Handy link: "no user comments edited or deleted" guideline.

Those still relevant are left visible.

Howdy!

Thoughts on compelling References sections

The most superb examples I have seen draw the reader into the article. The excellent references give the article enough credibility that the reader is drawn to read the article. I am working on a proposal to put to the village pump which preserves this compelling feature but also helps verifiability and trace-ability to the correct passage for further reading.

Ideally I'd like the references section to have:

Title, by Author. subtitle. Pnum

Is this sufficient?

Any comments? Geoffjw1978 ( talk) 09:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) reply

There's no need to make some proposal, just format the references like so and be consistent throughout the article. Wikipedia does not require the use of citation templates. The problem with the Detailed References is, first of all, they take up a lot of unnecessary space because you divide them into multiple lines, and secondly, that there is no need for an annotated bibliography in a Wikipedia article. User talk:Rjanag

Thanks, if that is acceptable it is worth putting in the effort to edit them all to follow that format. I'll remove the current ⁽ⁿⁿ⁾ Ref nn anchor links and have the usual ref tag.

I think you should put all your references into templates. It's pretty easy to do. Just search "cite book" or "cite web" or whatever is relevant, copy and paste the template where your refs are, and plug the info into the correct spots (and don't forget to have ref tags arounf the template). You should be able to find some of your refs in Wikisource and can link to those.- Schnurrbart ( talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for spotting that. I'll see if I can find a way of preserving the "catchy" summary format above in RefList, but have ISBNs and back-links in the Footnote chunk of text. Geoffjw1978 ( talk) 05:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply

10 months

Hey, sorry about that! I was browsing the current RfCs and found that one with the underconstruction notice, and the notice said "This article has not been edited in 10 months". A quick check of the page history denounces this. This false information probably was the result of transcluding it onto the RfC page; often times there are unwanted side effects with doing that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{( talk • contribs)} 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No worries, thanks for clarifying. There were a few pages created and deleted which involved typos in the name. I didn't do the page moves or deletions and I don't know how to sort out the current set of broken links. When it moves to main space it will settle down with consensus-agreed content on the main page and also consensus-agreed content on its standard talk-page "Discussion" tab. Geoffjw1978 ( talk) 04:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I redirected the page using #REDIRECT [[Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology]]. You can see Wikipedia:Redirect for more information on redirects. Good luck editing! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Many thanks Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Geoffjw1978 - thanks for leaving the note about the template approval on my talk page. I wasn't sure about that-- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I now see why you weren't sure. I should have clicked the "Accept" box on the reviewer tools links. Instead I followed instructions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions/short which implied moving with a copy-paste, to me "removing the top tag". Oh well. I've now requested an official page-move from an admin which preserves te history. Should be sorted out soon, let me know if you see any issues. Thanks Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I've had the copy-paste version deleted via db-move and have moved the afc submission to its proper place. Jarkeld ( talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. Sorry for mis-reading the instructions. When I work it out I'll draft an improvement to the instructions, they same to be a bit out of date, or at the least, ambiguous. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 17:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I restored UnrealIRCd after +2 book sources. Yay our side. -- Lexein ( talk) 20:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Well done for restoring UnrealIRCd! An innocent which didn't deserve to die. No I didn't notice, thanks for letting me know. The UnrealIRCd delete did convince me that deletionists are commerically motivated. Faith restored in Wikipedia :-) Many thanks. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Geoffjw1978, I notice you've had a request for adoption up for a little while. As you are not currently active, I've removed the current request. If you would still like to be adopted, can I suggest that you contact one of the editors on the list of adopters? As Wikipedia is a volunteer project and many adopters are busy, a more pro-active approach would mean that you are more likely to be noticed. If you've got any questions, feel free to leave me a message. Worm( talk) 11:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info. I had a spell as an adoptee which was useful. It is by far the best way of getting feedback on Wikipedia. I've decided I don't have the spare time to be an Admin, so I'm happy that my level of understanding of Wikipedia is now sufficient for the occasional edits I make. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

FYI - you seem to be missing a step when you promote nominations. See Here. Changing the template for promotion is supposed to automatically make it disappear from the nominations page. Also, if you are promoting, don't put on the template that you also reviewed it. Although, I think you probably meant that you double-checked it before promoting it. Yes? But don't say it on the template, because reviewers and promoters are supposed to be two different people. You are welcome to ask about this over on the talk page. Maile66 ( talk) 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the info. Yes, I did mean I double-checked it before promoting it. I have not (and will not) promote any which I have reviewed myself. I'll make sure "DYKsubpage" is replaced with "subst:DYKsubpage" in future. Thanks Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 01:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply