Talk:Rosina Revelle
Boobpedia - Encyclopedia of big boobs
Jump to navigationJump to search
Years active
The biobox says she started in 1954, but the article text mentions 1957. Which year is better? Are there sources? Prophecy 00:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- 1957 was when she worked with Russell Gay and appeared in QT magazine. Apara 00:54, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- So we have no prove that she started in 1954? I could not find it in the references. Prophecy 01:06, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- THE 60sGLAM DATABASE OF BRITISH GLAMOUR MODELS OF THE 1960S says "From late 1956 To 1959" and speculates she was 16 when she began modeling. Dekkappai 01:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Must of got the years mixed up some how :-) Apara 01:34, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- THE 60sGLAM DATABASE OF BRITISH GLAMOUR MODELS OF THE 1960S says "From late 1956 To 1959" and speculates she was 16 when she began modeling. Dekkappai 01:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- So we have no prove that she started in 1954? I could not find it in the references. Prophecy 01:06, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Citations
Well, here we have a disagreement: I think those bare URL / name citations look terrible. We should either use the templates, or have them in such a format that they provide the info a template gives. We're trying to improve this, after all, aren't we? Dekkappai 01:15, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Also, while we're on the subject, I firmly believe in listing all sources separately, duplicating the References / Footnote section. This functions as a Bibliography, the "References" function as footnotes. This is common citation style. Dekkappai 01:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- To clarify: The style I like best is a "Bibliography" listing all the sources used in the article, listed alphabetically by author-- common citation style. And the "References" (Notes, really) with the Author (year), then page number if it's a print source. Only listing "References"-- notes listed basically randomly, whenever they're cited in the text-- without some sort of organized listing of sources used in the article seems outright wrong to me. Dekkappai 01:28, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I slightly disagree, but perhaps only because I saw it in Wikipedia rules that Sources already cited in references do not have to be mentioned in External links. Personally I prefer to mention sources only once. We might discuss that. Prophecy 01:35, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well, first we don't need to follow Wiki literally-- they get many things wrong (calling "Footnotes" "References" for example). Second, there must be some misunderstanding, because Wikipedia most certainly does have two sections-- one for inline citations (whatever you want to call them), and one for a Bibliography. I've done this at dozens of Wikipedia articles including GAs and one FA. Only listing inline citations would look extremely bad to me... Dekkappai 01:39, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Ah-- "External links"-- well don't call them "External links" list all the sources as "Sources" or, better, "Bibliography." "External links", to me, are sites that provide commercial or other non-reference material. Dekkappai 01:42, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed. Although they do not have to be commercial, just non-reference. Concerning the double mention: I disagree. The separation between References (Footnotes) and Sources is only made if there are several citations referring to different pages of the same book. Example: References lists "Miller, p. 5", "Miller, p. 20" and "Miller, p. 30", and Sources lists the whole bibliographical information like "Miller, Jim. Book title, year, publisher etc." Prophecy
- OK, looks like this collaboration thing was a bad idea.... Everything I know about writing says you cite inline-- footnote, and then you list your sources in a bibliography. It makes no sense at all to treat a list of Footnotes as a substitute for a Bibliography. But, if you've learned differently, or if Orwellian Wikipedia has decided to change the rules of writing since I've left, well so be it-- you do it your way, and I'll retire back to Japanese articles. :-) Regards. Dekkappai 02:01, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- I think there is a major misunderstanding. I still am of the opinion that we both mean exactly the same. No need to retire to your own articles and to think that the collaboration thing was a bad idea:
- References are footnotes, only named references. Everything in a references section comes from inline citations.
- Citations should always be made inline.
- But: If you cite a book, for example, several times with different pages (like you did with Gaston Lachaise), you can mention only the author and the page in the inline citations and transfer the whole title of the book into a "Bibliography" or "Sources" section (like you could do with Gaston Lachaise).
- I think it was only the naming of References=Footnotes and Bibliography=Sources which made you think that we mean different things. "External links" is still something different, and I agree with you that it should only contain non-reference links or related links not directly concerning the topic. The reason for our misunderstanding was that the second mention of the two sources in Rosina's article was in the "External links" section where it did not belong (should have been in a bibliography section. But the introduction of such a section only makes sense if a source is cited more than once with different pages. If the same source with the same pages is cited several times, it is sufficient to use the ref name more than once like we did in the article.). Prophecy 02:43, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- I think there is a major misunderstanding. I still am of the opinion that we both mean exactly the same. No need to retire to your own articles and to think that the collaboration thing was a bad idea:
- OK, looks like this collaboration thing was a bad idea.... Everything I know about writing says you cite inline-- footnote, and then you list your sources in a bibliography. It makes no sense at all to treat a list of Footnotes as a substitute for a Bibliography. But, if you've learned differently, or if Orwellian Wikipedia has decided to change the rules of writing since I've left, well so be it-- you do it your way, and I'll retire back to Japanese articles. :-) Regards. Dekkappai 02:01, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed. Although they do not have to be commercial, just non-reference. Concerning the double mention: I disagree. The separation between References (Footnotes) and Sources is only made if there are several citations referring to different pages of the same book. Example: References lists "Miller, p. 5", "Miller, p. 20" and "Miller, p. 30", and Sources lists the whole bibliographical information like "Miller, Jim. Book title, year, publisher etc." Prophecy
- Well, I slightly disagree, but perhaps only because I saw it in Wikipedia rules that Sources already cited in references do not have to be mentioned in External links. Personally I prefer to mention sources only once. We might discuss that. Prophecy 01:35, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia
What we'd have to do first is to be aware that the article is a copy from Wikipedia. :-( Prophecy 01:33, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Hm, I can revision this. In the next coming hour. Apara 01:36, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- We've got all the sources, it should be easy to write from scratch-- I'll retire to bed now though, because we'll be getting in each other's way. About the inline citation list / bibliography listing though: Think about a book. Footnotes in one place-- maybe after the chapter, maybe at the end of the book. Then an alphabetical compilation of all the sources used to write the book. Dekkappai 01:45, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Footnotes: See my comment in Citations section. Maybe we both mean the same. Prophecy 01:49, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- We've got all the sources, it should be easy to write from scratch-- I'll retire to bed now though, because we'll be getting in each other's way. About the inline citation list / bibliography listing though: Think about a book. Footnotes in one place-- maybe after the chapter, maybe at the end of the book. Then an alphabetical compilation of all the sources used to write the book. Dekkappai 01:45, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Name
I think the article's name is only "Revelle" with E at the end because Wikipedia named her like this? We have more sources than Wikipedia, and two out of three mention her as "Revell" without E. Perhaps we find more sources. If so, we should think of moving the article to "Revell" without E. Prophecy 01:52, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- I've always know her as "Revelle". I disagree with the move. "Revell" could of been her birth name. Apara 01:56, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Ah, ok. I did not know her before, just struck me that two sources mentioned her as "Revell". So we just make a redirect page from Revell to Revelle. Prophecy 02:23, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
