Editing Talk:Free Worlds League
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 1:
Line 1: − {{FeaturedArticle|4 September 2022}} + {{WikiProject Factions|tr=peer}} ===Help=== ===Help=== − [[2306]]+ http://www.sarna.net/wiki/2306 Who is this non-Marik?--{{unsigned|Moosegod |21:08, 19 August 2008 }} Who is this non-Marik?--{{unsigned|Moosegod |21:08, 19 August 2008 }} Line 30:
Line 30: I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) − :I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation {{emoticon|:P}}. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section. I'll move it there. --[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] 17:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC) + :I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation {{emoticon|:P}}. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section. I'll move it there. {{ebakunin sig}}. ::I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Line 36:
Line 36: :::I'm asking the two of you check out [[Help:References]] to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for [[Help:References#Basic_References|Basic References]]), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::I'm asking the two of you check out [[Help:References]] to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for [[Help:References#Basic_References|Basic References]]), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) − ::::I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out [[Draconis Combine]] and [[Phalanx (Battle Armor)|Phalanx]] for examples on how I've done this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) + ::::I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out [[Draconis Combine]] and [[Phalanx]] for examples on how I've done this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :::::While in theory I agree with Scaletail, we're stuck with a legacy system that calls footnotes <nowiki>"<references />"</nowiki>. If we call a list of books references, and call <nowiki><ref></nowiki> notes, we'll end up confusing the average editor. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) :::::While in theory I agree with Scaletail, we're stuck with a legacy system that calls footnotes <nowiki>"<references />"</nowiki>. If we call a list of books references, and call <nowiki><ref></nowiki> notes, we'll end up confusing the average editor. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) − − ::::::I agree with you on the large possibility of confusing the average Editor. How about using ==Bibliography== instead of ==References==? Or maybe ==References== instead of ==Notes==? It'll be a huge undertaking, but better to start sooner than later.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC) − − :Okay, my proposal is thus: we introduce the section ==Bibliography==, under which only titles are placed. The section ==References== will still be located at the bottom, and will use the "<nowiki><references /></nowiki>" underneath it to collect citations. If I can get a strong "amen", I'll re-work the references pages to represent. (I'm working on a timeline here before a possible wikibreak, or at least reduced presence.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC) − ::That's reasonable, but it's going to require changing that on almost every article in BTW. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) − :::Yeah, agree, but its a gradual thing. Better now, now that we're all in agreement, then later, when more people take sides over us doing it the 'wrong' way. You guys convinced me. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC) − − == Be Nice If You Included a List of Provinces == − Frankly, this article is severely lacking in basic information.--[[User:Aldous|Aldous]] ([[User talk:Aldous|talk]]) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (PST) − :Nobody seems to be working on it at the moment as there's no WIP/Underconstruction template added - feel free '''be bold''' and expand the article.[[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 01:35, 10 February 2014 (PST)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{WikiProject Factions|tr=peer}} |
===Help=== | ===Help=== | ||
| − | + | http://www.sarna.net/wiki/2306 | |
Who is this non-Marik?--{{unsigned|Moosegod |21:08, 19 August 2008 }} | Who is this non-Marik?--{{unsigned|Moosegod |21:08, 19 August 2008 }} | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | I'm unsure why this article needs a bibliography section, rather than including the associated titles in the present References section. While its a Help essay rather than policy, it appears to me that this is a good example of the merging of Specific and Detailed references, as depicted in the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section of the References how-to page. I propose merging the two sections into References. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | :I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation {{emoticon|:P}}. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section. I'll move it there. | + | :I actually did this without thinking. Comes from my BA in history—"always separate the endnotes from the bibliography since they serve different purposes." Which may not apply in a wiki situation {{emoticon|:P}}. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that they should be separated for major articles like this. References should refer to specific topics (and page numbers), but a bibliography allows a much broader scope. This whole rant is probably more appropriate to the [[Help:References#Additional_Information|Additional Info]] section. I'll move it there. {{ebakunin sig}}. |
::I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | ::I've used this format in pretty much every article I've written in the past year or two. Probably for the same reason as Ebakunin. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:::I'm asking the two of you check out [[Help:References]] to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for [[Help:References#Basic_References|Basic References]]), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | :::I'm asking the two of you check out [[Help:References]] to review how it is currently worded. If you can please suggest a method of introducing the concept of bibliographies (maybe as as replacement for [[Help:References#Basic_References|Basic References]]), in a way that won't lead Editors to include the same titles in both (or to do so in a way that demonstrates the value), it'd be helpful. I understand your backgrounds call for a differentiation (I've got the same degree), but I'm unsure how to qualify it for these (BTW) articles. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | ::::I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out [[Draconis Combine]] and [[ | + | ::::I think it works pretty well as is. The only difference is that the references footnotes would become part of the "Notes" section, while the "References" section stays separate and is essentially the bibliography. Check out [[Draconis Combine]] and [[Phalanx]] for examples on how I've done this. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
:::::While in theory I agree with Scaletail, we're stuck with a legacy system that calls footnotes <nowiki>"<references />"</nowiki>. If we call a list of books references, and call <nowiki><ref></nowiki> notes, we'll end up confusing the average editor. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | :::::While in theory I agree with Scaletail, we're stuck with a legacy system that calls footnotes <nowiki>"<references />"</nowiki>. If we call a list of books references, and call <nowiki><ref></nowiki> notes, we'll end up confusing the average editor. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||