User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Organization style[edit]

I see what you did at George Washington Bridge, and I like it. Please take a look at how I handled the situation at Harvard Bridge, and let me know your thoughts about the difference. Thanks! - Denimadept (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to readers to provide Wikipedia links for the abbreviated citations, which reference pages from sources in the bibliography section, similar to what has been done in the GW Bridge article. Without those links, it is difficult for readers to figure out how to find the complete source for a referenced item. As an example, the citation number 8, "Alger and Matthews, p. 14" is somewhat meaningless to a reader without also providing a link to the complete source in the bibliography.
I would also recommend the abbreviated citations use the source title, which can be abbreviated, that would be more meaningful to a reader based on its content details rather than the author, which has no real meaning to a reader. (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Good points. I'll have to look at doing just so. - Denimadept (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I see you've done more. I don't agree with the further changes. I think it's best to have one central cite, and others which refer to it. How would you do this? I suggest an anchor at the main cite, and use the anchor at the subcites. This would mean the reader would first get the subcite, then click again to get the main one. What say you? Doing it better than that would likely require a change to either WP or to Wikimedia. It would probably be best to have something like
  • main ref
    • p.508
    • pp.17-43
Note that I'm not suggesting a bulleted list like that, but something similar, using an outline-like format. I used the bullets to avoid confusion with the comment indenting here. Something more like the current method where you have "a b c" for multiple uses of the same cite, but for the subcites, while at the same time making it clear that they are within the main citation. Am I making any sense here? This goes beyond any normal reference citation system I've seen, which usually use the method I used in Harvard Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of things like [foo 1] then subcites which refer to [foo 2] and [foo 3] with the author name, as that's the style I'm familiar with.
to render like
  1. ^ <a href="#author foo">author</a> blah blah blah
  2. ^ author p. 32
  3. ^ author p. 78
or better, with "<a name="author foo">* author foo blah blah blah"</a> but that's getting really complicated. I'd have to work on that to get it to look right, honestly. Still, too complicated. - Denimadept (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Before made their latest change to the George Washington Bridge article, it had the preferred citation format that you are looking for.
Individual truncated citations within the article to the main cited source entry would be formatted similar to the example below:
<ref>[[#author's last name|author's last name]] pp. 51, 56, 59</ref>
There would be a subsection in the References section of listed citations similar to the example below. You would just add "ref=author name" at the end of the citation template, as shown below.
==Works cited==
  • {{cite book |last= Rockland |first= Michael Aaron|authorlink= |title= The George Washington Bridge: Poetry in Steel |url= |accessdate= July 30, 2013 |year= 2008 |publisher= [[Rutgers University Press]] |location= New Brunswick, NJ |isbn= 978-0-8135-4375-8 |ref=author's last name}} {{refend}}
When users would click on the link for "author name", they would be taken to the complete citation in the listings for cited works.
  1. ^ author's last name pp. 51, 56, 59
==Works cited==
I hope this helps you. (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, You have new messages at Epicgenius's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the explanation of your edit on the Manhattan article. I am sorry that I reverted you wrongly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan Biotech[edit]

Thank you for your outstandingly well-written addition!!! The only issue again is that apparently the WSJ's citations require registration to access the full content. Best, Castncoot (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to access the posted WSJ article for "Manhattan" without any registration or subscription. Not sure exactly how this WSJ article access restriction policy works. It appears I can access at least one WSJ article before I am blocked each day. This may be a new article restriction policy by the online site for WSJ. In general, WSJ citations are used in many Wikipedia articles. I had not noticed this WSJ article access restriction problem until you pointed it out since I was previously able to access many WSJ articles without any problems. Not sure why you cannot access the posted WSJ article in "Manhattan", unless you accessed another WSJ article on the same day. (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

You deserve kittens for your helpful edits!

Denimadept (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)