User talk:Ceradon/Vonnegut
I'm trying to figure out a structure that will work. It is a good thing you did this as a sandbox. I may experiment a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"Vonnegut's answer to McCarthyism"
[edit]I don't really understand that bit. Could you clarify what it means? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, will do. I'm reading, "And so it goes", by the way. That's what is taking forever, the reading, because although I'm relatively familiar with the fiction, I never really read much about his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- You should be aware that FA standards require any sentence with a quote in it to have a cite at the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you considered using sfn rather than harvnb? In my view it's simpler. However, happy to use whatever style of referencing you want. I've clarified on Player Piano.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: I wouldn't be against using sfn at all. AFAIK, we could use sfn without having to change the harvnb refs because it is in the same format. Am I right? By the way, what were you thinking, in terms of structure, of what comes after the Struggling writer section? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think FAC might expect us to be consistent in formatting, even though it looks the same. I would suggest gradually converting them over to sfn, there aren't so many that this would be a major problem. Just as we are editing the draft.
- Well, Slaughterhouse-Five and the success he got from that. I thought to keep going chronologically. Then FAC will expect some discussion of the techniques of his work, perhaps themes, and perhaps a section on critical reception. I don't think there's an exact format, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think we could run the struggling writer up to 1967 through his time in Iowa, then pick up the S5 section with his Guggenheim Fellowship and visit to Dresden. I'm just going to describe the plot by saying what happens to Billy more or less chronologically rather than as it happens in the book. If you agree, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: I wouldn't be against using sfn at all. AFAIK, we could use sfn without having to change the harvnb refs because it is in the same format. Am I right? By the way, what were you thinking, in terms of structure, of what comes after the Struggling writer section? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)