User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 3

Abbreviation template
Hello @ActivelyDisinterested, would you mind explaining why you remove the abbreviation templates for example here in the article Galashians? Москва ("Moskva") if abbreviated will be "М." while Санкт-Петербург (Sankt-Peterburg) will be "СПб." WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It creates a cs1 maintenance message, although it's support at ruwiki it's not at enwiki. Citation templates don't necessarily work the same across different wikis, even if the have the same name/fields. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh that's odd. So even if I write the template as {abbr|М.| Москва } instead of {abbr|М.| Moscow }, it will still be not supported in enwiki? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, the |location= field doesn't support templates regardless of the content of the template. Also please try to keep track of your cites, you keep creating no target errors (Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's unfortunate, there's no other way to abbreviate the location is there? Regarding the errors I make in cites, my apologies, it's actually hard to notice these errors when you have many cites in a article, although I will try my best. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that abbreviation of location is just not something that is used in the English speaking world. M standing for Moscow makes no sense as it could be Madrid or Melbourne. Abbreviations for places tend to be specific to countries, for instance in the UK AL is St. Albans but in the US it's Alabama. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sfn templates
Hi AD,

I just popped by to tell you I have implemented the templates you notified me about. I do apologise for not doing it sooner: I did intend to add them just after I created the article, but when I previewed it I accidentally hit return by mistake and lost my progress; and because it was late at night and I was tired, I didn't feel like doing the whole thing again. Also, I have been very busy with some college work the last couple of days and wasn't able to find the time to work on it. Thanks for reminding me. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fine, thanks for setting them up. I generally try to set find the right sources when they're missing, but I just couldn't match these up with anything even on svwiki (my lack of any Swedish didn't help). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wondered why you said you'd replaced them with CN tags. I didn't use svwiki when finding sources I just looked up "Berndt Otto Stackelberg" on Google and went from there, though I did find Nordisk familjebok on the Swedish article about him. Oh, and don't worry about it I don't speak Swedish either, I just used DeepL to translate the sources I used. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is common when editors translate articles as they translate the text but nor the cites, which is why I thought these might be from svwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That makes sense. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor
Please check to see if I fixed the collateral damage I caused. Sorry for the trouble -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No you're all good. Your last edit wasn't completely necessary, but it also doesn't hurt anything either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

New abuse filter
Hey, you might be interested in this thread which resulted in the creation of Special:AbuseFilter/1254 which can help monitor when users add broken sfn or harv templates to articles. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but I think it's going to get to many false positives. It's very common for editors to add the SFRs in one edit, which will trip the filter, and add the cites in the next edit. Ultimately if it's possible to get the backlog cleared I'll move to get the errors activated for all editors, and have something setup to notify editors (similar to the bot that is used for CS/1 maintenance messages). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea if you're still watching this, but is this why there's a new harv error tag on edits? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

New name!
Hello! This is (or was) Garagepunk66. I'll be editing with a new name GloryRoad66. Thanks for all of your helpful corrections in the Glyn Johns article. GloryRoad66 (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm having a little issue in the Glyn Johns article. I can't get the citation, "Moore 2022" (in the body of text), to connect to the bibliographical source (at the bottom). I was wondering if you could help me? Thanks. GloryRoad66 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You had mispelt harvid as havid in the |ref= field. As the field isn't necessary when you're using |last= + |date= I've removed it, which fixes the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sfn whitelisting question
Thanks for this edit at Fundamental laws of the Kingdom of France, and the edit summary about harv/sfn errors. I do, in fact, have them enabled via script in my common.js, and have, since 28 June, and whenever I see the messages I fix them.

But here's what I don't understand: If I do a section edit at the article, say of section 'Key themes' and hit Preview, I get two Harv errors in the preview, for Boscau2011 and Dignat2021&mdash;as expected, because they aren't defined there. But if I do the same thing in the full article in a version before your change to add the whitelist, I do not get the errors you see. For example, if I edit rev. 1163938651‎ of 06:57, 7 July 2023 prior to your edit and Preview that one, then there are no harv errors visible (see this link) although I do see hidden catgory Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors at the bottom of the preview. So, why don't I see the Harv error messages when I preview the full article, if I do see them when I preview just a section?

Secondly, I understand what you are saying about sfn whitelist but somewhere I read that I was supposed to update Module:Footnotes/whitelist with these citations to avoid these errors, and I was prepared to do that eventually, although I'm a bit confused about doing that now versus using the whitelist template. Also, I'm not bothered by the hidden category appearing on the bottom of the page and I doubt anyone else would be, and since I see no errors on the page when simply viewing it normally as a reader with or without your whitelist template addition, or when previewing the full page, it doesn't seem that pressing of an issue to add the whitelist template right away. Who benefits? Can you explain what the advantage is with adding the whitelist template, or with adding the citations to the module, and what the downside is of just doing it later, after I finish the article? Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm going to separate my replies. For the different questions. The reason you can't see the error messages seems to be an issue with Trappist the monk's script. The errors are there, as shown by the error category. I don't know enough about scripting to say why they don't show, or even if it's deliberate or not. The errors occur when the wiki software can't see the cite, which is why you see errors when previewing a section of the article as the cites don't exist in that section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whitelisting your template is using Module:Footnotes/whitelist wouldn't be a good idea. The issue is with how dynamic the template is. Any article that had any of the same matching author/year combination and your template would be white listed. So if you lr template was setup with only "Steiner 2010" but separately a unrelated cite was missing for a "Hall 2010" reference, then no error message would appear for the Hall reference even though it was missing. So it's better to use the sfn whitelist where your template is used to only suppress the false positives it creates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As to your last point the errors are there, you can't see them because of Trappist's script. If you unload that and add the following to User:Mathglot/common.css you will see them.
 * .harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
 * As to why it's important to suppress false positives, the issue is that until they are suppressed it's not possible to see what is a false positive and what is a real error. The vast majority of no target errors are not false positives, so it is a real issue if false positives hide real errors.
 * The idea that these generally constitute false positives and the errors hidden has lead to a huge backlog of real WP:V issues at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, something I've been clearing. I'm just about to clear H (total category is down from 26k to 11k), so any articles lower in the alphabet tends to stick out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this detailed explanation. Do you know if there's a Phab ticket for this? Surely there must be one. I went to Module:Footnotes/whitelist and Template:Sfn whitelist, and couldn't find any mention, but it should be in both.
 * I had no idea you were so active in this area, and it's helping WP:V, so thanks for that, too. The fact that you're at 'H' explains why my watchlist hasn't been flooded with fixes by you yet; when you hit 'L', there will be piles of them, stemming from sfn Legifrance. I'll go add the whitelist template to the ones I remember, but if there's a bot that helps you with this, if you point it at any articles that use sfn legifrance or cite legifrance that should reduce the load a bit when you hit 'L'. Btw, you must get these questions all the time; have you considered adding a FAQ template to the top of this page? You could excerpt some of your answers just above and precede them by reformulated questions for the FAQ, and then when you get repeat questions, you could just link them to " See FAQ #3 ". Just a thought. Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the errors where off and so they have been forgotten. I'm hoping if I ever manage to clear the category, or at least minimise it, to start work on getting agreement for the error messages to be on by default. As to a phab ticket I believe the error checking happens before the templates are expanded, so the check fails before the cites exists in the article. The solution offered so far is the whitelist, which isn't the most helpful. I've no knowledge of the wiki codebase but I was thinking it should be possible to do a later check when the page is being sanitized, e.g. the generation of the error can't be stopped but maybe it could be removed later if it's not actually needed. Could be computationally expensive but hopefully not so much. I'll look into the phab ticket system (I've not used it before), to see if anything has ever been suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I might take the idea of a FAQ up, particularly the description of why to use or the full whitelist isn't easily explained. So spending some time on a formulated answer could be a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the cite legifrance / sfn legifrance combination doesn't produce a false positive. Something else I'll have a look into, could be useful to work out why. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting. It also gives me an idea for an enhancement. Will ping you from the template talk page. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately after some further checking the reason it doesn't produce an error is because sfn whitelist has already been added :(. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean at the "Fundamental laws..." article? I assumed you had been playing around either with the earlier version, which you can pull from history and edit without saving, but see what it does on Preview (which is how I was doing it), or maybe trying it in Special:ExpandTemplates. I added a section at the whitelist Talk page; hopefully that idea will work.Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sfn templates
Hello @ActivelyDisinterested. How you doing? I noticed that many times you deleted sfn templates like here because "they're not defined". Most of the time the needed sites are there but sometimes I mess up the sfn templates, you know it's hard to track these little mistakes when you have 65 sites in a single article. So, next time this happens, just notify me, I will immediately fix my mistakes. Thanks for understanding. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest your mistakes are continuous. If you have the error messages on, and I hope you do, you should easily be able to see the red error messages (they do rather stick out). You can check the article after editing or use the preview function to catch such errors
 * . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How do I have error messages on? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three options as explained in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. The easiest option in my opinion is to go to Special:MyPage/common.js and pasting the following: importScript('User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. With that done take a look at I Gusti Ketut Pudja and you should see that one of the references has an error message. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello ! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Sent by using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

sfn footnote with or without year
Hoi, I saw your edit and correction regarding the data in some sfn templates. I see once you remove the date and other times you put it back. I read the sfn template documentation but there it seems to say : always add a date. Some references in the article German cruiser Admiral Hipper contain a date and others not. Should there be consistency in (not) using date trghout the article ? Klutserke (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The default is always to match |last= and |year= in the cite. You can use anything else you like, as long as it's setup correctly in the |ref= field. If it's not setup removing the date causes an error, if the |ref= is setup to be just last then it's causes an error if you add the date. No consistency across refs should exist if it causes errors.
 * The issue at German cruiser Admiral Hipper is that it appears that the original cites had the |ref= field setup to only use last, but more cites have been added that don't have this. The newer cites need year in their references.
 * Although it's completely valid to setup cites so only last is used it does cause this issue, and of course it also doesn't work if the same last has multiple cites.
 * The error messages for all this are off by default, if you haven't already it might be a good idea to turn them on. The details of how can be found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thx I'll look into the error messages. But in principle I always fill in last and year. How come the year needs to be removed in some cases ? Klutserke (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The |ref= in the cite can be setup to use something other than last/year. It's usually used when there are no author detail. As an example if you had a news article with no author from the Times in 1947 you could add: |ref= That would then allow you to use "TheTimes|1947" in the references. As an example from from German cruiser Admiral Hipper (and cutting most of the cite details out) the first two cites have:
 * and:
 * sfnref does the same job as harvid in generating a properly formatted output for the |ref= field, which one you use is person preference as far as I can tell. As the first cite doesn't have a |ref= field setup the references must use last/year (so Bredemeier|1997 in this case). While the second cite does have the |ref= setup so the reference must match what is setup in the |ref= field (so Brennecke only). If you want to harmonise the refs then either add |ref= fields to the cites without a |ref= field, or remove all the |ref= fields from the cites. The former means references won't require years in them, the latter means the references will require years in them. I'm trying to clear the backlog of the errors with such references, I'll leave whether the references should all be harmonised one way or another to other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this clear explanation; I hadn't noticed at all the link with the sfnref in the citebook template. Maybe this explanation can be added to the Category:Harv and Sfn template errors page ? Klutserke (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The |ref= field is documented in the sfn and harv, there are many different reason for harv and sfn template errors. There's not really documentation for the errors and how to fix them, something for the future (unless you want to volunteer). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The |ref= field is documented in the sfn and harv, there are many different reason for harv and sfn template errors. There's not really documentation for the errors and how to fix them, something for the future (unless you want to volunteer). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolwyddelan Castle
Hello! Thank you for sorting out the errors at Dolwyddelan Castle, and so quickly. I hugely appreciate it, particularly as the article is currently under GA review. If you don't mind could you possibly explain how you fixed the issue, for future reference? Clearly I didn't spot those errors. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * For some reason the error messages are off by default, Category:Harv and Sfn template errors explains how to turn them on (just ask if you need any help).
 * The errors come from multiple fronts. The default for the refs are to match |last= and |date= from the cite, as an example from the article would be "Langley 2009". If no author details exist you have to setup the |ref= in the cite, you can see this where I added the setup to the cite for "Caernarvonshire: East (1956)".
 * A slightly more complicated problem is custom templates, for instance Coflein and Cadw, but you can find out how how they should be setup in the documentation for the templates.
 * If you want any help with this kind of issue feel free to drop a message here or ping me, I'm always willing to help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, so the main error in this case is that the references weren't anchored to the citations, and one way of creating an anchor where author and date can't be used is to use harvid.
 * I'm still getting my head around the more complex markup-based referencing styles, but I'll do some reading and ask you for help if I get in a muddle. Thank you for the offer, it's always nice to know there are editors about who are willing to help out! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help, please do just ask. The different forms of referencing can take awhile to get the hang of, but don't feel stressed about trying something there's always people around to help if anything goes wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I was on the verge of asking you to step in but I wanted to see if I could figure it out myself first. As it happens I fixed the parameters, went to save, and found out you'd just done it! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'm trying to clear down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and have cleared to "i" so any articles lower in the alphabet sticks out. I'll leave you to it, you seem to be getting the hang of it.
 * Good luck getting the article to GA, do let me know if I can help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about it — I'd figured out the issue, whether I published the edit or not doesn't matter. I do think I'm getting the hang of it, which is fun! Thank you again for your help and offer to help with the GA, I'll ping you if your expertise is needed. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible advice regarding WP:V
I remembered from our past interaction that your talk page had mentioned you dealing with WP:V issues and wondered if I could run one by you and ask for your advice. Our past interactions haven't always been on the best of terms, but I still respected your opinion.

The issue is related to an article that references a Youtube 'documentary' that suggests a rapper was a serial killer. The problem is that if YouTube generally isn't a reliable source (unless it is a news organization or reputable company, from what I remember), and the video itself tries to connect the individual to murders based on tweets and time stamps, is that in line with passing WP:v? It is verifiable in the sense that secondary sources have covered the documentary being removed and later reinstated on Youtube, but the documentary itself seems like a combination of a fringe theory and original research, and the channel itself is not a Reliable source.

For reference, the article is King Von.

I appreciate any advice you could possibly provide. Thank you.

Awshort (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Awshort. However are past interactions went I hope you know they were only about the content, and I'm always willing to help anyway I can.
 * I had written a much longer response, but then started again. The YouTube video by Trap Lore Ross is not reliable, videos on YouTube can be reliable but it depends on who created the video. Trap Lore Ross is not a reliable source, so their videos are not reliable either (regardless of the platform they are published on).
 * The article is using secondary sources that talk of the video, rather than the video itself for referencing. But those secondary sources give me pause. The first from Vibe quickly moves from the YouTube video to reporting of Reddit comments, the next from XXL does the same. HotNewHipHop mention the video being taken down and responses from Twitter. The last from HipHopWorld makes no mention of the details present in the section. The two sources at the end of the section, HipHopDX and ClutchPoints, don't inspire much more faith in me. All together these aren't high quality sources to be making such serious claims.
 * It's likely the video and it's allegations should be in the article, but I would say it should be in a much more cut down version. I suggest you take this to WP:RSN, not on the reliable of the YouTube video but whether those six sources support the extent of the text used in the section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

From the BLPN Jorit thread
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Corrections
Hello @ActivelyDisinterested good afternoon, I don't know why you are correcting the information source of that data from the page "Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey". All the information is extracted from the book by Michael Graves, which today is, along with Alison Weir's book, one of the books with the greatest amount of information from the Tudor period. Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The reference templates you are adding, sfn, are hyperlinks to full cites elsewhere in the article. You can't just add them without a full reference to link to. You can see this if you look at refs #6 or #7 in the article Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey. Both are for "Child's 2007", and if you click them reference #13 is highlighted showing that "Child's 2007" refers to "Henry VIII's last victim : the life and times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey". If you want to use sfn trmplates you must supply this full cite. Otherwise I suggest using one of the simpler referencing styles mentioned in WP:REFB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Criccieth Castle
Hello ActivelyDisinterested,

I'm having a bit of a mare over at Criccieth Castle trying to work out what's causing a 'Cite error: Invalid  tag'. It's affecting footnote 7, would it be possible for you to have a look? Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Good timing, I was just fixing it before you posted here! Not exactly sure why but using |1a= and not |1a1= in sfnmp is what caused the error. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I love it when a template makes sense like that. Thanks for looking and fixing the problem, much appreciated as always! A.D.Hope (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Citations in Amish
References to citations should be where the citation is placed in the article and not on top of a carefully selected list of relevant literature about the Amish. Tell me please, to which sentence(s) Hamm's "The Quakers in America" refers. In a long article like "Amish" such a vague citation (no page of Hamm's book mentioned, no indication to which sentence(s) it refers) seems quite useless to me. Therefore deleting it seems the best option. -Tuncker (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a whole category of references called short form references, they are in use in the Amish article. If you wish to remove the Hamm cite you must first deal with those references. See the category that tracks such errors Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and the documentation for sfn and harv templates. Note I didn't add these references I'm just correcting the error you caused. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with the tools and processes you mention, my expertise are the traditional Anabaptist groups. This "citation" on top of a carefully selected list of relevant literature is clearly wrong. So could you please correct this error, since you seem to know how to do it. -Tuncker (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have no knowledge of Anabaptist or Amish, I'm just fixing a technical error. The Bibliography section of that article holds cites that support referencing, so any cite that is used by referencing should be in the Bibliography section. I think you're confusing the Bibliography section for a Further reading. The further reading section contains works that are related to the article subject, but not used by referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed cites but not references?
Hi I saw you fixed one of my edits with the summary If you remove cites pleaseake sure to remove any references as well)

Thank you for fixing it. I looked at your edit and dont understand what I missed. How do I see that next time so I know to remove it next time or is there a WP: page that explains? Softlemonades (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The error messages are off by default, how to turn them on is detailed here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. When you remove cites that are in a separated section, there no standard naming (could be Bibliography, Sources, Works cited, etc), check afterwards for any error messages "No target" and the author from the cite you just removed. These are being generated from sfn templates or the harv family of templates, these templates generate hyperlinks to a full cite. Which is why if you remove the cite you get a "no target" error, as the hyperlink no longer has anything to link with. That's a quick, and probably bad explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ill try to figure it out so I dont make errors and work for other editors Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problems, if you have any questions or I can help in anyway please just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ISBN for Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn
Hi – I believe I found the correct ISBN for the encyclopedia cited in Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn – I wanted to let you know because you wrote "that appears to be the ISBN supplied by the publisher" in your edit summary – please see the inline comment I added in the article – I'd be interested in your opinion. Joriki (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Did you find the Persian version? I found multiple other ISBNs for English or Arabic versions. But that is the ISBN listed by the publisher of the Persian version (say that seven times quickly!). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should also note it's not the first volume of the encyclopedia that's being cited, that wasn't published in 2009 and deals with poetry not the subject matter of the article. It the first part of one of the multi-part volumes that were published later. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there might be some confusion here because the 2009 volume is actually in Persian and Arabic. The WorldCat entry says "In Persian; translated from Arabic, Arabic and Persian text on facing pages". I can't read Arabic or Persian, but I do know the scripts and the slight differences between them. The Persian title given by that WorldCat entry:
 * دانشنامه امام حسىن علىه السلام بر پاىۀ قرآن، حدىث و تارىخ : فارسى - عربى
 * is the title on the scan with the ISBN I inserted. "فارسى - عربى" means "Persian – Arabic", and you can tell from the Persian دانشنامه for "encyclopedia" and from the letter پ ('p') that doesn't exist in Arabic that the title is indeed in Persian. The WorldCat entry specifies 15 ISBNs; the first is for the entire set and the other 14 are for the 14 volumes: The first two coincide with what the scan of Volume I specifies for "ISBN(set)" and "ISBN". The ISBN 978-90-04-16121-4 also leads to a corresponding Google Books entry for Volume 1, which gives 2009 as the publication date. The WorldCat entry says "2009 –", also implying that the first volume was published in 2009. So this all seems to consistently support the conclusion that 978-90-04-16121-4 is the ISBN of the book the editor was referring to. I'm not sure I understood your second comment about the poetry and multi-part volumes. The citation does say "Vol. 1", and that does seem to be consistent with the publication year 2009. Or am I missing something?
 * I added Arabic as a language in the citation. Joriki (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I just realized (in closing all the tabs I'd opened for this :-) that the infobox in the article on The Hussaini Encyclopedia has the ISBN of the Arabic version, and that leads to Google Books entries (Volume 1, Volume 2) that say "Language: Arabic" and "Published: 2002", which is also consistent with the series first being published beginning in 2002 in Arabic and then beginning in 2009 in the bilingual Persian translation. Joriki (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My point on the Persian version is it's the one being referenced in the article, unless you can confirm the page numbers are the same between the Persian and Arabic version(or what the new page numbers are) it may not be a good idea to change it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Do you think that in addition to the Arabic and the Persian-Arabic version there's also a Persian-only version? I never found one in all the research that I did on this. If you found one, please link to it. If not, we could ask the editor who added the citation whether they were in fact referring to the Persian-Arabic one. Joriki (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at reference #9 in Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn you will see it's for "Reyshahri 2009, p. 291". This is a short fo reference that link with the citation you are modifying. It specifically references page 291 of the Persian version of the work, unless you can correct or confirm the page number you shouldn't change the cite to the Arabic version.
 * Cites don't exist in a vacuum, they are specific to how they are used in the article, so changing them without correcting the rest of the article isn't always suggestable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed at the extent to which we seem to be talking past each other. I'm well aware that page numbers differ between versions and versions shouldn't be changed. I've been trying to explain several times now (but apparently without making myself clear) that I'm not suggesting to change the version, but rather that there doesn't seem to be a "Persian version" of this work (again, if you found one, please link to it) and that it seems the editor was referring to the Persian-Arabic version (which in various places, e.g. in the Google Books entry, is listed as "Persian"). If you don't think that's the case, I think the best course of action would be to ask the editor. Joriki (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only suggest you ask the original editor who added the reference and the work. They deliberately set it should be the Persian version with that ISBN to multiple articles, and that ISBN is out there on the internet. Unless you can confirm you are correct, and the page number in the version you have identified support the details in the article, I wouldn't suggest changing the citation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll ask the editor.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that ISBN being out there on the internet. The only place where I can find it (outside Wikipedia) is in the infoboxes of various pages at ghbook.ir, and all those pages have proper ISBNs in the text and for whatever reason apparently just display a truncated ISBN in the infobox. For instance, here and here are pages for the Persian-Arabic version (you can see that it has the same cover calligraphy as the scan); they both list the truncated ISBN in the infobox and the correct ISBNs in the text (including the one for Volume 1 that I inserted in the article); and e.g. here and here are pages for completely different books that have the same truncated ISBN in the infobox but different complete ISBNs in the text. So every indication is that this "ISBN" is just a truncation artefact on that website, and all complete ISBNs anywhere, including on any pages I can find by searching for the truncated ISBN, consistently specify 978-964-493-462-9 as the ISBN for Volume 1. Again, if you have any other information, please, please link to it so that I can understand what you're referring to. Joriki (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be truncated, but the ISBN in the article ends in a 1, and the idea of truncation would only work if it ended in a 4. I honestly don't see what I can say to make you understand. You haven't even taken on board that volume 1 is about poetry, if you think the details in the article are likely to be supported by a study of poetry go ahead I'm not putting anymore effort into this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

History of Christianity
Hello Dearheart! I hope you are well - and not too busy! I have finally completed - I think - my redo of the article, and would love love love it if you had the time and inclination to clean up the references. I will be grateful for any and all you do. When you have worked your magic, I will call for a peer review and hopefully follow up with a GA nomination. If I don't get any objections! Keep your fingers crossed! No don't - it makes it hard to type... Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Jenhawk777. I'll have a look over it, it may not be til after tomorrow. As I'll be a bit busy tomorrow. Would you like me to just tidy things up, or convert all the inline references? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would love to have them all Harvard, but I will be happy with them all correct and cleaned up if that's all you have time for. You always catch things I miss. Whenever you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've posted a notice on the article's talk page that I intend to standardise the refs, it will give me a nice break from working on no target errors. If no-one objects I'll start work on it tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

PAIPP RS discussion
I re-did the discussion as a formal RfC and moved your remarks to that section. Please check and make sure I didn't break anything. Thanks! Barte (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Barte, nothing looks broken but I don't think I have anything further to add. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to the RfC discussion if you would recommend in bold one of the four options listed at the top. Barte (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Closing RfCs
Ok, I have really tried to close the RfCs correctly, so I'm not sure what I'm missing. In Requests for comment, it says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the tag. ... Please remove the tag when the dispute has been resolved, or when discussion has ended. ... To end an RfC manually, remove the tag from the talk page. Legobot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run. (When Legobot automatically ends an RfC because of its age, it will remove the tag.) I tried to close the RfCs (as the poster) after reviewing this. What else should I do? WMrapids (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest using at the top of the section and abot right at the bottom. That will close the discussion so no other editors comment on it. While the other RFCs finish can I suggest working on the wording for an RFC in your sandbox or users space. You want to focus on what details you think are wrong on VENRS and show why you are right, remember it has to be neutral so just the details without commentry. Adding details about other editors or making the RFC overlong will inevitably lead to poor turnout or a discussion so far off the rails it closes as no consesnus. I've avoided setting up RFCs, but I've seen many fail because of poorly thought out RFC statements. Ultimately if you wish to seeing full scale change at VENRS it will take time and effort, you have to try and convince other editors you're right - including some who might currently disagree with you. Again please just take this as my advice, how you proceed isn't governed by me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I sincerely appreciate your help! WMrapids (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You deserve all the awards!


for always being polite, courteous, and helpful. You make WP a better place for everyone.

for exceptional excellence in all the work you do. You raise the standard - and I'm thanking you anyway...

because watching you work is a beauty to behold.

I wanted to go through them all and give you every one of them, but thought that might fill up your talk page and you might not actually like that, so, I picked these even though they don't begin to express how much I value and appreciate you. Having someone to call on who is not only kind but skilled is a blessing. That's you - a blessing - so thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks you. You are, as ever, far too kind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A very small thank you to a very large heart
You're the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity
So I put Christianization up for peer review, and the reviewer says I need to start with its sub-articles and take them to FA first and that will give me a leg to stand on when I get back to Christianization. I didn't want to do that, but they pressed for it three times, so I went and looked at the one they suggested, Conversion to Christianity. There are several problems that I can fix but first and foremost are the refs. * I am not asking you to come to the article and convert all these references to sfn for me - it is just too much - I will do that. But right now there is no bibliography at all. What's the first thing I need to do to start the change-over? How do I do this? It's time I learned. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put together a quick list, it's best to split down the the work to manageable chunks.
 * Correct any errors in the article, so you don't have to deal with them later.
 * Separate out any notes from references. You're mostly looking at references with quotes, so you can probably skip this.
 * Format text references using cite book/cite journal/etc
 * Create the Bibliography section and add headers in the format . This allows you to easily find the correct place to move citations later.
 * Convert references with refname. Searching for each instance of the refname replacing it with sfn and then move the reference with the cite to the Bibliography section.
 * Convert any remaining references one by one.
 * When converting from text Google books, JSTOR URLs or doi codes make everything much easier, as these can be used to autofill the citations.
 * As you convert reference to sfn templates take note of any duplication, for instance the same work with different years, and simplify as you go along. It's also a good time to improve the citations or add page needed or other maintenance templates.
 * There are a few templates that don't work with short form references, or just are not worth converting. Specifically in this article there's a lot of Bibleverse templates. I would suggest leaving them be, they already produce something akin to a short form and they don't work with sfn or harv templates.
 * This obviously isn't a complete guide and I learn something new every time I do the work, so please ask any questions you have or come across as you work through the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh! and save often, a painful mistake I've failed to learn several times. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * May I just say, quite frankly, Holy Crap! Thank you! I can do this, I can do this, I think I can, I think I can - okay, I'm psyched up now! getting started! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem I saw with that article was how many primary sources it had, I'm impressed you've dealt with it so quickly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could take a look at citation number 53? It's "Singapore Management University 2017" and I cannot figure out what the blankety-blank problem is. I swear this bot is laughing at me. The citation bot hates me and wants to torment me and make me cry, but I am not taking this laying down! No this is not making me crazy and paranoid!!
 * I have dealt with much of it by deleting entire sections - and I am not done! There is more deleting to do, but right now, I am trying to convert all the refs in the statistics section to sfn and the bot is winning. Please tell me what I am doing wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Appear it was fixed before I could even have a look! -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What the...? But how? I re-entered it 3 times! Perhaps I accidentally fixed it myself leaving me still not knowing what I was doing wrong. Oh well!  Thank you so much for being available - and kind of my therapist...  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, when looking at seas of text it can be very easy to go blind. Especially when working late. It was fixed by another gnome, you had forgotten not include the date. |ref=  v.s.  |ref=  You're always welcome here, whether to ask questions or simply to vent ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG! The date! No wonder - now what have I done to LA Catholics? Ref # 103? And thank you. That's what all good therapists - and good friends - say. With that last ref, I think I am done with this most miserable of jobs. Down to rewriting the lead now. What do you think about the article redo? Have an opinion? It's okay if you don't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaahhh... should have known it would be easy-peasy for you. Does the rest of my work pass muster? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It reads like a Wikipedia article now, rather than a hodgepodge of primary sources. So a thousand times better than it was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was truly awful for a supposedly encyclopedic article wasn't it?  I feel stupid sending you yet more personal awards, but thank you hardly seems adequate. Nevertheless, thank you for your help.  I learn something from you every time we interact, and I learned at least three new things this time.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

follow up
I see there was stuff to fix at the black market article again; since you are so willing to explain can you please also tell me what it is that needed fixing? I've been working on doing the Harvard references myself and am mainly wondering if this was a typo that means I should take a break, or a systemic error that means I am still missing something. Whenever you get a chance ;)

if it helps you remember, the edit summary said there had to be an exact match. Was this the page numbers? I was wondering if 1-14 was going to match up to 9. If that was it, there were probably a lot of them, and if so sorry. I am trying, really, and I *am* getting a lot fewer bizarre errors now I have sworn off trying to use mobile view. Elinruby (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You used 'e' when you should have used 'é', a very normal typo anyone (who isn't French) could make whether they need a rest or not. The errors only ever come from the author or the year, you're on your own with getting page numbers correct ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, that makes sense, thank you. Accents take a whole extra step on this laptops, thanks. Appreciate the backup, and that's good to know, about the page number. Elinruby (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Itchen Bridge
Hi, thanks for following up on the harv =errors, unfortunately I'd hit return too early and was still in the process of converting the balance of the refs. Ended up with an edit confict. Give me a while to do the rest. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry didn't mean to cause a problem. I didn't notice the refs where half converted until after my edits, and was slightly worried I'd edit conflicted you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, done now! Though it still needs a clean up, someone has reffed every sentence! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Unused References
Hi, You reverted my removal of unused references from Climate change and invasive species. These appear unnumbered at the bottom of the entry and are not actually cited to support assertions. I don't think they're needed. Why should they be kept? Jaireeodell (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a type of reference called a Short Form References, these are setup by adding sfn or a similar harv template in place of inline referencing. These then appear amongst the other references in a format similar to "Smith 2012, p. 41" as an example. They appear as bluelinks (hyperlinks), and if you click one you browser focus is taken to the full cite that explains what work "Smith 2012" refers to. In Climate change and invasive species if you go to what is currently reference 12 you'll find it starts with a bluelink titled "IPCC SR15 Ch1 2018". If you press that link your focus should be shifted to "Allen, M. R.; Dube, O. P.; Solecki, W.; Aragón-Durand, F.; et al. (2018). "Chapter 1: Framing and Context... etc", which is one of the cites you removed.
 * Such Short Form References are only valid as long as the full cite detailing what they mean also exists in the article. They are extremely common in all climate changed themed articles, and many academic articles.
 * If you want more information see Help:Shortened footnotes, the documentation for sfn and harv templates, the category that tracks the errors with such references Category:Harv and Sfn template errors (the category also details how to turn on error messages for these references), or please just let me know if you have any other questions.
 * . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. I find the mixed approach to referencing in a single article confusing, but thanks for the correction and the explanation! -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * People copy and paste sections from one article to another, causing many articles to end up with mixed referencing forms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oscar Citation Error.
Thanks for explaining that to me. I had done a quick scan and didn't see any glaring red, so I thought I was in the clear. But I will go add that to the lead actress and supporting actor articles, if they weren't already there from another citation elsewhere in the article. Much appreciated. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 12:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The error messages for this type of referencing is off by default, so they are easily missed. If you haven't already you can turn them on as detailed here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I did NOT add an *undefined* short form ref.
I think you missed that after https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_warning_labels_in_the_US&diff=prev&oldid=1175026395 ''the full cite is still there. Also the URL you put back is broken, unlike the one in References that the sfn links to after my fix, which I have restored. OK?'' RudolfoMD (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed that you had added the details as text, which causes the same error as if it being missing. The sfn template creates a hyperlink to the details of the full reference, it only works if the full reference is in the form of a fully formatted cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your follow-up fixes look good! Weird to see an article get basic stuff like author names wrong like that.  RudolfoMD (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could be that the original author wasn't working in their native language/script. Could explain the similar but wrong names. Another cause of errors I see a lot is that editors are adding references from another work. So they read a book and include in the article the references they see in that book, so the articles references end up with errors as if they had been passed through a game of Chinese whispers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

DOB sources
Hi ActivelyDisinterested. Thanks for your reply at RSN. Are you aware of noticeboard discussions, RfCs, etc that supports your comment that only one reliable source is not enough? - Hipal (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:DOB is pretty clear, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. A single source does not meet the burden of widely published. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To put it succinctly "singularly published" can't be the same as "widely published", they would seem to me to mean the opposite of each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Bogus AfD close
I appreciate your alertness in catching the bogus close of the "Cohen crime family" AfD. I fear that many if not most editors would not have noticed that an editor was being impersonated. I certainly did not. I was wondering what you think of this potential caveat in the AfD instructions? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I came across it because the vandal had already been spotted on ANI. They had tried the same at other AfDs and been reverted, but that one was missed. At to AfD instructions, signatures are like [footnotes] they can lull you into foolish certainty. If you're in any doubt you should always double check. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And indeed, while I was surprised I wasn't in doubt as to the close's authenticity. I wonder if any tricks like that may have succeeded in the past? Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

BG PH
Lots of thanks for the assistance! My formatting (and, obviously, citation) skills seem to be a bit meh, so you've been a great help, thanks! VMORO 15:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Always happy to help, if there is anything else I can help with just drop me a message. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)