Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JacobTheRox! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess! Hopefully my restructuring will at least help with your cleanup. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I've noticed that a lot of these articles are unfortunately very poorly researched and written, and made it a bit of a project of mine to sort it all out! JacobTheRox (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, I have advised the wikiproject of your RtM. See this diff. It looks obvious but it's always the ones that I consider obvious that trip me up, so best to follow procedure. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, you might replace the obscure, awkward and outmoded <ref>{{harvxt .... style with the simple and straightforward {{sfnb}} technique? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a bad idea. I am slowly refreshing the page anyway as the whole thing needs sorting out, especially the history section and sourcing. There's definitely a lot of potential but it's very hard to work with thousands of words you haven't written based on sources you cannot access. JacobTheRox (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts @JMF how much does it actually matter? To use FA as examples:

• Cleopatra uses {{harvtxt}}
• Private Case uses {{sfn}}
• Bacteria uses no citations; it just has inline refs.
• Rosetta Stone actually writes out their citations in their refs (to be fair even I think this is quite weird)

I had a look at both template pages, and I can't see anything saying one is particularly outdated. If there isn't a good reason, I'd rather keep what's already there if that's okay.

Thank you for your time. JacobTheRox (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At display time, it makes no difference. The only issue is for editors finding their way around the source. Compare

• <ref name=":0">{{Harvtxt|Jowett|1989|pp=87 & 119A}}</ref> followed by a few instances of <ref name=":0" />

with

• {{sfnp|Jowett|1989|pp=87 & 119A}} which is used and reused as needed and "the system" collects them automagically.

(sfn and sfnp are two sides of the same coin, it just depends on whether you prefer Jowett 1989 pp 87 & 119A or Jowett (1989) pp 87 & 119A. 'Ordinary' CS1/2 style uses parentheses .

But to get to the point: it is just a personal hobby horse of mine and if you don't agree, end of discussion per WP:RETAIN. Thank you for humouring me. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and actually get a bit annoyed with harvtxt. If I get round to replacing it, I will. As you can see, however, it's not the priority when it comes to improving the article lol. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, let me know if there are any issues. JacobTheRox (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to explain what RefRenamer does and why I used it. The visual editor creates refnames like :0, :1, :2 etc that are very easy to lose track of and get confused over which is which. Mnemonic names are are far more useful and fixing that behaviour has been on the wish list for Visual Editor improvements for a long time but the end is not in sight. So in the meantime, we have to accept that this is what it does and "let's just get on with editing and clear up afterwards". The 'clear-up' tool is described at User:Nardog/RefRenamer. I'm happy to do the clearing up and leave the hard part to you . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A date format for one article seems like a trivial thing but clearly there's some weight to it for many editors. Looking forward to the resolution. Thanks! Ymerazu (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]