Talk:Growing Up Straight (Wyden and Wyden book)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Growing Up Straight (Wyden and Wyden book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Formatting[edit]

Ringbang, I notice that with this edit, you made major changes to the citation style used in the article. Would you mind explaining why? I don't think there was anything wrong with the citation style I employed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for working on this article. It's concise, neutral, informative, and well-written. As I read, the columnated layout of the footnotes caught my eye. While this is a space-efficient design for long reference sections, it's not terribly readable for three short footnotes. Whereas the article as a whole is so lean, the list of texts seemed encumbered by layers of section headings (which, too, are appropriate for a much longer and more detailed reference section). Anchoring freeform shortened footnotes in angle brackets is a valid way to cite different pages from the same text. On the other hand, sfn templates have the advantage of promoting a consistent format across articles. I know that you used to focus on creating articles about books, and I understand that you adopted a signature format. I don't think that this format is the most appropriate for short reference sections, however. —Ringbang (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. That wasn't an edit I would have made, but I won't revert you. The explanation seems reasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]