User:CaroleHenson/CM workspace

This is a workspace page.

Quickies
Some of the help files start with WP, others with MOS. I think I understand the difference --- MOS is for the composing style items that apply to any publication; WP is for everything else. What I don't get is why some questions are addressed in both WP and MOS files, and in such cases how do I know which is the best one to read. Or does it make any difference? Mandruss (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're seeing the results of an organic process. The Manual of Style (MOS) was intended to be a guideline for creating articles, but until recently was pretty inadequate. So, there are also a number of Wikipedia pages that were written to provide guidelines about specific topics. In the meantime, the MOS has gotten better.


 * Since MOS is within Wikipedia, when I'm looking for something in particular, I do an "advanced search" and check off "Wikipedia", such as this query.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed one or two editors say that they like to spend a lot of their time repairing vandalism. Assuming they're fixing mostly things not on their watchlists, how do they find the vandalism? Mandruss (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The primary way that happens is by catching unexpected types of edits to articles on their watchlist... often by a new user or an IP address user. Sometimes it's clear-cut, like an entire article page is blanked out, or a lot of content is removed... other times it's sneaky, like inserting obscene remarks, lies, or changing the information. Sometimes it's accidental, like new users that sign their additions in article space. For articles that are important to me, I check the history when I see articles have been modified.


 * There are also administrators who watch for certain types of activities. Some types of changes appear on error logs and there are folks that monitor for specific types of changes.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside of history entries, I've yet to see a single occurrence of vandalism. This, despite the fact that I've been using Wikipedia almost daily for many years (I work the online New York Times crossword every day, and that's one of the ways I use Wikipedia; my sister says it's cheating).

I find that remarkable, given the size of the anti-Wikipedia crowd, and the enormous number of kids (and childlike adults) who have unsupervised Internet access and feel the need to express their angst by breaking something. There must be relatively few articles that are not on the watchlist of at least one editor who monitors it diligently. Mandruss (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as much as I used to, but I've got just under 4,000 pages on my watchlist and often spend part of each day either correcting information that was entered in good faith - or resolving vandalism.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's one example from today that was caught by another user.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just spent about two hours cleaning up an article, then decided to try Show preview for the first time. When I returned to the edit, all my changes were gone. After a little investigation, I figured out that I can't use my browser's Back button to return to the edit. The preview page didn't mention that (although it had a nice red message warning me that I was in preview and my edit hadn't been saved), and I'm not real happy about that. Since I tend to click Back without thinking about it when I want to go back, it's probably not safe for me to use preview anyway. That's okay, I guess ... I can just continue to do multiple edits as necessary until it's right. Mandruss (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What a bummer!!! I hate it when those kinds of things happen! I don't know if you want a tip or not, but if I haven't saved in awhile cause I'm working on an edit, I copy the contents to a temp notes file on my P.C. (You want to hear crazy? It's snowing! Doesn't it know it's nearly mid-May? Gotta, hopefully, save some flowers.)-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Carole, I'm taking a WP:WIKIBREAK, length hard to say at this point. Thanks for all your help to date, you're awesome! Mandruss (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, enjoy! Thanks for letting me know.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

<! I was having serious trouble coping with what I saw as a pervasive problem in the Wikipedia community. Except for you and the Teahouse, pretty much of all of my interactions with experienced editors were negative. They seemed to believe that their experience gave them license to disregard whatever WP rules and guidelines they disagreed with or found inconvenient. This was not only in the area of how to be a good editor, but also how to interact with other people. In one typical example, an experienced editor, apparently a female judging by the userid, reverted about two hours of my work with no explanation, in blatant violation of the guidelines. She disappeared without a word and I never saw her again. I was able to re-revert, so I didn't have to do the work again, but I still found it disturbing that an experienced editor would behave like that.

Maybe I overreact. On the other hand, it's clear that Wikipedia has put a tremendous effort into establishing some high ideals. Those ideals are important to me; they're why I'm here; and I feel that they're not worth a lot if so many experienced editors are allowed to ignore them to such a degree.

I stayed away for a few days, but Wikipedia kept calling my name lol. I came back and dabbled a bit, but I felt like being anonymous so I didn't log in. I did a little at 2014 Isla Vista killings, and that little has become a lot for the past several days. Things have been better there, aside from the revert I mentioned. Eventually I decided to log in, lest I be suspected of sockpuppeting.

I'll work on caring less, and I'll try to avoid charged discussions with experienced editors. But I'll probably need more breaks from time to time, since I don't foresee anything being done about the problem. Mandruss (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, ! I am so sorry to hear that. I can absolutely be frustrating. It seems that each project has its own personality and dynamics. I hope that the feelings that you express here did not last too long. Did you fall into something that you really enjoyed?

It seems you're in a groove now. You get a lot of great work done and are my mentor.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should find a nice soothing CD or two and play background music while I edit Wikipedia. Maybe you can recommend something. Things are far less stressful now. First, I learned how to take wikibreaks, and I've taken a few of them. And just knowing that they're an option paradoxically seems to reduce the need for them. And secondly I have managed to build a somewhat positive rep among the community, so people treat me better. It's been an interesting several years. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:16, 17 October 2016 (UT
 * Thanks for the audio. I didn't know that I liked any Rachmaninoff, although I have known the name forever and remember the association with Shine (film). I certainly have no fear of classical, since I heard a lot of it growing up and played cello five years in school orchestra.

Music
Do you ever use Pandora? And, know that it starts with a song or genre - and then provides you with related choices that you're likely to like

Here's my station list, in no order at all, an eclectic mix of country, soul, R&B, Buddhist, folk, etc.
 * Al Green
 * Up on the Roof - that song is a favorite
 * I Can't Wait- that song is a favorite
 * If I Needed You - that song is a favorite
 * Healing Hands - that song is a favorite
 * The Beetles
 * Your Smiling Face
 * Cream
 * Walk on the Ocean
 * This Little Light of Mine
 * Thumbprint
 * Inside chanting, it's helpful to know, though, what's being chanted
 * Buddhist sounds
 * Stop in the name of love (I think is based on a country version of the song
 * Susan Boyle
 * Peter White Radio
 * Wayman Disdale
 * Cecelia Cruz

I run SETI@home in background, and it consumes all CPU capacity not used by anything else. Presumably Pandora would take significant CPU capacity away from SETI@home, so I think I would prefer to use CDs in my stereo instead. Although I'm aware there are benefits to something like Pandora. Weird stuff happened at my talk page, if you haven't seen my latest there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't used Pandora, how much does it cost?


 * yep, and I didn't get the pings that were in your history. The first character was removed. I started a "Words" section here. It might be good to move/archive the discussion. I was going to check your edit mode and see if there's some tag or template where it lops off.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pandora doesn't cost anything. I don't know how much bandwidth that it takes. Since it's audio, I wouldn't think much. Wow! I've don't think I have heard about. I had thought about joining a watching group - where you can see a map of users - and I didn't feel comfortable having my address on a map and knew absolutely nothing about the people that had access to the info. Wow! that could be an interesting conversation!!

Can't make sense of the rest of the above comment, partly because of the incomplete sentence I've don't think I have heard about. But I don't see a connection between SETI@home, if that's what you meant, and "a watching group" or "a map of users". Ya lost me for the first time! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SETI@home takes extremely little "bandwidth", which generally refers to Internet access. It downloads small data files (very little Internet access) and then does number-crunching on them for hours, which is what consumes all that CPU capacity. Maybe that's what you meant by bandwidth, I don't know.

Well by bandwidth I met from an internet access perspective. I have no idea how much CPU it might take up.


 * Oh, sorry. I was typing I haven't heard - then I thought I'll search - then I was excited and started typing.


 * Do you mind if I go on the chat line and ask if there are patrolling procedures which would delete user page data? I can ask a general question, but I am guessing that they'd want to look at the specific account. Then, I need to go to bed.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Got your point on the other section. Night.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope that didn't come across as short. You and I both have said we wanted to go to bed, so off I go. It's been fun, interesting, and eye-opening night. It will be nice to talk again!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. Such a worrier. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok my comments about Pandora were premature. I tried one selection from your list and used Windows Task Manager to see how much CPU capacity it was using. It's not enough to be concerned about. So I'll play everything in your list and dabble at the Pandora site, but I don't know how much time I'll have to really explore and learn it well. That's usually how it goes with anything non-Wikipedia. :) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool! I am really not well today, so I may pop in a little - but I won't be around much.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking maybe we should use regular email. Feel free to email me - or I can email you in a bit. I'm going to get more sleep, I think I forgot to take my dilantin the night before yesterday (sorry I cannot think how to say it at the moment) and, with the wacky sleep schedule the last number of days, I got pretty messed me up and need more sleep and to rest a bit. I'm super confused - my brain is not processing well right now. Sorry, I don't mean to complain - just trying to tell you where I'm at. We'll catch up later. -- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You've got mail, or should have. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC


 * You should have one now.


 * I think email is working. I don't know about you, but I leave mine up all the time so I'll see it within about 15 min if I'm on the computer. You're aware that none of the notification templates/links work unless you sign in the same edit? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Words
It's probably this paragraph that triggered administrators - someone was listening in on the party line. It might be better to talk here.

Well I consider it a faux pas....

Yes, I am a fairly open person. I used to travel a lot, fly around for business, and so many people had my information. There's nothing that I experience with you that I thought was a faux pas.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's probably this paragraph that triggered administrators 1. Why on earth would that "trigger administrators"? 2. Even if something is revdeled, that should be evident in the page history, no? I don't know which I would find more alarming, admins inappropriately removing comments from my talk page (without explanantion) or the system just randomly discarding all of that content. I feel the need to resolve this, or try to, before we move on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * lol!!! I think it's probably a good thing.... not to share too much on your open talk page.


 * LOL. Well it may be a good thing not to use that talk page for this, but that doesn't prevent me from being concerned about both issues. Both are clearly very problematic. There's some stuff near the bottom of WP:VPT about some hacking, but it doesn't seem connected to this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

- I was going to go into your edit mode real quick. Another thing is to do a search on User talk page patrolling something like that. And, see what's on the WP article about user pages.

I'd like to check your edit mode - and can check the WP article about user pages.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea what you mean by "go into my edit mode", or much understanding of the rest either. LOL &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

- Oh, sorry, I meant look at your user page in edit mode. Something i typed about your user page is gone.

Anyway, It looks like we probably were getting to violation of policies about excessive unrelated content. But there is supposed to be a warning posted to your user page before an action is taken using

So, there's definitely user page patrolling.

I had wondered if some of your content might have been moved to the archives, but it's not in the last one. I have no idea how much you had on your talk page - but there was a fair amount right? I'm a bit confused at the moment how to digest what's happening.

Is this something you'd feel comfortable bringing out on the chat line? I forget what it's called, but I wonder if you can bring up that you had unexpected removal of user page content and see what they say?-- CaroleHenson (talk)


 * This is the link for the chat line - helps if I add the link. I am so tired - so sorry if I'm not making sense. I just realized how late it is.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As much "fun" as we're having, if you're tired you should go to bed. We can pick this up tomorrow, although we're on different sleep schedules right now (mine varies wildly). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, anything revdeled would at least show as revdeled in the page history, with the strikethrough stuff. Things don't just completely disapppear with no explanation whatsoever. Therefore I have decided that it was a system error, the first one I've witnessed in 3.5 years. So the next step would normally be to open a thread at WP:WPT, but that woulld require showing our personal conversation to everybody, and I'm not particularly comfortable with that. So what I'm thinking about is to (1) just ignore the system error as a one-time fluke, while watching WP:VPT to see if anybody else reports something like that, and (2) restore the "Thanks for the group?" by copying-and-pasting from this revision. I think it's extremely unlikely it would vanish again. I think it's very unlikely anyone would object because user talk pages are given a lot of freedom as to personal stuff. It's not a WP:NOTFORUM vio there.


 * Smart - restoring that version of your talk page! All that you say makes sense to me.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I restored the two lost sections, "In use" and "Thanks for the group?", from the revision, but something is still screwed up with my talk page. It's complicated, but the position of the few post-loss comments related to our discussion, which are showing in the "Lead" thread, is different from their position that I see when I edit the full page. Looks like a case of "database corruption", which I would normally take to WP:VPT. Again, I don't want to make all that personal stuff public. And come to think of it, it doesn't need to be on display for watchers of my talk page, either. Therefore I'm just reverting my restore edit, writing off that content as lost, and hoping my talk page will behave normally from here on. And we can confine the personal to this page, as you suggested, although some curious people will find it anyway via your contribs or mine. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is all so wierd. Have a good night! Thanks for your nice comment on the DT page!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously, it's light out! I've heard morning taps! I have been so loopy (petite mal seizure kind of loopy) I don't know what I'm doing for six hours. How in the world has one more thing gone this long. We should be gone! But, it's kind of going crazy. One last look and then I'm gone.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, that's what you said about three hours ago. I'll believe it when I see it. :D &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now, I think I need to back off and let things flow a little and see where it comes out. I may very well take tomorrow off and just let things flow a bit. I may be taking today off. It will definitely be much lighter. I've had a lot of fun, but I need to step back, get to feeling better, and come back more centered. Nite, for sure.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

--->

Norman, Oklahoma
Great edits to Norman, Oklahoma. I, too, prefer the spelled out mdy format. You made some great copy edits, too.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I grew up here and moved back after 30 years in Texas. Mandruss (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The date format thing was a different editor. Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about! Mandruss (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol - at myself. I selected the bunch of your edits and just realized that was in the middle.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Land Rush of 1889

 * Good work on improving the citations within the Land Rush of 1889 article. There is one source, that would be better to get from a book, magazine or newspaper, specifically: Bradford, Susan. "Oklahoma Land Openings 1889-1907". Oklahoma GenWeb. Retrieved 2014-05-09. The GenWeb sites are great sources of information, but the content does not generally have editorial control, such as those found in WP:Reliable sources. Perhaps one of these sources: here would work.


 * I've searched far and wide and I can't find another source that specifically supports (or contradicts) the statement in the article. Part of the problem is that the named counties didn't exist at the time of the land run; that area hadn't been divided into counties yet.


 * There are maps from good sources that outline the land run area without counties. I could cite one of those maps, but it wouldn't really support the statement unless the reader somehow overlayed the outline onto a modern map with counties. I don't think that would pass the smell test, do you? Mandruss (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think about: https://www.nationalcowboymuseum.org/research/exhibits/rushes/default.aspx -- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're a showoff LOL. Note that I changed "2013 modern day" to "present-day" because (1) I don't think those county borders are going to change anytime soon, and (2) I think "present-day" sounds better than "modern day", at least in this context. ✅ Mandruss (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol! Sounds good!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, there's a cool tool to format sources from google books: http://reftag.appspot.com/ - you just enter the url and click "load" and the template gets formatted for the citation.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 19:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a question on Talk:Land Rush of 1889 about why the article isn't named Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. Do you have a thought about that?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. All of the four articles about other Oklahoma land runs have the same problem. I can only guess the reasoning is that the runs were administered by the federal government. It's not great reasoning, but it's all I got. Maybe you'll get something better in its Talk. Mandruss (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 224,000 Web pages contain "Land Run of 1889" but no "Oklahoma Land Run of 1889". 43,500 pages contain "Oklahoma Land Run of 1889". This seems to indicate a strong Web preference for the phrase without the word Oklahoma. It still doesn't explain why. Mandruss (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to determine who has that page on their watchlists, and how active they are (e.g., date of last login)? What will you do if you never get a credible answer to your question? Mandruss (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on your findings, it sounds as if the article name should stay as is. I could post your findings on the talk page and close it out. I am guessing that it doesn't contain "Oklahoma" because Oklahoma wasn't founded as a state until 1907 (I think that's the year). Does it make sense to you to keep the article title as is?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 04:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm for asking a similar question on the talk pages of the other four articles (similar in the sense that the question is really about all five articles, not just one). I'd be happy to do that, but I think most experienced editors would naturally pay more attention to another experienced editor. The other articles are:
 * Land Run of 1891
 * Land Run of 1892
 * Land Run of 1893
 * Land Run of 1895 Mandruss (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted the question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma and will look up contributor's names from these articles and post a talkback on their user page to ask them to chime in if they're interested.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If or when you come back, the feedback on this issue was:


 * ":Well the main reason why the first one is not named Oklahoma land run of 1889, is the simple fact that at the time Oklahoma didn't exist. Oklahoma territory wasn't established till a year later on May 2, 1890. As for the others its more along the lines of common name. Nearly all of the land runs had other names but most of them are mostly known as the Land Run of 1881 and so on. Also do to the fact that there have never been any other Land runs in the United States there seems to be no why that you can mistake these land runs for any others. If you fill other wise the fill free to request a move on any or all of them. If you have anymore questions please feel free to leave me a message here or on my talk page.-- Dcheagle   &bull; talk &bull; contribs 22:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)"


 * And, so I created redirects Oklahoma Land Run of 1889, etc. Thanks for your research and input on this!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy
Great edits to John F. Kennedy article, including the numerous capitalization edits and movement of images to align with the corresponding text.

I'm wondering if the bit about "First Family comedy album" might do better with the — dashes because of the number of commas in the sentence. Just a thought. Otherwise, looks great!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Great to have someone who appreciates that stuff. Re First Family, I see your point, but how do you create a dash like that? And do you know whether it's more correct to put a blank on each side of one? Mandruss (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can add the emdash by selecting the "Wiki markup" option from the second half of the edit screen (just before the place to enter the edit summary) - and it's the second item. Or you can use &mdash ; (with the semicolon immediately after the "h") to make &mdash;


 * I kind of like the spaces, so I add them. It seems to crunched together to me without them.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mandruss (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, looks good!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User page
You may want to add something to your user page. Once you do, your user name will no longer appear as a redlink in the article history, contributions and watchlist pages - meaning you won't look like a new user. Some people add a brief statement about their interests to start.
 * ✅ Mandruss (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, and funny, too! I envy how close you got to your pilot's license!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For more involved user pages, you can find some ideas at WP:UPYES, information about your background or interests, or projects membership.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback types
I'm also interested in your ideas, if any, about things to do in the wiki source to make it more readable and maintainable. No need to write me a style manual, just mention things as we go. Mandruss (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean how things appear in edit mode?--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. For example, do you like to use otherwise unnecessary white space to separate things for better readability (i.e., easier future editing for yourself and others)? If so, where? Mandruss (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit mode is pretty tricky. There's not a lot that can be done until the beta graphical user interface is ready for prime-time.


 * There are a couple of things, though, like adding comments to indicate where things are located it the content in edit mode is really confused.


 * Under your "Preferences" (top line menu), then the "Gadgets" tag, "Editing" section, the third option is "Syntax highlighter". It's not perfect, but it highlights formatting syntax so that it's a bit easier to read the edit mode text.


 * I'll think of some others.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking Type 1
Let's use this section to talk about overlinking. If there's any really thorough guidance on the subject, I haven't run across it. That might help explain why I see so much overlinking. A whole lot of people seem to think that if you can wikilink it, you should (and I think they like doing it because wikilinks are cool). I know that's wrong, but I need a better instinct for where to draw the line.

Just for starters, U.S. state in the second sentence of Land Rush of 1889. How many people reading that article are going to want to read up on what a U.S. state is? Mandruss (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. The pro of linking is that it greatly enhances visibility of articles - and it makes it easy for readers to get further information easily. Generally people and organizations, like universities, etc. are linked once each article. But, it shouldn't be used for very common works like names of countries, common animals (horse, cattle), and other very common terms.


 * Even bearing in mind that not all English (or multi-lingual) readers are from the United States, I would agree that U.S. state is not a necessary link.


 * Does that help?--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a start. First, to simplify things, we should separate two types of overlinking:


 * Where a certain wikilink isn't needed at all in that article.


 * Where there are too many wikilinks to the same target. I'll create another section for this later.

For me, the more links there are, the lower the readability. The color changes seem to create a sort of visual interference for me, and a lot of them slow me down to a crawl. Also, from WP:OVERLINK: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly."

Take a look at WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK. As I read them, we should unlink U.S. state, United States, and Oklahoma --- and possibly the county names, too, depending on your interpretation of the very vague word, "major".

That article isn't that bad, I've seen a lot that are far worse. Many editors would have linked "Hollywood" in that article, for example, not to mention a few dozen other unneeded and distracting links. Yawn. I'm going to bed. Mandruss (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I weigh in a lot about overlinking and underlinking. I came to a general framework from conversations with other users -- in the end how a lot of things get resolved.


 * I would agree about U.S. state and there is absolute consensus not to link countries, like United States. For counties, you may want to think about a reader from another country - or someone who wants to get the lay of the land, so to speak. Is it more annoying to have the links, or to have to go up to the search window to look up each county if they're interested.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's absolute consensus not to link countries, I could locate and eliminate all of the links to United States, at least.
 * Is there some record of that consensus that I could link to in the edit summaries? If not, could one be created? Just something to help reduce reverts?
 * Can you think of any exceptions, cases where the link is appropriate? Mandruss (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's lots of discussion in the linking archives about this topic, all of which builds upon the statement in WP:OVERLINKING that links should not be made to "the names of major geographic features and locations".


 * If you're really excited about de-linking, I have a couple of suggestions: 1) post a message on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking page and see if there are pros and cons to that - or some specific trouble countries. From what I've seen, it would seem to me a safe de-linking would be American, which is used a lot. 2) I'd very highly recommend the use of a tool like WP:AWB where you can search for United States , for instance, and use the find and replace to change United States --> United States and then save the change. An added bonus is that the AWB would find and fix some common errors in the process.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 08:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed tag
I'm curious about this tag. If I see something that doesn't have a citation, I know it needs a citation, since everything should be cited. What's the point of the tag, then? Does it automatically add to some global list of citations needed? Mandruss (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you add at the end of an uncited sentence or paragraph
 * Or, at the top of the article if there are a lot of citations missing,


 * then it appears in a worklist for that month, like Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from May 2014. At the bottom of the page are "hidden categories" that identify the worklist categories. I'm not sure if you have to set something up in "Preferences" to see that or not.... hmmm, I'll check.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a setting in preferences to see WP:Hidden categories. If you're interested, see Help:Preferences.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The page for the category "All articles needing additional references" says, "This category contains all pages labeled with Refimprove, Refimprovesect, One source and Unreferenced section". It doesn't mention Citation needed. I can spend some time working on this kind of thing, but I think I'd rather start with individual citations needed rather than entire articles. Is that in a different list, or is the above statement just incomplete? Mandruss (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me chiming in here (I saw your post at the Teahouse regarding adoption) and then noticed this question. While a goal is to have just about everything actually sourced, and our best content usually conforms to that, the applicable policy, verifiability does not require this but rather that all information must be source able – (capable of being verified in sources). We only require actual citations – proof of that – in: quotations, and any "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" (emphasis added). The section of the verifiability policy known as WP:BURDEN is incredibly important and directly applicable: it provides in sum and substance that if you believe something is dubious, wrong, probably unverifiable..., you can remove it and it is the burden of the person wishing to retain that material to provide a source using an inline citation or it cannot be returned to the article. Understanding the interplay of this is key to understanding when to use the citation needed tag. In practice, instead of just removing material, placing the citation needed tag is a method of challenging material you question, asking for actual evidence of verifiability by verification in a source. (Of course, clearly inappropriate material should just be removed, and this is especially true of unsourced controversial material about a living person.) So, if you find a statement you think is dubious or controversial or likely wrong, you can just remove it, but placing the tag to present the challenge is often a better and less drama-inducing way; if not met by a citation being added after some appropriate time has passed, you then remove the challenged material. (Quotations which lack a source also get the tag but that's just straightforward.) Note that there is rather broad consensus that the citation needed tag should not be peppered throughout an article or section but rather anywhere you would do so, use unreferenced, refimprove refimprove section or a related template. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Fuhghettaboutit - I've seen you around from time to time. Yep, I know that on the continuum of viewpoints about citing sources that are some folks that don't consider it mandatory to have cited sources. I think that material should be cited - and I cannot see a reason why it shouldn't be cited. For me, it's important for managing notability, copyright infringement and that the material comes from reliable sources - and really important for articles about living people. When I've worked on unsourced articles, I often find that some of the content is not consistent among reliable sources and requires editing / clarificaton. It's interesting to find that a lot of time when sources are not available the content is direct copies of material on the web... and/or from non-reliable sources. I go with the approach, as do other editors that I've worked with on history and visual arts articles, to ensure that the information is properly sourced.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. This feels more than a little over my head at this point. I think I'll save this and come back to it when I'm ready for it. But, in my humblest of opinions, I think when two very experienced editors differ this much on something this important, it's a sign that the rules and guidelines are leaving too much room for interpretation. It's not like the guidelines would be too complicated if they took a clear stand on questions like these. And there must be a lot of time being wasted because different factions of experienced editors are continuously moving things in opposite directions. Mandruss (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In practice, I don't think that this is an editing or article improvement issue - No one ever has a problem with enhancing an article and adding sources. The only net issue that I can see is tagging for citations too frequently.


 * From my opinion, what I remember of Fuhghettaboutit is that he or she is a particularly good editor (and possibly administrator?). A couple of things may be at play. I've been working on projects where there have been senior editors that have groomed me to be very careful about ensuring content is well-cited, namely English and U.S. history and visual arts. I fully concede that I am on the stricter side of the continuum based upon my occupational background. That said, I cannot remember experiencing an issue in tagging articles with cn tags, ref improve, or cleaning up articles.


 * It comes to a point of sorting out for yourself where in the continuum you fall - and how things seem to roll within particular WikiProjects. I think the key issues are when looking at an article is if there are copyright issues, WP:Original research, one-side opinions or inconsistencies with prevailing opinions about a topic. That's really the issue, and I think that's the area where we'd all agree - it just may be how we get there is different.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks to you both for the input.

I embarked on an attempt to improve "articles needing additional references", and I found that I just couldn't get into it. I'm not well suited to that job; that prevents me from enjoying it, and my commitment to Wikipedia ends where I stop enjoying it. What I am good at is copyediting, and I see a need for more of that. Also matters of aesthetics, such as image layout, and I can improve existing citations to make them more standardized and complete. In other words, the kinds of things that I've mostly been doing to date, although I'll probably expand my "skill set" very gradually.

Unless there's a list of articles that need that kind of work, I'll just continue to roam and improve things as I run across them. Mandruss (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great idea! It's really not fun if you're not enjoying it. I don't know if this is helpful or not, but you may want to scope out some WikiProjects that may interests you. Then, you can watch the talk pages and see if there are places to jump in to conversations, article improvement, etc. For instance, for history WikiProjects see this query. Usually the place to join is midway or towards the bottom of the WikiProject page.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Carole. You won't find many people more keen on requiring sources than I. I think we are actually of two like minds on this:-) My post was to explain the state of policy, and how it interfaces with use of the CN tag. I have actually proposed making verifiability have more teeth but unfortunately, what the policy is, and what I think it should be are two different things.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Wowee, great comments on your Village pump posting. I couldn't have said it better myself!


 * I think I got hung up on the use of cn tags to question statements. I just had a visual of the number of articles that I've seen that had no article level references needed tag - and just a few (often long-standing) cn tags, and my brain got stuck on that visual. Along with running into some folks somewhat recently that have had a very laissez-faire approach (and use Ignore all rules liberally). Sorry for my misunderstanding.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)