Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
And thanks also for your continuing work to improve the article. I have some questions regarding your most recent edits to adjust the structure on references. [1] You are clearly very experienced on these matters and I look forward to your guidance.
Perhaps I do not understand the referencing format, but the omission of the "p." seem to make it less clear regarding the page references to the works. In some of the scriptural works, for example, which may cite a verse number, how is this to be shown? Normally I would write "p. 3" for page to distinguish from "v. 3" for verse.
Regarding op. cit. references, when I began working on Wikipedia I made some postings trying to find a format for such things and no one was able to identify one for me. A concern I have about Wikipedia references in general is that since anyone can change anything, the normal practice of having a full bibliographic citation for a work (with ISBN number) at the end of a book, with just Harvard references (or variant thereof) is very dangerous practice because if tomorrow someone decides to delete the main book citation, it is unlikely they will resolve all of the references to that book before doing so. Over time I have been increasingly concerned that the casual editing process on Wikipedia tends to demolish whatever critical apparatus of notes has been put in place. As a defensive strategy I recently have been tending to put more documentation into each note, which causes redundancy intended as a defense against this. Content on Wikipedia seems to have some sort of radioactive decay half-life which interferes with any attempt to structure a bibliography separated from the primary statements.
When writing academic references I am accustomed to being able to add explanatory comments into the note, e.g., for the current note 10: "For a summary of Puranic variants of birth stories see Shanti Lal Nagar, The Cult of Vinayaka, pp. 7-14." The opening comment in the note explains what issue is generally addressed by the pages cited, which may provide additional context for the statement in the article. If these sorts of contextual comments can be kept it makes it easier to keep the text of the article shorter, as some detail is shifted to the critical apparatus of notes. In academic works the critical apparatus of notes may be longer than the primary text which it supports. I assume this practice is permitted on Wikipedia, but I am sure someone will let me know if it is not. :) Buddhipriya19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was actually following Citing sources, but I see your point as well. Everyone likes to cite information in their own way (for example, in Featured article candidates, many articles use different styles), so citation style isn't extremely important. Feel free to go back to the original method, which is better for casual editing as you explained. Happy editing! [sd] 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please continue to help with finding a good style for this particular article. For example, noting that Flood was not in the References section was a good catch. I really don't know what is best for op. cit. issues. I think your model of putting the book titles into each citation rather than op. cit. is a good idea, so that practice should probably continue. Please keep tweaking, as your input is helping a lot! I reworked the first fifteen citations to get them consistent with a format that looks good to me, but I am hoping you will look at them with a different set of eyes from mine. Buddhipriya20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
A quick comment:
Works cited → Sources
In my opinion, the title shouldn't be used in the first citation referencing the source, since if a citation referencing the same source was used earlier, the citations would have to be changed. I propose using the following to keep the style uniform throughout the article:
Last, p(p). #.
For (more information, example: discussion of the spread of Ganesha worship to Nepal, Chinese Turkestan, Tibet, Burma, Siam, Indo-China, Java, Bali, Borneo, China, and Japan), see: Last, p(p). #.
Remember to include Apte's A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary in the Sources or Works cited section, along with Mate's Temples and Legends of Maharashtra, Bailey's Ganeśapurāna: Introduction, translation, notes and index, and any other printed source.
Here's the first 20 citations:
^ Brown, p. 1. Introduction.
^ For a review of Ganesha's geographic spread and popularity outside of India see: Nagar.
^ For discussion of the spread of Ganesha worship to other countries, see: Getty, pp. 37-88.
^ For history of the development of the gāņapatya and their relationship to the wide geographic dispersion of Ganesha worship, see: Thapan.
^ For a summary of Puranic variants of birth stories, see: Nagar, pp. 7-14.
^ Martin-Dubost, Page number?. Chapter 2, "Stories of Birth According to the Purāṇas".
^ Linga Purana.
^ Shiva Purana IV, 17.47-57. Matsya Purana 154.547.
^ Varāha Purana, 23.18-59.
^ Brahmavaivarta Purana, Ganesha Khanda, 10.8-37.
^ Narain, A. K. "Gaṇeśa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon". Brown, pp. 21-22.
^ a b c Apte, p. 395.
^ For derivation of the name and relationship with the ganas, see: Martin-Dubost, p. 2.
^ The word gaṇa is interpreted in this metaphysical sense by Bhāskararāya in his commentary on the gaṇeśasahasranāma. Gaṇeśasahasranāmastotram: mūla evaṁ srībhāskararāyakṛta ‘khadyota’ vārtika sahita. (Prācya Prakāśana: Vārāṇasī, 1991).
^ Thapan, p. 20.
Some of the citations are like the original style without the "op. cit." Looking forward to your reply and comments. Aside from citations, the article, if you're planning to submit it for FAC, could use some copyediting (you can do it or you could ask another Wikipedian). Happy editing, [sd] 01:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
These 20 look good to me. Do you want to go ahead and make the changes? I think we are seeing the structure in a similar way now. I am having problems with footnote 19 which now reads: "The word gaṇa is interpreted in this metaphysical sense by Bhāskararāya in his commentary on the gaṇeśasahasranāma. See in particular commentary on verse 6 including names Gaṇeśvaraḥ and Gaṇakrīḍaḥ. Gaṇeśasahasranāmastotram: mūla evaṁ srībhāskararāyakṛta ‘khadyota’ vārtika sahita. (Prācya Prakāśana: Vārāṇasī, 1991). Source text with a commentary by Bhāskararāya in Sanskrit." The problem is that this reference is to a work in Sanskrit which I am trying to fully reference in the note without the need for a separate citation. The details about the source text, etc. are of interest to the reader who would be trying to track it down. Is it OK to have some of these more obscure things just in the notes, or must everything go to the References list? In a book we would do it, but this is Wikipedia.
Regarding the copyediting, would you be willing to do at least a section or two? The whole point of the peer review is to get different eyes on the problem, and I have written a great deal of the text that is there now, so I probably cannot see it objectively. Buddhipriya06:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have finally implemented the citation style. I also used {{Cite book}} for the References section. Could you provide more information about Chinmayananda, an author whose "numbering system" you reference? Regarding footnote 19, I think that it's okay to have "these more obscure things just in the notes". I'll try to do some copy-editing. Cheers, [sd] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you would like to see where this citation method (Last, p(p). #) comes from, see Battle of Shiloh, one of Wikipedia's latest FAs (in terms of promotion date). Angkor Wat, a Hinduism-related FA, also uses the "Last, p(p). #" format. Both articles have a section for Notes (citations) and References. Happy editing, [sd] 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is looking increasingly good, you are making such a wonderful improvement in the article! I took care of the point about Chinmayananda. Some of the latest suggestions showing up on the peer review input page would require moving some of the text to a new subarticle (e.g., the move of the detail on consorts). This is an example of a change that would require care in order to be sure the references are handled correctly. Any thoughts on these new suggestions? Buddhipriya17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you move text from Ganesha to another article, be sure to move the citations as well and copy the necessary references. Then, you could write in summary style in the Ganesha article and cite appropriately. If a new subarticle is created, you could use the code:
I see you are working now, so I will stop cleaning the wives out to prevent edit conflicts. I made the move, and would you please look at the citations to see if they all went? The References need to be redone but I am out of time right now and can do them later. Buddhipriya00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am continuing to look forward to further copyedits by you and am trying to sit back a bit because I am so eager to see your work! It is fun to work with you and I urge you to be bold in continuing to copyedit or make other changes. Thanks so much. Buddhipriya17:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have gone over the version to date and am really enjoying watching you work. I made a few minor tweaks and you can check the edit summaries for each one. Feel free to revert any of them if you wish and let me know what the issues are. I look forward to your next pass. Buddhipriya05:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I asked someone to run an automated peer review using a bot, and the results are on the talk page for Ganesha. Have you seen automated reports like this before, and can you help check for the issues it mentions? I hope you will continue working on the article, as your help has improved it so much. Buddhipriya05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
