User talk:Altairisfar/Archive 45

Geocode sourcing
the subject of a WP:RS/N thread. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush/Sandbox3 - Which lists some coordinates sourced to Wikimapia which was

a concern has been raised that they don't appear to be sourced.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_geodata - These articles HAVE coordinates, but

As you seem to know of 'reliable' sources, your efforts in making them sourced 'reliabily' are much appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Altairisfar, thanks for the Barnstar. It is much appreciated. Woodlot (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks for all of your great work! Altairisfar (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wood shingle merge
Hi, you closed the Wood shingle/Shake (shingle) merger proposal with the comment "no consensus". I see quite the opposite on the Talk page. Three editors support the merger; one editor says it "may be useful to merge them" but is not sure; no one is frankly opposed. Sounds like a consensus to me. These are closely related things, and much of the article content is the same. --Macrakis (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally missed that one. There wasn't any discussion at the other page.  But, since the merge tags were over a year old, why hasn't someone merged them? Altairisfar (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hickory Ground
Thanks for starting this article. I was actually working on writing it at exactly the same time, so my attempt to save was met with an edit conflict :) I've tried to merge my text into the article you wrote; please check that I've not got anything wrong, and please feel free to copyedit etc. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The last two paragraphs — "Building on the site..." and "Formerly owned by..." — could do with merging I think. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah I'm trying to do it now and consolidate the two. Altairisfar (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, you really dug into the sources. Thanks so much. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! :) Altairisfar (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Otciapofa
An article that you have been involved in editing, Otciapofa, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Uyvsdi (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh ?
What userpage did I disrupt? --CalmHighball (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These Altairisfar (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How US county subdivisions are placed
You did two reverts that didn't make sense for Pima and Carroll county pages. Most of the 3100+ county pages have cities, towns, CDP and unincorporated communities in separate headings on the same heading levels. These two are not conforming to the norm and the edits you reverted had made them more closely agree with the large majority of the rest of them. Please don't get into an edit war over my reverting your reversions. TMLutas (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you're confused, since your changes to Carroll County, Arkansas have placed the communities and townships under the Demographics header. That's not standard.  My only change to that page was a revert of what appeared to be simple vandalism by an anonymous IP, evidently that was you.  Since that was my only contribution there, I find your edit war warning to be premature at best. On, Pima County, Arizona, I should paid closer attention and should not have reverted.  Altairisfar (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right on carroll county and I should go back and edit it better. Too many things to do at once. Thanks for the catch. I'm doing edits via filemaker and it's a limited browser at best. TMLutas (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Saturday in October‎
Thanks for straightening out that mess! Looking into the issue a little further, I've come to the conclusion that is a clear sockpuppet of  and I have blocked both accounts indefinitely. Hopefully the discussion can now move forward without interference. -- auburn pilot  talk  18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for figuring that out. I suspected as much from Nuggets56, but the other party shouldn't have closed down the discussion on what seems to be a legitimate issue.  I'm actually leaning toward leaving the title where it is myself, but wanted to see what others thought so this can be put to bed for good. Altairisfar (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference syntax out of article text
Hi. I'm curious why you felt the need to move reference syntax out of the References section and back into the article text? It's extremely rare that I find any editor wanting to do that, so I'd like to know more about your objections. One rationale for my edits is that simplifying article text by excluding reference minutiae makes it easier for the casual editor to make edits. GFHandel &#9836; 20:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than your assertion that it is easier to use, it seems to me that it adds complexity to editing. I do not find it advocated in the manual of style or help pages.  Can you point out where it is demonstrated to be preferred over standard formatting? Altairisfar (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that I (and many other editors now) are at the cutting edge of a movement to standardise references, with the aim to make article text less disruptive due to Wiki-syntax—hence making it less daunting for the casual editors that we are trying hard to encourage. Those casual editors don't have to know how to add reference syntax, however they have a much easier time skipping over the short references left in the article text. Have a study of articles such as Sean Combs and Bob Hope and try to envisage just how disruptive to the text it would be if the reference syntax was in there as well. In articles where references are reused, you get a similar split of reference syntax, so it does very little harm to go the whole way and remove the single expanded ref component from the article text. BTW, I believe that you do need to consider your strategy regarding reference formatting, since (by undoing my edits) you have reintroduced disparate date formats in the rendered references (something that is against policy). Anyhow, I hope this is some food for thought, and since you seem to think that it adds complexity (which I assure you is not an issue), please don't hesitate to contact me if you have more questions. GFHandel &#9836; 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the disparate date in that citation, it is now corrected. "Cutting edge" or not, I'd like to see examples of where consensus has been reached that this is the better method of formatting, since it is not at all common.  Altairisfar (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I do this a lot and find it very helpful. I've been thanked many times for re-organising references this way, too. The core issue is that full citation details inline turn into half the wikitext, making the prose fragmented and essentially unreadable in the editbox. It drives n00bz away quite regularly as they can't read it. Wikitext with a high proportion of plaintext in it is much more approachable.
 * There's not a consensus that this is preferred; no accounting for disparate opinions. But it is popular and being used more and more, everyday. You know the history of this? When ref tags with names were first introduced, the ref definition /had/ to be at the first usage and the other invocations had to follow. This often put them in things like infoboxes. Later, the parser was made two-pass, which allowed them to be invoked above the definition, and later-yet (2009) things were changed again to allow references to actually be defined /in/ the reference section. That there are many articles written with them defined high up is simply due the fact that at the time the articles were written, the refs /had/ to be done that way. And people learned that approach and then closed their minds to further learning.
 * This isn't even cutting edge; see articles like Franz Kafka, Lynching of Jesse Washington, Pedro II of Brazil, or Avery Brundage; they don't have a single ref tag in them; they're using even better referencing mechanisms. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the info. I'll have to give it some thought. Altairisfar (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)