Talk:Albert Anae

Learn more about this page

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Polynesia: Samoa Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Samoa (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Albert Anae is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Biography: Sports and Games Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Rugby union Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section labels edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Per WP:LAYOUT the sections at the end of the article are "Notes" and "References". So, why exactly are we using "Reference list"? Seems non-standard for no particular reason. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and changed it to the standard references. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Concur, it should be "References". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

REPLY: From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, there is no standard citation style. "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike".

The use of "Reference list" is a valid section title in accordance with (amongst others) the AGPS author-date style guide that is widely used in Australia (spread of examples below) and this article is an Australian subject.

As the contributor of the citations in this article, I note that WP:FNNR states: "Editors may use any section title that they choose", and that the first contributor to add citations may choose whichever style.^{[rlist 1]} -- Kiap (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

^ These matters have been addressed in rulings of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles.

I think User:Plastikspork has misunderstood WP:LAYOUT. It describes the order in which sections should be, but does not state what the title of the notes and references section should be. Indeed, it states there is no standard title: "Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose." Jc3s5h (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:FNNR. Especially Title:Editors may use any section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material. This also links to WP:CITEVAR, which suggests we generally shouldn't try to overrule people's choices when the choices are roughly equivalent.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, unless there is consensus to change, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Elaqueate is right, exactly how the sections are titled is a matter of personal preference. If there is not a consensus regarding how these sections should be titled then the initial style should be retained. -- Shudde ^talk 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

Although I acknowledge the ArbCom ruling, as mentioned in MOS:STABILITY in general, and in WP:CITEVAR in particular, I do have another reason besides personal preference: Consistency allows Wikipedia apps to treat "References" and "External links" sections as special sections and provide additional features related to them. However, I concur that at this stage, there is nothing to enforce; just to politely ask.

Please note that outside the scope of this article, I often change the title of these sections for relevance too: I run into articles that use "Notes" instead of "References" and "References" instead of "External link" or "Further reading" while there is no {{harv}} or {{sfn}} relation between the items of § Notes and § References.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Anae. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] These matters have been addressed in rulings of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Optional styles and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles.

[rlist 1]