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 ... |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* 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 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. [[User:Ahzee|Ahzee]] 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | * 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. [[User:Ahzee|Ahzee]] 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I am not necessarily against including dates in the page title for research papers and studies. The objection I raised was that studies (e.g. [[Kent State Study]]) should be notable without extra data being included. Using a casual name or excluding dates, authors, etc from titles could be a way of clarifying this to readers and editors ... "Ipce is for documentation lists" etc. But it could actually be a good way of demarcating articles on research papers and possibly other docs. If you want to use a date in the header, we must first convert all comparable articles to said format (not many of them exist), and write a rule if possible. I have seen other wikis deteriorate because of a lack of order, and so I always strive for it. | |||
:Secondly, I have streamlined the reference so that it does not refer to a non-existent source, and only to existent ones. You have mentioned that you have a copy, and I will probably be able to find a way of making it available. But for now, there is no convenience in referring to an elapsed secondary source; it is actually best that the reader assumes it was not read there, but in full paper form. | |||
:To your last point - this page is part of an encyclopaedia, and is not a unit within a documentation list, as you may find on Ipce. So we cover research papers and articles because of their notability as objects of public interest, using the standard article form that is common to the rest of the encyclopedia. Ipce is currently undergoing a long overhaul process, by which Frans' documentation lists will be made easily searchable and modifiable by a team of editors (you will probably be free to join them). Then may be a good time to see if it is in there. Alternatively, we could search ourselves or ask Frans. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:49, 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)
- I am not necessarily against including dates in the page title for research papers and studies. The objection I raised was that studies (e.g. Kent State Study) should be notable without extra data being included. Using a casual name or excluding dates, authors, etc from titles could be a way of clarifying this to readers and editors ... "Ipce is for documentation lists" etc. But it could actually be a good way of demarcating articles on research papers and possibly other docs. If you want to use a date in the header, we must first convert all comparable articles to said format (not many of them exist), and write a rule if possible. I have seen other wikis deteriorate because of a lack of order, and so I always strive for it.
- Secondly, I have streamlined the reference so that it does not refer to a non-existent source, and only to existent ones. You have mentioned that you have a copy, and I will probably be able to find a way of making it available. But for now, there is no convenience in referring to an elapsed secondary source; it is actually best that the reader assumes it was not read there, but in full paper form.
- To your last point - this page is part of an encyclopaedia, and is not a unit within a documentation list, as you may find on Ipce. So we cover research papers and articles because of their notability as objects of public interest, using the standard article form that is common to the rest of the encyclopedia. Ipce is currently undergoing a long overhaul process, by which Frans' documentation lists will be made easily searchable and modifiable by a team of editors (you will probably be free to join them). Then may be a good time to see if it is in there. Alternatively, we could search ourselves or ask Frans. The Admins 02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)