Talk:Larkin with Toads

Introducing Larkin with Toads page
I have spun off a new Larkin with Toads page to accommodate new information on the toads and keep the section on the Larkin 25 entry compact. Please feel free to add any updates and any pictures would be appreciated as I have not yet mastered uploading pictures to this site.
 * I was planning to take some photos of the toads as I will be in the area next week, will upload to Commons later then I am back on line, if I get some. Keith D (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Photos will be appreciated. Just hope the townies don't get any more of the toads.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I managed to get a front and side view of all the toads while I was in the area. The ones of Twinkle Toad are not very good because of the location on a balcony without access and a tree in the way! I will upload once I am up to date on changes. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes use short non-template form
Can I suggest that users keep to the short format when contributing to this article? For instance, in referencing a newspaper, Author (optional) Name of Publication, Date of article, [Link to article with title of article], date retrieved. Corrections to typos and useful additions welcome but not this template thing as it makes the edit screen very cluttered and hard to navigate and there's no need for all this 'cryptic' information. And when footnoting papers, there' no need to put the publisher on the reference. The 'short', untemplated form is perfectly acceptable and the template is 'optional' as it states here LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Footnotes should be in the standard format not in some specific format for this article. Keith D (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no 'standard format. Academic convention is that the format is consistent, but there's no 'standard'.  And the short editing format is perfectly acceptable.  So you should stick to the majority format used in a particular article rather than waste time converting others' edits to your preference.  Especially when prone to typos and editing mistakes.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes
NB Following the vandalism to the mother page, Larkin 25, will you consult here before thinking of making any radical changes to references, etc. This is an initial polite request.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos
The photo is good and one or two more would be ideal, that should be enough. Thanks for the positive input.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent efforts to delete article and vandalism to links
It would be polite and good faith to leave the Wikilinks between Larkin 25 and Larkin with Toads as two viable articles with different content. I note that nothing has been raised by the anti-Larkin clique here on deleting Larkin with Toads or the other issues they allege. It's impolite and not good faith to add tags without consulting first.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is certainly impolite to characterise other editors the way you do. Nobody needs your permission to edit these articles. Editing here, or expressing the opinion that this article and Larkin 25 should be merged (into a stronger article) does not make people "vandals" or show that they belong to an "anti-Larkin clique".  pablo 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge
I have redirected this to Larkin 25 following the discussion here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of content to merge that isn't already mentioned in that article however. pablo 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)