![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Not a stub, anymore, what do you think? I will try to add some references that are not works by the author/subject of the article. Toandanel49 ( talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The copyright violation tool shows that exact language for this site https://prabook.com/web/lee.mcintyre/3746962 is in this article. Is there a way to see if the prabook site is drawing from WP, as many sites do, so that everything is really okay? How do I tell the difference? Toandanel49 ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the Duncanian position? Toandanel49 ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your help in editing I am reading the MOS links that you send me. About use of dates, I always use this format, 11 November 2019 , because the name between the numbers is less often confused, especially when different countries make different assumptions about number order. The MOS states that I should use the date format that is already used in the article. I will try to do that from now on. Is that a correct understanding? If the automatic citation gadget puts in a different date format, should I edit it to match the article format? That seem like a lot of work, but I can do it if needed. Toandanel49 ( talk) 15:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
and |date=
parameters of citations, but it's not really something which should be used in the bodies of article (except maybe in tables, etc. where space is of a concern). Again, this was changed for consistency reasons to try and keep all of the dates formatting the same throughout the article. If you add a citation and the "automatic gadget" uses a different date format, you can go back and tweak things yourself (ideal) per
WP:BOLD or you can leave them as is for others to tweak (acceptable) per
WP:IMPERFECT. Wikipedia won't break down due to inconsistent formatting, but sticking with one can help keep articles from becoming a
hodgepodge of different formats and styles as they get expanded over the years, and can make them easier to read. There's
WP:NODEADLINE for article cleanup and it's constantly being done by people or
WP:BOTs. You're only likely to run into problems if you are intentionally create formatting problems against consensus or the
MOS:MOS so as
to try and make some point.There's no trick to adding
WP:WIKILINKs. You just try to follow
WP:UNDERLINK and avoid
WP:OVERLINK; sometimes it's intuitive in that you just see something which almost certainly seems to have a Wikipedia article written about it. You can just format such things as a Wikilink and then check to see whether they are "blue" or "red" per
WP:LINKCOLOR. Blue means a page corresponding to that name exists; so, all you need to do then is to check if it's actually the page you want to link to per
WP:SPECIFICLINK. If red, then no page exists; so, then you have to assess whether a
red link would be OK per
WP:REDYES. It's a matter of self-assessment so don'T worry if you're wrong. Someone (or something) will either fix any link errors or let you know about them. Again, as long as you're not intentionally trying to mess things up to make a point, etc., other editors who are
WP:HERE will
assume good faith. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Not a stub, anymore, what do you think? I will try to add some references that are not works by the author/subject of the article. Toandanel49 ( talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The copyright violation tool shows that exact language for this site https://prabook.com/web/lee.mcintyre/3746962 is in this article. Is there a way to see if the prabook site is drawing from WP, as many sites do, so that everything is really okay? How do I tell the difference? Toandanel49 ( talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the Duncanian position? Toandanel49 ( talk) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your help in editing I am reading the MOS links that you send me. About use of dates, I always use this format, 11 November 2019 , because the name between the numbers is less often confused, especially when different countries make different assumptions about number order. The MOS states that I should use the date format that is already used in the article. I will try to do that from now on. Is that a correct understanding? If the automatic citation gadget puts in a different date format, should I edit it to match the article format? That seem like a lot of work, but I can do it if needed. Toandanel49 ( talk) 15:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
and |date=
parameters of citations, but it's not really something which should be used in the bodies of article (except maybe in tables, etc. where space is of a concern). Again, this was changed for consistency reasons to try and keep all of the dates formatting the same throughout the article. If you add a citation and the "automatic gadget" uses a different date format, you can go back and tweak things yourself (ideal) per
WP:BOLD or you can leave them as is for others to tweak (acceptable) per
WP:IMPERFECT. Wikipedia won't break down due to inconsistent formatting, but sticking with one can help keep articles from becoming a
hodgepodge of different formats and styles as they get expanded over the years, and can make them easier to read. There's
WP:NODEADLINE for article cleanup and it's constantly being done by people or
WP:BOTs. You're only likely to run into problems if you are intentionally create formatting problems against consensus or the
MOS:MOS so as
to try and make some point.There's no trick to adding
WP:WIKILINKs. You just try to follow
WP:UNDERLINK and avoid
WP:OVERLINK; sometimes it's intuitive in that you just see something which almost certainly seems to have a Wikipedia article written about it. You can just format such things as a Wikilink and then check to see whether they are "blue" or "red" per
WP:LINKCOLOR. Blue means a page corresponding to that name exists; so, all you need to do then is to check if it's actually the page you want to link to per
WP:SPECIFICLINK. If red, then no page exists; so, then you have to assess whether a
red link would be OK per
WP:REDYES. It's a matter of self-assessment so don'T worry if you're wrong. Someone (or something) will either fix any link errors or let you know about them. Again, as long as you're not intentionally trying to mess things up to make a point, etc., other editors who are
WP:HERE will
assume good faith. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)