Talk:Bovo-Bukh

message: Note: this post was written to fit after Slrubenstein's comment of 20:17 14 March 2005; but while I was writing it SlimVirgin and Jmabel made their above comments — so I had not yet read them when I wrote the following.
::Hi. In the article as it stood, every single paragraph ended with a Liptzin citation, which looked pretty funny to me; that's why I said "out of hand." I wasn't trying to be rude. (And my changes do indeed have better grounds than how "funny" the article looks, I assure you — read on!)
::In the introductory material, each of the citations is essential, since each one gives credit for a specific idea or opinion of Liptzin's. The story summary, on the other hand, is a summary of the ancient tale, not of Liptzin's intellectual work. Ideally, the summary shouldn't need to be based on Liptzin at all; but unless and until some editor reads the original romance and can write his or her own precis, we're forced to rely on Liptzin's account of it. Therefore it's certainly appropriate to credit Liptzin — and in my revision I did credit him, in the italicized note.
::In the intro, all three paragraphs got individual credits, since there were three distinct nuggets of scholarship. But I think it's overkill to credit each paragraph of the summary separately, since it's really one continuous thing, divided into paragraphs for readability only. Perhaps Liptzin's book is large; but our citations aren't wide-ranging; pages 6 & 7 are right next to one another.
::I suspect part of Jmabel's preference is tied in with the specific way he/she gives credit in his/her field and academic institution. People give credit many different ways; I'll mention three common ones— some (1) prefer to use footnotes, others (2) use parenthetical credits after every sentence that requires it. And some (3) use parenthetical credits at the end (and only the end) of every paragraph, listing several references if necessary for that paragraph. These methods all have their followings, and to my understanding different academic disciplines tend to favor one or another. I haven't had time to read Wikipedia's whole citation guidelines page; but I'm pretty certain that the third way I outlined above isn't mandated throughout the Wikipedia, since I don't think I've ever come across it before. So I'm guessing that Jmabel chose it as a matter of personal preference, not policy.
::So for the logical reason I outlined above, I'm going to restore my wholesale way of crediting the summary; but bearing in mind Jmabel's cogent point, I'll include the page numbers. In my experience this sort of happy back-and-forth is far more common than edit wars: people revise each other's revisions and work towards a common solution by successive approximation.
::Indeed, let me say a word about Wikipedia ettiquette — although Slrubenstein appears to think I was hasty in editing the article without a talk page consensus first, let me assuree him/her that it is very common and happens to me all the time. When people improve my work, I welcome it; when they do something which I am dubious about, I attempt to write a compromise version and/or start a discussion on the talk page — but I don't get offended simply because somebody has "been bold." Only in the most controversial articles is a talk page consensus needed before editing — otherwise edit summary comments are usually enough and talk page discussion is only necessary if it's necessary. Or at least that how it's worked on nearly every other article I've worked on. But again I'm sorry if you think I'm too impetuous. No personal slight is intended! :) Doops 20:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doops' achronological comments