User talk:Cuprum17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I'll reply to your message here.
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of 1 December 2015.

I am devoting more of my free time to other pursuits; i.e. a complete body-off-frame restoration to showroom condition of my 1946 Willys CJ-2A Jeep. When I am finished, I will have felt like I really accomplished something. I have owned it for the last fifty years and both the Jeep and I have learned something from each other.

I will try to check in here at least once a day just in case there is something that needs my attention.

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for cleaning-up my spelling blunders. I hope you had a good holiday season and all is well in your part of the world. Pendright (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pendright: Anything to keep the Good Article...good. We could used a little rain or snow but all is well. Hope you are well. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As a courtesy to other contributors could we explain complicated or controversial edits on the talk page -- not in our edit summaries?[edit]

I made a series of edits to Bernard C. Webber, which you reverted, providing your only explanation in your edit summary. You didn't provide a meaningful or substantive explanation -- you used the default explanation.

You may not know this, but most contributors reserve this default explanation for reverting instances of obvious vandalism. Did you intend me to understand you regarded my edits as instances of vandalism?

Normally when there is an URL for a reference, we place it within the reference itself -- not in a "references used" section. I have no problem using non-standard section. But shouldn't the explanation for using non-standard sections go on the talk page?

I think we can both agree that your reversion of these three edits looks reckless -- like you didn't take a close look at what you were reverting. If that is what happened, could you please be more careful?

After adding new material to the article I noticed many references in the article that were without URLs. As I wrote above, if there is a URL for a reference, we normally include the URL right in the ref. I didn't notice {{cite}} templates for them, buried in a non-standard "references used" section, at first.

Even if, for the sake of argument, placing the references in the right place was not a valid edit, you overlooked that I filled out the archiveurl field. No offense, but overlooking the work I put into filling out the valuable archiveurl field also gives the appearance of reckless disregard.

I encourage you to think about how much effort other contributors are making, and not make reversions without making an attempt to explain the reasoning behind your edit. If you don't understand an edit I strongly encourage you to talk to them about the edit, rather than simply reverting their edits, without any explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I reverted your edits because they changed the established citation style in the article. See WP:CITEVAR. In retrospect, I should have been more specific in my edit summary as a courtesy to you, and I regret that I didn't provide more insight into my reason for reverting your edits. I spent considerable time putting the Notes section of the article in order several months ago from a mish-mash of bare URLs, dead links, and meaningless gibberish. This effort on my part established a citation style for the article. It may not be the optimal style, but it was established with my editing efforts. To change that style without discussing it on the article talk page only results in confusion and an article which ends up with two or more separate styles of citations. If you wish to include new information in this article or have additional reference materials covering points brought up in the article, you are certainly within your rights as an established editor to include them in the makeup of the article. If you are interested in changing the established citation style of the article then by all means discuss your reasoning on the article talk page. If you feel we can work together to improve the article with additional cited material, I would be more than happy to discuss any collaboration. I am occupied with real life situations much of the time, but I can always take some time for helping with this or any other U.S. Coast Guard related article. I patrol most of them and regularly remove misinformation and vandalism. I have no objections to any improvement of the article or its supporting elements, my only objective is to present the material so that the reader may be educated about the subject and reference any supporting materials without confusion. I feel this is best done by following established citation styles in the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... WP:CITEVAR... The first several times another contributor cited CITEVAR, I concluded they were misinterpreting the term "citation style".
When I first started working on the wikipedia there was no {{cite}} template -- everyone used bare URLs, supplemented by an external links section. Around 2005 I noticed other contributors using a citation style that was far superior to bare URLs, which used a different set of templates than the {{cite}} templates. I stopped using them, when the {{cite}} templates came along. A very few articles currently on the wikipedia use "Harvard style" citations, and have a suite of templates to support that style.
The Harvard style templates, and the {{cite}} style templates are not mutually compatible. An article that includes references from both styles will have multiple and confusing lists of references. The two styles can't co-exist, in the same article. This is what I think CITEVAR is meant to address. For the purpose of CITEVAR, I think any reference that uses a {{cite}} template is considered the same style.
About three years ago I encountered a use of references where the definition of the reference was within the article's reference section. Now I always add new references there.
Like you, I feel free to rewrite bare URLs, and convert them to proper {{cite}} style references, because all experienced contributors recognize that the bare URL style is deprecated. When I do that I add the new reference to the reference section.
I always fill out new {{cite}} template with one value to a line -- as they are much easier to read and repair. I almost always leave existing template alone, as much as possible, when I fix them, or add new fields, because unnecessarily altering the line endings erodes the usefulness of the history mechanism.
Several well-meaning challengers, in different articles, challenged me adding {{cite}} templates to the end of the article, when all the earlier refs were defined in the body of the article. Well-meaning challengers rewrote references, putting all the fields on a single line.
The justified rewriting the references I wrote on CITEVAR, which I thought then, and continue to think, was due to a misunderstanding of the problem CITEVAR is meant to address -- namely the problems that arise when {{cite}} style references are mixed into an article that uses the rare Harvard style references.
Okay, you called upon CITEVAR, and I don't know whether your concern is that I used {{cite}} templates with one field per line. I don't know whether your concern is that I defined the {{cite}} templates within the reference section. If so, in my opinion, these would both be instances where CITEVAR doesn't apply. I've looked, wikipolicy and the more official guidelines, don't take a stand on whether {{cite}} templates should have one field per line, or all fields on one line. Defining {{cite}} templates within the reference section is completely compliant with how the {{cite}} template is supposed to be used.
You might think I wrote new instances of references you already wrote, as if I wasn't even recognizing the work you put into writing them. That might have seemed offensive. If that seemed offensive you have to recognize that your creation of a "references used" section is non-standard.
What I saw, after I added new information to the article, was that the body of the article contained references that frankly seemed broken. The first existing reference I tackled, the reference on the first line of the article, was:
<ref name=USCG1>"Bernard C. Webber, USCG, 1928-2009", Coast Guard Heroes, U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office</ref>
That seemed broken, to me; as broken as a bare URL. I went to the effort of finding the actual Coast Guard article whose title you used there, because it is important that references like that have the URL right in the reference which supports the paragraph where it is used. I went to the effort of finding the URLs for several other references, before I realized you had completed {{cite}} templates, but you had placed them in a non-standard place I hadn't looked.
Wikipedia articles have certain common sections. But "references used" is not one of them. I am sure lots of other people, maybe most other people, what want to follow the URLs to the source documents that support those paragraphs, wouldn't find them -- since they were in a non-standard place.
So, is there a reason you put them in a non-standard place, where other contributors are a lot less like to find them? Note: because you placed the real {{cite}} templates in a non-standard place I put in the effort to find the actual URLs, all over again. Wasted effort, but I didn't realize that. No offense, but I see that as a strong reason to regularize where those {{cite}} templates are placed. The standard places would be in the body of the article, or in the references section.
  • WRt the new information I added -- do you really have a reason it shouldn't be added?
  • Would you have allowed that new information to have been added, except that I put one field per line in my new {{cite}} templates I added?
  • I encourage you to consider converting to putting one field per line on new references, because: they are easier to debug; they are easier for you to read; they are easier for other people to read. And, if you place the definition for them in the reference section itself, they interfere even less than references defined where they are used.
I am going to assume you didn't offer a reason to discard the values I place for the archiveurl fields, because you don't actually have a reason for discarding those archiveurl fields. It might be you overlooked that I added valuable archiveurl fields. It might be that you don't understand why archiveurl fields are valuable.
I won't explain, in detail, why archiveurl fields are important, other than that sites sometimes reorganize their pages, without leaving redirection from their old URLs to the new locations of those pages; sites sometimes simply delete old pages; sometimes sites have a change of policy, and rewrite a page so it says something different than the points it made when we cited it. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Reread WP:CITEVAR. Established citation styles shouldn't be changed by follow-on editors. Wikipedia doesn't specify a particular citation style for any articles. Your preference for a particular style of citation is fine if you establish that style of citation for a particular article or you find an article to work on that already has your preferred style incorporated.
My choice of References used was to separate the actual reference materials used to write the article from the Citations that are used to call out page numbers, etc. The citation style I commonly use is using the authors name and a page number. If the reader needs to research further they only have to look to the References used section to find more information on where the citation was drawn from. I suppose this could be called the Bibliography section, if one was so inclined. I use this style because it does not appear cluttered to the reader and has the immediate information that might be needed for research. Most often this is the page number if they have the resource material at hand. I do see that this fails somewhat on internet sources that are available, but I have also successfully included them in articles I have written without appearing cluttered. See the article Coast Guard Squadron One to see how this works on a A Class article.
I find that my real life away from Wikipedia is urgently calling so I must close. I'm not sure we have come to an agreement on much. If you wish, I will revert my own edits on the article Bernard C. Webber and you can work to improve the content or citations as you see fit. Let me know. My goal is accuracy, clarity, and readability. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)