Talk:Trees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Article style
editActually, there is a reason for using inline parenthetical referencing in this sort of article. It allows the reader to evaluate the referenced material based on their knowledge of the authorities cited, in this case de Groot and Eberhard. Regarding the improper tagging of the article: it's a bit harsh to come down so strongly on a referenced stub article, Especially since according to Wikipedia:Stub, stub articles do not even require any referencing at all. It real discourages rather than encourages article development. If the tag is directed to me, it is not useful: I already know how to write articles, I just haven't had time to develop this one further (obviously) I decided to start the article as a stub in case others which to contribute. If this tag is directed to these potential others, they will likely know about reference citations as well, and add them to the article as a routine part of any expansion. I really see these tags in the case of an article such as this (somewhat academic and specialized) as unhelpful (and if employed, they should be on the Talk page, not main article space). These tags may be useful in articles on more popular areas, or to warn (scare?) readers in the event of poorly researched of inaccurate articles. This is not one of them (and also why I prefer the Social Science parenthetic inline reference citation style for these kind of articles). Anyway, this is my opinion on this matter. I am not the only one who thinks this way, but I realize that adding these tags, even to new articles currently under development or to new stubs seems to have somehow become wrongly some sort of unquestioned routine, just in the last few years.
Referencing style
editAt the risk of going against the editnotice template at the top of the edit page, which seems rather boilerplate, and which I have no control over (but thank you to whoever put it there, anyhow), I'm planning on putting WorldWide Web references in a different section: otherwise they clutter up the articles too much. I have gotten several suggestions to use Template:R: however, the syntax and use is not intuitively obvious to me. Dcattell (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Instead of titling the section as "Worldwide Web references", it might be better to have one "References" and "Notes" section. The "Notes" section can be for the inline citations (like the parenthetical ones you're currently using) and the "References" section could be for the full citations. It could even be set up so that the notes link internally to the references using WP:HARV even if the referenced sources themselves are not available online. For some other examples on different ways to do something similar, look at WP:CITEX#Shortened notes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
