Talk:Leo Haas

Copying within Wikipedia
@User:LouisAlain thank you for creating this article. If you did so by copying and translating this article from the German Wikipedia then for copyright reasons you need to add an edit with a edit history comment stating that you did (See WP:TFOLWP, a section in the guideline Copying within Wikipedia). --PBS (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Just above, even the diff that was translated is linked. - User:LouisAlain, better place the translated template outside the banner shell, - I did it for you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:LouisAlain & User:Gerda Arendt From the guidence: the template on the talk page is a nice to have as an addition to inline attribution in the edit history.

From the lead of the guideline:

From the section WP:TFOLWP

In this case an edit needs to be made to this article and the following comment should be added to the edit history:

If you like I will add it with a dummy edit but "teach a man to fish..." and it would be better if User:LouisAlain, the original translator, adds it.

-- PBS (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ref...tag name=Biography
@User:LouisAlain you created a named ref tag in German  with the long/full citation:
 * Wolf H. Wagner: Der Hölle entronnen. Stationen eines Lebens. Eine Biografie des Malers und Graphikers Leo Haas. Henschel Verlag, Berlin 1987, ISBN 3-362-00147-5.

However you also used a ref...tag without providing a long citation for the tag. Please could you fix it? -- PBS (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand. I see a named ref, and then being called by that name, which is good, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I fixed it before. Grimes2 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References and Further reading section order
@user:LouisAlain your reversal of my placing the "References" section before "further reading"  is a breach of the WP:APPENDIX guideline and as many AWB scripts will follow this guidence, you need to fix the references that depend on the positioning of "Further reading", or you will be giving yourself a Sisyphus task.

See also that the guidence states ""

-- PBS (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote after the modification that if the References section is put above the Further reading one, the links to worldCat or Grosses Sängerlexikon for example won't appear anywhere. I don't doubt one second your expertise but in this case, how to make these links appear since I've been told at least twice not to add external links in the body of the articles. I'm tired now and need to sleep. LouisAlain (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I sometimes wonder what's going on here. I lost my autopatrol right (yes, I behaved like a very bad boy) after something like 2,000 articles and the 3,300+ which followed have been reviewed. Not one single reviewer (as far as I remember, well maybe once) have modified the layout. Fair to say, some reviewers acquiesce to my translations within 30 seconds they've been put on the main which of course means they haven't read the article, just quickly checked there were at least one ref. Their task is quite ungrateful and I don't blame anybody anyway, but simply question how seriously Wiki is run.
 * I reverted the order to the standard, first References, then Further reading, then translated, and only then realised that it is rather Publications section, which belongs above the references, so moved it back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * likewise but I have retitled the section "Works". I suggest that the entries are formatted using a citation template as I find the current formats with embeded German words confusing. -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)