Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Archives/Archive 6

Citation styles

Recently I've taken to reverting on sight any modification to WP:MESO articles done by Rjwilmsi, as the script he uses powers thru seemingly all of wiki's articles converting duplicate citations into named references.

Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt his activities are done all in good faith and for those articles where the full citation is embedded between ref tags in the article text, it's probably a useful and space-saving exercise.

However, for articles (like many in wp:meso) that use WP:CITESHORT method, IMO using named references has no appreciable benefit and in fact adds unneeded complexity to the task of maintaining the article and its references. In practice the ref's encoded name is not predictable or consistent, you have to trawl thru the article to find out what it is, where actual first named occurrence appears, or even whether the cite/ref has a name yet; it doesn't really save on any real estate in the editing pane (compare <ref name="Taladoire 2001 p. 112">Taladoire (2001), p. 112</ref> vs <ref>Taldoire (2001), p.112</ref> ); moving text around or deleting sections can invalidate the cites; it's annoying trying to work out which of those little superscript letters against the cite in the "Notes" section will take you back to where you were reading before you clicked on the number; etc etc.

Anyone else agree/disagree with this approach? A unilateral action on my part, so I wanted to check just in case other folks have particular preferences for named refs, which I'd be happy to consider.

While on the topic, for the sake of consistency and ease of editing/reading between related Meso articles, I'd like to propose formalising some general project guidelines for citation style/methods of in-scope articles. My suggestions:

1. Standardise on using the WP:CITESHORT method. So, the citation against some statement would be given briefly as <ref>Taldoire (2001), p.112</ref>, which will display in the "Notes" section, the corresponding full reference is given once in the "Reference" section, arranged bibliography-style.
2. At a minimum the short citation should include the publication year (ie Smith 2006, p.123 instead of Smith, p.123). You can never tell when another publ by Smith will be added as a ref to an article later on, so best to specify up-front to avoid confusion. Inclusion of page #s is highly desirable when applicable.
3. If more than one citation is used for a particular passage or statement, include all of the cites between a single ref tag pair: <ref>Alpha (1990), Beta (1991), Gamma (2006)</ref> instead of <ref>Alpha (1990)</ref><ref>Beta (1991)</ref><ref>Gamma (2006)</ref>
4. For coauthored cites: two authors- Smith & Jones (2004), two+ authors- Smith et al. (2004)
5. Re short citation punctuation, aim for a consistency within the same article. Could be any of- Smith (2006, p.123) or Smith (2006), p.123 or Smith 2006, p.123 or whatever.
6. Any free-text annotations for the cite, or any genuine footnoted comments, appear in the same "Notes" section alongside the short cites- ie no WP:REFGROUPing.
7. Avoid the use of named references, per reasons above. If there's a need to use the exact same citation more than once in the article, then so be it; it doesn't matter if it appears multiple times in the Notes section listing.
8. The fully expanded sources in the references section to use {cite XXX} templates for formatting consistency if possible. Preferably as much info abt the source (edition, loc:publ, isbn, oclc, etc) to be given. Within article, similar levels of info to be given for each.
9. Prob. +90% of wp:meso articles are not regularly edited or worried about by other projects; however if some alternative citation style is already established then check/negotiate beforehand if intending to change the citation method.

What say ye- anything else, comments-opinions to the contrary? --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely support this. I find the use of "refname" makes articles more difficult to edit. I note that there's been further talk that all the templates etc have made editing a rather specialized craft, discouraging the average reader from the occasional edit. An example is the Valley of Mexico article, wherein huge cite templates disrupt the text flow.

And thanks as always for being the ringleader of this little Mesoamerican circus. Madman (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the use of named refs quite useful in writing long articles, e.g. Dos Pilas or Quiriguá, where refs are frequently reused. Having said that, it does make an article more difficult to modify later, particularly if you didn't write it and don't know what method (if any) the editor used to name the refs. Using unnamed refs certainly wouldn't make writing significantly more difficult - though the notes section might spool on for a while.

All the suggested guidelines above sound very reasonable. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks, greatly appreciate and value your input, Simon- you've been doing some sterling work on much-needed expansions & inline cites.

I don't propose ATM revising the good work you've done on those couple recent expansions using named refs - not a great priority, only really matters to have it internally consistent w/in the same article. Maybe, we cld see how those couple go wrt ongoing maintenance, & make an individual call as we get closer to some formal review stage with them as to which method we collectively find easier to maintain. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

With Takalik Abaj currently undergoing FA Review, I found good reason to include named refs in the article - before their use there were 258 footnotes, which is a little unwieldy to say the least. Using named refs has reduced this to 143, still a lot but much better. While I understand the reasons for not wanting named refs in the article, I think with some of the longer article they can be very useful - and it's not really that difficult to find the name of a ref in order to reuse it, or even ignore the named ref when expanding and wait for someone else to combine it (since it seems that some editors make regular sweeps precisely for this reason). I think in some ways we're trying to hold back the tide here. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CJLLW that the named refs are not necessarily helpful and should not be promoted as a defacto standard. However I also agree with Simon that the battle is already lost (and that named refs may be useful in certain large articles when the same refs are used many times). In my latest article endeavour at Greenlandic language$ I have decided to use them simply because not using them attracts too much negative attention.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit at WP:LDR which may be of interest. Cheers!• Ling.Nut 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ling.Nut, and good to see you back here at wikipedia, btw, even if 'semi-retired' !

As I see it, those "list-defined references" you link to primarily came about (recently) in an attempt to address one of the main flaws in the "full footnote" citation method. Namely, as a workaround for the issue of the editing pane becoming crowded out with the text from the fully expanded names of the sources being cited, that was being crammed between the <ref></ref> tags by the demands of that system.

However, the WP:CITESHORT system favoured here did not suffer from that flaw; if anything, WP:LDR emulates to a degree what WP:CITESHORT already does in its own low-cost and more intuitive way.

the other main drawback of 'full footnote' cite method (with or without LDR) is that you don't end up with an ordered bibliography section, like you do in CITESHORT. IMO bibliography sections are to be preferred, they provide much more functionality and usefulness in research/article building than merely showing what source some piece of info came from (they do that too, of course).

I'll concede that in articles like Simon's where the cites are densely distributed and a few are repeats, using named refs does tidy up the cites' presentation somewhat. They're still a hassle to maintain and add to (later, or by someone else); but perhaps not as much of a hassle sometimes as arguing the toss with others insisting upon it. There will always be common-sense exceptions, but the exceptions go both ways—it's reasonable to resist being railroaded into having named refs when there's no benefit (and some harm) because the number/nature of the cites is otherwise manageable. Equally, when the number of cites and repetitions is reaching heroic levels, introducing them so you don't end up with a screenful of 'Smith 2002, p.123' is reasonable too.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aztec Myth template

I've just knocked up a new template along the lines of the pre-existing {{Aztec}} and {{Aztecsmall}}. It is called {{AztecMyth}} and contains links to the major topics to do with Aztec religion & mythology and the principal gods. It could probably do with a little expansion but I think it's usable as is. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Simon! Agree such a nav template wld be handy. I wonder, any opinions as to whether it would work best as a vertical right-aligned one (as present), or a horizontal bottom-aligned one? --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Any preference for this? I've beens sticking the vertical template in a few Aztec mythology articles... Simon Burchell (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer horizontal templates. The vertical ones take up space that would be better used by images, of which we presently (thankfully) have a surplus. Madman (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, now I think about it. I've just put together a horizontal version, somewhat expanded on the vertical template simply due to more available room. It is called {{AztecMythHorizontal}}. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be interesting, thanks for the heads-up. Will look into it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

announcement: Dienhart's Mayan dictionary compilation going copyleft

The Mayan Languages- A Comparative Vocabulary, by John Dienhart, is a compilation of over 400 years of Mayan dictionaries in around 30 languages, with over 45,000 entries. I have just gotten explicit permission from Kristina Dienhart, the daughter of John Dienhart, and from a representative of Southern Denmark University, the copyright owner, to use this data, which exists in electronic form, under CC-BY-SA or GFDL. My intention is to massage this data into usable form (for instance, update the orthography); upload it to OmegaWiki; and create pedagogical material such that it can be used (edited) in primary-school classrooms, especially with XO computers. I hope that 1500 of these computers will soon be in the hands of mostly K'iche' students in Totonicapan, and that hundreds will be in Mayan areas in Belize and Mexico.

I am a programmer and a teacher, not a professional mayanist by any stretch of the imagination, but some of you may remember me from back when Mayan languages reached FA. I would love the help of anyone knowledgeable about Mayan linguistics, especially the Mexican Mayan languages, about which I know less than the Guatemalan ones. I would also be especially happy if someone could help me find funding for all or part of this work (I'm happy to work for Guatemalan programmer wages, in the range of $1000-$1500 a month; this project could be anywhere from 2 to 6 months, depending on scope). If you or someone you know would be able to help me, please get in touch with me via "email this user".

Thank you,

Homunq (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(cross-posted at Talk:Mayan languages)

Hey there Homunq. Sure, remember all the great work from you on Mayan langs, good to hear from you again.

Good news abt the Dienhart material -- I have often used his database hosted at the SDU Odense website to check up on something or to compare words across the various Mayan langs. It's a highly useful resource that could be made even more useful with as you say an update to the orthography (eg no longer needing to use odd typewriter chars for sortability) and perhaps the interface.

Will have a think abt funding possibilities (not that I have any personal inroads into orgs that could maybe provide any), and if any brainwaves then email you. Maybe FAMSI? You could try emailing David Hixson (he used to edit around here) to see what the possibilities there may be. Or maybe someone involved in linguistics academically like User:Maunus might know of opportunities. All the best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Native American art

For a long time this has been a rather jarring omission... I've slapped something together; User talk:Uyvsdi and User talk:Madman2001 have already agreed to contribute to it.. Is anyone here interested? I will be contacting other relevant wikiprojects as well. Thanks, Lithoderm 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of aut template in citations

Hi all,

User:Attilios recently took out all the {{aut}} templates from references in the Xiuhtecuhtli and Quiriguá articles (see discussion on my talk page) on the basis that nothing should be written all in caps according to MOS. Since the the {{aut}} template is widely used in WP:Meso, I'd appreciate some 3rd party feedback on this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon. While fully appreciating Attilios' actions as good-faith ones, IMO their interpretation of what the MOS stipulates is a little askew. There is no blanket prohibition in MOS or elsewhere against the use of all/smallcaps for any and all contexts that I am aware of. I think it would be odd if there were. There are only common-sense guidelines (not fiats) to the effect that generally markup and text formatting/presentation should be kept reasonably simple, and where WP:MOSCAP talks about "avoid[ing] unnecessary capitalization" it's really only considering circumstances such as over-use in article texts for things like emphasis and common nouns.

To be sure, there would be times when applying smallcaps formatting to text is inappropriate and clashing; however the way we use it in bibliographies is not one of those. The intention here is to have some straightforward presentational style that allows the reader to more easily identify a reference work's keywords (ie authors' names) from an ordered list, that as often as not can be a lengthy one with individual entries wrapping over mutliple lines. By using smallcaps on authors' names (with or without the hanging indent offsets that {{ref indent}} can provide) it's much easier to scan through a bibliography and pick out at a glance the desired reference from the surrounding sea of text. Without some sort of visual device to identify keywords, finding entries in long bibliographies like the one at Nahuatl would be hard going. IMO its use in this way is entirely appropriate, even useful; not mere pointless window-dressing.

Bibliography/reference sections are not like 'normal' article text sections, and they are read in a completely different manner to the way normal article text is consumed. Effectively it's an index that the reader looks something up in, and to look something up you a visual cue for the search term is commonplace. As part of a consisent citation/referencing style, it should be noted also that wikipedia does not have a single mandated cite/ref presentation format, and as WP:CITE#HOW remarks "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus".

The argument "that's not the way things are usually done around here" is a weak one. While it may be true that a majority of articles don't do things this way, this is more because the great majority of articles give very little or no thought at all to how cites/references are presented and whether or not it's easy to find something—and not because there's a conscious avoidance or adherence to some stipulated style. And I have seen it used beyond WP:MESO on more than a few occasions.

In any case, when a couple months ago the {{smallcaps}} template (that {aut} is a synonym for) was nominated for TfD, no-one supported its deletion. The consensus was that the template had a range of valid uses. By extension, smallcaps markup is also valid and not forbidden; it should only come down to a common-sense consensus judgement as to whether any given individual application of it works, or doesn't.

My 2 pesetas, anyways. I think that style should be restored in those articles where it was removed; we have several articles using it that passed FA, so if it wasn't a problem there I don't see why it would be a problem for these ones. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref indent template migration (for biblio formatting) now completed

Hi all. As a result of the TfD that got raised on {ref indent} template (used on many of our articles to format bibliography/reference sections so that long items have a hanging indent if wrapped over more than one line), the functionality of that template has now been merged into another's, namely {{refbegin}}.

It still works essentially as before, for basic coding to produce that hanging indent effect you now code it something like this:

 ==References==
 {{refbegin|indent=yes}}
 : Author, Some (year), ''A Book'' etc
 : Author, Another (year), ''Different Book'' etc
 :...
 {{refend}}

I haven't yet updated the template doco at refbegin, should work on that soon.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Course-Generated Contributions on Ancient Central America (and northern Colombia)

A year has passed and I am once again having my students create Wikipedia entries in the context of a course at the University of Kansas. However, this time the course is "Ancient Central America" (ANTH 500). As a first assignment, I've asked students in the class to create or edit Wikipedia entries on topics pertaining to indigenous peoples and archaeological cultures of southern Central America and northern Colombia (what's also referred to as the Isthmo-Colombian area.

I've had variable success with this type of project in the past, but I do think my students have made some substantial contributions to useful Wikipedia content on Mesoamerica. I realize that the scope of this course includes areas and cultures that are outside the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, but this is still the best model of how to proceed.

Each time I do this, I learn a little bit more about the best procedure to follow. This time, I will have students complete the assignment entirely within the context of their personal user page before having them move the entries into Wikipedia.

The first step of this assignment is for them to create new entries, each with a contribution of a minimum of 1000 words, accompanied by appropriate footnotes and references (and illustrations, with appropriate permissions). Topics must receive prior approval from me and contributions will be reviewed by me on the basis of style, accuracy, and utility before they go online. I have directed students to consult the WikiProject Mesoamerica pages for entries that need work, but I'm sure that they would appreciate input and recommendations concerning appropriate strategies.

There are currently 27 students in the class. The final assignments are due on September 28, 2009 and contents should be online within about two weeks after that date.

As before, I will have students post their usernames and project topics. Any voluntary assistance with these projects--including suggestions for worthwhile additions--would be greatly appreciated! Hoopes (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hoopes, as mentioned at ur talkpg glad to see this exercise taking place again this year, and am sure we're all willing to lend a hand / offer advice as and when we can. Your students can either contact one of us directly or post a msg here on this project board.

The focus on Isthmo-Colombian / Lower Central America is particularly welcome, as our en.wiki coverage on this is pretty poor indeed. Although maybe outside of Mesoamerica as traditionally viewed, WP:MESO scope can and does try to extend to indigenous/archaeological/linguistic topics across all of Cent.Am. Will be good to see more material develop in this area, there are plenty of unfilled holes to get working on! --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

help wanted.. Otomi FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otomi language/archive1 Ling.Nut (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)