User talk:Chris Capoccia

Edit Query

Hi Chris, I have been working on the 'spiritual philosophy' Wikipedia page as part of my university assignment. For the task we have to publish 2000 words to a stub Wikipedia article. Thank you for your help in editing my assignment. I have noticed that you have deleted a substantial amount of the 'Spiritual philosophy in religion' 'Buddhism' and 'Hinduism' sub sections. I was just wondering if you could please advise me of what was wrong for my own learning purposes? Thank you! - Tobin 1312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobin1312 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help! I just have a couple of questions.

Hi Chris, I have been working on the Bioelectricity Wikipedia page with my colleagues and I really appreciate all the help that you have provided us in making the page more suitable for Wikipedia. We have put in citations in all the places that citations have been requested and also responded to the suggestion to merge with Biomagnetics (which we do not agree with and put our statement in the appropriate talk page a couple of weeks ago). I am wondering if you'd be willing to remove the two tags on the top of the page that indicate the need for the citations (which we have put in) and the suggestion for the merge (which we don't agree with and no one else has added to the conversation)? I really appreciate your help with our efforts to make the field of Bioelectricity more available for the general public to learn about and to hopefully enrich and inspire lives through learning.

Best wishes and many thanks,

Tiadeeharrison (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2018 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks Chris for all your great editing for wiki.

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

Dear Chris Capoccia. Thanks for your attention to the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. You changed:

"*{{Cite web|last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |website=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]] |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 |isbn=978-0-19-861412-8 |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-112775 |access-date=14 March 2021 |url-access=subscription}} – Online edition"

->

"*{{Cite ODNB |last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 }}".

You are a much more experienced editor than I am, and you seem to specialise in correct referencing. I would like to learn from you and do my references right next time. You surely agree that we edit Wikipedia to improve it. I do not see the improvement here. Why should "Cite ODNB" be preferred over "Cite web"? I find it does not make sense to invent special templates for particular "important" sources, and even less sense to enforce the use of such templates. I feel we should limit ourselves to "Cite book", "Cite journal", "Cite news", "Cite web" (these are the ones supported by the Visual Editor). I was once a fan of "Citation", but abandoned it. In the present case I used "Cite web" specifically because I found this ODNB article on the website, not in the book. We have lost the link to the source as you have removed the URL parameter and clicking the DOI provokes an error "Not found". This DOI had been added by Citation Bot on 7 April 2021 and should be correct. The error results, seems it, from the access restriction, but this is not obvious to the wider reader. Besides, should there really be a space between the template name and the pipe of the first parameter? —and after the end of the last parameter's argument? Perhaps there should, but I have never done so and have seldom been corrected for this. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There are specialized templates better suited to all kinds of specialized cases. Template:Cite ODNB is the best for Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 11:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Chris Capoccia. Thank you very much for your quick reply. We agree of course: obviously {{ODNB}} is a specialised template. However, it does not suit the special case we have here because it gives the unfriendly error "Not found" for an DOI that is perfectly fine. I find the {{Cite web}} did better job. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ODNB has a broken DOI so I set up the URL in the template instead.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Chris Capoccia. Your change surely is an improvement upon the previous version as the user now gets a message "You do not currently have access to this article" instead of "Not found". Thank you for the improvement. However, why did you replace "Cite web" with "ODNB" in the first place? Where is the improvement there? Are you busy with or envisaging mass replacements of "Cite web" or "Cite book" with "ODNB"? I would object to that. That would bring you many thousands of edits for your edit count but would IMHO not improve Wikipedia. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Chris Capoccia, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to this article in the past, I thought you could be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)