User:Noleander/draft4

RfC: Improvements to notes/references guideline
The WP manual of style guidance on notes and references  (aka WP:FNNR) provides some instructions on how to craft sections related to notes/reference. This RfC asks if the following guidance should be added to Noleander (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

 There are several acceptable layouts for this material, utilizing one, two, or more sections. Here are examples of some common presentations of this material. These examples, including the titles, are merely illustrative, and are not required or even preferred:
 * Example A) Single section - This layout puts citations and explanatory notes in a single section, and does not have a separate Reference section:
 * References -  The Notes section includes all footnotes, including citations and explanatory notes, are in this single section. All reliable sources are identified within the notes.
 * Example B) Two sections - This layout uses shortened citations (with a References section), and combines explanatory notes and citations in a single section:
 * Notes - The Notes section includes citations (if any) and explanatory notes (if any).  Citations may be shortened and refer to works in the References section.
 * References -  The References section lists works referenced by the article, particularly those utilized by citations.
 * Example C) Two sections - This layout uses .... [another common example] ...



Discussion

 * Yes - The existing guidance in FNNR is okay, but is missing some information that may be useful to editors:  (1) it does not give any concrete examples of common layouts; and (2) it gives the impression that a single section is somehow best, when in fact  most FA-quality articles use two or more sections for their notes/references.   The proposed addition to FNNR is intended to supply that additional information to readers.   The sections used for footnotes/references vary widely from article to article, and the WP community has decided to not establish any particular standard or recommendation.   The intention of this RfC is to maintain the current policy that the many alternatives are equally valid.   The point  is to supply some examples so readers can get a concrete feel for what some of the the choices look like. Also, if the specific examples in the RfC proposal above are not ideal, alternative examples can be given.   --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)