User talk:ECGtertius

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melchoir 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Er, do you have a question, or is there something you're trying to do that the software won't let you, or...? Melchoir 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir, thanks for your help with Bibles for America and the redirect for Recovery Version. I was looking for advice on adding a Reference section, and was wondering whether adding a publisher link as reference would be appropriate since the publisher is not referenced in the short article. Before I could add a reference section you added the External Links section so I added 2 reference links there instead. Is this correct, or do we still need a reference section? ECGtertius 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a tricky one. There's a fine line between "References", "Further reading", and "External links" that's discussed a little bit at Citing sources. Quite frankly, most people don't spend much effort properly citing their references, possibly because it's confusing, but we can do better! Personally, I think every article shoud have a References section, even the stubs.
 * Anyway, I think the bottom line is, did you draw on any of those websites as references for the article as it currently stands? If so, then yes, it would be appropriate to provide a link to the page in question under a References section. Melchoir 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I read through the "Citing Sources" section and was a bit confused... I will need to get used to writing with the Wikipedia styles and content expectations in mind--I'm a 'displaced' Zeal editor (expert zealot status in multiple categories); now that they have shut down I'm planning to 'contribute' here. I guess I'm used to short, concise entries--and that's probably why you 'stubbed' this one! I think I'll add the publisher reference link, not as a direct source, but as a verifying source--or are these types of citations referenced differently?


 * Another question: an 'abbreviation' page (BFA) has a list of items the abbreviation can stand for; I noticed the list is not alphabetical. I didn't find a style 'rule' about this... Should additions to the lists be alphabetical, or merely added at the end of the list (as appears with BFA)?


 * TIA for your continued advice! ECGtertius 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, there's nothing quite like refugee talent for a growing nation website! Perhaps Wikipedia black ops ought to knock over a few more rivals... Well, I hope you like it here!
 * Yeah, I guess the culture around here favors longer articles. I should hasten to point out that a well-written stub is usually considered much better than a poorly-written page of dreck; there even exist Wikipedians whose self-appointed purpose is to write lots of quality stubs! As for verifying sources, those are exactly the contents of most References sections. Sometimes an article will draw on a direct source for a quote or, if it's public domain, a copied section of prose; typically those sources are also cited in References, but they're less common.
 * BFA is technically a "disambiguation" page; you can learn about their maintenance at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Unlike actual articles, where conformity to formulas is discouraged, "dab pages" have a standard structure. Under "Order of entries", it recommends, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." In practice, it can be hard to determine how common a usage is; you can try using Google, or you can just guess, since no one is likely to challenge you!
 * Cheers, Melchoir 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)