ==Notes== always precedes ==References==.
(6) is right.
Now I'd like you to consider the inherent contradiction in what you've just written: Your (1) says that ==References== must only have full citations. Your (3) says that ==Notes== must only contain comments. Where do you expect to put the short citations (page numbers from a book you've used repeatedly)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The following list is better (I hope), but can no doubt be improved. Please let me know what still needs work to make the following statements correct.

1. The References section should contain only citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in a Harvard-style alphabetized list (Starship Troopers for example) or a <ref> linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both.
3. If the <ref> approach is used in the References section then the Notes section should contain only comments on the text or quotes from source materials (either of which may be supported by short citations to materials listed with full citations in the References section). If the Harvard-style approach is used then the Notes section may also contain short citations on their own.
4. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“References”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“Notes”).
5. The Notes section should precede the References section.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is generally so in intent, but not in practice. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Leaving aside editor compliance for the moment, it looks good to me except for (3), which is wrong: Harvard does not use short citations in footnotes. The Harvard equivalent of the short citation footnote "Everyman, J. (2008), page 157." is the inline notation (Everyman 2008:157). Harvard therefore only puts commentary and quotations in the ==Notes== section (although, reasonably enough, a quotation might be followed by an appropriate Harvard-style inline notation about the page number or other source for the quote). The <ref> system might place short citations in the ==Notes== section (although I personally dislike that approach). You might re-phrase like this:
3. In the Harvard style, the Notes section contains only comments on the text or relevant quotations from source material. In the <ref> approach, the Notes section should contain comments on the text and quotations from source materials and may contain short citations for page numbers if editors prefer to list only full-length citations in the References section.
There may be a better way to phrase it, but this seems reasonably clear to me. Also, it might be worth adding a note about the third section, ==Footnotes==. A Footnotes section is used (only) in the <ref> style when there are many explanatory comments (==Notes==), many short citations (==Footnotes==) and a desire to keep the short citations out of the main list of ==References==. There should be no need for a Footnotes section in the Harvard system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In practice I don't think any such specific rules are followed. "References" may describe any section containing either citation footnotes or an alphabetized list of sources. "Notes" or "Footnotes" may be used for any section containing footnotes of any type (citations or explanatory footnotes). It is not generally true that citations and explanatory footnotes "should" appear in different sections; indeed, normally they do not, and they may be combined under the headings "Notes", "Footnotes", "Notes and References", etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the first sentence. The question is whether there should be a "best practices" guide that we encourage editors to use. That question is discussed below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I think I'm pretty close now. How's this:

1. The References section should contain only citations to source material.
2. Citations in the References section may appear in a Harvard-style alphabetized list (Starship Troopers for example) or a <ref> linked list (Jane Austen for example), but not both.
3. If the Harvard-style approach is used then the Notes section should contain only comments on the text or relevant quotations from source material. If the <ref> approach is used then the Notes section may also contain, in addition to comments on the text and quotations from source materials, short citations to materials with full-length citations in the References section.
4. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“References”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“Notes”).
5. The Notes section should precede the References section.
6. Generally, if an article contains both citations (“References”) and comments (“Notes”) then they should appear in separate sections. However, if an article contains only a few citations and a few comments then they can be combined in a “Notes and References” section.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Now have you considered the use of ==Footnotes== in the <ref> style? It's used on occasion to keep short citations separate from both full references and commentary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add that to my next go-round. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(2) is inaccurate; some articles combine general references and citations under one section and nothing currently discourages this. In fact {{reflist}} is specifically designed to enable it. (3) is inaccurate; the Notes section may also contain full-length citations in that situation. (5) is more generally incorrect; Notes and References may appear in either order under the current guideline and neither is preferred. (6) is also not correct; it is not generally true that articles which contain both citations and comments should separate them. (1) and (4) are correct as I understand them, although the section titles indicated by (4) are simply one choice each from multiple options. (1) also needs to be understood broadly, as the section may contain other reference-related material, for instance comments on sources being cited. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A few follow up questions -
1. Regarding "comments on references," I think I know what you mean but I want to be sure. Can you tell me more about that? (Or, perhaps, just provide a link to an article where this is done.)
2. So if I take out the "but not both" language then 2 would be correct? (Even if that does fix it I would appreciate it if you would provide a sample article where this is done.)
3. I'm a bit lost on this one. If the Notes section contains full citations then shouldn't it be called a "Notes and references" section? I am probably missing something; if so then I appreciate in advance your patience in explaining this to me in more detail.
4. Are the "multiple options" equally preferred from an editorial perspective? If so, please provide me the principal additional alternative names for "References" and "Notes" sections. If not, would you agree that "Notes" and "References" are the titles we should be encouraging?
5. The first time I wrote 5 I said, The References section my precede the Notes section, or vice versa. I was told that this was wrong because, as the Layout article says, Any section which concerns material outside Wikipedia (including References, Bibliography, and External links) should come after any section that concerns Wikipedia material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear. On the other hand, now that you mention it, I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management says they can be reversed. So I'll go with your change on my next go-round.
6. How about: If an article contains both citations and comments then they may appear separately (citations in a "References" section and comments in a "Notes" section) or together (in a "Notes and references" section)?
Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) Well, for instance, an article might present a list of general references with a brief description of what is in particular works. For instance, in an article on a famous building, one might note that one book focuses on the process of construction, one book contains large color architectural drawings, etc., which can help direct readers to the most appropriate source.
(2) The example article given at {{reflist}} is Elephant.
(3) See Rosa Parks; here the cite.php elements appear under "Notes" but contain the full citations.
(4) "Notes" can be called "Footnotes", "Citations", etc. See Pericles, which has "Notes", "Citations" and "References" sections. To my knowledge there is no developed editorial preferences for the names of these sections, and personally I see no value in us encouraging any particular names for these sections.
(6) They may also appear together simply as "Notes", or separately with different section names, as at Pericles. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Christopher, per WP:CITE#HOW, Harvard and inline ref styles should not be mixed, so "but not both" is accurate. The list here does not yet address the use of a general reference in an article that also uses inline refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are making a distinction between a "citation" and a "general reference" then I think it is fine, but I don't believe that this distinction is made generally across the relevant guidelines (CITE: "This guideline uses the terms "source", "reference", and "citation" interchangeably"). I still think it is a bit misleading, in that a section may contain both an alphabetized list of references (perhaps identical to that found in Harvard style) and footnotes produced by cite.php or another method. However, I agree that parenthetical citation and footnote citation should not be intermingled. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
References and Notes. If the "Notes" section is being used for short-form citations, then it should come after the full-title citation, so after the "References" section. Jheald (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't cap talk pages; it invalidates future archive searches. If the page is too long, you can archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, caping a lengthy discussion enhances the readability of the page before it is archived. Is there any problem with considering this cap to be temporary while the discussion is active? Once the discussion is complete, and the section is qued for archiving, then the cap can be removed. That seems to be the best of both worlds. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

O.k., back to the drawing board:

1. Articles should be supported by citations to source material (“citations”) and may also contain explanatory comments (“comments”).
2. There is no consensus establishing a particular layout or set of layouts for the presentation of citations and comments. Similarly, there is no consensus establishing the names of the sections into which citations and comments are put.
3. Approaches for presenting citations and comments found in featured articles include:
3.a. Putting linked short citations in a “Notes” section followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Starship Troopers (this article has no comments). (A variation on this approach is to put linked short and full citations in a “Notes” section followed by a list of additional full citations in a “References” section as in Palazzo Pitti.)
3.b. Putting linked comments in a “Notes” section, followed by linked short citations in a “References” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “Bibliography” section. See, e.g., Jane Austen. (A variation on this approach is to name the last two sections "Citations" and "References" as in Pericles).
3.c. Putting linked full citations in a “Notes” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. See, e.g., Rosa Parks (this article has no comments). (Or reversing the order of presentation, as in Absinthe.)
4. In addition, particularly for articles with fewer citations and comments, the citations and comments may be combined in a “Notes and references” section.

Is this any closer to correct? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this increases partisan. However here is another method referencing method, which I am proposing or reproposing:
  1. Providing a "Footnotes" or "Notes" simultaneously with a "References" or occasionally "Bibliography" as a second-level-header (h2):
    1. Over distinguishes the two sections, which present essentially the same content: information that either help verify or elaborate portions that cannot be done from within the article
    2. Increases h2 clutter; which should be reserved for the primary elements of the article
  2. I suggest encapsulating the two as a single h2 likely named "References" with two tertiary-level-headers (h3) named: (1) "Footnotes" or "Notes", and (2)"Bibliography" or "Sources"
  3. If only (1) in-line citations or (2) general references are used, all h3 within the h2 are omitted: leaving only the h2 "References"
  4. In long articles where books or other media are cited more than once from different locations from within the book or media, the "Bibliography" or "Sources" h3 should contain the full citation of the book(s) or other media, with the "Notes" or "Footnotes" h3 containing the relevant locations within them
  5. Explanatory notes and in-line citation can be placed in the same section, however like in the Jane Austen case, it's possible to separate them
This method is outline oriented, which is optimized for the TOC. It does, however, increase the number of sections from potentially two to three. We might not have a consensus on a singular method, but we can consent on what progress we've made.
Here is an example of the proposed method: Link. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As things currently stand (as I understand them) your proposal is as acceptable as any other method. So feel free to implement it on any article you choose to edit. (Keeping in mind that established articles should not be modified simply to make them more acceptable to one editor's sense of aesthetics.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
CC, Both bibliography and sources have been deprecated in the past because they seem to be confusing to readers (and occasionally editors). Source in particular is defined much more broadly under WP:V and WP:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate CC's proposal for a new approach, I'm still waiting for comments on my most recent (July 22) attempt to understand the current reality regarding layout for citations and comments. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :-) It's really hard to sort through these long discussions. I think I see (above) your July 22 proposal. It says in several places that there is "no consensus", which I'm not sure is accurate. There are several different common practices in use, which is different than no consensus. It's hard to tackle this issue here when WP:CITE has been devastated over the last two months, and the pages need to be re-synced. CITE is the main page for that, so it's hard to sort out how to fix this page, when that page is a wreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, now that I've looked it over more closely, 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)\
I wholeheartedly agree. I'll begin a discussion on that topic below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether to modify Layout to state a preferred approach

Generally, because different editors use these sections in different ways in practice, I'm not sure any tightening or change is necessary; it's only a guideline,and guidelines are usually flexible. If someone can show me a problem, we could work on tightening to avoid such problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Are the guidelines intended to reflect the range of practices (whether they are preferred or not) or are they designed to reflect "best practices"? If the the former then I agree that the exercise above is for my benefit alone and we don't need to take the next step of working together to make Layout clearer. On the other hand, as the Manual of Style says "One way of presenting information is often just as good as another, but consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles." So maybe giving a clear guide to the best practices would be a good idea. What do others think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the "right" answer for these sections depends so much on the style of citations, I've tried a different approach at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox. It splits the sections according to citation style and is intended to replace the existing Notes and References subsections. I would welcome your reactions (on this page, please, so we can keep the conversation here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What he said; how the sections are used depends on the citation method. I don't think we need to complicate the page; I've never encountered a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing - My reaction is that I support the idea of modifying the current text to make it clearer regarding what should go where (and how). Unfortunately, I am still educating myself regarding what should go where (and how) and, accordingly, I can not speak authoritatively regarding the content of your proposal. Once I complete the process of nailing down the "best practices" regarding layout (a process underway above) I will be happy to return to your proposal and give my newly educated opinion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that most of the problems actually appear here, on this page, with editors eager to impose their pet versions on everyone else, despite a complete absence of consensus. To the extent that codifying the actual consensus could cut short those conversations, and perhaps even be useful on occasion to curious editors, I'm in favor of recommending a preferred approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sandy says "show me a problem." The Question section below shows the problem: There is confusion out there regarding whether there are and, if so, what are the preferred formats for comments and citations. The Layout article should be revised to clear up this confusion. (Even if the consensus turns out to be to tell editors that "there are no preferred formats, do whatever the heck you like.") Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Butwhatdoiknow, and rather than saying that there is a complete absence of consensus we could say that there are more than one consensus. The current WP:LAYOUT does not reflect this. I have drafted an edit to the policy page, link, however it includes some liberal changes, including moving the Links, Images, and Horizontal dividing line into the Body sections (this is the WP:LAYOUT not WP:MOS). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Defer this issue to WP:Cite?

Above, SandyGeorgia says: 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. I think this is an excellent idea.
While I believe that this information should be in this article rather than in WP:Cite, the important thing is that it should be in one place or the other (not both). And, as near as I can tell, there is a better chance to get those of us currently working on the Layout article to agree to defer to the Cite article than the other way around. (Then we can all go over to the Cite article and try to fix any problems there.)
We can worry about the exact language later but, for now, what does everyone think of the idea of saying something brief in Layout about References/Notes/etc. and providing a link to more complete information in the Cite article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean swapping in something like this?

===Notes, Footnotes, and References===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN
This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any). The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above. For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:
Something like that would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Without getting into specific wording, the first part of your draft (up to "...on the appropriate pages linked above.") is what I (and, I think, Sandy) have in mind. After that your proposal seems to veer into giving instructions, something my proposal would leave for the other articles to do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do this, then. Not having to keep two pages synchronized is always a benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
At a quick glance, it looks good. I reserve the right to pay closer attention later on :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But should we add single-spaced bullet? I sometimes see editors adding spaces between the bullets, which really lengthens the page. I'm not sure where we deal with that issue as a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Does single-spaced bullet refer to "* Item" (compare "*Item" with no space), or do you mean "Please don't put blank lines between items in a list"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
oops, problem with this text: "Items in a list should be preceded with either a bullet (if alphabetized) or a number (if it refers to a numbered item in the text)." This section refers to Notes, and it is common to use a, b, c ... A, B, C, or Greek letters in Notes. They don't have to be numbers. Re WhatamIdoing, not to put blank lines between items, since bullets automatically space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the spacing issue go in Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists instead? (Perhaps we should add a link to that section here.) I have updated the text to include letters and symbols as well as numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Bingo (that would be the place for it, care to start that discussion ove there :-)). Fix looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
All right: discussion started, and I've temporarily put the main MoS page back on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I like where this is going, if I am interpreting this correctly then we are pursuing and nearing a consensus on the following elements:

I understand that a single consensus on which method to utilized would be unlikely in the current climate of this discussion. However, if we can keep track of the variation in referencing, it may hold the potential that there may more standardization in the future:

The following are interchangeable terms:

So what do you guys think, can begin drafting? Or do we have more elements to vet, discuss, or elaborate on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I already indicated previously, the term "references" is a very ambiguous one and is defined as: 1. A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source. 2.a. The passage or source so referred to. 2.b. A work frequently used as a source. 2.c. A mark or footnote used to direct a reader elsewhere for additional information. In Wikipedia, the term references more often refers to the end/footnote but that is already given as "Notes."
The term bibliography, however, is very specific: 1. A list of the works of a specific author or publisher. 2.a. A list of writings relating to a given subject: a bibliography of Latin American history. 2.b. A list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work. 3.a. The description and identification of the editions, dates of issue, authorship, and typography of books or other written material. 3.b. A compilation of such information.
I am following the logical progression of the meaning of the words to propose:
  • References (L2 heading signifying a listing following of all sources of information)
  • Notes (L3 heading signifying a listing of the source of information noted by footnoting/endnoting numeral and source, given either in shorthand or full bibliographical citation form)
  • Bibliography (L3 heading, giving full notations on all secondary/tertiary sources of information in textual/electronic form)
  • External links (L3 heading, signifying electronic links that were used as additional reference sources) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Draft revision to the Notes and References sections

Well, actually, we've already started drafting. WhatamIdoing suggests:

===Notes, Footnotes, and References===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN
This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any). The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above. For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:

I've said that I like What's version (subject to tweaking) up to "... appropriate pages linked above." Sandy appears to have signed off on the full version (subject to tweaking). I suggest we continue to work from What's draft. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree more strongly on the notion that "references" is a clearly understood term while "bibliography" is misleading. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
That said, are you o.k. with the rest of What's draft? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the real rationale for further reading, does it actually refer to sources used in formulating the article? If so, then they should appear as part of a bibliography. Further reading implies that these are in addition to the sources already presented, which is very misleading. I am sure that the original drafters of the wording meant to consider that sources were for the reader to check out because they were important to understanding the article, then that makes them secondary or tertiary sources to be included in a bibliography. The entire concept behind "references" is so nebulous, that a lot of redefinition is required. We already have MoS warriors out there reverting like mad because of their interpretations of the terminology. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Your concerns regarding the references/bibliography issue and your question about further reading are duly noted. Is the rest of What's text o.k.? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that you ask, I find this statement to be confusing, "For the reader's convenience, text which the reader may need to understand the article, such as an explanatory note, is generally listed separately from and before long lists of references." Does that refer to a "Notes" section, which now makes it unclear as to lists of "Citations" as opposed to footnote/endnotes. In publishing, the footnote/endnote often takes on this dual role, which seems to be fairly confused as either "notes" or "notes and references". BTW, the entire passage is written with an extraneous comma (the so-called Harvard comma) in stating lists, e.g. "Notes, Footnotes, and References" which I would have stated as "Reference sources including notes (foot/endnotes), bibliographies and external links." FWiW, my background is as an academic librarian for over 30 years, and now presently an author and editor at various publishing houses, so forgive my pedantic ramblings as to bibliographic notations. Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Every time I ask you come up with at least one more objection. So, unless you tell me I'm wrong, I'll just consider you to be a "no" vote with regard to What's draft. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to sound so contrary, in reiterating some concerns essentially "my revision" would change the direction of the draft as is. FWiW, I have to be a "nope" on this present draft. Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

Didn't catch that as a draft. Nevertheless, I'll start with the minor and move up. Try to avoid padding: "For the purposes of this guideline, please observe the following guidelines:", it can be reduced to: "Please observe the following guidelines:". We can simplify the title from Notes, Footnotes, and References to Notes and Citation — thus we've circumvented a comma issue in addition to reducing padding. Other than that, I support the prose and title. ¶Giving a set of general guidelines doesn't effectively express the known permutations of the Notes and Citation section. I suggest that we give a list of methods rather than a set of guidelines:

I agree with Bzuk, Bibliography should not be confused with Further reading: Bibliography is used to define a list of publications which can be used to verify an article; Further reading is used to define a list of articles or publications which can be used to expand upon the reader's knowledge — used similarly to External links. ¶I don't recommend starting a habit of using L2, L3, and so on. To give you some background: the internet was first developed (in addition to governmental purposes) to help peer-review documents; however, at the time, webpages used to be simply large bodies of text. HTML (actually SGML, its predecessor) was introduced to help divide these large blocks of text into something more readable. Headings was part of the first wave of tags which helped specify what certain pieces of text were. Thus, we have h1 for first level heading (article title), h2 for second level heading, h3 and so on. ¶Perhaps, we should introduce this in Lead section of WP:LAYOUT, or find another method of referring to section headings. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do I understand that you agree with me that the opening text is o.k. (subject to tweaking) but that you have problems with the "following guidelines"? (We can fight over the new title for the subsection if and when we get some consensus on the text change.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the text is essentially ok, it only needs a bit of cleanup; and as you said we can fight over the new title and so forth after we get a consensus on the text change. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I oppose inclusion of C&C's list of methods. The major point here is to avoid inclusion of this complication. The list of methods belongs at WP:CITE, not WP:LAYOUT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CITE states how references are made, different methods of creating references (e.g. <ref>, <cite>, <harv>), and when to use them. WP:LAYOUT states where the sections belong and their arrangement — specifically the different methods of arranging sections. Furthermore, WP:CITE only briefly states that references should be placed near the end of document in a section named Notes or References (or otherwise): no where in its text does it explain how the sections are arranged. I've rewritten the list of methods above to better reflect this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there is a serious problem with using Bibliography instead of References. That is the Bibliography is the preferred heading for a list of the subject's works in a biographical article. In such an article, there would then be two sections titled Bibliography. Let's stick to using References as there is no compelling reason to change it. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We have that worked out, see #About Further reading. Further reading contains all material that is not used to verify the article, but provides good background (note that if it is a website, it goes in the external links) — this can include works written but the subject of the article. In many cases I've also seen a section titled Works devoted to the authors works such as K. A. Applegate. One way of putting is that Bibliography is reserved to help verify the article, where Further reading is reserved for background information. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, we DON'T have that all worked out.
C&C, your personal preference is not the convention used on Wikipedia. We are not going to endorse the use of "Bibliography" instead of "References" just because you personally prefer it. Wednesday Next is right: the convention at Wikipedia is to use Bibliography for books written by the subject of the article. ("Works" is more common for non-book creations, such as visual arts; "Publications" is sometimes used for scientific journal articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I thought we were near the end of our discussion about Further reading's place — that's why you've implemented it so quickly without draft approval. Nevertheless, both methods are established: Bibliography can be used to hold a list of the subject of the article's works, or it can be used to hold non-inline citation (we may need to work this out, it doesn't seem very consistent). ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, more discussion is needed in which definitions must be taken in consideration of the terms in use. This means that the whole concept of referencing should include an evolving rather approach. The term bibliography is normally reserved for the list of reference sources used in formulating a work, but has somehow dual meanings/purposes now in use in Wikipedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC).
I beg to differ. The primary use of the word bibliography refers to "A list of the works of a specific author or publisher" (see [1]). The use you refer to for the term is a secondary one (2b, to be precise). Wikipedia has been encouraging the use of this term for its primary purpose for some time, to avoid ambiguity in headings. There is no real reason to reverse direction here. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion over the usage of Bibliography should be deferred to #Bibliography vs. References. Wednesday Next, the source you provided is derived from "The American Heritage Dictionary", which specializes in the contemporary usage of the word "Bibliography". It's a change, and we need to explore it in depth — so let's resolve this before we continue with passing the Referencing sections. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Change About To Be Made

Based on the discussion above I'm about to remove the current Notes and References sections and replace them with this text:

=== Notes, Footnotes, and References{{anchors|Notes|References}} ===

See also: Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:ISBN
This section, or group of sections, presents the explanatory notes and a list of the references that support the information in this article. These items belong in appropriately titled sections at this point in the appendices. The notes and references appear after the See also section (if any) and before the Further reading section (if any) and the External links section (if any). The format of these sections and the specific information in each depends entirely on the citation style chosen by the article's editors. Details can be found on the appropriate pages linked above.

I understand that this draft is not perfect. (How could it be? I didn't write it.) And there will be those who will be anxious to "fiddle" with it once it is in the article. (Me, for example.) So please don't object to this change based on wording or phrasing. That said, any reason why I shouldn't plow forward with the change? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I'm satisfied with this as a step in the right direction. I do think that we should include a reasonable level of layout-specific information, like the fact that these lists should be bulleted (numbered, symbol-ed, etc.) instead of plain lists, and that the headers should be level 2 headers instead of level 3, but that can be added later.
I suggest waiting at least 24 hours after your announcement, however, so that people who don't check Wikipedia multiple times in one day have a chance to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Agree with WhatamIdoing on bullets, level 2, et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Curious, though, why the link to the ISBN page? That has nothing to do with layout. Does it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an improvement to the current one, which is badly out of date. However I would prefer if you placed a list tacking the different methods in which these sections are organized, thus giving strong examples in addition to general guidelines. I won't revert it, which would make this proposal fall short of consensus, but it still needs work. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered about ISBN as well. And I also agree that we need to provide more guidance in the guide (although my approach would differ from those of WhatamI and CC). However, if we wait until we have text that everyone will agree to then we'll wait forever. Better, I suggest, to make this change "as is" and then refine it over time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented it with a change in title from Notes, Footnotes, and References to Notes and citations (Notes and Footnotes seem too closely linked, we're describing sections which hold explanatory notes and citation: both inline and non-inline). I believe the current sections are unacceptably out of date, and although our draft is imperfect: it's better. However, if this is too early, feel free to revert it. For SandyGeorge and Butwhatdoiknow, the ISBN seems unusual to me as well. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN or International Standard Book Number and ISSN, International Standard Serial (Journal, magazine) Number is essentially a "locator" for book merchants, publishers and the public. As a librarian, I constantly referred to ISBN as a means of ordering material, it gave the location by country, publisher and subject as well as giving a particular item code number(s). Where it has application in Wikipedia, is as an aid to those readers who wished to locate the print material. FWiW, the ISBN was considered optional as a "tracing" in cataloguing until recently wherein the usual bibliographic record tends to be more comprehensive and includes the ISBN as a matter of course. Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
That is all very well and good. The question is whether the Layout article (which is about "where") should point to the ISBN article (which is about a very specific "how"). No doubt the Cite article, and perhaps the Footnotes article, should talk about the use of the ISBN. But, I suggest, we should not clutter up the Layout article with even a mention of it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I support removal of the ISBN link from the (ir)relevant section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The "general" reference

Does anyone know the current state of wiki-feeling for the "general reference"? That is, it's the reference that isn't used inline and nobody knows what it actually says or supports, but it's listed at the end (See elephant) and we sort of assume that whatever is in the article and should be supported by a source -- well, it must be in the general reference? Is this considered a violation of "consistent formatting" for references? Do FA-class articles include general references? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this would be considered a violation of consistent formatting. In the past FAs used general references frequently. Not sure about the current crop, but it's worth noting that the guidelines should also accomodate articles that don't have the citation density prevailing in most FAs. Many early-stage articles provide only general references. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
FLs use general references quite often. Take a look at some of the recently promoted ones for an idea of how they are used. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of a few of the featured articles that have both inline citations and general references (copied from Wikipedia:Verification methods):
Eagle Scout · €2 commemorative coins · Acorn Computers · Absinthe · 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane · Aramaic language · 1896 Summer Olympics · Mumia Abu-Jamal · Michel Foucault · Anarcho-capitalism · Algerian civil war
This makes sense to me for some subjects. I (as a reader) would assume that the inline references each verify specific things in the text, while the general references serve to verify the entire article (i.e., they verify dozens of the things throughout the article, and (possibly) also help verify the article's completeness, structure and emphasis.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify part of my question: Is it a violation of "consistent formatting" of references to have one reference inline, using <ref>Everyman, J. 2008. ''My Favorite Things.'' Volume 1.</ref>, and another reference not inline in the same article, simply listed as a general reference: * Everyman, J. 2008. My Favorite Things. Volume 2. That is, should all references use the same format -- either being inline or general -- but not both styles mixed together in the same article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be a violation of consistency since these references are being used to do different things. Consistency doesn't demand that everything be identical, just that similar things be treated similarly. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The better response to this question is should we have general references in Featured Articles? My answer would be no. Facts need to be demonstrated with inline citations in FAs. These general references should be moved to "Further reading" sections. The more interesting question is whether we can do parenthetical and footnote referencing in the same article. I think it is appropriate; the Chicago Manual of Style agrees with me. Under the current orthodoxy, however, this appears to be heavily discouraged, perhaps even verboten. II | (t - c) 02:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I find the "general reference" to be pretty much useless. It seems like "Here, read this whole stack of books, and surely one of them supports whatever it was that you thought was a little off, somewhere. Except maybe the parts that were subtle vandalism, but you can't really tell until you read all of these books."
As for using (Everyman, 2008) in one paragraph and [1] in the next -- yes, that's exactly what the current guidelines prohibit. If you're using author-date-page references, then the only <ref> tags in your article should be for explanatory text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that articles need to be verified through inline citations, and whenever a work or source is cited in more than one location from within the work: the method of using Short footnotes should be used and a General references section containing the full citation should be created. The idea of a reference that applies throughout the article is possible, but this makes verifying difficult, and in a way the purpose of the "Reference" section is verify the article: not show where it came from. The sections Further reading, Bibliography seems the most appropriate, even though it doesn't specifically cover your situation, Phenylalanine. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reopening?

Although WhatamIdoing is characterizing a bibliography as a random list of sources, I am confident that authors who list sources do not do them for frivolous reasons. The "for further reading" list appears to be sending out that message: "here is a list of works that may be of use, since they are not cited, but I thought you might want to read them anyway?" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC).
You'd be surprised. People spam books into reference lists all them time. Some publishers even have PR people doing it. Typically if somebody adds a book under "References" without adding text to the article, it is moved to "Further reading" if appropriate to the article or completely removed if not. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall having characterized anything as a "random list of sources". Bzuk, did you mean to start this conversation here? This discussion is about whether or not a book listed as a reference, without any indication about which facts refer to it, makes sense in a fully developed article. Elephant was used as the example here. There's a sentence in it that says, "An elephant can sink deep into mud, but can pull its legs out readily because its feet become smaller when they are lifted.citation needed" Until recently, there were three "general references" that might, or might not, support any and all facts in the article -- but of course no one would know, because the sources weren't matched with any facts in particular. Do you have an opinion on this issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we should defer the issue over which words most naturally defines References, Further reading, Bibliography, and so forth in #Bibliography vs. References. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft implementation

The current WP:LAYOUT does not reflect the current consensus, therefore the a draft has been generated. If there is no opposition, it will be implemented.

There have been several liberal changes including the proposal of an outline oriented and a section oriented method of referencing, both of which are described within the draft. Links, Images, and Horizontal dividing line has been moved into the h2 Body sections; this is the WP:LAYOUT, not the WP:MoS. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please summarize 1) what consensus you feel the current page doesn't reflect, and 2) what are the basic changes of your draft? The last time I checked this page, it did seem to reflect consensus, so based on your brief note above, I'd have to disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the discussion I see on this page involves instruction creep that overlaps with WP:CITE, which has suffered its own unfortunate instruction creep in the last few months, so I will oppose anything that heads this page in the direction of that page, or additions to this page that belong at WP:CITE. From what I can tell of your draft, it is veering into WP:CITE territory; this page is about layout, and I think it's fine as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) What aspects of the current version do you feel are not supported by consensus? I disagree with the substantive changes made in your draft, and I think many of your additions concerning references are inaccurate or incomplete and generally better covered at WP:CITE. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Chyran: respectfully, I must ask you not to launch in unilaterally and make major changes without proper consultation as you did in the "Eye movement" series of articles. Given a few days, I can come to grips with the issues you raise here. Tony (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not launching the change, I'm posting that a draft ready: you have plenty of time. The consensus I am referring to is section describing referencing section layout above; it's not a consensus in the usual, it describes how there is more than one consensus and that multiple methods are accepted (the draft details two specific methods, the current project page only details the section oriented method). ¶The WP:LAYOUT, hence the name, describes the general structure of an article and the information held within it. I agree that there is instruction creep, but it is difficult to understand how the Layout is preformed without reaching into WP:CITE. The changes can be summarized above (thee section moved, referencing section reoptimized). ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you CC for your enthusiasm. I certainly agree with you that the current article needs to be re-written to provide more guidance to the uninitiated (and I agree with Sandy that Layout shouldn't contain Cite [or Footnote] information [and vice-versa]). However, as a practical matter, I suspect that an attempt at a complete re-write in a single pass is unlikely to be successful. Instead, if enough people agree with you and me (and, I think, Whatamidoing] that substantial changes are warranted, then we should take on the project one section at a time. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To simply the process here is the break down of the changes to the article:

I hope this is helpful. If you want there can be more description on changes, just specify. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, I will be a bit more blunt: The chances of getting folks to agree on a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing. Instead, you should focus on one change at at time. For example, your proposal to move "Links" into the "Body" section. I'll start a conversation regarding that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I never implied that "a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing"; in fact in the opening paragraph I stated that the "There have been several liberal changes". Nevertheless, thanks you for your initiative we'll take one issue at time, off the top. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "are next to nothing" was intended to modify "chances," not "revision." So I didn't mean to suggest that you were in any way less than forthright regarding the scope of your proposed changes. I regret that my poor phrasing caused you to think otherwise. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Links section

ChyranandChloe proposes to move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section. CC's reasoning is that the Links text is more about how and when (rather than where). I'll go CC one further and, for the same reason, propose that the Links section be deleted altogether. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is the only consensus, then yes — there's a significant amount of instruction creep. Though it may be possible to revise the section to allow it to conform. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The page as it is now is basically correct, and I've seen no proposal to change it yet that I agree with. It's unclear if you're proposing deleting links from your draft (which I oppose) or from the current page (which I also oppose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal to delete the entire Links section from the current page is mine, not CCs. While I agree with Sandy that the Links section is "correct," that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Layout article should contain instructions regarding how and when to use links (as opposed to having that information in another article, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). I note that, on July 29, Sandy decried "instruction creep" entering the Layout article. I think that what I am proposing removes a section that is all about instruction and says nothing about layout. Am I wrong? If not then simply saying "it has always been there" would not seem to be a very strong argument for keeping the Links section in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this was added on to an earlier (rewrite) proposal, it was hard to tell what it referred to. I don't disagree that links are out of place in this article; it was just unclear to me if I had to go re-read that entire proposal (which I don't support) to sort this out. I had no idea how to interpret "move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section", since it appeared related to the other proposal. On the other hand, moving "Links" to the "Body" section doesn't make a lot of sense, since Links are also used in the lead. I guess the question is why Wikilinking is included here at all. Is that what you're asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's confined to the bottom of the page, it doesn't bother me as much, but I'm still unsure it's needed. On the other hand, I am loathe to completely delete a section without reading the full archives to understand how it came to be included here, especially considering other pages may link to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For now, I just reorganized to move those miscellaneous sections to below the basic layout info; it doesn't bother me as much if it's done that way (and now we have the silly horizontal deprecated section out of the way, at the bottom of the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering why you didn't discuss this change on the talk page and seek consensus first. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving a section is controversial now? Adding links to the main pages that discuss items, rather than duplicating text, is controversial? hmmm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I just recall that in the past you have spoken out against "fiddling" with articles and your changes look like fiddling to me. So I am a little confused regarding when it is appropriate to be bold and when consultation is the better course. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The "fiddling" I've mentioned before (I believe on other pages) involve major rewrites (and not always to accurate new text). I juggled text around, added main and see also links to tops of sections, and removed some text that was redundant to other sections. I didn't rewrite anything or add any new text or delete any major sections, and as I said above, I would hesitate to entirely delete or rename a section, in case other pages link to it and without reading the archives here to understand why "Links" are included. Do you disagree with any of my edits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Issue no. 1 - O.k. then, I'll feel free to juggle text and to remove what I consider to be redundant text without first seeking consensus. And when I want to make changes such as turning "comments" into "order of appendices," I will not consider that I have re-written anything and I will not seek consensus for that sort of change either.
Issue no. 2 - If saving the link is that important perhaps we could delete all the text under that heading and replace that text with a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
Issue no. 3 - Will you be reading the archives to satisfy yourself regarding the reason the links section appears in this article?
Issue no. 4 - I haven't done an exhaustive review of the changes you made but the review I have done suggests that they improve the article. Remember, I am a self-admited fiddler. So I certainly can't complain when someone else engages in the same behavior. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It took you nine tries to accomplish your edits SandyGeorge, please use the preview: this unnecessarily fills the history. For an article as sensitive as this, please post what edits you are going to make before you make them: acting as autonomously as you did does not show a healthy respect or regard for your colleges involved in the WP:LAYOUT draft.

This section is not about our policy involving how edits should be made on the WP:LAOUT — if you want, I believe it's possible create a section on how this policy page can be edited rather than going to near anarchy every time there is something new. I advocate the removal of the Links section as with Butwhatdoiknow on the grounds of unjustified instruction creep into the WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK, unless SandyGeorge wishes to rewrite the section to conform the the WP:LAYOUT we can remove it on Monday (to give time for Tony or someone else if they want to become involved). No hard feelings SandyGeorge, I do not oppose your edits, but Butwhatdoiknow and I do not approve of an immediate implementation of a consensus in progress. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to tell me to use the preview button; I intentionally edit in small bites, describing each step as I go, so that everyone can easily see exactly what I'm doing each step of the way. In fact, I dislike large chunk edits to policy and guidelines pages precisely because it's then hard to sort out what all was changed. Since I have made no controversial edits, you can quite easily follow what I did by viewing the diffs. I don't care one way or another if you delete the Links section (I only got it out of the way by moving it to the bottom), but as I've already stated, I strongly recommend that you view the archives and try to determine why it's there and if any other guideline page links to it before you delete it. And, since the Links section has been on this page for months or years, I don't see the need to remove it quickly; allowing others time to weigh in before deleting an entire section won't hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Going back in the page history, to 2005, gives a hint about the Links section; my guess is that it's just a hold-over from when the page had a significantly different structure and all of MoS was simpler. My recommendation (feel free to ignore) is that you leave the suggestion to delete it up here for at least two weeks, and then if no one objects, delete it and see what happens. But don't be surprised if someone who's been around Wiki longer than any of us then objects, and gives a reason why it's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I prefer to simply compare the two edits and read the lengthy edit summery. I believe the purpose of the links section was to describe how sections are to be wikifyed. It does not hold strong relevance to Layout. I've compile this section into a show/hide, and now lets move on to the next section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't cap discussion; it invalidates future searches in archives. I've removed the cap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On Thursday 7 August 2008 the Links section will be omitted, and briefly recompiled into the h3 If a section is a summary of another article (possible rename) to describe how articles are inherently connected. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to delete the Links section then I suggest that we should delete it. So, while I am not sure what "recomplied" means in this circumstance, I vote against moving the Links section descriptions to another part of Layout (regardless of the brevity of the text used for that purpose). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Butwhatdoiknow; I can't decipher what is meant by "recompiled into the h3" blah, blah, blah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I thought that rather than completely removing the content we could briefly summarize it and place it in the section If a section is a summary of another article. Here's a draft of what I'm talking about:
Main articles: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal links

As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases relevant to the context of the first occurrence within a h2 section; if the phrase or word does not match the name of the article, you may place the exact name of the article following by a pipe "|" (shift forward slash, \) followed by the phrase you wish to see in the context of the article you are editing. This creates a hyperlink linking to other Wikipedia articles:

Lennie and George came to a ranch near [[Soledad, California|Soledad]] southeast of [[Salinas, California]] to "work up a stake".
which produces:

Lennie and George came to a ranch near Soledad southeast of Salinas, California to "work up a stake".

See also: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Layout

When a section is a summary of another article, it should have an italicized link before the text (but after the section heading) referring to it. Templates are available for this operation:

{{main|Circumcision and law}}
which produces:
Main article: Circumcision and law
We could also rename the h3 from If a section is a summary of another article to Linking articles. How articles are links together can be an important part of Layout, since the method is that links should only be placed on important words or phrases at the first occurrence in a h2. This does not creep into the WP:MoS, since the WP:LAYOUT inherently describes where, rather the the how and what. This idea of providing a paragraph and two example is of course a proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There are several problems with this proposal:

  1. The idea of completely removing discussion of "Links" from this page has some validity (and support on this page, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, although I advise caution), but incorporating them into a discussion involving only the body of articles, when links equally go in the lead section, doesn't. Links apply to lead, body, and appendices (see also).
  2. Please take great care when renaming long-standing sections on guideline pages, as many other pages will have linked to them over time.
  3. Further, unsure where you're getting this wording, which is not univerally accurate and appears to be encouraging WP:OVERLINKing: "As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases of the first occurrence within a h2 section ... " We don't need to redefine linking on this page, and encouraging a new link in every h2 section need not be introduced here.

If the idea was originally to remove discussion of linking from this page, because it's not part of Layout, this proposal is going in the wrong direction, even introducing a new definition of when to link that I've not encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and renew my vote for removing, not moving (and revising), the Links section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1We are removing the Links section regardless, however I am unhappy with the loose of information. 2Renaming long standing sections is of no concern, simply add an anchor. 3WP:OVERLINK specifies how, layout specifies where: it's a proposal in which we can set precedence. It does not encourage overlinking: by the time a reader gets to the next h2, the two section either have enough divergence (if it doesn't it is possible the two sections should be subordinated as h3s and a h2 should be cast over the two) to not reuse the same words of phrases, or the section is long enough in which the reader should not have to double back and hunt for the link. WP:OVERLINK is specified as the main article in the case of disputes. No policy can be universally accurate to every context, and this isn't something so abstract and simple that we could apply a logical rule to it: it calls upon user judgement over relevance and importance. No hard feelings guys, if you really oppose it, I won't push it; but it would be helpful if you give a thoughtout reason of why. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To delete or not to delete

The proposal of rewriting the links section is continued below.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion here, thank you. (The jump leads to a discussion regarding the Images and Dividing sections.) The topic here is whether the Links sectioin should be removed or moved. If it is going to be removed then we don't need to spend any time talking about re-writing. I am voting for remove and, I think, so is Sandy (halfheartedly) and WhatamI. So far only CC is voting for moving. Anyone else care to chime in? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not voting for moving it. The discussion above involves removing the pre-7-August Links section; the one below discusses a potentially new rewritten one — we decided that the pre-7-August Links section contains instruction creep and that the best course of action would be remove it and to start with a new proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure who makes up the "we" in your statement that "we decided ... to start with a new proposal." As near as I can tell, you are the only person still advocating inicluding text regarding linking somewhere in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We are deleting the Links section because it contains an unacceptable amount of instruction creep. I am advocating that we write a new section regarding where links are to be placed since that may be a hole in our policy page. My mistake, and sorry, I shouldn't have hooked the last statement onto the previous. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New General format section

Images illustrate and provide visual context to an article, and should be placed within the Body section. I understand that Images have been placed in the Lead section. However, they are generally contained within an {{infobox}} template, which can be developed into another topic. They cannot be placed in the Standard appendix (template images such as Commons do not count), so by deduction the most appropriate location would be within the Body section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

C&C, I'd like to encourage you to spend time at processes like peer review and good articles to help you become familiar with a broad range of articles, editors, and editing styles. These proposals aren't universally correct (in terms of reflecting practice across articles), which is why care has to be taken when editing guideline pages. First, infoboxes aren't required, many editors object to them, and images are very much included in lead as well as body sections. The way images are placed on this page is fine; there is no need to pigeon-hole them into a specific (head or body) section. Same applies for the discussion above about links, which you want to move to the body section, when discussion of links applies equally to the lead and even appendices (See also). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with Sandy. Scary. (That said, if we keep the Horizontal dividing line section - something to be discussed later - it may make sense to combine that section and the images section as h3 sections under an h2 section (perhaps called "Formating" or "Page elements") - something else to be discussed later.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I think pushing it into the Body section would be over specification. However leaving it as a h2 brings too much attention, and causes h2 clutter. This leaves us with two options: we can redefine Body sections to Body and add a brief lead describing that it can apply the first paragraph or Lead section, or we could subordinate it to another h2 which applies throughout likely titled "General formatting" (me and Butwhatdoiknow are agreeing again). I take back my statement on infoboxes, I agree with you on that SandyGeorge. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Sandy here. I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of images in the lead and not within an infobox. Also relevant: Under C&C's proposal, what would you do in a short article for which no appropriate infobox exists (or will ever exist), and in which the only h2-level sections are about details that are not related to the image you have? Just skip the image because images only belong in the body, and your image illustrates the text in the lead? WhatamIdoing (