Talk:New York School of Applied Design for Women

Reference section
,

Thanks for your recent edits. Regarding the reference section, though:
 * 1) "Notes" is the standard heading - see MOS:LAYOUT. However, I pulled the one note into the body of the article and removed the "Notes" section.
 * 2) Further reading is not a reference, it is a list of potential sources for additional content or to be used by readers to gain more information.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * (1) MOS is an editing guideline. It is never mandatory.
 * (2) Actually read the section in MOS on refernces, with which I am very familiar. It most certainly does not say that "Notes" is a standard. It offers the choice of a number of options.
 * (3) "References" are a group of things which we are referring the reader to. "Informational notes" or "Explanatory notes" contain information or explanations which did not easily fit into the text; "Notes", "Citations" or "Footnotes" refer the reader to specific parts of a source which support the statements made in the article; "Bibliography" or "Sources" refer the reader to general sources, or make the citations more efficient by listing a source's complete information just once, so it can be referred to more easily; "Further reading" refers the reader to material that was not used in the making of the article but which may be to their benefit to read.  These are all "references" and, frankly, the MOS advice to put "Further reading" in its own section is simply wrong, and clutters up the table of contents with irrelevant entries.  Any reader who wants to know more about the subject is going to look in "References", and that is where "Further reading" should be.
 * (4) That said, I'm not going to attempt enforce the logic of this by changing the section, I'll simply retire from editing the article. I've removed it from my watchlist; it's all yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)