Talk:Rudolf Wanderone/Archive 3

Version 0.7
This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

This article topic isn't major enough to make it into Version 0.7, which is limited in size. Walkerma (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote citations
I like your way of citing specific page references. Yet I wonder, Would it be possible to alter the small colon into a (p.) ? For a novice reader, I imagine the [6]:45 is a bit confusing. However, something like [6]p.45 or [6]ppg.45-50 would be self-explanatory. ThsQ (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I happen to loathe that style of notation and got into a bit of a spat with the editor that implemented it. I think it looks terrible and like you I imagine that readers would find it confusing. Otto4711 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not too excited about the style either. I find the notation procedure [here] much better.  Another style for paging  [here] is also frustrating because it causes a reader to jump back and forth with a browser Back Button.  Wikipedia adopted the simple use of the delta (^) plus the ( a,b,c ), but it failed to take into consideration paging.  Since some editors require specific paging, someone should code a more-perfect use for paging than the examples cited above.


 * Of all the examples, the use of a [1]ppg.45-50 would be my preferred choice, without the ppg. (of course)&mdash;thus, producing something like this [1] 45-50 within a sentence. ThsQ (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I think that if someone could code the small alphabetic letter in place of the colon-number (i.e. the letter which corresponds to the marker from the bottom Reference Section), then the example of pagination seen in Rudolf Wanderone would be widely-used. For instance, in the following detail&mdash;

''^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Dyer, R. A. (2003). Hustler Days: Minnesota Fats, Wimpy Lassiter, Jersey Red, and America's Great Age of Pool. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 156731807X.''


 * &mdash;clicking any letter returns a reader to the precise location; however that location is identified as [6]:219 . Would it not be better to be identified as [6]k 219, or [6]c 3 ?  I realize that these letters and numbers are very small, but there must be a way of incorporating the back-and-forth details between inline pagination and Bottom Referencing and Wikipedia's delta-clicking. Otto, what do you think?  ThsQ (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think I'm perfectly happy with plain old footnotes without any bells and whistles or extra ugly characters. Since any of the proffered alternatives fall for me into the "ugly extra character" continuum I have no opinion on which spot on the ugly extra character continuum this article falls. Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I happily follow your reasoning. What do you think of the referencing done in [here]?  I like how the procedure seems to work&mdash;that is, the reference is cited once in full detail (e.g. "author, title,publisher, date," etc.), and then all references to paging is cited by "author and page-number" upon the appropriate footnote citation-line. (e.g. ThsQ, ppg. 1-100) ThsQ (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've worked to promote various articles to GA status I was advised not to put the full book citation within the article but just put to generate the footnote and then create a separate "References" section for a complete citation. That's the way this article used to be before another editor redid it. This is the only article I've ever seen in which the page number is included as part of the citation. It strikes me as being a lot of extra coding for little or no net gain in functionality. Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of the [6]:219 is awkward. Very difficult to comprehend, mate. But I liked the article. I like the movie. Toby Ornott (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Be sure to check out The Hustler (film). Otto4711 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Otto, do I understand you to be saying "Forget using within the format, rather use a simple format; and then rather than use the function, create a separate subsection heading labeled References and then list the stuff in there?  That does sound a lot simpler.  Do you have an excellent example of this working in illustration somewhere?  ThsQ (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. use in the body. Use the standard citation templates for news articles, DVD commentaries, etc. Create a section (I usually call it "Notes") and put there. Then a section for complete book cites (which I usually call "References"). The aforementioned The Hustler (film) is one such example of a GA I worked on, as is the FA Judy Garland that I worked. Otto4711 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several citation styles in use on WP, and the one in use in a given article isn't usually changed based on personal visual preferences, but only on practical considerations. The Notes/References two-section style is normally used in articles much more complex than this, and no consensus has merged, in over 5 years, to change to that style here. In the intervening time, usage of the  template has spread very broadly throughout WP as the most efficient and simple means of citing the same work many times in the same article. I note that someone, without any consensus that the citation style here needed to change, went ahead and changed it to a hybrid format, mixing citation styles, but I won't revert it as it's too much work to undo. This actually raises WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues.  Establish consensus before making sweeping but non-content-improving changes that are difficult to revert.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Later Life
Can someone fix a contradiction in this article? One of the early sections says Etta definitely was his daughter, then this section says she definitely was not. I don't know anything about Minnesota Fats, but I noticed that the two statements in the same article are direct contradictions of each other. 78.145.60.33 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Authun: Either this has been corrected in the meantime (I am writing on Nov 11 2009), or your observation is not accurate, for there is but one reference to Etta and it does not make a claim either way as to his fatherhood.

Proper Name
As of my writing this (Nov 2009), the article refers to the subject as Rudolf Wanderone, and that his surname was originally spelled "Wanderon". However, a stop by FindAGrave (a link to add) refers to him as Rudolph Walter Wonderon, Jr. A plate marking his grave bears the name Wonderon. Are "Rudolph" and, especially, "Wonderon" alternative valid names to consider referring to somewhere in the article?
 * Article mentions the Wanderon spelling. The grave marker does not use "Rudolph" or spell out his middle name; see photos: http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/default.aspx?f=1&guid=ae8e1d52-1d4e-4cd3-8062-220ce55bff46&gid=2&st=2  FindAGrave is user-edited content and is not a reliable source.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)