Talk:Polar Geography

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Syntax: writing references within the body of the text vs. in the reflist

I created this article and made the choice of not inserting the whole syntax of the references within the body of the article, but rather put the sources listed within the reflist template, and then insert shorter in-line syntax within the body of the text. I do that in part because it makes it easier to edit the content when it is not full of references. I see that that approached was overridden. I would like to open this to discussion here in the talk page. What are the pros and cons of each approach? (talk) user:Al83tito 3:27, 22 Feb 2014

After looking again through wikipedia guidelines, I found out the following. What I was trying to say before is that I am using "List-defined references"(WP:LDR), as a way to avoid clutter (WP:CITE), because "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: (...)". With less accurate words, that is what I was trying to say above. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:54, 22 Feb 2014

There was quite a lot of work I did on this article and with the references down in the reflist it makes it difficult to see which ones are used and which ones not, so just to make certain that I wasn't making any stupid mistakes, I put them in the text. Also, there are only three refs and none of them is used more than once. The article is short enough not to be cluttered by them and it avoids a lot of scrolling while editing. I guess it's a matter of preference and I have no strong feelings about this one way or another (with longer articles I find it quite bothersome though, if all the references are at the bottom), so feel free to put them back at the bottom. If I were you, unless you plan significant work on this article, I wouldn't bother, but that's for you to decide, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]