Talk:Mark Riebling

Can't figure out how to get the index box to appear at the top... Something got eaten from the template.


 * Normally (depending on user preference settings) a Table of Contents is automatically generated whenever there are more than three sections in the article. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I got that now. What do I need to do to clean this up? Do I need to break it down by year instead of by work? I find these templates a little less easy to decipher than on wikipedia. The pages as I they seem to display for other entries, e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, are pretty ugly at the top because the indexes say, e.g. 1.1. 1970s, 1.2 1980s, etc., which give the feel of a technical manual rather than something that is more in the humanities that emphasizes the meaning of the content, i.e. the title of the work. I don't mean to editorialize. Is it a rule not to organize by the title of the work? That's not clear from the template -- it seems to give the option. ~Timoleon212~

I've read further into this and apparently it's OK to break down by work at level 3 when you have more than one quote for the work. Then you apparently give the pub info in a sub-bullet. I don't know how to make a sub-bullet but will try to figure it out (do you just make a regular bullet but indent it?)

An issue clearly is the volume of quotes here. Is there a rule of thumb for how many? Should the quotes from the book be merged into a new page for that literary work? ~Timoleon212~

When I use two bullets it doesn't make a sub-bullet, it just makes two bullets.

After some effort here I have removed the 2010-08-25 tag pending review by a third party. I delinked the the level 3 subheds only to find that the Orwell entry has them and that's not flagged for clean-up. However, in the Orwell entry, when they have multiple entries from the same source, sometimes they give a level 3, and other times they just list them and repetitiously list the source four or five times in a sub-bullet. So wondering what is up with the consistency. Seems not good to repeat info needlessly. ~Timoleon212~


 * Consistency has never been the strong suit for wikis that anyone can edit ;-) The approach you settled on, with bibliographic headnotes immediately under the section titles, is, I think, the best practice. Normally, works are sorted in forward chronological order (oldest first) rather than the reverse. I will fix the sub-bullets, and you will be able to see how it works. (Intervening blank lines break them.) ~ Ningauble 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)