Difference between revisions of "User:Physchim62/Sandbox2"
Physchim62 (talk | contribs) (Created page with ':Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank-you for your interest in our project: Thank-you as well for correcting the factual error on our ''Organic Synthesis'' article! I am …') |
Physchim62 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank-you for your interest in our project: Thank-you as well for correcting the factual error on our ''[[Organic Synthesis]]'' article! I am the person who designed the template you're "complaining" about, so I hope I can be of assistence. | :Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank-you for your interest in our project: Thank-you as well for correcting the factual error on our ''[[Organic Synthesis]]'' article! I am the person who designed the template you're "complaining" about, so I hope I can be of assistence. | ||
| − | :It is probably simpler to address your second point first, the fact that Wikipedia does not use ACS, RSC, Elsevier or Wiley-VCH style in citing references. This is, of course, true; it may well be seen as a Bad Point from the view of a professional publisher. However, we do attempt to keep a single reference style within a given article, which is, in | + | :It is probably simpler to address your second point first, the fact that Wikipedia does not use ACS, RSC, Elsevier or Wiley-VCH style in citing references. This is, of course, true; it may well be seen as a Bad Point from the view of a professional publisher. However, we do attempt to keep a single reference style within a given article, which is, in itself, not simple given the number of subject areas that we cover. In practice, we have two major reference styles, one based on commas and the other based on full points, because the debate as to whether the comma or the full point was a better method of separating bibliographical material threatened to overwhelm the much more necessary effort to add the bibliographical material in the first place! The template that we encourage for ''Org. Synth.'' references will give a reference in one of the two main "Wikipedia styles", which I think is perfectly clear bibliographically. |
Revision as of 22:41, 7 September 2010
- Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank-you for your interest in our project: Thank-you as well for correcting the factual error on our Organic Synthesis article! I am the person who designed the template you're "complaining" about, so I hope I can be of assistence.
- It is probably simpler to address your second point first, the fact that Wikipedia does not use ACS, RSC, Elsevier or Wiley-VCH style in citing references. This is, of course, true; it may well be seen as a Bad Point from the view of a professional publisher. However, we do attempt to keep a single reference style within a given article, which is, in itself, not simple given the number of subject areas that we cover. In practice, we have two major reference styles, one based on commas and the other based on full points, because the debate as to whether the comma or the full point was a better method of separating bibliographical material threatened to overwhelm the much more necessary effort to add the bibliographical material in the first place! The template that we encourage for Org. Synth. references will give a reference in one of the two main "Wikipedia styles", which I think is perfectly clear bibliographically.
