Talk:Rosina Revelle
Boobpedia - Encyclopedia of big boobs
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)
- 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)
