Talk:Honduras Gazette

Needed page improvements
you (correctly, thank you! :) tagged this article for 1. overuse / lengthy quotes, and 2. unclear citation style. I think the first should be corrected by paraphrasing quotes, and of course trimming quotations down to meet encyclopaedic style. I'm not sure how to improve / clarify the citation style though? (I've been using with for citations, and with for explanatory footnotes [with or within these explanatory footnotes for needed citations therein] for a while now, but maybe this is not concordant with Wikipedia guidelines? Or do you know what the norm / practice is to make it clear to editors that this citation style is being used? Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Asdfjrjjj If the quotes are within the references cited they are probably not even necessary provided a link can be followed to them, or that they are otherwise pointed to.
 * I see three styles. One, "Notes" I accept, provided they are true notes, not any form of reference. The other two confuse me, and I think you need to start form first principles. Consider what you intend to achieve and then work to achieve it. At the very least, differentiate by having one style with (eg) letters and the otherr with (eg) numbers.
 * Think of the reader.
 * The reader wishes to check references without becoming confused, and wishes to check them easily. Use that as your guide. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm not sure how to do this, as the full bibliographic references are not linked to the article. That is-
 * Explanatory footnotes in "Notes" section render as "[note 1]", "[note 2]", etc. in the main article, and use shortened inline citations which are linked to full bibliographic citations via the or template,
 * Shortened citations in the "Citations" render as "[1]", "[2]", etc. in the article, and use shortened inline citations which are linked to the full bibliographic citations via the template,
 * Full citations in the "References" section are not linked to the main article at all, but rather only to the shortened citations in the "Notes" and "Citations" sections.
 * This is one of the groupings implied (but not explicitly stated in) WP:SFN and WP:EXPLNOTESECT. The other option (as suggested in WP:EXPLNOTESECT) is to merge the "Notes" and "Citations" sections into a single section, "Notes", and have them all render as "[1]", "[2]", etc. in the main article, though (I think) this would not allow us to distinguish between explanatory footnotes and short citations, but might solve the issue of vague reference style? (Further, I'm new here, so I'm not sure how to have short citations render as letters while having explanatory footnotes render as numerals? But if differential rendering is what we're after, I would think having short citations render as numerals while having explanatory footnotes render as "note 1", "note 2", etc. would be sufficient disambiguation?)


 * That said, what we might be missing is other points of view, as the reference style described above looks pretty clear to me, but not to you, so we'd want to know how it fares with other parties, I'd say :)


 * Regarding quotations, their content seems pretty topical (ie not necessary, as you've pointed out, but desirable nonetheless), and is included in secondary literature (eg the 1976 Cave article), such that they shouldn't be removed, despite their being linked in the "References" section, but rather should be paraphrased and cut down to meet Wiki guidelines. Again, we might also need third parties to weigh in on this, though I think paraphrasing and cutting down should be enough to improve the article such that it meets encyclopaedic guidelines! Asdfjrjjj (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Asdfjrjjj Your citation style is the exception. To me it looks much more complex than is required 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed citation style tag as I think the new sections for notes and references sufficiently clarify how notes and references are made within this article. Though please let me know if there's still something that's unclear or confusing about this sort of citation Asdfjrjjj (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)