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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This category seems to have been forgotten. I think we should have this as a task as well but as you can see there are no month by month sub-categories. I'm not 100% sure on how to create the sub-categories to make this task workable atm. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually when I add a reference I change the 'unreferenced' tag to 'refimprove'. I've been putting the current date in the new tag, effectively resetting the clock. But I've been wondering whether I should be keeping the original date in the new tag since the article has needed references improved at least as long as it's needed some references at all. Any thoughts?-- RDBury ( talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In keeping with the previous comment, I'm incubating (see User:RDBury/Scratchpad) a proposal for expansion of the Hint and Tips section into more of a step-by-step how to guide. This is meant to be instructive but not prescriptive in that individual editors should be free to use their own process. A few additional ideas came up as I was writing it however:
I'm not going to claim that any of these are good ideas, but I thought it might be worthwhile to put them out for discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed a merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons tag here and started a discusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I created a new, expanded version of the Hints and tips section as a subpage of the main project page. Basically it's documentation of my own process based on the work I did before finding out about this project. I'm certainly open to suggestions as to how the process could be improved. As I hope is clear from the lead paragraph, it is meant to be instructive rather than prescriptive. I thought something like this would be helpful, especially for newcomers, analogous to a "manual of style" page that some other projects have. I left the existing Hints and tips as is but with a link to the guide. If people don't agree to the addition then I promise not to take offense if it's PRODed.-- RDBury ( talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have finished the changes so the page now looks similar to the Fact and Reference Check project page. Any praise/criticism/comments welcome. Mattg82 ( talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If anyone reads Spanish could you look at the references for Cerro del Quinceo, it looks like it might meet WP:N but I am not sure. If there is a good reference please add it, (does not need to be English) otherwise let me know and I will take it to AfD, a previous AfD was withdrawn by the nom. Jeepday ( talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything you always wanted and did not know who to ask User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. 10:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people sticky prod {{ subst:prod blp}} applies to articles created after March 18, 2010. Unlike articles tagged with standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may only be removed after the article contains at least one reliable source that verifies statements made in the article about the person. If the article remains unsourced after ten days, the article can be summarily deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Help, I am under attack from several members of your group. John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The following seems to me to be overkill, especially after I backed away from the article I was editing and did what should have been a total fix is response to N2E's objection's:
Betty Parris Appearances in fiction
Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances in fiction in John Neal's historical novel, Rachel Dyer (1828). Although she remains Samuel Parris' daughter in the narrative, Betty is renamed "Abigail."[3]
In the play The Crucible, the character of Betty has very few lines in the play, and most are in the first act.
In the book Gallows Hill by Lois Duncan, the main character, Sarah Zoltanne, realizes that she was Betty Parris in a former life after having several dreams and visions, viewed from Betty's perspective.
The preceding is part of the text of the Wikipedia Article Betty Parris.
My thoughts here are really very few:
1) Her name is Elizabeth, why not use that name ? Bettee is an actual New England First Name from that time period. Her name was Elizabeth, why not use it and avoid the confusion ?
2) My understanding is that if you link a copy of the text on the web that it is a fully adequate means of providing a citation. I.e. it provides adequate reference to the fact that the text exists in real life and it is not neccessary to find a source stating that the thing exists and provide a cite for it.
3) The term original research is kind of a flexible thing, and I find it's invocation in the instant case to be highly suspect. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Response at User talk:Jeepday —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I am copying User:Jeepday's response here to fully document the discussion in one continuous sequence on a single Talk page. Rationale: John5Russell3Finley has continued to discuss contributors rather than contributons, despite being previously warned on that topic. N2e (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Jeepday: "On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed citation needed tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)" This is a prime example of what happens when you put people in charge who are less familiar with print media than they are with programming. I would suggest that if we are actually writing an encyclopedia here that some folks who know about how to structure a bibliography should replace people who prefer to citicise, and argue. Placement of tags should not supplant the actual work of writing an encyclopedia. I asked for a bit of time and space to edit the article and this was denied me by N2e who simply kept attacking. The status quo is the reason we have lost so many capable editors and contributors. You do not encourage people to write and edit articles when all you do is zip around placing citicism tags, and error messages, and ignoring the people who are actually doing the real work when they ask you to back off. BE ADVISED !: if you were part of this little trouble, and you have placed a watch on this page then do not expect that you are not inclined to continue fighting about this. I have not placed a watch on anyone's discussion page, and am simply stating the facts here for the use of anyone else who may actually be watching. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You say above, "...N2e who simply kept attacking." I can assure you that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have entirely discussed the contribution and not the contributor and have discussed improvement of the article, not the editor. I have not "attacked" in any way. Please do not make careless allegations of such "attacks" without evidence. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] "Asking for trouble"? I have no idea what you mean by this. People may come to the link WP:SWT trying to find the guideline about the use of the acronym on Wikipedia (usually to point other new editors to), and the hatnote helps them find it. Removing it just makes everyone's lives more difficult. cab (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "linking the two religions". It's simply an aid for editors who are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia to find what they are looking for. Acronyms are inherently ambiguous, and not everyone who goes to that shortcut WP:SWT is going to be looking for that particular taskforce of one regional WikiProject. And it is not remotely "vandalism" to put a navigational hatnote on a project page. Why don't you go ahead with your ridiculous threat and and report this matter to WP:AIV or WP:ANI --- see how seriously they take you. cab (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] Assume good faith Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. See my comment in previous Talk Page section on Betty Parris (above). N2e (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
To my mind N2E should not continue pursuing this and should find better venues of self expression. John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 19:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I tagged Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006 with {{ Db-c1}} today. Thank you to everyone who kept coming back to do one more hard one. The last few are always a challenge, that is why they are the last ones. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Automatically_remove_unreferenced.3F Gnevin ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Be aware of these books when looking for sourcing!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles twigged me onto this publisher called "Books LLC". This is an example of the books they sell. This looks to be an operation similar to Icon Group International. It appears that their books are just compilations of Wikipedia material. I spot checked some of the lists in the product description in the amazon link and they are all Wikipedia articles. The end of the description includes "More: http://booksllc.net/?id=10953924". Following that link just redirects you to List of J. League players. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently made a change to Template:no footnotes I removed the phrase " related reading or external links," user:Jeepday has suggested that this is inappropriate and has pointed to the wording in this WikiProject (and some guidelines and some sections in WP:V) to explain why the removal is inappropriate. I on the other hand think that the wording of this WikiProject is not quite correct and should be changed. So I suggest that we discuss it here and depending on the consensus either my change to the template can be reverted or the wording here can be changed.
Currently the article says:
- If the article has even one reference or external link (that is related to the article content) use -
- Templates {{ Refimprove}}, {{ Primarysources}}, {{ Onesource}} and {{ rs}} as appropriate to put the article in Category:Articles lacking reliable references
...
I don't think this WikiProject wording is correct because it is generally understood that citations should either be in-line and/or as bullet points a "references section". For example the guideline External links guideline says in its lead:
The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
So I think this WikiProjec wording should be changed so that it is clear that we are talking about reference sections and external links sections. Also a distinction should be made between the use of {{ unreferenced}} where there may or may not be web links in an external links section, and {{ Refimprove}} which is only used where there are citation (as defined in the WP:CITE guideline).
One of the problems is that the terminology used here is not that same as that used in the WP:CITE guideline. So the first thing to do is to have a section briefly explaining what a reference and a citation is. Then go on to say:
-- PBS ( talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
PBS says " At no point do we consider further reading or external links to be references." then uses Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. as support for taking external links out of {{ nofootnotes}}?
Jeepday ( talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You know there are certain types of articles that do not lend themselves to referencing. For example, 1861 in India cannot be referenced because it merely lists events that happened that year. Frankly I think articles like this are limited in utility, but nevertheless it exists. I think we need to have a rule about the need to have references for pages like this. Another example is Prince Edward Island Route 155 which is just a road. How do you reference a road? With a map? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what I've been doing. When I run across one of those godawful "list" or "year" articles, I check out the target pages to see if the facts on that page back up the fact on the referring page (the one I am working on). See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1987_in_heavy_metal_music&action=history. My theory is that the main article page should be the one that has the References on it, not necessarily the "list" or "year" page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "sourced." I agree with The Founders Intent, the user who started this thread: Some "articles" can't be sourced, or should we say, needn't be sourced. "Lists" and "years" are simply pointers to other pages, and, really, they should be treated just like WP:Disambiguation pages, with only one link allowed per entry, so that the user can go quickly to the target page and get more information about the item (complete with references). I understand this opinion may fly in the face of others' practice, but it is workable, practicable and reasonable. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You may speak what conventional wisdom ascribes to the consensus right now, but the consensus can always change, and conventional wisdom can be sadly off base. In a way, consensus really has already changed, since "Year" and "List" articles are very seldom referenced — that would indicate a consensus against sourcing this kind of article. (Also all the articles about sporting seasons.) It may be that we may just have to write down this new consensus somewhere, have a debate on it and adopt it. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Remove_citation_as_criteria JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, gee. I feel whether the list gets to featured status is a bit off the mark for this particular discussion. It's an interesting point, but the main discussion here— to me, anyway — is how to get a list or a year article referenced well enough for an editor to remove the Unreferenced tag and move it off the list. I'm working on October 2006 and certainly don't have the time or interest to check out every single source for, say, 2004 in heavy metal music. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, as long as the internal link points to a page that includes the information, that is good enough for me. Note Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I am finding more and more articles that are well referenced in other languages then English. An example is Hans Grimm and de:Hans Grimm Does anyone have any thoughts on a "references in other language tag"? I am thinking something on the lines of {{ refimprove}} but that would include the languages and possibly include the articles in categories that would facilitate bilingual volunteers in finding and improving articles in their language skill areas. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Austro-Hungarian gulden coins were minted following the Ausgleich with different designs for the two parts of the empire.
Coins of Hungary - regular issues | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Image | Value | Diameter | Description | Date of first minting | |||
Obverse | Reverse | Edge | Obverse | Reverse | |||
5/10 krajczár | 17 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ" [a], Middle coat of arms | Value, year of minting, mintmark | 1882 | |||
1 krajczár | 19 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Small coat of arms with angels | 1868 | ||||
1 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Middle coat of arms | 1878 | |||||
1 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume) | 1891 | |||||
4 krajczár | 27 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Small coat of arms with angels | 1868 | ||||
10 krajczár | 18 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA" [b], I Ferenc József | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ" 3, value, year of minting, mintmark | 1867 | |||
10 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
10 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | |||||
10 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR." 4, I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
20 krajczár | 21 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", I Ferenc József, mintmark | 1868 | ||||
20 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | |||||
20 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
1 forint | 29 mm | "BIZALMAM AZ ŐSI ERÉNYBEN" 5 | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR" 6, I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR ORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA" 7, Small coat of arms with angels, value, year of minting | 1868 | ||
1 forint | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG" 8, Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
1 forint | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms ( baroque style), value, year of minting | 1882 | |||||
1 forint | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
4 forint / 10 frank | 19 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | |||
4 forint / 10 frank | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
8 forint / 20 frank | 21 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
8 forint / 20 frank | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
Coins of Hungary - bullion gold coins | |||||||
1 dukát | 19.75 mm | "FERENCZ J. A. CSÁSZÁR" 9, standing I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR ORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", Small coat of arms with angels, year of minting | 1868 | |||
1 dukát | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", standing I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
1 dukát | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | 1877 | |||||
These images are to scale at 2.5 pixels per millimetre. For table standards, see the coin specification table. |
For number 2 what I mean is that instead of people having to both add sources and incorporate them into the article at the same time, we should have an assembly line system of Finders and Writers, where one person who is good at finding sources can add a couple of possible sources that could be used, puts the article into Category:Articles with Unused Sources (or a similar category), and then leave, then later someone who's better at writing the articles can use the sources that have been found to expand the article without having to go all over looking for sources themselves. -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are there so many Unreferenced articles in December 2009? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what { { prod-nn } } means or how it is used. When I click on it, the result page does not tell me. Questioningly, your servant, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the template on Category:Articles lacking reliable references, there are about 71,519 articles that need reliable references. According to Category:All articles lacking reliable references though, the number is around 23,665 pages. Any idea why there's such a large discrepancy? -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI- Template_talk:Proposed_deletion#Notify_author:, Jeepday ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2010 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This category seems to have been forgotten. I think we should have this as a task as well but as you can see there are no month by month sub-categories. I'm not 100% sure on how to create the sub-categories to make this task workable atm. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Usually when I add a reference I change the 'unreferenced' tag to 'refimprove'. I've been putting the current date in the new tag, effectively resetting the clock. But I've been wondering whether I should be keeping the original date in the new tag since the article has needed references improved at least as long as it's needed some references at all. Any thoughts?-- RDBury ( talk) 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In keeping with the previous comment, I'm incubating (see User:RDBury/Scratchpad) a proposal for expansion of the Hint and Tips section into more of a step-by-step how to guide. This is meant to be instructive but not prescriptive in that individual editors should be free to use their own process. A few additional ideas came up as I was writing it however:
I'm not going to claim that any of these are good ideas, but I thought it might be worthwhile to put them out for discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed a merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons tag here and started a discusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I created a new, expanded version of the Hints and tips section as a subpage of the main project page. Basically it's documentation of my own process based on the work I did before finding out about this project. I'm certainly open to suggestions as to how the process could be improved. As I hope is clear from the lead paragraph, it is meant to be instructive rather than prescriptive. I thought something like this would be helpful, especially for newcomers, analogous to a "manual of style" page that some other projects have. I left the existing Hints and tips as is but with a link to the guide. If people don't agree to the addition then I promise not to take offense if it's PRODed.-- RDBury ( talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have finished the changes so the page now looks similar to the Fact and Reference Check project page. Any praise/criticism/comments welcome. Mattg82 ( talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If anyone reads Spanish could you look at the references for Cerro del Quinceo, it looks like it might meet WP:N but I am not sure. If there is a good reference please add it, (does not need to be English) otherwise let me know and I will take it to AfD, a previous AfD was withdrawn by the nom. Jeepday ( talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything you always wanted and did not know who to ask User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. 10:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people sticky prod {{ subst:prod blp}} applies to articles created after March 18, 2010. Unlike articles tagged with standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may only be removed after the article contains at least one reliable source that verifies statements made in the article about the person. If the article remains unsourced after ten days, the article can be summarily deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Help, I am under attack from several members of your group. John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The following seems to me to be overkill, especially after I backed away from the article I was editing and did what should have been a total fix is response to N2E's objection's:
Betty Parris Appearances in fiction
Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances in fiction in John Neal's historical novel, Rachel Dyer (1828). Although she remains Samuel Parris' daughter in the narrative, Betty is renamed "Abigail."[3]
In the play The Crucible, the character of Betty has very few lines in the play, and most are in the first act.
In the book Gallows Hill by Lois Duncan, the main character, Sarah Zoltanne, realizes that she was Betty Parris in a former life after having several dreams and visions, viewed from Betty's perspective.
The preceding is part of the text of the Wikipedia Article Betty Parris.
My thoughts here are really very few:
1) Her name is Elizabeth, why not use that name ? Bettee is an actual New England First Name from that time period. Her name was Elizabeth, why not use it and avoid the confusion ?
2) My understanding is that if you link a copy of the text on the web that it is a fully adequate means of providing a citation. I.e. it provides adequate reference to the fact that the text exists in real life and it is not neccessary to find a source stating that the thing exists and provide a cite for it.
3) The term original research is kind of a flexible thing, and I find it's invocation in the instant case to be highly suspect. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Response at User talk:Jeepday —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I am copying User:Jeepday's response here to fully document the discussion in one continuous sequence on a single Talk page. Rationale: John5Russell3Finley has continued to discuss contributors rather than contributons, despite being previously warned on that topic. N2e (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Jeepday: "On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed citation needed tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)" This is a prime example of what happens when you put people in charge who are less familiar with print media than they are with programming. I would suggest that if we are actually writing an encyclopedia here that some folks who know about how to structure a bibliography should replace people who prefer to citicise, and argue. Placement of tags should not supplant the actual work of writing an encyclopedia. I asked for a bit of time and space to edit the article and this was denied me by N2e who simply kept attacking. The status quo is the reason we have lost so many capable editors and contributors. You do not encourage people to write and edit articles when all you do is zip around placing citicism tags, and error messages, and ignoring the people who are actually doing the real work when they ask you to back off. BE ADVISED !: if you were part of this little trouble, and you have placed a watch on this page then do not expect that you are not inclined to continue fighting about this. I have not placed a watch on anyone's discussion page, and am simply stating the facts here for the use of anyone else who may actually be watching. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You say above, "...N2e who simply kept attacking." I can assure you that, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I have entirely discussed the contribution and not the contributor and have discussed improvement of the article, not the editor. I have not "attacked" in any way. Please do not make careless allegations of such "attacks" without evidence. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] "Asking for trouble"? I have no idea what you mean by this. People may come to the link WP:SWT trying to find the guideline about the use of the acronym on Wikipedia (usually to point other new editors to), and the hatnote helps them find it. Removing it just makes everyone's lives more difficult. cab (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "linking the two religions". It's simply an aid for editors who are actually trying to improve the encyclopedia to find what they are looking for. Acronyms are inherently ambiguous, and not everyone who goes to that shortcut WP:SWT is going to be looking for that particular taskforce of one regional WikiProject. And it is not remotely "vandalism" to put a navigational hatnote on a project page. Why don't you go ahead with your ridiculous threat and and report this matter to WP:AIV or WP:ANI --- see how seriously they take you. cab (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [edit] Assume good faith Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. See my comment in previous Talk Page section on Betty Parris (above). N2e (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
To my mind N2E should not continue pursuing this and should find better venues of self expression. John5Russell3Finley ( talk) 19:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I tagged Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006 with {{ Db-c1}} today. Thank you to everyone who kept coming back to do one more hard one. The last few are always a challenge, that is why they are the last ones. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Automatically_remove_unreferenced.3F Gnevin ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Be aware of these books when looking for sourcing!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles twigged me onto this publisher called "Books LLC". This is an example of the books they sell. This looks to be an operation similar to Icon Group International. It appears that their books are just compilations of Wikipedia material. I spot checked some of the lists in the product description in the amazon link and they are all Wikipedia articles. The end of the description includes "More: http://booksllc.net/?id=10953924". Following that link just redirects you to List of J. League players. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently made a change to Template:no footnotes I removed the phrase " related reading or external links," user:Jeepday has suggested that this is inappropriate and has pointed to the wording in this WikiProject (and some guidelines and some sections in WP:V) to explain why the removal is inappropriate. I on the other hand think that the wording of this WikiProject is not quite correct and should be changed. So I suggest that we discuss it here and depending on the consensus either my change to the template can be reverted or the wording here can be changed.
Currently the article says:
- If the article has even one reference or external link (that is related to the article content) use -
- Templates {{ Refimprove}}, {{ Primarysources}}, {{ Onesource}} and {{ rs}} as appropriate to put the article in Category:Articles lacking reliable references
...
I don't think this WikiProject wording is correct because it is generally understood that citations should either be in-line and/or as bullet points a "references section". For example the guideline External links guideline says in its lead:
The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
So I think this WikiProjec wording should be changed so that it is clear that we are talking about reference sections and external links sections. Also a distinction should be made between the use of {{ unreferenced}} where there may or may not be web links in an external links section, and {{ Refimprove}} which is only used where there are citation (as defined in the WP:CITE guideline).
One of the problems is that the terminology used here is not that same as that used in the WP:CITE guideline. So the first thing to do is to have a section briefly explaining what a reference and a citation is. Then go on to say:
-- PBS ( talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
PBS says " At no point do we consider further reading or external links to be references." then uses Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. as support for taking external links out of {{ nofootnotes}}?
Jeepday ( talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You know there are certain types of articles that do not lend themselves to referencing. For example, 1861 in India cannot be referenced because it merely lists events that happened that year. Frankly I think articles like this are limited in utility, but nevertheless it exists. I think we need to have a rule about the need to have references for pages like this. Another example is Prince Edward Island Route 155 which is just a road. How do you reference a road? With a map? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what I've been doing. When I run across one of those godawful "list" or "year" articles, I check out the target pages to see if the facts on that page back up the fact on the referring page (the one I am working on). See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1987_in_heavy_metal_music&action=history. My theory is that the main article page should be the one that has the References on it, not necessarily the "list" or "year" page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "sourced." I agree with The Founders Intent, the user who started this thread: Some "articles" can't be sourced, or should we say, needn't be sourced. "Lists" and "years" are simply pointers to other pages, and, really, they should be treated just like WP:Disambiguation pages, with only one link allowed per entry, so that the user can go quickly to the target page and get more information about the item (complete with references). I understand this opinion may fly in the face of others' practice, but it is workable, practicable and reasonable. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You may speak what conventional wisdom ascribes to the consensus right now, but the consensus can always change, and conventional wisdom can be sadly off base. In a way, consensus really has already changed, since "Year" and "List" articles are very seldom referenced — that would indicate a consensus against sourcing this kind of article. (Also all the articles about sporting seasons.) It may be that we may just have to write down this new consensus somewhere, have a debate on it and adopt it. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Remove_citation_as_criteria JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, gee. I feel whether the list gets to featured status is a bit off the mark for this particular discussion. It's an interesting point, but the main discussion here— to me, anyway — is how to get a list or a year article referenced well enough for an editor to remove the Unreferenced tag and move it off the list. I'm working on October 2006 and certainly don't have the time or interest to check out every single source for, say, 2004 in heavy metal music. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, as long as the internal link points to a page that includes the information, that is good enough for me. Note Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I am finding more and more articles that are well referenced in other languages then English. An example is Hans Grimm and de:Hans Grimm Does anyone have any thoughts on a "references in other language tag"? I am thinking something on the lines of {{ refimprove}} but that would include the languages and possibly include the articles in categories that would facilitate bilingual volunteers in finding and improving articles in their language skill areas. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Austro-Hungarian gulden coins were minted following the Ausgleich with different designs for the two parts of the empire.
Coins of Hungary - regular issues | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Image | Value | Diameter | Description | Date of first minting | |||
Obverse | Reverse | Edge | Obverse | Reverse | |||
5/10 krajczár | 17 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ" [a], Middle coat of arms | Value, year of minting, mintmark | 1882 | |||
1 krajczár | 19 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Small coat of arms with angels | 1868 | ||||
1 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Middle coat of arms | 1878 | |||||
1 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume) | 1891 | |||||
4 krajczár | 27 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", Small coat of arms with angels | 1868 | ||||
10 krajczár | 18 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA" [b], I Ferenc József | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ" 3, value, year of minting, mintmark | 1867 | |||
10 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
10 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | |||||
10 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR." 4, I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
20 krajczár | 21 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR MAGYARORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", I Ferenc József, mintmark | 1868 | ||||
20 krajczár | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYI VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | |||||
20 krajczár | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "VÁLTÓ PÉNZ", value, year of minting | 1868 | ||||
1 forint | 29 mm | "BIZALMAM AZ ŐSI ERÉNYBEN" 5 | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF A. CSÁSZÁR" 6, I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR ORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA" 7, Small coat of arms with angels, value, year of minting | 1868 | ||
1 forint | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG" 8, Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
1 forint | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms ( baroque style), value, year of minting | 1882 | |||||
1 forint | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
4 forint / 10 frank | 19 mm | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | |||
4 forint / 10 frank | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
8 forint / 20 frank | 21 mm | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, value, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
8 forint / 20 frank | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms (including Fiume), value, year of minting | 1890 | |||||
Coins of Hungary - bullion gold coins | |||||||
1 dukát | 19.75 mm | "FERENCZ J. A. CSÁSZÁR" 9, standing I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR ORSZÁG AP. KIRÁLYA", Small coat of arms with angels, year of minting | 1868 | |||
1 dukát | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", standing I Ferenc József, mintmark | "MAGYAR KIRÁLYSÁG", Middle coat of arms, year of minting | 1870 | ||||
1 dukát | "FERENCZ JÓZSEF I.K.A.CS. ÉS M.H.S.D.O.AP.KIR.", I Ferenc József, mintmark | 1877 | |||||
These images are to scale at 2.5 pixels per millimetre. For table standards, see the coin specification table. |
For number 2 what I mean is that instead of people having to both add sources and incorporate them into the article at the same time, we should have an assembly line system of Finders and Writers, where one person who is good at finding sources can add a couple of possible sources that could be used, puts the article into Category:Articles with Unused Sources (or a similar category), and then leave, then later someone who's better at writing the articles can use the sources that have been found to expand the article without having to go all over looking for sources themselves. -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 22:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are there so many Unreferenced articles in December 2009? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what { { prod-nn } } means or how it is used. When I click on it, the result page does not tell me. Questioningly, your servant, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the template on Category:Articles lacking reliable references, there are about 71,519 articles that need reliable references. According to Category:All articles lacking reliable references though, the number is around 23,665 pages. Any idea why there's such a large discrepancy? -- vgmddg ( look | talk | do) 21:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI- Template_talk:Proposed_deletion#Notify_author:, Jeepday ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)