Talk:Die Reihe

Comment

Error in link: John Backus.

A link in the page on "der Reihe" points to the computer scientist John Backus. It should refer to the musicologist of the same name (who does not yet have a Wiki page.)

Some information about the correct John Backus is at http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Backus/BackusHome.html

Sorry I don't have time to learn enough about Wiki to make the change myself, but with luck somebody will pick this up and run with it.

Rob 62.64.206.158 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are correct that the link points to the wrong person. However, the John Backus in question was not a musicologist, but a physicist with particular interests in, amongst other things, the acoustics of musical instruments. This will require a Disambiguation notice of some sort, as well as a correction to the link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created a biography page for the acoustician John Backus. For the moment, there is a disambiguation link on the bio page for the other John Backus, though I suppose it would be more elegant to retitle that article and create a separate disambiguation page. I'm not confident that I know how to do this without screwing something up, however. Thanks, Rob, for calling attention to this situation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables of contents

Please see this remark from User:DGG, a specialist (librarian) on this kind of issues. --Crusio (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted. It should also be observed that the contents of the English and German issues could marginally be compared in prose, but it is a heck of a lot easier to do so with comparative tables of contents. What is covered by the current sentence "Differences between the German and English editions can be seen from a comparison of the contents (below)" would have to be expanded to several difficult-to-follow paragraphs. Admittedly, an explanation of how these differences matter needs to be added, probably best referenced to M. J. Grant's book, but with possible supplementation from Dika Newlin's series of contemporaneous reviews in MLA Notes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think that if you follow DGG's suggestion and convert this to a list of notable contributors (meaning that many entries would disappear), things would be much easier. --Crusio (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And this would help to show the items from the German edition omitted in the English edition, and the changes of titles, and the order of items . . . how, exactly?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• DGG's suggestion is to make a list of notable contributors, as is done with several other journal articles. In such a list, only the contributors are given, not specific articles. In some journal articles, list of notable articles is given, limited to the 5 most important ones. In addition, it is hardly necessary to spell out in detail all the differences between the two editions, that really isn't very encyclopedic. Noting that these differences exist (and, if there are very striking ones, give an example or two) should be more than enough. --Crusio (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you haven't actually read this article, then.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please, be reasonable. That the order of articles differed between the German and English versions is absolutely trivial. There is no need to list full tables of contents so that readers can "see below"... --Crusio (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, then, have it your way. Remove the tables of contents, and I shall rewrite the article accordingly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Crusio/DGG. Wikipedia is not a directory of indiscriminate information. Comprehensive lists of every article published in the journal, as well as every author that wrote in it, are really inappropriate for our articles. See WP:JWG##What_not_to_include and WP:JWG##What_to_include in particular. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclear citations?

User:Randykitty has added a banner declaring "This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking." It is customary with this banner to provide an explanation on the article's Talk page of whether this refers to style of citation, footnoting, external linking, or some combination of these, and further to explain why the citation style is unclear. The established citation style for this article is parenthetical referencing, one of the two types of inline referencing specified in the Wikipedia guideline. If this format is not being used correctly, this should be explained here. If this is merely a personal preference of the user, then WP:CITEVAR applies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to use parenthetical referencing, then the way to do it is described here. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is the article I linked to, under its name, above. Because I am so slow, I shall repeat my question: Is this format not being used correctly here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, you're not slow, rather you're going too fast :-) I did not link to the same article as you did. You linked to the mainspace article explaining what parenthetical referencing is. I linked to the WP guideline that explains how to implement such referencing. The in-text references do not link to the references in the list, which makes it difficult to find a particular reference and also makes it very laborious to check whether a certain reference that is in the list actually also is used in the article. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ah. Then what you are saying is that it is not the form of citation that is unclear, but the lack of links from the inline citations to the items in the reference list. This could easily be changed, but would in fact involve a change of reference format since the linking template, Template:Harvard citation no brackets, despite being misleadingly called a Harvard citation template, only links to citations using "{{citation: …" templates, which produce a variant of APA style (with the year of publication enclosed in round brackets, amongst other things), and the established format here is Chicago style. The associated citation template for books (though not APA style itself) lacks a "series title" parameter needed for at least two of the items cited in this article. For example:

• Custodis, Michael. 2004. Die soziale Isolation der neuen Musik: Zum Kölner Musikleben nach 1945. Beihefte zum Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 54, edited by Albrecht Riethmüller, with Reinhold Brinkmann, Ludwig Finscher, Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen, Wolfgang Osthoff, and Wolfram Steinbeck. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. ISBN 3-515-08375-8.

As far as I can see, the so-called "Harvard" template has no way to correctly display the series title with its editors. Perhaps I am wrong about this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how to do that either, but don't have experience with this template, I must admit. I also admit having a preference for the more frequently-used WP inline citations, even though I heartily dislike that when I'm reading a scientific article... I know this sounds contradictory. In WP, an inline citation gives a "clickable" number, which rapidly will tell you what the reference is about (you can even set your preferences to display the reference when "hovering" over it). But when I read a scientific article in my own field where I know the literature well, "Jones and Smith, 1998" probably will tell me what article that was, whereas "16" will force me to go to the end of the reprint and look up "16" in the list of references. And my memory being what it is, I probably will have to do that several times before reaching the end of the article... Anyway, looks like it would not be easy to link these references here without changing the reference style (which I guess you're opposed to and which is perfectly allowable under the guidelines). So let's drop the matter, sorry for the bother. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear about one thing: I like the idea of linking the inline citation to the reference list. My difficultly is with the inadequacy of the templates (as mentioned), and the fact that they force a nonstandard version of APA style. As for hovering the cursor over a footnote number in order to see the full citation, I am increasingly discovering (in the limited number of articles that I regularly watch, at least) that this yields only a short citation, often in the author-date or author-short title format. For example, instead of seeing the full citation for the Custodis book quoted above, all that appears is "Custodis 2004, 86"—which is exactly what you see in the parenthetical citation currently in the article—or "Custodis 'Isolation', 86". It seems to me that this is less helpful, not more so, since you must first go to the footnote (or its virtual display), which then directs you to the list of References, or possibly links there as a second step. The only way of avoiding this situation is to use full footnote citations, which create problems for the expert editor, who will want to be able quickly to survey the sources used in an article in order to determine whether important items have been omitted, or problematic ones included. The other style to which you refer (the one with just a reference number inserted in the text) is called Vancouver style, and it drives me wild. Fortunately, I have rarely seen it on Wikipedia, though this is probably because I do not often read articles in the fields where it is customary (physical sciences and medicine).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)