I recently made an edit to fix one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. We had an entry that just said "Bill Maher on the Iraq War.(see below". Let me explain all the things that went wrong.
First there is the referencing of something that someone will read later to save time. This is silly. We may reference things that may have already been read but there is no point in trying to reach forward. This is made particularly bad by the fact that there was nothing else in the entry. The entire example was just an indication that the example was elsewhere on the page.
Then there was the fact that the example was gone from "below". Now this is a likely consequence of splitting it in this way and just leaving it in the wrong section. There is no guarantee that a future editor will notice both, especially when one is so meagre as an entry. But why didn't someone just take the entry back up out of the real life section into what they thought was an appropriate section?
I recently made an edit to fix one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. We had an entry that just said "Bill Maher on the Iraq War.(see below". Let me explain all the things that went wrong.
First there is the referencing of something that someone will read later to save time. This is silly. We may reference things that may have already been read but there is no point in trying to reach forward. This is made particularly bad by the fact that there was nothing else in the entry. The entire example was just an indication that the example was elsewhere on the page.
Then there was the fact that the example was gone from "below". Now this is a likely consequence of splitting it in this way and just leaving it in the wrong section. There is no guarantee that a future editor will notice both, especially when one is so meagre as an entry. But why didn't someone just take the entry back up out of the real life section into what they thought was an appropriate section?