Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 19

= September 19 =

Jamie Lee Curtis early life and career.
I was writing a paper about who my favorite actress was and I chose Jamie Lee Curtis and I have to do a work-cited page on where I got the article, who wrote the article and when, But I keep asking these questions and it will not answer me. I realize that several people may have been writers for these articles. but I would like to know who wrote it? I like to do reaearch too and it would be very helpful if I know who wrote about her and her career? Thanks, please e-mail me the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.104.64 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean our article on Jamie Lee Curtis, the list of authors is here: . However, that's a huge list of screen names and internet addresses, not their real names, in most cases. StuRat (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What you should do instead is look up some of the references we used, here: Jamie_Lee_Curtis. Those will have (proper) author names and dates.  For example, if you want to write about how much any of her movies made, you could use this reference from our list: .  The date is at the top of that page.  In this case the author is "Nash Information Services, LLC":  (an author isn't always a single person).  For a second example, if you want to write about her appearing on NCIS, use this source: .  The date is listed at the top, and the author, Patrick Day, is listed at the bottom.  You should also list that he works for the Los Angeles Times.  StuRat (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested in WP:Citing Wikipedia. Dismas |(talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the opposite of false precision?
I've seen this enough times to wonder: an article gives a date vaguely ("the late 1800s" or "near the end of the 19th century") in the opening sentence, and precisely ("1887") elsewhere. In Wikipedia, I can suppose that the original writer of the lede didn't know the exact date and no subsequent editor bothered to pin it down, but when I see it in a magazine – where each article was presumably written all at once, usually by one person – I have to infer that it's a deliberate stylistic choice to spend several extra words to avoid precision, or maybe to help people who don't know where 87 falls in the range 00–99 (or 1–100).

(The immediate provocation of this mini-rant was an article about a TV series that ran from 1985 to 1992 according to the infobox, and "mid 1980s to early 1990s" according to the lede.)

Do you do this sort of thing, or know of a style guide that urges it? If so, why? —Tamfang (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't make it intentionally vague unless there was a good reason. For example, there might have been an earlier failed pilot, and a farewell made-for-TV movie, so then the question comes up as whether to include those in the dates of the run or not. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The example you give does seem odd, but I think this has to be examined writer by writer and writing by writing. An article or paragraph might in one place say the Federal Reserve system was a product of the Progressive Era to locate its general context in contrast to such New Deal institutions as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, but elsewhere give 1913 as the precise date of its establishment. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If the vaguer period gives significant context, like "the Progressive Era", I might well do it myself. But "the early 1900s" (or for that matter "Tamfang's grandparents' childhood") doesn't add anything. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I don't know what it is called, but it is a literary device that I have often used in my writings. It is used when a writer wants to summarize something in the lede, and still leave information for the rest of the article. To put all the details in the lede makes it hard to read, and makes the rest difficult to write. It works the same with places. For example, it is better to say "Neil Armstrong was an American astronaut," rather than "Neil Armstrong was an astronaut from Wapakoneta, Ohio."  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the inverted pyramid style. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "American" is meaningful, relevant, and more concise than the alternative. Consider in contrast: "Neil Armstrong was an astronaut born in the temperate latitudes." —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Some of our article writers haven't quite cottoned on that the lede "paragraph" is not meant to be an only slightly shortened version of the entirety of the article.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking generally, when writing non-fiction for a non-expert audience, the accumulation of details is often discouraged by editors. In pieces I have written that were meant to be read by non-specialists I've been asked to get rid of all unnecessary proper names and dates, not because they aren't accurate, but because a flood of specific details supposedly makes people think that all details are equally important, and — according to these editors — makes it hard for the average reader to follow the bigger arguments. There's some truth to this, I suppose, though I'm generally not a fan of underestimating the reader. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can understand omitting unnecessary dates. Do you replace them with vague ones? —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes. For example, if we say that the subject got his Masters from the University of Bullamakanka in 1993, that's all we need to say.  Nobody cares that his conferral ceremony was held at 3:00 pm on 17 November 1993 in the Great Hall of the School of Inconsequential Studies; the keynote address was delivered by Dr Mervyn Purvis-Smith BEM, ED, FRNZCP, JP; refreshments were provided by the Ladies Auxiliary of the Anglican Parish of Greater Upper Downer Heights; he trimmed his beard for the first time in 3 years in honour of the occasion; or that he was almost late getting to the ceremony because he had a tyre blowout on the way.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So you omit nonessentials, making the prose shorter. Might you mention the tyre blowout but instead of saying "he had a tyre blowout" say something like "his vehicle suffered a mechanical lapse of function"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Vague can range from "Early March" to "Early 1943" to "In the late 1960s". Depends on the context and what is being claimed. You're looking for the sweet spot of just enough specificity to not be silly ("Sometime after the birth of civilization, John Brown got a bagel."). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I find that very poignant, putting our everyday actions into perspective. Definitely not encyclopaedic though! -- Q Chris (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Solve this please
I have moved this question to Reference desk/Mathematics. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)