This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bottled oxygen has very little content and largely repeats what is within the scope of this article's history section. Is there any point to keeping it separate?
I suggest a merge and redirect. Please ping with replies. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 18:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough Steelpillow, but should the citation not then link to the expanded version, so it is easier for the user to see that it is a major reference, and that the description has not simply been omitted, which was my immediate impression, and why I do not currently see it as an improvement. I don't see the point unless there are several citations to different identified locations in the same source, as described in WP:SFN, which would result in the same basic description appearing multiple times in the reflist. If they all simply refer to the source generically, why bother? Keeping it as simple as reasonably practicable without risking confusion helps both readers and editors. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a way to link the citation to the long reference, but I cannot recall the code offhand. If WP:SFN does not explain all, there are more details at Template:sfn. The opportunity is also now there to provide page numbers in the citations, which is helpful to readers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Found WP:SRF and converted the long citation to the right template. Inline cites need to take the form {{sfn|Miller|1974|page= }}, but I will not be ploughing through the details myself. Not quite sure if my date/year handling is correct to make the links work right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Steelpillow, I fixed the coding for sfn], which works with the established CS1 formatting but it is still a bit pointless unless there are page or location details, and I don't have the time or inclination to do that at this point, as the source is on-line and can be searched easily if anyone wants to find the relevant content. It is not a large document, with 6 pages of text content, and I would not consider it a major source just because it was cited several times. It just conveniently supported a few basic details. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
