User talk:Tuckerresearch/Talk Archive 2008

Johnny Bush

I just completed Johnny Bush's singles table. If you ever want one for another artist, just let me know. Eric444 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

citation style

Do you really feel it is important to detail inline references in full within an article? This is not normal practice in printed texts as far as I can see, rather an abbreviation is used and a full reference for every work cited is tabulated somewhere. The way things are going, an article may have hundreds of inline references, each of which breaks up a paragraph when you are looking at the text to edit it, making the job harder. Aside from that, I'm not convinced looking at the reference table with long, nearly identical entries makes things clearer for a reader, rather than a short listing of work and page. Then the important info, the page number, stands out clearly. Sandpiper (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know how to make shorter references in Wikipedia. And because I'm lazy, I haven't looked how to do it either, though I believe it exists (a reference used multiple times is given a "name" so that the second time it is mentioned it just has a short title and a page number). That being said, even the short references are inline and "breaks up a paragraph when you are looking at the text to edit it, making the job harder." (That is why in the real world I am a footnote man, not an inline citation man.) But, I am more concerned with properly citing things, especially when editors request citations, than how it looks in reference/notes list. That and I'm lazy. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You can name a reference and just use that name the next time, if the reference is identical, but I don't know a way to use most of a ref with an add-on, eg page number. I had in mind your changes from eg {MarderII p.66} to { cite book|author=Marder|title=From dreadnought to scapa flow, Vol II The war years to the eve of Jutland|year=1960|location=London|page=66|publisher=Oxford press}, which is a lot of guff to stick into the markup text 100 times over. It seems to me OK simply to list the texts referred to in the references section where the footnotes with specific pages will list. I am a little puzzled from what you say about not being concerned exactly how it looks, why you made the changes? Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant on the looks, was if some reader (and lets admit most casual readers never look at the footnotes or references) clicked on one footnote link on a page with twenty footnotes, he'd get the entire reference instead of just the author's name and the page number. Thus he doesn't click on one footnote, see "Marder, p. 66" and then have to hunt down what the name of the book is, when published, etc. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to institute some script that allows multiple references to one book, at several different page numbers. Who should we ask?TuckerResearch (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is full of loose ends: I have no idea. Well, there is a department somewhere which takes suggestions for software changes but I'm not sure exactly where. My own 'annoyance' with ref numbers is that when you place the mouse over one it flashes up .....note 55. Totally unhelpfull. It would be useful if it flashed up the ref. Though again, I think if the ref is named within the text, this name pops up with the rest of the guff so a good choice of name might help. Though only at the cost of placing even more junk inline in the markup text. Hmm. Sandpiper (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Biden - Centrist?

The 'generally centrist' line was from the Journal's article that was cited in that sentence:http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080823_9669.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Yohe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't say "generally centrist" at all, it says: "generally placed him among the center of Senate Democrats ideologically." Which is something else entirely. I have changed the article accordingly. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Exodus

With my recent large-scale edits on The Exodus I may have removed material that you want in. Please come and look and make suggestions/make edits.PiCo (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Roy campbell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Roy campbell.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.--FairuseBot (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image on the river war

I notice you fixed up the deleted two volume image from the river war article. I'm afraid I don't remember what the image was, so I am a bit uncertain whether it is a serious loss or not. I was wondering what you thought? Sandpiper (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

42 (dominoes) citations

Thanks for adding specific citations to 42 (dominoes). If it's not a bother, could you add specific page numbers noting where each of the two claim is cited? I've started a thread to discuss this atTalk:42_(dominoes)#Roberson_2000_citations if you'd like to discuss this further. (Regrettably, I'm drowning in pages to watch, so I'm not planning on watching this page. I will see replies at Talk:42_(dominoes)#Roberson_2000_citations.) Thanks again! — Alan De Smet| Talk 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)