As others have already mentioned, one uniform style is probably not possible. I think Oxley-34 is great, but Paul obviously has a lot of biographical information for that ancestor, and that's very often not the case, especially as we move back in time, but even with some relatively recent ancestors.
I wrote here before about the messiness that people have to deal with after merges and the need for some help in cleaning those things up. The bio section is really a subset of that issue and the style questions would come up in that discussion whether we were dealing with a merged profile or not.
I think showing people the various options, rather than prescribing one particular style, would be the best way to treat this.
To give a specific example of my preferences; I'm slowly getting rid of the <ref></ref> footnotes in the profiles I manage. The reason I'm doing this is that those footnotes give you a superscript number (e.g., ), that links to a reference at the bottom of the section, but that reference isn't really the source. Rather, it provides another link that references the actual source above it. So it's two steps to find the actual source. I'm substituting, (Source: [[#S1]]), which takes you directly to the sources and I'm putting any pertinent notes with that source.
I guess there should be some don'ts in a style guide, but I think the profile managers should have some flexibility to use a style that makes sense to them, and fits for the individual being profiled.