User talk:User-duck

I note that you describe your edits on Glossary of nautical terms as "removal of rp template". Please would you explain what you have against the rp template? It appears to me that you have substantially damaged the capability of editors to use existing reference on a second occasion without extra unnecessary work. For example, the reference McKee, Working Boats of Britain is much cited by the more technical maritime historians. It is highly likely to be used again in this article. Yet, where this appears as a reference to "Yawl" (defn 2), you have embedded the page number in the reference. Therefore a second cite of this work, at a different page number, is directed to the wrong page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired:, thanks for asking. Personally, I find the use of the r and rp templates confusing. The most obvious problem is that a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source. I do not have time for other examples at the moment but will add more later.

When you mention "existing reference" ae you talking about an existing source or a complete reference? A different page for an existing source is easily done with a "short footnote" which is facilitated by the sfn, sfnp, or one of the many templates in the harv family, "{{sfn|Smith|Jones|2020|p=23}}" is as easy as "<ref name="SmithJones2020/>{{rp|23}}" and is even a few keystrokes shorter. For a complete reference "<ref name="SmithJones2020p23"/>" would not use rp.

Thanks again for asking. User-duck (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Several points out of this:
(1) Personally, I find the use of the r and rp templates confusing Unless I have misunderstood, you have been changing the citation style based solely on your personal preference. This is a case of WP:CITEVAR. You should not do this without obtaining consensus on the article talk page. Note that the principle of not changing the way an article deals with references is discussed in several places in WP:CITE, the parent content guideline for CITEVAR.
(2) a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source Unless you have a browser that does not co-operate, it is very easy to see the full reference and page number without moving away from the article text. If you hover your mouse cursor over the reference number in the text, you should see the full reference appear. This is an example plucked from another article:^[1]: 46 Just hover over the little blue 1 in square brackets. (If you try this, you need to scroll the page so that the reflist is not visible on your screen, or else it just highlights the ref in the reflist.) The big advantage of this citation method is that if you click on the reference's number, you get taken to the full reference in the reflist, but you can return again by clicking on the up arrow, or the letter denoting the occurrence of the ref. You cannot return to the text so easily with sfn referencing. Nor can you easily and quickly assess how often a particular source is used for an article. For the editor, on the second use of this reference, you only need to type in {{r|MacGregor 1993|p=1}}.
(3) Your later edit appears to be something of a gamble. I presume that you do not have a copy of Mayne's book to hand. In which case, you do not know whether or not the page number is redundant. It is if "breastrope" has its own entry in this book. But if "breastrope" is dealt with under, say "mooring", the page number is essential in order to find the right part of the book.
(4) My note about existing references considers the normal editing process as you start work on an article. You find a reference and use it early in the article. You give it a refname, because you expect to use it again as you continue to work on the article. In the edit I queried, you put a page number in the reference. (This is that ref, copied from the article:^[2]}}) On the second use of that source, you are highly likely to be citing a different page. Therefore it creates unnecessary work for editors if the first use (when you gave it a refname) has a page number in it. If you don't spot it, the referencing is a mess. If you do, you have to find the first use and amend the reference. So this is simple time-and-motion study.

I am sorry if this all sounds a bit "preachy", but referencing is an irritatingly complicated subject in Wikipedia because it has to accommodate the personal preferences of a number of editors. That is why the Wikipedia compromise of sticking to the first style used in an article is so important. It should (and generally does) avoid disputes on style if we all stick to the rules. Then we can concentrate on the important bit: the encyclopaedia content. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for improving the image layout in Partially ordered set, and introducing {{multiple images}} there. I just saw that one of the later images is named "Figure 1", apparently a left-over from a reordering some time ago. However, I hesitate to (re-)assign numbers by hand, since this will cause a lot of manual maintenance work after each future image move.

Do you know an elegant method to assign numbers (or other labels) to images, refer to them from the text, and automatically maintaining the references after images moves (similar to LaTeX's \label{} and \ref{} concept)? Thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for your citation polishing on the Garamond article. I know there were some problems with references on there, and it's very kind of you to take the time to fix it up.

One thing I do have concerns about though is removing reference names. Although it's not a very focused plan I have often thought about getting the article to FA status, so it's possible that a reference that's right now only got one citation position could be moved in future to have two or more. I was planning to replace some of the citations as I've gained more knowledge of the topic and been able to view more top-quality citations (e.g. the Dearden citation will probably go soon), but the French Ministry of Culture citations might end up at more locations. They also need fixing, because very annoyingly the French Ministry of Culture shut that website down. Fortunately the Internet Archive has copies. Blythwood (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi User-duck, thanks very much for this edit at Far-left politics. I know what that's about, because I've had to do that before, too, in another article or two. Can I ask a favor? Could you please add a brief entry at Talk:Far-left politics linking that edit of yours, and explaining what you did? The reason is, if you guessed wrong, at some point someone trying to track what looks to them like invalid citations, will have a place to start. Just a link, plus your thought process or any hints to give some future editor-analysis of verifiability on that topic. In a way, I hate to ask, because you've already done the hard work to resolve it, but if you could, that'd be great. Thanks again for your edit, and for your contributions to the encyclopedia! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, Thanks for the advice. I did a little more checking to verify that my guess was correct. I do not know how to link a particular version of an article and have found little value in talk pages. Thanks again, User-duck (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. If you'd like to read about linking a particular version of an article, see WP:PAGEHISTLINK. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, Thanks. I probably would have never found the page. Info is well hidden in the WP maze. I can seldom find the same page twice. User-duck (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you, completely. And even if you know about Wikipedia Advanced search, it doesn't always deliver great results. A google "site search" often works a lot better; just include site:en.wikipedia.org with whatever search terms you're looking for. For example, try this search: site:en.wikipedia.org link an old version of an article. The top result there (Help:Permanent link) is even better than the one I gave you. Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User-duck,

Where are you getting your information on Israel's page regarding their nuclear weapons? I want in. Whichteamareyou (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I remember you did some excellent work in that article a while back. Things have changed a lot since then. In particular, some users are pushing very strongly to add a new map in the article, that I find controversial. I've opened a discussion thread here . I would highly value your opinion, as someone who is neutral in these disputes. Regards, Khirurg (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg:. You have a better memory than me. It has been almost 2 years! I am more of an editor than a contributor and I really have no opinion about this content.

I am more skilled now as an cite/ref editor and I see numerous Sfn/Harv messages that I can eliminate/correct. I do wish contributors were more careful about referencing.

Thanks for the message. Wish I could contribute to the discussion. User-duck (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the response. Khirurg (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shravanabelagola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hassan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk)

Thanks for helping me to improve the Cultural depictions of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor article. I've learned some editing techniques from you. A Barnstar of Diligence for you.--Deamonpen (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - sorry, I just reverted an edit you made at Yohanan ben Zakkai- what I'd meant to do was to revert to the version prior to some socks adding some stuff, it looked like you were just tidying up after them. I've gone back to the version I intended. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 08:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"meaningless volume and oclc parameters"? Ouch. Easy killer. Hee! Anyway, good work on the article. Bravo zulu1 Boo Boo (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, I was checking the "long volume" warnings. Two of the OCLC numbers pointed to the same Worldcat entry that did not match the rest of the source cite in anyway (not even the year). "volume=" is used for a volume of a series. The values were already in the title, they may have been suitable for the id= parameter. User-duck (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey friend how are you? 166.205.141.44 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have something to ask you. 166.205.141.44 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. User-duck (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Recently i noticed that you fixed the error on page Hinduism in West Bengal. i want to thank you for that because User:Arjayay is constantly changing the numbers of bengali hindus although those links suggest that reporters have done a good reserach from that particular area and listed the numbers much differently compared to 2011. I hope you will control these wikipedia page monitoring thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:3170:3CBD:D681:C992:B841 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I will NOT be monitoring the article. I am fixing cite errors and warnings. I fix other items I notice. This time I noticed that the refs were three online sources for the same article. I simply removed the clones. User-duck (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work in addressing citation errors. This makes it only a shade less thankless (for what it is worth). But the effort serves a variety of purposes other than the prima facie apparent — in revealing problems in need of solving, and solidifying content that is valuable. And so I am thankful for for your efforts. Cheers, a former Prof. 2601:246:C700:14C:2171:7CAD:8265:7B26 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You did a really poor job with this edit. Did you really check what you were doing there? The Banner talk 21:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I accessed both websites.

• Western People source: Besides replacing control character in title. "WesternPeople" is not part of the title. Added author and date. Changed blurb "Blue Whale spotted off Achill" to quote from article.
• Untitled Mountainviews source: Added cite template with title. I just accessed the webpage again. It is a "dynamic" (changing} page. Makes it an "unreliable" source as cited. I documented what I saw. Apparently this is a "home" page.

Good job correcting the Mountainviews source. User-duck (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You did not try the search function on Mountainviews to find the correct page and just dumped a random page? The Banner talk 21:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a question? The answer is "No, I did not try the search function." I might have searched if search function was presented when I accessed the page. I now see the "Welcome to MountainViews If you want to use the website often please enrol (quick and free) at top right." PS: I just found the "Guestuser: Login or enrol". I avoid enrolling in unneeded websites, I get enough junk e-mail. I did not know the source contents were "random". I would have tried to find an archive page if an access date were specified. I would of done a web search if a title were given.

I was hoping the "failed verification" tag would attract the attention of a SME. It did. I have come to realize that many editors just add tags and do not attempt to fix. Lots of edits with minimal work.

This reference would not have wasted so much time if the originator had done their job.

You should consider adding an access date and archive URL to the revised cite.

In case your interested, the only reason I accessed this article was the "Citation bot" replaced an "Archived copy" title with one with a control character. The "Archived copy" is truly a "ppor" job. I am use to fixing bot induced errors. User-duck (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:cite web clearly says do not use publisher when citing a website. I.e. the website should be included as well as, or in preference to, the publisher which is not typically used on its own. Eagleash (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash:. I could not find the statement "do not use publisher when citing a website. I.e. the website should be included as well as, or in preference to, the publisher which is not typically used on its own." In fact I could not find the word "preference" used anywhere in Template:cite web.

This is the statement that I use for guidance:

• publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH" are not usually included. Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). Displays after title.

There are several relevant pieces on the linked webpage:

1. "Pioneer Status Incentive Reports", boldly placed at the top of the page, and which I interpret as the name of the website.
2. Many report titles (linking to other webpages):
   1. "Pioneer Status Incentives Report First Quarter 2022"
   2. "Annual Report of Issued and Cancelled Pioneer Certificates 01 January – 31 December 2021"
   3. "Pioneer Status Incentives Report Second Quarter 2022"
   4. "Pioneer Status Incentives Report Fourth Quarter 2021"
   5. ... etc.
3. "Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", it appears at the bottom along side the copyright of the webpage, and which I interpret as the legal entity that owns the copyright, i.e. the publisher of the webpage. It also appears in and alongside the logo at the top left of the page.
4. Contained within a linked report is the statement "... Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) is pleased to provide details of Pioneer Status Incentive (PSI) applications ...". Sounds like an entity, not a work.

Clearly, "Pioneer Status Incentive Reports" is not similar to "Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", so they should both appear in the cite.

Nothing on this webpage supports the statement "Among others, the Nigerian Government acknowledged FREEE Recycle's incorporation as a contribution to its national effort at the adoption of recycling and the promotion of efficient waste management through the provision of a Pioneer certificate". I assune the contents of one of the linked reports does. The title of that report needs to be added to the cite.

I would gladly like to see your interpretation of this webpage.

P.S. Wikipedia editors seldom state anything clearly.User-duck (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash:, you may find this helpful: From Wikipedia:Citing sources:

Web pages

See also the template {{cite web}}.

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:

• URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found
• name of the author(s)
• title of the article
• title or domain name of the website
• publisher, if known
• date of publication
• page number(s) (if applicable)
• the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)

This implies that both the website and publisher are included. Notice how I avoided the word clearly. Can one get more wishy-washy than "typically include".

Also, many of the cites in FREEE Recycle do not include author when an author is stated.

User-duck (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see Template:cite web#Publisher The 'quote' from the guideline ended at the end of the sentence (I.e. after 'website'). The website should be included as well, as I implied, thus producing the required italics. Eagleash (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Eagleash:, Clearly we are looking at different documents. I quoted the publisher bullet from Template:cite web#Publisher. But Template:cite web is not what I call a guideline, it documents the template parameters. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a content guideline.

The original cite was:

{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}

The current cite (from Ira Leviton edit) is:

{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports <!--Which report--> |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}}

I don't disagree that the "website should be included". My cite had a website.

{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports <!--Which report--> |website=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |publisher=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}}

The disagreement is what is the title of the website and who is the publisher.

I think 'Pioneer Status Incentive Reports' is the title of the website and you think it is 'Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission'.

I think 'Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission' is the name of the publisher and you think it is the same as the title of the website.

The bigger problem is 'Where is the information supporting the statement in the article?'. The cited website does not have any statement that supports it. The website does list 23 reports and I assume one of them supports the statement. I did not add the statement or the reference and I do not plan on reading the individual reports. I was hoping my edit with the 'title missing' tag would fix the problem. The goal of the 'Ira Leviton' edit was to eliminate the ' Warning: FREEE Recycle (edit) is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "website" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) ' message. I am sure that the website was not examined when making the edit.

Is there anything we can agree on? User-duck (talk)

No. you seem intent on being combative. If you can include websites in 'cite web', either in addition to or instead of, publisher and there are no further misunderstandings or disagreements. I do not feel this warrants further discussion. Eagleash (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions to the Joe Martin article are very very appreciated. jengod (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article. Trying to get the technical aspects up to the level of the prose. Just a little polish at this point. User-duck (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You have to click “view in context” on the Lantern page and then scroll until you find a page/masthead/cover with the issue date. It’s a pain in the butt since Internet Archive is very sensitive if you click "too fast" and will slide in or out or up or down, etc. jengod (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for this edit, I really couldn't figure out how to make it work, but you fixed it! Cheers BhamBoi (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't obvious to me either. I believe title= should have worked without url=, BUT it didn't work for me either. So I tried plaintitle=. The cite wikisource template is a little bizarre and the documentation is confusing but I have figured out worse. User-duck (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edit. I wonder what do you use to remove duplicated references. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I do it by hand. Need to access URL and DOI to see if they are the same URL page and to determine if doi-access=free. I have been doing editing for a long time. I know there is some software out there that is putting in these redundant URLs and does not or cannot check for doi-access. Lately, I have also been doing a lot of date fixes. They seem to be connected. User-duck (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks alot for doing it. It’s a very meticulous process and that why I admire WikiGnomes and their patience .. take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Leghemoglobin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chris Gorell Barnes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the many formatting improvements at the Religious experience article a couple months back! I've been working on standardizing the references to sfn style. I notice that as part of your edit you took one reference I had switched to sfn and placed the full reference back in the text. It is this reference:

"God on the Brain – programme summary". BBC. 17 April 2003.

I previously had it listed in the references with this formatting:

"God on the Brain – programme summary". BBC. 17 April 2003.

Was there an issue with my formatting? I was hoping to switch as many as possible to sfn for consistency. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 23:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I support your attempts to standardize the referencing format. After thousands of edits, I believe it may be impractical to use only one format in an article.

SFNs work well if the source is authored and dated. I know Wikipedia documents using publisher if the author is not known and n.d. if it is undated. The source cite can be difficult ot locate using publisher. Remember, the articles should be written as if the reader is reading a printed copy; this is often overlooked by editiors.

Inline citing works well for web sources. They are often unauthored and/or undated.

Personally, I have no problem mixing the two styles. I use SFN for authored sources and inline for unauthored. I seldom use "n.d.".

I changed "BBC 2003" because:

• It is too generic.
• The full date is available.
• It could be confused with "Tucker 2003".

I prefer inline for the "philosophyofreligion" source. But that really is personal preference and I could not justify changing it.

I see content has been added. Most (but not all) use SFN referencing.

I would suggest to change the remaining authored inline citations to SFNs first. Verify that the unauthored onas are really unauthored and change them in the next phase.

Good Luck!

User-duck (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the additional cleanup on the page. I mainly agree, though I wonder why we should write as though the reader is reading a printed copy. Is that a Wikipedia guideline? It seems unlikely that more than a handful of readers actually print Wikipedia pages. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gazelle55:

Yes it is a guideline. I cannot point you directly to the Wikipedia page. It might be in the referencing guidelines. But it falls into the general guidelines for complete citations, bare URLs, etc. Many articles do not link their SFNs to the source citations. Often I think this is intentional so that the article is not flagged for missing source cites. It could just be laziness.

The guideline (or suggestion) that publisher (or website) be used if author is missing is short-sighted. Too often there are multiple sources from the same website. Year is then suppose to differentiate them. But too many time multiple articles are published in the same year and the sfn templates to not support full dates. Personally, I like using title, maybe shortened, but never an acronym. Title is the first thing printed if author or editor is not available. Making it easier for the reader to find is the reason to sort sources in the bibliography.

A lot of my edits are influenced by personal preference, BUT I try to keep them in check. I must have had some difficulty with the "BBC 2003" source or I would not have changed it. My biggest personal preference is consistency which the Wikipedia guidlines support but many editors ignore.

Putng the last references into a usable SFN format is tough. And often does little to improve the article. But doing it to complete the task is justification enough. Feel free to do what you think is best. That is what I did. You stated, "I was hoping to switch as many as possible to sfn for consistency." The statement left the possibility of "not all". You can manipulate any reference to use an sfn template, but that does not make them an SFN (I hope that makes sense).

Another of my long-winded respnses. User-duck (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and no worries about the long response! It is helpful hearing this from someone with your expertise. I will try to change a few more to sfn style but I'm going to take your advice to not switch all of them. Quite a few references on the page do not meet WP:RS and should be replaced anyway. (The BBC ref is RS, but it's used for the neuroscience section and it isn't WP:SCIRS, so it should likely also be replaced.) Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I try to focus on technical edits. I do little verification. Even with the web links, the actual content is often not available online. Yes, the BBC 2003 source is poor. I do sometimes update cites to web sources with current URLs. I rarely add content. There are plenty who like to add content. User-duck (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Calculator, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Caribou herds and populations in Canada, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Canellaceae, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chevrolet Corvette, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chevrolet Corvette, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Comparator, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 14:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You state that I am in an "edit war". I know of none. Please provide the details, at least the article. User-duck (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked you to gain consensus for your change of source formatting, which is pointless and unhelpful as you are unstandardizing the references during an FA nomination. You reverted me. You refused to follow BRD. It's edit warring and disruptive. Either you stop or gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 14:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited December 27, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DOI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_sail&diff=prev&oldid=1182109245

Why did you change the px in the only some of the figures to default?

Seems that another editor had this question as well:

User-duck, I'm a bit perplexed as to what is the point of all these images size and placement changes. This article constantly attracts attention of users, who jump out of the blue and in a big way start to change the various aspects of the article, this pushy approach is unfortunately nothing new, and also in this case, I don't see a strong reason why long standing image sizes should be changed, other than based on how they look on your individual screen. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes make some of the text in the images too small. Is there some Wikipedia policy regarding this, or did you do what E-960 stated above?

If I don't hear from you soon I will change them back. Dmcdysan (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There is some "Wikipedia policy" to use upright instead of px. This allows the user to set image sizes to their preference. The info is in the morass of Wikipedia documentation and I encounter it randomly.

I reduced the size of most images because of another "statement" that large images interfere with text flow on mobile devices that are being used more and more by Wikipedia users. I do not remember reducing any image to the "default" size.

Remember these are "thumbnails' and a larger image is accessed by clicking the image.

I did not move any images. The [[File:... statements for thumbnails should be on separate lines. They break the flow of the paragraph.

I usually change all px dimensions to upright in thumbs, but I may have missed some File: statements.

I often reduce the size of images. Wikipedia is not a Coffee table book

Feel free to increase the upright factors. I did not discern any rational for the various sizes and most of the text was too small for me to read. Try not to use too many different sizes since this can be very distracting.

User-duck (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. In the diff I sent it shows that when you deleted the "123x456px" it stated "Size changed from 123x456px to Default"

I found the following in the "morass of Wikipedia documentation" (as a relatively new editor I am still learning). Here is a reference that describes thumbnail sizes, upright and other aspects of images:

Help:Pictures#:thumbnail sizes

The problem occurs mostly for images that I uploaded when I first starting editing last fall, and then took a break until recently. I plan to modify some of those uploads so that the original image is much smaller, and not have the appearance of a "coffee table book," which was not my intent but then again my ignorance is no excuse.

Another thing that I did over time was to increase the text font size in the original and reduce its overall size that seems to display better with "default" on my desktop, cell phone and tablet. Other images that I took from Wikimedia Commons did not have this issue and I will look to them for guidance as well.

The following may also help the readability issue using the upright factors Wikipedia:Autosizing images.

I will be doing some experimentation with the upload file sizes and/or the upright factors and look at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet using the above Wikipedia references.

Once I have completed this, I will respond to this thread and ask if you could have a look at the article again to see if your concerns were addressed. Dmcdysan (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed the font size in the images to 14 pt and uploaded again with lower resolution, making a few other changes to the source. I did adjust upright for one file. I looked at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet and the readability issues appears resolved when the default for every image is used I believe aligning with Wikipedia:Autosizing images.

If you could please take a look and see if everything looks better now and give me any other feedback that would be much appreciated! Dmcdysan (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't like the style of repeatly indenting responses.

There was a semantics misunderstanding. My interpretation of "default" is the size of the image if px or upright were not used. I changed use of px to upright, reducing the size of many images a little, 0 to 15%.

I found the change to [[File:MFM relative force vs AU.png|thumb|320x320px]] This is a change of only 3% and is smaller than the size I specified. It also has the disadvantage of not responding to the user preference setting.

I notice the [[File:VFPt ringcurrent.svg|thumb|220x220px]]. This image is the default size of 220px since it is square. If 220x220px were removed it would respond to the user's preference setting.

Also noticed [[File:Magnetic rope.svg|thumb|272x272px]]. This calculates out to 164.96x272px and should display at 160x254px because of rounding. I would of changed it to "upright" which should display at 170x280px and respond to the user's preference setting. P.S. I do not trust Wikipedia arthimetic either.

I will look at the article again. Enlarging the text (a little) in the images was probably a good idea.

User-duck (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I yield to your experience in this unindented response.

My concern was that some of the images I first uploaded to Wikipedia last summer ended up having text that was not readable after your changes, but later ones I did appeared OK. I only made changes to what you did to one image as a test (I can't remember which one), before I went looking in the morass for further guidance.

Please make the changes you believe appropriate "to responding to the user's preference setting," and I will enlarge the text if necessary (in some cases I enlarged it from 10 pt to 14 pt). Dmcdysan (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I will replace uses of px to upright. I repeat, feel free to enlarge images as needed.

User-duck (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so that I am clear regarding your instruction regarding enlargement, I should use the sizing option "upright" as described in Wikipedia:Autosizing images, correct?

And not click on Custom in visual editing and enter px values as I had been doing previously. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, use "upright". I assume (hope?) you can enter upright when using Custom. Some common sizes:

• 140px - upright=.65 (The image needs to be excessively tall for me to use this)
• 165px - upright=.75 (Default for upright) (I believe this rounds to 170px)
• 180px - upright=.80 (I use this to reduce caption wrapping)
• 200px - upright=.90 (I rarely use this)
• 220px - upright=1 (default)
• 250px - upright=1.15
• 300px - upright=1.35
• 330px - upright=1.5 (This is the maximum I normally use)
• 400px - upright=1.8 (I rarely use this size or larger)

I do not use the visual editor (too old to change). User-duck (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dmcdysan:, Can you left justify and align the left-side text in "Artifical Magnetospheric model.jpg"? Also removing the left and right white margins would improve the appearance of the image. User-duck (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Dmcdysan (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yazid bin Abdul Qadir Jawas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Duck, for your cleanup of the error codes on my messy references! Much appreciated. Ariadne000 (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Assam Cricket Association Stadium, Guwahati, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Roe, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello User-duck!

• 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.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you, but I genuinely don't agree that switching styles is an improvement. If I accidentally reverted something unrelated to splitting notes, please let me know. Or just reinstate it.

I recommend that you have a look at a discussion about the issue of ref styles here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources. Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if this sounds adversarial. But I can be rather terse.

• I wish the Wikipedia overseers would define their terms. I consider "style" and "method" as two different things, "style" is what the user sees and "method" is how it is done. Users of my software did not care if it was written in FORTRAN or C. Thanks to the referenced discussion, I now realize they see editors as users.
• They also are unable to give clear direction,
  • See WP:EXPLNOTESECT, "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists using footnotes groups." In a real article this sentence would get a "vague" tag. Should they be separate or not? I believe explanatory notes should be separate from references, they are statements, not sources for statements.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." What should be done if method is inconsistent?
• I did not detect a consistent style (SFN or full citations) or method (templates or not). SFN and templates appeared to be the majority so I converted to them.
  • I realize that chapter cites are a kind of hybrid. Their use should be included in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and WP:CITEVAR.

Thanks for reading. User-duck (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you have valid points here in regards to clarity for wP:CITE and WP:MOS.

Even if you don't want to spend time arguing your points here, I think it's valuable if you point them out on either the guideline or MOS talkpage. Not saying this as a "go gripe somewhere else", but because I think it's valid input.

Regarding the style consistency, what did you react to specifically? Was it that the sfn template wasn't used specifically, or that you felt that the formatting overall didn't add up? Peter ^Isotalo 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The article County flowers of the United Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

appears to be a promotion for Plantlife. Has a single primary source as reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I misread the diff when I saw your change at Apocalypse of Paul. Despite the reversion notification, note that I put back 2 of your 3 changes. Sorry about the confusion and spicier edit summary than intended.

(For whatever it's worth, while on that note, the Silverstein 1997 book is very strange - it truly has no publisher, and seems like it was just independently printed with grant money or something? It didn't even have an ISBN, which is very unusual for 1997. What you see in the citation is truly all that can be discerned from the opening pages.) SnowFire (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Does it have Cramer as the editor? It is also unusual to have a publication location without a printer or publisher and this generates a CS1 maintenance message. Eventhough the WorldCat info is incorrect the OCLC number should be included if it refers to the correct book. I just googled "Apocalypse of Paul. A New Critical Edition of Three Long Latin Versions" there are a least 2 journal reviews that have Patrick Cramer as publisher. User-duck (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked the book back in at the library ages ago, but my guess is that those sources are grasping at straws. Cramer was probably the "publisher" in the sense of "getting it published" but I kind of assume that the publisher field is expected to be an organization or company, not a person (and that when there's a truly independent "publishing" going on, Wikipedia just leaves the field blank).

OCLC identifier is fairly harmless although not super-useful, so I normally skip adding it, but I suppose I wouldn't complain if it was added. (One of those identifiers that isn't in the printed book itself, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

WorldCat and Google are often incorrect for citing sources. That is why I dug deeper. Academic journals don't "grasp at straws". It is strange that I found no reference to P. Cramer as an editor. P. Cramer may have "commissioned" the book. "Publisher" appears to have a much broader definition. I found Publishing to be enlightening. My goal was to remove Apocalypse of Paul from CS1 maintenance categories (primarily Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default, but also Category:CS1 maint: location missing publisher, 54,000+ articles). This could be accomplished by using Geneva as the publisher (I have seen worse mis-use of a parameter). I like to include DOI, ISBN, or OCLC as evidence the source actually exists. User-duck (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I really appreciate the fact you had the source cited in your possesion.

User-duck (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if this is a case for the "others" parameter as a way to credit Cramer. It does sound like editor might not be ideal or entirely accurate.

I suspect that "Geneva" isn't quite correct either as a publisher! It sounds like I need to check the book out of the library again... but more generally, while location-with-no-publisher is usually wrong, I think that this case might be one of the very rare cases of it being legitimate. But I suppose we can put this off until I take another look - I'll upload a picture of the intro page if need be. SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be a mis-use of publisher=. I often see location and publisher together in the publisher= parameter. I know of no way to tag the cite as being checked for correctness. I believe only book cites have the "requirement" of the publisher= when using location=. I have not found the "requirement" documented anywhere. I infer it from the articles in the maintenance category. Don't worry about fixing the cite, the article can remain one of the 54k that have the message. I have enjoyed this discussion. User-duck (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Islam (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ivan Smalyukh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Cilappatikaram, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't have any expertise in the subject. I have been doing technical editing for several years now. Feel free to contact me about any technical issues, I would be glad to help. User-duck (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User-duck, Rice is a reviewed article and has had stable text and images for a long time now. I'm sure you feel you are improving the image arrangement in some way but it really isn't great to have everything reformatted: it simply isn't necessary. The multiple image puts images and captions in a box which a gallery neatly dispenses with, for instance. I'm minded to undo the changes but will think about it for a day or two. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:. Yes, it is a good article. How a bot determined that I do not know. The "good article" template was added 100+ edits ago. It took me a while to figure this out but I did. An edit introduced a CS! error. (I doo not care when.) This is why the article came to my attention. I fixed the CS1 error. The jagged image sizes annoyed me. The gallery format used is inconsistent. I originally changed one gallery to match the one directly above it. (There are other "packed" galleries.) I agree that the "packed" gallery behavior is annoying, so are the excessive default borders (anf more). But the people who could change this behavior would rather work on other things to annoy me. Maybe there is another technique to get the behaviour we want. The article is listed in other hidden categories, many are used for maintenance. I eliminated a couple. User-duck (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. It's a GA because it passed a review, not because a bot went haywire (though it probably did). "Packed" is basically useless for most purposes. In my view you've actually introduced new inconsistencies between images, which is why I'm chewing a few pencils deciding what to revert. Many thanks for fixing some of the infinite list of maintenance categories; I don't even look in that sort of dark cobwebby corner, it must be horrifying across Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think heights="350px" widths="500px" was excessive? And consistent with what? Why was upright=0.6 chosen for a single image? I did introduce the Multiple image template, but that was an attempt to satisfy both of our wishes. Would you document another inconsistency that I introduced? I try very hard to reduce inconsistencies in an article. User-duck (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't underrated one of your edit summaries. What do you mean by "cite CE"? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Copy edit of citations. Usually to fix CS1 errors or warnings. Often it is correcting parameter values. Adding various missing parameters. Sometimes it is adding of removing spaces to make the wikitext more readable. User-duck (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@User-duck: I do not understand your image size changes in Battle of the Wilderness. They have made the article more difficult for the reader. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will change many of them back. My thinking with images for military articles: 1) maps help the user understand the battle, the reader should be able to have at least a partial understanding of the battle by viewing the maps only (without reading the text), and the maps need to be large enough that the viewer can see them well while reading the text; and 2) portraits only help the reader remember important people, and it is not necessary to have them be large. As said earlier, your changes are exactly opposite of my image philosophy, and make understanding the battle more difficult. I don't see your name in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Please comment. TwoScars (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JDiala (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Mkk 157.10.224.255 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)