User talk:Barakokula31

Hellas
Please do not use Greece to refer to our country, we increasingly consider it offensive now because it was the name Romans used for Hellas when they conquered it. Hellas is an English word derived from the Hellenic word Ελλάς which transliterates as Ellas in the Latin alphabet. European Union uses Hellas officially as the shorthand name of the country (the official longhand name is Hellenic Republic). Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Please, do not remove interwiki links that are not provided by Wikidata, as yo did at Fibonacci number. If you are not convinced that these links were relevant, then read D.Lazard (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Barakoula
Hi, whats up? :D --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WWII in Yugoslavia Vandelism/Nationalist
User with IP 178.223.44.231, keeps deleting, censoring and rewording Balkan related articles. Seems to be nationalisticly motivated. Person is undoing your edits in WWII In Yugoslavia article. Person's history of doing so seems to warrent action from administration.Thank you. 108.54.93.183 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ta
Missed that one. :) WCM email 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

EB1911 and AWB
What I am focusing on is altering citations that do not use, or if text if copied from EB1911 then the attribution template ) as advised in WP:FREECOPYING.

Let us look at the change to the last edit that you listed. Latest revision as of 06:26, 7 April 201 of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. In this case the long citations are inline. Apart from changing EB911 and EB9 to use the custom templates, the changes I made:
 * remove the unnecessary subsection of "References" called "Citations"
 * removed one of the two items in the "Biography" "Bibliography" section already listed in the References section.
 * Move one item (EB1911), that is not in the References section into the "External links" section, because it is not cited in the article. (Manual of Style/Layout)
 * Removed the empty Biography Bibliography section.

Prior to an edit that was made to this article in 2016 when the Biography Bibliography and Citation section heading were created, the article had exactly the heading it had after my edit (see 13 January 2016 -- the first edit of 2016).

Both the examples in WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT use "Notes" and "References" sections, these are the common names for these sections.

In Manual of Style/Layout I am following the guidance in "Title: Editors may...", but also taking in consideration the guidance "Several alternate titles...".

As to WP:CITEVAR "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference". I am not doing that. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you like we can go through edits on other pages in similar detail. Would you like to choose a page? -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Lets call a construct of  a "ref...tag pair".


 * I had a look at your recent edits and it seems that I edited an article called on 3 April 2017 using AWB you edited the article on the 7 April. In your edit you put back ==References== with two sub sections ===Citations=== and ===Bibliography=== on 7 April.


 * If you look back to the article as it was on 3 September 2015 there was only a references section.


 * The editor who then edited the article chose to remove the template that was being used as an inline long citation and replaced it with a short citation to a  (in doing so removing the attribution and also the hidden categories used to maintain EB1911 citations -- see the template documentation in . The real question here is why was that unnecessary and partial change made to the style of the citations? Why didn't the editor keep all full references in "ref...tag pairs" and keep them in a section called References?


 * Just like any other footnote, citations inside a ref...tag pair are footnotes (notes), there is no reason to divide 'other types of notes' and citations into separate lists, other than aesthetic ones. In many developed articles, short citations are used in footnotes. A the short citation is also a short footnote to fill in what would other wise be a large amount of space to the right of a long column it is desirable to use multiple columns, typically they are created using . Placing other types of footnotes into those multiple columns can make them difficult to read, in which case it makes aesthetic sense to place other types of notes into templates that are not placed in columns, but that is not a reason to divide up the footnotes into separate sections.


 * The problem with sections called "Citation" and "Bibliography" (in addition to those mentioned in WP:LAYOUT) are:
 * if short citations are used, then the citation is spread out over two sections: the section displaying the ref...tag pairs, and the section containing the long citations that are used to support the short citations. Using the name "Citation" for the section that just contains short citation is confusing, even more so if the short and long citations a are not linked using  templates.
 * Bibliography is also confusing for many editors because they think it means a list of books (which it does). The citations then get a mixed style of short in-line citations (with long citations in the Bibliography section) for books; and long in-line citations to other types of material such as, newspapers, web sites and journals.


 * -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, I should clarify that I have no issues with converting EB1911 citations to use the templates. I'll also take it that "Biography" is a typo.


 * Baden bei Wien was the only page you edited that I changed, because two separate reflists were placed under the same header and it looked really messy. Regarding "there is no reason to divide 'other types of notes' and citations into separate lists": I guess that is true if the section is titled "(Foot)notes", but it's usually "References", "Citations", or something to that effect, meaning that explanatory footnotes would be out of of place. That said, even if you prefer that style, you probably shouldn't go around switching to it in articles with which you have no prior involvement.


 * I can see how problem #2 could be confusing. See this FA for an example of how it could be resolved.


 * As for "Would you like to choose a page?": sure – how about bachelor?


 * And one more thing: reading my original post on your talk page again, it probably came off as a bit rude. Sorry if it did, that was not my intention.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  01:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out my error. Biography should have been Bibliography (now corrected)
 * Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence is confusing, but see Battle of Ligny for one that is not, or Charles I of England for another in a different format and is also easy to read.


 * thank you for pointing out my inadvertent error in editing Bachelor, I have now fixed it.
 * This is how the article was on 4 October 2015. It had one section for all references and footnotes called "Footnotes". If I had come across this on 4 October 2015, I would have renamed the section. The choices would have been between "Notes and references" or "References" As the footnote contains a reference I would most likely have chosen "References".
 * A series of edits were then made on the 5 October that created a "Notes" section and renamed the Footnotes section "References". Nothing wrong with that BUT it also introduced short citations into the References section and created two bullet points in the References section that contained the long citation to support the short citations. That was a change in style and made the citation style not "already consistent" (WP:CITEVAR).
 * My edit put the two Encyclopaedia Britannica citations into custom templates (these includes hidden maintenance templates) see sub-categories in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. That done I moved them into the Reference section as inline citations so that they are in a similar style to the others.
 * Apart from the mistake I made (missing out one group=n ref..tag pair), what if anything do you think is incorrect with that edit? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Apart from the mistake I made (missing out one group=n ref..tag pair), what if anything do you think is incorrect with that edit?: Nothing really. Thanks for fixing it.


 * I guess my concerns about the AWB edits have been addressed. However, I'm curious, what exactly makes the references in the Rhodesia article confusing? One thing I find strange about the Battle of Ligny article is that the explanatory footnotes are in the same place as the reference/citation footnotes, with no clear distinction, such as a separate section heading (this is what I "fixed" in the Baden bei Wien article). The Charles I article is very nice, though – the notes are in their own section, separate from the references, as are the works cited in the article (the "Sources" section).  ~barakokula31  (talk)  13:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As luck would have it the article on Charles I was altered between my posting here and your looking at it here it is as it was when I posted to your page. The separation of footnotes is only necessary for style reasons, if short citations are used it is convenient to place them in multiple columns so that more can be seem on the screen and paper is not wasted when printing them. If a footnote is not a short citation then they can be difficult to read of placed in narrow columns. But if the citations are long ones, then they are not usually placed multiple columns, in which case there is no reason to separate out footnotes that are not long citations. I do not see why you think that placing short citation footnotes in columns below other footnotes in the same section should be any more "strange" than mixing long citations and non-citation together (which is the norm both on Wikipedia and in standard texts that use footnotes).
 * The reason why I think the Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence article is confusing is there is only one heading, and it seems to me completely arbitrary why there are the columns there are, and the odd grouping of texts into different categorises of Speeches; Newspaper and journal articles; Online sources; and Bibliography also seem arbitrary to me, particularly as many books and newspapers are online. For example in that list why is a BBC webpage place in the online section (it is basically an archived news story)? Where would you place an article from http://www.independent.co.uk/ ? What about EB1911 articles, which of the sources at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition are online and which are books? It seems to me much easier to simply place all the references in one section listed alphabetically by author unless there is a very good reason not to do so. -- PBS (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah! My fault for taking so long reply. Well, it seems that the current style (without the "Source" heading) was there when the article was promoted to FA, so if the FAC people don't mind, then neither do I.
 * The division of sources in the Rhodesia article is indeed fairly arbitrary. I've seen various other groupings, splitting sources into primary and secondary sources, into books and journal articles, etc. None are necessary, I agree. My point was that the list of sourse should be separate from the . You're right, however, there is ultimately no reason to do this other than personal preference.
 * Thank you for your time!  ~barakokula31  (talk)  13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And thank you for yours. Happy editing. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What are You doing?
Stop vandalising the article. The official language is Croatian. Bruckermann (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend reading WP:VD and WP:AGF before accusing anyone of being a vandal over a content dispute.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  19:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit is a false information. Bruckermann (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)