Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-88790-20121204050906

I don't have much issue with conflating the two sections.

I am against the reduction that MM suggests, as I just find the lists of stuff somewhat boring. The more detailed References section adds colour to the article. While I admit much info covered in the References can be covered on other articles, some are specific to those stories and might be minor enough not to be able to be covered on other articles.

If there's a provision in the new references to not just list with subheadings (or a table) but also have (short) sentences then I'd support this.

What I don't want is for us to go down the MemoryAlpha where all their references are just shoved into a list like this