This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This article is undersourced already, but what sources are there that "the shot heard round the world" can refer to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? The vague recollections of editors are not reliable sources.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor deleted most of the section "Widespread idiomatic use" with an edit summary of "this section is almost entirely trivial, ephemeral nonsense--thus largely deleted"; I restored it, partly on the basis of (at least partially) misleading edit summary (the material is not nonsense, all the sentences are correctly formed and express coherent thoughts), and also because it apparently wasn't noticed, being buried by some edits a couple of days later, and destruction of entire sections should be discussed beforehand, I think.
I get that the material is trivial to that editor. I get that that editor is not interested in, and does not care to read about, this sort of thing. So?
The article is not too long by our rubrics. The material is separated from other material and at the end of the article, so nobody has wade thru it to get to other material. The material is mostly referenced (that that isn't, any editor is welcome to add the refs, or tag the material as needing refs if they'd prefer). There are two separate articles pointed to in the section. { Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) and Shot heard round the world (soccer)).
And the material already exists. Other editors have done the work of compiling it an digging up the references. It's not like the question is should we dedicate time and effort to this section. Editors already have.
So given that, I guess the first question I'd ask is, for those readers that do want to read this material, that are looking for the material in this section (to, for example, explain a reference they have seen in some publication), for those readers who would be enlightened by seeing proof that phrase remains alive, and so forth... what exactly is the benefit to those readers of refusing to provide them with the material? Herostratus ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed most of the pop culture uses of this phrase because they are trivial and insignificant. It is ludicrous to list every use of the phrase in every pop song and movie and TV show and every time a celebrity sneezes. Please list only uses that can be linked to an existing Wiki article which directly addresses the use of the phrase in some reasonably significant context. — Dilidor ( talk) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Dilidor has now twice reverted, without edit summary, edits that I consider improvements:
8 February and
1 Feb. My edit summary was: +1 missing comma; less white space in quote box; link tweaks; +source URL; -unnecessary {{
Main}}. // →Widespread idiomatic use: -extra blank line; +wikilinks for sporting term and teams;
MOS:DASH; spelling.
Why were all of these improvements reverted? I suggest to inspect the second diff and restore my edit. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
for The Boston Globe – that's clutter.|location=Marion, Illinois
, and it should be linked.aggressive stripping of wikilinks, as EdJohnston put it at AN/3RR, initiated by Andy Dingley, is now subject of a WP:1RR restriction, so I suggest you revert your most recent edit here yourself. I recommend reading WP:ES and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
One should not link publishers and newspapers in citations
{{cite journal |last=Parker |first=Brock |date=April 28, 2014 |title=The old tavern debate: Which town fired first? |journal=Boston Globe |volume=285 |issue=118 |pages=B1, B13 |publisher=Boston Globe Media Partners LLC}}
to{{cite news|last=Parker|first=Brock|date=April 28, 2014|title=The old tavern debate: Which town fired first?|newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]]|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/27/fresh-ammo-lexington-concord-skirmish/BaIpQ1XoE4DM6gmwka1crM/story.html|access-date=9 February 2019|pages=B1, B13}}
My contention, however, is with the gross over-linking within the citations section which can make it difficult to read due to all the pop-ups caused by links.Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
the reference section ... a link should appear only onceis that the reference section does not, cannot follow
the conventions of all other sub-sections. This because the convention requires linking the first linkable item, all subsequent items to remain unlinked. In the body of an article, text and inline references can be moved to suit various editorial decisions; references may be named for reuse (
<ref name="..." />
). This is not to say that reference section cannot be crafted that support first-item-linking. Using Harvard style short-form-refs + bibliography is one such method.|publisher=
from cs1|2 citations (particularly {{
cite journal}}
by
Citation bot. It is mentioned there that linking |journal=
to its en.wiki article can provide whatever publisher names are required especially for those journals that are rare or obscure or where there are predatory journals with similar names. For itself, cs1|2 does not encourage and does not discourage wikilinking periodical titles.Hello, sorry for the Noob question (this is my first 'Talk' entry.) In this entire article, should or should not the term 'Americans' be replaced by 'British Colonists' or something similar, since these events all occurred pre-July 1776? Thanks, BingoReefer42 ( talk) 09:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the part saying "Which includes the mostly-unrelated French Revolution" should be removed, as the main idea of the article has barely any connection to the French Revolution. 216.181.232.154 ( talk) 01:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This article is undersourced already, but what sources are there that "the shot heard round the world" can refer to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? The vague recollections of editors are not reliable sources.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 00:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor deleted most of the section "Widespread idiomatic use" with an edit summary of "this section is almost entirely trivial, ephemeral nonsense--thus largely deleted"; I restored it, partly on the basis of (at least partially) misleading edit summary (the material is not nonsense, all the sentences are correctly formed and express coherent thoughts), and also because it apparently wasn't noticed, being buried by some edits a couple of days later, and destruction of entire sections should be discussed beforehand, I think.
I get that the material is trivial to that editor. I get that that editor is not interested in, and does not care to read about, this sort of thing. So?
The article is not too long by our rubrics. The material is separated from other material and at the end of the article, so nobody has wade thru it to get to other material. The material is mostly referenced (that that isn't, any editor is welcome to add the refs, or tag the material as needing refs if they'd prefer). There are two separate articles pointed to in the section. { Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) and Shot heard round the world (soccer)).
And the material already exists. Other editors have done the work of compiling it an digging up the references. It's not like the question is should we dedicate time and effort to this section. Editors already have.
So given that, I guess the first question I'd ask is, for those readers that do want to read this material, that are looking for the material in this section (to, for example, explain a reference they have seen in some publication), for those readers who would be enlightened by seeing proof that phrase remains alive, and so forth... what exactly is the benefit to those readers of refusing to provide them with the material? Herostratus ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed most of the pop culture uses of this phrase because they are trivial and insignificant. It is ludicrous to list every use of the phrase in every pop song and movie and TV show and every time a celebrity sneezes. Please list only uses that can be linked to an existing Wiki article which directly addresses the use of the phrase in some reasonably significant context. — Dilidor ( talk) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Dilidor has now twice reverted, without edit summary, edits that I consider improvements:
8 February and
1 Feb. My edit summary was: +1 missing comma; less white space in quote box; link tweaks; +source URL; -unnecessary {{
Main}}. // →Widespread idiomatic use: -extra blank line; +wikilinks for sporting term and teams;
MOS:DASH; spelling.
Why were all of these improvements reverted? I suggest to inspect the second diff and restore my edit. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
for The Boston Globe – that's clutter.|location=Marion, Illinois
, and it should be linked.aggressive stripping of wikilinks, as EdJohnston put it at AN/3RR, initiated by Andy Dingley, is now subject of a WP:1RR restriction, so I suggest you revert your most recent edit here yourself. I recommend reading WP:ES and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
One should not link publishers and newspapers in citations
{{cite journal |last=Parker |first=Brock |date=April 28, 2014 |title=The old tavern debate: Which town fired first? |journal=Boston Globe |volume=285 |issue=118 |pages=B1, B13 |publisher=Boston Globe Media Partners LLC}}
to{{cite news|last=Parker|first=Brock|date=April 28, 2014|title=The old tavern debate: Which town fired first?|newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]]|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/27/fresh-ammo-lexington-concord-skirmish/BaIpQ1XoE4DM6gmwka1crM/story.html|access-date=9 February 2019|pages=B1, B13}}
My contention, however, is with the gross over-linking within the citations section which can make it difficult to read due to all the pop-ups caused by links.Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
the reference section ... a link should appear only onceis that the reference section does not, cannot follow
the conventions of all other sub-sections. This because the convention requires linking the first linkable item, all subsequent items to remain unlinked. In the body of an article, text and inline references can be moved to suit various editorial decisions; references may be named for reuse (
<ref name="..." />
). This is not to say that reference section cannot be crafted that support first-item-linking. Using Harvard style short-form-refs + bibliography is one such method.|publisher=
from cs1|2 citations (particularly {{
cite journal}}
by
Citation bot. It is mentioned there that linking |journal=
to its en.wiki article can provide whatever publisher names are required especially for those journals that are rare or obscure or where there are predatory journals with similar names. For itself, cs1|2 does not encourage and does not discourage wikilinking periodical titles.Hello, sorry for the Noob question (this is my first 'Talk' entry.) In this entire article, should or should not the term 'Americans' be replaced by 'British Colonists' or something similar, since these events all occurred pre-July 1776? Thanks, BingoReefer42 ( talk) 09:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the part saying "Which includes the mostly-unrelated French Revolution" should be removed, as the main idea of the article has barely any connection to the French Revolution. 216.181.232.154 ( talk) 01:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)