Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Using citation templates

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)

Do you think we should say something about that in this section? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Open Library has "wikipedia citation" as a citation export format, making it easy to grab nicely delimited citations for books.LaMona (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Cluster of AfD's

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)

Why 'em' and 'en' dashes and '&nbsp'??

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)

There is no requirement that editors style things according to the recommendations of the WP:MOS; just try not to conflict with those who do. Many editors (e.g. those with Macs) find it easy enough to type en and em dashes without codes. If by "the dash by itself" you mean a hyphen, yes, just enter that and someone else will fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're putting the article up for GA or FA review, you can just use a hyphen if you find the formatting too much trouble. The styling just makes the article look a little better. It may seem strange to use seven characters for an em or en dash, but I can type that in less than a second but need several seconds to look the character up in a table. Dicklyon, I'd like to know the trick for doing it on a Mac, because I have a Mac. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. The visual difference between a hyphen and a dash is so miniscule I'm wondering why there is a need to make such a profound distinction to begin with. Wonder why the two characters are not simply interchangeable. Seems that would simplify things for everyone. If a double wide dash or hyphen is needed, use two. Wrap around issues could be controlled using/not using spaces before and aft the dash or hyphen. Instead editors are now expected to know all these different distinctions and know which 'code' to use in which example. Regarding 'conflicts', that is sort of a two way street. My concern arose when two different bots/users repeatedly came through making these changes ignoring valid objections as concerns formatting, editor viewability, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that a bot inserted the codes rather than the dashes? That surprises me. I have only seen them replace the codes by dashes. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly reinforce my faith in bot activity. Yes, there are bot/users who insert these different codes - hundreds of pages per minute sometimes - by using their bot and are doing so with no discussion or consensus per given page. I have just been through a somewhat heated debate with a couple of bot users whose approach to editing seems to be done with a 'calculator', if you get my meaning. (Their edit count is over a quarter-million, much or most of it bot generated!). Seems to me some reforms are needed regarding bot usage and the number of users who are allowed to use these things at any one time. Another issue. Disappointing to learn that the GA and FA review process expects these codes to be used in the articles. Not exactly an 'editor friendly' approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The example you linked was a user replacing a spaced double hyphen with an actual em dash character; not a code. This is good. There's no reason to keep the old mangled typewriter style approximation in the article when it's easy to use real dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I look at that article you've been working on, Bibliography of early American naval history, I see that you have rejected and reverted the help of other editors who were trying to help move it toward the style suggested by the WP:MOS. The MOS has a lot say about spacing, bold, formatting line breaks, lists, etc., but we don't expect you to know all that. We do expect you to ask politely when you don't understand what someone is doing to change your work to be more wikipedia-styled. I made some changes that I hope you'll see are along the lines suggested there; in particular, one seldom needs explicit html br tags in articles; just use wiki markup and let lines break wherever they will to fit the viewer's window, instead of trying to make it look nice in your own window by controlling the line breaking. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Dicklyon. I'm fine with them except for the removal of the <br> tags. These were added not to just make things look good on 'my' screen, thank you, but to improve the viewing and formatting for any reader. This has been discussed already with the editors involved, how the various bibliography entries are otherwise all run together and wrapped around written like a paragraph, not as an entry in a list. Mention was also made regarding an extra space being allowed at the various points in lists. :*MOS: Bulleted and numbered lists : Do not leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list unless there is a reason to do so... The idea of an extra space or a visual break in long listings is helpful to the readers and for that reason are common standards used in printing books, news papers, etc. Readers should be our #1 concern here also. WP gives editors the tools to use in the formatting, editing etc. Other than listing the author's last name first, there is no convention in bibliography formatting except that generated by auto wrap around. There is no specific MOS policy that says editors can't make these (very) simple improvements in bibliography listings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion there, just your proposal. The trouble is that although it may look better to you, it looks much worse on a narrow screen; you can see how it breaks when you make your browser window too narrow for the lines to fit. This also affects users who have limited vision and choose to use a very large font, making the lines not fit where you've broken them. Also not so good on a mobile phone's small screen. It's not in WP's style to do things this way, for such reasons. Probably it would be better anyway to use the citation templates, instead of your own mixed variety of styles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I made several attempts to communicate various issues and was more or less ignored on these matters, so yes -- not much of a discussion. Also, I use a narrow screen and the listing looks better with author-title listed on the first line and with publisher, etc on the next, where that separate info' is allowed to warp around if need be. So I guess it's a trade off. Total wrap around of all the items in the entry looks funky at any setting. Well, don't want to arm wrestle with this much longer. -- (new) It seems we may as well let the listing wrap around as you say. At this point, though I strongly disagree on points, that seems to be the consensus. HNY! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How to

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)

Well. I don't use a Mac and I'm not about to go changing characters anyway. My approach is simple. Forget about all the ta'do surrounding dashes v hyphens and use either interchangeably. Can't believe all the hieroglyphics invented just to manage a dash or period, items that shouldn't have all these complications in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Dicklyon was answering my earlier question. Thanks, Dicklyon! Pity I can't just use the TeX shortcuts. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the em- and en-dashes were not invented by Wikipedia to make trouble for you. The MOS follows conventions used in other manuals of style such as the Chicago Manual of Style - although perfect agreement is not possible because the manuals do not always agree with each other (see dash). Anyway, policy on dashes is not set here. If you don't like the conventions, it would be better to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Infobox bibliography a good thing?

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:

1. The tables are garish.
2. The publication numbers being fed to DBpedia are of questionable reliability. After looking at several pages with this infobox, I haven't seen a single source for any number. I'll bet many of them are just counts of the number of entries in the list at the time the infobox was added.
3. In practice, the defaults are often not a good fit to the bibliography, and editors don't bother to customize it so it is a good fit.
4. The name of the template is misleading as it is only suited to author bibliographies, especially authors of fiction.

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)

• Comment: I really see great value with {{Infobox bibliography}} - I first learned about it from its usage at the Featured List quality status page, for George Orwell bibliography. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with RockMagnetist. Unless I'm missing something, this template is little more than a glorified TOC. What does it offer that the TOC doesn't besides an image and number of entries? An image can simply be included at the top of the page in the normal fashion, while the number of entries has to be manually adjusted as new book titles are added. As far as I can tell, the template is just a colorized TOC, the colors of which belong in a child's playroom and are too bright and distracting IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative user template

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)

I like it! I have switched to yours. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment requested on author bibliography

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)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library

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:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources

Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries

Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians

Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources

Promote broader open access in publishing and research

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

Introduce yourself  :-)

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library, connecting with WikiProjects

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 like the updated header-navbox! I support this addition, at the top of the project page. –Quiddity (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be too intrusive at the top of the page. A logical place for it would be at the bottom, just below the Resources section. It's not a true Wikipedia portal, otherwise we could also add a link in the infobox under Portals. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. –Quiddity (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for FLC

1. Dan Savage bibliography
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

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)

Wikipedia:List of bibliographies

We need to populate Wikipedia:List of bibliographies. --Moxy (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: Sorry for taking so long to respond. I have added some. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

News from afar

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of user interface literature

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)

Feedback on a bibliography discussion welcome

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)

Will respond in existing thread. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"

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)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: This is the bibliography project. Might have some more luck raising this at WP:BLPN. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)