Reference list style
Duncan, In your latest edit you have again imposed your preferred style of reference list, for no obvious reason. I don't want to get into an edit war but please restore the original form of reference list, with the individual references listed in the "reflist" and only short inline refs in the text. My understanding is that the style of references and reflist established in an article should not be changed without good reason. Thanks. PamD 11:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:LDR explains "List defined references" which is the form of reference list which was established in the Steve Haake article. Its use is also mentioned at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter. PamD 11:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- And note
As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.
. There was no consensus to change the format of the reflist for this article. PamD 11:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)- OK, @PamD: I will change back. I'm not used to using that style so give me some time to read and understand the documentation first. Wikipedia allows both reference styles, but I take your point about switching styles without consensus. Note that references defined in the reference list template can no longer be edited with the VisualEditor. Duncan.Hull (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I gave up on the visual editor years ago, after trying it, because it didn't allow me to do some things I wanted to - I see to remember problems seeing the text while inputting categories or stub types, or perhaps DEFAULTSORTs, which was a real problem when trying to input an unfamiliar geographical term or foreign name etc. I find the LDR style good to use because I can find a reference very easily if I want to tweak it - I add them in A-Z of ref name - and the text of the article becomes much less cluttered. The downside is that I can't edit a ref in a section, but that's fairly common with re-used refs anyway if they are defined in a different section. And of course there are the various other styles of references allowed too, Harvard etc, where I sometimes struggle to match the style of existing refs... or to patch up the problems when refs are broken, perhaps because someone's imported a chunk of content carelessly without noticing that it breaks some refs. Ah well. Happy editing. PamD 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't like the visual editor at all @PamD:, but it is popular with (and useful for) new editors. Wikipedia need plenty of those! Duncan.Hull (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, I suppose that's quite a strong argument against LDR ... But can VE handle Harv style references, if a VE editor wants to modify one of those? I really don't know, having very little to do with either VE or Harv refs!(For info, pinging only works if you add the ping and your signature in the same edit. I saw on my watchlist that you'd edited this page again, so came to look.) PamD 22:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, I don't like the visual editor at all @PamD:, but it is popular with (and useful for) new editors. Wikipedia need plenty of those! Duncan.Hull (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I gave up on the visual editor years ago, after trying it, because it didn't allow me to do some things I wanted to - I see to remember problems seeing the text while inputting categories or stub types, or perhaps DEFAULTSORTs, which was a real problem when trying to input an unfamiliar geographical term or foreign name etc. I find the LDR style good to use because I can find a reference very easily if I want to tweak it - I add them in A-Z of ref name - and the text of the article becomes much less cluttered. The downside is that I can't edit a ref in a section, but that's fairly common with re-used refs anyway if they are defined in a different section. And of course there are the various other styles of references allowed too, Harvard etc, where I sometimes struggle to match the style of existing refs... or to patch up the problems when refs are broken, perhaps because someone's imported a chunk of content carelessly without noticing that it breaks some refs. Ah well. Happy editing. PamD 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, @PamD: I will change back. I'm not used to using that style so give me some time to read and understand the documentation first. Wikipedia allows both reference styles, but I take your point about switching styles without consensus. Note that references defined in the reference list template can no longer be edited with the VisualEditor. Duncan.Hull (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- And note
File:Professor Jennifer Doudna ForMemRS.jpg
The description at File:Professor Jennifer Doudna ForMemRS.jpg is confusing. Who should be credited for this photograph? You or The Royal Society? I have no doubts about the license, just want to clarify the credits. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I uploaded it but the attribution should to the Royal Society, it says that on the page? Unfortunately, I couldn't upload pictures using the name RoyalSociety because it violates guidelines around usernames @Coffeeandcrumbs: Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julia Yeomans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microchannel.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
December with Women in Red
Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A New Year With Women in Red!
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
February 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ITN recognition for Paul J. Crutzen
March 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
April editathons from Women in Red
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
File permission problem with File:David-john-cameron-mackay-by-david-stern.jpg
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20211025222230im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:David-john-cameron-mackay-by-david-stern.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
June 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
July 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 93% Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons at Women in Red
Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Nomination of Joan Reynolds for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20211025222230im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Reynolds until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Lettlerhello • contribs 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Edmond H. Fischer
October 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211
Special event:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging