User talk:DownUndr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] John Elferink
-The information that was removed was not enhancing the piece and the tag was added for a reason that was not according to Wikipedia policies. With all due respect, review the policies before accusing other users of vandalism.DownUndr (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)DownUndr
[edit] Calvin O'Keefe
The problem with removing "In" from those paragraphs is that it completely ruins the grammar of the first sentence of each. Without it the book title is just tacked on at the beginning of the sentence instead of part of it. One can add a dash to separate it, as occurs in many similar sections in Wikipedia, but it results in a dangling participle in at least one case. Also, I see no reason to change the word "book" to "publication". It is a book. Publication is needlessly longer and less precise. I'll clean up the section with dashes and correct grammar and without the "In", but you may want to watch for these issues when making similar edits in the future. Thanks, and happy holidays! --Karen | Talk | contribs 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I followed the format used in other listings of books, often naming the title and continuing with a synopsis of the content. I see what you mean about the dangling participle. There is also references in wiki-bios that substitute 'publication' for 'book', and you are correct that a book is a book is a book. Needless edits. Thanks and happy holidays to you.DownUndr (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)DownUndr
Addendum on book Vs. publication - not erroneous as you stated: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: book Part of Speech: noun 1 Definition: document Synonyms: album, atlas, bestseller, bible, booklet, brochure, codex, compendium, copy, dictionary, dissertation, edition, encyclopedia, essay, fiction, folio, handbook, hardcover, leaflet, lexicon, magazine, manual, monograph, nonfiction, novel, octavo, offprint, omnibus, opus, opuscule, pamphlet, paperback, periodical, portfolio, preprint, primer, publication, quarto, reader, reprint, scroll, softcover, speller, text, textbook, thesaurus, tome, tract, treatise, volume, work, writingDownUndr (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)DownUndr
- A thesaurus lists words with similar meanings, but is no substitute for a dictionary. A "book" can refer to a magazine, leaflet, pamphlet or periodical, but not in common usage. "Publication" does include all of those concepts. It would be a rare person who would call Time Magazine a "book", whereas "publication" would be correct - and "periodical" and "magazine" would be more precise. I do not believe I called "publication" erroneous per se (and if I did it must have been through lack of sleep). That was just one of the changes I made in the edit, along with fixing a dangling participle and adding out-of-universe stuff. "Publication" is technically correct but less precise (rather like calling my dog an "animal"), and does not improve the reader's comprehension of the subject. Indeed, it might make someone wonder whether the "publication" is something other than a book, such as a short story in a collection or magazine. Given that there are a few shorter works in the Austin family series, it could be a bit misleading, since A Ring of Endless Light is indeed a full length novel. No big deal, but precise is usually better unless there's a reason to use the alternate term.
[edit] Flora Eldershaw
Hi there, I'm deleting the external link you put in for the ADB article as it is already listed under references. It's cited there the way ADB likes to be cited, ie under author of the article (in this case Dever). If you disagree with this action, please let me know, but I don't think we need to list it twice, do we? Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't need it twice but that entire section should be sorted- the references and external links are mixed into one category and that makes it hard to find related links to eldershaw. cheersDownUndr (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)DownUndr
- Thanks for your response, DownUndr. I think we have different understandings of the headings External Links and References in Wiki articles. The way I use them is that under References I put any work (online or printed) that was used for (and usually cited in) the article. Under External Links, I put online sources that have not been used in the article but that provide further information for the user. Here is the Wiki guide to External Links WP:EL. It's probably open to some interpretation but the first couple of paras imply, if not state, that External Links are not for cited sources. I tend to follow the sort of style seen in the Feature Article for Natalie Clifford Barney: Notes contains the citations and other footnotes, References the list of all works cited or used in the article (most of which will be found referred to under Notes), and then External Links (online) and Further Reading (print) for additional sources of info. Wiki allows for a variety of approaches, I understand - you just have to be consistent within a particular article. OK? Happy to discuss further Sterry2607 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
The article of Ern Mally does not cite reference in the wiki format and I will dispute any block that is put on my page. Every article needs sourcing, that is a standard.
