User:SquisherDa/sandbox

Link back to main page

- rather needed on exiting the edit cycle!

Useful schemata

Diff

 

[[ Special:Diff/

  <#>

  |edit]]

  

done

 
:
:  {{ done | fixed | note= see [[ Special:Diff/

  <#>

  |edit]] }}

  

unsigned

 

  --'' unsigned [[ Special:Diff/

  <#>

  |contribution]] by {{ U | 

  <user>

  }} at 

  <dt/t>

  

Template talk:Anatomy terms #Where in an article does this template go?

Hiyall! Please be aware of proposed change to -/doc recommending placing Template:Anatomy terms at article head: discussion @Talk open for more contributions.

[ Alphabetised copy of list ]

A876

Adrian J. Hunter

CFCF

Comp.arch

DocWatson42

Feminist

Finnusertop

GregorB

Izrkala

LookingGlass

LT910001

Nbauman

Primefac

me obviously

Toccata quarta

Tom (LT)

voidxor

ExxonMobil climate change controversy § State and federal investigations

State and federal investigations - POV tweax

- - /* State and federal investigations */ - -

As early as 2012 the idea of using RICO laws against the fossil fuel industry, on the model of their use against Big Tobacco, was being considered by some environmental groups. In May 2015 Sheldon Whitehouse put forward the suggestion in The Washington Post. Later the same year, on October 14, Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier wrote to the United States Attorney General (US AG) requesting an investigation into whether ExxonMobil violated any federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change. Asked about the letter by The Guardian, an Exxon spokesperson said "This is complete bullshit. We have a 30 year continuous uninterrupted history of researching climate change..." On October 30, 2015, more than 40 leading US environmental and social justice organizations also wrote to the US AG requesting a federal investigation into ExxonMobil deceiving the public about climate change. Former Vice President Al Gore and all three Democratic primary candidates for President of the United States called for a Department of Justice investigation.

On October 29, Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey issued a letter to Exxon questioning their donations to Donors Trust, a group which funds climate change denial. Subsequently, in January of 2016, Marjorie Cohn, law professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California, called for the revocation of ExxonMobil's articles of incorporation.

Still in 2015, the New York Attorney General launched an investigation whether ExxonMobil's statements to investors were consistent with the company's decades of extensive scientific research. In October 2018, based on this investigation, ExxonMobil was sued by the State of New York, which claimed the company defrauded shareholders by downplaying the risks of climate change for its businesses.

Following published reports, based on internal Exxon documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s Exxon used climate research in its business planning but simultaneously argued publicly that the science was unsettled, the California Attorney General began investigating whether ExxonMobil lied to the public or shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change, possible securities fraud, and violations of environmental laws. ExxonMobil denied wrongdoing.

On March 29, 2016, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and the United States Virgin Islands announced investigations. Seventeen attorneys general were cooperating on investigations. Exxon said the investigations were "politically motivated." In June, the attorney general of the United States Virgin Islands agreed to withdraw the subpoena, and ExxonMobil began an action suing the Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. In 2019 the U.S.Supreme Court found in favor of the Massachusetts attorney general and allowed their case against Exxon to move forward. As a result of that decision, Exxon can no longer withhold records that the AG needs for their investigation into whether Exxon concealed that they were cognizant of the fossil fuels contributing to climate change and knowingly misled both the public and their own investors.

Potters Bar rail accidents#1946

Hi Redrose64 ! Like I said, thank you for joining in with trying to clarify Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946. I have to apologise, too, that my edit summary, responding to your query, was totally not clear enough.

I should probably have started this talk-page section then. And, coming here now, I’m seeing that the article section was already flagged as needing work.

For anyone joining us: the point under discussion is that “Unlike road signals, a rail signal, once observed showing a proceed aspect, will not normally change against the driver observing it;” the issue is how to present that point in the article.

Its relevance and importance are fairly clear if you read the 1946 Report closely.

The edit-history up to now is as follows:

Edit Summary	Diff	Editor	Comment - in hindsight
clarification	[1]	SquisherDa	(slightly sharper use of railway terminology)
amplified citation of authoritative Ref, + other Ref dropped	[2]	SquisherDa	dropping citation of a low-reliability source “blaming” the local-train driver
accident summary amended to agree with authoritative Ref	[3]	SquisherDa
Rescuing orphaned refs ("PBHistory" from rev 879246835)	[4]	AnomieBOT	oops - I mishandled a multi-cited source
why is this inside the ref?	[5]	Redrose64	fair question: so far as anyone could see, I had simply made an editing error
Presenting the point about aspect changes in a footnote because (1) it’s a general point, not specific to the detail of this accident causation; and (2) if placed anywhere in the main text, I think it would rate a . . I saw it in an RAIB report - and it’s plainly important - but I have no idea which report!	[6]	SquisherDa	my explanation totally failed to clarify that the point, though general, has very specific importance in relation to this accident
don't put text intended to be interpreted as footnotes inside an unrelated ref. If you want it to appear as a footnote, mark it up as such; but even so, it's not exempt from WP:V	[7]	Redrose64	good advice generally, of course. But the point relates - very closely - to this source. WP:V: not exempt, of course - but in a note I think it should be no problem - see discussion below
→Notes: new section	[8]	Redrose64

The requirements of WP: V seem meetable without trouble. There are two. First is that everything in an article should be supportable, if challenged, by a WP:RS. There’s no difficulty there (if only because of the RAIB report I read). Second is that for anything where a challenge is likely, a suitable RS should actually be cited.

For the second requirement, a brief remark in a citation should be OK anyway - is unlikely to be challenged - given that the point is obvious when you think about and only the more thoughtful readers are likely to look at a citation footnote.

But meeting WP:V doesn’t really hit the spot if the remark just looks like an editing error anyway. So my plan now is to include the point in UK railway signalling - in context there, it is very unlikely to be challenged. Then, if the note in Potters Bar rail accidents includes an explicit phrase directing the reader to that signalling article, the intent should be obvious and the note won’t look like a muddled edit.

I’ll develop the Potters Bar rail accidents # 1946 section - a need already flagged on this Talk page - using the 1946 Report as the basis. And I’ll make the note there more explicit, both in the way I’ve described, and in clarifying that the reason it mentions the point is that the point matters when reading the Report.

Before I do any of that, I’ll change the mention in the lede of “the latest” accident! To me, ‘latest’ carries favorable connotations (newest, most recent, most up-to-date) which are badly out-of-place here.

I’ll monitor here for replies, anybody!?

Deism

The aim here is to act on the plaint about quotations made mid-2007. (The article also had a Sep_2015 headnote box on the same issue - removed Jan_2019, partway through my series of edits. Its recommended solution involved Wikiquote, and I don’t plan to do that.)

Deism in England and France in the 18th century doesn’t seem to have the problem.

4th - Overview

See also: Theism

Deism is a theological theory concerning the relationship between a creator and the natural world. Deistic viewpoints emerged during the scientific revolution of 17th-century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the 18th-century Enlightenment. Deism stood between the narrow dogmatism of the period and skepticism. Though deists rejected atheism, they often were called "atheists" by more traditional theists. There were a number of different forms in the 17th and 18th centuries. In England, deists included a range of people from anti-Christian to non-Christian theists.

For deists, human beings can know God only via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or by supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which deists regard with caution if not skepticism. Deism is related to naturalism because it credits the formation of life and the universe to a higher power, using only natural processes. The classical deism of the 17th and 18th centuries is a form of natural theology and denies that that power has any continuing involvement with the world. Modern deism may also include a spiritual element, involving experiences of God and nature.

The words deism and theism, originally synonyms in English, both derive from words for "god": the former from Latin deus, the latter from Greek theos (θεός). By the 17th Century the terms were starting to diverge, with deism referring to the new form of belief. The term deist first appeared in its new sense in Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621).

Deism is usually thought of as having taken root first in England and subsequently spread to mainland Europe. But the term déiste appears in French, in the new sense, as early as 1564. Pierre Viret, a Swiss Calvinist, wrote of deism as a heretical development from Italian Renaissance naturalism, resulting from misuse of the liberty conferred by the Reformation to criticise idolatry and superstition.

Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648) is considered the "father of English deism", and his book De Veritate (1624) the first major statement of deism. Deism flourished in England between 1690 and 1740, at which time Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730), also called "The Deist's Bible," gained much attention. Later deism spread to France (notably through the work of Voltaire), to Germany, and to North America.

3rd - History of religion and the deist mission

A major theme of deist thinking was that the religions of their day were corruptions of an original, pure, natural religion, simple and rational: subsequently corrupted by "priests" manipulating it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general, and thus encrusted with superstitions and "mysteries" – irrational theological doctrines. They referred to this manipulation of religious doctrine as "priestcraft," a highly derogatory term.

They declared that laymen were kept dependent on the priesthood for information about the requirements for salvation, and baffled by these "mysteries", thus giving the priesthood a position of great power which they worked to maintain and increase. Deists saw it as their mission to strip away "priestcraft" and "mysteries". Tindal, perhaps the most prominent deist writer, claimed that this was the original function of the Christian Church.

One implication of this deist creation myth was that primitive societies, or societies that existed in the distant past, should have religious beliefs that are less encrusted with superstitions and closer to those of natural theology. This position gradually became less plausible as thinkers such as David Hume began studying the natural history of religion and suggesting that the origins of religion lay not in reason but in the emotions, specifically the fear of the unknown.

   /* History of religion and the deist mission */ clarity / focus - the later quotes from the writers mentioned initially do not relate to the initial point

2nd - Precursors

proposed

       66

Common Notions provide both foundation and limits of his conclusions, as is apparent in his reasoning that “we ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them”:

There is no general agreement concerning the various rites or mysteries which the priests have devised for the expiation of sin. .. General agreement among religions, the nature of divine goodness, and above all conscience, tell us that our crimes may be washed away by true penitence ..

and

I do not wish to consider here whether any other more appropriate means exists by which the divine justice may be appeased, since I have undertaken in this work only to rely on truths which are .. derived from the evidence of immediate perception and admitted by the whole world.

— Lord Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate

           99

existing

       66

The following lengthy quote from Herbert can give the flavor of his writing and demonstrate the sense of the importance that Herbert attributed to innate Common Notions, which can help in understanding the effect of Locke's attack on innate ideas in Herbert's philosophy:

No general agreement exists concerning the Gods, but there is universal recognition of God. Every religion in the past has acknowledged, every religion in the future will acknowledge, some sovereign deity among the Gods. ..

Accordingly that which is everywhere accepted as the supreme manifestation of deity, by whatever name it may be called, I term God.

While there is no general agreement concerning the worship of Gods, sacred beings, saints, and angels, yet the Common Notion or Universal Consent tells us that adoration ought to be reserved for the one God. Hence divine religion — and no race, however savage, has existed without some expression of it — is found established among all nations. ..

The connection of Virtue with Piety, defined in this work as the right conformation of the faculties, is and always has been held to be, the most important part of religious practice. There is no general agreement concerning rites, ceremonies, traditions .. ; but there is the greatest possible consensus of opinion concerning the right conformation of the faculties. .. Moral virtue .. is and always has been esteemed by men in every age and place and respected in every land. ..

There is no general agreement concerning the various rites or mysteries which the priests have devised for the expiation of sin. .. General agreement among religions, the nature of divine goodness, and above all conscience, tell us that our crimes may be washed away by true penitence, and that we can be restored to new union with God. .. I do not wish to consider here whether any other more appropriate means exists by which the divine justice may be appeased, since I have undertaken in this work only to rely on truths which are not open to dispute but are derived from the evidence of immediate perception and admitted by the whole world.

The rewards that are eternal have been variously placed in heaven, in the stars, in the Elysian fields .. Punishment has been thought to lie in metempsychosis, in hell, .. or in temporary or everlasting death. But all religion, law, philosophy, and .. conscience, teach openly or implicitly that punishment or reward awaits us after this life. .. [T]here is no nation, however barbarous, which has not and will not recognise the existence of punishments and rewards. That reward and punishment exist is, then, a Common Notion, though there is the greatest difference of opinion as to their nature, quality, extent, and mode.

It follows from these considerations that the dogmas which recognize a sovereign Deity, enjoin us to worship Him, command us to live a holy life, lead us to repent our sins, and warn us of future recompense or punishment, proceed from God and are inscribed within us in the form of Common Notions.

Revealed truth exists; and it would be unjust to ignore it. But its nature is quite distinct from the truth [based on Common Notions] .. [T]he truth of revelation depends upon the authority of him who reveals it. We must, then, proceed with great care in discerning what actually is revealed. .. [W]e must take great care to avoid deception, for men who are depressed, superstitious, or ignorant of causes are always liable to it.

— Lord Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate, quoted in Gay, Deism: An Anthology, pp. 29 ff.

           99

1st - Decline

       66

After the writings of Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s, nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined; the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of these decades, Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), and Thomas Morgan (?–1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all been said before, and better. .

— Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology

It is probably more accurate, however, to say that deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist became rarely used, but deist beliefs, ideas, and influences remained. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of deism's beliefs and ideas.

           99

So here we go:

       66

Gay has described classical deism as entering slow final decline, as a recognisable movement, in the 1730s. Instead, deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term deist largely fell into disuse; deist beliefs, ideas, and influences lived on. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of deism's beliefs and ideas.

           99

The big thing is sorting out citations. I’ve been struggling to find solutions I see as OK. I’m realising now tht I’ve been worrying too much and trying too hard. Perfection is not the point.

The worry has been about multiple citations, typically pinpoint citations (ie specifying the relevant page), referencing a single source. I’ve found myself dealing with Peter Gay’s Anthology on deism.

It’s a fairly comprehensive example. There are three references, to two different pages. One is to p.143. The other two are both to p.140. And betwen them, the citations include one with a long(ish) quote, one with a short quote, and one with none.

My difficulty is tht setting up multiple ref-tags for the various citations, with the full bibliographic information included in each, makes me cringe. The sheer volume of multiplied (triplicated) information feels absurd. More significant is the risk of inconsistency and conflict between the parallel versions. (This might result from differences of opinion, and conflicting edits; in this case, the likely foci would be (i) whether to identify Gay as author or as editor, (ii) whether to mention his original surname, (iii) whether to state an ISBN (of the recent republication), given tht ISBNs had not been established when the book was originally published), and (iv), if Yes to (iii), whether the other biblio details (publisher? publication date?? etc) should be those of the reprint or of the original edition. There’s plenty of scope, combinatorially, for differing opinions to result in clashing parallel versions.)

So my instinct, strongly, is to try for a single statement of the bibliographic details - pointed to by each of the three citations.

But the only way to do that seems to be to build all those details into the ref-tag for the first citation. That is, for whichever citation happens to appear first in the article text.

And that too - a failure of modularity - also makes me cringe. What if the sections of the article get reordered? What if another citation is added to the article text? supporting a point made very early on? before what is currently that first citation?

Those modularity concerns are entirely reasonable. But they’re nothing new to Wikipedia. They mean tht lapses from perfection are very possible. But this is a text application not source-code. Perfection is not very necessary (and, in other aspects at least, is commonly not achievable and often not conceivable).

I’ve tried pretty hard to resolve the modularity issue - see below! - within the existing framework of ref-tags and templates. But really all I need to do to wind up this whole side-issue is to work out how to achieve an ibid-type subsequent reference, identifying a work already cited, a page number and optionally a quote.

Like this!  :-)

[ (copy re Hume, in earlier section - with original reference to (Gay, 1968) - NB citation source-code layout reworked - and new fuller reference using my new sub-template. ]

It seemed quite possible tht the link to p.140, in the citation for the quote I’m planning to work on, was an oversight - due to piggybacking on the referencing details for the earlier point about Hume. So I tried quite hard to see how to show different page-numbers associated with different citations of the source. No success there, and anyway the original ref-ID (“deismp140”) is probably a reliable indication tht it’s that same page in the book tht supports both points in the article. I’ve since found tht a point relying on p.143 is separately referenced - which pretty-much confirms I was right to reckon the dual citation of p.140 was right . . but raises the original problem, again, of how to cite two different pages in one source!

And, generally, there seems to be no direct support for pinpoint referencing, citing different specific pages, with the source description - the bibliography of the thing - done once only. Best achievable may be to record page numbers as comments in the source-code. But it may be possible instead to nest ref-tags - and so cite the page itself (optionally with page-quote) in flat copy within ref-tags, and cite the source at the same place via the appropriate template as usual and in its own ref-tags.

So here goes trying, as above, re pp.140, 143, of (Gay, 1968):

Earlier citation, re Hume, again, to Gay’s Anthology p.140</ref> with the page# handled separately.

Hmmm . . how well did that work?! Looks like ref-tags won’t nest. Or just tht I’ve made a mess of the code. Let’s see if it’s me: try building up the code stepwise. Just the page, first.

Babble babble

OK within its rather narrow limits; now . .

Babble babble babble

and minimal bibliographics - just the title! - to go with the bare (Gay, 1968).

Then try putting them together:

Babble babble babble babble p.140 </ref>

- and there we go, nesting seems not to work.

Looks like I’ll have to live with the duplication for now - and look out for anywhere (Nathaniel and Dionysius Lardner?) someone has managed something better and see how they’ve managed it.

Comment (not supposed to render!): ( The trick is in the syntax - in the delimiters: comments aren’t <! / > - or even <!- / -> . . They need a double hyphen -- . . and it *really does* help if u can bring your editor to abstain from autodiscorrecting double hyphens to single long dashes!!! )

For comparison and reference, the following is a passage from another article - where, as intended, the comment actually *doesn’t* render!!: Alferd Griner Packer (January 21, 1842 – April 23, 1907)

After the writings of Woolston and Tindal, English deism went into slow decline. ... By the 1730s, nearly all the arguments in behalf of Deism ... had been offered and refined; the intellectual caliber of leading Deists was none too impressive; and the opponents of deism finally mustered some formidable spokesmen. The Deists of these decades, Peter Annet (1693–1769), Thomas Chubb (1679–1747), and Thomas Morgan (?–1743), are of significance to the specialist alone. ... It had all been said before, and better. .

— Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology

Alferd Packer

[name][dates]

- seemingly well-informed contribution by 82.32.168.141 lost (? inadvertently?) in an extensive edit by anonymous contributor (2602:304:898E:35E9:D5ED:159C:7491:937B) with an apparent interest (see contributions) in sources / references

And I remember sitting in this auditorium filled with 1500 people, this big black-tie event, and I'm just going, "How the fuck did I get here?" Because I didn't even submit the fucking thing. Someone else did. And there are all these Cal Arts kids behind me who had submitted these beautiful watercolor and pencil things. And here's my shitty construction-paper thing-which makes South Park look like Disney, by the way, and they're all fuming. But I think, if I remember right, that I stiffed the Academy for a $500 bar tab.

Relationship between clinker and carvel

See also: Clinker (boat building)

Clinker (lapstrake) construction is often linked in people's minds with the Vikings, who used this method to build their famous longships from riven timber (split wood) planks.

The smoother surface of a carvel boat gives the impression at first sight that it is hydrodynamically more efficient. By contrast, the exposed edges of the clinker planking appear likely to disturb the streamline. This distribution of relative efficiency between the two forms of construction is an illusion: For given hull strength, the clinker boat is lighter, because it has far less heavy timber framing, and so displaces less water. This means it has less to push aside while moving.

Where, for example, draught is limited by the available depth of water, reduced displacement may also make it possible to reshape the hull, making the lines finer so that passage through the water is easier still.

For cargo vessels, the hydrodynamic advantage loses much of its importance as the vessel is laden and the hull weight becomes small in comparison with total displacement. But an economic advantage remains: the clinker vessel is more efficient, for cargos which are bulky rather than dense. The internal structure of the vessel occupies less of the space. For a given external volume, there is greater internal hull space available. That means that a greater quantity of a bulky cargo can be carried within the hull (rather than as deck cargo, which affects stability and general sea-keeping qualities).

A third, structural benefit of clinker construction is that it produces a vessel that can twist and flex around its long axis (running from bow to stern). This gave advantage in North Atlantic rollers so long as the vessel was small in overall displacement.

But as the size of vessels increases, structural forces begin to predominate: in particular, the twisting forces arising if, for example, when sailing downwind, the wave-train impinges on the quarter rather than dead astern. Eventually, rather than increasing the thickness of the whole skin indefinitely, the weight advantage lies with building a frame to deal with these torsional and other structural forces, and fixing to it a light skin sufficient to deal with local forces only. That is, for larger non-coastal cargo vessels an upper limit on the size of clinker-built vessels, imposed by physics, demands the transition to carvel construction. Later carvel-built sailing vessels exceeded the maximum size of clinker-built ships several times over.

A further limitation on clinker construction is that it does not readily support the point loads associated with, for example, lateen or sloop sailing rigs. At least some fore-and-aft sails are needed for manoeuvrability, if only at start and end of a voyage: especially so for larger vessels. The same problem in providing for concentrated loads makes for difficulties supporting a centerboard or deep keel, much needed when sailing across or close to the wind. Timbers can be added as necessary compromise, but always with some loss of the fundamental benefits of the construction method.

However, clinker construction remains to this day a valuable method of construction for small wooden vessels, especially small dinghies and tenders which need to be readily moved and stored when out of the water.

A number of boat building texts are available that describe the carvel planking process in detail.

Modern carvel methods

Traditional carvel methods leave a small gap between each plank that in the past was filled with any suitable soft, flexible, fibrous material, sometimes combined with a thick binding substance. This caulking would gradually wear out and the hull would leak. Likewise, when the boat was beached for a length of time, the planks would dry and shrink, so when first refloated, the hull would leak badly unless recaulked—a very time-consuming and physically demanding job. The modern variation is to use much narrower planks that are edge-glued instead of being caulked. With modern power sanders a much smoother hull is produced, as all the small ridges between the planks can be removed. This method started to become more common in the 1960s with the more widespread availability of waterproof glues, such as resorcinol (red glue) and then epoxy resin. Modern waterproof glues, especially epoxy resin, have caused revolutionary changes in both carvel and clinker style construction. Whereas in traditional construction it was the nails that provided the fastening strength, now it is the glue. It has become quite common since the 1980s for both carvel and clinker construction to rely almost completely on glue for fastening. Many small boats, especially light plywood skiffs, are built without any mechanical fasteners such as nails and lag screws at all, as the glue is far stronger.

Talk:Carvel (boat building)

Relationship between clinker and carvel

Qq / iss.s:

  •  mv t Clinkr?
  •? re beam
  •  scale iss. as qua m/coq(?)
  •  (so) wrup scale @m/coq? + rfr frm hre
  •  qsi-OR - acshly conscentss wrup (freestylng ctrib’r) . .
  •  . . srce.s!

]]]]

Constructing an edit-summary link to a(nother article’s) talk-page section:

... deleted: not relevant here - and see Talk:Clinker (boat building)#Incorrect or uncited allegation

( I thought the § character was supposed to be equivalent to # in such contexts: but it doesn’t seem so.)

Link to your reply

Administrative divisions of India #The six regions

Oculi omnium madhuparka in te respiciunt - this worked OK

Oculi omnium in te respiciunt, Domine. Tu das escam illis tempore opportuno. Aperis manum tuam et imples omne animal benedictione tua. Benedicas nobis, Deus, quae de tua beneficentia accepturi simus. Per Iesum Christum, Dominum nostrum.

Citing Things

Checking encyclopaedia ref - like that. Need t lk @ render both in-line & @Reflist; in-line z OK bt reflist NG. Probly not js du null refnames . . nor anomls line-ends (@ cpy frm Pages file - now dletd + rinsertd) . . unsportd edtr (x null ref)? - try prvidng sm dumy dtls (no betr), then savng & see’g how saved file rendrs . .

“If the article you want to use the reference in does not have a reference section at its end yet, please paste that in too:”

References

or

References

Haywood

Working out how to cite a reference in Practical Boat Owner’s nautical glossary – https://www.pbo.co.uk/nautical-almanac/glossary-of-nautical-terms/roove-rove-8586 (Glossary of Nautical Terms: roove / rove January 3, 2010).

The thing to go for seems to be

   https://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/ 

(originally reached from Help:External_links_and_references, found by a search for help on “cite reference”.) Treat that as creating a (sub-)template, copy the generated text to the article, and amend as appropriate. Simplest (though laborious) may be to copy all(!) the tag names into the tag fields, at that initial stage, so that the sub-template has everything in-place - and identifiable onscreen when rendered! - now done! Dec_2018

(Citation text as generated: )

Reflist:

A trouvaille (cf display-authors @w3):

References

Need to look at the articles on Nathaniel and Dionysius Lardner for hints / tips / tricks. Help:Footnotes looks pretty useful too!

( Citation-templets seem to work OK in running copy (not just in <>Refs) - Non, A (2019). The Development of the Swiss Navy, 1949-1999. )

Book

Book reference - go to edit mode for a code schema derived from the citation tool.

Journal

Journal reference - go to edit mode for a code schema derived from the citation tool.

W3

W3 reference - go to edit mode for a code schema derived from the citation tool.

Yeracshl Main Heading - L0, as in "Editing..sandbox"

Equals-sign x1: titling seriffed above measure-rule

Section Heading (ie L1: eg "Preview")

.. x2: semi-titling seriffed above measure-rule

Subheading (L2)

.. x3: bold oversize sans spaced above + below

Subsubheading (L3)

.. x4: bold body (sans) spaced above + below

Subsubheading *LL4,5

ie x5,x6: as L3

*L5

though of course ital is available (see below, Markups).

Note that any =s beyond six are treated as part of the heading not as designating a further depth. Note also it's no good splitting the =s into groups of 3 for readability: the effect is, again, that =s appear in the heading itself, which renders as a (L2) Subheading.

Crossheads Set double blank line above, + mark up (see below) as bold ital. (Is there any way of achieving extra spacing?)

As ital only for a sublevel:

Body-copy Note that multiple spacing is singled down. And single line-breaks are omitted (if the effect is required, there's a <>-code, br; available on the Advanced menu) - so presumably consecutive points, in (eg) topic-comment form, can be held in a (two-)column format while rendering as running copy!

Markups (This should be a table!!)

Single spark	'	single quotes	'Oculi omnium'
Double		ital	in te respiciunt,
Triple		bold	Domine.
x4		bold, quoted	'Tu das escam'	Note sparks must be grouped, with a space, as x3 + x1, rather than as x4 - or the quotes render unbalanced!
x5		bold ital	illis	Grouping, as x3 + x2 rather than x5, supports copy legibility / maintainability - but can insert white space before following punctuation!
x6	' '	bold ital, quoted	'tempore opportuno.'	As with x4, above, sparks must be grouped for quotes to render balanced. } Single-spark: single quotes ('Oculi omnium') Double: ital (in te respiciunt,) Triple: bold (Domine.) x4: bold, quoted ( 'Tu das escam' ) Note sparks must be grouped, with a space, as x3 + x1, rather than as x4 - or the quotes render unbalanced! x5: bold ital (illis) Grouping, as x3 + x2 rather than x5, supports copy legibility / maintainability - but can insert white space before following punctuation! x6: bold ital, quoted ( 'tempore opportuno.' ) As with x4, above, sparks must be grouped for quotes to render balanced. Cosmographia[e Introductio] mends Links t Introductio - plac'g / flu'cy: . . chkout guidell - via my talk:p: MoS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking; lede-stuff? rvw/scope goferit "Noob's progress" Aims-&-stages Observations 2099 MONTH Tub-00 aim or stage or subgoal or whatever observation - astute remark - astutely x-ref'd (see below) - or just remark - natch Wub-32 and again and/or whatever observation (see above) - as ever Dud-33 simples (so no comment) mid stage or aim observation - again ?good places to link to Noob's Progress - notes current 12-July-'12 .. not now fully clear whether I meant links to put in th log, to other locations, or vice-versa. It's probably sensible now, instead, to do anything of that kind as part of a retrospect / review process. / Jan_'17 User talk:‎Lo2u - re King's College School, Cambridge‎ / User:Kitty101423 Tue-19-June et post esp Sat-23-June to Talk:King's College School, Cambridge‎ (linked Sun-8-July-'12) potential mention of log "reappearance" desirable Wikipedia:Help Project per talk-p 14-June; cf also Thu-10-May, Fri-1-June (? & c my Alt-y ctribs) to - Peter Coombe's talk-p - Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project (linked Sun-8-July-'12) no mention of logs etc "reappearance" desirable User talk:Strebe - re Waldseemuller map cf late-Apr-'12 (linked Sat-14-July-'12) no mention of logs etc "reappearance" desirable User_talk:Paolo.dL - re horror story Thu-21, Fri-22 to User_talk:Paolo.dL#Documenting_what_a_newcomer_perceives + User_talk:Paolo.dL#And_justice_for_all_... (see Note) worth a mention (no original "appearance"!) User talk:Kitty101423 - re my status, *for *mediator role Thu-7-June to User talk:Kitty101423#June 2012 no mention "reappearance" ?desirable [[User [talk]:Dougweller]] - re WP:SYN &c Sat-9-June no clear location no mention "reappearance": maybe worthwhile? Note User_talk:Paolo.dL: I'm wanting to contribute the log (a) as another example at User_talk:Paolo.dL#Documenting_what_a_newcomer_perceives, and (b) as showing how the alternative approach (to WP:BOLD) works in practice (so to User_talk:Paolo.dL#And_justice_for_all_..., and specifically Scrawlspacer's " Wikipedia is . . a different country [and] one should approach it with some humility"; and to User_talk:Paolo.dL#Conclusion:_our_dreams ("as I said .., you needed to slow down"): the antithesis of WP:BOLD!) As regards (b), the points are possibly idiosyncratic reason for the alternative approach (ie re collegial-workplace ideas) resulting lags (from first-contact mid-'09) to . . (a) first contribution 25-June-'10 c.12mths (b) first welcome 9-Feb-'12 c.31mths (c) awareness of WP:OR / WP:RS 15-Apr-'12 c.33mths (d) awareness of responsive help/support 1-June-'12 c.35mths last milestone was only reached via backtracking (to compile this log)! re the remark ("arguing that everyone else does the same") about sheep Where to say all this: milestone table: Headnote to the log Section Oculi omnium in te respiciunt, Domine. Tu das escamillis tempore opportuno. Aperis manum tuam et imples omne animal benedictione tua. Benedicas nobis, Deus, quae de tua beneficentia accepturi simus. Per Iesum Christum, Dominum nostrum. Yeracshl Main Heading - L0, as in "Editing User:SquisherDa/sandbox" Equals-sign x1: titling-size sans, above rule-to-margins with vertical spacing x2 Section Heading (ie L1: eg "Preview") .. x2: semi-titling sans, above rule-to-margins with vertical spacing x2 Subheading (L2) .. x3: bold large sans with vertical spacing x2 Subsubheading (L3) .. x4: finest standard level; bold oversize sans with vertical spacing x2 body-size subheading *L4 ie x5: not a standard heading-level; bold copy-size sans with vertical spacing x2 (?)X-height *L5 x6 - and that's it .. any =s beyond six are treated as part of the (x-height) heading not as designating a further depth. And note it's no good splitting the =s into groups of 3 for readability: the effect is, again, that =s appear in the heading itself, which is presented as a (L2) Subheading. Body-copy Note that multiple spacing is singled down. And single line-breaks are omitted (if the effect is required, there's a <>-code, br; available on the Advanced menu) - so presumably consecutive points, in (eg) topic-comment form, can be held in a (two-)column format while presenting as running copy! Markups: Single-spark: single quotes ('Oculi omnium') Double: ital (in te respiciunt,) Triple: bold (Domine.) x4: bold, quoted ('Tu das escamillis') Note sparks can be grouped, with a space, as x3 + x1, rather than as x4. x5: bold ital (tempore opportuno.) Note: or, again, x3 + x2 rather than x5. x6: bold ital, quoted ( 'Aperis manum tuam') Note: or x3 + x2 + x1. Cosmographia[e Introductio] mends Links t Introductio - plac'g / flu'cy: . . chkout guidell - via my talk:p: MoS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking; lede-stuff? rvw/scope goferit "Noob's progress" Aims-&-stages Observations 2099 MONTH Tub-00 aim or stage or subgoal or whatever observation - astute remark - astutely x-ref'd (see below) - or just remark - natch Wub-32 and again and/or whatever observation (see above) - as ever Dud-33 simples (so no comment) mid stage or aim observation - again ?good places to link to Noob's Progress: User talk:‎Lo2u - re King's College School, Cambridge‎ / User:Kitty101423 Tue-19-June et post esp Sat-23-June to Talk:King's College School, Cambridge‎ (linked Sun-8-July-'12) potential mention of log "reappearance" desirable Wikipedia:Help Project per talk-p 14-June; cf also Thu-10-May, Fri-1-June (? & c my Alt-y ctribs) to - Peter Coombe's talk-p - Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project (linked Sun-8-July-'12) no mention of logs etc "reappearance" desirable User talk:Strebe - re Waldseemuller map cf late-Apr-'12 (linked Sat-14-July-'12) no mention of logs etc "reappearance" desirable User_talk:Paolo.dL - re horror story Thu-21, Fri-22 to User_talk:Paolo.dL#Documenting_what_a_newcomer_perceives + User_talk:Paolo.dL#And_justice_for_all_... (see Note) worth a mention (no original "appearance"!) User talk:Kitty101423 - re my status, *for *mediator role Thu-7-June to User talk:Kitty101423#June 2012 no mention "reappearance" ?desirable [[User [talk]:Dougweller]] - re WP:SYN &c Sat-9-June no clear location no mention "reappearance": maybe worthwhile? Note User_talk:Paolo.dL: I'm wanting to contribute the log (a) as another example at User_talk:Paolo.dL#Documenting_what_a_newcomer_perceives, and (b) as showing how the alternative approach (to WP:BOLD) works in practice (so to User_talk:Paolo.dL#And_justice_for_all_..., and specifically Scrawlspacer's " Wikipedia is . . a different country [and] one should approach it with some humility"; and to User_talk:Paolo.dL#Conclusion:_our_dreams ("as I said .., you needed to slow down"): the antithesis of WP:BOLD!) As regards (b), the points are possibly idiosyncratic reason for the alternative approach (ie re collegial-workplace ideas) resulting lags (from first-contact mid-'09) to . . (a) first contribution 25-June-'10 c.12mths (b) first welcome 9-Feb-'12 c.31mths (c) awareness of WP:OR / WP:RS 15-Apr-'12 c.33mths (d) awareness of responsive help/support 1-June-'12 c.35mths last milestone was only reached via backtracking (to compile this log)! re the remark ("arguing that everyone else does the same") about sheep Where to say all this: milestone table: Headnote to the log Section (findable; close to the supporting data - but not muddled in with it) links within talk-p (to User_talk:Paolo.dL#Documenting what a newcomer perceives, User_talk:Paolo.dL#And justice for all ... / Scrawlspacer re "Wikipedia [as] . . a different country", and User_talk:Paolo.dL#Conclusion: our dreams): indented x-refs to new Section re sheep: Observation within log X-ref from the admin's talk-p to the new Section is probably called-for too. New Noob's Reactions - five years on It's possible that in the five years since this story unfolded, all of this has been dealt with, the admin involved has acknowledged the temporary loss of appropriate humility, fellow admins have recognised that they should have intervened, the parties directly concerned have exchanged compliments, everyone has moved on and nothing like this would happen again. But if so, shouldn't someone have said so? on this talk-page? And if not, alongside User:Paolo.dL's focus on a defect in the Wikinterface, what I'm seeing as a Noob is something rather different. I'm seeing that unBite is no longer in effective operation. The admin's direction "you need to slow down" is in flat opposition to WP:unBite. And Scrawlspacer's remark that "Wikipedia [is] . . a different country" – and no-one has since challenged this – illustrates how generally WP:unBite has been abandoned, left behind and forgotten. The admin's remark about sheep, supporting his dismissal of User:Paolo.dL's comments as "wildly exaggerated", highlights this. The remark itself is the silliest thing I can recall reading. ("Everyone"'s experience with an interface facility must be the basis for assessing its fitness-for-purpose. There is no other.) Its absurdity is so clear-cut that even very slight reluctance in dismissing the new contributor, the slightest urge to re-think, would have made this absurdity prominent. What's so unfortunate, and is highlighted by this, is that this administrator felt no such hesitation. And that fellow administrators didn't feel themselves shocked into objecting. The key point about a Wiki is that it is not a foreign country. It is approachable. It is a place where strangers can meet and readily cooperate productively. At present and perhaps temporarily, that aspiration for Wikipedia has evidently faded out. Talk:San Serriffe Fictional Very funny! This is totally fictional - the part about ocean islands moving(!) is a giveaway. I suspect there's a good story behind the The Guardian reporting this as if it were real - somebody lost a bet? Say the name out loud, comes out as sans serif... Stan 14:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) I submit that this is actually worth of an article. The original hoax is a very famous one. I'll make a stub and see what people think. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) Your word "hoax" seems to admirably indicate where it should be located. Moriori 19:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) Actually, I think my original version does rather better than the current purely factual stub: it (a) makes it perfectly clear that it is a hoax (b) gives proper references to the source (and to some of the secondary literature that has developed around it) (c) gives some idea of the flavour of the original (d) is funny. So I'm going to revert to it. seglea 21:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) April fool We're on dangerous ground here. Actually I quite like the idea of having a little April Fool article in Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that if we leave it everybody and his dog will use it as an excuse to add anything to WP claiming "it's an April Fool". What's the criterian for adding stuff here? Does it have to be stuff that the Guardian published in the original, or does anything go? What do others think? DJ Clayworth 21:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) There's certainly a place for famous April Fool's jokes (no list of hoaxes that includes kremvax, Piltdown Man, etc?), but being fundamentally a dry factual source that sucks the humor out of everything, Wikipedia mustn't present any hoax as if it were real; people not familiar with English, geography, etc, could easily take this as real, tell friends about it, then get humiliated and hate Wikipedia for being misleading. I think a good compromise would be to lead with "is a hoax", then have the body describe in detail. Many of the Tolkien articles do this; see Thangorodrim for instance, which first says "is fictional", then describes it as if it were real, but also shifts to meta-comments to talk about how it was composed. For San Serriffe, non-English speakers will appreciate explanations of what the names are making fun of ("Lower Caise" -> "lower case", etc). In general, the bar should be pretty high for "famous" hoaxes, but size of audience seems like a useful guide - say, at least 10,000 people must have seen it or heard about it. Stan 22:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) I'll make a start on it Dysprosia 22:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) Sorry to be a downer, but I don't think this (well-written, funny) article actually belongs in the encyclopedia. Considering that 1) the place is fictional, 2) it's not a particularly famous fictional place (only referenced in one hoax article), and 3) it's flirting with copyright violation (not much commentary, mostly a recapitulation of the article content), I'd think it should probably be moved to the San Serriffe hoax, and reduced to maybe one paragraph (describe the hoax, give some highlights, describe reaction, link to article). There's not much information on how the hoax was accepted, either. I guess I'm just thinking: the original was funny, and this article is mostly worthwhile because it rips off the original. Why, then, should we have this article? --ESP 22:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) Recent revision now makes this an article about the hoax, which includes a description of the fictional nation as a sidebar. I vote to keep this article, as a prime example of "how to incorporate" stuff like thise. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC) As the resident party pooper, I have to point out that the material needs to be better integrated. "Fictional material follows" is not an acceptable solution.—Eloquence 21:01, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC) I'm inclined to disagree — I think this article should stay. The hoax is reprised to some extent in most April Fool's Day editions of The Guardian and is somewhat renowned amongst regular readers. — OwenBlacker 00:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) As a Reichstag climbing patroller, I feel it's my moral duty to ensure that no one is thinking about Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to prove their point, in clear violation of the official policy explained elaborately at WP:NCR. This article is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Just because some people may have a poor sense of humor, which may cause them to feel an urge to climb the Reichstag to prove their point, it is certainly not allowed at all on Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. --Puellanivis 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Alternative name San Serriffe is an island nation, also known as Hoaxe... The last bit I suppose is itself an attempted hoax. Unless anyone can source it? Flapdragon 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Still no source for the assertion that the island is also known as Hoaxe. Unlikely. It would hardly be a very subtle joke and no typographical pun that I can see. Have removed. Flapdragon (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Style The article is primariliy written in an in-universe style. I would add the template thingy, but i'm a wikinoob --Gigitrix (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC) A pity that no mention is made of just how clever the whole supplement was. Famous brands were persuaded to take out advertising space including Guinness who touted the locally brewed version of their drink which had a white body and a black hesd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.48.20 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Adze? How is "Adze" a synonym for "Latin Alphabet" to which it links? Other than being made up of letters, but then again all the words are. If that is correct, it at least needs some explanation from someone who gets the joke. Długosz (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Read it as such: "A D Z E," starting slowly and progressing more quickly... it becomes "A to Z" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.249.201.3 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Criticism of this entry is entirely silly The Guardian once came up with brilliant joke, I am an American, not from the north east or California, and I don't understand it. Therefore it should be removed from the 'pedia. For ***'s sake educate yourself. It's what the 'pedia's for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.43.248 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Do you have a point? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Drift? The nation is reportly drifting in the Indian Ocean from left to right, but other sentences make it clear that a lot of the population are Arabs. Wouldn't THEIR part of the country drift from right to left? Can wikipedia send one of its many teams of surveyors to the islands to get the truth of this?69.86.126.190 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson