Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 April 13

= April 13 =

Banbury Road
I stuffed up number 3 reference badly. please repair sorry. 49.198.41.28 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Eagleash (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Im out of touch. Number 5 is also all over the place. Please fix if you have the time. And please leave in quote which I have tried to add Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.41.28 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Already ✅; and for the umpteenth time, please do not start (unnecessary) additional threads with the same heading. Eagleash (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Please lock page indefinately
Please lock this page indefinitely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Northern_Cyprus

Edit warring has been going on for months now. Sock obsessed accounts of shingling334 are vandalizing the article over the countries status, it has been mentioned not to add it on the article. It must be locked indefinitely to prevent it from sock accounts. I have reverted it back multiple times. See page history admin TU-nor has also kept reverting it.95.0.32.95 (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP has been temporarily blocked for six months for sockpuppetry. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

watchlist without my edits
How do I get my watchlist to show edits made by anyone other than me? I have been making a large number of minor edits to pages that link to Glossary of nautical terms (which has just been split, due to size constraints) and when taking a break from this huge number of edits, it would be nice to quickly and easily see what else is going on in my own sphere of interest in Wikipedia. I do intend to keep the edits in the link revision project in my watchlist for a while so I can detect any problems I might have caused. (Hopefully, none). Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ping me with an answer as I might not spot a reply simply in my watchlist!! ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * while you're on your watchlist page, there's a field you can type in that says "Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)". Clicking in that box will give you a drop-down list of filters, one of which is "Changes by others". Checking that box will filter out contributions made by you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - never spotted that list scrolled down. Been looking at a screen too long. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

use of podcasts in potential shortened footnotes-only subsection
Hello,

I'm currently working on a people article for which I'm finding that the most information-rich sources tend to be podcasts. These podcasts are long though, and often the parts which contain relavant information are spread throughout an episode. Many of the article's current podcast references are the same sans the timestamp, and as such I plan to replace these with references with shortened footnotes (WP:SRF).

I am a bit confused about how the reference section should be structured though. I want to clear this up before I implement these changes and start rewriting some sections. I plan to get the article up to GA status, so I want to make sure that what I plan to do is best-practice.

Similar to the Kylie Minogue FA, I plan to divide the References section into two subsections: Citations and Sources. Footnotes citing something like a news headline etc. will go in the Citations subsection, whereas a podcast which is referenced 5+ times will go in the Sources subsection and be referenced with shortened footnotes.

Questions:

1. Do you think structuring the references section in this way is acceptable for a (future) GA status people article?

2. Is it appropriate to include multiple podcasts in such a Sources subsection for a (future) GA status people article? There seems to be a pattern within FA media people articles that sources referred to with shortened footnotes tend to have ISBN numbers. I haven't seen a FA people article with a podcast referenced with shortened footnotes before, which has me a bit worried.

Neuroxic (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made the changes, this question can now be ignored. Neuroxic (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)