Talk:Commercial Radio Australia

Referencing

(initial primary editor here; ping Carrolquadrio in case this is replicated elsewhere) Hi SM9237, and thanks for your significant work on this article. I don't mind if the citation style is changed from WP:CITESHORT to another standard (ref WP:CITEVAR), provided that things are consistent, it is clear as to which page(s) are used to source which facts, and it is robust for editing where sentences are combined, split, or moved. Unlike the previous version, the revised referencing style doesn't provide this, particularly with Cole (1966) and Griffen-Foley (2009).

This may be as a result of using the visual editor. I'm not sure how advanced referencing works in that, if at all - I use WP:WIKITEXT editing, which allows for precise control. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The disregard by SM9237 for WP:CITEVAR ought to be rectified. Lumping the previously detailed citations together is severe dis-improvement and SM9237 must restore the previous detailed citations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I will discuss with the student today, SM9237 needs assistance, I believe it was an honest error as the student was trying to work it out. I will allocate someone to help. Thank you. Carrolquadrio (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hydronium Hydroxide and Michael Bednarek, my sincerest apologies for this - this was an honest mistake, as I had not been taught/was not aware of how to use WP:CITESHORT or WP:WIKITEXT editing. I have only learned how to reference in visual editor, and so amended the referencing style to allow for this. I will restore the previously detailed citations. Before I do so though, I will require some help as to how to reference in source editor — would someone be able to help me with this? Also, do I need to completely change the entire referencing style, or would I be able to just change for Cole (1966) and Griffen-Foley (2009), where more specific page references are required? If so, would someone be able to help me with creating a separate section for footnotes/page references? SM9237 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

SM9237 When I read this I had just about finished restoring the references to the format I would have expected and I have since finished that. [1] shows the changes I have made. I hope this helps. Fleet Lists (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As an example, I restored the first use of Griffen-Foley 2009 (p. 13) as it ought to be. The remaining of those pages are left as an exercise. The Cole 1966 citations are new, so who entered them ought to know which pages belong to which citations. The mechanics of short citations should now be obvious. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Michael Bednarek: for this - it is much appreciated. I have just finished restoring the rest of the Griffen-Foley 2009 and Cole 1966 citations. Just wondering, is it necessary to restore all of the citations or just the ones with multiple references? At the moment there are separate 'References' and 'Sources' sections - not sure if this is ok? Thanks -- SM9237 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work. I like the current References>Sources better than the original Notes>References. For consistency, I believe it would be best to reference types of works similarly, so books with page refs would go into sources even if they are currently only referenced once. It's more ok for inconsistency between types of works (newspaper articles directly in references, for instance) unless/until someone really feels like normalising everything. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@SM9237: Just in case you missed it, your Teahouse questions about the sourcing of this article were archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1082#References appear in Notes section upon using "Cite" Tool and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1083#Cite error references missing key. Teahouse questions tend to get archived if a few days pass and no new comments are added; so, you might want to check to see if you got any responses every day or so and ask for clarification if you're not sure about something if you post any more questions there; otherwise, it's just going to be assumed that your question was satisfactorily answered and whatever problems you were having were resolved. Most of the time at the Teahouse, the hosts try to answer questions without going into too much detail and instead provide links to relevant policy or guidelines pages where more information can be found. Anyway, I probably should've followed up with you just to make sure you understood the citation style being used in this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

User:SM9237: The citation you restored look fine to me, although I didn't check them in detail; I assume you did the right thing. // It's OK to have mixed citation styles in an article; only sources that are cited several times with different page numbers ought to be cited with short citation templates. I'm busy for the rest of today, but I can try to implement your recent attempt at short citations for "The History of Australian Radio", probably tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael Bednarek: I attempted the short citations for "The History of Australian Radio" yesterday, however, since this is an undated source I had trouble fulfilling the code previously used for the Cole and Griffen-Foley citations. I had all the page references for this, but it appeared as a "referencing error" when I attempted the short citations. If you could help with this - it would be much appreciated. -- SM9237 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – see here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Michael Bednarek - much appreciated. -- SM9237 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)