Talk:William Carlos Williams

Chronological rather than subjective arrangements
Though there remain a few pages where this has not yet been dealt with, to minimize potential controversies over classifications and descriptions in section headings it has long been the policy to have chronological arrangements of quotes and sections for various works, rather than arbitrarily created sections which would permit or promote highly subjective arrangements in articles, and I just reverted an edit which would have created a heading for quotes on the subject of Poetry. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) + tweaks
 * After 2 more reversions from what IS the standard norm, and has been for years of deprecating "subject" sections, I just examined some of the current guidelinie pages and realized there as yet remains too little mention or emphasis on this on any of those pages. The Templates does indicate that things should be "sorted chronologically" but this hardly is so clear in emphasizing the practice and many of the reasons for it as should probably be more prominent. I am restoring the layout once again to the standard recommended form, and will probably do more research on the times when these were discussed and decided upon, and how to make them more clear and noticable on several pages. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the place to document this practice is at Guide to layout (draft). However, most people head straight to the Templates boilerplates because that is where they are directed by cleanup templates, apparently because the boilerplates are thought to be simple and easy to use. Unfortunately, including explanations within the boilerplates is problematic, and it is hard for an example of recommended practice to clearly indicate what is recommended against. I have sometimes wondered how to make the boilerplates link back to the guide, but I have not had any good ideas. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the humor of your edit summary: "OMG! Kalki wants to promulgate a restrictive guideline!" — but I have always accepted a need for some guidelines — and sometimes even restrictive rules — but I tend to AVOID making or promoting them when possible, and generally believe they should be as loose and unrestrictive as possible in ways not clearly indicated as necessary, and always be recognized as having some degree of PROVISIONAL character with tolerance for attempts at innovations which might not have been considered in the initial devising of any such rules or formulations. To a great extent that's what life and progress are all about. However, the agreements that mandating chronological arrangements as probably the best solution to prevent all manner of subjective "subject" or section headings are some that I believe likely to endure. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC) + tweak