User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 38
 | This page 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. |
Cite ODNB
In this edit you state "remove the specialized ODNB template - I do not prefer it" why do you not prefer it? -- PBS (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Because I actually dislike the idea of specialized templates for everything - cite encyclopedia works fine for the ODNB and allows for doi's also. It's easier to remember a few general templates for citations than to have a specialized template for a bunch of different works. It's also less confusing to newbie editors if they aren't confronted with a bunch of different types of templates that don't obviously relate to each other - it's not that difficult to see what "cite encyclopedia" means, but the specialized templates are more difficult to understand if you don't know what they are. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- No one is asking anyone to remember any templates or a requirement to use them. The logic you present here suggests that you would support a change to using the
{{citation}}template as then there is only one template for people to remember. The{{ODNB}}template contains features that are useful for people working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, so removing this template is not helpful and I think that its use for project development and maintenance more than outweighs any theoretical confusion that may or may not be cause to an inexperienced editor who come across it (after all the output of the template -- like just like that of {{cite encyclopaedia}} - is self evident). -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)- If you change the template .. it also changes the output - the template is different than the output generated by the cite encyclopedia output. The project can use other means to track pages - you know that changing citation formats is frowned upon. I haven't gone and changed all your changes ... just on articles which I am actively maintaining - where I have done much of the work to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Cite ODNB}}is a wrapper around{{cite encyclopaedia}}so it does not change the output in any way.- "The project can use other means to track pages" -- such as?
- "you know that changing citation formats is frowned upon" no I do not know that change formats is frowned upon as WP:CITEVAR mentions "citation style" (which is defined in the preceding section) not formats. If changing formats is found upon where is this mentioned in the guidelines?
- -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Try tracking using the
{{ODNBsub}}template - which I use. And the Cite DNB doesn't allow easy use of dois - thus the style does change - when I use cite encyclopedia the title of the article is linked, your usage of cite dnb does not link the title, which I like. And I do think it's easier for newbie editors to understand cite encyclopedia than a specialized template designed for one source. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)- "Cite DNB doesn't allow easy use of dois - thus the style does change" what is "dois"? -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- DOIs, I suppose I should have written. Digital Object Identifier - it's a way to to identify specific electronic articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that is what you meant, but it is quite the opposite {{tlx|Cite ODNB relies on the unique doi number for its id and it displays the doi as the link to the article. It can of course also use the url= parameter as well or in place of the id=parameter , but that has the disadvantages I mentioned above. I find it baffling that you suggest that a new editor should learn to use {{cite encyclopedia}} coupled with
{{ODNBsub}}rather than {{Cite ODNB}} that combines the two and fill in many of the fields automatically, particularly now that I have pointed out to you that{{Cite ODNB}}uses exactly the same format as{{Cite encyclopedia}}-- PBS (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Cite DNB doesn't allow easy use of dois - thus the style does change" what is "dois"? -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Try tracking using the
- If you change the template .. it also changes the output - the template is different than the output generated by the cite encyclopedia output. The project can use other means to track pages - you know that changing citation formats is frowned upon. I haven't gone and changed all your changes ... just on articles which I am actively maintaining - where I have done much of the work to improve the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- No one is asking anyone to remember any templates or a requirement to use them. The logic you present here suggests that you would support a change to using the
- Look at the diff you gave above, and the edit right before it. Cite ODNB gives "Keefe, Thomas K. (2004). "Cressy, Hugh de (d. 1189)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/57614. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)" with the link to the article on the doi. The format that was previously in the article gives "Keefe, Thomas K. (2004). "Cressy, Hugh de (d. 1189)" ((subscription or UK public library membership required)). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/57614. Retrieved 19 March 2013." with a link not only on the doi but also on the article title. It does change the format - quite a bit - because the retrieval date is also missing. I get it that you like the specialized templates. The point I'm making about new editors is that they only need to learn one template for encylopedia type sources - cite encyclopedia. You would have them learn cite encyclopedia as well as the various specialized templates for each encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you want a retrieval date it can add, but as the ODNB keeps an archive version of any changes they make and redate their article the accessdate parameter is no more needed than on a paper edition. As I said the template is a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}} if you want to add the extra fields then if they are common ones they already exist and if they are not they just ask for them to be added. No one has to use the template if they do not wish to (they don't ever have to use {{cite encyclopedia}}} if they do not wish to), but that is not the same as preventing others using it. As a compromise in this instance we could add the url parameter to the template {{Cite ODNB}} so that there is a link under the title field and add the accessdate parameter. That way the only difference are the inclusion of an edition, and the move of the subscription to the end, but the hidden category will be included on the page so that the page appears in the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the ODNB. -- PBS (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the diff you gave above, and the edit right before it. Cite ODNB gives "Keefe, Thomas K. (2004). "Cressy, Hugh de (d. 1189)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/57614. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)" with the link to the article on the doi. The format that was previously in the article gives "Keefe, Thomas K. (2004). "Cressy, Hugh de (d. 1189)" ((subscription or UK public library membership required)). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/57614. Retrieved 19 March 2013." with a link not only on the doi but also on the article title. It does change the format - quite a bit - because the retrieval date is also missing. I get it that you like the specialized templates. The point I'm making about new editors is that they only need to learn one template for encylopedia type sources - cite encyclopedia. You would have them learn cite encyclopedia as well as the various specialized templates for each encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- If no one has to use the template, then it's not required, and you cannot force other editors to use it. I wasn't aware that using categories in that manner on the article pages was considered good form - to track projects. Usually, projects are traced on article talk pages. I've also suggested a work around - use the ODNBsub template to also track things. I do not agree with this compromise - it doesn't alleviate my objections to the use of a specialized template when the general template works just fine and even allows more flexibility. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, PBS, Ealdgyth asked me to comment here. WP:CITEVAR asks that editors not change the way citations are written over objections, if the article already has an established way of presenting them. (The style-versus-format argument has never gained consensus on WT:CITE.)
The difference I noticed between the ODNB and the previous template is that the ODNB one doesn't show the URL in edit mode, so if you were checking sources you would have to come out of edit mode to find the article (though I don't know whether that's one of the reasons Ealdgyth objects). I noticed recently that someone was changing archive.org links to a new template that caused the same problem. If someone objects to a change like this, the previous format really ought to be left. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- SV as I already know you opinions on citation templates (and you know mine) -- there is little point in you commenting here, and no point in me conversing with you on the subject (of course if you would like to hear my views on what you have written here I will be happy to reply in detail). -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't just my opinion, PBS; the whole point of CITEVAR is to avoid these discussions. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with SV here, changing the templates is changing the style and shouldn't be done without discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I said SV I know your opinions on this and you ought to know mine by mow. When the original wording of CITEVAR was originally introduced, it was done to stop changes between the use of in inline brackets citations to footnotes hence the wording about changes in style. It was never intended for it to be used as a block on changes in format. That you and some others use it for that does not mean that you are correct or that is the consensus for you views. Indeed one can argue that it is because of people misusing CITEVAR that discussions like this take place.
- Besides if you have read the conversation above we are not even talking bout a change in format. -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with SV here, changing the templates is changing the style and shouldn't be done without discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't just my opinion, PBS; the whole point of CITEVAR is to avoid these discussions. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Geoffrey, Archibishop of York
Please see the new section, "Burial Site," on the article's talk page, and help if you can. Thanks. Iamvered (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Geoffrey was the son of Henry II. Henry II's ancestors would be Geoffrey's. For you to remove the edit and say it is unsourced is ridiculous. I recommend you learn your history before editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.129.102 (talk • contribs)
- Um. Since I wrote most of hte article - yes, I know the history. It's still unsourced. And by WP:BRD, when an additon is reverted, you don't edit war it back in. You discuss, on the article talk page (not my page). Take the discussion there, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you wrote the article? That means you are the only person in the world who knows the history? You think only you had the capability to make a page for Geoffrey? It is not unsourced. People will look up Henry II, see his ancestors and will know his ancestors are Geoffrey's ancestors, so, no - it's not unsourced. He was Henry II's son and regardless of his illegitimate status, he has the same ancestors. It's common sense, sourced, and referenced. I posted on your page because it's an issue with you - not people who read the article or make genuine edits to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.216.213 (talk • contribs)
WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer 
Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist 
Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. 
Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
SG for Gilbert Foliot
 | On 3 April 2014, Schon gewusst? was updated with a fact from the translation of the article Gilbert Foliot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was: Gilbert Foliot, Bischof von London, wurde von Thomas Becket als „der Wolf im Schafspelz“ bezeichnet und exkommuniziert. (Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London, was named "that wolf in sheep's clothing" and excommunicated by Thomas Becket.) You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (quick check). |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup error
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Wilfrid
This is a note to let the main editors of Wilfrid know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 24, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Wilfrid (c. 633 – c. 709) was an English bishop. The abbot of a monastery at Ripon, he advocated the Roman method for calculating the date of Easter at the Synod of Whitby in 664 and was appointed Bishop of Northumbria as a result. After Wilfrid quarrelled with Ecgfrith, the Northumbrian king, Theodore of Tarsus (the Archbishop of Canterbury) then implemented some reforms in the diocese without Wilfrid's agreement. Pope Agatho ruled in Wilfrid's favour, but Ecgfrith instead imprisoned Wilfrid before exiling him. Ecgfirth's successor allowed Wilfrid to return, but later expelled him. Wilfrid again appealed to Rome, and regained possession of his Northumbrian monasteries. After Wilfrid's death, he was venerated as a saint. His followers commissioned a Life of Wilfrid, and the medieval historian Bede also wrote extensively about him. Wilfrid lived ostentatiously and claimed to be the first Englishman to introduce the Rule of Saint Benedict into English monasteries. Some modern historians see him as a champion of Roman customs against those of the British and Irish churches, others as an advocate for monasticism. (Full article...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that image isn't in the article, but I'm not exactly spoilt for choice with Wilfrid images in the article, am I?1 Sometimes I just have to find something from elsewhere to use in a TFA blurb - after all, if I don't, someone else always comes along and adds something anyway. File:Wilfrid.jpg is about the only alternative, and it's not as good as your Chichester image (smaller size, worse colours). Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 00:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Run the lead image. Better a reasonably close in time manuscript image than a misleading (but pretty) Victorian-era image. Or run the image of the vault. People need to learn that we do not have contemporary images for this period of time and thus they will not get a figurative image ... it just doesn't happen. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, as it's you... BencherliteTalk 00:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Run the lead image. Better a reasonably close in time manuscript image than a misleading (but pretty) Victorian-era image. Or run the image of the vault. People need to learn that we do not have contemporary images for this period of time and thus they will not get a figurative image ... it just doesn't happen. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Map of Varangian trade routes
Hi,
What would be appropriate sourcing for File:Varangian routes.png? I have here a copy of Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. (1981). Spectrum-Times Atlas van de Wereldgeschiedenis (in Dutch). {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) On page 114–115, this atlas shows a part of this region with a subset of the routes. Would that suffice? (I'll add it anyway, with an appropriate note.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- As long as it shows all the routes, that would be fine. You can check out the other maps on the article to see other examples. Maps especially need to be sourced to avoid problems of OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would be acceptable to have two or three sources, if you need to do that to get all the trade routes in. I didn't see anything on the map that looked wrong to my knowledge, it just was unsourced. This is a problem with a lot of the maps on Commons, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Extra set of eyes
Well, nothing like doing a 5x sourced expansion of an article and getting my ears smoked: [1] Humbly requesting your horse-expert self to keep an eye on this article and to review my work on it. Just put it up for GAN, so given that the article creator is apparently quite pissed about the changes (note the changes: [2] ) I'm feeling that more help or at least eyes and peer review here would be appreciated. Also check your email. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can't promise much ... mucho busy in real life here. Garden is taking a good bit of my time, busy with gaming work, trying to find time to do photography (luckily the pistol league wrapped up last week - son came in 3rd over 22 shooters and I came in 7th), and I've got the usual mess at Talk:Middle Ages for what little time I've got for wiki stuff. I'm not going to get any points this round in the Wikicup - I just haven't had the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Kronan (ship) at FAC
Sail ho, matey!
You're invited to comment on the FAC of the article on Kronan (ship).
Peter Isotalo 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Edward II...
Right, Edward II has been extended out in a first draft - the bit I found hardest was his relationship to the Church, and any ideas you might have for decent academic studies on this aspect of his reign would be welcomed...! Matilda is inching her way through the review process, so will need to start to think about which one to tackle next. I'm torn between working on Edward I and getting him up above GA (the article's not in bad shape at the moment) or buckling down and doing some work on Richard I (some TLC needed in places)... Hope all's well with you. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Arkle
I have a slightly unusual request (also directed, to be honest, at the horse article TPSs who I know watch your talk page). I'm not knowledgeable about horses, and have no relevant resources, but I've long wanted to see the article on Arkle brought to a higher standard. I'd be willing to do anything that doesn't require specialist knowledge to help -- copyediting of course, and any research that can be done online. Arkle is generally regarded as the greatest British racehorse ever, and no doubt most Brits would assert he's the greatest ever. Brits who are old enough to recall Arkle racing often have fond memories of him, and it would be great to see his article make GA, or even FA. If anyone is interested in improving the article I would be glad to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)