Folks,
Would someone help me here? What is the current policy regarding linking
dates such as Birth and Death in biography articles?
Thanks,
Marc Riddell
Hi all,
The current <ref>...</ref>...<references/> system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History Magazine, 2019.</ref>. The next day, Thursday, was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<references/>
(That's a very simple example, too. References start to become a lot
larger once they start to include other information and/or are
produced via a template.)
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref id="smith"/>. The next day, Thursday,
was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
Magazine, 2019.</reference>
This makes the raw wikitext easier to read, since the text of the
actual reference is in the _references_ section instead of in the
page's primary content.
I think this could work ...
--Thomas Larsen
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
list
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
Guidance appreciated.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 7:26:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm writes:
That's exactly my point. There is no lack of academic analysis of
politicians, of artists, etc. But we do not seem to use any of it.
For example, I can find numerous articles on George W. Bush on JStor.
And once he is out of office there will be no lack of biogaphies written
to analyze his presidency. >>
First to attack your second point, why does W have to be out of office to
have a biography ? There are several books about Bush out, which analyze his
presidency.
Secondly, are you actually willing to admit that you are complaining about
something you're not willing to fix yourself?
YOU my friend, if you can cite all these articles from Jstor, then do so!
I personally have no access to Jstor, and I assume that the vast majority of
our editors probably don't either.
But regardless of that, I'm sure people cite what they can access and think
is relevant.
I do not (in any way) feel that "academics" have any toe-hold on
"biography". In fact, professional writers, tend not to be in academia at all, and they
write prose that is much more interesting (apparently from their book sales)
then academics.
We are not an academic encyclopedia anymore than we are a science one, a
religion one or a fancruft one. In trying to represent the world as it is, we
must use what resources are present. In general, for biographies, newspapers
and hard-cover biographies, are much more *present* and readable than
anything in a humanities journal. We're not trying to be technical as we can be,
we're also trying to attract more readership.
So again it's a balance. But by *ALL* means, if you have peer-reviewed
biographical material, add it. However "peer review" is not necessarily the
standard for all articles. TV Guide is not "peer reviewed" and yet we assume
it's a reliable source for what's on TV
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
I'm certain this has been addressed *sometime*, but I didn't note it,
and the archive search is borked.
I have a set of pics from flickr that illustrate a page I want to work
on *perfectly*, but they are, because it's Flickr, CC-NC-BY-SA 2.0
instead of 3.0. When approached, the photographer *wants* to offer them
as a 3.0 license, but can't. Is there any solution that isn't going to
involve her having to post the pictures elsewhere, under a different CC?
This has to have been discussed before, so if anyone simply has links to
that, I'd appreciate.
S.
Trying to access en.wikipedia from the UK fails. Other wikipedias are OK.
Error message (extremely helpful):
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GeoTemplate/Group
The following error was encountered:
* Access Denied.
Access control configuration prevents your request from being
allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel
this is incorrect.
Your cache administrator is nobody.
Generated Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:48:16 GMT by knsq11.knams.wikimedia.org
(squid/2.7.STABLE6)