Talk:Rosina Revelle: Difference between revisions
Boobpedia - Encyclopedia of big boobs
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Citations: first disagreement) |
(→Citations: yes, we need a Bibliography and a Notes-- and they duplicate each other) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Citations== | ==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? [[User:Dekkappai|Dekkappai]] 01:15, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | 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? [[User:Dekkappai|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. [[User:Dekkappai|Dekkappai]] 01:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 05:17, 3 September 2008
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)
- 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)
