Talk:Shot heard round the world

Franz Ferdinand
This article is undersourced already, but what sources are there that "the shot heard round the world" can refer to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? The vague recollections of editors are not reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I added some sources. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "Widespread idiomatic use" section
An editor deleted most of the section "Widespread idiomatic use" with an edit summary of "this section is almost entirely trivial, ephemeral nonsense--thus largely deleted"; I restored it, partly on the basis of (at least partially) misleading edit summary (the material is not nonsense, all the sentences are correctly formed and express coherent thoughts), and also because it apparently wasn't noticed, being buried by some edits a couple of days later, and destruction of entire sections should be discussed beforehand, I think.

I get that the material is trivial to that editor. I get that that editor is not interested in, and does not care to read about, this sort of thing. So?

The article is not too long by our rubrics. The material is separated from other material and at the end of the article, so nobody has wade thru it to get to other material. The material is mostly referenced (that that isn't, any editor is welcome to add the refs, or tag the material as needing refs if they'd prefer). There are two separate articles pointed to in the section. {Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) and Shot heard round the world (soccer)).

And the material already exists. Other editors have done the work of compiling it an digging up the references. It's not like the question is should we dedicate time and effort to this section. Editors already have.

So given that, I guess the first question I'd ask is, for those readers that do want to read this material, that are looking for the material in this section (to, for example, explain a reference they have seen in some publication), for those readers who would be enlightened by seeing proof that phrase remains alive, and so forth... what exactly is the benefit to those readers of refusing to provide them with the material? Herostratus (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Do not list every instance when this phrase is used in popular culture
I have removed most of the pop culture uses of this phrase because they are trivial and insignificant. It is ludicrous to list every use of the phrase in every pop song and movie and TV show and every time a celebrity sneezes. Please list only uses that can be linked to an existing Wiki article which directly addresses the use of the phrase in some reasonably significant context. —Dilidor (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah User:Dilidor I hear you. So a couple of issues.


 * So you added the edit notice "All entries in this section MUST LINK TO EXISTING WIKI ARTICLES ADDRESSING THE USE OF THE PHRASE. All others should be deleted.". Don't do that. Edit notices like that should be added only when there's an ongoing issue for which a consensus solution has been formed. This edit notice seems intended to impose your personal opinion of how the article should be. And you used all caps in place, which is that much more over the top. (And FWIW you even removed Shot heard round the world (soccer) anyway.)


 * So moving forward, on the merits. Various editors have put in this material, and ref'd it in many cases. So it's not a matter of "should we do the work of adding this material?" Somebody already has. And I mean readers aren't *required* to read the section. Those that want to can. So we have this information available to the reader, and now we want to say in effect "Naw, you don't need to know this". That's certainly arguable I would think.


 * The section is messy and kind of dumb looking IMO. On the other hand for better or worse hella articles have sections like this. Editors like to add to these sections. That's fine IMO. And anyway some none-zero number of readers are going to want this information.


 * So let's see... there probably has to be some compromise, some way the article can be cleaned up without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Herostratus (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning in favor of most of what Dilidor did. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content WikiParker (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
User:Dilidor has now twice reverted, without edit summary, edits that I consider improvements: and. My edit summary was: +1 missing comma; less white space in quote box; link tweaks; +source URL; -unnecessary Main. // →‎Widespread idiomatic use: -extra blank line; +wikilinks for sporting term and teams; MOS:DASH; spelling. Why were all of these improvements reverted? I suggest to inspect the second diff and restore my edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is because they were not improvements. WikiParker (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the reason in a nutshell. —Dilidor (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's take it out of the nutshell:
 * How is a quotebox occupying 33% of the pagewidth better than one that is just as wide as it needs to be? On a wide screen, the quote box is half empty.
 * Using cite journal for the newspaper Boston Globe is inappropriate.
 * The name of the newspaper is The Boston Globe.
 * How is providing a URL for the article in The Boston Globe not an improvement?
 * There is no need to provide the publisher for The Boston Globe – that's clutter.
 * MOS:LQ requires that the comma is placed after "Concord Hymn".
 * Main in the section "Assassination of Franz Ferdinand" is unnecessary because there's a link to it in the first sentence.
 * That link is Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, not Assassination of Franz Ferdinand or assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.
 * The terms PBS, History.com, Cleveland.com should be linked.
 * The name of the newspaper is not The Mirror, but Daily Mirror, and it should be linked.
 * The name of the newspaper is not Marion [Illinois] Republican, but The Daily Republican with Marion, Illinois, and it should be linked.
 * Mentioning the author Elizabeth Sullivan twice in a citation is wrong.
 * A linebreak in the middle of Candy Spelling's citation is not needed, nor is a name needed for that reference because it's used only once.
 * The dash in the Spelling citation should be an en dash.
 * A publisher for the HuffPost is not needed in a citation.
 * The terms walk-off home run, New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, National League, pennant playoff series, World Series, Yankees, all need to be linked.
 * The dash in the game result 5–4 should be an en dash.
 * The name of the publisher is not "Barnes and Nobles" but "Barnes & Noble".
 * Setting the column width explicitly in Reflist is discouraged; it's better to leave it to the template's default behaviour.
 * How are these edits not improvements? Feel free to respond point by point. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your fetish for over-linking is a large part of the problem here. One should not link publishers and newspapers in citations, nor should one link simple words and terms. Some of your other edits are improvements, but they are far outweighed by the gross over-linking. ——Dilidor (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fetish? WP:AGF, please. I will discuss the usefulness of each link if you care to detail your objections. Your aggressive stripping of wikilinks, as EdJohnston put it at AN/3RR, initiated by Andy Dingley, is now subject of a WP:1RR restriction, so I suggest you revert your most recent edit here yourself. I recommend reading WP:ES and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One should not link publishers and newspapers in citations
 * Cite news specifically disagrees. "work: Name of the source periodical; may be wikilinked if relevant." Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm with Michael here. Maybe not on every one, if I were to check every one of them, but even on a cursory glance, the majority are good. Dilidor, if you want to justify any of them in particular, make the case for them here.
 * Your 1RR restriction is specific to removing wikilinks, or else this would be at WP:AE. But this behaviour is just the sort of thing that caused that restriction in the first place, so I'm sure it could be extended if this pattern persists. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Due to Dilidor's 1RR restriction on wikilink removal, I recommend that he get consensus before undoing any of the points 1-19 listed above by User:Michael Bednarek. Perhaps someone could make a start by discussing whether publishers and newspapers need to be linked in citation templates here, since Dilidor mentioned that one in the above talk. How about starting with points #2-#5, since they all concern the first Boston Globe citation? I tried to make a comparison of Dilidor's version versus Michael's version here on the talk page, but I couldn't get the quoting to work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed the Boston Globe citation (nos. 2–4 above) from
 * to
 * This is a clear improvement. To the general question whether newspapers and websites that have Wikipedia articles should be linked: In principle, I think so. Such links generally do not fall under any of the criteria mentioned at WP:OVERLINK; in fact, WP:REPEATLINK mentions a newspaper as permitted to be linked repeatedly in citations. On the other hand, there are cases where such links should be avoided, e.g. in an article that contains scores of links to The New York Times, or Playbill, or similar. In most cases, however, such links will quickly give the reader an indication on the weight and value of the cited source – showing whether it is a metropolitan daily, a scientific journal, a community newspaper, a student paper, a private blog. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a cogent argument for some links within citations, which I had not considered. My contention, however, is with the gross over-linking within the citations section which can make it difficult to read due to all the pop-ups caused by links. Citation linking should follow the same convention as linking within the body of the article, which is to link only the first instance. The references section should be treated as just that—a subsection within the article. —Dilidor (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get your objection. When my cursor goes over the links, nothing pops up, just a the link url at the bottom of my browser screen. What browser are you using?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally I use a very old browser on a very old OS and I see no popups. With Firefox on Windows 10 I get a small pop-up with just a few words (probably an ALT statement.) With Opera, Brave, Chrome and Edge I get big popups with pictures and descriptions. Additionally there is no need to have those baseball articles linked. If you are interested you can just click the baseball "Shot heard round the world" link. I'm looking more deeply into other Bednarek changes. I may end up giving in on them as they seem to be in WP guidelines or mistakes on my part. But, please, remove those baseball links. Those popups that I don't usually see are horrendous. WikiParker (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you considered not putting your cursor over the link?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not pop-ups or what browser one is using; the issue is recognizing that the reference section is a sub-section of the article and, as such, it should be subject to the conventions of all other sub-sections. Therefore, a link should appear only once. Linking "New York Times" in every citation of the New York Times is simply wrong. —Dilidor (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that, then the place to raise it would be somewhere more general, even Template talk:Cite journal or Template talk:Citation, not to edit-war on individual articles. Also your past behaviour has been to remove all such links (as indeed you did here), regardless, so your support for "link once" is a little unconvincing. Particularly as yesterday you claimed that the issue was altogether different, My contention, however, is with the gross over-linking within the citations section which can make it difficult to read due to all the pop-ups caused by links.  Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Flagged at Help talk:Citation Style 1 Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the notion that in the reference section ... a link should appear only once is that the reference section does not, cannot follow the conventions of all other sub-sections. This because the convention requires linking the first linkable item, all subsequent items to remain unlinked.  In the body of an article, text and inline references can be moved to suit various editorial decisions; references may be named for reuse .  This is not to say that reference section cannot be crafted that support first-item-linking.  Using Harvard style short-form-refs + bibliography is one such method.
 * To the question of necessary or unnecessary linking, there is an RFC currently underway regarding the automated removal of publisher from cs1|2 citations (particularly by Citation bot.  It is mentioned there that linking journal to its en.wiki article can provide whatever publisher names are required especially for those journals that are rare or obscure or where there are predatory journals with similar names.  For itself, cs1|2 does not encourage and does not discourage wikilinking periodical titles.
 * In this article, where there are nine references, one reused, none of which are different references from an already linked periodical, there is no repeat linking.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with WikiParker's assessment about the undesirability of the wikilinks for baseball terms. Baseball is the "national pastime" in the US, but a large part of Wikipedia readers come from other parts of the globe, many from from non-English-speaking countries, so those links help. Some readers may not need all of them, but we don't know which reader would like to follow which link. I'm confident that none of the links at #16 above fall foul of WP:OVERLINK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely baseball is self-evident? I know nothing of it, but it's obvious that something like the "World Series" is a worldwide baseball contest, where teams from around the world come together for an international championship? Where's the host country this year? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't link baseball, but a "walk-off home run" left me momentarily baffled, and a link to the 1951 National League tie-breaker series is surely crucial – unless the whole section "Widespread idiomatic use" is replaced by a simple "See also" list, which of course should also include Shot heard round the world (soccer), which should never have been removed (see above). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it clear that Michael Bednarek's argument had changed my thinking. You persistently take a very pugnacious tone with me and imply that I am lying. I have told you in past such confrontations to desist from impugning my veracity. And you also inform me in a haughty fashion that my approach to these discussions is incorrect; that I should be posting or responding or bringing my suggestions in a different forum or different fashion. Others are responding to my statements with logic, respect, and simple good manners. You would to well to imitate them. —Dilidor (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You might garner a little more respect for your editing if you didn't have a restriction on unlinking, and yet your editing is still little else . In particular, why do you now think that inline citations shouldn't be linked to references? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your question. Michael Bednarek suggested that the links enable a reader to gain more insight into the reliability of a source, a value which had not occurred to me previously. I have twice now told you that his argument changed my thinking. Am I failing to communicate myself clearly? Or am I simply not comprehending what you're asking? —Dilidor (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it clear that Michael Bednarek's argument had changed my thinking. You persistently take a very pugnacious tone with me and imply that I am lying. I have told you in past such confrontations to desist from impugning my veracity. And you also inform me in a haughty fashion that my approach to these discussions is incorrect; that I should be posting or responding or bringing my suggestions in a different forum or different fashion. Others are responding to my statements with logic, respect, and simple good manners. You would to well to imitate them. —Dilidor (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You might garner a little more respect for your editing if you didn't have a restriction on unlinking, and yet your editing is still little else . In particular, why do you now think that inline citations shouldn't be linked to references? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your question. Michael Bednarek suggested that the links enable a reader to gain more insight into the reliability of a source, a value which had not occurred to me previously. I have twice now told you that his argument changed my thinking. Am I failing to communicate myself clearly? Or am I simply not comprehending what you're asking? —Dilidor (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Americans versus British Colonists
Hello, sorry for the Noob question (this is my first 'Talk' entry.) In this entire article, should or should not the term 'Americans' be replaced by 'British Colonists' or something similar, since these events all occurred pre-July 1776? Thanks, BingoReefer42 (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the French Revolution connection
In my opinion, the part saying "Which includes the mostly-unrelated French Revolution" should be removed, as the main idea of the article has barely any connection to the French Revolution. 216.181.232.154 (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)