Talk:The White Dragon (novel)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWhiteDragon(1stEd).jpg

Image:TheWhiteDragon(1stEd).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2011 Note. The disputed fair use rationale was improved three weeks later, and the dispute apparently resolved: Image revision, 8 October 2007.

--not my department, P64 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LC Classification

Evidently we have two reported LC codes, so I have separated them explicitly.

PZ4.M1195 Wh;

<br>PS3563.A255

The first line fits what we report for Dragonsong and Dragonsinger (maybe a similar but local rather than LC classification system?). The second looks truncated. We have "PS3563.A255 D76 x, 1971" for Dragonquest, from the Harvard University online catalog, and "PS3563.A255 ..." for recent Pern books. --P64 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Is this code recommended as a prompt to future editors?

 {{Reflist |refs=
 }}
 ; Citations  – books
 {{Refbegin}}
 {{Refend}}
 ; Web sites 
 {{Refbegin}}
 {{Refend}}

Currently we cite in this fashion no "books", only "websites", so 3-1/2 lines are hidden; the citations are labeled simply Citations, not identified as websites rather than books. Right? (I have no quarrel.)

Should the book that is subject of the article be handled in the same way when it appears in two distinct references, eg two different page numbers? That is, listed as one Citation – book and (supposing a first edition White Dragon is used) repeatedly called "McCaffrey 1978"? --P64 (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I imagine we will "soon" have a book reference with page numbers which would mean we can remove the commenting. My aim is to use the general formatting from Anne McCaffrey which we have already discussed on that talk page, so it is easy to copy already-completed citations etc from one page to another.

There are examples for reference+citation handling in Anne McCaffrey, so with:

* {{cite book |last=Nye |first=Jody Lynn |authorlink=Jody Lynn Nye |coauthors=with McCaffrey, Anne |year=1989 |title=The Dragonlover's Guide to Pern |location=New York |publisher=Ballantine |isbn=0-345-37946-2 |ref=harv}}

the |ref=harv parameter generates an anchor for which a link can be generated by {{sfn|Nye|1989|p=42}} for example (with |last1=Aaaa ... |last2=Bbbb ... |year=2011 ...|ref=harv we would say {{sfn|Aaaa|Bbbb|2011|p=42}}.)

We then as you say have one long citation serving as many short references as necessary: sfn even consolidates references to the same book and page range to one shared reference. The references appear "by magic" in between the inline callout and the citation.

If we can keep all the articles consistent and structured we will find it easier to maintain high quality across the board. However, let's stay relaxed as we improve the articles: a lot of the more minor tidying up can be done when convenient by "little scripts". The tidying up will be much easier if the articles are already roughly similar in format, and our readers will appreciate being able to find corresponding information in the same place in each article.

The references to Dragonholder in Anne McCaffrey are a special case as there are lots of them and the surname would have been confusing. We would need to think what to do if a similar case arises elsewhere: using initials AIM and TJM in the references would be one option.

The use of |coauthors= in the Nye citation is also a special case, partly because "with" is not quite coequal authorship and it was another way of avoiding to many confusing "McCaffrey"s in the list. Normally we would use the numbered last and first parameters. --Mirokado (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In this article only, I have updated the original address for the 1999 Margaret Edwards Award at ALA. (Evidently they split directory "/booklistsawards" to handle lists and awards separately.) At the same time, see the link, I have deleted data concerning the Internet Archive. Is this appropriate now that we have a working "original" address? I have not edited accessdate yet, but let me ask. Today is the date of access at the address now given.

(At Anne McCaffrey, where we link the Award page rather than the 1999 page, I have deleted instructions pertaining to subpages that are integrated at the address given.)

Later I will fix other instances using Pages that link to MAE Award. --P64 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the archive link is fine in this case, I would not have added it if I had been able to find the new link (well done!) Thanks. I think you could update the accessdate for the other links since we now have a different url, but there is no need for a separate edit just to do that here. --Mirokado (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)