Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. - Oscar Wilde I plead guilty as charged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Bumbry Subject: Wikipedia article on Grace Bumbry BCC: Casey Abell
In response to my edit which placed Sections in the same order I have seen them on many other Wikipedia (WP) pages for Opera Singers and other Musicians,
External Links References
your edit changed them to,
References External Links
You wrote explaining why the order of Sections I have been adding to WP pages is wrong.
At 09:28 AM 11-12-2007 -0800, you wrote:
I was just following the usual practice at Wikipedia by placing the "External links" section at the end of the Grace Bumbry article. As Wikipedia:External links says: "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article." If there is a different convention for opera singer articles, I have no problems with the "External links" section being placed somewhere else in the article.
To [WikiEN-l]:
I thought that WP was trying to emulate a real paper encyclopedia. In a real paper non-fiction book, the bibliography is always the last thing before the Index. Why WP calls a bibliography "References" 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 that govern how Musician's Sections are to be named and exactly what consistent order they are supposed to be in. I had plans on adding "External Links" and "References" to the WP entry for the 200 Opera Singers listed on my page, http://www.folklib.net/opera/singers.shtml plus in my fifteen years of indexing almost 300 books about musicians, http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/bibliog7.shtml (opera) http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/bibliog.shtml (general) I also have "Reference" lists for about three thousand others, http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/birth2days.shtml#COPYRIGHT However, as my WP editing is wrong by following consistent paper publishing rules, and there are no consistent Wikipedia rules to match, there is no point in my continuing. ____________________________________________________________ Doug Henkle - mailto:henkle@pobox.com P.O. Box 1447, Oshkosh, WI 54903-1447
On 11/23/07, Doug Henkle henkle@pobox.com wrote:
I thought that WP was trying to emulate a real paperencyclopedia.
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
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/23/07, Doug Henkle henkle@pobox.com wrote:
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".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions says that the sections can be in any order, true, but it lists them in the same order that I almost universally see them placed in the article and in the past when I've reorganized articles to match that pattern I can't recall ever sparking any controversy or resistance (I had always thought that the guidelines were actually explicit). So I think we can say there's ''de facto'' consensus that references go before external links even if it isn't stated explicitly.
The way I've always conceived it, these sections are sorted in order of decreasing connection to Wikipedia. "See also" contains links to pages within Wikipedia itself, "references" contains links to pages that aren't in Wikipedia but whose _contents_ are used in Wikipedia, and "external links" contains links to pages that aren't in Wikipedia and that cover areas not covered by Wikipedia articles.
However, as my WP editing is wrong by following consistent paper publishing rules, and there are no consistent Wikipedia rules to match, there is no point in my continuing.
Leaving Wikipedia over the ordering of reference and external link sections seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. I suppose we could take a crack at making the guidelines explicit to see whether there really is a consensus on the matter?
On Nov 22, 2007 4:52 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The way I've always conceived it, these sections are sorted in order of decreasing connection to Wikipedia. "See also" contains links to pages within Wikipedia itself, "references" contains links to pages that aren't in Wikipedia but whose _contents_ are used in Wikipedia, and "external links" contains links to pages that aren't in Wikipedia and that cover areas not covered by Wikipedia articles.
That follows my understanding too, and I believe the de-facto consensus across the vast majority of our articles.
However, as my WP editing is wrong by following consistent paper publishing rules, and there are no consistent Wikipedia rules to match, there is no point in my continuing.
Leaving Wikipedia over the ordering of reference and external link sections seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. I suppose we could take a crack at making the guidelines explicit to see whether there really is a consensus on the matter?
I think the consensus is largely as you have stated.
Doug, the worst that will happen if you order the sections wrong is that some helpful person will come along and re-order them. I don't think that impacts the usefulness of what you're doing in any way, and I hope you will continue.
Our contributions to Wikipedia articles don't have to be perfect. That's the beauty of it. I remember several editors explicitly thanking the army of helpful people who come after them to fix their grammar, spelling, Wikipedia notation and all the rest. It allows those who have the core skills of research and good writing to concentrate on those, not minutia.
-Matt
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
On 11/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
Hmm, "secondary feature". A consistent look and feel is worth *something*. It may not be of overriding importance all the time, but it shouldn't be ignored, either. It's particularly frustrating that people who do want to follow "the standard" are given no guidance from the MoS.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/24/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
Hmm, "secondary feature". A consistent look and feel is worth *something*. It may not be of overriding importance all the time, but it shouldn't be ignored, either. It's particularly frustrating that people who do want to follow "the standard" are given no guidance from the MoS.
I can understand that. A lot of ordinary editors like the guidance, and feel lost without it. If enough people do it one way things will drift that way. The problems come up when they insist that everybody else does it that way.
Ec