User:N2e/Sandbox

Stuff on this page is, necessarily, either DRAFT material being worked up for future use in the Wikipedia mainspace, or snapshot-in-time-but-still-being-refined thoughts on my (evolving) personal philosophy for using Wikipedia and interacting with other editors.

Drafts

Emergence in Economics

as was -- entire section in emergence

The stock market (or any market for that matter) is an example of emergence on a grand scale. As a whole it precisely regulates the relative security prices of companies across the world, yet it has no leader; there is no one entity which controls the workings of the entire market. Agents, or investors, have knowledge of only a limited number of companies within their portfolio, and must follow the regulatory rules of the market and analyse the transactions individually or in large groupings. Trends and patterns emerge which are studied intensively by technical analysts.

INTRO

The concept of emergence has deep roots in economics. As noted above, the term emergence was not used to describe this behavior or thought until recent times.

css

User:N2e (evolving) Wikipedia philosophy

On sources and citations, and cleanup of the same

I support BOTH

Policy is unambiguous, it is up to the editor who wants to retain material in Wikipedia to get it cited with verifiable sources; it is NOT WP policy that every editor who stumbles upon significant unreferenced material must stop their lives and endeavor to improve THAT particular article, nor ignore that the article has no sources. So I tag it and move on. It seems to me to be a simple courtesy to flag it for a month or two to see if "the community" cares enough about an article to fix it before material is deleted from Wikipedia for being unsourced. N2e (talk

) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Burden of Evidence
  " is on the editor who wants to add (or retain) an assertion to (in) a Wikipedia article. It seems simple common courtesy to place some notification on an article before removing the unsourced material that WP policy allows to be removed.
• Different strokes for different editors. Some editors will want to make assertions about
  SmackBot, and then allowing editors interested in that article, or that category of articles, to fix it if they wish. I am squarely in the latter camp. I simply want to take a very small action that sets articles up for future improvement, or AfD if necessary, in future months and years -- which makes Wikipedia a stronger informational resource over time. N2e (talk
  ) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is no problem with me for a little more time to pass so this can be sorted out before deleting the unsourced claims, but the ^{{citation needed}} tags should stay until the sources are provided. Cheers.

Jan 2016 Teahouse discussion

May be possible/worthwhile to discuss the slight improvement of the guideline at

<ref>{{cite book
| last      = Turner
| first     = Orsamus
| title     = History of the pioneer settlement of
Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve
| publisher = William Alling
| place     = Rochester, New York
| year      = 1851
| id        = {{OL|7120924W}}
}</ref>

<ref>
{{cite book |last=Turner |first=Orsamus |title=History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve |publisher=William Alling |place=Rochester, New York |year=1851 |OL=7120924W}}</ref>

This could obviously cause some conflict between editors who might prefer format A, or format B, or some other/different format C, and all of the changes would not improve the article space, but may likely cause a bit of editor conflict. So has this been discussed previously? Or is there a policy or guideline on it? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, much commoner than either is this one-line format

<ref>{{cite book |last=Turner |first=Orsamus |title=History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and Gorham's purchase, and Morris' reserve |publisher=William Alling |place=Rochester, New York |year=1851 |OL=7120924W}}</ref>

with no carriage return after the initial <ref>. I find this odd, as the multi-line format is much easier to understand and edit, and makes the surrounding text easier to follow. My guess is that because the templates conveniently provided in the edit screen use the one-line format, most editors go with what they do. I believe that all these formats are acceptable. Maproom (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The single-line format is more common, as is the super-expanded multi-line format. I've also seen the two-line format as it puts the <ref> tag on the line with the prose, and then leaves the citation clearly visible ({{cite ...}}aligned with left-margin).

But that just makes my point. There are more than one (or two, or three) ways this is done. So I'm assuming that some editor conflict has occurred on this mass-reformatting over the years; that is why I'm looking for policy or previous discussion of the matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've wrapped the citations in <pre> and <nowiki>, since the point of the question is about the layout of the citation in the source. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:CITEVAR. The letter of its language ("style") could even be interpreted as making it directly on point, but in application, I don't think the intent of "style" was to address this formatting issue, but rather (as indicated in the "To be avoided" section), a more radical change of the type of citation itself, e.g., a switch from some other system to list-defined references. But it certainly could be pointed to in any discussion of the issue (in support of saying please don't do that). It's pure individual preference AFAIAC but I find the multi-line format very annoying to look at and never use it and find editing single line no barrier. An article with 100 reference is not uncommon and if each has: template name, last, first, title, url, page and date (if not more) that's 600 extra lnes in edit mode to view.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 00:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Cite" toolbar generates on-line citations, so it's no surprise they are the most common. Other templates such as Infoboxes are more often multi-line. Personally I don't mind and I think if anybody went on a rampage to try and convert them all to their preferred layout then "animated discussion" would ensue.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the best guideline/approach here is probably "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If you are doing a big cleanup of the citations (adding missing template parameters, correcting template or parameter usage, generally improving them significantly), then you generally get to choose your preferred style for the source code. Similarly, if you are doing a lot of good and legitimate work on a section of an article, you will probably be ok including minor adjustments to citations in that work. On the other hand, if you go around trying to just impose your will in terms of the "better" source code style, without actually making any substantive improvements to either citations or content (minor copyediting wouldn't really be a good justification for mass citation reformatting, for example), then storm clouds may well form in the vicinity of talk pages. If you blast through hundreds of articles changing format and very little else, without a strong pre-discussed consensus behind your actions, you should probably consider investing in some Nomex clothing! If someone else changes a citation you worked on, and the generated reference is still good and of equivalent quality, it's really not something to start a fight over, and there are far more useful things to put your energy into caring about. --Murph9000 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much

• Ciliopathy
• Floating wind turbine
• Richard Cantillon
• Outer Continental Shelf

Miscellania

• by the way, this source [1] supports that the Endurance of the CST-100 (on-orbit, at a space station) is seven months. (Page 2 of the weblink contains the relevant source info.) N2e (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)