Talk:Bluebuck

message: If it were up to me I would put in a list of sources and use SFN.  WP:CITEVAR requires that I ask first.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that, is that when you have to list the sources separately from the article? Personally, I don't like that, because it is a big hassle to add new sources after the change (adding them seperately to the ref sections and to the article body); I still have problems on dodo and Rodrigues solitaire after someone changed the style without asking (would like it all changed back)... But perhaps Sainsf has other ideas. Perhaps there is some automated way of doing it easier. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, once you become used to using SFN it is really easy  And it benefits the readers.  It is cleaner and more direct.  Plus plugging in the pages works very well.  Take a look at Yank Levy and  Tom Rees (Airman).  But I asked, and it's your call. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that article only uses it for the book sources, though? We mainly have journal sources in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never used anything other than cite templates for my articles, but I am willing to learn new styles. FunkMonk seems to have a better experience with this though, perhaps he should handle this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a way to do it where you don't have to do "double-work" when adding a citation (automated?), I'd have no problem with it. But the way I've seen it done before, you do have to add the same citation "twice", and if there's something I want to get over with as soon as possible when working on articles, it's the citations... Mainly a problem with subjects where new studies just keep coming, such as the dodo... Yes, it might look better, but it really sucks the joy out of editing for me... FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We have just 3 book sources here, but I see Lion uses it just for 5 book sources... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

text: We could do journals, but we there is no rule saying we have to.  I'll do the books, and we can see how it looks.  By inches and increments.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer only the books then. Groves, C.; Westwood, C.R. (1995) is a journal article, not a book... FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Books are done.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation format

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Bluebuck --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Putting in the reason for why this animal is called "blueback" would help make htis article more informative.Sexperson 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was bluish, as the article already states. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for this animal's common name 

message: The creature became extinct around 1800. Afrikaans became an accepted written language around 1840-50. First sources and etymology must therefore be Dutch or German, not Afrikaans. 184.101.231.235 (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That kinda doesn't make sense. Afrikaans already existed long before it was recognized and became an official language of South Africa. That's obvious when you look at the other spelling variants, all of which are Non-Standard Dutch. Neither does anything preclude modern Afrikaans-speakers from giving a name to an extinct animal native to their regions, that then became the source of the English name. Either way, don't really care much, just saying.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Afrikaans had obviously diverged from Dutch long before it was "accepted". Also, not sure if this related to an IP spelling the Africaans name in another way, but we should stick to the spelling in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such word as 'blaubok' in modern Afrikaans. 'Blaubok' is archaic. The modern spelling is 'bloubok' (for proof, consult any modern Afrikaans dictionary). The pronounciation as indicated is thus also incorrect. I unfortunately don't know how to write the correct pronounciation according to IPA.  is my guess.  Klipfontein (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to include that here, we need a reliable source that states it is the modern spelling. We also have recent sources (1995, 1975) that spell it "blaauwbok". FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think sticking to the sources would be best for now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there is something to it, the Afrikaans article is at "Bloubok", the Dutch one is at "Blauwbok". But yeah, we need some authoritative source. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original" Afrikaans