Talk:Osborne Reef

message: It seems as though Fort Lauderdale tire reef and Osborne Reef are different names for the same artificial reef. I know little about it, so I won't take the initiative to merge Fort Lauderdale tire reef into Osborne Reef, deleting the former. But this should be a simple matter for soemone better informed than I am about this reef. --Zantastik talk 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA critera. I made a few minor corrections, but other than that the article looks fine. Considering the inline citations, I usually recommend adding one to each statement, even if the next sentence uses the same source. If there is only a cite at the end of the paragraph, when another editor/anon who doesn't know about the sourcing, they may stick more relevant information into the paragraph from a different source. But if there is no inline citation after the prior statement, then readers will think that all of the information is from the same source. It may seem redundant at times, but it doesn't do any harm. Keep searching for more sources so you can continue to expand the article and make sure that all new information that is added continues to have sources. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to bring articles up to GA quality. If you have any further questions about the review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: A map of the reef would be nice. I can't find the reef neither on OpenStreetMap nor on OpenSeaMap nor on Google Maps. Google Earth has a feature to show Wikipedia articles but I don't have that program at the moment on my system. User:ScotXWt@lk 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: This article mentions, that the project mainly miscarried because the tires are too mobile. But how well is the material of a tire actually suited for marine critters (e.g. corral planulae) to attach themselves on it anyway? At the first glance the whole idea seems totally brain dead to me, but I am always willing to educate myself, e.g. artificial reef User:ScotXWt@lk 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemistry

message: I reverted 's edits.  I cannot ascertain what Epicgenius was trying to accomplish (though this user claims the GA-rated article looked "messy and shitty" before), but the image accompanying this section is what it looks like after this user's edits.  To alleviate these numerous errors I've reverted the article again and directed Epicgenius to discuss their edits here.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 04:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't what I was intending. I was simply trying to clean up the ref names in the prose, but apparently I fucked it up. Sorry. :( Epic Genius (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Nothing was broken before.  It is apparently your unilateral decision that citations need to be in a specific place and look a certain way, but why you chose this article to enforce your personal aesthetic I don't know.  I'm not interested in edit warring, but I'll point out that your edits are in contravention of WP:CITEVAR which says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."  You sought no consensus.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I neither thought consensus was needed to de-clutter the article prose of distracting references, nor did I care one bit about WP:CITEVAR before now. Epic Genius (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

text:  Also, WP:CITEVAR mentions absolutely nothing about moving references to the reflist. It says that things considered unhelpful are "Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags, or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another" and "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently." Neither of these options mentions moving references to the reflist. Although I did improve the ref markup (albeit by fixing my own fuck-ups), which is helpful per WP:CITEVAR. Epic Genius (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dispute your evaluation of the references as clutter or distracting; I find the expanded and in-line citations more intuitive and easier to edit later.As for whether CITEVAR applies, I inquired at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#CITEVAR before speaking here, and editors there agree that collapsing and moving all the citation templates to the bottom of the article falls under the CITEVAR content guideline.  Like I said though, I'm not interested in edit warring over your ownership of the article, but wanted you to know that what you did isn't commonly accepted practice IAW guidelines.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 03:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it interesting that this isn't covered in WP:CITEVAR, but OK, if you say so. Epic Genius (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "messy and shitty"

message: Even four years later. Lots42 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is, though it's due to edits by  almost two months ago.  I've reverted the edits, and it again functions as I suppose  intends it to.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflist still broken