Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:04, 21 June 2008

edit Layout/Archives
Editors should feel free to revive a discussion topic from the archive.

• WT:GTL

Table of Contents

Where in the article should the Table of Contents be? Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) if forcing them to the top with the TOCLeft tag. Is this a new policy that I missed? Otherwise, I think it makes it harder to read the opening paragraph/section. Thanks. IP4240207xx (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It should appear after the lead, generally, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. This template exists mainly to help images/infoboxes/etc. at the top of the page float without too much whitespace, not to allow the table of contents to be moved above the lead. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references sections

Notes are what people use to annotate.

References are what people do to reference.

The template used for the references is {{reflist}}, not {{notelist}}

I title these section ==References== because they are linked to ==Sources== that are the subject of the policy on Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, and not Misplaced Pages:Citing references.

Now, there is no particular policy or even guideline or convention to add footnotes that "expands on a specific portion of the text", but there is a Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy that demands citation of sources, and their correct referencing to the page numbers.

So why is it that the section that contains a list of books=sources is called References? And why is it that the section that usually predominantly contains page number references is called Notes?

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of sources is called ==References== because the editor is supposed to have referred to these sources when writing the page. As to why some editors separate the full bibliographic listing from the repeated page numbers, it appears to be a matter of personal preference. You don't have to use that style if you don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate what References are supposed to mean, but looking at many articles what one finds is books listed in References, and no actual pages from them to referred to. Moreover inexperienced editors think that their article is now referenced although it really only suggests Further reading. Given that actual explanatory notes form a small part of the Reference sections, and that Notes are not mandated while page references are, I would like to propose that for clarity the sections are renamed

• ==References and notes== (per WP:REFNAME) to emphasise that page numbers are required

and {{reflist}} or other is always included

• ==Sources== (per WP:SOURCE) to remind the author/editor that anything they add to Misplaced Pages is subject to WP:V

and {{find}} is always included Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming pre-existing sections in 2.4 million articles and fielding questions from confused authors isn't practical. If we don't change them all, then people have to learn what both sets of words mean, which makes more work for everyone. It's not practical. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying everyone should go on a renaming spree. What I am doing is adding the following structure to any new article, or those I edit

==See also==

==References and notes==

{{reflist}}

==Sources==

{{find}}

==Further reading==

==External links==

The suggestion being that the editors should at least make an effort to find sources online using Google, that Sources are not same as References, and that Sources are not same as Further Readings. Also, External links are not sources unless they are referenced in the text of the article. My frustration is that many new article are submitted with the understanding that almost anything goes in terms of a source for it. However, the police in WP:SOURCE is that statements made in articles need to cite page numbers. I am not going to go and read every book someone suggests for a two paragraph article so I can find the reference myself! Nor do I think that is the suggestion of the policy that requires citing sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference is a book or article that is used to create a Misplaced Pages article. Often this will involve also citing information from a reference which may be placed in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section. A source is any Primary, or Secondary source that is used in creating an article. For example, a book used as a reference in an article may cite half a dozen sources including primary sources. We do not list those sources in the section usually called "References" instead we only list the articles that are used as references.

A secondary reason which can be found in the archives for not using the term sources is it would be confusing in cookery articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mgr3105, I understand that you have drawn a very fine line between a source and a reference. Importantly, nobody else draws a distinction between "the book I referred to for this information" and "the book that I sourced this information from". The use of ==Sources== has been considered and rejected by community consensus. It adds nothing, and in rare cases does introduce confusion with other issues (usually where to buy supplies).

I understand from your description above that you hope that listing everything twice -- once in short form under ==References and notes== (with the relevant page number) and once in long form under ==Sources== -- will encourage editors to include page numbers. This is likely a vain hope, as you doubtless are aware, but it's also a largely irrelevant hope in many cases. Websites do not generally have page numbers. Nearly all scientific journal articles can be found with their PMID number in the absence of page numbers -- indeed, in the absence of any other identifying information. Most references/sources/whatever you choose to call it do not need page numbers for the correct text to be found. Additionally, you have advanced no reason why the existing alternative -- short form under ==Notes== and long form under ==References== -- is in any way inferior to your proposal, except that you don't happen to like it.

Finally, you seem to have a haphazard method of implementing your changes along these lines, so that the citations within any given article are no longer consistent. Rather than creating confusion by putting your book in a section that is completely separate from all other references, I ask that you follow the recommended style until such time as you can gain a consensus for changing the recommended style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Portals in See also

Can anyone give me any good reason why mention that Portals go in See also was deleted from this page? I'm doing my best to keep on top of this via Tony's updates, but this wasn't mentioned, and I see no reason for its deletion, since it's been there for a very long time. I added it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can find no discussion of this change in archives (as so often happens in these cases). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can give a good reason: it was my mistake. It was re-added as part of a long addition that, at the time, didn't seem to me to have support. As I stated in the edit summary, I was trying to return the page back to a state that more closely matched early April, and missed that sentence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan; I hope it's OK that I added it back then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly; I don't remember anyone arguing for taking it out. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

I just realized I made a mistake when I wrote in April that articles should have a "References" section; that should be "References" or "Notes and References", since either is okay. I made the change, feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)