Talk:Francis Petre

message: ::*This quote which was in the article when it was an original FAC, is from the link to St. Joseph's's cathedral which too has always been listed.  References and links are given so people can check facts. Perhaps people should check these out before claiming lack of references. Giano | talk 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FAR|Featured article review]] of November 20, 2005

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: I see that this is one of two remaining unreviewed Featured Articles (per Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles). Looking at this Featured Article, I see that there are issues with referencing - the inline citations are lacking, and there are citation needed tags throughout. Some image formatting issues exist in that I see a minor bit of sandwiching - though that might be my screen's fault. Is there editor interest in re-working the citations for this article? I don't see a whole lot of activity on this page, or in the article proper, so it's possible that a FAR will draw additional eyes to the article. Per WP:FAR, I'm raising these issues on the talk page, as a prelude to a formal Featured Article Review. Thanks! UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I would say it has taken exactly 24 minutes. Which facts exactly are you having a problem with, or do you like to see cite tags per 100 words? I see 2 citation tags needed - you say "there are citation needed tags throughout." your screen must be very peculiar and at fault indeed! I note with interst, the articles that you have created here, perhaps it would be a good idea if you go and polish those first, before atacking what is at the better end of the project.Giacomo Returned  20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hell, I don't know - I just wanted to clear out the category. If you've got eyes on the article, it's fine with me - the referencing was the only real issue I could see that might come up at FAR. I saw that tags were present, and that multiple sections had no obvious references, but you're right about the CN tags. The lack of inline cites doesn't bother me a bit personally, though more wouldn't hurt - it's a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned it here entirely because it's listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Period. Full stop. I didn't know, nor do I really care, that it's some of your best work. You're welcome to it. UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you did not bother to check it out all. Far from being my best work (it's not - it's old work) it has now been heavily edited by Peter Entwisle - who I am prepared to trust - and it's now more his work. You really need to look beyond lists of "Unreviewed featured articles" and regard some of the thousands of pathetic stubs which need attention. Giacomo Returned  21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now I tick "Piss off Giano" on my bucket list. Yay. Sorry to cause drama. UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Featured Article Review

message: At http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/Cyc04Cycl-fig-Cyc04Cycl0288b.html there is another image of him, a shocking image but the licensing is clear. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  another image, with clearer licensing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis Petre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117033023/http://www.cargillscastle.co.nz/history to http://www.cargillscastle.co.nz/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francis Petre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728134533/http://shcathedral.wellington.net.nz/index.html to http://www.shcathedral.wellington.net.nz/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified