User talk:163.167.129.124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Peterborough

Please see my latest edit summary. Your reversion was clumsy and inappropriate. --Dweller 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong, a reference should be placed by every point the Britannica ref is supporting, particularly since this goes across multiple paragraphs. The point about a page number is a little petty, since the articles are organised alphabetically, the page numebr is somewhat redundant, and online versions often won't have the same pagination in any case. Don't revert, discuss. David Underdown 14:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I presume that's aimed at the anon, rather than me. --Dweller 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was a general description of the Peterborough article? Nonsense. Re-read WP:CITE. Besides, the page numbering was a minor issue, compared to the other problems I raised. --Dweller 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The bulk was aimed at the IP, to me it still seems that the page number for the Peterborough article within EB is slightly redundant, given that volume number is given, and articles are arranged in alphabetical order, although I see it doesn't actually specifically state that it is the Peterborough article within EB which is meant. WP:CITE states "specific page, section or division", not just page. David Underdown 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Heck, on that point I don't care, so long as it's possible to verify. --Dweller 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why I opted to do it this way on Talk:Peterborough, there is a very minor change in output using the template. It is probable that the url construction will change again at some time in the future, and it is then easier to fix it vi the template, rather than going through every individual link in Wikipedia and fixing them one at a time. David Underdown 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are only two inthis article, there's far more than that across Wikipedia as a whole. The links in the Peterborough article have actually been broken for a while, it just happened to occur to me today that these ones weren't using the template so would now be broken, if they had always been using the template, they would have been fixed as soon as the template was updated, it means that whoever becomes aware of a change in the Gazette url doesn't have to know where it's being used, it will just automatically propogate to all uses. Please see my additional comments on Talk:Peterborough as to the effect of the change on the article, the textual change really is very small. David Underdown 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that was clumsily phrased on my part, I'll edit it. This really should be discussed on the article talk page as it affects article content, rather than on our respective talk pages, there's more visibility to other interested parties that way. David Underdown 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)