Topic Informant questions -- don't know what category they fall into

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

This sounds like a really good idea. Look, if we can get the technical stuff right, I'll prepare a proposal on referencing norms. We might even get it past the Editorial Council without a formal vote, if there;s nothing controversial. But we need a functioning technical system for it! 

[Hayford Peirce]

Hayford, as Larry is a TI on his  his article, I placed a wikilink at the top or the talk page with a note for everyone to take a look before editing. 

I do like the subpage idea.  That will bring it closer to the article page and give better exposure to the TI perspective.  I like it.

I took a look at the Larry article and at his talk page. I really don't think it's very useful to have the TI info where it is. I suppose that at *some* point most authors will look at the talk page of the subject they're writing about but not necessarily! I think a TI notice would only be useful if it is at the very start of the article itself -- or, ideally, as a Subpage Tab at the very top.  I leave all this to others to implement, however, hehe....

[J. Noel Chiappa]

if we can get the technical stuff right, I'll prepare a proposal on referencing norms.  ... But we need a functioning technical system for it!

Well, the first question to answer is what style of referencing do you want:

• Harvard-style references (i.e. in-text reference looks like "(Luser 1990:69)")
• Footnotes (i.e. in-text reference is "^[1]")

Having decided that, there are a number of competing systems to chose from on Wikipedia. They are:

• {{Wikiref}}/{{Wikicite}}, which is used for Harvard-style citations, with the reference being a clickable link to the full citation
• {{ref}}/{{note}} , which generate superscript number footnote references, with the number being a clickable link to the footnote; more on this system here
• A couple of older systems similar to the one above, here and here

None of these are as convenient to use as the <ref> system, but... doing something like what <ref> does (with the text of the footnote inline) isn't really feasible with templates.

Note: With the latter system, you have to keep the footnotes (which are kept in a separate section - or, in our case, a separate subpage) in order, matching the {{ref}} calls in the actual article, or the numbers don't match. The links will still be correct, if you get them out of order (i.e. if you click on a footnote or reference, you will go the right reference or footnote), the numbers are semi-cosmetic. If anyone is concerned about getting out of sync, you can simply omit the numbering on the footnotes; everything will still work, but the only way to find the matching footnote is to click on the reference superscript.

I prefer a two-level system for doing citations, with footnotes containing only a reference to a full citation in a bibliography, as here, but I don't know if we want to standardise something in this area.

And then, for formatting the actual citations (as opposed to formatting them yourself with italics, ()'s, etc), there are a number of templates here.

Noel

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Well... The first principle must be ease of use for the reader and the author. I am unclear which of these is the easiest.

Between numbered notes and Harvard, I have a slight preference for numbers because standard academic referencing clutters up the text. ON the other hand, if it is much easier to use Harvard then we should go with that.

The advantage of footnotes is that they can contain either references or elaborating text. From the footnotes one should then be able to get to a full bibliographical reference, on a subpage. I suspect that we will have to do some mock-ups to allow informed choice on these issues...

[J. Noel Chiappa]

The first principle must be ease of use for the reader and the author. I am unclear which of these is the easiest.

Easiest for whom? :-)

I have a slight preference for numbers because standard academic referencing clutters up the text. ON the other hand, if it is much easier to use Harvard then we should go with that.

I don't think it will be much different amount of work for the writers either way (and in fact both are a little more work than <ref>, as I think I mentioned); the internals of the two systems are much the same, it's only what shows up on the page when it's displayed that differs much between them.

The advantage of footnotes is that they can contain either references or elaborating text. From the footnotes one should then be able to get to a full bibliographical reference, on a subpage.

Exactly. But the footnotes themselves would be on a separate 'footnotes' subpage, no? It would be pretty easy to hack up a citation template that linked the footnote to the entry on the biblio subpage.

I suspect that we will have to do some mock-ups to allow informed choice on these issues...

True. Now, I suppose you want me to do that too, right? :-)

Noel

[Aleta Curry]

Okay, first of all, I started addressing this on another thread.  (The other thread is very sensibly titled something having to do with citations.)  Sorry, didn't realise this one had a second page already.

Harvard referencing.  Ugh, no.  What are we doing here...TERM PAPERS??  Like I know who Smelling and Smellier 2006 are?

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Actually, if the footnotes have an abbreviated style reference in them, it would seem better to have them at the foot of the page. Then the full reference could be on a subpage, called SOURCES

WE should move this discussion to the other thread, before proceeding any further!

[J. Noel Chiappa]

We should move this discussion to the other thread, before proceeding any further!

I'll try and post all my replies over there; hopefully that will slowly migrate everything into one place.

Noel

[George Swan]

At Larry's request, I recently wrote a Topic Informant article with some information about my dealings with the late science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein.  My article, or page, or whatever you want to call it, can be found here:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/TI:Hayford_Peirce/Heinlein

Hayford, first let me say that your account of your friendship with Heinlein was both informative and moving.  Thanks! 

After reading it I thought about whether I had ever known anyone where a TI I wrote would be worthwhile.  I think I might.  So, how would I start going about it?

I would start to edit [[TI:George Swan]], provide some introductory text, as Hayford did at [[TI:Hayford Peirce]], and then start a subpage for my experiences with my notable contact?

Hayford's account is quite positive. While I continue to admire the noteworthy guy I knew personally, several of the things I might say about him would not show him in an entirely positive light.  Would I keep those portions of our acqaintanceship out of my account?  Touch on them lightly and discretely, after getting some input from sober individuals? 

Cheers! 

[Hayford Peirce]

Now that George has reopened his matter, I took another look at both the Heinlein article and at the Topic Information page that I wrote about Heinlein. Right now I think that there's something major missing here -- the info is to be found ONLY if someone is psychic enough to go to MY user page and find a notice about it at the very top of the page. If someone is looking for info about Heinlein, why would he look for it at MY page?

As I understand it, the TI is supposed to put in personal (Original Research, if you will) info about some article so that OTHER people can read it, assess it, and then (if consensus is reached, apparently) put some or all of it in modified form into the primary article.

Okay, fine, that's a sensible approach. BUT, at least in this one case, it doesn't seem to be working.

Tell me this: has ANY TI article been used in ANY way to impart new info into ANY article?

If not, then this system is clearly not working.

I hesitate to do it myself for fear of appearing "self-publicizing", BUT I think that the Heinlein article ought to have something across the top  clearly saying something like "More information of a personal nature about RAH that has not yet been assessed for inclusion at this article can be found at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/TI:Hayford_Peirce/Heinlein."

I brought this up in this Forum about a month ago but the discussion then took a veer and this issue was never really directly addressed.  I wish that it would be now....

[Robert_W_King]

I don't understand why this can't be lumped into the Signed Articles subpage concept.

[Aleta Curry]

Hayford's account is quite positive. While I continue to admire the noteworthy guy I knew personally, several of the things I might say about him would not show him in an entirely positive light.  Would I keep those portions of our acqaintanceship out of my account?  Touch on them lightly and discretely, after getting some input from sober individuals? 

Oh, I would.  Keep my mouth shut, I mean.  Maybe you could touch on some things "lightly and discretely" if the fellow's been dead for 50 years, but gossip-style revelations don't appeal to me.  I mean, if the fellow who invented flush toilets had a homosexual affair, did time for stealing a wallet when he was 18, was a member of Alcoholics Anonymous--whatever, well, if it's not part of the public record it's just none of my business.  This ain't Oprah.