Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for your ]! -] (]) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|}
Revision as of 19:11, 29 April 2011
Hello, MarB4! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Looks like you've added a lot of good sources to this article. I ran a tool on it and it found multiple page references to books in some of the cites, and it removed the first instances and kept the subsequent ones. This has not changed what the cite templates were displaying, but you might want to review it all and adjust things. Feel free to revert it, as such tools can always be run again. See here. Cheers, Jack Merridew01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and for your corrections, Jack. I am not a very skilled Wikipedian so assume my mistakes are made in good faith. I now know that the cquote template should be used sparingly. As for the dashes, I am sorry to say that my keyboard and codepage doesn't sport any of them (directly at least), hopefully you can live with hyphens. I am sure that you know what you do, when you run those tools, the only thing I notice is, that the |pages ID seems to have been zapped from the cite books. Not that I think it matters a whole lot. MarB4 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome. You seem to be doing pretty well. For things like proper dashes, you can use the tool that's just below the 'save' button; see the control that's marked 'insert'? Just click one of the dashes to the right of it and a dash gets inserted into your edit box. You can click the control to select alternate things to insert; lots of symbols and stuff available.
The page numbers were not all removed; here's an example from that diff:
before
<ref>{{cite book|title=Notable American women: a biographical dictionary completing the twentieth century|year=2004|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674014886|page=729|accessdate=14 July 2010|page=227}}</ref>
after
<ref>{{cite book|title=Notable American women: a biographical dictionary completing the twentieth century|year=2004|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674014886|page=227|accessdate=14 July 2010}}</ref>
The Citation bot saw the there were two page numbers given: 729 and 227. It removed the 729 and moved the 227 to that spot. it did this to a bunch of the cites (and I'm not sure they're ones you added or one that were already there). The template can't handle two copies of the 'page' parameter, so it was just using the second one. I've no idea which is really correct, but hope you do. It is best to cite proper page numbers, of course.
Thanks for the tip re dashes, WP surely can keep me occupied in regard to How-tos, and likely still make me unintentionally violate Dos and Don'ts just the same, the amount of info being über-believable.
Not wanting to in any way be a smartass here, the example you give above is from diff=373545036&oldid=373544947, and yes, the cite book does have two page IDs, but go back one revision to diff=373544676&oldid=373543946. To me it looks like Reflinks have removed the plural-s in the pages ID and in cases were the page ID is an interval has added a plural-s to the page ID making it a pages ID. If you can confirm that assumption, is a bug report on User_talk:Dispenser/Reflinks then the next step? I will have a look and see, if any of the cite books now points to wrong page numbers. MarB4 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit: sorry, have been reading on Cite book, it is I who do not understand that the pages ID is not for the total number of pages in the book. Disregard the above BS. MarB4 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I think I see most of has happened, here. Ya, 'pages' is not for the total number of pages, rather it is for multiple pages. 'page' is for a single page. This distinction is about "p." vs. "pp." in the reference section. In the example above, 729 was the number of pages in the book, not a page reference. What the tool did is see a single number after 'pages' instead of a range or list ("123–125" or "17, 37–42") and so it changed it to 'page'. But you also *had* single 'page' refs, too, and the other tool cut the now-duplicate parameters. If these were all in the order 'pages', 'page' it will have gotten it right. But here you cut some you say are wrong. If you would like, I can backup to before any of this, and reapply the other changes and manually cut the pages as number-of-pages in the book so that everything is back to being correct. To do this, I'd have to be sure about just what happened, specifically that the 'pages' just the number of pages in the book, and not anything else. I'd also have to know if the 'wrong' pages numbers are real wrong. I'd have to do this soon, before too many more edits get made to the page. Let me know what you think, and I'll take a crack at it. If you think you've got it properly sorted, just say so, and will move forward from here. I've been here a long time and am very, very good at this sort of fix-up. Don't worry about breaking any "Dos and Don'ts"; as long as your intention is good, you're fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Re p. and pp.: I looked it over, and I believe that the page or pages IDs now present are correct as per my original citations. If you notice anything suspect or find anything missing, let me know.
I have had a short read on Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references and I will try to implement such guidelines if needed and to the best of my abilities.
Your long and detailed answers are appreciated, thank you, but I can see from your talk page that you must be busy, so should you want to limit yourself when answering me to e.g. "Hi, try read WP:blah_blah Cheers" I'll be the first person to understand and the last person to get upset. :) Thanks. MarB4 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Having read a bit more on List-defined references I notice that WP:CITE#List-defined_references says "As with other citation formats, these should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so." Until I hear from you, I won't change the reference structure we now have. MarB4 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As I continue to read about the subject and work on the article I sense that List-defined references would be a positive revision. I'll leave you a msg on your talk page asking for your opinion. MarB4 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about changing the style, as long as you're moving things forward. You've done a lot of work on Garbo, so just go for it per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. I'll look, and give things a shove. Cheers, Jack Merridew03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I did some of these. This is a goof diff to review; reading from the bottom, I added a single cite template to the bibliography, added three named refs in the reference section that refer to the citation in the bibliography using {{harvnb}} and include a quotation, and I then replaced the three full invocations of mostly duplicate template instances (ex the quotes) with three brief invocations of the named refs. This is about getting clutter out of inline in the prose and paring-back the duplication of the cite parameters. I'd suggest you review the other diffs and take a stab at the process. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Two days ago you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Misplaced Pages (most entries have by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Misplaced Pages articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello MarB4. Just a note to say thank you for all your work adding sources and new info on Mr Borge's article. You have improved it a good deal. He was one of my favorite entertainers and I was lucky enough to see him perform live several times over the years. Even if I had seen one of his skits before his timing was so impeccable that I would find myself laughing as much as the first time I had seen it. Thanks again for your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk04:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Lars Von Trier
Brilliant! Tremendous contribution (particularly to the filmography section as i had requested in the discussion)Utopial (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
