This is an archive of past discussions about User:ActivelyDisinterested. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Any idea why that ref would be showing as not defined when it's clearly defined? You seem to be pretty good at the whole ref thing, so maybe you can figure it out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a few automated tools, including reFill2, that don't behave well with reflist. They consolidate the refs, but leave "name=example/" in the reflist and that causes no end of trouble. Spotting an extra backslash in amongst a sea of text is nearly impossible. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It would have been declared in the infobox and in the reflist, at some point. It should have been consolidated into the reflist, but was consolidated into the infobox. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a checkbox to leave a redirect when moving a page that is selected by default. I wouldn't worry about this notice though, it was likely automatic when marking the page for speedy deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are neither a page mover nor an administrator, so you have no choice but to create these redirects. What you could do is to tag the redirect with {{db-r2}} after moving the page. However, it is no big issue if you forget to do this as someone else will find the redirect and tag it. The notification is sent by Twinkle. It is possible to disable the notification, but as a rule I prefer to always notify in case someone wants to protest. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your edits over at Cornish phonology - the sfnp tags were added by other editors when I first created the article and didn't know what I was doing. I'm gradually changing them all to sfn. Feel free to convert all sfnp to sfn if you like! Tewdar (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sfnp Vs sfn is a stylistic choice, so I wouldn't usually get involved. However I've gone ahead and changed them all to sfn for you. I note that neither Choudhri 2007 or Toorians 2011 are defined in the References section, the details of the books need to be setup to support the sfn references. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks. The Toorians year should both be 2014, which I fixed. Chaudhri 2007 seems to be fine, though. What did you think is not setup properly? Tewdar (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
When using sfn or harvnb they need to link to a full citation. If we look at say "Williams 1990" and click on it in the Notes section, you'll see details of the book presented as: Williams, Nicholas (1990). "A problem in Cornish phonology". In Ball, Martin J.; Fife, James; Poppe, Erich; Rowland, Jenny (eds.). Celtic Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth Geltaidd: Readings in the Brythonic languages/Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 241–276. ISBN 9027235651. OCLC 470822408.. This is because the book details exist in the References section, in wikicode the appear as *{{cite chapter
|last=Williams
|first=Nicholas
|author-link=Nicholas Williams (poet)
|year=1990
|editor-last=Ball
|editor-first=Martin J.
|editor-last2=Fife
|editor-first2=James
|editor-last3=Poppe
|editor-first3=Erich
|editor-last4=Rowland
|editor-first4=Jenny
|chapter=A problem in Cornish phonology
|title=Celtic Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth Geltaidd: Readings in the Brythonic languages/Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins
|publisher=John Benjamins
|location=Amsterdam/Philadelphia
|oclc=470822408
|isbn=9027235651
|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/470822408
|pages=241-276
}} It's these details that are missing for Choudhri and Toorians. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Really only the first, last, year, title, and isbn fields are absolutely needed (it gets a bit confusing when you have multiple authors as per the above). If you have the ISBN numbers for the books I'll set them up for you, that way you can refer to what I did in the future if you have to do the same again. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Chaudhri 2007 and Toorians 2014 have no isbn as they are a PhD thesis and article, respectively. Can't I use sfn for these types of documents, then? Tewdar (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I see Chaudhri was classed as "book", not "thesis". As I say, I didn't have a lot to do with the referencing except clicking insert reference and hoping for the best... Tewdar (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
That's why we have Template:Cite thesis I see the Chaudhri has a oclc of 828579430. So I'll add {{cite thesis |last=Chaudhri |first=Talat Z. |date=2007 |title=Studies in the Consonantal System of Cornish |publisher=Aberystwyth: University of Wales |oclc=828579430}} Which will come out looking like:
Chaudhri, Talat Z. (2007). Studies in the Consonantal System of Cornish (Thesis). Aberystwyth: University of Wales. OCLC828579430. Do you have title for Toorians? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why Toorians "Towards a Grammar of Middle Cornish" would be on Google Books. Also, that version is 2011, not the 2014 version. But nevermind. So, all good, yes? Thanks for your improvements! 👍 Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
My apologies
I do apologize for leaving some little messes on 2011 in American television, there was a lot that went into the work I did, it was very late, and they were mostly so minor, who knows if I would’ve noticed them even in a show preview. I’m grateful you came by.--141.157.254.24 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary here, it was the long string of edits from IP 82.53.123.135 that I meant to revert. Apologies if I extended too far back and undid your refname work, it was unintended!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I assume this account is a bot? Thanks for running it. I accidentally broke a ref and the bot tried to fix it, for which many thanks. Unfortunately, it didn't fix the problem. (I manually fixed it.) I see three bugs:
It doesn't always remove the / before the >
It doesn't lift all information from previously existing, but changed or deleted, ref-tags properly
Hi 77.61.180.106. Nope this is just me trying the correct all the errors the bots can't fix. Which is why bits change, I did access the source today to make sure that the source properly supports the details in the article. The fact I sometimes forget to remove the /, is just a mistake. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
AnomieBOT is the bit that rescues references, but it can't be relied upon. E.g. if you delete a reference you should manually make sure it's not used elsewhere, AnomieBOT won't always be able to correct the issue. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Please let me know what you mean by a general citations needed tag at the top. The article is basically modelled after the entries of the Bach Cantatas Website, as explained on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gerda Arendt. It would help if the history section was reference, saying it as they website is a bit wishy washy. Also within the table many entries are referenced, but some are not. It would help the general health of the article if it was more standardised. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
When a few entries are unreferenced, it helps to mark only those instead of a banner that discredits all information. The article is the work of many. It began without reference, as a copy from the website. The history section is basically a summary, nothing new that would need references. Please compare BWV 1 where we tried harder to reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, although certainly not that the banner discredits anything. The lede is a summary of the article, I would still say the history should be referenced. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If I - as a reader - would see that banner, I'd think: poor work, not to be trusted. Individual marking of where a citation seems more helpful for someone who tries to add one. So you could place it in the history section if you still think it serves a purpose. I fixed one missing in the table yesterday, - anything else in the table? - I am busy for the rest of the year, sorry, can't help now. Thoughtfortheday perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
If I, as a reader, come across acros whole sections without references, I know there's something wrong with the article. That's how it looked to me and why I added the banner. The history section was not the only problem, and adding individual CN tags to each entry would have been pedantic. The articles with unresolved cite errors somehow jumped by 400 entries yesterday, so I'll be busy for awhile. When I get the chance I circle back to the article. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! - For the time being, I moved the tag to the section. I had solved the one other missing citation I found. Many discographies don't even have an overview of the history, compare Falstaff discography, - it's only a service/summary to understand the long list better, - no contentious material whatsoever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you a gazillion times!!
I have exceeded my maximum # of "thank you's" for the system and hardly said thank you enough in reality. Thank you for your wonderful edits on Christianization of the late Roman empire. I was coming back to do them - though I really hate it - and found you had done so much already I stood up and danced! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A thousand blessings upon your head!! I will keep your name and probably take you up on that. It is my least favorite part of WP, requiring an ability to focus on minute details that I quickly get frustrated with, and I learned the hard way that taking an article FA or Ga even requires that all those references be perfect. Right now I know all the references need to be converted to Harvard style but all I do is look at them and groan. :-) Show up any time you feel like it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine how hard FA/GA must be, starting an article appears a vertical cliff to me. WP:V is king though, so there can be no slacking. I've converted a couple of references (Rives/2010 and Rüpke/2077), I'll have a further look when I've had some sleep. A few references are without pages, just references to books. If you know the page details it would be very helpful. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed! I completely 100% totally agree about verifiability. Since I write in a controversial area, I like a citation for every sentence. I love quotes - which often gets me in trouble! I will check for page numbers. Sleep now! Sweet dreams! Thank you for all you have done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. The Argonne Rebels page was merged and deleted and moved to another DCI (defunct corps page) without any discussion. There are documents, items, and articles in our page that were taken from G. Opie's orginal files. It is disheartening that someone would delete the page of a corps that consistently made finals for 30+ years with NO discussion. We are working (hard) on trying to get back to the orginal page with the included repertoires. Argonne73 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, so...
May you do a source review for SpaceX Starship? I found your source reviews to be extremely through, and especially with topics that can be literally change with just 1 one (Elon) tweet, doing a source review would boost the article's quality by a ton! I have prepared the article to the best of my ability, and I'm not sure what to improve further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi CactiStaccingCrane. Sorry for the slow reply, I was taking a few days off wiki. I'm not really the person to do a source review. I generally deal with the technical side of referencing, rather than the subject matter. Sorry ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to fix up the reference error I had introduced into Results of the 1947 New South Wales state election. While your edits fixed one error, unfortunately your edit created a new error at Electoral results for the district of Goulburn & I thought you might be interested in why - basically the error you fixed and the error you accidentally created are transclusion issues. The election pages use transclusion because similar information appears in 3 or 4 different pages & by transcluding bits of that information it means the information is consistent across the pages.
The error I made was this edit on 1947 New South Wales state election, adding a reference named "joint" to the results summary table that's transcluded at the results page - hence the error created & your 2nd edit fixed this error. The <includeonly> tag you deleted with your first edit is important because it means you don't get a duplicated reference error on the state page, but it needs the definition to be included in the district results page, hence why deleting it created another error. Either way, it was easier to fix than it was to explain. Like I said thanks for trying to fix it up as that flagged my error & I hope that the explanation helps. Cheers --Find bruce (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
R U ready for Christmas? I am traveling in four days, but if you are all ready and hanging out, I wish you would take a look at Ambrose. The references are a mess. If you don't have time, it's cool, and happy holidays anyway! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Firestar464. I not interested in anti-vandalism. Generally I gnome at trying to resolve citation errors, see my user page. It's just that vandals cause cite errors when corrupting articles. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Another article in desperate need of your services. Controversy there has settled down, and it is pretty much completed and has consensus support, it just needs its citations cleaned up into one style. Are you at all interested? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning this up, I was wondering how to fix this complicated reference error and had given up. Now I know how to do it correctly. Venkat TL (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Awien. Yes it was IP 72.138.106.154 who spellchecked the refnames, my summary wasn't aimed at anyone in particular it just a canned summary I use for that issue. As to how annoying errors in refs are, well I have 6,500 edits correcting them in the last five months ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Now I think I'm a video game. :-; I do need help though. This is a reference I really need to use on a different article, but I can't read Slovack and can't tell what the name of the journal is from the rest! Can you help? It's "Sáry, Pál. "Remarks on the Edict of Thessalonica of 380." POCTA PETROVI BLAHOVI K NEDOŽITÝM 80. NARODENINÁM PERPAUCA TERRENA BLANDE HONORI DEDICATA GEDENKSCHRIFT FÜR PETER BLAHO ZUM NICHT ERLEBTEN 80. GEBURTSTAG (2019)" Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It appears to be a book published by the university for Petrovi Blahovi's 80th birthday. Copy the cite below:
{{cite book |last=Sáry |first=Pál |chapter=Remarks on the Edict of Thessalonica of 380 |page=67-80 |editor=Vojtech Vladár |title=Perpauca Terrena Blande Honori dedicata pocta Petrovi Blahovi K Nedožitým 80. Narodeninám |publisher=Trnavská univerzity |isbn=9788056803134 |year=2019}}
(I just typed that out by hand, lost it all, and had to start again). It should appear as:
Sáry, Pál (2019). "Remarks on the Edict of Thessalonica of 380". In Vojtech Vladár (ed.). Perpauca Terrena Blande Honori dedicata pocta Petrovi Blahovi K Nedožitým 80. Narodeninám. Trnavská univerzity. p. 67-80. ISBN9788056803134.
With a quick check, I see this. Also, there's this; the ISBM mentioned there leads to Tesserae iuris, I (2020) 1. Tesserae iuris (in French). Universitas Studiorum. 2020. Retrieved 2022-04-11. I'm not sure about the page range 67-80 mentioned there; see here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Good Lord! You and all your friends are so impressive it takes my breath away!! It's okay if you all want to pretend you don't know me! But thank you for taking pity on a lowly wikipedian who does not measure up to your standards! I can't say thank you enough! Once again, this is amazing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Andronovo
Why has no one changed the dates of the 2009 study the study says the 10 androvono samples are 1800 - 1400 bce not 1400 to 1000 bce, there are also a lot of studies not included like why isn’t “ancient dna suggests the eastern Pontic steppe as origin of Iron Age nomads” 2018 it has 12 srubnya - alkul, Which it considers the samples could be andronovo or srubnya, why isn’t the new study from western China on here yet when they have a whole section on andronvo and phenotype prediction 68.1.191.4 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi IP. I take it you're talking about the Andronovo culture article. I deal with errors generated by certain parts of Wikipedia not being written correctly, which was what I was doing at this article. You obviously have far more knowledge than me on the subject. You question is probably better asked at the article's talk page. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Saratoga edit
Thank you very much for helping me include references and giving me guidance in the article for Saratoga Trunk. I will read through your guidance soon! Have a lovely day 92.0.35.8 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Recently I added a section of Forrest Gump and referenced it the way I thought I was meant to. However, the references were a bit messed up. I'm gonna look through your advice and then re-edit the section in ~ an hour. If I still have trouble, please could I ask you for help? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I read through the guidance you very kindly sent me. However I still don't understand how to amend my broken citations on the Forrest Gump page. The citations I am having trouble with are citations 55, 56 and 57 on the Re-evaluation section. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The first[55] and third[57] errors are something that still catches me out, no leading 0 on dates. So it "5 May 2022" not "05 May 2022". That the leading zero is not supported is a bit dumb, but that's how it is. The second[56] issue is caused by a missing pipe (|) before the title. It should be "|title=" instead of "title=". - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Referencing is a lot easier if you use the RefToolbar, which you find at the top of the editing window (well you do in source, I don't know about the visual editor as I don't use it). On the bar is the word "Cite", and if you click it a bar appears underneath. The first part of which is "Template". Choose that and you shown four different template options, choose "Cite Web" and enter the weblink into the URL field. Next to that field is a spyglass icon, click that and it will try and autofill the fields for you (it can take a second). Once it's entered data for you simply save, you can always add extra fields manually if you want. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay I removed that and changed the dates phew that was a close one. They almost discovered my identity as John Titor. I need to be careful in the future.. But, URL 56 is now the only one still not working. I genuinely can't tell what I've done wrong. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of interest, what do you think - quality-wise - about the section on Forrest Gump's re-evaluation? I wrote all myself and would appreciate some feedback. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(←) Ha! I'm not the person to ask, there's a reason I stick to fixing technical errors. But two things do stick out, the repetitive use of additionally (just change one to a different synonym), and "heavily critized". The second is about value ladden terms, if something is stated in Wikipedia voice (not a quote) it's always best to use the most plain language possible. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Just realised that I forgot to say I think you should say "critized" instead of "heavily critized". Definitely enough for tonight, but I'm here nearly ever day if you have anymore questions. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
So, after my last effort was summarily failed, I decided to take every complaint and criticism made and incorporate them all in a whole new article. Now I can't get any of them to show up and actually look at it. I am hoping you are not too busy and will show up and do your usual phenomenal job. I'm so glad I met you. If you read it all the way through, I will take any comments you have to heart! Thank you!
P.S. Hey! Do you know how to do a redirect? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look today. I'll also read through bitbat some point, buy can't promise I'll be able to make any useful comments :). It's not something I've done myself, but WP:MAKER make creating a redirect appear quite easy. You just create the new page and add: #REDIRECT [[Article name]] - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 I've done the first step and put everything into proper cites. That's is apart from "Cod., I., v. 12.", it's used to reference "He persecuted them with rigorous edicts, but could not prevent reprisals towards Christians from taking place in Samaria toward the close of his reign. Manicheans also suffered persecution." in the The end of an era section. For the live of me I can't work out what it's meant to mean, is it another council record like Mansi Concilia? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It's the Justinian Code. The ref to Samaria is something I know, but that right now I don't have a secondary source for, which makes it too close to OR, so I will probably either go to the trouble of sourcing it properly or just remove it entirely. Don't waste time on it yourself. I will. You are amazing and wonderful. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
All the references have proper cites and it's all setup to use {{sfn}}s. In general the referencing looks in good health, there a only four with issues I can see. Rogers 2003 is used in the Diffusion of innovation section to support Opinion leaders introduce the innovation to the overall social system, and they confirm it by using it. but needs a page number. Separately Rogers 2003 and Rogers 2010 are the same work, but different editions. I can't confirm if the page numbers match across the different editions, so I've left both in place. Lieu 1985 is used in the Social environment of the third century section to support Manicheism spread throughout the Eastern and Western empires with extraordinary speed, reaching Rome by 280, and Faiyum in Egypt by 290. Manichean monasteries existed in Rome in 312., again without page number. Lee 2016 is used in the Persecution section as one of the refs supporting In Rome, citizens were expected to demonstrate their loyalty to Rome by participating in the rites of the state religion's numerous feast days, processions and offerings throughout the year., it's the last one without a page number. The last one is Scott 2002 used in the The end of an era section to support Justinian is best known for his judicial reforms, particularly the complete revision of all Roman law which remains a foundation of law into the modern day.. This could use a better source as it links to the contents page of a massive work on near unnavigable website, so it's nearly impossible to verify. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I got everything - finally! I was having trouble with my internet last night but finished this up today. It's beautiful! You do such amazing work. I am in awe every time. Thank you more than I can say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, it's out there now and no longer a draft. Brrrr... We'll see what happens in the future. Thank you again for all your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about changing the title back to just CRE. Good night nurse! It can't be though, it's just a single sub-topic and is no longer a general overview. Lord have mercy this topic has given me more grief than anything I've ever worked on! Keep those good wishes coming! I will need them I think! I may end up doing this a third time! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Augustus Post first car
Regarding your comment:
Could they have not purchase what was the first carriage in 1898, the claim makes no mention of when it was built. So it was the first horseless carriage, and was later sold. No idea about the article in general, it's just the wording of the reference that caught my eye
it's not clear to me with regard to the clipping, whether by "wording of the reference", you are referring to the text in the newspaper article itself or to the text that precedes the actual newspaper content.
Just as a minor aside, I think that we should be kind of wary about supposing some improbable details that are not otherwise mentioned, unless that seems to be the simplest possible explanation. Fabrickator (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I obviously mean the wording used in the newspaper. Supposing the simplest explanation would be a OR issue, as it would require us to make assumptions not found in sources. If there are multiple sources all stating different things, then Wikipedia would state them in (ballanced by weight) and that there is disagreement amongst other sources. We would not make judgement values on what is or is not the simplest answer. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel offended because I introduced the possibility that you didn't realize that the annotation was not actually part of the newspaper article. As to my point about the "simplest explanation", I'm trying to understand what point you're trying to make by the suggestion that they "may have purchased what was the first carriage in 1898". So the horseless carriage was made some years earlier ... but was it purchased in New York, or was it the first horseless carriage in New York? (Never mind that New York is itself ambiguous.) I think you have gone far afield... you claim that it's ambiguous, I claim that you want to twist things into something that's unlikely to be what was the intended meaning, you would presumably reject it because of its ambiguity, I want to reject it because other sources are simply more credible. We're not actually under any obligation as editors to present all views we come across when we have a good faith belief that some of those sources just got the facts wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I need to cite a pile of sources for a statement in this article, which I've done with {{efn}}, but I either get an error for not having a notelist, or an enormous ugly notelist. Do you perchance have any idea how to not make it unattractive as hell? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
A gander at Jesse Lawson too, if you have the time?
I'm getting Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help). I don't see any issues with my cites, any chance you have some clue what's going on? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Fun fact I realised recently, if you have a book with a DOI reference. If you're using the RefToolbar cite book template, you can put the DOI number in the URL field and press search and it will autopop as expected. Remove the DOI from the url field when it's done, save and simply add |doi= to the finished cite. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
So I have the article at WP:GAN right now, and the reviewer would like specific page citations for each use of the book. Right now I have the cites using a page range, <ref name="diverse">{{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=Michael R. |title=Diverse histories of American sociology |date=2005 |publisher=Brill |location=Leiden |isbn=978-90-04-14363-0 |pages=127–140 |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=sociologyfacpub |access-date=March 31, 2022}}</ref>. Is there an easy way, other than duplicating the ref with a specific page number and different ref name, to note the page number for each time the source is used? I tried using the Harvard citation no brackets template, but ended up with an ugly reflist.
Right now I'm thinking I'll have to use the full ref for one page, and then <ref name="diverse131">{{harvnb|Hill|2005|p=131}}</ref> and so on, for each page that I use. Does that seem right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that 13 pages is fine, journal articles of similar length are regularly referenced. Mixing harvnb and full cites can look a little messy, but it should be ok. The other option is to convert all references to use harvnb, and put the cites separately. It would look tidier, but is obviously more work. I can do the conversion for you if you want. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I actually saw on the Help Desk right after I posted this that someone had the same question. I'm using the {rp}} template, which seems to get the job done. I thought that the page span was fine, but the reviewer would prefer specific page numbers, and it's not worth arguing about, so page numbers it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate references
I see you recently crossed out duplicate reference names from your user page, as it was getting flooded by automated tools. Do you think you could point me to a couple of the repeat offenders you might have seen? I'd say its lucky that category is as empty as it is right now excluding non-article namespaces (IMO it's quite a serious error that looks unfriendly to readers and sucks for editors), and I'd like to take my own look into the issue, as it's not something I want to let turn into a major issue. Aidan9382(talk)13:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
In large part it's just me being grumpy as I've had a cold. The other part is caused by duplicated refs, where each ref is a perfect match. This doesn't cause a cite error, but only as long as everything instance is exactly the same. But say InternetArchiveBot adds archive links, well it only adds them to the first instance of the refs. So then all other instances longer match the first, and a cite error is generated. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I hadn't really considered that when I thought about it. Thats definitely hard to clear and sort from a programming view, though I am slightly surprised it doesnt replace/fix all occurances of the reference. Thanks for the notes! Aidan9382(talk)12:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Jaap Mansfeld, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thank you to someone who makes a habit of helping others.
I saw your name on my watchlist and just decided I had never thanked you enough for all the help you give. I think it's possible you deserve half the credit for every article I have written! I don't know where I'd be without you. Thank you friend! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Your use of a Private Use Areas character: translation required
At Template talk:GBP, you wrote and go with GBP. - LCU. I don't know what you see but I see and go with GBP OBJ dash LCU (approx. the OBJ is tiny and the box is dotted). Maybe you have some Private Use Areas characters? Could you clarify, please? [though your main point is clear]. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi SamuelRiv. Not a bot, just working my way through Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and trying to make sure articles are referenced correctly. This, and so onto here, is probably a better reference for date ranges. You're right they are supported (with endash rather than hyphen) but with year, issue, etc I didn't believe the month range was necessary for WP:VERIFICATION. You're free to reinstate if you disagree (which I see you've done). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The guideline pretty clearly prefers specificity with citation dates when possible, including integrity with the original source (which is in notable contradiction with other areas of the MOS where seasons are discouraged in favor of month ranges). Even though journal references have some redundancy on date and pagination with volume-issue number, to do academic journal references wrong just makes WP look sloppy when some of our articles are actually decent. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
On the idea of sloppiness we'll have to agree to disagree, Wikipedia is not academy. As to should be written with the goal of helping the reader find the publication and, once found, confirm that the correct publication has been located we just seem to have different ideas of what is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear Sir, thank you for your intervention on Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim. You are very kind to help and I appreciate your efforts. You have about double my edit count and have in your experience perhaps encountered similar problems before. You fixed a "NoTarget Error" {{Sfn|}} and tightened the text. I had simply forgotten to finish my citation and you filled in a reasonably fitting one. My "untightened" sentence was evidently awkward and not understandable. I work on Irish aristocratic biographies of the 16th and 17th century. These biographies often stand in chains of parents (usually fathers) and children (usually sons). The father's children are the sons's siblings. Originally I gave lists of both siblings and children. Then I wrapped the siblings' lists into collapsed tables to give them less weight. Reviewers and bystanders shouted WP:UNDUE, MOS:DONTHIDE, and MOS:USEPROSE. Now I try to simply wikilink to the lists of children in the father's biography. That is what the sentence you edited tried to achieve. This concerns over 70 such biographies on my watchlist and I therefore seek a general solution that apply to most of them. The core of the problem is how to present the wikilink so that the user understands the invitation. I feel your edit made the wikilink WP:EASTEREGG-ish: [[Randal MacDonnell, 1st Earl of Antrim#Family|six sisters]]. I feel I need "list" and "father's article" in the piped name. I have edited Alexander MacDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim again and put the wikilink into a parenthesis: (listed in his father's artcle) but then the citations become difficult to place. People will probably tell me to regroup the citations afteer the full stop, which will look as if they would pertain to the parentesis. Also see my attempts in Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount of Muskerry and Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. Recent examples of reviewed articles with lists of children are the FA Edward the Elder and the GA Philip III of France. Neither of them shows or wikilinks a list of siblings. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I can understand the easteregg argument, the issue I saw with the sentence as it was previously was that it gave the appearance of trying to use Wikipedia as a source. What about using a note instead e.g. {{efn|His father's article, [[Randal MacDonnell, 1st Earl of Antrim]] has details of Alexander's [[Randal MacDonnell, 1st Earl of Antrim#Family|siblings]]}}
So it would look something like;
Alexander's parents were both Catholic. They had married in 1604 before the Flight of the Earls. He had seven siblings including his brother Randall<Debrett ref> and six sisters.<note><Burke's ref> -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello my friend. I am on my third total rewrite if this same article now. It’s been a totally demoralizing experience. I am unsure if it’s because it’s a combination of two topics, if it’s because as a subtopic it does have a point of view or if they just hate that particular point of view, or they just hate my writing or what but it’s been miserable. The last reviewer revised me to pick one of the topics and go with that! Uh. That would eliminate this article altogether - which may have been his point. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that right now any work you do might get lost in the rewrite. I am currently on vacation but will be home Sunday to get back to it. I am so grateful for all your input and help and will ping you when I am done removing stuff if you like. I don’t understand why everyone seems to hate this! I find it fascinating personally. So I am doubly grateful for your help I just don’t want you to waste your time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I dropped in on the article, just to see if there was anything I could do and noticed your rewrites. I wondered if maybe you should park the article, and find something else to work on for a moment. Your going to burn yourself out banging your head against it. I found the topic hard but I do understand where it's coming from, and you're right the article wouldn't work if the topics were split. Unfortunately it's not me you have to convince. I do suggest you find something else to put your energy into for awhile, a break from it might be what you need to find a new perspective on it. And if you needed any help later on I'd always be happy to help -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You are wise and kind and so, so, right! I completely changed perspectives, again, but this is going to be my last effort. There is simply nothing else to try. The third total rewrite of this same article is now - mostly - complete. I have redone this so much from so many perspectives now that I can't see my way out of the maze anymore. I am burned out on it. So I posted it at the NPOV noticeboard [4] and asked for input from other editors. I think it needs more links, some beefing up in the alternative views section, and the compatibility section is a little garbled. But this article is about a single point of view. No argument. Still, that might be okay. If not, I am probably done with it. It will indicate to me that WP just isn't ready for this yet. We'll see. And thank you. Thank you, thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think an article about a singular view is acceptable, especially as a sub-article, as long as it's not from a singular viewpoint. Just make sure you don't loose you enthusiasm for Wikipedia over it, we have have endless gnomes, far to many bad writers, and few good ones. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
And yeah, the notice is automated by Twinkle (there's a checkbox for that), and ActivelyDisinterested doesn't need to worry. The big warning sign is just the default for any deletion notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
If you read it all the way through, I will take any comments you have to heart! Thank you!
P.S. Hey! Do you know how to do a redirect? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
