On 11/23/07, Doug Henkle henkle@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