Talk:New York School abstract expressionism/Related Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Marika Herskovic (Question) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Your response is very fast. Thank you, ([[User:Marika Herskovic|Marika Herskovic]] 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) | Your response is very fast. Thank you, ([[User:Marika Herskovic|Marika Herskovic]] 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) | ||
I wonder whether you could have Abstract Impressionism on the top and one line down starting: According to Elaine de Kooning-----Thanks. ([[User:Marika Herskovic|Marika Herskovic]] 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) | :I wonder whether you could have Abstract Impressionism on the top and one line down starting: According to Elaine de Kooning-----Thanks. ([[User:Marika Herskovic|Marika Herskovic]] 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) | ||
::I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you referring to what is on the Related Articles page, or in the definition? | |||
::If you wanted something like | |||
::'''Parent topics''' | |||
::*Definition of abstract impressionism | |||
::**Entry for Elaine de Kooning | |||
::that can be done. If, however, you want to have formatting other than bolding or italics or links inside the definition text, such as a blockquote, that's a problem. Since the text of definitions are used in places such as R-templates and the talk page header, anything that forces lines or indentation won't work there. | |||
::It's perfectly all right to put a link to [[Elaine de Kooning]], even if it's red for now, as the source of the definitions. We commonly put [[National Library of Medicine]] for medical term definitions coming from the authoritative ''Medical Subject Headings'', but we don't do bibliographic citations in Definition pages. You could certainly have a citation in the main article on [[abstract impressionism]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:59, 4 April 2009
The references under Painting and Sculpture should be deleted they belong to Abstract Impressionism where they are already listed. Thanks. (Marika Herskovic 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)) Your response is very fast. Thank you, (Marika Herskovic 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
- I wonder whether you could have Abstract Impressionism on the top and one line down starting: According to Elaine de Kooning-----Thanks. (Marika Herskovic 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you referring to what is on the Related Articles page, or in the definition?
- If you wanted something like
- Parent topics
- Definition of abstract impressionism
- Entry for Elaine de Kooning
- Definition of abstract impressionism
- Parent topics
- that can be done. If, however, you want to have formatting other than bolding or italics or links inside the definition text, such as a blockquote, that's a problem. Since the text of definitions are used in places such as R-templates and the talk page header, anything that forces lines or indentation won't work there.
- It's perfectly all right to put a link to Elaine de Kooning, even if it's red for now, as the source of the definitions. We commonly put National Library of Medicine for medical term definitions coming from the authoritative Medical Subject Headings, but we don't do bibliographic citations in Definition pages. You could certainly have a citation in the main article on abstract impressionism. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)