User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2023/Aug
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Colonies Chris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pancho Segura edits and red links
Prior to you "fixing" Pancho Segura there were no red links in the reference section. Now it's filled with red links. Is it proper to create all these red links with your "minor fixes?" It makes the article look far worse than when you started. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Those are not red links. They are error messages correctly indicating the absence of titles for cited newspaper articles. Before the fixes, the citation templates had the title of the newspaper in
|title=instead of|work=. The latter is correct. The erroneous template usage was hiding the fact that there were missing titles. The next step is to find titles for those newspaper articles and insert them into the citation templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for explaining this so clearly. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I wanted to know. Thanks. However, with the vast amount of these "fixes" on thousands of articles most are unlikely to ever be looked at... so the red error messages will likely remain forever. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not at all. The pages at Category:CS1 errors are patrolled, and the backlog is worked on, by many editors. The red error messages will draw the attention of editors who like to fix things and who are interested in making sure that the citations are actually useful in verifying the information in the article. You may notice that the "missing title" category has many thousands of pages in it, but the same was true of many of the other categories that now have zero or just a handful of pages in them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Cool, no problem then. I know red links in articles are frowned upon but I had no idea about red error messages in the ref section. All is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, is there any way to create a list of Category:CS1 errors within the Tennis project so members of that project (as well as others of course) can work on fixing these errors? --Wolbo (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. Petscan is the best tool for that. Here's a report showing all articles with {{WikiProject Tennis}} on their talk page and with at least one CS1 error. It shows 130 articles at this writing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not at all. The pages at Category:CS1 errors are patrolled, and the backlog is worked on, by many editors. The red error messages will draw the attention of editors who like to fix things and who are interested in making sure that the citations are actually useful in verifying the information in the article. You may notice that the "missing title" category has many thousands of pages in it, but the same was true of many of the other categories that now have zero or just a handful of pages in them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- In reading the template for "cite web" is tells us the tile= parameter is required and should show the "Title of source page on website." Isn't that what was in the title parameter before the error code change? Sure I usually see the title of the article in the source page, but the template tells us differently. That makes this very confusing. Right now it looks like the original cite web usage was correct but could have been better. Since the title parameter was purposely removed it is now in error and needs to be fixed. What am I missing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- You nailed it, Fyunck. There was nothing wrong with the original information, which seems to have fulfilled the basic requirements for Wikipedia citations, but by attempting to upgrade the form we have sacrificed the status of the citations and created error messages. Unless the upgrade carries with it a result which does not generate error messages, the net result is a decline in the citations. Please do not leave the citations in a state of error, this is contrary to the intended purpose of the upgrade.Tennisedu (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- What is missing is the title of the news article. Pancho Segura's erroneous references are not citing web sites; they are citing individual articles in newspapers. As such, {{cite web}} is not appropriate; {{cite news}} is better. Here's an example fix to one of the citation templates at Pancho Segura. Take a look at reference 30 before and after that edit. When you cite a newspaper article, the title of the newspaper article is required by the citation template (and any reasonable citation style). There is an endless amount to learn about referencing on Wikipedia; I learn something almost every day of editing, and I have been editing regularly for ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- However, what you are suggesting is not always practical, since getting access to many newspaper sources which I have seen gives you the text, the title of the newspaper publication, the date, the page number, but not the tiny little "title" (such as "Jones beats Smith") which the local newspaper editors affix to the newswire stories by AP or whatever. Those "titles" are not really intrinsic to the stories to which they are affixed, they are local add-ons, not something from the actual writer. The paywalls of the sources often prevent these local subtitles from appearing. For a newspaper, you could always use "Sports Section" for a subtitle, if that is what you are referring to. But to litter an article with red ink because of an unnecessary upgrade to the format is not reasonable unless the editor who is creating the red ink is willing to correct the source of the problem. If the link functions well then that is the prime concern, and is sufficient for the basic requirements for citations.Tennisedu (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- And something else. Even in the template doc of Cite News it says to use the title of the source... it is not specific. And in Cite Web using title= is required. And it was provided. Cite News does not say title= is required. And in "fixing" the article in question, Colonies Chris used cite web himself and removed the title= thus creating the error. They are mostly interchangeable. Everything I'm reading at template cite web and template cite news is starting to make me question whether these changes should have been done where title= was removed and created an error without actually fixing that error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- However, what you are suggesting is not always practical, since getting access to many newspaper sources which I have seen gives you the text, the title of the newspaper publication, the date, the page number, but not the tiny little "title" (such as "Jones beats Smith") which the local newspaper editors affix to the newswire stories by AP or whatever. Those "titles" are not really intrinsic to the stories to which they are affixed, they are local add-ons, not something from the actual writer. The paywalls of the sources often prevent these local subtitles from appearing. For a newspaper, you could always use "Sports Section" for a subtitle, if that is what you are referring to. But to litter an article with red ink because of an unnecessary upgrade to the format is not reasonable unless the editor who is creating the red ink is willing to correct the source of the problem. If the link functions well then that is the prime concern, and is sufficient for the basic requirements for citations.Tennisedu (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to attempt misguided upgrades when the current citation and link information already functions well and the editor attempting the upgrade is not willing to help fix a perceived or not a real problem. Personally, I never challenge a citation or any other editor's work unless I am able to provide a solution on the spot. To fail to do so simply creates a problem for some other editor to solve.Tennisedu (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- What is missing is the title of the news article. Pancho Segura's erroneous references are not citing web sites; they are citing individual articles in newspapers. As such, {{cite web}} is not appropriate; {{cite news}} is better. Here's an example fix to one of the citation templates at Pancho Segura. Take a look at reference 30 before and after that edit. When you cite a newspaper article, the title of the newspaper article is required by the citation template (and any reasonable citation style). There is an endless amount to learn about referencing on Wikipedia; I learn something almost every day of editing, and I have been editing regularly for ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- You nailed it, Fyunck. There was nothing wrong with the original information, which seems to have fulfilled the basic requirements for Wikipedia citations, but by attempting to upgrade the form we have sacrificed the status of the citations and created error messages. Unless the upgrade carries with it a result which does not generate error messages, the net result is a decline in the citations. Please do not leave the citations in a state of error, this is contrary to the intended purpose of the upgrade.Tennisedu (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
(←)
I agree that it would have been desirable for me to change the {{cite web}} templates to {{cite news}}, and I will do so in future where appropriate. However, the outcome - the 'missing title' messages - would have been the same regardless. The error messages are generated because a citation is considered incomplete if it's missing a |title=. If you feel that's not a reasonable equirement, there are forums where you can raise that question. I didn't create the errors in the citations, I merely made them visible. As has been said, there are many editors who choose to work on fixing CS1 errors. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's not that difficult to provide information that helps make article text verifiable. Providing article titles and authors makes it so that readers trying to verify information can do so. It does take some time that the editor(s) who provided the citations originally
shouldcould have spent (in this case, it looks like Tennishistory1877 added the partial citations). If you are having trouble with newspapers.com paywalls, apply for free access through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- If its not that difficult to provide this additional citation information, then you will find no difficulty allocating the time to do so, Jonesey95, as this is obviously something that concerns you. I spent a lot of my time already transforming these tennis articles from poor quality short and in many cases poorly sourced articles with few if any citations into much longer well researched articles with many citations. The lack of information and citations in these articles obviously did not concern you, as I do not recall you adding anything of value to any of those articles, but it is never too late to start. And while you are at it, there are still many tennis articles that are in need of additional citations. tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- The link above shows that I have taken some time to add value to the article. It does take time, though, and my priorities lie elsewhere. Your contributions to this article were very valuable, and they were also incomplete. I have done the same thing, sometimes adding just a bare URL in a reference to an article in order to improve it marginally, hoping that another editor will come along and enhance my improvement. Luckily, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, and we all share the goal of improving articles. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- The fact these are available through the WikiLibrary shows why proper titles are needed. The library is an amazing resource, but one only available to extended confirmed editors. Having correct details in the cite makes it easier to verify for the average user who won't have that access, but may have access to the work some other way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Per the templates used, they did have proper titles. Not what I would have used, but they were not errors. Now there are multiple errors. That's the problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, they did not have proper titles. Just placing any text in that param, such as the newspaper name, does not make it a proper title, it just covers up the lack of a proper title by misusing the parameter. It's supposed to be the title of the article that the citation is referring to. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not per the rules of the templates themselves. Can you please point out where the template tells us that? I can't find it. You are going to need to need to prove this. If you can then I'm willing to listen. If you can't then you need to stop doing these edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click): The templates used are immaterial. News articles are being used as sources. Here's a shorter version: when citing a news article, which is what the article is doing, the article title is required. See the APA and the MLA for examples. Apologies to Colonies Chris for the length of this discussion, which should have wrapped up a long time ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- No they are not immaterial. We follow wikipedia rules not some outside organization rules. Per wikipedia and the guidelines it provides us, it was ok. Do I think it could have been better, yes. But now it's worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Without proper titles a reader won't be able to verify the details if they don't have access to newspaper.com. They could get access to the newspaper through archives or libraries, which would place a big hurdle in the way of finding the right source. The errors don't really matter, it just gives another editor the opportunity of adding the details if they wish. It's not worse in anyway, and by wiki guidelines there is nothing wrong with changing the cites on this way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- That is not true, ActivelyDisinterested. The text version of newspapers.com is freely available. You simply change image to newspage in the URL. Virtually all my citations use the newspage version, so readers can read the text on the page themselves by clicking the link. tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes there is something wrong per wikipedia. When using "cite web" we are REQUIRED to have a title=. Colonies Chris removed a title he didn't like and left nothing in its place. Remember the title was something like "title=New York Times, December 25, 1776." That was removed with nothing in it's place. From that title I could find what I need. Could it be better to have title=Washington crosses Delaware river, publisher=New York Times, date=December 25, 1776... sure it would. But publisher isn't required... the title=is required, and it was there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- But that data wasn't lost it was just moved to other fields, which makes way for additional data to be added. Having an error isn't worse, it an opportunity. The changes were a positive change to the article, that there is now an error message now isn't a big deal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Actually yes there is something wrong per wikipedia. When using "cite web" we are REQUIRED to have a title=. Colonies Chris removed a title he didn't like and left nothing in its place. Remember the title was something like "title=New York Times, December 25, 1776." That was removed with nothing in it's place. From that title I could find what I need. Could it be better to have title=Washington crosses Delaware river, publisher=New York Times, date=December 25, 1776... sure it would. But publisher isn't required... the title=is required, and it was there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try one more time, because it appears that this is important to Fyunck(click).
- In the article, there were {{cite web}} templates that were being used to cite news articles. The very first sentence of the documentation for {{cite web}} says
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.
- So is there another CS1 template for citing news articles that should be used instead?
- Yes, there is: {{Cite news}}, which says
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web.
- The documentation for {{Cite news}} gives many examples of how to cite a news article. Each one has the title of the news article, as it was printed in the newspaper, in
|title=. These examples correspond nicely with the APA and MLA documentation linked above, which makes sense, because the CS1 template styles were roughly based on these accepted citation formats.
- In the article, there were {{cite web}} templates that were being used to cite news articles. The very first sentence of the documentation for {{cite web}} says
- So: the Wikipedia article was using the wrong templates, and it had the wrong text in
|title=within those templates. The first fix, referred to at the top of this section, moved the text to parts of the documentation, like|work=and|date=. Follow-up fixes to change {{Cite web}} to {{Cite news}} and to add the missing values for|title=are the next steps that are needed. I have performed some of those fixes to provide an example of how to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- It was not using the wrong templates. Cite Web is perfectly acceptable if there is a web source. And the description in both Cite Web and Cite News say we can use the source name as a title. We are not forced to use the article title. I always do, but I'm not forced to per wikipedia. And Colonies Chris didn't change it to Cite News anyway... he also kept Cite Web. Because there is nothing wrong with that. What he did was remove a mandatory title parameter and leave nothing in its place. This created an error. In the future, if he wants to change things by adding extra items and changing the title to something even more specific, he should do it all and not leave his errors for others to fix. Per the templates:
- Before 2014, editors needed to decide whether to use Cite web or Cite news based on their features. In 2014, however, most of the differences between the two templates were eliminated.
- As of 29 July 2016, Cite web and Cite news have the following differences:
- Cite news can be used for offline (paper) sources whereas Cite web generates a missing URL error when no URL is provided
- Cite news accepts |issue= and |volume= parameters while Cite web does not (See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10 § |volume=, |issue=, |page(s)= and cite magazine.)
- But given the same set of valid parameters, their output is exactly the same:
- and:
- title: Title of source page on website.
- This info is straight out of wikipedia. If you want to change it to something like you are describing then I suggest a large rfc to change the wording on all templates. Colonies Chris did not change it to cite news because he didn't need to. But he did remove a valid title and put zippo in it's place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Struggling to understand the discussion. To me it is clear that these citations (references) were not formatted correctly and therefore Colonies Chris was entitled to flag them as such, provided that he uses the correct template, {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. I'm not sure what is unclear about the explanation given by him or Jonesey95. Have always used {{cite news}} when adding a citation to a newspaper on sites like Newspapers.com, Trove, Papers Past, Delpher or good old Google News Archives. When adding a citation to a website, such as BBC Sport or Tennis.com, {{cite web}} is used. The subtle differences between these templates can sometimes be confusing but to me it has always been clear that 'title' refers to the article title, not to the name of the newspaper or website. The examples given at both templates also clearly show this. The citations in the Pancho Segura article often had the format 'title=The Tampa Bay Times, 2 September 1941' which contains two errors; 'title' should be 'work' and the date needs to go in a separate 'date' field. The red error tags may not look pretty but they do make it clear what needs to be improved. Without them this would have been less clear to editors, so they serve their purpose.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- The OP is struggling to parse this: The very first sentence of the documentation for {{cite web}} says
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.
(emphasis added) {{Cite news}}, another CS1 template, is for news articles, therefore using {{cite web}} for news articles is not valid, per the documentation for {{cite web}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- The OP is struggling to parse this: The very first sentence of the documentation for {{cite web}} says
- Struggling to understand the discussion. To me it is clear that these citations (references) were not formatted correctly and therefore Colonies Chris was entitled to flag them as such, provided that he uses the correct template, {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. I'm not sure what is unclear about the explanation given by him or Jonesey95. Have always used {{cite news}} when adding a citation to a newspaper on sites like Newspapers.com, Trove, Papers Past, Delpher or good old Google News Archives. When adding a citation to a website, such as BBC Sport or Tennis.com, {{cite web}} is used. The subtle differences between these templates can sometimes be confusing but to me it has always been clear that 'title' refers to the article title, not to the name of the newspaper or website. The examples given at both templates also clearly show this. The citations in the Pancho Segura article often had the format 'title=The Tampa Bay Times, 2 September 1941' which contains two errors; 'title' should be 'work' and the date needs to go in a separate 'date' field. The red error tags may not look pretty but they do make it clear what needs to be improved. Without them this would have been less clear to editors, so they serve their purpose.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- It was not using the wrong templates. Cite Web is perfectly acceptable if there is a web source. And the description in both Cite Web and Cite News say we can use the source name as a title. We are not forced to use the article title. I always do, but I'm not forced to per wikipedia. And Colonies Chris didn't change it to Cite News anyway... he also kept Cite Web. Because there is nothing wrong with that. What he did was remove a mandatory title parameter and leave nothing in its place. This created an error. In the future, if he wants to change things by adding extra items and changing the title to something even more specific, he should do it all and not leave his errors for others to fix. Per the templates:
- That is not true, ActivelyDisinterested. The text version of newspapers.com is freely available. You simply change image to newspage in the URL. Virtually all my citations use the newspage version, so readers can read the text on the page themselves by clicking the link. tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Without proper titles a reader won't be able to verify the details if they don't have access to newspaper.com. They could get access to the newspaper through archives or libraries, which would place a big hurdle in the way of finding the right source. The errors don't really matter, it just gives another editor the opportunity of adding the details if they wish. It's not worse in anyway, and by wiki guidelines there is nothing wrong with changing the cites on this way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- No they are not immaterial. We follow wikipedia rules not some outside organization rules. Per wikipedia and the guidelines it provides us, it was ok. Do I think it could have been better, yes. But now it's worse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, they did not have proper titles. Just placing any text in that param, such as the newspaper name, does not make it a proper title, it just covers up the lack of a proper title by misusing the parameter. It's supposed to be the title of the article that the citation is referring to. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Per the templates used, they did have proper titles. Not what I would have used, but they were not errors. Now there are multiple errors. That's the problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- If its not that difficult to provide this additional citation information, then you will find no difficulty allocating the time to do so, Jonesey95, as this is obviously something that concerns you. I spent a lot of my time already transforming these tennis articles from poor quality short and in many cases poorly sourced articles with few if any citations into much longer well researched articles with many citations. The lack of information and citations in these articles obviously did not concern you, as I do not recall you adding anything of value to any of those articles, but it is never too late to start. And while you are at it, there are still many tennis articles that are in need of additional citations. tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Per the directions of both templates there is nothing wrong with the title used in at least "many" of the citations. I didn't look at all of them. Either those templates need to change per an rfc or the titles should not be removed unless replaced by a better title. The info I gave above in multiple places shows this to be true. You do not remove the title= and leave it blank. Examples are not rules when the rules say differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- When citing a news article, putting the name of a newspaper, its city, and its date in
|title=is just wrong. The place for a discussion about whatever you think the documentation means is Help Talk:CS1. The editors there will tell you the same thing that I have told you above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)- Then the Template itself is WRONG and needs to be re-written, because it says it's ok to do it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- There should be guidance given that whoever decides to edit and upgrade the citations should complete their edits and not leave them hanging with a ton of red ink. The citation should be fully corrected or upgraded before the editor moves on to another citation. Otherwise the edit is incomplete. The original editor who created the article's substantive content is not likely to be interested in cleaning up the half-finished corrections of a non-contributory editor.Tennisedu (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- No such guidance is or will ever be part of Wikipedia. That's not how any of this works. See, for example, Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup, which provides a host of messages that can be added to pages to indicate that they need more work. Making these minor improvements to citation templates is similar to adding a maintenance tag: it makes existing errors more visible, and it puts the page into a cleanup category that other editors work on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- And this isn't the only article that got "fixed" this way. Pancho Gonzales is now messed up also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- It now has messages showing that more information can be added. As someone who actually goes around fixing such things I see nothing wrong with the changes. It gets tracked and will be fixed in due time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for that notice, Fyunck(click). I have changed many of the cite web templates to cite news templates, as described above, and added blank parameters to make it easier for editors who like to research missing citation information to fill in the data that has long been missing from that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Actually that error message is that title information MUST be added since it was removed in an edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- By "can be added" I meant that there is now space for more information. Before the change there was no space for this additional information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), you might need to meditate on this one for a while. We have done our best to explain these constructive edits to you, but it seems that you are having a hard time understanding. As far as I know, no information was removed in these edits. Instead, information that was in the wrong parameter (i.e.
|title=) was moved to the correct parameters (i.e.|work=,|date=, etc.). If you disagree with these corrections, Help Talk:CS1, not here, is the venue for that discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)- I understand 100% what you are saying. What you don't seem to understand is that per the templates themselves, the docs editors tend to use when filling out the templates, the parameters can be used just as it was. No one has shown the meaning to be different. It is right in your face when you read the parameter. I don't have to decipher what you mean or what Fred tells me, etc.. it's right there. I never said I would do that, I said that per the templates wording it's fine and what it was changed to was not fine. I asked at CS1 and a third party said that the person who removed the title= should have added the title=. Just like we shouldn't add a "citation needed" template to a long-standing sentence without at least doing a cursory check to find one ourselves, we shouldn't be removing weak title= without at least trying to replace it. That's the issue. And I did meditate on this. At first I took what you said at face value and informed a user that they were wrong. Several times. Then I thought about it and decided to read the template document fully.. just in case I was giving faulty info. I read it and voila, I was giving faulty info. I would be worried in the future in giving editors advice and not being able to tell them why except to say "others have told me." That's not right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), you might need to meditate on this one for a while. We have done our best to explain these constructive edits to you, but it seems that you are having a hard time understanding. As far as I know, no information was removed in these edits. Instead, information that was in the wrong parameter (i.e.
- By "can be added" I meant that there is now space for more information. Before the change there was no space for this additional information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- It now has messages showing that more information can be added. As someone who actually goes around fixing such things I see nothing wrong with the changes. It gets tracked and will be fixed in due time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- And this isn't the only article that got "fixed" this way. Pancho Gonzales is now messed up also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- No such guidance is or will ever be part of Wikipedia. That's not how any of this works. See, for example, Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup, which provides a host of messages that can be added to pages to indicate that they need more work. Making these minor improvements to citation templates is similar to adding a maintenance tag: it makes existing errors more visible, and it puts the page into a cleanup category that other editors work on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- There should be guidance given that whoever decides to edit and upgrade the citations should complete their edits and not leave them hanging with a ton of red ink. The citation should be fully corrected or upgraded before the editor moves on to another citation. Otherwise the edit is incomplete. The original editor who created the article's substantive content is not likely to be interested in cleaning up the half-finished corrections of a non-contributory editor.Tennisedu (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then the Template itself is WRONG and needs to be re-written, because it says it's ok to do it that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
(←) You are misrepresenting what was said at CS1. To quote: The editor who changed the reference to have no
. I received no such message (as you can see). Why? Because - and I can't emphasise this enough - I did not break the citation. It was already broken. I simply made the error visible. Anyone, including you, can correct it at any time. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
|title= parameter should have seen the red error code, and should have received a bot notice on their user talk page reminding them to fix the reference.
- Colonies Chris, you have already received your answer as to who will fix this mess. Why do you bring up that issue again? Please engage in constructive discussion, and do not fan the flames further. You did not see fit to fix the problem, so why should other editors, who have already created the substantive content for the article, be asked to do double duty? I cannot see the purpose for that.Tennisedu (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone can add the missing title details, there is no policy that any particular editor has to add that information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Tennisedu:: You accuse me of fanning the flames - after I was dishonestly accused of a failure in my duty as an editor. I have had enough of this. I will continue to edit in exactly the same fashion. I will not take part in any further discussion on the subject. I will delete any further comments on this talk page. If you have a problem with my behaviour, take it to WP:ANI. End. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Colonies Chris, you have already received your answer as to who will fix this mess. Why do you bring up that issue again? Please engage in constructive discussion, and do not fan the flames further. You did not see fit to fix the problem, so why should other editors, who have already created the substantive content for the article, be asked to do double duty? I cannot see the purpose for that.Tennisedu (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello Colonies Chris/Archive/2023!
- The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
- We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
- Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
- Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
- If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016–17 Philadelphia 76ers season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verizon Center.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)