Talk:Mayflower Compact signatories

Merge

Should this be merged with the "Signers" section of Mayflower Compact? DES ^(talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. No it shouldn’t, like wtf your so unexpected thank goodness for your time I am going through the same day and that you have a good day I know I can relate and to do that I love to do the things you can to control my family I know that I love 💕 is that you can be the same person and you do love 💕 you love 💕 love 💕 was my first step in a good life when we went through a good day in a great 👍🏾 way you know I was just because we have to work for you I love 💕 is a great 👍🏾 was your last night you wish I was going back I know that they were all good I did and it didn’t have to re is much more detail in this article concerning the signatories and the circumstances surrounding the creation of this unique document.

Also, I have noted at least three other similar articles:

Signatories of the Act of Independence of Lithuania;

Signatories of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence;

Signatories to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe Mugginsx (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but the "Signers" section also has information that is not included here. it would seem better for most of the information to be in one place. Perhaps the "Signers" section could be shortened with much of its information being added here, and a {{main}} link to this article? DES ^(talk) 14:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you mean Sir. Do you mean to go to the article Mayflower Compact and shorten the signers section there then to add this information?

I might be agreeable to that but I really fear it would possibly start an editing war as a brief read of the Talk page there will show the vast disagreement which has been expressed therein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mayflower_Compact. There is inaccurate information in that article and conjecture which is expressed as fact instead of showing where the disagreements between scholars lies. My hope was to explain that in a place where it was hopefully not going to be challenged. I would welcome further comment and suggestions. Mugginsx (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I surely do not propose to start an edit war. I did have in mind shortening the coverage there in accord with Wikipedia:Summary style. But I would probably discuss on Talk:Mayflower Compact first. Failing that, in line with the Bold, revert, discuss edit system, i would surely discuss the matter further if any changes were reverted or objected to. If there are problems on that page, it is better to clear them up, if possible, than to create an alternate page. I will read the discussion at Talk:Mayflower Compact furhter before taking any action. I came to this page from new page patrol, by the way. DES ^(talk) 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I, in fact, that is what I was trying to avoid. I am willing to work with you though I not well versed in all of the procedures you describe but I will study them now. Some I am well familiar with but not all. Also, you will notice that the Mayflower Compact article was "locked" in order to exclude certain editors, though as a Veteran IV editor, I am allowed to edit it.

I have suggested a "merge" of the Signers section with the Mayflower Compact article as you indicated. Mugginsx (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnson source

Regardless of Dilidor's determination that this should not be identified as self-published, it is self-published and needs to be identified as such. The problem of multiple tags is exactly as bad as - and no worse than - the problem of dozens of cites to the same source. Anyone who can do Harvard referencing, please feel free to fix this. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good grief! What must I do to make you comprehend? I am not disputing whether this book is self-published, nor am I disputing your calling attention to it—I merely ask that you stop inserting the same goddam template note in every paragraph throughout the goddam article! How plain must I make this for you? —Dilidor (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You could try calming down. It's fixed in Mayflower now, thanks to PaleoNeonate. Same needs doing here, if you want to reduce the tag count. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I did the same (ideally the same should be done about the other sources for clarity, but consensus is needed to globally change the referencing style of an article). I also noticed a remaining external link from the same author as a reference (currently #4, http://mayflowerhistory.com/mayflower-compact/), which I left there for now. It's in the lead (so probably misplaced). —PaleoNeonate – 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. I will review the edits and work out how to do this myself, it can't be hard, but I have always just used ProveIt. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a tool supports sfn. It basically matches the author(s) last name(s) and year for sources using |ref=harv (which can also be configured using {{sfnref}} in |ref=, to match another name or only the first author's last name when multiple authors are listed in the source); {{sfn}} also does automatic deduplication/combination and creates a hyperlink to the source in footnotes. For inline use, the compatible {{harv}} can be used (like in the note at the other article). If the documentation of those templates are not enough or for technical problems, Template talk:Sfn is a good place to obtain help. {{efn}} is its companion for notes (equivalent to using <ref group="lower-alpha">, corresponding to {{notelist}} which is equivalent to {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}). A good example article using shortened footnotes that's easy to remember is Animation. —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you PaleoNeonate for resolving this issue. —Dilidor (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Most welcome, let me know if/when more assistance is needed. —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)