User:Wwheaton/test4

This experimental section is intended as a place to keep a master list of references (whether of disputed acceptability per WP:SOURCE or not), with one and only one copy of each, so we are all sure we are talking about the same thing and looking in the same place. I propose that it be kept at the BEGINNING of the talk page, with additions in the same section. That way it should continue to stay in that place until the archiving times out (ie, nothing added for 30 days, or whatever archiving time we use, as I predict we will want to do soon, given the rate this page is growing). I am going to start with the references on the safety subject now in our article here, list them alphabetically by first author and date, so there is a unique sorting order. Wwheaton (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullet format:

• 1999_Matthews: ^[1] A Black Hole Ate My Planet — New Scientist article.

• 2003_Blaizot: ^[2] Study of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions at the LHC— 2003 Safety Report

• 2008_CERN: ^[3] The safety of the LHC, — Summary web site

• 2008a_CERN: ^[4] SPC Report on LSAG Documents — CERN Scientific Policy Committee Report.

• 2008_Ellis: ^[5] Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions — LSAG 2008 Report

• 2008a_Ellis: ^[6] Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions: Addendum on Strangelets — LSAG 2008 Addendum on strangelets

• 2008_Giddings: ^[7] Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes — 96 page risk evaluation assuming BHs are produced and are stable.

• 2008_MSNBC: ^[8] - Doomsday Fear Sparks Lawsuit —MSNBS news report 3/27/2008.
• 2008_Overbye: ^[9] Government Seeks Dismissal of End-of-World Suit Against Collider ,—New York Times, 6/27/2008

• 2008_Rōssler: ^[10] - Biggest crimes of humanity — 20 Minute News interview 6/25/2008.

• 2008a_Rōssler: ^[11] Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk — Otto E. Rōssler Theory

Tabular format:

Gotta go for a bit. I think the "ref name=" id should also be there somehow, but haven't figured out how to put that in yet. Making it alphabetical is not quite as easy as I had hoped, but for now I am using "CERN" when there is no clear author, and the first author's last name when I can figure it out. Wwheaton (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Obsolete. Wwheaton (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Wwheaton. --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Later note: I have tried a table format to align the columns, and put the ref="____" in to tie it uniquely to the article. Which is best? <When there was no "name" field given (only 1999_Matthews so far) I used the first, ID, field.  DoneI am strongly tempted to replace the ref "name' with the ID everywhere, as it is not clear we need both (but then I would have to change all the ref names in the article to preserve the connection). The advantage of the non-tab format is we could put comments in under each entry by anyone on content, value, legitimacy per WP policies, etc, keep/drop votes by us, etc. At the moment I think I favor the bullet format, as the table is more work and less flexible, and has less info than the bulleted way, which preserves the entire <ref> contents. Keeping the columns straight seems not so important, especially if I rename the ref names to the ID. I am thinking of reversing the first ID field to date_name to order it first by date, as that seems more important. But we might want to add another field, like say, eg, In/Out status, to indicate the current status of what is in the article. And there could even be others.

Questions:

• Is this even useful to do at this point, or a waste of effort?
• If so, suggestions about how to do it for maximum convenience and usefulness are eagerly solicited.

I had trouble with this last night, and am not sure it is correct, even with only seven refs, but try it out. Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Still later: Have changed sorting to "date_name", so all the most recent dates are at the end. I apparently do not understand how ref assigns numbers, because numbering seems erratic. I have also started changing all the ref name=" " names to be the same as my ID, ans I think they are redundant, and I want them to sort in a unique way. Let me know ASAP if you see any problems with this. Of course I have not done it (yet) in the article, and will not until I have the complete list and no serious objections have been raised. Only two more references added. Wwheaton (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem was with minor syntax errors with 2003_Blaizot and 2008a_Ellis references, I fixed them and the numbering appears to work correctly now. --Jtankers (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For which, thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see also that the order in the ID (first by year, then alphabetical by name) was disorderd, probably in an edit conflict, and also "Rōssler" was changed back to "Rossler". I have fixt these back now. Wwheaton (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)