2.247.56.149

Hi! Do not remove the date retrieved from references, i.e. the date preceded by "vaadatud", "kasutatud" or alike. Pikne 25. september 2018, kell 17:23 (EEST)

Pikne, can you explain what you mean? etwiki has a lot of broken links. I fix them, by using the ID from Wikidata. dewiki and ruwiki use Wikidata. 2.247.56.149 25. september 2018, kell 17:25 (EEST)

Fixing links is nice, but by doing so you shouldn't lose information. For instance, reference in Otto Benjamin Gottfried Rosenberger said that data was retrieved on November 7th, 2014. It no longer does. Pikne 25. september 2018, kell 17:43 (EEST)

Because it is no longer true? The URL did not exist "November 7th, 2014". 2.247.56.149 25. september 2018, kell 17:45 (EEST)

Well, if you checked that new URL is still valid as a source for given claim and so it's appropriate to replace the URL, then you can update the date. Also, text in print edition and digital edition aren't necessarily the same, and so reference to particular pages in print edition shouldn't be simply replaced with reference to digital edition, like here. Pikne 25. september 2018, kell 18:42 (EEST)

You are maybe more clever than me, otherwise, you would not tell me all these thinks, right? But can you tell me the relevance for "Also, text in print edition and digital edition aren't necessarily the same".

1. What do you know about the level of sameness between DBBL and BBLD?
2. Why would that difference matter?

Last but not least, if you are that interested in quality, why didn't you fix teh broken links before? 2.247.56.149 25. september 2018, kell 18:47 (EEST)

They amend the original print edition entries as per intoduction of the digital edition. If texts are different then obviously one edition isn't valid source about everything that other source says. It can be valid, but this should be checked for every reference. Even if texts were identical then reference to published print edition is more solid and should be preserved for that reason alone.

There's enough time to fix and we can put more care into it. Pikne 25. september 2018, kell 19:13 (EEST)

1. "They amend the original print edition entries as per intoduction of the digital edition." - Where did you find that?
2. "If texts are different then obviously one edition isn't valid source about everything that other source says." - can you enlighten others why that would be obvious? Outside of BBLD/DBBL I have plenty of examples for texts where that is not even true, so why would something not true outside BBLD/DBBL be obvious for BBLD/DBBL?
3. "There's enough time to fix and we can put more care into it" - who is we? Or are you talking about yourself in plural form?

Best regards 2.247.56.149 25. september 2018, kell 19:25 (EEST)