Talk:1968 in literature

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1968 in literature 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

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Niedrig	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Niedrig	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Niedrig	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1968 in literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.steinbeck.org/Bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true oder failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1968 in literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814125050/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/tremblay_m.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/tremblay_m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally okay and intelligent referencing system

On top of everything that is intriguing (but, hey, totally okay and not inept) way in which this article, and so very many like it in the series, combines all sorts of referencing systems, and nobody but me seems to notice: did any of you editors both to observe that there is not even a unified system for citing the authors, that the article switches from introducing them with either their first or last name, for no particular reason? Maybe at some point it will dawn on you how absurd it is to require that we reference every new entry (but not the old ones?) when you cannot even conceive of, let alone enforce, a single preferred format of citations for this page series. Dahn (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: any college freshman would have to laugh their proverbial ass off at how "citations" are provided to pages in magazines such The Advocate and Slovene Studies, without providing the author or the relevant title of the article cited; in addition, one "reference" (Scarberry-García) cites no page, while another (Barnes) cites a page range that is way too large to be tolerable for the citation of a fact. The supposed quality control cannot seem to enforce or even define minimal quality -- as long as the fact looks like it is cited, it is secured, no other even marginal effort is made to ensure that the citation is to something. Dahn (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deb: instead of pestering me on my talk page, perhaps you can respond here. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hope you noticed how many of the citations copied from other articles - which you wanted us to rely on - are often unreliable or inaccurate or both. That's why this is such a long, slow job, and it's also why I changed sides in the original debate. Like you, I had previously assumed that a link to the article would be adequate to "prove" its accuracy. I'm sorry you don't have the stamina to keep at it, but it's always much easier to criticise others than to do the work yourself. Deb (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deb: Pages such as 1941 in literature and 1826 in literature have been edited largely by me, and I included references with an impeccable Harvard format (which I do not regularly use in my own articles, because it is much harder to fill than a free format, but I used nonetheless because it seemed to be the preferred standard). All of those references are in the "Events" sections, where I have always agreed that content should be referenced. So much for "stamina". As for what I "wanted you to rely on": my philosophy is that plain entries on births and deaths, not to mention titles of books, may go uncited (precisely if this was already the preferred usage), because inviting in sections for effectively every date not only duplicates the size at no particular benefit, but it invites in this sort of idiocy, which I do not see you and your lively associate (I forget the name -- the guy who was defending you willy-nilly on my talk page) doing anything to fix. Not one thing -- you don't even seem to notice this glaring problem. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Deb, it is fact you who added the ludicrously sloppy, perfunctory, virtually unusable, Advocate reference. Maybe you should start the long, slow, job with actually correcting your own referencing, which under this form brings down the quality of articles. Dahn (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that you are going to get the rules changed just by throwing your toys out of the pram, you are much mistaken. You're also making my point for me. Deb (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deb: No, I am endorsing your system. As idiotic as it seems to me to have one-line entries backed by one-line references, I can live with it. But here's how it's going to go from now on: I will consider any sloppy references added by you and by whoever else to be no references at all, and, at my convenience, for the benefit of this project, and for consistency's sake, I will take the liberty to remove any entry that relies on them. You can of course then re-add them with proper referencing. I consider half-assed and sophomoric referencing, that lacks proper attribution, to be significantly more toxic for this project than any alternative, including having the entire content removed. Dahn (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]