Talk:Canada/References

This page is against the guidelines at Subpages, subpages aren't supposed to be used for permanent encyclopedic content. IMO this page should be merged back into Canada, regardless of size issues. Bryan 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think so. The Canada page would get unwieldly, plus it is just a guidline, and not policy, so it is not a definite must. -- Jeff3000 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, J3000: B., this was discussed on the Talk:Canada page. I see little reason to obviate this dedicated, manageable 'sub'article when it would solve little and would likely cause more problems as a subsection with the Canada article (namely length).  Moreover, the United States article has a similarly entitled subarticle for refs.  On the contrary, there actually might be cause for annotating this article and to make it a true subarticle.  (Of course, I've some more refs to provide in the parent article first ...) :)  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I think the US references subarticle should be merged too. :) As an approach that might satisfy everyone, how about instead of simply pasting this back into the main article we take the individual references and actually use reference markup to incorporate them into the article text directly? See Footnotes for a description of the system. Bryan 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the footnote system, but I don't think this will do in this instance. We discussed available options on the talk page and determined this was the best solution available.  We even contemplated transcluding the refs elsewhere.  Many of the factoids in the article are cut from  multiple sources (and we scrutinised these in our attempts to source and reference information in the the article), so assigning specific references to them would be cumbersome and yield a littany of refs even more cumbersome that the prior state.  In addition, many are omnibus references (e.g. yearbooks, almanacs) that provide a cornucopia of information regarding one or numerous topics.


 * As for the US ref article, we only looked to it for inspiration in the title, not for content. So I can't compel you regarding that one this or that way.  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)