This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1976 in literature article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
@Deb: Do you really not see a difference in citation styles between "Susan Fehrenbacher Koprince", "Molly Ivins", "Sandro R. Barros" etc., on one hand, and, on the other, "Hahn, Daniel", "Millen, Julia", "Datta, Amaresh" etc.? Dahn (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. That's because more than one citation style is allowed in Wikipedia and almost all of these citations come from the original articles which you prefer us to use. Deb (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deb: Except that there they may actually fit in with the style used throughout the article, whereas your devil-may-care ("as long as we have a reference") pasting here and in other articles creates a stupid chore for your fellow editors to handle here. If you're going to add them references, and if you imagine you're improving the project by adding them (after all, this is your crusade), then have the modicum of consideration to edit them in one style. This is also the sort of issue I would have expected to be discussed alongside the proposal to add more (redundant or not) references in these articles. If it's not to be read as a totally flippant proposal by people who have a hard time following their own rules, then it should have imposed a single format from the beginning -- the fact that this hasn't dawned on you and your fellow "enforcers" in 6 years continues to fascinate me. It is like that red/white roses scene from Alice in Wonderland. Dahn (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should understand that there has never been a one-size-fits-all standard for citations, though there are guidelines. If you're not happy with the citations I've included, feel free to make whatever "improvements" you deem necessary. Alternatively, keep your personal opinions to yourself and leave it to others to do the work you feel is beneath your dignity. Deb (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous, Deb. The guidelines specifically say you should only use one citation style/format per article. When you proceeded to militate about citing everything in this series of articles, you were given the privilege of selecting a citation style -- so at least we would know what our own citations for these articles should look like. The fact that you yourself, the stickler for this rule you impose on everyone else, just paste stuff you find, and then expect others to format your "work", is therefore not just sophomoric -- it is disruptive. What specifically prevents you from formatting the references as you add them, instead of asking that others stoop to cleaning up after your mess? (It is not just my dignity, btw, it is uncollegial towards the entire community.) Dahn (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITESTYLE: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." How come you never managed to read this, in your lengthy career on wikipedia, Deb? Dahn (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works when only one person is involved in writing an article. However, most articles have lots of contributors, list articles even more so. A few days ago you were saying we didn't need any citations; now you're saying that all citations must be in the same style; fine with me, go ahead and change them - assuming you can find any. Deb (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolute nonsense. Not only because multiple authors are supposed to accomdate to the citation style used in the article (provided that style is not botched up), but most of all because these articles have one regular author -- namely, you, who for reasons unfathomable can only do the half-assed job of pasting the references as you found them here and there, with no minimal care as to their format. It is especially insulting that you keep claiming we should clean up after you.
One of the reasons why I felt it redundant to have citations for every fact in these articles is because your majesties, who produced this edict, have never bothered specifying the preferred unified format, creating an idiotic chore for your fellow wikipedians. Go ahead and clean up after you already, this is not kindergarten! Dahn (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[This is copied from Talk:1968 in literature] The "Format footnotes" template is not the correct template to tag inconsistent referencing styles, formats, etc. The first statement in the documentation states:
When to use
This template indicates that the article uses many improperly formatted or non-formatted inline citations that require large-scale conversion to an accepted form of inline citation. [emphasis added]
Several examples for incorrectly formatted references are listed. I found no instances of the examples in this article. Therefore the template should be removed.User-duck (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User-duck: Surely you can see how the "P.S." you added is irrelevant, since "CITEVAR" does not favor using multiple citation formats in the same article -- as I have indicated, that is explicitly frowned upon by WP:CITESTYLE. I realize there is some entrenched confusion on this topic, but it is high time you guys realized this.
As for the rest: yes, yes it is a large-scale problem. About half of the citations in this article clash in format with the other half -- for instance, by citing authors with their first name first, when others use the last name. We should pick one, and then clean up the references, instead of pretending this is not a problem. Dahn (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the literary theme, it’s hard to beat the referencing “system” used for Isaac Bashevis Singer. I don’t even know where to begin: the eight random links used to cite a 1904 birth year (most of which actually say 1903, and one 1902)? The discordance between lead (1904) and infobox, body, category (1903)? Citing whole books without page numbers? Footnotes masquerading as citations? Citations 34 and 52? Anyway, it’s rather sad, since he deserves much better, and so do we. BiruitorulTalk09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter response first. @Biruitorul:, I sympathize with you about the state of Isaac Bashevis Singer. My question is why has so little been done to improve the article? I primarily do technical editting, so I correct technical errors. the terms footnotes, references, citations are often used interchangably on Wikipedia. Being a technical editor, I avoid the term footnotes since it encompasses both reference footnotes (I call references) and explanatory footnotes (I call notes) which I believe should be separate from each other. I looked at citations 34 and 52. Citation 34 looks like a typical reference to a YouTube source; I like to include author or publisher but this is an acceptable reference. Citation 52 is an incomplete reference/cite, unusable for verification. however, I would call neither: "Footnotes masquerading as citations". User-duck (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love your input on "citation" 37 of the Singer article (make sure to click on it). If this is the level of referencing that passes the mark, then we would be better off with no references at all. Dahn (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it’s lovely. Sticking with the 1970s Nobel Laureates (who you’d think would receive some extra care), Saul Bellow is not much better. #1 speaks for itself, and not in a good way. BiruitorulTalk18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
