Talk:History of Worcester

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Worcestershire High‑importance

	Worcestershire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-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.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New page from Worcester content[edit]

Hi there, please see the discussion on talk:Worcester#History section about this.

"MacDonald 1969, pp=..." a short citation with no supporting long citation[edit]

user:JimKillock I am using this as an example of why it would help other editors if you added more text to your comments in the edit history, and why per "Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text" it is useful to attribute text copied from one article to another even if it is not needed for copyright reasons.

This article has a short citation "MacDonald 1969, pp=..." which is not supported by a long citation. Some text supported by the short citation appears in two articles (as of today) "he appeared to support the authority of kings": "History of Worcestershire" and "History of Worcester".

If someone in the future had wished to add the long citation, but for whatever reason the paragraphs had been changed or removed from the History of Worcestershire article it would be very difficult to trace the correct long citation, because the evidence would be buried in the history of the article and can not be found with a Wikipedia text search.

You added a source to the article History of Worcestershire with Revision as of 21:46, 5 July 2018 however the edit comment "General sources" was just the section heading there is nothing there to say which source you added.

You made three sequential edits ending with Revision as of 06:47, 14 July 2018 adding some text about King John to the article History of Worcestershire with supporting short citations.

A few hours later you added the same text with the short citation to this article ( History of Worcester) with Revision as of 11:25, 14 July 2018 "‎Early medieval". You did not add anything to the edit history to indicate what the edit included or where the text came from. As you failed to copy across the long citation to support the short citations, at the moment the short citations are hanging with no supporting long citatoin (I will copy over the long citation).

There is a tool that can be used to check the edit history of an article see Wikipedia:WikiBlame, which—if one knows about it—makes this sort of investigation easier, but it does not help find the article from which the text originally came. Hence the need for article attribution in the edit history.

-- PBS (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I fully admit I haven't always been as careful as I should have been. My only defence is that copyright wasn't a concern as it was my own work and that was in my mind when I made these changes. I'm grateful for you going through and tidying various things up. Thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]