Talk:Germany: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (what to call the endnotes?) |
imported>Alexander Wiebel (→References style: citation style) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Richard, I changed the heading of the references section back to be compliant to [[Help:Citation_style]] and most [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles approved articles]. Please contact me if you think it should be different. -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 05:03, 19 January 2008 (CST) | Richard, I changed the heading of the references section back to be compliant to [[Help:Citation_style]] and most [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Approved_Articles approved articles]. Please contact me if you think it should be different. -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 05:03, 19 January 2008 (CST) | ||
::well I started with "references" but disliked it so switched to "notes" because that is what they are (ie endnotes or footnotes, which sometimes are discusrsive). "references" is a leftover from Wikipedia I think. ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', which we usually use, prefers Notes for "literature, history and the arts", with "references" used mostly for lists of titles in science (which never are discursive). (Manual of Style 15th edition p 594) There is no statement of policy at CZ, and a quick glance at approved articles shows three forms are in common use, reference (esp technical articles), notes (esp in history) and nothing at all (and "citations" is used for Shirley Chisholm) I believe no one has raised the issue beforee so we should think it over..[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 05:59, 19 January 2008 (CST) | ::well I started with "references" but disliked it so switched to "notes" because that is what they are (ie endnotes or footnotes, which sometimes are discusrsive). "references" is a leftover from Wikipedia I think. ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', which we usually use, prefers Notes for "literature, history and the arts", with "references" used mostly for lists of titles in science (which never are discursive). (Manual of Style 15th edition p 594) There is no statement of policy at CZ, and a quick glance at approved articles shows three forms are in common use, reference (esp technical articles), notes (esp in history) and nothing at all (and "citations" is used for Shirley Chisholm) I believe no one has raised the issue beforee so we should think it over..[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 05:59, 19 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:::I just had a quick look into six or seven geography journals. The articles in these journals used "References" with one exception, a "History of Geography" journal. This "history"-journal used "Notes", supporting your claim for history articles. ... So, I think the question we have to answer is: are articles about countries more geography or history related. What do you think? -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 07:06, 19 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 07:06, 19 January 2008
References style
Richard, I changed the heading of the references section back to be compliant to Help:Citation_style and most approved articles. Please contact me if you think it should be different. -- Alexander Wiebel 05:03, 19 January 2008 (CST)
- well I started with "references" but disliked it so switched to "notes" because that is what they are (ie endnotes or footnotes, which sometimes are discusrsive). "references" is a leftover from Wikipedia I think. The Chicago Manual of Style, which we usually use, prefers Notes for "literature, history and the arts", with "references" used mostly for lists of titles in science (which never are discursive). (Manual of Style 15th edition p 594) There is no statement of policy at CZ, and a quick glance at approved articles shows three forms are in common use, reference (esp technical articles), notes (esp in history) and nothing at all (and "citations" is used for Shirley Chisholm) I believe no one has raised the issue beforee so we should think it over..Richard Jensen 05:59, 19 January 2008 (CST)
- I just had a quick look into six or seven geography journals. The articles in these journals used "References" with one exception, a "History of Geography" journal. This "history"-journal used "Notes", supporting your claim for history articles. ... So, I think the question we have to answer is: are articles about countries more geography or history related. What do you think? -- Alexander Wiebel 07:06, 19 January 2008 (CST)
- well I started with "references" but disliked it so switched to "notes" because that is what they are (ie endnotes or footnotes, which sometimes are discusrsive). "references" is a leftover from Wikipedia I think. The Chicago Manual of Style, which we usually use, prefers Notes for "literature, history and the arts", with "references" used mostly for lists of titles in science (which never are discursive). (Manual of Style 15th edition p 594) There is no statement of policy at CZ, and a quick glance at approved articles shows three forms are in common use, reference (esp technical articles), notes (esp in history) and nothing at all (and "citations" is used for Shirley Chisholm) I believe no one has raised the issue beforee so we should think it over..Richard Jensen 05:59, 19 January 2008 (CST)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Geography Category Check
- History Category Check
- Politics Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Geography Developing Articles
- Geography Nonstub Articles
- Geography Internal Articles
- History Developing Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- History tag