Talk:Blood Brothers (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] CC of posting at User talk:Asgardian

Since that editor routinely erases other editors' postings, I've placed the pertinent message here

Please stop ignoring editorial consensus regarding sections in the comics-character articles. We've all been through this before, and both admins and other editors continue to stress that anyone who disagrees with the consensus is properly welcome to argue his case for changing it. In the meantime, please abide by the majority and do not, for instance, remove "publication history" sections or rename "fictional character biography" and as "fictional character history." --Tenebrae 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "References" vs. "External links" vs. "Footnotes/Notes"

Hi, all, and a shout out to User:Mrph for his good, solid work throughout WikiProject Comics. I wanted to give the reason for changed changed "External links" to "References". It comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes

It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

2)

Further reading/External links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.

All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Apologies for that misunderstanding - this is a relatively recent change, as far as I can see, and isn't something that's clearly reflected in the current WP:CMC/X guidelines yet. I'd suggest that the exemplars now need an update to reflect this - as they're project-specific they're my first point of call for layout guidelines on comics articles (and if there's any contradiction I usually assume that they take precedence, as with the recent Character History stuff). It might also be worth some discussion there about whether or not the various GA and FA articles should be among the first ones amended to reflect this change...? Thanks! --Mrph 08:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being as gracious and cool on this as you are sharp and carefully thorough in your editing! And, yeah, you're right, the various Projects need clarification. "External links" is just a misleading term; "For further reading" would be sooo much clearer. Darn, do we have work to do.... --Tenebrae 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)