G'day David,
John Lee wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
<snip />
What I'm concerned about is that, as he said, external links != further reading. Maybe we could change "further reading" to "other resources"?
Or maybe we could leave it alone! I don't at all see the problem with "References" and "External links". (And some articles, e.g. [[Xenu]], actually have "References" and "Sources" and "External links".) I think the current convention is fine.
[[Lang Hancock]], which I bring up whenever I need to refer to a good article I've written (since, alas, it's the only really good one I can claim!), has References, External links, Further reading, and See also.
I listed all my sources as footnotes in "References", and now there's far too many footnotes; especially when I cite some sources more than once. I've been considering renaming "References" to "Footnotes" and using it only for extraordinary claims, and moving everything else to a sources section ("References"). Then there'll be Footnotes, References, See also, Further reading, and External links.
Thank goodness it's not a stub as well! Knowing Hancock, there'd be a *lot* of stub categories the man could fit under.