Steve Bennett wrote:
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".
That's fine. No consensus needs to be taken at face value. Over an
extended period of time one style may come to dominate, but there should
be no rush to impose one way or the other. Consistency is a secondary
feature.
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.
If the principal editor of an article sees
it differently it's not worth
arguing with him about it.
Ec