Talk:Albert Anae

Section labels
Per WP:LAYOUT the sections at the end of the article are "Notes" and "References". So, why exactly are we using "Reference list"? Seems non-standard for no particular reason. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and changed it to the standard references. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur, it should be "References". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

--- REPLY: From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, there is no standard citation style. "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike".

The use of "Reference list" is a valid section title in accordance with (amongst others) the AGPS author-date style guide that is widely used in Australia (spread of examples below) and this article is an Australian subject.


 * Parliament of Australia Research Publications: The Shadow Cabinet in Australia
 * AGPS Referencing
 * |ShannonWhite?PageContentID=4328 University of Queensland Species List > Acanthochitona sp.
 * Curtin University: Research and Practice in Human Resource Management
 * Patent Lens: Human Telomerase Gene (cancer diagnostics and stem cell uses)
 * Dept of Health: Requirements for Medical Testing of Human Nucleic Acids
 * University of Newcastle: Quick Guide
 * Australia's Chief Scientist: Occasional Paper Series Issue 1: Geoengineering
 * La Trobe University: Library Guides
 * Tasmanian Government Policy Division: Collaboration
 * Australia Trachoma Surveillance Report 2011
 * University of Western Australia: Style Guides
 * Therapeutic Goods Administration: Medicine Labelling and Packaging Review
 * Public Service Commission: A brief history of leadership thought
 * Department of Primary Industry: Insect keys » Fulgoroidea

As the contributor of the citations in this article, I note that WP:FNNR states: "Editors may use any section title that they choose", and that the first contributor to add citations may choose whichever style. -- Kiap (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

---


 * I think User:Plastikspork has misunderstood WP:LAYOUT. It describes the order in which sections should be, but does not state what the title of the notes and references section should be. Indeed, it states there is no standard title: "Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose." Jc3s5h (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:FNNR. Especially Title:Editors may use any section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material. This also links to WP:CITEVAR, which suggests we generally shouldn't try to overrule people's choices when the choices are roughly equivalent.__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Elaqueate is right, exactly how the sections are titled is a matter of personal preference. If there is not a consensus regarding how these sections should be titled then the initial style should be retained. -- Shudde  talk 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * Although I acknowledge the ArbCom ruling, as mentioned in MOS:STABILITY in general, and in WP:CITEVAR in particular, I do have another reason besides personal preference: Consistency allows Wikipedia apps to treat "References" and "External links" sections as special sections and provide additional features related to them. However, I concur that at this stage, there is nothing to enforce; just to politely ask.


 * Please note that outside the scope of this article, I often change the title of these sections for relevance too: I run into articles that use "Notes" instead of "References" and "References" instead of "External link" or "Further reading" while there is no harv or sfn relation between the items of § Notes and § References.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Albert Anae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.rugby.com.au/wallabies/TheTeam/WallabiesProfiles/ProfilePage/tabid/1513/playerid/123/Default.aspx with https://web.archive.org/web/20140110193057/http://www.rugby.com.au/wallabies/TheTeam/WallabiesProfiles/ProfilePage/tabid/1513/playerid/123/Default.aspx on http://www.rugby.com.au/wallabies/TheTeam/WallabiesProfiles/ProfilePage/tabid/1513/playerid/123/Default.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/9014882/Dream-come-true-for-Anae-in-Wallabies-camp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)