User talk:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1

Thank you for adding the reflist format to many astronomical articles. It does make it easier to edit later. It also makes it much easier to track changes in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It does bring a lot of sanity to the editbox. User:PleaseStand/References segregator helps, but rather than rename afterwards, set ref-names first (i.e. half the work;). The {{cite doi}} mechanism is useful, too. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are your edits really necessary? The article's long already and your recent edits have bulked up its K level by about 20 percent. What exactly are you doing? I'm not really clear. Serendi^podous 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it quite helpful; Kheider, just above, does, too. This is both cleaning-up the refs and making everything more easily maintained. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've added some sources that don't appear to be up to the standards expected of a featured article; please visit the talk page to discuss, or even better, if you can locate journal sources, it would be grand. I believe those sentences were already cited in the next citation given, and adding low quality sources could lead to the article being defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I tweaked a few details to sources already present, but I didn't add any new ones. I don't see how this should be a problem. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the edits. -- Kheider (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this addition -- not a high-quality source. If you could locate a journal source, and format it correctly, that would help avoid having someone question this article's featured status. Also, watching article talk would help avoid us having this conversation in two places. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's not a good looking source; all I did was fix the page extension. It was .php, and the old address said the site had been re-done and to use .aspx and it then redirected. All I did was fix a broken link. Sorry. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, to both of you (noticing section above), there are similar problems on Pluto. Is Serendipodous no longer keeping these aricles up to snuff? It will take some work to get both of these (Saturn and Pluto) tuned up to current standards. BTW, thanks for removing the video game trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some similar edits to Pluto. I'm all for quality sources, FWIW. Trivia does not belong in our best articles. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a ping if you want a hand on Pluto. Topic area for me. (Which reminds me, I should go back and overhaul Moon again...the cruft always accretes...) Iridia (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sure, dive in. I'd not be surprised to see that some of the cites there need improvement. Last week I was intent on making the thing more maintainable. See you there. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is just another way, I recommend not to make edits just changing cite journal to cite doi. The main reason is nobody watches the "cite doi" subpages, and a single vandal hit there can erase half of the article with little clue where to look for it (this happened before). Also, cite doi is expanded by the bot, which is just a bot with its many glitches, whereas WP:FAs were manually checked by editors, who might have imposed a different format and even disabled citation bot from editing.

There are other ways to reduce code clutter in the article body, such as {{reflist|refs= ... }} mode. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing huge usage of cite doi in astronomical articles. I don't think we should be letting vandalism drive how we do things. If they vandalise, someone will revert it, and possibly learn about cite doi and watch it. I do use a lot of refs in the reflist and was encouraged about it above. I'm cleaning up after the bot-generated doi templates, looking at the source for further details and at extant usages. The one I'm doing at the moment ({{cite doi | 10.1007/s10569-007-9072-y }}) is used on about ten articles; I've done four, I think, and they were all pretty much the same. Hope that clears things up. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am that "someone". There is no "someone" (an army of fighters) - there are a few hundred of dedicated editors for 3+ million articles. Nobody is and will be watching cite doi templates. Most editors who encourage the use of cite doi praise it for reducing code clutter, but see my 1st message. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm someone, too; I'm watching these templates. It seems to me that what's needed here is more watchers and less vandals. Again, I don't see it as at all right to let them force a useful feature off the table. They don't drive practice.

See Tethys (moon), which is mostly User:Ruslik0's work. It has 23 doi templates in use. It had a mix of inline and reflist usages and I've moved the inline ones to relflist and see that things can be moved to an even less cluttered form. I'll leave him a note and tomorrow I'm planning on finishing the DOI template I was working on yesterday. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of vandals do not know that these templates exist. By this reason such cases should be very rare. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They get there (and everywhere) via the "edit" button, which can be hidden by adding the "|noedit" parameter. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that option and think noedit very anti-wiki. I've also not seen it used *anywhere*. I might support the idea of semi-protecting all the doi templates, at least those used on important articles (which would be a high proportion of them, as I don't think many DOI'd documents on Justin Beiber exist). Better yet would be a tool or option to watch all the DOIs in use on a page with a single click. Anyway, none of this is going to be decided on my page. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]