On 11/23/07, Doug Henkle <henkle(a)pobox.com> wrote:
I thought that WP was trying to emulate a real
paper
encyclopedia.
Not really. And to the extent that we are, it's a pretty low priority.
In a real paper non-fiction book, the bibliography is
always
the last thing before the Index. Why WP calls a bibliography "References"
We don't even really have an index, and certainly nothing on each page
that would qualify.
doesn't make sense, but I would accept that, IF it
was consistent
throughout all WP pages, but it is not. The Section naming inconsistency
displayed at,
http://www.folklib.net/opera/wikipedia_sections.shtml
is unacceptable, at least to me. "usual practice at Wikipedia" ... where
exactly is the documentation for the proper naming and order of ALL
Sections for Musicians? I will continue to look for the consistent rules
I agree. Consistent rules should be laid out in the Manual of Style.
Unfortunately, frequently the MoS gives up and says "you can do it
this way or this way, there's no consensus".
Fwiw, I think "sources" and "further reading" are better terms. Most
of our references *are* external links - we just want to distinguish
between those sites that contributed to the information in the
article, and those which go beyond it.
Steve