Talk:Hit the Deck (1955 film)

MOS[edit]

@Beyond My Ken: - Talk:Boy Meets Girl (1938 film) - remember? You still haven't answered. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answers. No surprise. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another user also agrees that the "notes" addition is not needed. Please can you discuss this here? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across this discussion at ANEW, I agree as well that the notes addition is not needed per MOS. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Beyond My Ken - I welcome your comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in the "notes" sub-heading either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me: the editor reverted two removals of the same redundant subsection header at Spandex, and has yet to provide any explanations beyond "the MOS doesn't say that I can't do this" and the fact that it's been in the article for a WP:LONGTIME. I don't understand what benefit it provides to the reader (it just looks like we've mislaid the other subsections), and semicolon pseudo-subheadings are against MOS for accessibility reasons. --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, McGeddon. "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" seems clear enough to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could make it a standard subheading, but like I say, if it's just the one subheading, I don't understand what use this would be to the reader. If the footnotes are more Notes than References, just call the main section "Notes". --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]