Talk:Geraldine Brooks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Flag
Portal
Geraldine Brooks is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature.

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

How can I change the title so that "brooks" becomes "Brooks"?

With the "move" command. Done. silsor 22:26, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Put the list of books in the bibliography in chronological order to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). Al Jacques (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would move to change her affiliation to atheist -- if you read her article in the Washington Post she affirms no belief in a god -- I suppose you could leave her claiming to be Jewish but I digress.165.123.243.168 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External references

Does anyone have any idea why the link to (http://loadedquestions.blogspot.com/2008/04/loaded-questions-interview-with.html) was removed by the Xlinkbot? Looks okay to me. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it looks ok to me, but is there some Wiki preference for not linking to blogs? If there is, that might need revisiting as there are blogs and there are blogs, if you know what I mean. But maybe someone else knows why this was removed.Sterry2607 (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think we have to look at external sources on their merits rather than making a blanket judgement about their worth purely because they are a blog. I've conducted a couple of interviews on my weblog that I consider are of interest. I haven't linked to them because I'm not sure if that would be considered ethical or not. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)