From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, Quiddity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 21:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] small bag of holding

[edit] Notes and bibliography: which way around?

On this edit: WP:LAYOUT is one page I hadn't heard of. I thought I ought to take a look at it before pointing out that I'm right and it's wrong [smiley], and so I did, expecting the worst. A quick glance (a too-quick glance?) suggests that it agrees with me rather than you.

Let's put MoS aside for a moment. I suppose the question is of what the "Bibliography" (however titled) is for. If it's a list of the books written by the subject of the article, then it might be claimed to be an integral part of the article (rather than explanatory material for the article), and might indeed benefit from its own notes. An extreme of this would be a survey article on Dickens with a list of his novels, perhaps requiring footnotes pointing out that this or that US edition had an anomalous title, etc. Normally, however, I see it as something that integrates stuff by the subject of the article (if they've written anything substantial) with stuff (dead trees, links, whatever) about the subject. The occasional note might help here too, but on balance it's better under the notes. In an article such as this one, I try to provide (a) all the bibliographical info that most reasonable people would need in the notes, but (b) that plus all the bibliographical info that even the most ill-tempered person might demand (ISBN numbers, etc.), plus helpful tips, etc., in the bibliography (or list of sources or whatever seems the most appropriate rubric), partly in order to supplement the notes.

If you'd like to reply, please do so here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm taking it to be an integral part, like a discography or filmography. The MoS Layout page says refs/notes are to appear between Seealso and Externallinks. (The 'bibliography' it mentions is just the alternate title for "Further reading" (which some people would prefer to be a deprecated use of that word)). I've seen the lists completely integrated into the article before, but personally prefer a simple list form to appear (perhaps in addition) at the end of each creator's article. None of which is drastically important, many featured articles have erratic ordering, e.g. Heinlein#Bibliography has external links above refs! But yeah, I prefer bibliography (and other Lists of works) within the article body, like Calvino#Bibliography. Particularly, in the case of books, to avoid the ambiguous nature of the "bibliography" header. Thanks for asking :)

(Side-note: Hoary Hedgehog? I just migrated to Ubuntu 2 weeks ago, after almost a decade with win98!) --Quiddity 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new (and completely NPOV) question

I notice that about three-quarters of the time people link dates and years (e.g. March 19, 2007) but I don't understand it. I looked all around on the Help pages and did find one (confusing) article that said it should be done once in each article in order to alert the browser whose custom date settings had been changed...but that sounds fishy to me - wouldn't a browser that allowed the user to change date format be equipped with a program that could adjust itself?
Do you know why people do this? Should I also be doing this? I asked about it on two discussion pages but no one ever answered.
Thanks once again for your time!
~ Otterpops 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I seem to be a truffle pig for controversy! I think what I'll do is not newly link dates but I won't go around unlinking other people's days and years, just because I do have that talent. Already at least one person has relinked "March 3" throughout an article after I had unlinked them, but there are so many more interesting things to argue about.
Thanks again!
P.S. That fellow in the message above seems confused about what a Bibliography is...I'm assuming that Wikipedia hasn't redefined "bibliography". Clarity on that could resolve the whole disagreement.
Best!
~ Otterpops 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look...

User talk:The Placebo Effect#Lists,

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=The+Placebo+Effect&page=

He even hit mathematics.

The Transhumanist   04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of reference tables

There's only one section left in List of reference tables. The rest is just a bunch of see-links to where the other material has been transferred.

You mentioned you planned on helping. I'd sure appreciate it if you would take care of that last section. I hope you like the social sciences.  :-) The Transhumanist (AWB) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I did education and some cleanup, but I don't even know where to begin for the rest. Most overwhelming. Almost as chaotic as the category system. Not sure that I'll get back to it. I will try to get around to composing that note to the relevant-wikiprojects though (explaining that a basic/topic list exists for their subject, etc). Plus, you know so much better than I what exists in each section, and so where things are most appropriately merged. Anyway, back to my Monday... --Quiddity 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Portal Edits

Look, I did it because otherwise the text seems out of place. Also, if things are expanded later on and everything is moved around, it would become very useful. But, I think for now we need a compromise between the two. Any ideas? (Please keep the discussion on your page, i don't want to have to keep going back and forth between your talk page and my talk page.) --Andrew Hampe Talk 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted that design change for a few reasons:

• it pushes the content further down the page, which is already dangerously low on average-sized (1024x768) screens.
• it added many links to items that are only inches below, including 3 links going to the same "New project pages seeking contributors" line, and 3 links to the Collaborations section! Also having that many links at the top of the page can be overwhelming, and would be considered overlinking.
• The CBB is transcluded on a few pages other than the Community portal (though less than last time I checked), meaning some of the intra-page links were broken.

In response to your 2nd point, designing for potential future circumstances would be fine if we were precognitive; as we're not, let's stick to dealing with present circumstances!

If you wish to discuss this further, the most appropriate place would be at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal, rather than either of our talkpages, so that everyone interested can discuss any proposals. If so, you might like to copy this whole thread to there as a start. Thanks. --Quiddity 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My belated apology

You may remember me as the guy who left an angry comment on your talk page (WITH CAPITAL LETTERS). After 4 months of not really thinking about my previous altercations, the one instance of you came into my head, and after 3 months of active contribution to this project, I, Steptrip, wanted to apologize for being uncivil when I was a newcomer. I also wanted to say that you kept a very cool head during that disagreement, nice job!! Btw, could you review me here?  ~Steptrip 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)