With Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as a prime example, maybe we should have the references listed by letter, as it's done here: Memory Alpha:List of unwritten occupation articles. It's hard to read otherwise. --LauraCC (talk) 19:47, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
- I personally don't see anything wrong with how we do it at the moment. By breaking it up into sections as you suggest, it will make the page unnecessarily long and cluttered, especially since the section is only an appedix to the article with the purpose of building the web. Besides, it should be in alphabetical order anyway. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:56, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to read. A wall of text. --LauraCC (talk) 19:58, July 24, 2015 (UTC)
- It's an appendix. Most (if not all) of the references should be in the "story" portion of the article. -- sulfur (talk) 02:41, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with the current display and against an alphabetical list. Tom (talk) 14:44, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I think that any references that are already in the the synopsis above shouldn't be duplicated in the References section. Many episode pages have links in both places. A good first pass would be to delete references from the Reference list that are already referenced in the story portion. -- Renegade54 (talk) 23:06, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with the current display and against an alphabetical list. Tom (talk) 14:44, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I much prefer having the 'references' section be the "complete" list of referenced things in an episode. But maybe that's just me. -- sulfur (talk) 00:51, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
- It's an appendix. Most (if not all) of the references should be in the "story" portion of the article. -- sulfur (talk) 02:41, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with sulfur on this one. We should keep the section as it is. A quick go-to appendix section of every reference in the episode. It doesn't matter if it's "a wall of text". It's only an appendix section at the end of the article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:16, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
- Going against the consensus in a nearly concluded discussion, but I can see the use of a breaking up a wall of text like that. I can't say I'm a fan of the original idea though; seems like it would be much less compact plus is makes no sense for short articles, at which point you might have to subjectively choose between two completely different systems. However, I thought of an alternative approach; it's a very small tweak over the current design, but it does help break up the text a little bit. Mockup here. (I do hope such a change can be done by bot though) Incidently, wasn't there a discussion about this very thing about a year ago or so? I even think Voyage Home was the offending example back then too. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:28, July 26, 2015 (UTC)