User:KjellG/Sandbox

Birgit

Wikipedia:Images linking to articles

Den grønne flekken her kan være hva som helst som ser ut som et bilde. F.eks. åpningsbildet av videoen med den vanlige rlde avspillingstrekanten midt i bildet. Klikk og prøv.

Kort video om Birgit

External videos
CNN's exclusive Obama interview, YouTube video
Pres. Obama makes first visit to Kenya as president, YouTube video

Video from an MIT course lecture by Walter Lewin on the conservation of mechanical energy.

Her ser en eksempel på en annen metode. Dette er nok det du tenker på. Ikke sikker på om dette er driftsklart enda. Legg merke til avspillingstrekanten over overarmen.

Wikipedia is still at an early stage in its process of incorporating videos into its encyclopedic content. This page gives a very brief overview of how videos are used in Wikipedia; for more information, see Images guideline and Image use policy, and see Help:Files on how to upload and include a video.

Wikipedia:Videos

Blücher

As the now crippled Blücher passed the fortress guns a sudden outburst of voices from the burning cruiser could be heard above the battle noises, the crew breaking into singing Deutschland, Deutschland über alles. Only at this point did it become clear to the men of the fortress whom they were fighting. Later, at 0435hrs, oberst Eriksen received a message from the Norwegian minesweeper HNoMS Otra confirming that the intruding ships were German. The message had been sent to the naval base in Horten at 0410hrs, but the massive communications problems that severely hampered the efforts of the Norwegian military throughout the Norwegian Campaign had prevented it from reaching Oscarsborg in time.

Referanser

Citation style

Copyedit: "Hi Bill. Just a quick question; is the way you write citations (and correct citations) founded in any regulations or just your personal style?

I'm mainly referring to this edit.

If there's some rule involved then I'd like to learn about it so I can amend my own citations, if not then I don't see why its better to keep everything inside like so: [text]. Isn't it better to keep the website name outside the box and the link name itself inside? I'm just thinking here. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Manx (sorry don't know your real name just your "nom de plume"), thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "Reggiane Re.2000" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "Reggiane Re.2000" citation/reference note. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. The entry should have appeared as (Henriksson, Lars. Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945). Ljungskile, Sweden: Avrosys.nu,29 June 2005 J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945))If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet. His guideline would look like this example: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) which is what I used. I know it is not technically correct but it is one of the "jury-rigged" adaptations that works out well. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to the verbiage above and your note on my talk page: "Hi again Bill, thanks for the very thorough lesson in MLA citations. I appreciate it. I must admit that I haven't used the MLA system for citations much, when I've created articles or brought them up from stubs I've used the system they taught us in university a couple of years ago, can't remember what that was called again. Well, anyway, I'm sure the MLA is a fine system. When encountering a article that already has references I usually use the same system used previously on that article. Often that's MLA, and that's good. The Brits have a different system, and we Norwegians another one. All professional, I assume.

As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)",

Yes, Manx, I agree that the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Replied::::Good, agreed. But why is "" better than ""? They include exactly the same information? Manxruler (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the simpler form should predominate. Not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. If it hasn't already been changed, please feel free to revise the notation in the Re 200 article. BTW, thanks for the reminder, I sometimes don't notice the request for information if it is attached to an earlier "string" on my talk page. Bzuk 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC).