| Revision as of 04:42, 24 August 2007 view sourceHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits Further remarks← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:58, 24 August 2007 view source CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,542 edits →Further remarksNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| I've been trying to narrow the template cats as much as possible. In other words, using general cats for subcats or for templates that can't otherwise be categorized. Lots of cases where a template is in a subcategory AND a main category. In this case, it was in both. Geography infobox and regular old old infobox. Well the template in question was in a category (North American country subdivision infobox templates) which was already indirectly in the Geography infobox category, which is in the general infobox category. So the specific cat basically replaced the 2 general ones. Hopefully I'm not talking gibberish. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | I've been trying to narrow the template cats as much as possible. In other words, using general cats for subcats or for templates that can't otherwise be categorized. Lots of cases where a template is in a subcategory AND a main category. In this case, it was in both. Geography infobox and regular old old infobox. Well the template in question was in a category (North American country subdivision infobox templates) which was already indirectly in the Geography infobox category, which is in the general infobox category. So the specific cat basically replaced the 2 general ones. Hopefully I'm not talking gibberish. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Well. Maybe we should call it Wikipediaese. :) I'm just trying to get it as organized as possible. I guess that's the best way to sum it up. And templates in particular tended to be categorized in as many places as possible, so you'd end up with overpopulated cats. That's what I'm trying to fix. Probably makes more sense. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | :Well. Maybe we should call it Wikipediaese. :) I'm just trying to get it as organized as possible. I guess that's the best way to sum it up. And templates in particular tended to be categorized in as many places as possible, so you'd end up with overpopulated cats. That's what I'm trying to fix. Probably makes more sense. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Further remarks == | |||
| Please note that no amount of energy can make up for patience and attention to policies and guidelines thrashed out by consensus. The English wikipedia, with which you are as yet unfamiliar, it seems, is the location for a great deal of disagreement, argument and careful consensus; and editors who make drastic edits in areas where they are inexpert, or are regularly incivil, are not generally looked on with favour, however energetic they may be at tagging articles. I strongly suggest you look at these things and acquire a little experience with our criteria for deletion and how we do things before . (I certainly don't see a successful RfA unless you do.) Thanks! | |||
| ] 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:58, 24 August 2007
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
Chef
McBride is a note with the page number that refers to the works cited section as per the academic citation style known as Chicago format used in most liberal arts writing, which is a suggested style for Misplaced Pages.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of well written articles cited in the way this article was, as noted on the Misplaced Pages citing format to be used, there is a suggestion to use Chicago format which is how the article was written. Below is an excerpt from the Misplaced Pages:Citing Sources article which clearly delineates a "Footnote" or shortened to "notes" section as well as "References" which is also phrased as "Works cited". In addition this article is worked on by WikiProject Food and Drink and as such, our format for articles is using the Chicago format which uses the "notes" and "works cited" headings. The inline citation style you are using is based on Harvard referencing.
- From Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
- Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"
- It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
- If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Category deletion
I've been trying to narrow the template cats as much as possible. In other words, using general cats for subcats or for templates that can't otherwise be categorized. Lots of cases where a template is in a subcategory AND a main category. In this case, it was in both. Geography infobox and regular old old infobox. Well the template in question was in a category (North American country subdivision infobox templates) which was already indirectly in the Geography infobox category, which is in the general infobox category. So the specific cat basically replaced the 2 general ones. Hopefully I'm not talking gibberish. :) --Woohookitty 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well. Maybe we should call it Wikipediaese. :) I'm just trying to get it as organized as possible. I guess that's the best way to sum it up. And templates in particular tended to be categorized in as many places as possible, so you'd end up with overpopulated cats. That's what I'm trying to fix. Probably makes more sense. :) --Woohookitty 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)