User talk:Ζετα ζ

Welcome!

Hello, Ζετα ζ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hyacinth,

As you can tell, I’ve had a flurry of activity lately. converting some articles to use a template rather than an old image.

I’ll write a user page at some stage, so you all know a bit more about what motivates me.

Ζετα ζ (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for an answer

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been trying to use a template with a parameter, but it ignored the value I supplied. I realised why, and eventually found out how to make it work. Later I realised what had gone wrong – the parameter had been removed by an edit 4 years ago.

Q. Would it be possible to do complex searches, comparable to "What Links Here"?

eg. articles that use an image but not the template version of that image based on Template:Annotated image

or articles that use a Template and supply a particular parameter

This would help me consolidate the use of these templates make them more consistent.

Ζετα ζ (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ζετα ζ. You should probably ask this question at WP:Village pump (technical).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OBSIDIAN†SOUL, I'll go there. » Ζετα ζ (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template in signature

Regarding your use of {{right}}, Wikipedia:Signatures#NoTemplates says transclusions of templates are forbidden. The use of this template is also very confusing because it writes the text to the right of the below line, at least in all three browsers I tested. In Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#css files it means your signature comes after the first line of the following post. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't have a transclusion in my signature – that wouldn't include the datestamp anyway. I put the template in the talk page itself.

{{right|~~~~}}

so none of the reasons given apply, except possibly, the re-caching(?)

In the three examples above, only the second is on the line below, and that was pushed down by the "helped" transclusion, so I thought it was working. Maybe it gets pushed up by a section heading?

If the re-caching is an issue, and I were to add markup to my raw signature, the above signatures would probably break. Should I remove the above examples of {{right| … }} ?

So I'll try to develop a raw signature, but in the meantime » Ζετα ζ (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you add something to the end of your posts then it's considered part of your signature whether you add it manually or with ~~~~. The first example above also fails if it's followed by another post before the next section, and the second example still fails if the "helped" transclusion is removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… so I thought it was working. – past tense. That's why I signed without. Just explaining why I hadn't noticed. » Ζετα ζ (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black-browed Albatross

I noticed your edit to this. Although it was incorrect to attribute the decision to Clements himself, the statement might otherwise still be correct since major reference works often retain the author's name even though later editions are edited by someone else. The Ripley Guide to Indian Birds was actually completed and published by his assistant due to his untimely death. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this: My concern was the time dependency introduced by “yet”, and the implication that it was still being considered. I have no problem with the work being published posthumously, and the reference reflecting that. I think it is correct to attribute the decision to Clements himself, but any subsequent editions would either be reflecting future consensus, or should be cited differently ie. the work itself, as opposed to Clements himself.

I’m afraid I did not recognise the referencing style of this article as Harvard. I thought, having read Harvard ref.s, that in-line citations should be – (Clements 2007), or if the name is part of the sentence – Clements (2007). I see this is in the footnotes, but not in the text: hence my confusion. I still don't understand why there is an extra layer of indirection – text → footnote → reference – especially as the second indirection is not linked. One advantage of Harvard ref.s is they are short enough to annotate the text: This article has a lot of very terse footnotes.

Either the footnotes could be in the text, or the links could connect directly to the references.

If the 7th ed. is referenced, that would be (Clements 2013+) – (Clements 2007) will not change. So, whether one refers to Clements or his work, there should be no “yet”.

PS. I don't know the Ripley Guide: should that be in Clements' Bibliography?

NB. I made a similar edit to Campbell Albatross.

Ahu Akivi

Thanks for the edits to Rapa Nui National Park. You may like to the above article which I have started for DYK.--Nvvchar. 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapa Nui National Park

Thanks for your reactions on my edits. I was aiming first and foremost at consistency. I'll go back over it in the light of your concerns.--Ipigott (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that one of the difficulties here is that the text often refers to what places or objects were called in the native language. I think it is usual in such cases to use double quotes but if the terms are not used in English, then you are quite right, double single quotes for italics should be used. I hope I've now sorted it out to your satisfaction.Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]