Talk:North Ronaldsay sheep

message: I've reverted a partial change to a different (Harvard-style) referencing system here, on the basis that the current system has been in place for a long while, and we don't make arbitrary and undiscussed changes in such cases. If there's to be discussion, I think this is the place for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning on taking this to FA, and per the WP:FAC a better style is needed, see 2 (c). I am making going to use the WP:SRF style to do this. I am happy to post a draft in my sandbox before going l've and being approved, but otherwise, I don't feel this to be controversial - as it is a clear improvement. Thoughts anybody?  TheMagikCow (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, ! I assume you mean WP:FACR rather than WP:FAC? That page clearly says that either footnotes or Harvard refs can be used, as long as usage is consistent. If you look at our advice on footnotes, you'll see that that's what is already in use here (the example given in parentheses on the FACR page is apparently incorrect or incomplete). It is not acceptable for the FA people, or anyone else, to try to mandate changes in referencing format for which there's no good reason – please see WP:CITEVAR. Since you ask, I don't see the switch you propose as an improvement, but as a step likely to discourage participation from other editors (not that this is anyway a busy article!). I for one will not edit any page that uses that system unless I absolutely have to. I'm not in favour of change here. I am, however, willing to offer help in adding page numbers to the refs where necessary (I added a couple as an example of how it could be done). But what this article needs more than anything else at the moment is to be written in good grammatical English – as an example, if the first sentence has a singular subject, you can't start the second with a plural pronoun. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it appears I have misinterpreted the WP:FACR - thanks for the help with that. It would be great if you could help with the page numbers, as I am more comfortable with the other style and have not used that specific method before. I do feel that columns are needed in the ref list here, as we have refs that do stretch for a long way out. On my specific monitor, 9 stretches across 30in of my screen - not too easy to follow. I do understand that smaller screens may not work with 3 cols, so I think 2 will work for most readers. have you any thoughts on this ? I totally agree with the point on grammar - I'm no expert on the intricacies of grammar. I am thinking of getting the content all in first, and then a WP:GOCE listing to help tighten up the prose. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, , I've just read through what I wrote above and I find it a lot more curt and a lot less polite than I would have wished – please accept my apologies for that, I should have read through it more carefully before posting. Secondly, I know less than nothing about FA requirements, so please don't take anything I say as gospel (I am, however, pretty sure that no-one can mandate a change from one specific ref system to another). There's no obligation in Wikipedia to be a grammar perfectionist (one of the world's most annoying animals, I know!), but at least some of the more obvious grammar weaknesses in the page should probably have been picked up by the GA reviewer. On page numbers I'm happy to help – both  and  are very handy for this, but they probably shouldn't be mixed. On the ref columns, I don't know: I have rather weak eyes and a 13-inch screen; bunching the refs into tiny paragraphs does not make them easier to read; but I take your point about them stretching across a very wide screen (doesn't the page text do the same?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries  - I always find tone so hard to judge online as, well, there is tonal pronunciation. Reading WP:CITEVAR it does seem clear that any cite style should be accepted. Thanks so much for helping with page numbers and I totally agree with consistency, as there is  already in use I feel we should keep that one. I will look into it and see if there is any way to make columns only on a certain size screen - there may well be something clever at the template level. Best, TheMagikCow (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You could perhaps try something like |60em so that laptop screens (say, up to 1280 px wide) aren't affected but large screens are. I'm just guessing, though. The |3 parameter I removed is in any case deprecated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

text: ?? I'm not seeing that at all. And there seem to be hardly any references where different page numbers are used at different points. But as a non-editor of the page I don't have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think I've probably already said just about all I have to say on this higher up this page. I've made only the most minimal contributions to this page, so should not (and do not) have a particularly strong opinion here. In general I would oppose such a change unless there's a good reason for it (i.e., a reason beyond WP:IDLI), as you will recall that I did at Red House, London. You don't have to scroll anywhere to look up a reference – the tool-tip shows you the ref and the page number shows you the page, all without ever leaving the body text. What alternative system would you propose? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing drastic. Just the inclusion of page numbers within the citations themselves, rather than situating them within the main body of the text. It would be an easy change to make and would result in a drastic improvement to readability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any really strong views, and I guess they are shaped by policy (WP:CITEVAR). Would the system proposed identify the specific page the cite is from? For example cite 3 and others cover multiple pages so I don't really want lose the precision by adding a range, say 272-4 instead a specific page to each reference. If it keeps the specifics, I'm fine with it. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for that work ! It looks much better now reference wise - much appreciated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'd like to see if I can get some support for a change in the style of referencing used in this article. Specifically I would like to be rid of this awkward system whereby the page number is included in the main body of the text while the rest of the citation is kept in the 'References' section. There's a reason that this style of referencing is incredibly rare here at Wikipedia - it is not in any way user friendly! Not only does it just look plain messy but it also means that anyone seeking to look up a particular reference has to scroll up and down the page, which is hardly convenient. I can see from the article's history that the present referencing system was a fairly recent addition to the article, probably in response to the discussion above. I'm happy to do the leg work and change the referencing myself but just want to make sure that there are no strong objections first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? I'm not seeing that at all. And there seem to be hardly any references where different page numbers are used at different points. But as a non-editor of the page I don't have strong views. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think I've probably already said just about all I have to say on this higher up this page. I've made only the most minimal contributions to this page, so should not (and do not) have a particularly strong opinion here. In general I would oppose such a change unless there's a good reason for it (i.e., a reason beyond WP:IDLI), as you will recall that I did at Red House, London. You don't have to scroll anywhere to look up a reference – the tool-tip shows you the ref and the page number shows you the page, all without ever leaving the body text. What alternative system would you propose? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing drastic. Just the inclusion of page numbers within the citations themselves, rather than situating them within the main body of the text. It would be an easy change to make and would result in a drastic improvement to readability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any really strong views, and I guess they are shaped by policy (WP:CITEVAR). Would the system proposed identify the specific page the cite is from? For example cite 3 and others cover multiple pages so I don't really want lose the precision by adding a range, say 272-4 instead a specific page to each reference. If it keeps the specifics, I'm fine with it. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for that work ! It looks much better now reference wise - much appreciated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes to referencing

message: To achieve FA status:
* Copy edit and GOCE listing
TheMagikCow (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: There appears to be an error in the article, which cites "seaweed farming" as the industry whose failure prompted construction of the dyke. Actually, these Scottish islands were famous for "kelping", which was the harvesting of seaweed for the production of soda ash. See . I'm planning to change the article as minimally as possible to rectify this. Easchiff (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelping, not seaweed farming 

message: I read this sentence, "Today, the sheep court remains the regulatory body responsible for organising ownership of the sheep, but European Union legislation has suggested that it may have to be reorganised into a Grazing Committee.[6]" Of course this is moot, with the UK leving the EU soon.
I'm not knowledgeable on this topic. Could a more-competent editor read over this article with an eye to Brexit-related changes needed?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Brexit? 

message: I find  a bit woolly. Would it be possible to give a little more detail here? --John (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific accuracy