User talk:MichaelTinkler

I gotta question for you, boss. What's the right bibliographical format? You tell me, and I'll adhere to it (if it's simple enough).

(diff) Wikipedia:Unsuccessful searches (2002-03); 08:53 (1 change) . . . Ed Poor M [Unsuccessful search for bibliographical format]

Personally I don't care whether one uses a 'known' system or not. The secret is that the information should include title, author (if necessary - or co-authors if the list is on the primary author's entry), publisher, and date of publication (preferably of the first edition). The title of a book traditionally goes in italic, an article inside quotation marks (with the periodical title in italic). One should try to minimize the use of italic, in other words. The most characteristic error is to not mark titles at all (no emphasis, no quotation marks). The second most characteristic is to use quotation marks for all titles or italics for all titles. Yes, these are all empty conventions - but the fact that they ARE conventions means that at least some readers expect them and learn information from them. MichaelTinkler

I'm not Larry, but my humble opinion about the question you asked him. I would call the page "Fundation of Rome". It will appear anyway if someone makes a search for Rome, or foundation. AstroNomer

It's been ages. Welcome back! I hope you are able to contribute more. --mav

Thanks, Mav. Yep, I've been doing other things. That damn User:J Hoffmann Kemp tempted me back with tales of weird goings-on in the Gothic architecture zone. MichaelTinkler