Talk: Tracy Caulkins

{{GA|10:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)|topic=Sports and recreation|page=1|oldid=635366281}}

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject banner shell| blp=yes |class=GA|listas=Caulkins, Tracy| 1=

{{WikiProject Biography | sports-work-group=yes | sports-priority=Low }}

{{WikiProject Florida | importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject University of Florida|Gators=yes | importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Swimming | importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Olympics | importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Women's sport | importance=High}}

}}

Additional information needed

1. Head and shoulders digital photo portrait, with free use and no copyright restrictions----consider contacting Caulkins directly.

2. Digital or digitized photo of Caulkins in pool or on the medal stand.

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

:Pic is here from the Dutch National Archives, so I removed the image request. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

So discuss. Quis separabit? 16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Problematic changes in substance and formatting

RMS --

1. "Winona, Minnesota, U.S." -- it is not necessary to add "Australia," "Canada," "United Kingdom," or "United States" to Australian, Canadian and American city-and-state or UK city-and-county links. This is well understood, and goes against the preferred Wikipedia link style as well as the consistent formatting of 600+ U.S. Olympic swimmer articles.

2. "(née Caulkins; born January 11, 1963)" -- adding partial maiden name of married women to the birth date parenthetical only makes it more difficult to read.

3. "she is considered one of the greatest swimmers of all time" -- not a WP:NPOV violation when such superlatives are amply supported by the article text and sourced footnotes. FYI, statements in the lead do not need to footnoted when they are a summary of sourced statements in the main body text. Tracy Stockwell IS one of the greatest swimmers of all time, and that's not an exaggeration.

4. "; retrieved April 12, 2010." -- Unnecessary reformatting of pre-existing footnote style that is consistently used throughout the article. There is no reason to change the established punctuation and capitalization.

5. "[ "Beyond the pool length with Tracy Caulkins"]" -- Unnecessary reformatting of pre-existing footnote style that is consistently used throughout the article. There is no reason to move quote marks inside the hyperlink when they were clearly, consistently and intentionally placed outside the hyperlinks to simplify and shorten the hyperlink text.

6. Spacing of headers, sections, paragraphs and sentences -- There is no reason to change the pre-existing internally consistent spacing of an article based on personal preference. Such spacing is permitted by the Manual of Style and makes coded text much easier to read and edit in the Wikipedia edit dialog window.

7. By deleting section, header, paragraph and sentence spacing, and then combining several shorter paragraphs into longer paragraphs, all at the same time, you make it virtually impossible to do a line-by-line comparison of substantive changes using the article history "diff" function. Re-spacing existing internally consistent spacing makes other editors' review extremely time-consuming. As a courtesy to other editors who work on an article, please don't do it.

8. "!--ISSN/ISBN needed--" -- It is neither necessary nor desirable to include ISBN numbers in footnotes when the cited book or journal is listed in the bibliography.

9. "fellow University of Florida alum" -- This is an encyclopedia, not a blog; the use of slang such as "alum" is not preferred. Even less so as a correction when the correct word "alumnus" was already used.

10. Deletion of the names of non-celebrity minor children: that's a good thing, in my opinion.

11. There is no space required between the Persondata template and the Defaultsort template (trivial).

If you want to make substantive changes, without reformatting the entire article in terms of spacing, punctuation and footnote styles, we can discuss those changes, many of which I will no doubt not object to. But when you reformat an entire article the blackline comparison function is useless and other editors cannot begin to decipher the changes. From what I can tell, most of the changes were not substantive, but represented changes in the established formatting. Feel free to respond. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)