User talk:Chris Capoccia

Cite doi

Hey. In this edit you should have used {{cite doi}} – then it works :-) Christian75 (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref style

Why did you change the ref style in the osteoarthritis article? Have restored. Please do not continue making these changes unless you get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been requested not to make these changes a number of times before. If you continue you may lose your ability to edit. Sorry to come down hard like this but continuing as you are is disruptive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

lol… what on earth are you talking about? you can't possibly think that that article had any kind of consistent ref style that i could have been messing up! the refs were done in all kinds of different ways.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

False. You took the least common and most verbose style and made it the only style. In the osteoarthritis article before your changes:

• total cite templates – 75
  • inline:
    • cite journal tempates – 61
    • cite web templates – 4
    • cite book – 2
  • transcluded:
    • cite pmid + cite journal – 7
• of which:
  • single or no author parameter – 42
  • first, last, coauthor – 21
  • first1, last1, first2, last2 – 8
  • cite pmid + cite journal – 7

A single author parameter is the most concise followed by first, last, coauthor which is also fairly concise. Combined, these two citation styles represented 39+21=60 of the total citations. The verbose first1, last1, first2, last2, ... represent the remainder. The "first, last, coauthor" is becoming more common because that is what the ref tool bar supports and diberri is down (although I am trying to fix that). What you have done is to replace all the references of which a clear majority were more compact with a more verbose style that was in a clear minority (15 out of 75). You really need to gain consensus before making these types of changes. Boghog (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't matter that i took the most verbose. citevar only talks about articles with a consistent style. it doesn't give any system for how to pick a style or a preference for concise vs. verbose. and you forgot to count the references that were following some random system and those that didn't use templates.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What matters is that you took the least common style and made it the only style.

— and you forgot to count the references that were following some random system and those that didn't use templates – a grand total of 10 which you haven't changed either. Regardless, this does not change the conclusion (60 is still a majority out of 85). Boghog (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Citevar again

As has been repeatedly explained to you before, this edit is completely unacceptable. There was exactly one three citations out of 31 that had a different citation style. Furthermore that outlier was those three outliers were the most recently added. The solution is to reformat that single those three outliers instead of reformatting all the citations in a new format. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. What are you doing? Why do you keep changing the ref style? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bicycle helmets in New Zealand may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in cycling between 1993 and 1997, raising the overall risk of head injury per cyclist.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation |url=http://www.onestreet.org/pdf/Helmet%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Ref tool

There is a request for consistent capitalization of article titles here. Wondering if you know of an automated way to do this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. i commented on the copd talk page.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I like having the url for the books go right to the page the content is on. Additionally if it is a single page that supports the content I typically just state that one. Reverted a couple of your changes. Not sure if you changed any others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally Chris can you use the same ordering of sections for references as this tool uses. It is what I always use and makes it easier for me to follow. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Dude, you do some amazing reference-related work. Admiring your input on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 05:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)