User talk:Zebedeezbd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Zebedeezbd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- 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! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References in articles
Hello, Zebedeezbd. Can you explain the intention of your edits to articles such as Lake Ossa and Moni Bilé? It appears that you are removing references, but I'm not sure why. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, no I'm not removing references. I am correcting the reference format and altering the style so that it's not as notes AND references (repeated) on the same page, which is non-standard. I am still working on those pages you mentioned, but both of the existing references will still be there when I am finished. Thanks. Zebedeezbd 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't "correct" anything else, then. There is nothing wrong with having a separate "Notes" and "References" section. That is how I write all articles I begin from scratch, and no one has ever objected. If you dislike the format, we can take it to RfC, perhaps, but I am 100% against the changes in referencing format and would ask you to respect the articles' original layout. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK sorry, I'll leave them alone. However, I'm there is something in the style section that says it is preferred that references are done under one heading as I did. Because what you are doing, in effect, is not having notes in the notes section, but rather having the references listed in both the notes and references sections. I'll find the style thing and show you the link, then you can decide yourself. Zebedeezbd 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also I did add some useful extra info including links in the reference to the publisher. Do you object to that too? Zebedeezbd 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Actually, the way I'm doing things is preferable (in my opinion) because it mimics the "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections of most scholarly books. In articles like Cameroon, for example, full-form references are given in one section that alphabetizes everything, thus making it easier to peruse the references that were used and determine their reliability. Have a look at Japan for what happens when you don't follow that format: Everything is just mushed up together in the order it was used in the article, so it's impossible to see any human-readable order to what the authors used to write the piece. Both are featured articles, so there really is not preference one way or another. I tend to watch the Cameroon-related stuff, though, so a lot of it bears my footprint in this regard. I realize that with these shorter articles it's not as big a deal, but should I or someone else come back later and expand them, it will be. As for linking to the publisher's website, I'm pretty sure this is frowned on, since commercial external links are a no-no except in articles about commercial products or companies. I could be wrong, however, and if you can point to something that says they're OK, have at it. :) — Brian (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK thanks for the discussion. Yes Japan is a mess, I agree. I still maintain that a shorter piece would be better the other way (because yours makes checking a reference into a more complex 2-step process rather than a 1-step one), but I can see an argument for consistency on the other hand. Regarding commercial links being frowned upon, of course that is true on Wikipedia when the link exists primarily for the benefit of the company. I don't honestly know the consensus on this, but I would have thought that if a book is being referenced, you are doing this so that the reader can follow it up, and a link to the book information on the publisher's site would be helpful to the reader in that. Had my link been to the book on Amazon or other bookstore, rather than the publisher, I would be more inclined to agree with you. In fact, a DOI link (definitely endorsed & accepted on wikipedia) does effectively the same thing, taking you to the publisher's site (though usually this is journals rather than books). I only added the link because the url seems to be part of the standard template in the reference template that is becoming the preference for formatting references lately. Zebedeezbd 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a lot of editors encourage the inclusion of ISBN data; perhaps it is to avoid this commercial connection? — Brian (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK thanks for the discussion. Yes Japan is a mess, I agree. I still maintain that a shorter piece would be better the other way (because yours makes checking a reference into a more complex 2-step process rather than a 1-step one), but I can see an argument for consistency on the other hand. Regarding commercial links being frowned upon, of course that is true on Wikipedia when the link exists primarily for the benefit of the company. I don't honestly know the consensus on this, but I would have thought that if a book is being referenced, you are doing this so that the reader can follow it up, and a link to the book information on the publisher's site would be helpful to the reader in that. Had my link been to the book on Amazon or other bookstore, rather than the publisher, I would be more inclined to agree with you. In fact, a DOI link (definitely endorsed & accepted on wikipedia) does effectively the same thing, taking you to the publisher's site (though usually this is journals rather than books). I only added the link because the url seems to be part of the standard template in the reference template that is becoming the preference for formatting references lately. Zebedeezbd 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Actually, the way I'm doing things is preferable (in my opinion) because it mimics the "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections of most scholarly books. In articles like Cameroon, for example, full-form references are given in one section that alphabetizes everything, thus making it easier to peruse the references that were used and determine their reliability. Have a look at Japan for what happens when you don't follow that format: Everything is just mushed up together in the order it was used in the article, so it's impossible to see any human-readable order to what the authors used to write the piece. Both are featured articles, so there really is not preference one way or another. I tend to watch the Cameroon-related stuff, though, so a lot of it bears my footprint in this regard. I realize that with these shorter articles it's not as big a deal, but should I or someone else come back later and expand them, it will be. As for linking to the publisher's website, I'm pretty sure this is frowned on, since commercial external links are a no-no except in articles about commercial products or companies. I could be wrong, however, and if you can point to something that says they're OK, have at it. :) — Brian (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also I did add some useful extra info including links in the reference to the publisher. Do you object to that too? Zebedeezbd 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK sorry, I'll leave them alone. However, I'm there is something in the style section that says it is preferred that references are done under one heading as I did. Because what you are doing, in effect, is not having notes in the notes section, but rather having the references listed in both the notes and references sections. I'll find the style thing and show you the link, then you can decide yourself. Zebedeezbd 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't "correct" anything else, then. There is nothing wrong with having a separate "Notes" and "References" section. That is how I write all articles I begin from scratch, and no one has ever objected. If you dislike the format, we can take it to RfC, perhaps, but I am 100% against the changes in referencing format and would ask you to respect the articles' original layout. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
