One of our staff members is contributing considerably to a News Archiving service at Mu. Any well educated (Masters, PhD or above) users who wish to make comments on news sites, please contact Jim Burton directly rather than using this list, and we can work on maximising view count.
Talk:Negotiating stigma: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New page: I don't quite understand your reasons for changing my article in this way. * The caption “Negotiating stigma (Leahy, 1991)“ clearly indicates that this is about a publication & makes ... |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 01:49, 10 July 2009
I don't quite understand your reasons for changing my article in this way.
- The caption “Negotiating stigma (Leahy, 1991)“ clearly indicates that this is about a publication & makes it easy to shorten it in citations as in [[Negotiating stigma (Leahy, 1991)|]]. What if the title occurs as a notion as well? Say Sexuality (Meier, 1987), Puberty (Müller, 2001), Meta-analysis (Schulze, 1987)?
- I believe that if a resource deserves an article, it also deserves a full ISBD like description, as an extended heading if you like. You are effectively removing relevant information. e.g. the extent of item etc. A reference is not the same as a description, is it?
- I model this kind of entry after standard review articles in journals or newspapers, which usually start with the description (in bold). This is a schema with a high recognition value, setting these articles apart, which is but welcome, I suppose. Ahzee 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)