Talk:Yoshida Mitsuyoshi

Citation format?
Regarding this bibliographic reference citation:
 * Smith, David E. and Yoshio Mikami. (1914). A History of Japanese Mathematics. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. OCLC 1515528 -- note alternate online, full-text copy at archive.org

Kmhkmh recognized here that there was "no need for google the book is at archive.org." I restored the redundant link + OCLC link because it may be more familiar -- not better. Also, the piped author name is Last name, Given name + middle initial because this is a more conventional bibliographic format in English contexts.

It is very clear to me that Kmhkmh was not wrong.

I changed the citation because it seemed arguably more useful? This begs questions about what is likely to assist potential readers who may want to read further ...?

I wonder if conventions for articles about mathmatics-related subjects are unique? Could it be that my informed decision-making about citation standards is inappropriate in this specialized context?


 * Inline citations
 * Regarding the inline citation format:
 * I noticed that Kmhkmh changed my format style by using an plausibly superior citation template which is new to me:
 * ...<:ref>Restivo, Sal P.: Mathematics in Society and History. Springer 1992, ISBN9780792317654, p. 56.
 * I have adopted the same pattern with another inline citation:
 * ...<:ref>Smith, David. (1914) A History of Japanese Mathematics, p. 35.
 * Maybe I need to adapt my editing to this new standard? --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there are various citation formats applied throughout WP, though some things are fairly standard and there are manual of style suggestions. But I don't think there a "golden rule" for the very last detail. As far first name last name vs last name, first name is concerned, they are both fine. It is true that the latter is traditionally more common for (large) bibliographies or catalogues to allow a quick search by alphabetical order. However in WP that is largely  meaningless, since WP articles do not provide (complete/large) bibliographies as you find them in books or catalogs, but rather a (short) list of a the most important or best references (similar to journal articles/papers). On the other hand first name last name usually matches the WP entry for that person (if he/she has one), i.e. it slightly simplifies the editing. That's why i personally prefer it, when I add references myself.
 * As far as Google Book Links are concerned I strongly recommend to use that template, since it makes the source clearly less messy to editors and potentially allows a central management of Google Book references, i.e. if something changes on the Google interface only the template has to be adjusted rather than every single Google link, which would be the case otherwise. I don't know exactly, when that template became available, I started using it myself about half a year ago, after I came across it on articles.
 * As far as alternative online sources like archive.org are concerned I think they should be used whenever possible. Google Books is an invaluable tool for providing easy to check reference in WP, but it's a private company that should not be promoted artificially or needlessly through WP, so whenever the referenced literature is available online at non profit organisations, I would use them rather than Google.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. As you can see for yourself, I have adopted your suggestions in this article. I plan to apply similar reasoning in other articles linked to Japanese mathematics (wasan). --Tenmei (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)