User talk:TheJJJunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

He's watching youBathrobecabalicon.png


My your fast[edit]

With regards to my edit to History of St Neots My you are fast! I had made the save and gone to the bottom. Edited the References section only to find that when I went to save it Edit Clash! I think your script is useful but it would be more useful:

If a Reference section exists with no {{reflist}} then add the {{reflist}} to a new Notes section immediately before the References section, unless a Notes section already exists in which case call it Footnotes instead.

That would automate what I did with my last edit to History of St Neots.

@PBS If a ==References== section exists, the {{Reflist}} will always be placed in that section. ==Notes== sections (according to the current script) are reserved for textual notes, not sources. There is actually another function of ARA that adds a ==Notes== section and places a separate {{Reflist|group=}} template in that section.
"unless a Notes section already exists in which case call it Footnotes instead." So we potentially could have a multitude of references sections in a single article. "Notes", "Footnotes", and "References". I'd prefer to keep the number of sections to a minimum, if possible. — JJJ (say hello) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
See WP:APPENDIX, WP:CITESHORT and Help:Footnotes in neither of the guidelines or the help page are bullet pointed references and footnotes (generated thorough the use of ref..tag pairs and </references>) combined in one section. Basically this is because general references are as {{no footnotes}} explains not adequate as citations as defined by WP:V. So either the general references need moving into further reading, or if they are used as part of the citation as described in WP:CITESHORT, then a Notes section is going to be needed for {{reflist}}. As deciding whether to move selected general references out of a references section is a complicated issue to work out -- both as a programming problem, and more so as an editorial social issue -- the easiest programming solution is to put the {{reflist}} into the Notes section, because usually in mature articles with many repeated citations a separate notes section, containing a {{reflist}}, and references section exist, if for no other reason than to meet the WP:CITE guideline for a list of alphabetically sorted sources in the References section. -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@PBS Actually, WP:APPENDIX#Notes and references states that citations and general references can be in the same section. This is what I based the coding of ARA on in the first place.
"It is most common for only citation footnotes to be used, and therefore it is most common for only one section to be needed...If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated. There may therefore be one, two, three, or four sections in all."JJJ (say hello) 22:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
By citations it means the Long part of a short citation (which thanks to WhatamIdoing and SV) are defined differently from a general references (a general reference suddenly changes from a general reference into a citation as soon as it is cited inline -- without the actual information in the bullet point changing one jot). But what it means by "General references and other full citations" are bullet pointed citations not ones generated by ref..tags and </references> (or the template wrappers place around it). -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@PBS Ahh, I see. Thanks. — JJJ (say hello) 22:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that is the simplest way to interpret the green quote, or else one is faced with two different scenarios for a {{reflist}} because as soon as someone adds a footnote as a short citation -- suddenly the {{reflist}} would not consist of only "long citations" and would have to be moved! The truth is the whole area of citations is a mares nest, as the old Irish country saying goes when asked for direction which involved a complicated directions "If I was going there, I wouldn't start out from here", but we are here and altering it is a lot of trouble, particularly as there are a lot of experienced influential editors who don't understand citation templates, but tend to give other reasons for not using them and resist any change that might make their use more common.
BTW, I saw a page the other day that used "#" instead of "*" at the start of the lines in a general references section, I was baffled before I edited the page as to why I could see what looked like a {{reflist}} of citations but could not see the corresponding numbers in the body of the text! Now that is one that is not in your list of possible errors but then againt it is is not a common one :-) TTFN -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@PBS Haha, I added that one to the list! And thanks for the help and advice! — JJJ (say hello) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW there is really no reason to separate out {{notelist}}(s) and {{reflist}} into different sections as the lists display differently. As an aesthetic point, simply adding a columns parameter to {{reflist}} has all the of visual impact that is necessary for the eye to see the difference imminently (although some like to put Footnote and Citation as bold text on separate lines to make the difference even more obvious. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And secondly:

if it adds a {{reflist}} and a {{no footnotes}} is present alter it to {{more footnotes|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} }}, or if {{unreferenced}} is present alter it to {{refimprove|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}.
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress. I'll look into this.JJJ (say hello) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
yellow tickY Half done @PBS I added a function to the script to remove the tags if <ref> tags and the {{reflist}} template is present, but it won't add {{refimprove}} because not all articles need more references. That/(those) added citations could have completely verified all statements in the (especially if a small) article. — JJJ (say hello) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you point and it is a valid one, but I think removing it all together will annoy more editors than it pleases. Most editors won't care, but if the template was added recently, the editor who added it may still watch the page and will care if his/her carefully paced template is removed because just one inline citation has been added to a page that needs dozen). So I think that you should leave it to a human to decide if the template should be removed. After all whoever made the edit you are fixing did not bother to do so. -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That is why it is a separate function (which is the user's choice to activate), to be titled possible outdated template and the description will be References are present on the page. Factually, "unreferenced" does not apply. Or something of that nature. Because the article is no longer unreferenced, so it should not have an unreferenced tag. If the editor who placed the tag (or the user of ARA) thinks there should be more references, they can add the more footnotes tag. — JJJ (say hello) 23:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. — JJJ (say hello) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, as I wrote above I think your took is useful and all I am suggesting a few changes. BTW another script I find useful is User:Ucucha/HarvErrors if you have not seen it you might find its output interesting when viewing pages with a lot of short citations. --PBS (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for working on (arguably) the most important part of the project! -- Wywin (talk | contribs) 20:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
@Wywin: Thanks! Face-smile.svgTheJJJunk (say hello) 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Con-er[edit]

Perhaps even more obvious was that there were no Olympic Games in 1946. They only occur in years where the last two digits are 00 or are divisible by four... Peridon (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Peridon: Ahh.. That's what I thought, but didn't know for sure. — TheJJJunk (say hello) 18:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive[edit]

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)