Talk:1968 in literature

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1968 in literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.steinbeck.org/Bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1968 in literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814125050/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/tremblay_m.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/tremblay_m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally okay and intelligent referencing system
On top of everything that is intriguing (but, hey, totally okay and not inept) way in which this article, and so very many like it in the series, combines all sorts of referencing systems, and nobody but me seems to notice: did any of you editors both to observe that there is not even a unified system for citing the authors, that the article switches from introducing them with either their first or last name, for no particular reason? Maybe at some point it will dawn on you how absurd it is to require that we reference every new entry (but not the old ones?) when you cannot even conceive of, let alone enforce, a single preferred format of citations for this page series. Dahn (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also: any college freshman would have to laugh their proverbial ass off at how "citations" are provided to pages in magazines such The Advocate and Slovene Studies, without providing the author or the relevant title of the article cited; in addition, one "reference" (Scarberry-García) cites no page, while another (Barnes) cites a page range that is way too large to be tolerable for the citation of a fact. The supposed quality control cannot seem to enforce or even define minimal quality -- as long as the fact looks like it is cited, it is secured, no other even marginal effort is made to ensure that the citation is to something. Dahn (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * instead of pestering me on my talk page, perhaps you can respond here. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope you noticed how many of the citations copied from other articles - which you wanted us to rely on - are often unreliable or inaccurate or both. That's why this is such a long, slow job, and it's also why I changed sides in the original debate. Like you, I had previously assumed that a link to the article would be adequate to "prove" its accuracy. I'm sorry you don't have the stamina to keep at it, but it's always much easier to criticise others than to do the work yourself. Deb (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pages such as 1941 in literature and 1826 in literature have been edited largely by me, and I included references with an impeccable Harvard format (which I do not regularly use in my own articles, because it is much harder to fill than a free format, but I used nonetheless because it seemed to be the preferred standard). All of those references are in the "Events" sections, where I have always agreed that content should be referenced. So much for "stamina". As for what I "wanted you to rely on": my philosophy is that plain entries on births and deaths, not to mention titles of books, may go uncited (precisely if this was already the preferred usage), because inviting in sections for effectively every date not only duplicates the size at no particular benefit, but it invites in this sort of idiocy, which I do not see you and your lively associate (I forget the name -- the guy who was defending you willy-nilly on my talk page) doing anything to fix. Not one thing -- you don't even seem to notice this glaring problem. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also,, it is fact you who added the ludicrously sloppy, perfunctory, virtually unusable, Advocate reference. Maybe you should start the long, slow, job with actually correcting your own referencing, which under this form brings down the quality of articles. Dahn (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think that you are going to get the rules changed just by throwing your toys out of the pram, you are much mistaken. You're also making my point for me. Deb (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am endorsing your system. As idiotic as it seems to me to have one-line entries backed by one-line references, I can live with it. But here's how it's going to go from now on: I will consider any sloppy references added by you and by whoever else to be no references at all, and, at my convenience, for the benefit of this project, and for consistency's sake, I will take the liberty to remove any entry that relies on them. You can of course then re-add them with proper referencing. I consider half-assed and sophomoric referencing, that lacks proper attribution, to be significantly more toxic for this project than any alternative, including having the entire content removed. Dahn (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. I'd have done it a long time ago if I hadn't been so busy. Deb (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't have the stamina, huh? Again, the mind boggles, because it would appear that most of the crappy "referencing" in these articles traces back to you. You would have deleted the entries yourself? Dahn (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The "Format footnotes" template is not the correct template to tag inconsistent referencing styles, formats, etc. The first statement in the documentation states:
 * When to use
 * This template indicates that the article uses many improperly formatted or non-formatted inline citations that require large-scale conversion to an accepted form of inline citation. [emphasis added]
 * Several examples for incorrectly formatted references are listed. I found no instances of the examples in this article. Therefore the template should be removed.User-duck (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S:Often, when I try to implement a consistent technique/format/style, I am referred to WP:CITEVAR which states not to change style without consensus.User-duck (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Responded to these rather perfunctory remarks in Talk:1976 in literature. In fact, this discussion should be urgently centralized (it should have been centralized six years ago). Dahn (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)