Talk:Master MZ

A fact from Master MZ appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that an engraving in 1500 by Master MZ shows a woman lifting her skirts to protect or hide an owl?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Master MZ.

Wikipedia

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

Reusing references which are identical is commonplace across all of Wikipedia. To make a wholesale revert of all the changes I have made is really the pointy thing here, which is a real shame. The highlight: at least rollback wasn't abused on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commonplace or not, it is still a breach of WP:CITEVAR, and hinders the addition of further references. Unfortunately, all too many editors just refuse to accept what CITEVAR says, and follow it. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'll be clearing up the other references as soon as your interpretation of CITEVAR is clarified per community norms. Reintroducing all the other errors is particularly pointy and will be discussed in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now another editor joins in with a complete undo of MOS edits. Without discussion, or edit summary. What is all this about? Reusing references isn't anything to do with CITEVAR, this is about reusing identical references multiple times across an article. Blanket undoing this with dozens of other improvements is really rather pointed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of hash

Is there a reason behind the inconsistent usage of the hash in this article? Sometimes it has a space after it, sometimes not. Is there a difference? And what means this isn't in violation of MOS:HASH? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very trivial stuff, and rather undermines the purity of your intent here. Are we now edit warring over gnomic preferences. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not edit warring here Ceoil, not me. You've turned up out of nowhere and started claiming DENY, which is completely irrelevant and pointed. Your revert is inappropriate, the reuse of refs has nothing to do with CITEVAR at all. And if you think gnoming is trivial and undermining, think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, no. The funny appearance of the list was accidental too. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]