The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
@Lyndaship: There was template '{{reflist|refs=' with references in bottom, probably written some editor long ago, so I thought it may be written in bottom to follow pattern of first editors. But anyway thank you for your contributions, because I have zero knowledge re sea transport. PoetVeches (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
ok but only one cite was done like that so the simpler thing would be to make that one match the other 5 which use the usual format. Why I prefer the inline cite is that it is much easier to identify when something is changed and if there is a need for a global replace of cites the less variety we have in formats the easier it is Lyndaship (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Lyndaship:, of course, everything is OK, but there you usual have one references style: or it is {{reflist}} or {{{reflist|refs=}}, I first time see to use {{{reflist|refs=}} with {{reflist}} together at the same time, in all, a bit mishmash. Update: I corrected all references in inline coding, which you think are better. PoetVeches (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Boud:, just one day ago I asked which reflist style to use, because usual only one style used: or inline code, or in bottom. This is because avoid mishmash and mess and to help to improve and add new edits, watch changes. May you follow inline coding style? Thank you. I have rewritten in one style. PoetVeches (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Separating the content from the references gives source that is generally much easier to maintain in the long term, makes the prose much more readable, and makes it easier to copy references between related articles without confusing content and sources. It's also easier to avoid redundant sources if these are all collected together. In any case, if the consensus for this individual article is for inlining the full details of references, making a mess of the prose, then so be it. Boud (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the introduction, the text says "On 16 November 2017, Dream Cruises created an 8.44 metres (27 ft 8 in) Lego model of the ship, the largest such model of a cruise ship, which is on permanent display at the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal in Hong Kong". However, I am not sure if the reference indicates the replica is a "permanent display". Other news do not indicate so either ([...]A replica of World Dream, which broke the Guinness Book of World Records for the largest Lego cruise ship, will be displayed at Kai Tak starting from November 19). For native English speaking Wikipedians, please help review and confirm. Pyll0 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
