Talk:Donatello (catalogue of works)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Shifting explanatory text[edit]

Thanks for starting this list article, MenkinAlRire. Regarding the comments/questions you raise about it on my talkpage, User talk:Rosiestep#Donatello (catalogue of works), I'll respond here in order to centralize the discussion about article improvement. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The need for more inline citations: I agree.
Shifting explanatory text into a "Notes" section: I agree with Johnbod's assessment (as stated by you on my talkpage; and see User talk:Johnbod#Donatello (catalogue of works)) that explanatory text should shift into a "Notes" section beneath the tables and above the "References" section. This would include not only explanatory text currently included above the tables, but also splitting out explanatory text from within the tables that is currently nested within the References section (e.g., {{Efn}}; see also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references).

MenkinAlRire, by way of example, I split what was "References #2" into 2 efns, each with its own reference. Hope that helps explain things. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk, so it doesn't get lost:

Thanks for the thanks, johnbod. I wanted to tell you myself. I drifted away for a bit, while I had the translation of the catalogue from de:Donatello (Werkkatalog) in the pipeline. What do you think about the intro to the tables, is it ok, or is it too much, self-conceited or pettifogging (kleinkariert) in any way? I thought maybe to retract it as default. MenkinAlRire 15:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are very long. I would include the 1st para in the lead, with a reference to the rest, which I would put below the tables. That would be fine I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below, hmm, ok, I'll consider it. Thank you, MenkinAlRire 17:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, happy New Year to you (thanks for the seasons greetings by the way). You see, I didn't get to it yet.

& @Rosiestep nice to have you on board for the moment. (I just wrote about ten lines and lost them, because I work on an android tablet, switching from the browser to other apps while editing usually in the wiki app. Frustrating. But now I can already be shorter.) I wasn't quite there yet, because the subchapters of #About the table would go where: in the headings behind the column names? Would that look nice and be conform with wiki style?

- I saw your examplary notes and the efn template is fine. But I hate the ref name expression, when there is more than a specific page or part thatvis referred to, since you cannot alter the page number. I once saw xyz^{[4]: p. 00}, which is really awkward. Do you know a way to use the ref name more flexible (logical and slick)? I just don't see the point to read the whole ref over and over again (I know, not everyone reads from top to bottom and the text might change.) - Otherwise I would use the efn template but prefer to use ^[1]. Although there is a ref value for cite book|ref=ref name|... If I remember correctly, clicking on the ref showed the ref in the bibliography and one could add the page nr separately. That seemed to work quiet elegantly. Unfortunately I didn't copy it properly, so I have to look it up again, how it worked. Did I loose you already?-) MenkinAlRire 21:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC) MenkinAlRire 21:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MenkinAlRire, here are some options: Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep. First I thought, I nevertheless found something new, but Citing multiple pages of the same source with is actually what I described earlier as really awkward. I always thought that there was a trend to work toward templates, but it remains homespun. So, alright, I won't bother about it further. I am sorry. (Propably the questions that drove me away in the first place.)

The question of #About the table is agreed upon in general, grouping footnotes with efn will do. But again, "the subchapters of #About the table would go where: in the (table) headings behind the column names?" If it is stylistically ok, I will try and hope it looks ok, too. The help pages don't mention tables and refs together. MenkinAlRire 23:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Name & Year, p. x.

[FOOTNOTENameYearx-1] Name & Year, p. x.

[1]