Help talk:How should the articles be written - Revision history

Prophecy: /* Proposals Regarding References */

2008-07-07T22:24:53Z

Proposals Regarding References

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 7 July 2008
Line 97:		Line 97:

	Order:		Order:
	# Pay Sites then External Links then References then Disclaimers then Categories. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT) ~~<small>(with a small change: Dislaimers like {{tl\|GFDL}} '''have''' to be directly after the article text, because they concern the content, not the references.</small>~~)		# Pay Sites then External Links then References then Disclaimers then Categories. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT))
	# References then pay sites then External Links then Disclaimers then Categories. (For:--[[User:Bustanut\|Bustanut]] 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT))		# References then pay sites then External Links then Disclaimers then Categories. (For:--[[User:Bustanut\|Bustanut]] 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT))

Prophecy at 21:51, 7 July 2008

2008-07-07T21:51:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 7 July 2008
Line 38:		Line 38:
	----		----

	::::Er - do you really think it's a good idea to force the references at the very very bottom of an article? When I said that I'd like to have them at the end of an article, I meant that they should be the last section, but not forced to the bottom with white space between the article body and the references. I think we should not get too far away from Wikipedia standard. We should have the references at the end of an article, but not forced to the bottom. If articles get longer, this could produce unwanted empty lines. And we don't know how it looks when a page is printed. If an article gets longer, the references are at the end anyway, and I think we should not confuse readers with forced-to-bottom references. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't like my articles to be edited this way. I know what you are thinking about, though. I worked in the field of print publications formatting, and there it's normal to have the references at the very bottom of a page. But I think Wikipedia has developed its own standards in some cases, due to the "endless page" concept for example that print media don't have. Mainly I'm afraid that this would cause greater inconsistency, because there'd be thousands of pages to convert. I clearly vote for references at the end, but not forced to the bottom of a page. Perhaps ask The Honorable and other editors who write many articles for their opinion.		::::Er - do you really think it's a good idea to force the references at the very very bottom of an article? When I said that I'd like to have them at the end of an article, I meant that they should be the last section, but not forced to the bottom with white space between the article body and the references. I think we should not get too far away from Wikipedia standard. We should have the references at the end of an article, but not forced to the bottom. If articles get longer, this could produce unwanted empty lines. And we don't know how it looks when a page is printed. If an article gets longer, the references are at the end anyway, and I think we should not confuse readers with forced-to-bottom references. Just my opinion though. <del>I wouldn't like my articles to be edited this way.</del><small>(Convinced. {{tl\|clearboth}} is fine, I'll use it. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 17:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT))</small> I know what you are thinking about, though. I worked in the field of print publications formatting, and there it's normal to have the references at the very bottom of a page. But I think Wikipedia has developed its own standards in some cases, due to the "endless page" concept for example that print media don't have. Mainly I'm afraid that this would cause greater inconsistency, because there'd be thousands of pages to convert. I clearly vote for references at the end, but not forced to the bottom of a page. Perhaps ask The Honorable and other editors who write many articles for their opinion.

	:::: [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 14:49, 5 July 2008 (EDT)		:::: [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 14:49, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Dekkappai: /* Citation messages */ r to Prophecy

2008-07-07T21:22:21Z

Citation messages: r to Prophecy

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 7 July 2008
Line 118:		Line 118:
	:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			:::: No problem Prophecy. I get that they are in a category, I just meant that maybe they should just be listed in the normal category section, down on the bottom of the page, with the rest of the categories, rather than having the banner. We get used to a lot of nonsense at Wikipedia, deleting articles based on the "Notability" hoax-- as if someone who has appeared in 100 films could ''not'' be notable... Editing here at BP is a nice change of pace from that, and, though we should follow the good things-- sourcing, citations, encyclopedic style, etc.-- we shouldn't hesitate to re-think some of the more absurd things "consensus" comes up with at WP, and which we editors just become used to living with... Actually, I'm spending so much time there keeping good articles from being deleted, and here happily putting up pages on good subjects I know won't be subject to a deletion campaign, more and more I think about just throwing in the towel at WP... [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 17:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Apara at 21:18, 7 July 2008

2008-07-07T21:18:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 7 July 2008
Line 69:		Line 69:

	I prefer References, then pay sites, then external links, though this may just be because I'm used to Wikipedia-type formatting. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 21:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)		I prefer References, then pay sites, then external links, though this may just be because I'm used to Wikipedia-type formatting. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 21:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

			----
			:Here's what I think:
			:I feel the references go where you feel apprioate. Whether it be at the of the bottom of the article or above "External Links". On some articles I put the references above external links and some below it. I just felt it belonged there. Since lately I've been referencing articles I'm been coming across. But I rather see them near the bottom and not at the beginning. But if we come up with a proposal. Then I'll glad to format it in that order. [[Aimee Sweet]] article is the "defacto" format I've been seeing latey with others. [[User:Apara\|Apara]] 17:18, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			----

	=== Concerns Expressed: ===		=== Concerns Expressed: ===

Prophecy: /* Proposals Regarding References */

2008-07-07T20:57:12Z

Proposals Regarding References

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 7 July 2008
Line 92:		Line 92:

	Order:		Order:
	# Pay Sites then External Links then References then Disclaimers then Categories. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT) [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT))		# Pay Sites then External Links then References then Disclaimers then Categories. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT) <small>(with a small change: Dislaimers like {{tl\|GFDL}} '''have''' to be directly after the article text, because they concern the content, not the references.</small>)
	# References then pay sites then External Links then Disclaimers then Categories. (For:--[[User:Bustanut\|Bustanut]] 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT))		# References then pay sites then External Links then Disclaimers then Categories. (For:--[[User:Bustanut\|Bustanut]] 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT))

	Layout:		Layout:
	# References as a pushed-down piece of meta-info. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT) [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT))		# References as a pushed-down piece of meta-info. (For: [[User:Drducker\|Drducker]] 04:45, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT), [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT))
	# References contained within the normal flow of the article. (For: )		# References contained within the normal flow of the article. (For: )

Prophecy: /* My thoughts */

2008-07-07T20:51:25Z

My thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 7 July 2008
Line 102:		Line 102:
	Thanks, Drducker, for the invitation to give some input here. First, I'll say, I'm really not much of a format guy. I like the researching and the writing, and really don't pay much attention to the formatting other than making sure that all the information is there, somewhere, and sourced, and well-cited. Basically, if you guys come up with a standard article format, I'll be glad to put my new articles in that format. I use a skeleton file to create new articles, and I'll look through your conversation now and try to adjust that to be in line with what seems to be consensus so far. (Personally, I too think footnotes ("References"-- a Wiki-misnomer, I think) should be at the bottom of the page. I think I've been putting "External links" above them, just because that's what they do at Wikipedia. But there is no reason we should have to follow them on anything like this.)		Thanks, Drducker, for the invitation to give some input here. First, I'll say, I'm really not much of a format guy. I like the researching and the writing, and really don't pay much attention to the formatting other than making sure that all the information is there, somewhere, and sourced, and well-cited. Basically, if you guys come up with a standard article format, I'll be glad to put my new articles in that format. I use a skeleton file to create new articles, and I'll look through your conversation now and try to adjust that to be in line with what seems to be consensus so far. (Personally, I too think footnotes ("References"-- a Wiki-misnomer, I think) should be at the bottom of the page. I think I've been putting "External links" above them, just because that's what they do at Wikipedia. But there is no reason we should have to follow them on anything like this.)

	That all said, there are a couple format things I might have an opinion on: For one, it always seems a bit wrong to me when I see the "Big-tit pictures of so & so" heading. Doesn't the woman, presumably, have big tits if she's got an article here? The heading seems redundant to "External links" to me, unless these "Big-tit pics" are just to gallery sites? And if they are, why not label the heading, "Galleries?" My way of working has been to put the footnotes in the "References" section, have a "Bibliography" section which lists sites, books, magazines, which either have significant material on the subject, or were used in putting the article together, and an "External links" section which I use for Amazon links and other significant commercial sources.		That all said, there are a couple format things I might have an opinion on: For one, it always seems a bit wrong to me when I see the "Big-tit pictures of so & so" heading. Doesn't the woman, presumably, have big tits if she's got an article here? The heading seems redundant to "External links" to me, unless these "Big-tit pics" are just to gallery sites? And if they are, why not label the heading, "Galleries?" My way of working has been to put the footnotes in the "References" section, have a "Bibliography" section which lists sites, books, magazines, which either have significant material on the subject, or were used in putting the article together, and an "External links" section which I use for Amazon links and other significant commercial sources.

			: Oooh, this is a point that really annoys me too. Apparently the "Big tit movies / pictures of ..." header is from the very beginning of Boobpedia and was never revised (apart from the fact that the spaces around the "/" are wrong; it should read "movies/pictures"). When I was looking for information (before becoming an editor), I was clicking on these links but soon got disappointed: None of these links leads to information about the model in question, they are just plain affiliate links to earn money. I '''never''' clicked one of these links again. Which is contraproductive to their purpose: They are the only source to finance Boobpedia. I simply think the header is not honest. Tell the reader that these are affiliate links, and he will follow them if he considers joining a site. If someone gives me a recommendation, I always gladly mention him when I buy something, and when it was Boobpedia that draw my attention to a model or site which has pictures of my model, I'd surely be willing to follow this special link, because I want to support Boobpedia for this. When I began to write my own articles, I established a section names "Photographers, websites and studios". This is a clear list of websites and photographers the model has worked with. And it's clear that the links lead to the websites themselves, not to any special page of my model (which the automatic addition of the model name wrongly implies in the "Big tits movies..." section). Writing my articles like that, I noticed that my system produces double mentions of the websites: Once in my own (honest) section, and once in the "Big tits movies" section - which is redundant. I suggest a) renaming the "Big tits movies..." section to "Photographers, websites and studios" (or similar), b) removing the model name from the links. This is honest. The external links section, however, is the place for links leading directly to pages concerning the model. I'll start this in my articles. Replacing the links in my "Photographers..." section by affiliate links and removing all "Big tits movies..." sections. I do not like them at all - and they don't serve they purpose like that. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

	Anyway, be sure to let me know if a standard article layout is firmly decided upon, and I will have no objections to adjusting my article creation to be in conformity with that. Cheers! [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		Anyway, be sure to let me know if a standard article layout is firmly decided upon, and I will have no objections to adjusting my article creation to be in conformity with that. Cheers! [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Citation messages */

2008-07-07T20:37:58Z

Citation messages

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 7 July 2008
Line 110:		Line 110:
	: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Dekkappai: /* Citation messages */ r

2008-07-07T20:28:19Z

Citation messages: r

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 7 July 2008
Line 109:		Line 109:
	Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* Citation messages */

2008-07-07T20:26:05Z

Citation messages

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 7 July 2008
Line 108:		Line 108:
	== Citation messages ==		== Citation messages ==
	Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, so we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution. Personally I think we need these banners. Since I placed only a few of them, the number of references has dramatically increased, and ~~this is~~ good for the credibility of Boobpedia and for the development towards the leading reference for boob related ~~things~~. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Prophecy: /* My thoughts */

2008-07-07T20:21:41Z

My thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 7 July 2008
Line 105:		Line 105:

	Anyway, be sure to let me know if a standard article layout is firmly decided upon, and I will have no objections to adjusting my article creation to be in conformity with that. Cheers! [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		Anyway, be sure to let me know if a standard article layout is firmly decided upon, and I will have no objections to adjusting my article creation to be in conformity with that. Cheers! [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	:Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			== Citation messages ==
			Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, so we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution. Personally I think we need these banners. Since I placed only a few of them, the number of references has dramatically increased, and this is good for the credibility of Boobpedia and for the development towards the leading reference for boob related things. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 7 July 2008
Line 118:		Line 118:
	:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			:::: No problem Prophecy. I get that they are in a category, I just meant that maybe they should just be listed in the normal category section, down on the bottom of the page, with the rest of the categories, rather than having the banner. We get used to a lot of nonsense at Wikipedia, deleting articles based on the "Notability" hoax-- as if someone who has appeared in 100 films could ''not'' be notable... Editing here at BP is a nice change of pace from that, and, though we should follow the good things-- sourcing, citations, encyclopedic style, etc.-- we shouldn't hesitate to re-think some of the more absurd things "consensus" comes up with at WP, and which we editors just become used to living with... Actually, I'm spending so much time there keeping good articles from being deleted, and here happily putting up pages on good subjects I know won't be subject to a deletion campaign, more and more I think about just throwing in the towel at WP... [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 17:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 7 July 2008
Line 110:		Line 110:
	: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			::: As I said - Those articles already have such a category. It's only a question of how to mark an article as needing additional sources. It's easier to add {{tl\|refimprove}} than to type the whole text like <nowiki>[[Category:Articles needing additional references]]</nowiki> at the end. And I think a little hint right in the (readable) body of the article is good to catch the editor's attention. But I support your idea that the banners are too big. I'll redesign them, perhaps as a single line banner or something like that. Placed near (or inside) the references section, they will do their job without annoying visitors who just want to read the article. You are right , at the beginning, when I looked up some information on Wikipedia, these banners (sometimes three or more of them at the top of a page) annoyed me too, but somehow I got used to them and thought they had to be there. Thanks for making me think again. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 7 July 2008
Line 109:		Line 109:
	Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		Another thought: I just took a look at the [[Amanda White]] page, and I see that big, ugly, article-defacing "This article needs additional citations for verification." flag plastered over the top of the article. These kinds of things always irritate me at Wikipedia-- it is the behind-the-scenes (the editing) being put on the stage (the article). I don't think we should follow Wikipedia in this. Personally, I think all the unsourced personal information should be simply removed. Better to have a one-sentence description, which is accurate, than unsourced rumors with a big flag saying "Don't take this article seriously!". Just my opinion anyway. I think we should keep this kind of banner off articles completely if possible. If they are necessary, maybe put them down at the bottom of the page in the "Categories", or on the talk page, or list the article in a separate "Needs sources" page for editors. I don't think the general BP-viewer wants to see this right at the top. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 13:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
	: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)		: Well, I guess that on Wikipedia, these messages were initially meant as a pure invitation to add sources to really improve an article. Unfortunately users seem to pass by and simply add the banner withouth making an attempt to improve the article. It was me who developed the banners and put them on some pages (mainly because I wanted to be able to trace them back to add sources, because the banner causes them to be listed in {{Cl\|articles needing additional references}}. So as you see, these categories already exist, but I agree with you that the style and place of these banners can be improved - we are don't have to adopt everything from Wikipedia without checking or modifying it. Together with Drduckers idea to place references at the very bottom of a page, I had an idea: Why not place such a banner just above the references? So '''if''' someone wants to see the sources, he will scroll down, and we can be sure it's someone interested in the proper verification of statements. If he sees the banner down at the page, he might be the right person to look for more references. If it's just a "normal" reader, he can just "overread" the banner at the bottom of the page, and it does not annoy him right at the top of the page. We can talk of a more decent design too. This banner does not have to be that big. I guess this is a good solution: Turn these banners into "foot messages" instead of "header messages". Personally I think we need these banners. Since I have placed only a few of them, they seem to have inspired a lot of editors to add more references; the number of references has dramatically increased. This is important and good for the credibility of Boobpedia, and for the development of Boobpedia towards '''the''' leading reference for boob related topics. I'd love Boobpedia to become this one day. Ah, and: Finally the banner is where it belongs - near the references. Which gives me another reason to support Drduckers solution of putting references at the bottom of an article. [[User:Prophecy\|Prophecy]] 16:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
			:: Right-- I appreciate your concern for sourcing, and fully support it, Prophecy. I try never to add an unsourced statement or data to any article... Yes, a smaller banner, at the bottom, would be less intrusive. But how about just doing it as a Category? Down in the categories, with "BBW" "Tokyo Topless models" one could be "unsourced" or "needs sourcing"? Would this be enough of a "flag" to article-contributors, without really interfering with the appearance of the article? [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 16:28, 7 July 2008 (EDT)