Talk:Johnny Leach

Formatting of Publications section

The publications section is formatted:

• Title (Publisher, Year)

This is a perfectly acceptable format and consistant with FAs such as Chinua Achebe and Mário de Andrade (the first two alphabetcially), for example. It could be formatted otrher ways too, but certainly is not required to be formatted some other way (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works). Requesting Leach's name 5x for his 5 publishications is just silly. Even the FL List of Maya Angelou works does not list Angelou's name with each item. Using {{cite book}} is also not required and, IMO, not desirable as I do not wish to makes the titles external links. As the primary author of this article, it is my perogative to choose a format I like and it is up to anyone wanting to change it to show how another format is superior by policy or get local consensus to make a change.

Works of people generally do not require citations. I did chose to put some in anyway (it's been doubted Lecah actually wrote these books, so I guess they were a good idea). The citation is to an entry of info about the book and is published by Google - the ref is not the book itself (athough the book itself also verifies the info and thus why refs are not usually required for such lists). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, you obviously haven't a clue what I was doing and only want to fight. This isn't about the stupid authors name. You also don't own the article. I'm sick and tired of admins claiming ownership everytime. No, it is not only up to you on what can and can't go in articles. Giving examples of FAs that were promoted 9 and 6 years ago is not valid. Standards change. Chinua Achebe and Mário de Andrade actually have it how I was doing it, not your own special way.

Let's look at Enid Blyton, a recently promoted FA (May 2014) by two of the most experienced editors, Dr. Blofeld and Eric Corbett. Oh look, the article has it the way I was doing it. Give the listing of the book with NO REFERENCES BEHIND IT. Your two listed articles do not give a reference along with the listing of the book. They only give the listing of the book. Why in tarnation would you want to give part of the info in the listing and some other info in the ref. Why does the reader have to look in two spots to get all the info? Let the reader have all the info in one spot. It is common practice to give the Google link in the same spot, just like recent FA Enid Blyton.

So, let's sum up. Page ownership. Current FA's do it without refs and use Google. Not good to have reader look in two spots to get all the info. Next time, try using the notification system when doing talk messages. That is standard and courteous thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

@Bgwhite: The "courteous thing to do" is not to assume bad faith, so in the interest of being courteous I'll ignore the assumptions of bad faith... You are right that a "haven't a clue" what you are trying to do. You say Achebe's article has it your way, but in fact it does not. It simply has the unlinked title (or linked if there is a Wikipedia article on it) with no other information. I think perhaps you are confusing the "Publications" with references. The two are distinct things. One is a list of things written by the subject of the article and is part of the article. The other is a list of sources used to write the article and is not part of teh article itself. If you thought my "Publications" section was some strangely formatted reference list, then I understand the confusion. If not, I still have no idea what you think you are doing.

Did you look at the MOS guideline linked in my comment (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works) - none of the examples link the Google book page. Additionally, there is no "standard style" for Publications/Works/Biobliography sections, but there is a general principle that chosen style is not changed without consensus - it has nothing to do with being an admin or not.

In general, external links are discouraged and I don't wish to include them in the body of this article. Yes, I acknowledge refs generally aren't considered necessary, but I fail to see how adding them decreases the quality of the article. What info exactly do you feel is covered on the Google page but not here? I certainly don't see any. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Enid Blyton does not have a list of works by Blyton, so it not comparable at all. I suppose you are referring to the "further reading" section, which is not the same thing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, when you said you own the article, assumption of faith went out the door. You cannot say I own this and you do as I say. That is the same as saying Fuck off, you can't do anything here. So next time, you assume good faith and not tell another to take a hike. Yes, I did look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works and NOT ONE has a reference. NO WHERE does it say to have a reference. NO WHERE does a reader have to look at two spot to get the information.

THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO... The reader should not goto two spots when one works just fine. It decreases the article by adding more clutter and requiring the user to look at two spots. This is the exact same thing I'm trying to tell another admin. They think a wikilink to the bibliography of an author should be in the reference section and not in a {{main}} at the top of the written works section. Their idea is the wikilink is a reference for the written works section. Besides a wikilink being bogus as a ref, it requires the reader to look in two spots (they fail to see this point too). A reader is much more likely to click on the Google link if it is with the info about the book.

If you add a ping, you must sign in order for recipient to get the ping. I didn't get a ping. I also got done moving the Table of Contents in articles to the correct spot. If it isn't in the right spot, people using screen readers will not see text, sometimes the entire article. The number one excuse people gave for reverting.... I own the article. Number two excuse... the word "should"... "Should means I don't have to follow". Choosing cosmetics over a person being able to read an article is evil. I changed 10,000 articles and had over 500 reverts. My favourites... an admin arguing over the definition of "can" and another admin saying if there is an extremely small chance a screen reader will not skip the text, then the TOC doesn't need to be moved. I come here and see another editor saying ownership, "should" means and choosing cosmetics over readability. Bgwhite (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: - You keep replying, but you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing, or else I am horrible at communicating. I certainly did not say I own the article, but thanks for admitting you assumed bad faith. I said when there is no MOS preferred formatting, then changes require consensus. That is true, not a statement of ownership. I don't know why you keep bringing up being an admin - I never once said anything about being an admin. It is a fact that is totally irrelevant to this article. Likewise, what some admins (possibly) did wrongly on some other articles has no relevance here.

Now, as to this article, I have said THREE TIMES now that I am aware that references are generally not required for lists of works. However, you have yet to explain why you think the presence of them descreases the quality of the article. Yes, you said "so readers don't have to look in two places" (twice), but as I already explained there is nothing at the reference that is not in our article already. Like all references, these references back the material here and nothing more. If I am mistaken and there is something listed on the Google page that is not in our article, please explain to me what that is so I can stop forcing readers to go there to see it.

You correctly point out that no examples at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works have references, but you fail to point out that no examples have reference/further reading style external links either. The way you want to do it has no backing in MOS either. The "standard" way is to list the title and optionally other info with no reference of any kind. So again I ask, do you feel removing the references and changing nothing else will improve the quality of the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

World War I or WWII

In the lead the article says "before serving in World War I". As he was born in 1922 this should probably be World War II.— Rod ^talk 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely WWII (as in the body). Thanks for pointing out this rather silly error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johnny Leach. 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/20140715002530/http://www.ittf.com/museum/WorldChResultsXD3.pdf to http://www.ittf.com/museum/WorldChResultsXD3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)