Hello, User-duck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Vlokia ater, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Vlokia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Renaming/Replacing articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.
This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.
Your thread has been archived
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Cropping images at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.
This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.
Helichrysum thianschanicum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Continental climate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rainbow Bridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi User-duck. When pluralizing a word involves adding a simple 's' or 'es', there's no need to pipe the link. For instance, instead of typing [[Bamboo|bamboos]] to yield bamboos, you can simply type [[bamboo]]s; the result is exactly the same: bamboos. Hope this makes editing a little easier! RivertorchFIREWATER16:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, User-duck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi User-duck,
I've recently updated a Nomis citation you added to Melton, Suffolk, with a new template I've been involved in that may be of interest. {{NOMIS2011}} hopefully makes it easier to create quality cites to Nomis Local Area Reports Search. I hope this is useful for you.TiBchat00:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John W. Campbell Jr.
Hi -- I see you're working on John W. Campbell, and I just wanted to give you a heads up. You're changing the citation method to {{sfn}}, which is fine with me, but generally you should get ask on the article talk page before doing. Per WP:CITEVAR, these things should be done only with consensus for established articles. No problem here, just wanted to make sure you knew about it in case you wanted to do the same to other articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John C. Wells, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Removed/Missing URL at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
User-duck, I'm a bit perplexed as to what is the point of all these images size and placement changes. This article constantly attracts attention of users, who jump out of the blue and in a big way start to change the various aspects of the article, this pushy approach is unfortunately nothing new, and also in this case, I don't see a strong reason why long standing image sizes should be changed, other than based on how they look on your individual screen. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your thread has been archived
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Mixing short footnote references with full footnote references at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called What is an appropriate number of authors to list before using "et al"? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hello, User-duck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. With this edit, you added a reference from a website but did not add the URL of the reference. I have found the site, but can you please provide the URL to make the reference complete? Thank you. Happy days, LindsayHello17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the help on the Lunar Lander page fixing my references. I'm not at all sure how you can find all of that information about the articles I'm citing. I look on the journal websites but can't find it to that depth. Do you use some other system or are you seeing something I'm missing?
Hello, thanks for your instructions & guidance. The spaces before the ref have been removed. I was a little unsure as to what your last command may have meant. Any further guidance? Thanks for your time, Jess Jessarchivetn (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mandolin edits, thank you
Hi,
I want to thank you for your recent cleanup of the Mandolin article. The changes you made have improved the appearance of the article. Thank you, Jacqke (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cite template change
Hi, I wanted to ask you about an edit you made: [1]. While fixing some cites in the article, you changed a cite journal template to a cite magazine, but the publication is an academic journal [2] so the cite journal template is a better fit. I'd fix it myself, but the article is currently in the middle of a dispute resolution, and I don't want to touch it out of respect for that process. Could you change the template back? Thanks! - GretLomborg (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Correct article name? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
@Nemo bis: Thanks for the info. I may start to use the bot if I can figure it out. What I do know is that I have fixed far too many errors that have been either generated by bots or people using bots. User-duck (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of conflicts in the Philippines
Hi. This follows after this comment which I just placed on RioHondo's talk page. The List of conflicts in the Philippines article isn't really the topic here -- it's an example. Editing that article recently, I noticed some circular links and, looking at them, I see that they seem to come from edits like this one of yours. Apparently, {{sfn}} produces them in some cases. I've never gotten into WP:Lua, so I stay clear of digging into Sfn but I thought I would mention this to you. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtmitchell:, Thanks for the message. I am replying via my talk page. Primarily so I have a record of the message. Even after 10,000 edits, I am not sure of the "talk" protocol.
I would not call what you have encountered a "circular link". The {{sfn}} template is designed to be used with full citations. A reference name is generated which would link to a citation created using {{citation}} or {{cite book}} (with |ref=). The other cite templates also use |ref=. (There are several other methods. It would not be Wikipedia if there weren't.)
The problem is that the full citation does not exist and the link to the citation cannot be made. I call this a "broken link".
Numerous templates generate the same reference link, e.g. {{sfnp}}, {{harvnb}}. I believe these templates use the same method that links the [1] to the ref/cites generated by {{reflist}}.
One of these broken links was generated by<ref>{{Harvnb|History for Brunei|2009|p=44}}</ref>. I fixed the "broken link" by replacing the {{Harvnb}} template with a {{cite book}} containg a full citation.
There were three other references that were not full citations, I interpreted them as short footnotes and coded them: {{sfn|Jovito Abellana|Aginid|Bayok sa Atong Tawarik|1952}}, {{sfn|Ibidem|p=195}}, {{sfn|Scott|1992|pp=50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63}}. I noted them with {{citation not found}} (AKA {{cnf}}). I apparently misinterpreted the "Jovito Abellana" ref. I did not recognize "ibidem" as one of the Latin terms that I am not fluent with. And the "Scott 1992, pp. 50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63." footnote is still missing its full citation. There are full citations for "Scott, William Henry (1984)" and "Scott, William Henry (1994)".
Please fix the {{sfn|Ibidem|p=195}} footnote. Looks like you have done a lot of research which I do not want to do. If you are not comfortable with the use of sfn (or whatever) let be know the info and I will gladly implement the change.
I will be remarking {{sfn|Ibidem|p=195}}, {{sfn|Scott|1992|pp=50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63}} with {{cnf}} since the source is still currently not clear.
Hi User-duck! You created a thread called Deprecated use of "upright". at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Please do not change Citation Style 2 ({{citation}}) citations into Citation Style 1 ({{cite web}} and friends), as you recently did at Reuleaux triangle. See WP:CITEVAR for one reason why not. The article is a Good Article and an explicit Good Article criterion is that all citations be consistent in style. An additional reason is that CS2 by default supports harv-style parnthetical referencing, which the Reuleaux triangle article uses, whereas CS1 by default does not support it (with the effect of its non-support being broken links).
In addition, your changed image caption "The central bubble in a mathematical model of a four-bubble planar soap bubble cluster is a Reuleaux triangle" makes it incorrect. Not all four-bubble clusters have a Reuleaux center. The previous caption more correctly stated that it was true of the specific cluster shown in the figure. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for your cite fix on the golden rhombus article
Hi!
Thank you A LOT for your decisive help on my web citing in the golden rhombus article!
§:-)
I would NOT have found how to do it by myself... I was going desperate, & i'm still "angry" at Wikipedia for being so "contributor-unfriendly"...
Such issues are definitely not for me...
§:-P
Hi, again;
i tried to invoke this ref again, further in the same article:
i copied-pasted another "ref invoking" that works in the same article, i wrote weisstein instead of ogawa...
but mine doesn't work. Wikipedia is "contributor-unfriendly" about this other issue, too...
§:-P
If by miracle you knew how to fix this other cite, & if you had a little time for it...
i would have to thank you again! & afterwards, i hope i would know how to do this, too.
§:-)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Draft:Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan
Hi User-duck. I know you meant well with this edit, but you caused an edit conflict while that section undergoing a fairly major re-write which resulted in quite a bit of new content being lost. Did you get any edit conflict notification when you were making the edit? Were you using a script? I was aware of the CS1 error and it had been fixed as part of the revision. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not notify if others are editing. It is always a surprise! User-duck (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[Note: I've moved this to your talk page from mine since it's makes more sense to discuss this here where the discussion began than somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Just wanted to add that I'm not really mad or anything about this; just trying to figure out whether you also got a "Edit conflict" notice when you were making that edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Thanks you for clarifying. I did get an edit conflict notice, but most likely only because you made your edit first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi User-duck.
You reviewed the Polynesian Paralysis page on Feb 6 at 2201. I have made significant edits to the page as a more cultural article and included several additional print citations and removed some of the internet citations. I resubmitted the article for review and approval on March 13. Is there anything else I need to do... or just wait for someone to provide more feedback or approval.
Thanks again for your help!
JimJimGaston (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been making a large number of edits to this article. Would you like to give a rationale for them on the talk page? Your edits look OK, but this article is often a target for fringe cranks, so it would be good to see your reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
importScript('User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js]]
and that is the way I see Harvard cite problems like Harv errors and Harv warnings.
Also, I was wondering why you stripped out all the "ref=harv" code in the various citations. Thanks, Shearonink (talk)
@Shearonink:. The cite templates were updated in April to automatically generate the harv/sfn link. A tracking category was also created for the articles with ref=harv. I remove ref=harv when I work on correcting the Harv/Sfn errors and warnings. It will be a long time before the template change will propagate to all the editors. I often need to add ref=none for cites in the Further reading, etc. sections. I am wondering about the ref=none cite. User-duck (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you remove it a warning/error will be generated since it is not directly cited but I left the cite in because I think the original version/edition should be retained for verifiability/research purposes. It could possibly be moved to primary sources or further reading I suppose. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink:. I am moving the "Weems (1800)" source (and its home page) to External links. It appears to be an incomplete duplicate of the "Weems (1918)" book. This is what ref=none is intended for. I do not know if this source was ever referenced (besides Internet Archive is a better source) and the article body says the book was written in 1809. Nothing on the website says in was published in 1800 by "Keatings of Baltimore". Also, the home page has other tidbits that might interest somebody. User-duck (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken re: a duplicate. I thought it was to an original printing, my bad. But re: the original publication date being 1800, see the following:
Founding Myths/Page 392/Footnote 23 This Footnote talks about the controversy of which printing - the Keating or the Georgetown edtion - was first.
I went ahead and deleted the Weems/1800 ref. You're right the 1918 version is sufficient and that URL shows an actual book as opposed to a plain version.
Re: Vadakan...The Early America Review website has been usurped by another entity, that "url-status=live" URL resolves to Varsity Tutors, a for-profit company so the archived version - to the original website - is more appropriate for Wikipedia's purposes.
Re: 1800 date, interesting info and would seem to contradict the 1809 date. My point was that there was nothing in the source to support the 1800 date or Keatings of Baltimore as a publisher.
I don't agree that the original The Early America Review website was "usurped" (it could have been sold to Varsity Tutors). But this is a matter of personal opinion. All the journal websites are "for-profit". Have you encounters a website that has been "usurped" for advertising? Also, it would be nice if the difference between "usurped" and "unfit" was documented if there is a difference. I reserve "unfit" for sites that cause my malware protection software to block.
Weems' 1st publication of his Washington bio was in 1800 and he went through many iterations - the apocryphal/famous cherry tree incident wasn't even in the first edition.
"Usurped" might not be the best/most appropriate term but in the Wiki-spirit of "saying where you got it" it was the only variant that came close. The main issue I have is that if someone goes straight to the Vadakan article there is nothing at the article itself that states *when the article was written and *what magazine/etc the article was written for. There are some partial attributions elsewhere on Varsity Tutor but not at the articles themselves.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for taking the trouble to de-harvid citations etc, I've been doing it piecemeal as I spring clean the articles I watch but it's a long job. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vardar offensive
You need to realize that the moment you deleted the Ivanov reference, parts of the article are no longer supported by a verifiable source. The argument that the review was 5 years ago is likewise null because 99% of the edits made since then are cosmetic. Maybe try discussing the issue before removing references.--Catlemur (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In appreciation
The Citation Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the large amount of work you have put into the project improving the referencing of articles. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glossary of nautical terms
I note that you describe your edits on Glossary of nautical terms as "removal of rp template". Please would you explain what you have against the rp template? It appears to me that you have substantially damaged the capability of editors to use existing reference on a second occasion without extra unnecessary work. For example, the reference McKee, Working Boats of Britain is much cited by the more technical maritime historians. It is highly likely to be used again in this article. Yet, where this appears as a reference to "Yawl" (defn 2), you have embedded the page number in the reference. Therefore a second cite of this work, at a different page number, is directed to the wrong page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired:, thanks for asking. Personally, I find the use of the r and rp templates confusing. The most obvious problem is that a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source. I do not have time for other examples at the moment but will add more later.
When you mention "existing reference" ae you talking about an existing source or a complete reference? A different page for an existing source is easily done with a "short footnote" which is facilitated by the sfn, sfnp, or one of the many templates in the harv family, "{{sfn|Smith|Jones|2020|p=23}}" is as easy as "<ref name="SmithJones2020/>{{rp|23}}" and is even a few keystrokes shorter. For a complete reference "<ref name="SmithJones2020p23"/>" would not use rp.
Several points out of this: (1) Personally, I find the use of the r and rp templates confusing Unless I have misunderstood, you have been changing the citation style based solely on your personal preference. This is a case of WP:CITEVAR. You should not do this without obtaining consensus on the article talk page. Note that the principle of not changing the way an article deals with references is discussed in several places in WP:CITE, the parent content guideline for CITEVAR. (2) a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source Unless you have a browser that does not co-operate, it is very easy to see the full reference and page number without moving away from the article text. If you hover your mouse cursor over the reference number in the text, you should see the full reference appear. This is an example plucked from another article:[1]: 46 Just hover over the little blue 1 in square brackets. (If you try this, you need to scroll the page so that the reflist is not visible on your screen, or else it just highlights the ref in the reflist.) The big advantage of this citation method is that if you click on the reference's number, you get taken to the full reference in the reflist, but you can return again by clicking on the up arrow, or the letter denoting the occurrence of the ref. You cannot return to the text so easily with sfn referencing. Nor can you easily and quickly assess how often a particular source is used for an article. For the editor, on the second use of this reference, you only need to type in {{r|MacGregor 1993|p=1}}. (3) Your later edit[3] appears to be something of a gamble. I presume that you do not have a copy of Mayne's book to hand. In which case, you do not know whether or not the page number is redundant. It is if "breastrope" has its own entry in this book. But if "breastrope" is dealt with under, say "mooring", the page number is essential in order to find the right part of the book. (4) My note about existing references considers the normal editing process as you start work on an article. You find a reference and use it early in the article. You give it a refname, because you expect to use it again as you continue to work on the article. In the edit I queried, you put a page number in the reference. (This is that ref, copied from the article:[2]}}) On the second use of that source, you are highly likely to be citing a different page. Therefore it creates unnecessary work for editors if the first use (when you gave it a refname) has a page number in it. If you don't spot it, the referencing is a mess. If you do, you have to find the first use and amend the reference. So this is simple time-and-motion study.
I am sorry if this all sounds a bit "preachy", but referencing is an irritatingly complicated subject in Wikipedia because it has to accommodate the personal preferences of a number of editors. That is why the Wikipedia compromise of sticking to the first style used in an article is so important. It should (and generally does) avoid disputes on style if we all stick to the rules. Then we can concentrate on the important bit: the encyclopaedia content. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^MacGregor, David R (1993). British and American Clippers: A Comparison of their Design, Construction and Performance. London: Conway Maritime Press Limited. ISBN0 85177 588 8.
^McKee, Eric (1983). Working Boats of Britain: Their Shape and Purpose (1997 ed.). London: Conway Maritime Press. p. 74. ISBN0-85177-277-3.
Image references
Hi! Thanks for improving the image layout in Partially ordered set, and introducing {{multiple images}} there. I just saw that one of the later images is named "Figure 1", apparently a left-over from a reordering some time ago. However, I hesitate to (re-)assign numbers by hand, since this will cause a lot of manual maintenance work after each future image move.
Do you know an elegant method to assign numbers (or other labels) to images, refer to them from the text, and automatically maintaining the references after images moves (similar to LaTeX's \label{} and \ref{} concept)? Thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Garamond article
Hi, many thanks for your citation polishing on the Garamond article. I know there were some problems with references on there, and it's very kind of you to take the time to fix it up.
One thing I do have concerns about though is removing reference names. Although it's not a very focused plan I have often thought about getting the article to FA status, so it's possible that a reference that's right now only got one citation position could be moved in future to have two or more. I was planning to replace some of the citations as I've gained more knowledge of the topic and been able to view more top-quality citations (e.g. the Dearden citation will probably go soon), but the French Ministry of Culture citations might end up at more locations. They also need fixing, because very annoyingly the French Ministry of Culture shut that website down. Fortunately the Internet Archive has copies. Blythwood (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best guess on sfn links
Hi User-duck, thanks very much for this edit at Far-left politics. I know what that's about, because I've had to do that before, too, in another article or two. Can I ask a favor? Could you please add a brief entry at Talk:Far-left politics linking that edit of yours, and explaining what you did? The reason is, if you guessed wrong, at some point someone trying to track what looks to them like invalid citations, will have a place to start. Just a link, plus your thought process or any hints to give some future editor-analysis of verifiability on that topic. In a way, I hate to ask, because you've already done the hard work to resolve it, but if you could, that'd be great. Thanks again for your edit, and for your contributions to the encyclopedia! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot:, Thanks for the advice. I did a little more checking to verify that my guess was correct. I do not know how to link a particular version of an article and have found little value in talk pages. Thanks again, User-duck (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I remember you did some excellent work in that article a while back. Things have changed a lot since then. In particular, some users are pushing very strongly to add a new map in the article, that I find controversial. I've opened a discussion thread here [4]. I would highly value your opinion, as someone who is neutral in these disputes. Regards, Khirurg (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg:. You have a better memory than me. It has been almost 2 years! I am more of an editor than a contributor and I really have no opinion about this content.
I am more skilled now as an cite/ref editor and I see numerous Sfn/Harv messages that I can eliminate/correct. I do wish contributors were more careful about referencing.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi - sorry, I just reverted an edit you made at Yohanan ben Zakkai- what I'd meant to do was to revert to the version prior to some socks adding some stuff, it looked like you were just tidying up after them. I've gone back to the version I intended. Best GirthSummit (blether)08:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I was checking the "long volume" warnings. Two of the OCLC numbers pointed to the same Worldcat entry that did not match the rest of the source cite in anyway (not even the year). "volume=" is used for a volume of a series. The values were already in the title, they may have been suitable for the id= parameter. User-duck (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for ending misconception and letting reality arrive
Hi,
Recently i noticed that you fixed the error on page Hinduism in West Bengal.
i want to thank you for that because User:Arjayay is constantly changing the numbers of bengali hindus although those links suggest that reporters have done a good reserach from that particular area and listed the numbers much differently compared to 2011.
I hope you will control these wikipedia page monitoring thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:3170:3CBD:D681:C992:B841 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will NOT be monitoring the article. I am fixing cite errors and warnings. I fix other items I notice. This time I noticed that the refs were three online sources for the same article. I simply removed the clones. User-duck (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for your hard work in addressing citation errors. This makes it only a shade less thankless (for what it is worth). But the effort serves a variety of purposes other than the prima facie apparent — in revealing problems in need of solving, and solidifying content that is valuable. And so I am thankful for for your efforts. Cheers, a former Prof. 2601:246:C700:14C:2171:7CAD:8265:7B26 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Western People source: Besides replacing control character in title. "WesternPeople" is not part of the title. Added author and date. Changed blurb "Blue Whale spotted off Achill" to quote from article.
Untitled Mountainviews source: Added cite template with title. I just accessed the webpage again. It is a "dynamic" (changing} page. Makes it an "unreliable" source as cited. I documented what I saw. Apparently this is a "home" page.
Is this a question? The answer is "No, I did not try the search function." I might have searched if search function was presented when I accessed the page. I now see the "Welcome to MountainViews If you want to use the website often please enrol (quick and free) at top right." PS: I just found the "Guestuser: Login or enrol". I avoid enrolling in unneeded websites, I get enough junk e-mail. I did not know the source contents were "random". I would have tried to find an archive page if an access date were specified. I would of done a web search if a title were given.
I was hoping the "failed verification" tag would attract the attention of a SME. It did. I have come to realize that many editors just add tags and do not attempt to fix. Lots of edits with minimal work.
This reference would not have wasted so much time if the originator had done their job.
You should consider adding an access date and archive URL to the revised cite.
In case your interested, the only reason I accessed this article was the "Citation bot" replaced an "Archived copy" title with one with a control character. The "Archived copy" is truly a "ppor" job. I am use to fixing bot induced errors. User-duck (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash:. I could not find the statement "do not use publisher when citing a website. I.e. the website should be included as well as, or in preference to, the publisher which is not typically used on its own." In fact I could not find the word "preference" used anywhere in Template:cite web.
This is the statement that I use for guidance:
publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH" are not usually included. Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). Displays after title.
There are several relevant pieces on the linked webpage:
"Pioneer Status Incentive Reports", boldly placed at the top of the page, and which I interpret as the name of the website.
Many report titles (linking to other webpages):
"Pioneer Status Incentives Report First Quarter 2022"
"Annual Report of Issued and Cancelled Pioneer Certificates 01 January – 31 December 2021"
"Pioneer Status Incentives Report Second Quarter 2022"
"Pioneer Status Incentives Report Fourth Quarter 2021"
... etc.
"Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", it appears at the bottom along side the copyright of the webpage, and which I interpret as the legal entity that owns the copyright, i.e. the publisher of the webpage. It also appears in and alongside the logo at the top left of the page.
Contained within a linked report is the statement "... Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) is pleased to provide details of Pioneer Status Incentive (PSI) applications ...". Sounds like an entity, not a work.
Clearly, "Pioneer Status Incentive Reports" is not similar to "Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", so they should both appear in the cite.
Nothing on this webpage supports the statement "Among others, the Nigerian Government acknowledged FREEE Recycle's incorporation as a contribution to its national effort at the adoption of recycling and the promotion of efficient waste management through the provision of a Pioneer certificate". I assune the contents of one of the linked reports does. The title of that report needs to be added to the cite.
I would gladly like to see your interpretation of this webpage.
Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found
name of the author(s)
title of the article
title or domain name of the website
publisher, if known
date of publication
page number(s) (if applicable)
the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)
This implies that both the website and publisher are included. Notice how I avoided the word clearly. Can one get more wishy-washy than "typically include".
Also, many of the cites in FREEE Recycle do not include author when an author is stated.
{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}
The current cite (from Ira Leviton edit) is:
{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports <!--Which report--> |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}}
I don't disagree that the "website should be included". My cite had a website.
{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports <!--Which report--> |website=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |publisher=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}}
The disagreement is what is the title of the website and who is the publisher.
I think 'Pioneer Status Incentive Reports' is the title of the website and you think it is 'Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission'.
I think 'Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission' is the name of the publisher and you think it is the same as the title of the website.
The bigger problem is 'Where is the information supporting the statement in the article?'. The cited website does not have any statement that supports it. The website does list 23 reports and I assume one of them supports the statement. I did not add the statement or the reference and I do not plan on reading the individual reports. I was hoping my edit with the 'title missing' tag would fix the problem. The goal of the 'Ira Leviton' edit was to eliminate the ' Warning: FREEE Recycle (edit) is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "website" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) ' message. I am sure that the website was not examined when making the edit.
No. you seem intent on being combative. If you can include websites in 'cite web', either in addition to or instead of, publisher and there are no further misunderstandings or disagreements. I do not feel this warrants further discussion. Eagleash (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You have to click “view in context” on the Lantern page and then scroll until you find a page/masthead/cover with the issue date. It’s a pain in the butt since Internet Archive is very sensitive if you click "too fast" and will slide in or out or up or down, etc. jengod (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't obvious to me either. I believe title= should have worked without url=, BUT it didn't work for me either. So I tried plaintitle=. The cite wikisource template is a little bizarre and the documentation is confusing but I have figured out worse. User-duck (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do it by hand. Need to access URL and DOI to see if they are the same URL page and to determine if doi-access=free. I have been doing editing for a long time. I know there is some software out there that is putting in these redundant URLs and does not or cannot check for doi-access. Lately, I have also been doing a lot of date fixes. They seem to be connected. User-duck (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Leghemoglobin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chris Gorell Barnes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, thanks for the many formatting improvements at the Religious experience article a couple months back! I've been working on standardizing the references to sfn style. I notice that as part of your edit you took one reference I had switched to sfn and placed the full reference back in the text. It is this reference:
I support your attempts to standardize the referencing format. After thousands of edits, I believe it may be impractical to use only one format in an article.
SFNs work well if the source is authored and dated. I know Wikipedia documents using publisher if the author is not known and n.d. if it is undated. The source cite can be difficult ot locate using publisher. Remember, the articles should be written as if the reader is reading a printed copy; this is often overlooked by editiors.
Inline citing works well for web sources. They are often unauthored and/or undated.
Personally, I have no problem mixing the two styles. I use SFN for authored sources and inline for unauthored. I seldom use "n.d.".
I changed "BBC 2003" because:
It is too generic.
The full date is available.
It could be confused with "Tucker 2003".
I prefer inline for the "philosophyofreligion" source. But that really is personal preference and I could not justify changing it.
I see content has been added. Most (but not all) use SFN referencing.
I would suggest to change the remaining authored inline citations to SFNs first. Verify that the unauthored onas are really unauthored and change them in the next phase.
Thanks for the clarification and the additional cleanup on the page. I mainly agree, though I wonder why we should write as though the reader is reading a printed copy. Is that a Wikipedia guideline? It seems unlikely that more than a handful of readers actually print Wikipedia pages. Gazelle55Let's talk!20:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a guideline. I cannot point you directly to the Wikipedia page. It might be in the referencing guidelines. But it falls into the general guidelines for complete citations, bare URLs, etc. Many articles do not link their SFNs to the source citations. Often I think this is intentional so that the article is not flagged for missing source cites. It could just be laziness.
The guideline (or suggestion) that publisher (or website) be used if author is missing is short-sighted. Too often there are multiple sources from the same website. Year is then suppose to differentiate them. But too many time multiple articles are published in the same year and the sfn templates to not support full dates. Personally, I like using title, maybe shortened, but never an acronym. Title is the first thing printed if author or editor is not available. Making it easier for the reader to find is the reason to sort sources in the bibliography.
A lot of my edits are influenced by personal preference, BUT I try to keep them in check. I must have had some difficulty with the "BBC 2003" source or I would not have changed it. My biggest personal preference is consistency which the Wikipedia guidlines support but many editors ignore.
Putng the last references into a usable SFN format is tough. And often does little to improve the article. But doing it to complete the task is justification enough. Feel free to do what you think is best. That is what I did. You stated, "I was hoping to switch as many as possible to sfn for consistency." The statement left the possibility of "not all". You can manipulate any reference to use an sfn template, but that does not make them an SFN (I hope that makes sense).
Thanks for explaining and no worries about the long response! It is helpful hearing this from someone with your expertise. I will try to change a few more to sfn style but I'm going to take your advice to not switch all of them. Quite a few references on the page do not meet WP:RS and should be replaced anyway. (The BBC ref is RS, but it's used for the neuroscience section and it isn't WP:SCIRS, so it should likely also be replaced.) Gazelle55Let's talk!18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I try to focus on technical edits. I do little verification. Even with the web links, the actual content is often not available online. Yes, the BBC 2003 source is poor. I do sometimes update cites to web sources with current URLs. I rarely add content. There are plenty who like to add content. User-duck (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Calculator, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Canellaceae, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chevrolet Corvette, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chevrolet Corvette, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Comparator, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL33314:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to gain consensus for your change of source formatting, which is pointless and unhelpful as you are unstandardizing the references during an FA nomination. You reverted me. You refused to follow BRD. It's edit warring and disruptive. Either you stop or gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ HAL33314:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited December 27, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DOI.
Why did you change the px in the only some of the figures to default?
Seems that another editor had this question as well:
User-duck, I'm a bit perplexed as to what is the point of all these images size and placement changes. This article constantly attracts attention of users, who jump out of the blue and in a big way start to change the various aspects of the article, this pushy approach is unfortunately nothing new, and also in this case, I don't see a strong reason why long standing image sizes should be changed, other than based on how they look on your individual screen. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes make some of the text in the images too small. Is there some Wikipedia policy regarding this, or did you do what E-960 stated above?
There is some "Wikipedia policy" to use upright instead of px. This allows the user to set image sizes to their preference. The info is in the morass of Wikipedia documentation and I encounter it randomly.
I reduced the size of most images because of another "statement" that large images interfere with text flow on mobile devices that are being used more and more by Wikipedia users. I do not remember reducing any image to the "default" size.
Remember these are "thumbnails' and a larger image is accessed by clicking the image.
I did not move any images. The [[File:... statements for thumbnails should be on separate lines. They break the flow of the paragraph.
I usually change all px dimensions to upright in thumbs, but I may have missed some File: statements.
I often reduce the size of images. Wikipedia is not a Coffee table book
Feel free to increase the upright factors. I did not discern any rational for the various sizes and most of the text was too small for me to read. Try not to use too many different sizes since this can be very distracting.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. In the diff I sent it shows that when you deleted the "123x456px" it stated "Size changed from 123x456px to Default"
I found the following in the "morass of Wikipedia documentation" (as a relatively new editor I am still learning). Here is a reference that describes thumbnail sizes, upright and other aspects of images:
The problem occurs mostly for images that I uploaded when I first starting editing last fall, and then took a break until recently. I plan to modify some of those uploads so that the original image is much smaller, and not have the appearance of a "coffee table book," which was not my intent but then again my ignorance is no excuse.
Another thing that I did over time was to increase the text font size in the original and reduce its overall size that seems to display better with "default" on my desktop, cell phone and tablet. Other images that I took from Wikimedia Commons did not have this issue and I will look to them for guidance as well.
I will be doing some experimentation with the upload file sizes and/or the upright factors and look at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet using the above Wikipedia references.
Once I have completed this, I will respond to this thread and ask if you could have a look at the article again to see if your concerns were addressed. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the font size in the images to 14 pt and uploaded again with lower resolution, making a few other changes to the source. I did adjust upright for one file. I looked at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet and the readability issues appears resolved when the default for every image is used I believe aligning with Wikipedia:Autosizing images.
If you could please take a look and see if everything looks better now and give me any other feedback that would be much appreciated! Dmcdysan (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't like the style of repeatly indenting responses.
There was a semantics misunderstanding. My interpretation of "default" is the size of the image if px or upright were not used. I changed use of px to upright, reducing the size of many images a little, 0 to 15%.
I found the change to [[File:MFM relative force vs AU.png|thumb|320x320px]] This is a change of only 3% and is smaller than the size I specified. It also has the disadvantage of not responding to the user preference setting.
I notice the [[File:VFPt ringcurrent.svg|thumb|220x220px]]. This image is the default size of 220px since it is square. If 220x220px were removed it would respond to the user's preference setting.
Also noticed [[File:Magnetic rope.svg|thumb|272x272px]]. This calculates out to 164.96x272px and should display at 160x254px because of rounding. I would of changed it to "upright" which should display at 170x280px and respond to the user's preference setting. P.S. I do not trust Wikipedia arthimetic either.
I will look at the article again. Enlarging the text (a little) in the images was probably a good idea.
I yield to your experience in this unindented response.
My concern was that some of the images I first uploaded to Wikipedia last summer ended up having text that was not readable after your changes, but later ones I did appeared OK. I only made changes to what you did to one image as a test (I can't remember which one), before I went looking in the morass for further guidance.
Please make the changes you believe appropriate "to responding to the user's preference setting," and I will enlarge the text if necessary (in some cases I enlarged it from 10 pt to 14 pt). Dmcdysan (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will replace uses of px to upright. I repeat, feel free to enlarge images as needed.
Just so that I am clear regarding your instruction regarding enlargement, I should use the sizing option "upright" as described in Wikipedia:Autosizing images, correct?
@Dmcdysan:, Can you left justify and align the left-side text in "Artifical Magnetospheric model.jpg"? Also removing the left and right white margins would improve the appearance of the image. User-duck (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Roe, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Sorry to revert you, but I genuinely don't agree that switching styles is an improvement. If I accidentally reverted something unrelated to splitting notes, please let me know. Or just reinstate it.
I apologize if this sounds adversarial. But I can be rather terse.
I wish the Wikipedia overseers would define their terms. I consider "style" and "method" as two different things, "style" is what the user sees and "method" is how it is done. Users of my software did not care if it was written in FORTRAN or C. Thanks to the referenced discussion, I now realize they see editors as users.
They also are unable to give clear direction,
See WP:EXPLNOTESECT, "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists using footnotes groups." In a real article this sentence would get a "vague" tag. Should they be separate or not? I believe explanatory notes should be separate from references, they are statements, not sources for statements.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." What should be done if method is inconsistent?
I did not detect a consistent style (SFN or full citations) or method (templates or not). SFN and templates appeared to be the majority so I converted to them.
I think you have valid points here in regards to clarity for wP:CITE and WP:MOS.
Even if you don't want to spend time arguing your points here, I think it's valuable if you point them out on either the guideline or MOS talkpage. Not saying this as a "go gripe somewhere else", but because I think it's valid input.
Regarding the style consistency, what did you react to specifically? Was it that the sfn template wasn't used specifically, or that you felt that the formatting overall didn't add up? PeterIsotalo16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
FYI, I misread the diff when I saw your change at Apocalypse of Paul. Despite the reversion notification, note that I put back 2 of your 3 changes. Sorry about the confusion and spicier edit summary than intended.
(For whatever it's worth, while on that note, the Silverstein 1997 book is very strange - it truly has no publisher, and seems like it was just independently printed with grant money or something? It didn't even have an ISBN, which is very unusual for 1997. What you see in the citation is truly all that can be discerned from the opening pages.) SnowFire (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have Cramer as the editor? It is also unusual to have a publication location without a printer or publisher and this generates a CS1 maintenance message. Eventhough the WorldCat info is incorrect the OCLC number should be included if it refers to the correct book. I just googled "Apocalypse of Paul. A New Critical Edition of Three Long Latin Versions" there are a least 2 journal reviews that have Patrick Cramer as publisher. User-duck (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the book back in at the library ages ago, but my guess is that those sources are grasping at straws. Cramer was probably the "publisher" in the sense of "getting it published" but I kind of assume that the publisher field is expected to be an organization or company, not a person (and that when there's a truly independent "publishing" going on, Wikipedia just leaves the field blank).
OCLC identifier is fairly harmless although not super-useful, so I normally skip adding it, but I suppose I wouldn't complain if it was added. (One of those identifiers that isn't in the printed book itself, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat and Google are often incorrect for citing sources. That is why I dug deeper. Academic journals don't "grasp at straws". It is strange that I found no reference to P. Cramer as an editor. P. Cramer may have "commissioned" the book. "Publisher" appears to have a much broader definition. I found Publishing to be enlightening. My goal was to remove Apocalypse of Paul from CS1 maintenance categories (primarily Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default, but also Category:CS1 maint: location missing publisher, 54,000+ articles). This could be accomplished by using Geneva as the publisher (I have seen worse mis-use of a parameter). I like to include DOI, ISBN, or OCLC as evidence the source actually exists. User-duck (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I really appreciate the fact you had the source cited in your possesion.
Hmm, I wonder if this is a case for the "others" parameter as a way to credit Cramer. It does sound like editor might not be ideal or entirely accurate.
I suspect that "Geneva" isn't quite correct either as a publisher! It sounds like I need to check the book out of the library again... but more generally, while location-with-no-publisher is usually wrong, I think that this case might be one of the very rare cases of it being legitimate. But I suppose we can put this off until I take another look - I'll upload a picture of the intro page if need be. SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a mis-use of publisher=. I often see location and publisher together in the publisher= parameter. I know of no way to tag the cite as being checked for correctness. I believe only book cites have the "requirement" of the publisher= when using location=. I have not found the "requirement" documented anywhere. I infer it from the articles in the maintenance category. Don't worry about fixing the cite, the article can remain one of the 54k that have the message. I have enjoyed this discussion. User-duck (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ivan Smalyukh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
No, I don't have any expertise in the subject. I have been doing technical editing for several years now. Feel free to contact me about any technical issues, I would be glad to help. User-duck (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User-duck, Rice is a reviewed article and has had stable text and images for a long time now. I'm sure you feel you are improving the image arrangement in some way but it really isn't great to have everything reformatted: it simply isn't necessary. The multiple image puts images and captions in a box which a gallery neatly dispenses with, for instance. I'm minded to undo the changes but will think about it for a day or two. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap:. Yes, it is a good article. How a bot determined that I do not know. The "good article" template was added 100+ edits ago. It took me a while to figure this out but I did. An edit introduced a CS! error. (I doo not care when.) This is why the article came to my attention. I fixed the CS1 error. The jagged image sizes annoyed me. The gallery format used is inconsistent. I originally changed one gallery to match the one directly above it. (There are other "packed" galleries.) I agree that the "packed" gallery behavior is annoying, so are the excessive default borders (anf more). But the people who could change this behavior would rather work on other things to annoy me. Maybe there is another technique to get the behaviour we want. The article is listed in other hidden categories, many are used for maintenance. I eliminated a couple. User-duck (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing. It's a GA because it passed a review, not because a bot went haywire (though it probably did). "Packed" is basically useless for most purposes. In my view you've actually introduced new inconsistencies between images, which is why I'm chewing a few pencils deciding what to revert. Many thanks for fixing some of the infinite list of maintenance categories; I don't even look in that sort of dark cobwebby corner, it must be horrifying across Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think heights="350px" widths="500px" was excessive? And consistent with what? Why was upright=0.6 chosen for a single image? I did introduce the Multiple image template, but that was an attempt to satisfy both of our wishes. Would you document another inconsistency that I introduced? I try very hard to reduce inconsistencies in an article. User-duck (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Copy edit of citations. Usually to fix CS1 errors or warnings. Often it is correcting parameter values. Adding various missing parameters. Sometimes it is adding of removing spaces to make the wikitext more readable. User-duck (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image sizes in Battle of the Wilderness
@User-duck: I do not understand your image size changes in Battle of the Wilderness. They have made the article more difficult for the reader. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will change many of them back. My thinking with images for military articles: 1) maps help the user understand the battle, the reader should be able to have at least a partial understanding of the battle by viewing the maps only (without reading the text), and the maps need to be large enough that the viewer can see them well while reading the text; and 2) portraits only help the reader remember important people, and it is not necessary to have them be large. As said earlier, your changes are exactly opposite of my image philosophy, and make understanding the battle more difficult. I don't see your name in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Please comment. TwoScars (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
