User talk:KatKucing

Cannabis in Brunei
Thanks for your note on my talk page re citations in the Cannabis in Brunei article. You might wish to examine my replies at User talk:Bella2129 (I believe Bella is the "user" you were referring to on my talk page.)

On this occasion, I have taken the easy way, and simply run my (private) ETVP script to clean up the citations. The main feature (and original intent) of this script is to make the citations easier to read and to edit. It also automatically fixes a huge number of possible faults. For details of the ETVP script, see the huge long thread near the top of my talk page. Among the many faults in the citations were the failure to list the full citations in alphabetical order (my script does this automatically).

The one problem you still need to fix is to provide a full citation to match the Sulaiman 2003 short cite, and then re-do the short cite using sfn. You should also – and I can't stress this enough – provide page number(s) for all the short cites to book and journal full citations. I also took the liberty of adding a notelist template under "Notes". This enables you to use the efn template to add explanatory notes to the article text, which will then be listed uner "Notes". For examples of how this works, see the examples listed at User:NSH001/ETVP/examples.

I hope this helps. --NSH001 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, this was very helpful! I will take all your notes and adjust the article. Can you see any issues regarding inconsistent reference styles? As I mentioned previously, I did originally have the citations in Turabian style, but it was adjusted by another Wiki user, so now I am not quite sure what style citation the article is in.


 * Regarding the page numbers, I did in fact insert page numbers originally, but they were removed by the aformentioned user. Not wanting to start an edit war, I haven't added it back onto my page, but rather messaged them via their talk page. The user hasn't yet responded, but hopefully this issue can be resolved soon.


 * Thank you again! –KatKucing (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well there's not a huge difference between your original style and the present one. The main difference is that the present style provides a direct link from the short cite to the full cite. Which is good, as it allows the reader to simply click on the short cite to go straight to the long cite. Nice and helpful to our readers. Mind you, since the full cites are in alphabetical order, going there isn't that hard anyway (unless it's one of those nasty cases without any named author(s)/editor(s)). The present style is called "short-form referencing", and is the style I usually prefer. Sometimes I'll use list-defined referencing for articles (usually short ones) sourced mainly to website pages and newspapers with no, or very few, citations to books or peer-reviewed journals. I repeat my very strong advice to always give the page numbers, when applicable, so that your text or data can be easily verified. I'll also note that my ETVP script can automatically convert your style of short cites (and numerous variants thereof) to use sfn or (sometimes) harv and their variants, but it wasn't necessary this time as it had already been done by another editor. You should aim to gradually familiarise yourself with the numerous siblings of the sfn/harv family of templates. Keep going! --NSH001 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)