Talk:Measuring the Mind

Similar titles
Needs a disambiguation - as there's an earlier – great! – book titled "Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990" 194.66.90.50 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Matthew


 * When typing "Measuring the Mind" into the Wikipedia search field, this is the only article that comes up. So the issue is not one of disambiguation, which is used where there is more than one article with the same or similar names. It is however, worth listing the title somewhere for further reading, or even utilising it for citations somewhere. The latter will definitely be possible. The only question with Wikipedia is the amount of work entailed with any given article that one encounters, making 'further reading' the most efficient option for putting the resource out there for editors to find, be it oneself, or others.

I am presuming you mean the following title:

As you will see from the authorlink, I found that the author has a stub article. My standard approach these days when creating a citation is to check whether the author has an article page. In this case, all I have to do in the first instance is add the above formatted citation to Wooldridge's page in the first instance. Still useful to utilise elsewhere via the above suggestion. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference section and citations
After saving this comment, I will create a 'Reference' section in this article, where I will place a citation for the book with a link to an online preview. I may try adding a few more citations from the book at relevant places, to get the ball rolling for further citations, where relevant. Quotes for example, should be cited as standard practice. You'll see I've utilised what's called List-defined references.

The main advantage is simply that it keeps the main reference out of the article and thus reduces clutter for editing purposes. But it's no big deal whether you stick with it or not. If you don't like it, just chuck the whole reference where the tag is in the article. You can leave the template where it is, and refs placed fully in the article will still show up. But no matter what reference method you utilise, my recommendation is that if you add a citation, don't stuff around edting within a section. You can't see how the reference displays until you save it, so you don't know if it works or not. My own approach with any referencing method at all, is that when I'm adding a reference, I open the whole article for editing, place the citation where I want it, and then do a preview before saving. You can't do that by editing only a section. All you see is the section on preview, not how or whether the reference displays correctly or at all. The only time I edit within a section is when I'm not adding a reference. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)