User talk:DavidBrooks

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn (admiral)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn (admiral), DavidBrooks!

Wikipedia editor MB298 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Talk page will need to be created.

To reply, leave a comment on MB298's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Auto-curation was too quick; the talk page came a few seconds later :-) David Brooks (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Rounds and rations[edit]

I think that a bullet point is better because it gives guidance to an new editor on how to add another source to the references section. It also means that they are constant. However my main concern is not that which you have highlighted but (1) the placement of the {{reflist}} after the bullet citations (that include {{EB1911}} in the references section and (2) the lack of any {{reflist}} at all in some articles with a {{EB1911}} [[:entry in an article. I at the moment parsing the articles in the list created by your Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates.

I think that all the articles that contain a single sources should carry inline citations otherwise eventually we end up with expansion and it becomes more and more difficult to tell what parts of the text ought to be attributed and what parts carry no citations. So along with moving or adding {{reflist}} I am also adding {{no footnotes}} or some other similar template.

The complicated AWB script I am using will add a bullet point, and I am loath to take it out, because I use it in several different places in the script, however I will not be re-parsing this set in the near future, so if you do not like it in cases where {{EB1911}} is the only entry in a references section I will not be re-adding it.

There is one other situation where I do think it is much better to use a bullet point, that if there are endnotes copied from EB1911 then the entry looks best/clear as:

rather than

Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainChisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  endnotes:

  • book 1 (1902)
  • book 2 (1903)


Public Domain This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainChisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.  endnotes:

    • book 1 (1902)
    • book 2 (1903)

-- PBS (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


To unpack several things here (and number them for reference):

  1. I understand your point about the sub-bullets. I don't feel strongly, so will revert to your advice. Might even use AWB to fix mine.
  2. I never liked putting the standalone {{EB1911|...}} in a section called "References", when it is an unextended copy of EB1911, but I guess you can interpret it as a single footnote for the entire article. Some editors have invented a "Sources" section. I used to use the now deprecated Attribution sub-head, but no more. Any thoughts?
  3. In such cases, I think you tend to use a standalone {{EB1911|...}} at the end, with {{sfc|Chisholm|1911}} after each paragraph. I tend to use embedded <ref>{{EB1911|inline=1...}}</ref> markers for articles that contain non-EB1911 text. My main reasons are (a) it requires only a single hop to find the link to the source (b) I think we agreed a while back that if the source appears in a footnote it is not necessary to also include it standalone at the end. But maybe I was mistaken on (b).
  4. The problem with both approaches is that it doesn't make a distinction when some part of the paragraph has been extended with a small interpolation. If I find one (which requires close attention that I usually don't have time for) and it's unreferenced, I tend to add a {{citation needed}}. This may be obsessively detailed given the larger problems of attribution in WP, but I don't think it's wrong.
  5. As to the new category: its rationale is explained in the Category page. It seems to me that if an EB1911 copy hasn't been substantively edited in over ten years, it probably never will be, so I'm comfortable with a single attribution in the foot of the article and assuming that will be valid forever. David Brooks (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
ETA: 6. I see your moves of {{reflist}} from References to Notes. Good move; I think that's right but have been generally too lazy. Do you have a RE that automates that? David Brooks (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [edit clash]

  • 1)
  • 2) I have no problem with placing it in a references section. I do not use a bold attribution if it is the only source. But if there are more than I place the ones from which text is copied at the bottom and use the bold Attribution: line. I always include a ==Notes== section with {{reflist}}, unless someone else has come up with some other local sane method of dividing up notes and bulleted citations.
  • 2a) I think it is short sighted to assume that an article will not be extended, and I think that all articles should have inline citations, even if there is only one citation at the moment. Given the way that you prefer to footnote the article using inline=1 why not use <ref>{{EB1911|inline=1|...</ref> and a References sectyion with a {{reflist}} instead? That way you will be meeting WP:V requirements, the plagiarism guideline and encouraging other to use inline cations if they expand the article.
  • 3) I prefer inline short citations as a style. How do you handle page numbers in your inline long citation style if the EB1911 article is several pages long?

4) Here is an example of what you talk about:

If the person who made the additions had not footnoted them then I would have added {{citation needed}} for those sentences after the start of a paragraph and before the start of the EB1911. If the additions are in a separate paragraph of at the end of a paragraph, then I use my judgement on whether I add a {{citation needed}}. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" is a very useful tool for identifying this type of problem.

  • 5 I have no problem with the category, but I do not agree with your assumption as forever is a very long time, and more importantly general references (as some call them) do not meet the requirements of WP:V. As I wrote above you can meet the requirements via 2a with almost no additional effort.

Yes I have an AWB script to do this and much more. Drop me an email and I'll send it to you. -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@PBS:ETA again: you just edited Fiars Prices, which is a great example of the problem. I recently extended it from a copy of Nuttall by adding a copy of EB1911, and I intended {{EB1911}} to mean "copied from EB1911 except for the explicitly cited claims"; you added {{more footnotes}}. If I adopted your style and added an explicit ref to each paragraph, would that have worked? David Brooks (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
When I said one inline citation I was thinking of this edit as an example. I think that longer articles would need a citation at the end of each paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@PBS: I take your points. I'll start explicitly footnoting each paragraph with {{EB1911|inline=1}}, and use Notes as a header (I wish I had done that sooner). There's still the problem of accidentally crediting a later inserted phrase, but we always have that. Thanks for pointing me to earwig's copyvio detector; I had been using dupdet which is obviously harder to parse. Re "how do you handle page numbers?" I think it's adequate to use the entire range of the article in the parameter list, unless I'm just referencing an isolated claim. I do try to include the page number or range even when the link is a wstitle; often they are easily accessible because of the growing use of transclusion from Page space. David Brooks (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ETA: this diff to François de Beaumont, baron des Adrets is in my new style David Brooks (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Once someone has added EB1911 inline citations, if in future someone else adds text to the article it is easy to see what it is with a simple diff from the initial full citation. The sooner an article that is a copy of an EB1911 is cited with inline citations the easier it is to spot any more additions to the text. Another way to do the same thing with a high degree of accuracy is to look at the initial author's edit and then diff from there. That usually show the changes from the EB1911 as the earliest text tends to be close to the original EB1911,this of course is not as guaranteed to be correct as using earwig, but is a useful guide if the original article is not easily accessible on the net without a lot of OCR errors. -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a look at François de Beaumont, baron des Adrets and made some changes diff
If there is only one section header it ought to be called "References". "Notes" is used as a supplement to a References section not as a replacement. I think using a refs= parameter in the {{reflist}} template is a needless complication, which will be very confusing to new editors. Why not simply include the long citation in the first name reference tag pair? It is simple and more easily understood by another editor if they wish to add another citation, and is by far the most common way of adding inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Because I often find that a long footnote inline with the text makes it harder to locate and edit the main body of text. On the contrary, I find the refs= feature improves understanding because it's easier to find the anchor of named refs. David Brooks (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that for a new editor refs=list are confusing because it introduces them to yet another level of abstraction. For more experienced editors a refs=list is relatively easy to follow if it is fairly small. But I would suggest that when it gets like this one did (before I reformatted it into short ad long citation pairs) then it had become a mares nest for editors. This happens for several reasons, but primarily because the ordering in the list and the ordering in the text is different. ie unless one is very diligent new text is added with a citation somewhere in the middle of the text, and the new citation tends to be placed at the end of the list. Or if a person move a paragraph as there is no need to adjust the list the references in the list do not follow their usage in the text. Coupled to this there is no default name for ref tag names so that in the case of this page one ended up with names like <ref name=GG3-H-11/><ref name=GG3-H-12/> to name but one pair that appeared in the body of the text. So I think that refs=list is a needlessly high maintenance option. If the sources either appear in inline footnotes or in a visible sorted by name list in the References section then the maintenance looks after itself.
I agree with your comment of "long footnote inline with the text makes it harder to locate and edit the main body of text" which is why I use the {{harv}} templates as sort citations to the long footnotes in the References section. Also using that method means that the citations can be broken down into discrete pages which meets the provisions of WP:V "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". See for example Alexander I of Russia how would you handle those inline citations by EB1911 to other sources under WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT? -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understand your comments. I think the references feature itself is the bigger hill to climb for new users. The refs= feature can be easily learned by looking at just one example (more easily than looking at the instructions, at any rate).

Because of the nature of the lists I'm working through, I rarely come across a really long article anyway. Sometimes I use a s.v. <subsectionname> notation in the display parameter. Anyhow, I'll continue to go with my preferences unless I reach a compelling case for page numbers (the pedant in me says why not include line numbers as well?). It's more important to keep knocking down the lists of completely inadequate references than to revisit the two thousand and more that I've previously edited, I think. David Brooks (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Line numbers are not usually included in standard references to standard works (although they are appropriate in some works such as treaties, poems, religious works such as the Bible, plays, etc). The work we have both been doing to improve Wikipedia articles with out adequate EB1911 citations is an improvement whichever of the various methods we employ that we have been discussing here. -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on that. Sorry for being facetious. David Brooks (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

EB1911 vs Cite EB1911 templates[edit]

Thank you for the note left on my talk page. I reviewed your comments and the templates you recommended and realize I was incorrect in the changes I had made to those pages. Also, I want to especially thank you for the very civilized tone you used in the note. It was very different and refreshing from some of the comments I have received from other editors. Darrend1967 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)