This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Of the templates listed, three use Citation Style 1, but {{ cite report}} uses a different citation style due to it's handling of titles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Three Civil War-related articles have been listed for AfD: American Civil War bibliography, Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories, and Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bibliographies). They might benefit from the insights of people who have experience with similar discussions. RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I do a lot of bibliography work and find it not only confusing but annoying having to work around and/or decipher the various codes used just to make a dash, etc. Frankly I am amazed at the amount of documentation that editors are supposed to know just to make a simple dash in between numbers, dates, etc. The dash by itself should suffice. If you need a double wide dash, use two dashes. Want the dash numbers to wrap around?: use the dash with spaces before and aft. What's worse is now we have bots buzzing around injecting these and other similar codes (including ' & n b s p' ) into all the bibliographies and other pages making it difficult to make corrections, etc. I can only wonder what a new editor thinks when he/she encounters this stuff. Is there a WP policy that says editors must use these codes in place of the dash, etc? Editors have to type seven characters just to make a dash. I realize that various control characters are sometimes used in the mark-up text but this is getting a little ridiculous. e.g.Seven characters just to make a dash?? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to make dashes and/or Dash#Rendering dashes on computers. On Mac, it's just option-hyphen for en dash, option-shfit-hyphen for em dash. In general, if you have a Mac and don't know it's option codes, I'd recommend turning on the the "Keyboard & Character Viewer" in System Preferences / Language & Test / Input Sources. It's not as cool as the old "Key Caps" desk accessory that dates from 1984, but it does the job (you'll need to click Show Keyboard Viewer in the menu-bar icon that looks vaguely like a keyboard). Happy pecking. And if you have a font where the difference is not obvious to you, consider changing it; see the picture at Dash#En dash versus em dash. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Does {{ Infobox bibliography}} add much value to a bibliography? Its features include a table of publication types with a number for each type. If the publication types correspond to section headers, they link to those headers. If not, it provides a method for defining new publication types and links. In addition, as the table is structured, the information can be extracted by DBpedia. It can also include an image.
I see several problems with this infobox:
Perhaps the above problems can be fixed, but at present it seems to me that this infobox is generally misused, and bibliographies are better served by a normal TOC and a stand-alone image. RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have added an alternative user template that is easier to read that is slightly larger and has a lighter background color. Hope it is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right WikiProject to ask on, but I'd appreciate some feedback on a proposal I posted a few days ago. The Orson Scott Card bibliography is a bunch of bullet-point lists. I proposed to change them to sortable tables here. Please provide any feedback you may have. Thank you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks! I wonder if we could connect the library portal to this wikiproject by placing the Library navigation box somewhere in these WikiProject pages.
Let me know what you think. Best, Ocaasi t | c 12:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
We need to populate Wikipedia:List of bibliographies. -- Moxy ( talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, bibliographers. Over the past couple years I've worked on a few bibliography and bibliography-like articles, which I thought I'd bring to your attention in case you care to comment or categorize or anything. The only out-and-out bibliography is List of Calderón's plays in English translation... plus I guess the section Baital Pachisi#Recensions, editions, and translations would qualify. The bibliography-like articles are List of Panchatantra Stories, List of Vetala Tales, Order of The Canterbury Tales, and the magnificent List of Emily Dickinson poems. One reason I mention, is that I'm working on a List of English translations of De Rerum Natura (currently at User:Phil wink/drn) so I thought if I had any appalling habits I should hear about them sooner rather than later. One small favor: if anyone feels moved to delete the little "unreviewed" warning at the top of the Calderón list, I'd be grateful; obviously I can't do it myself, and these little blots in the 'scutcheon drive me nuts. Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Not titled as a bibliography, but it could be characterized as one. Your input as to whether it's worth keeping and developing is appreciated. postdlf ( talk) 17:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Bibliographies, I am looking to improve the article about the South Beach Diet. Full disclosure, I am working in a consultant capacity with South Beach Diet, so I am restricting myself to the discussion page and offering up a new draft—in whole or in part. An editor responded to my request, yet we bogged down rather quickly. I suggested starting with a simple one: replacing the existing, out-of-date bibliography section ( see here) with an up-to-date version I had compiled ( see here). Yet this editor objected, and I'm afraid the discussion did not progress from there. I would be very interested to hear from someone at this wikiproject about their views on this disagreement. ( Full thread here.) Thanks, in advance, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Of the templates listed, three use Citation Style 1, but {{ cite report}} uses a different citation style due to it's handling of titles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Three Civil War-related articles have been listed for AfD: American Civil War bibliography, Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate Unit histories, and Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bibliographies). They might benefit from the insights of people who have experience with similar discussions. RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I do a lot of bibliography work and find it not only confusing but annoying having to work around and/or decipher the various codes used just to make a dash, etc. Frankly I am amazed at the amount of documentation that editors are supposed to know just to make a simple dash in between numbers, dates, etc. The dash by itself should suffice. If you need a double wide dash, use two dashes. Want the dash numbers to wrap around?: use the dash with spaces before and aft. What's worse is now we have bots buzzing around injecting these and other similar codes (including ' & n b s p' ) into all the bibliographies and other pages making it difficult to make corrections, etc. I can only wonder what a new editor thinks when he/she encounters this stuff. Is there a WP policy that says editors must use these codes in place of the dash, etc? Editors have to type seven characters just to make a dash. I realize that various control characters are sometimes used in the mark-up text but this is getting a little ridiculous. e.g.Seven characters just to make a dash?? -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to make dashes and/or Dash#Rendering dashes on computers. On Mac, it's just option-hyphen for en dash, option-shfit-hyphen for em dash. In general, if you have a Mac and don't know it's option codes, I'd recommend turning on the the "Keyboard & Character Viewer" in System Preferences / Language & Test / Input Sources. It's not as cool as the old "Key Caps" desk accessory that dates from 1984, but it does the job (you'll need to click Show Keyboard Viewer in the menu-bar icon that looks vaguely like a keyboard). Happy pecking. And if you have a font where the difference is not obvious to you, consider changing it; see the picture at Dash#En dash versus em dash. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Does {{ Infobox bibliography}} add much value to a bibliography? Its features include a table of publication types with a number for each type. If the publication types correspond to section headers, they link to those headers. If not, it provides a method for defining new publication types and links. In addition, as the table is structured, the information can be extracted by DBpedia. It can also include an image.
I see several problems with this infobox:
Perhaps the above problems can be fixed, but at present it seems to me that this infobox is generally misused, and bibliographies are better served by a normal TOC and a stand-alone image. RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt ( talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have added an alternative user template that is easier to read that is slightly larger and has a lighter background color. Hope it is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure this is the right WikiProject to ask on, but I'd appreciate some feedback on a proposal I posted a few days ago. The Orson Scott Card bibliography is a bunch of bullet-point lists. I proposed to change them to sortable tables here. Please provide any feedback you may have. Thank you. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.
We are working together towards 5 big goals:
Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships:
Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication:
Join in
-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks! I wonder if we could connect the library portal to this wikiproject by placing the Library navigation box somewhere in these WikiProject pages.
Let me know what you think. Best, Ocaasi t | c 12:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
We need to populate Wikipedia:List of bibliographies. -- Moxy ( talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, bibliographers. Over the past couple years I've worked on a few bibliography and bibliography-like articles, which I thought I'd bring to your attention in case you care to comment or categorize or anything. The only out-and-out bibliography is List of Calderón's plays in English translation... plus I guess the section Baital Pachisi#Recensions, editions, and translations would qualify. The bibliography-like articles are List of Panchatantra Stories, List of Vetala Tales, Order of The Canterbury Tales, and the magnificent List of Emily Dickinson poems. One reason I mention, is that I'm working on a List of English translations of De Rerum Natura (currently at User:Phil wink/drn) so I thought if I had any appalling habits I should hear about them sooner rather than later. One small favor: if anyone feels moved to delete the little "unreviewed" warning at the top of the Calderón list, I'd be grateful; obviously I can't do it myself, and these little blots in the 'scutcheon drive me nuts. Cheers. Phil wink ( talk) 04:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Not titled as a bibliography, but it could be characterized as one. Your input as to whether it's worth keeping and developing is appreciated. postdlf ( talk) 17:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Bibliographies, I am looking to improve the article about the South Beach Diet. Full disclosure, I am working in a consultant capacity with South Beach Diet, so I am restricting myself to the discussion page and offering up a new draft—in whole or in part. An editor responded to my request, yet we bogged down rather quickly. I suggested starting with a simple one: replacing the existing, out-of-date bibliography section ( see here) with an up-to-date version I had compiled ( see here). Yet this editor objected, and I'm afraid the discussion did not progress from there. I would be very interested to hear from someone at this wikiproject about their views on this disagreement. ( Full thread here.) Thanks, in advance, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |