Misplaced Pages

User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:NewsAndEventsGuy Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:05, 8 April 2015 editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:28, 19 July 2022 edit undoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →Sandbox for Jan 6 hearing table revision 
(168 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:

{{User sandbox}} {{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{NOINDEX}} {{NOINDEX}}

== searching ==
This will find references to those pages on other sites as well, you'd be better off with:
site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:"wiki/*%s"
site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:%s (assuming your string isn't present in "en.wikipedia.org/wiki")


User talk:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js


== more == == more ==
{|style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|*For grey box with text...
|}
*
*
* <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> * <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small>
* *
* *
* ] for section and article level tags see ]
*Reflist-talk
* ]
*<nowiki>{{Reflist-talk}}</nowiki>
*<nowiki>'''Opposed''' due to ] how it would improve the article or what RSs it is based upon.~~~~</nowiki>
* of setting up archiving * of setting up archiving
*<nowiki>{{noindex}}</nowiki> for userspace that should not be indexed to the web *<nowiki>{{noindex}}</nowiki> for userspace that should not be indexed to the web
*<nowiki>{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~</nowiki> but note that old system notifications are *<nowiki>{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~</nowiki> but note that old system notifications are
*<nowiki>{{subst:alert|ap}} ~~~~ ]</nowiki>
*]
*<nowiki>{{subst:alert|blp}} ~~~~ </nowiki>
*]
*]</nowiki>
*Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field add <ins>discretionary sanctions alert</ins>
*]
*<nowiki><span style="color:red">Red text</span></nowiki>
* Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field add <ins>discretionary sanctions alert</ins>
*Misplaced Pages:Mass_message_senders
* <span style="color:red">For red text</span> <nowiki><span style="color:red">Red text</span></nowiki>
*example video linking <nowiki>]</nowiki>
* DAB link bot [[User:DPL_bot}}
*To leave an invisible comment, <nowiki><!--Text goes here--></nowiki>
* Misplaced Pages:Mass_message_senders
* ]
* example video linking <nowiki>]</nowiki>
*
* To leave an invisible comment, <nowiki><!--Text goes here--></nowiki>
* ] <nowiki>{{db-user}}</nowiki>
* ]<br> * ]<br>
* Template:The Multiple Barnstar (for group effort)
*Some favorite essays
* To refer to a template on talk page, type <nowiki>{{tl| }}</nowiki> Also, from {{u|Mortee}}, ''}<nowiki> it's tl (L for Llama), not t1.... There are lots of related templates in the documentation for {{tl}}, of which the ones I use most often are {{tlp}} and {{tlx}} for adding parameters to the example, and (mostly in my cheatsheet) {{tbullet}} to demonstrate what a template does''</nowiki>
:*]
* date formatting
:*a bunch more :*a bunch more

{|style="background:silver; color: black"

|-
* ]
|*For grey box with text, the text goes here
|}
* <nowiki>User_talk:Adjwilley#Possible_sock</nowiki>


please suggest some draft text, with <nowiki>]</nowiki> to what <nowiki>]</nowiki>. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is ] for general topic discussion please suggest some draft text, with <nowiki>]</nowiki> to what <nowiki>]</nowiki>. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is ] for general topic discussion
Line 33: Line 54:
For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages
<nowiki>{{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}</nowiki> <nowiki>{{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}</nowiki>



TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055 TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055
Line 39: Line 62:


:For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Misplaced Pages treats ] as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is <ins>not</ins> a majority rule voting process. As it says in ] "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." :For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Misplaced Pages treats ] as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is <ins>not</ins> a majority rule voting process. As it says in ] "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

<nowiki>Not helpful. I've respectfully acknowledged you see substantive value that I don't see, and a ] at policy isn't really increasing our mutual understanding of the ].~~~~</nowiki>


== Do not edit war == == Do not edit war ==
Line 49: Line 74:
* Read the ] * Read the ]


== How not to edit war ==


<nowiki>Before any more editing, please review about ]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have ]. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on ] ~~~~</nowiki> <nowiki>Before any more editing, please review about ]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have ]. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on ] ~~~~</nowiki>


== Appropriate criticism ==

::: I like criticism that follows our rules about being
::::* ]
::::* ] and
::::* are based on what Misplaced Pages defines as a ].
::: If you are intersted in making constructive critique without causing ], then please study and abide by ] and ]. We try not to ] newcomers, but there's a low tolerance for studious disdain of our basic standards once they're called to your attention.




Line 65: Line 94:
2010 2010
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

== Before Global warming lead revamp reconfirm scope of article ==
section Moved to ]


== table formatting == == table formatting ==
Line 82: Line 108:
|} |}


== List defined references ==
''For a time I thought I found a bug in the code. I prepped a report for Pump/Technical, and when I posted the report I discovered a difference in behavior depending on where you are messing with this feature. This first paragraph sums up the end result, but I'm saving the earlier work for future reference and a reminder if what I learned as I experimented''


::BOTTOM LINE When using List-Defined references in ''article'' or ''wikipedia'' space, when publishing changes an unused ref produces an error message. In ''talk'' pages and my ''user sandbox'' it does not. Instead unused references simply are not visible in the rendered notes. But in those spaces when editing and looking at changes in PREVIEW mode, unused references ''are'' visible in the list of notes. Since notes are numbered in order of first occurrence, they appear at the bottom of the list and the carom symbol is not hyperlinked.


''Earlier work as a experimented..................''
''Originally posted at BLPN, then I learned about a very similar discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard. Parking here while I mull things over.''


-- Is RefList broken with respect to list-defined references --
I am struggling to reconcile some ANI closing instructions with our BLP policy. This will be the first I've raised my confusion to the closing admin, but I thought I'd raise the question here for others interested in BLP issues.


I think the code for reflist might be broken.
Back in Jan 2014 {{Admin|TParis}} concluded an ANI with the
::"''Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r''"


At ] it says
I was not involved in that action. However, these closing instruction were in context of discussion at ], where I am involved.
::{{tq|All references in reference list must be referenced in the content, otherwise an error message will be shown.}}


Similarly, at the detailed sub-page in section ] it says (bold in original) it says
The article subject, Anthony Watts, is a <ins>public figure</ins>, who runs what he calls the world's most-viewed blog on climate change (]). Like most public figures, there is a range of commentary in the sources. From my own research, it appears that only a handful of sources have been discussed so far. Before I spend a lot more time looking into it, I'm hoping to get some guidance as to how the results could be used.
::{{tq|Additionally, '''any unused references will generate an error'''. All list-defined references must be used in the body...}}


This error-reporting for unused references is no longer working. If it is fixed, it would be nice if the error message asked people to move unused citations to article talk so it can be easily used again.
The closing instructions from TParis appear to close the door on minority voices found in otherwise respectable RSs. As I read BLP policy, that isn't quite how we handle public figures. The key section seems to be
::"''Public figures''
::"''In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.''
::*"''Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
::*"''Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.''"


'''You can stop here'''.... That's all I really needed to say. But in case that succinct summary isn't clear, here are some detailed examples I fumbled around with while studying the concept of list-defined references. These examples demonstrate what I am talking about. The full citation used in the following examples are simply
As I read the policy, the ANI's closing instructions seem to shut the door on RSs holding a minority view of the public figure. In the present instance, the policy seems to require reporting when ''most'' quality sources say Jane Doe is a "climate skeptic" while adding that ''some'' quality sources allege Jane Doe is a "climate ''denier''". TParis' closing instructions appear to say that doing so will incur the wrath of AE under ].
* ''Ugly, Ugly Ugly''
* ''Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier''
* ''Voila!''

Being ugly, the first two references are fully cited within the reflist template, but the simple cite for ''Voila!'' is allowed to remain in the text. So here we go....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; | Example 1 - All references used
|-
| Wikicode || <nowiki>This reference is really ugly<ref name=a/> but not as ugly as this one,<ref name=b/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref></nowiki><br>

<nowiki>'''-- Refences for Example 1 --'''</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>{{reflist-talk|</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>refs=</nowiki><br>
<nowiki><ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref></nowiki><br>
<nowiki><ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

|-
| Renders as || This reference is really ugly<ref name=a/> but not as ugly as this one,<ref name=b/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref>

'''-- Refences for Example 1 --'''
{{reflist-talk|
refs=
<ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref>
<ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref>
}}

|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; | Example 2 - ''Even Uglier'' is not cited
|-
| Wikicode || <nowiki>This reference is really ugly,<ref name=a/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref></nowiki><br>

<nowiki>'''-- Refences for Example 2 --'''</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>{{reflist-talk|</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>refs=</nowiki><br>
<nowiki><ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref></nowiki><br>
<nowiki><ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

|-
| Renders as || This reference is really ugly,<ref name=a/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref>

'''-- Refences for Example 2 --'''
{{reflist-talk|
refs=
<ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref>
<ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref>
}}
|}

In example 2,
* Contrary to the help documentation, the unused reference does ''not'' produce an error when publishing
* As expected, the unused reference does ''not'' appear on the published version of the article but
* Weird and undocumented behavior.... the unused references '''does appear''' in preview mode. Since the references are numbered in order of first use, the unused reference (formerly reference 2) is bubbled down to the bottom of the list and its little carom symbol is not hyperlinked. I only happened to discover this by accident. It would be nice if the error feature were repaired, coded to be educational, and supplemented with a message asking for unused references to maybe be moved to article talk for easy future use.

Thanks for reading
] (]) 13:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

== pics with transparent background ==
I finally figured out (in 2013 publisher) to just select the image(s) and use "save as picture" instead of saving the whole thing (file-Export-changefiletype).

== workspace for GW ==

{|style="background:silver; color: black"
|-
|'''Draft ver 2)'''
:Under the ], nations are making ] to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow global warming to reach 2.8&nbsp;°C (5.0&nbsp;°F) by 2100.<ref>{{harvnb|Climate Action Tracker|2019|p=1|ps=: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.}}; {{harvnb|United Nations Environment Programme|2019|p=27}}.</ref> To limit warming to 1.5&nbsp;°C (2.7&nbsp;°F), human-caused carbon dioxide emissions would need to decrease to ].<ref>{{harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch2|2018|p=95|ps=: In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range)}}; {{harvnb|Rogelj|Meinshausen|Schaeffer|Knutti|Riahi|2015}}.</ref> At the current emission rate, the ] for staying below {{Convert|1.5|C-change}} would be exhausted by 2028.<ref>{{harvnb|Mercator Institute|2020}}; {{Harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch2|2018|p=96|ps=: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 Gt{{CO2}} for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 Gt{{CO2}} for an even chance (medium confidence)}}.</ref>

<i>New sources:</i>
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal
|last1 = Rogelj |first1 = Joeri
|last2 = Meinshausen |first2 = Malte
|last3 = Schaeffer |first3 = Michiel
|last4 = Knutti |first4 = Reto
|last5 = Riahi |first5 = Keywan
|title = Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming
|url = https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/075001
|year = 2015
|journal = Environmental Research Letters
|volume = 10
|issue = 7
|pages = 1-10
|doi = 10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/075001
}}
{{refend}}

:break
:Countries work together on climate change under the umbrella of the ] (UNFCCC), which has near-universal membership. The goal of the convention is to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Acting on the scientific recommendations of the ], which told policy makers there is much greater risk to human and natural systems if warming goes above {{Convert|1.5|C-change}},<ref name="SR15"/> UNFCCC members are making ] to ], primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting ] for energy and transporation, and improving earth's natural ] by improving ] and ]. As of December 2019 those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow average surface temperatures to climb about 2.8&nbsp;°C (5.0&nbsp;°F) by 2100,<ref>{{harvnb|Climate Action Tracker|2019|p=1|ps=: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C.}}; {{harvnb|United Nations Environment Programme|2019|p=27}}</ref> and at current rates of greenhouse gas emissions the ] for staying below {{Convert|1.5|C-change}} would be exhausted by 2028.<ref>{{harvnb|Mercator Institute|2020}}; {{Harvnb|IPCC SR15 Ch2|2018|p=96|ps=: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 Gt{{CO2}} for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 Gt{{CO2}} for an even chance (medium confidence)}}.</ref>''
::........ break .............
:''The IPCC says the more we can prevent additional global warming, the easier it will be to ], but it is still recommended that we invest in improved ] and ], building better ], and ensuring ]. Finally, some favor intentional intervention with the climate system, through theoretical and controversial proposals collectively known as ].''
:::{{reflist-talk}}
|}

=== More ===
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption text
|-
! Header text !! Header text !! Header text
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|-
| Example || Example || Example
|}


== Sandbox misc ==
{{User|TParis}}, did I understand and reiterate your closing instructions correctly? Can you help me reconcile this perceived conflict between those instructions and the policy?
Once ] on selection criteria is achieved, it should be documented in two places. First, it should be clearly described in the list's ]. Second, it should be added to the list article's talk page, using ], including a link to document where the consensus was established. If list criteria include acceptable ] (see "common selection criteria" below), it should be formatted in the article using ].


In contrast, list articles lacking sufficient statements of list criteria should be tagged with ].
And what do you other members of this board think about it all? Can we make mention when a minority of quality sources allege Jane Doe is a climate denier? Or should we get sanctioned for doing so? ] (]) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)<br>
'''Reserved for closing admin TParis'''
<small>rats, it looks like this excellent admin has retired] (]) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
{{od}}
'''General Discussion'''<br>
*Comments anyone? ] (]) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:28, 19 July 2022

This is the user sandbox of NewsAndEventsGuy. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Submit your draft for review!


searching

This will find references to those pages on other sites as well, you'd be better off with: 

   site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:"wiki/*%s"
   site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:%s (assuming your string isn't present in "en.wikipedia.org/wiki")


User talk:The Transhumanist/SearchSuite.js

more

*For grey box with text...
  • a bunch more


please suggest some draft text, with ] to what ]. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is not a forum for general topic discussion

For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages {{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}

Sample set up archiving

TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055

WP:RFO

For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Misplaced Pages treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

Not helpful. I've respectfully acknowledged you see substantive value that I don't see, and a ] at policy isn't really increasing our mutual understanding of the ].~~~~

Do not edit war

Once you have been reverted, you are expected to discuss the matter at the article talk page. One of the reverting editors has already started a thread for that purpose. Please click this link and discuss the improvements you think need to be made, instead of repeatedly editing the article, because that looks a lot like edit warring, which can lead to sanctions.

Great, now learn how to use a talk page

Thanks for replying at article talk. Next, please learn how to discuss at those talk (or this) talk page. Three things

  • Sign your posts by typing 4 tildes at the end. Like this ~~~~
  • Learn to indent to show who you are replying to, using colons Like this : or :::: etc
  • Read the talk page guidelines

How not to edit war

Before any more editing, please review about ]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have ]. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on ] ~~~~

Appropriate criticism

I like criticism that follows our rules about being
If you are intersted in making constructive critique without causing disruption, then please study and abide by the talk page guidelines and WP:ARBCC#Principles. We try not to WP:BITE newcomers, but there's a low tolerance for studious disdain of our basic standards once they're called to your attention.



"The magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts will depend on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks." pg 2 America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Report in Brief) Matson, et al US National Research Council 2010 http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

table formatting

Header text Header text Header text
R1C1 R1C2 R1C3
R2C2 R2C3
R3C1 R3C2 R3C3

List defined references

For a time I thought I found a bug in the code. I prepped a report for Pump/Technical, and when I posted the report I discovered a difference in behavior depending on where you are messing with this feature. This first paragraph sums up the end result, but I'm saving the earlier work for future reference and a reminder if what I learned as I experimented

BOTTOM LINE When using List-Defined references in article or wikipedia space, when publishing changes an unused ref produces an error message. In talk pages and my user sandbox it does not. Instead unused references simply are not visible in the rendered notes. But in those spaces when editing and looking at changes in PREVIEW mode, unused references are visible in the list of notes. Since notes are numbered in order of first occurrence, they appear at the bottom of the list and the carom symbol is not hyperlinked.

Earlier work as a experimented..................

-- Is RefList broken with respect to list-defined references --

I think the code for reflist might be broken.

At Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references it says

All references in reference list must be referenced in the content, otherwise an error message will be shown.

Similarly, at the detailed sub-page in section Help:List-defined_references#Guidelines it says (bold in original) it says

Additionally, any unused references will generate an error. All list-defined references must be used in the body...

This error-reporting for unused references is no longer working. If it is fixed, it would be nice if the error message asked people to move unused citations to article talk so it can be easily used again.

You can stop here.... That's all I really needed to say. But in case that succinct summary isn't clear, here are some detailed examples I fumbled around with while studying the concept of list-defined references. These examples demonstrate what I am talking about. The full citation used in the following examples are simply

  • Ugly, Ugly Ugly
  • Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier
  • Voila!

Being ugly, the first two references are fully cited within the reflist template, but the simple cite for Voila! is allowed to remain in the text. So here we go....

Example 1 - All references used
Wikicode This reference is really ugly<ref name=a/> but not as ugly as this one,<ref name=b/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref>

'''-- Refences for Example 1 --'''
{{reflist-talk|
refs=
<ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref>
<ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref>
}}

Renders as This reference is really ugly but not as ugly as this one, especially compared to this simple one.

-- Refences for Example 1 --

References

  1. Ugly, Ugly Ugly
  2. Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier
  3. Voila!
Example 2 - Even Uglier is not cited
Wikicode This reference is really ugly,<ref name=a/> especially compared to this simple one.<ref>Voila!</ref>

'''-- Refences for Example 2 --'''
{{reflist-talk|
refs=
<ref name=a>Ugly, Ugly Ugly</ref>
<ref name=b>Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier,Even Uglier</ref>
}}

Renders as This reference is really ugly, especially compared to this simple one.

-- Refences for Example 2 --

References

  1. Ugly, Ugly Ugly
  2. Voila!
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "b" is not used in the content (see the help page).

In example 2,

  • Contrary to the help documentation, the unused reference does not produce an error when publishing
  • As expected, the unused reference does not appear on the published version of the article but
  • Weird and undocumented behavior.... the unused references does appear in preview mode. Since the references are numbered in order of first use, the unused reference (formerly reference 2) is bubbled down to the bottom of the list and its little carom symbol is not hyperlinked. I only happened to discover this by accident. It would be nice if the error feature were repaired, coded to be educational, and supplemented with a message asking for unused references to maybe be moved to article talk for easy future use.

Thanks for reading NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

pics with transparent background

I finally figured out (in 2013 publisher) to just select the image(s) and use "save as picture" instead of saving the whole thing (file-Export-changefiletype).

workspace for GW

Draft ver 2)
Under the Paris Agreement, nations are making climate pledges to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow global warming to reach 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by 2100. To limit warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), human-caused carbon dioxide emissions would need to decrease to zero by 2050. At the current emission rate, the carbon budget for staying below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would be exhausted by 2028.

New sources:

break
Countries work together on climate change under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which has near-universal membership. The goal of the convention is to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". Acting on the scientific recommendations of the IPCC, which told policy makers there is much greater risk to human and natural systems if warming goes above 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), UNFCCC members are making climate pledges to reduce global warming, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting low carbon power for energy and transporation, and improving earth's natural carbon sinks by improving agricultural soils and reforestation. As of December 2019 those promises - assuming nations follow through - would still allow average surface temperatures to climb about 2.8 °C (5.0 °F) by 2100, and at current rates of greenhouse gas emissions the carbon budget for staying below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) would be exhausted by 2028.
........ break .............
The IPCC says the more we can prevent additional global warming, the easier it will be to adapt to unavoidable impacts, but it is still recommended that we invest in improved coastline protection and moving people and development inland, building better disaster management systems, and ensuring food security. Finally, some favor intentional intervention with the climate system, through theoretical and controversial proposals collectively known as "climate engineering".

References

  1. Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClimate_Action_Tracker2019 (help); United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUnited_Nations_Environment_Programme2019 (help).
  2. IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 95: In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help); Rogelj et al. 2015.
  3. Mercator Institute 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMercator_Institute2020 (help); IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO2 for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO2 for an even chance (medium confidence) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help).
  4. Cite error: The named reference SR15 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. Climate Action Tracker 2019, p. 1: Under current pledges, the world will warm by 2.8°C by the end of the century, close to twice the limit they agreed in Paris. Governments are even further from the Paris temperature limit in terms of their real-world action, which would see the temperature rise by 3°C. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClimate_Action_Tracker2019 (help); United Nations Environment Programme 2019, p. 27 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUnited_Nations_Environment_Programme2019 (help)
  6. Mercator Institute 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMercator_Institute2020 (help); IPCC SR15 Ch2 2018, p. 96: This assessment suggests a remaining budget of about 420 GtCO2 for a twothirds chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and of about 580 GtCO2 for an even chance (medium confidence) harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_SR15_Ch22018 (help).

More

Caption text
Header text Header text Header text
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example

Sandbox misc

Once consensus on selection criteria is achieved, it should be documented in two places. First, it should be clearly described in the list's introductory material. Second, it should be added to the list article's talk page, using Template:List criteria, including a link to document where the consensus was established. If list criteria include acceptable self-references to Misplaced Pages (see "common selection criteria" below), it should be formatted in the article using Template:Self-reference link.

In contrast, list articles lacking sufficient statements of list criteria should be tagged with Template:List missing criteria.