Talk:Hilda Rix Nicholas

Headings hierarchy for references / bibliography
Wow, Wikipedia articles have talk pages for discussing issues with articles! Who knew? So, there has been some edit warring over the heading structure for the bibliography / references in this article. The article references are structured such that Harvard-style references are used in the endnotes, followed by a list of sources to which the cites refer. These were organised with a level 2 heading "References" under which the notes occur under a level 3 heading "notes" and the full citations under a level 3 heading "bibliography". Editor Omnipaedista has sought to change this structure. With his first edit on this, he sought to change the bibliography to a second-level heading "further reading", which was clearly incorrect and reverted by Gerda Arendt. With his next edit, Omni changed it to a second-level heading, titled "works cited". This at least was a correct description of the list, but still broke the heading structure, because it moved the heading out from under the references heading, where it belonged. Editor RexxS reverted the change in heading hierarchy, but kept Omni's change in wording. then another editor, JonasVinther, came along and changed the words to "sources". Omni again changed the level to level 2, citing WP:APPENDIX in his edit summary. Gerda reverted, saying the two subsections should remain part of the "references" section. Omni again changed back to level two, and in his edit summary said "(the "works cited/sources" section is considered a separate section wikiwide, not a subsection of "citations/references")".

I have reviewed WP:APPENDIX. It does not provide guidance on the heading hierarchy, but does provide a range of suggestions over the words that can be used to describe the different kinds of lists. It is not correct that subsections are considered separate "wikiwide". Take a look at Dick Turpin, Hoxne Hoard or Pope_Paul_III_and_His_Grandsons, all of them FAs. Other FA articles, such as Phan Đình Phùng, Norman conquest of England, Windsor Castle or Caspar David Friedrich do use the section level headings. Then there are those FAs such as Lincoln cent which do mistakenly use the term "further reading" when they should not (regardless of what heading level one thinks they should have). My own view is that using section level headings for both footnotes and for the references they cite is conceptually incorrect, as it fails to do what a heading hierarchy is for: grouping concepts according to those things they are similar to, and separate from those from which they are distinct. Nevertheless, I'm happy to only exercise that view in those articles where there isn't a stable and settled approach. Omni, can we agree that there is not a wikiwide approach, and therefore that the structure that was in this article when it was promoted as an FA can be retained? hamiltonstone (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion took place on Gerda's talk page before my last edit. I sought to change the bibliography to a different section name because "bibliography" is ambiguous in biographical articles. Gerda correctly pointed out that I gave it a wrong title. This matter was solved. Regarding hierarchy: as I said on Gerda's page the "works cited/sources" section is considered a separate section wikiwide (as opposed to subsection of "citations/references") and (apart from very few exceptions) is marked as a level 2 heading. The only other way is to have a level 2 heading called "Notes and references" and have two level 3 headings called "Notes" and "References", respectively, below it. This Wikipedia convention reflects the convention employed in most printed academic publications according to which the last two sections of an article/book are called "Citations/references" and "Works cited", respectively. WP:APPENDIX says "optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==". The alternative practice (two level 3 headings) exists but it is not standard. To sum it up, I would agree to either having two level 2 headings or two level 3 headings, but I would not agree to having one level 2 heading and one level 3 heading. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't wikiwide - i sampled about 10 FAs and found a third of them followed the pattern i followed in this article. Apart from that, I'm a bit puzzled, because there were two level three headings, and that is what you changed. I don't think the WP:APPENDIX guidance is relevant because it is talking about different section types, it isn't directed at the structuring of the sources themselves, and when it does talk about them it explicitly envisages that people may use subsections. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I could cite several thousands of articles employing the two practices I am describing (either having two level 2 headings or two level 3 headings). The few FAs you cited are no exceptions to standard practice. "There were two level three headings" — nope, this is false. This is my initial edit. I am not sure where our disagreement is. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When I say "two level three headings" I mean having a level 2 heading called "Notes and references" and have two level 3 headings called "Notes" and "References", respectively, below it. This is the standard practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I had intended that the article followed the practice of Hoxne Hoard etc (and Muckaty Station, which I also wrote) I don't know why i didn't have that first level 3 heading in place. Actually it did used to have the two headings - don't know at what point that got lost . The first level three heading was removed in literally the last edit before you came in. Will fix. Ta, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we have that sorted out. What do you think of that version? (I employed the term "notes" for explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed to be in the body of the article, the term "citations" for citation footnotes, and the term "sources" for full citations to sources.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better than before, thank you, i like having all three in the one section. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hilda Rix Nicholas. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317151813/http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/projects/venice-biennale/past-representation to http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/projects/venice-biennale/past-representation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)