User talk:CorbieVreccan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Veteran Editor II
This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.
Partially Cloudy


This user wishes that they could leave Wikipedia, but doesn't seem able to do so...
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

UnderwoodKeyboard.jpg This user is old enough to remember what a typewriter is, and that's all you need to know.
Mulher com cesto e couves.jpg Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV.

CAGrave.jpg This user knows too many people who are dead.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The Signpost
23 June 2017

If you are new here, and feeling angry, please read Tips for the Angry New User before explaining to us how terribly wrong and messed up Wikipedia is. Would you believe, we probably already know? You can also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia culture via these policy links ->
and helpful essays ^^^

If you've been an admin for a while, and are feeling burnt out, take a step back and take some deep breaths, and don't forget to WP:CHILL

What's goin' on...[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]


News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

re Kindred Spirits (sculpture)[edit]

Um, excuse me, but here you removed the ref info from the ref section and peppered it into the article body, which makes the article much harder to read and edit in source mode. Please do not do this as I did that way on purpose and I had to clean it up. Are you are in the habit of doing this? I sure hope not. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Has there been some change to WP:MOS / WP:CITE in favor of putting all refs below then using short form in the body? Everyone I work with puts the first usage in full form and then uses the short form afterwards. What is your precedent or reason for prioritizing this form? - CorbieV 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's common sense because it makes the article easier to read and edit. It's supported by the |refs= field of the reflist template so I assume its allowable. Where in the rules does it say not to do that. There's a lot of rules here, but rather than getting into that explain in plain English how peppering the details of the refs up in the body of the text so that they are intermingled with the article text makes the article easier to read and edit or has some other benefit. (I use the old source editor; if peppering the ref details into the article text makes it easier to use the visual editor, I'm willing to be educated.)
If there's a rule somewhere that proscribes this, point it out and let's see if we can get it corrected (and if not, we should probably work to remove the support for the |refs=option of the reflist template). Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, at Wikipedia:Citing sources, under "Inline citations" subsection "Avoiding clutter" it says "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window... 2) Using list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template, and then inserting them in the text with <ref name="ABC" /> tags" which is just what I did. Herostratus (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


I saw you reverted my change here. That article is now linked three times in the template. Why does it need to appear any more than once, as sworn virgin? Its really annoying clicking on a link in a box only to be redirected back to an article you've already read. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's there once and is easy to find, I'm not attached. I didn't see the other linkage. Let me take another look. - CorbieV 16:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I've self-reverted. That template is difficult. Some of these articles don't fit neatly into these categories. I don't have an easy answer to this. I think I would make an "other" section in addition to the current "other" section, with a different title. Not sure what, though... - CorbieV 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

Ballet dancer Katharine Cook striking a pose, 1931 (29892825481).jpg
60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg
Women in Sarees.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging