Talk:Rosina Revelle

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)

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

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)