Talk:Tulk v Moxhay

User:WilliamJE deleting references

I cannot understand why User:WilliamJE wishes to delete a group of references that refer to Tulk v Moxhay. These were in the "See also" section with links so that the pages can be created. Those cases, as an undergraduate student will know, discuss and apply the case. What possible ground for deleting them from the page?

• Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 8 QBD 403
• Marten v Flight Refuelling Ltd [1962] Ch 115
• Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594
• Roake v Chandha [1984] Ch 40
• Brunner v Greenslade [1971] 1 Ch 993
• Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169
• Westminster City Council v the Duke of Westminster [1991] 4 All ER 1388

Wikidea 13:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As explained in the Manual of Style's section on "See also" sections, The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Any cases here without articles on Wikipedia should not be placed in the See also section. There are articles for Halsall v Brizell and for Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster, and while I am no expert in British law, these two cases appear to be relevant and could thus be included in a "See also" section. Wikidea and WilliamJE, would you have any objection to including only those two cases in a "See also" section? It would also be possible to include the other cases in a "Further reading" section, if there are readily available online versions of the cases. Again, whether a case is relevant will depend on common sense and editorial judgment. However, that is a content discussion that should be had on the talk page if there is any disagreement. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've proposed precisely this, and in this last edit placed them in the "references" section, only for them to be deleted. WilliamJE could have done that, but appears determined to delete everything, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. Wikidea 17:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In the references section, is where they belong not see also. Because they are references not links to other related wikipedia articles. That's fine now.

Moxhay points out I reverted wrongly his edit putting them in a references section. Why I made that wrong edit is partly due to his reverting (I get alerted if anyone reverts an edit of mine. As do most WP editors) my edit here[1] with an edit summary of 'Then put it in a reference section! Please, try and understand' That edit summary combined with a reversion gives a strong impression of it being a straight reversion to the previous post where the list was in the see also section. It would be very easy for an editor in good faith to make the mistake I did....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidea and WilliamJE: Hello, I'm just getting around to a reply now. It is acceptable to put full bibliographic citations to sources that were consulted in writing the article but that are not explicitly connected to any specific material in the article in a "References" section per WP:FNNR. If these cases were used when writing the article but not explicitly cited, then it is acceptable to add them to a "References" section. They could also be included in a "Further reading" or "External links" section, provided that they do actually contain a weblink to the content. My personal preference is a "Further reading" section but I do not see any problem with putting them in a "References" section, so long as the parties agree that they were indeed used for that purpose.

As for the reversions, it is generally best to begin a discussion on the talk page immediately after reversions, even if only to expand upon the reasoning in edit summaries (which are clipped at 240 characters, I believe, making it hard to give longer reasons). Do the parties find that the issue has been resolved? /wia🎄/tlk 23:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful for @WilliamJE: for that response. Can I therefore ask you (1) that in future edits you do not delete references but shift them to a new references section (as I have now done)? And (2) that you retract this statement towards me in your (good faith but admittedly mistaken) edit that: "You are being disruptive and have been reported to two administrators. Remember your sanctions." If you do undertake to do (1) then this issue for me is closed, and if you do (2) then no hard feelings. Wikidea 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not withdrawing any statement. You are being disruptive (Are you forgetting the two templates for discussion tags you removed?) and a administrator doesn't think much of your recent behavior[2]. You have made multiple personal attacks against me. Also when going to get a 3rd opinion, you misled the people into thinking there was no talk discussion. @Wikiisawesome:, FYI see this talk page discussion[3]. Redlinks or non links in see also sections will still be removed by me as per that same page discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidea and WilliamJE: It appears the discussion was more wide-ranging than I thought. I'm aware that there is a possible conflict in wording between WP:SEEALSO (which states The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) and WP:REDNOT (which states Red links generally are not included in See also sections). That contradiction might be one to raise on the talk pages of those articles. Until that red link issue is fully resolved, I would probably avoid adding redlinks to the "See also" section. I would also avoid reverting each other's edits, instead working out the issues on talk page as they occur. It seems like there may be local consensus here to shift such links to a References section, which I think is a good start.

There are more comprehensive dispute resolution procedures at the Noticeboard if needed, as 3O is a rather informal process. (I would recuse myself from this case if it were to appear at the Noticeboard.) Just a note about DRN in case you are unfamiliar: a case generally requires extensive discussion on talk pages before it can be accepted, and the discussion must focus on content, not conduct. It is certainly an option, although if we are making headway here, perhaps it is not necessary. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)