User talk:CitrusArchivist92

Democratic Party (Cambodia) inactive URLs

I apologise for this response to your first edit, but in the edit to Democratic Party (Cambodia) you added URLs inactivated with nowiki tags. Is there a reason why these URLs need to be inactive? Can the nowiki tags be removed, which would create, more convenient, active links. Also, MOS:STRAIGHT. Thank you. Maidenhair (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback and no problem for your response. I’m not sure why the references in the box are red, if you have any insight on how to fix that it would be great. Also may you elaborate on any specific violation(s) I made in regards to style? I look forward to learn from any mistakes. Thank you. CitrusArchivist92 (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The red references in the infobox are caused by the format of the markup of the templates used for citations; e.g.: {{cite Post Staff. (1998, February 13). 1955 polls: Sangkum takes hold. Phnom Penh Post. https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/1955-polls-sangkum-takes-hold}}

My attempt at the template:

{{cite news|date=1998-02-13|location=[[Phnom Penh]]|title=1955 polls: the Sangkum takes hold |url=https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/1955-polls-sangkum-takes-hold|url-access=subscription|department=National|work=[[The Phnom Penh Post]]|language=en-us|oclc=30886151|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250119144847/https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/1955-polls-sangkum-takes-hold|archive-date=2025-01-19|access-date=2025-09-10}}

The full list of parameters for {{cite news|...}} can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news

The red reference is indicating that the templates were not correctly formatted; the {{cite Post Staff. (1998, ... template does not exist.

Maidenhair (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had more time to look at the problem, nothing I have already written is wrong, but ...

The reference numbered 7 which appeared as:

• 7. ^ Cite error: The named reference post was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

is indicating that there is a <ref name=post/>, which indicates the use of the reference already defined as <ref name=post>{{template details}}</ref>, but there is no already defined reference like that. The next edit by "AnomieBOT", an automated edit, finds the template details from a recent edit,

<ref name=post>{{Cite news|url=https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/1955-polls-sangkum-takes-hold|title=1955 polls: the Sangkum takes hold|work=[[The Phnom Penh Post]]|date=13 February 1998|accessdate=12 July 2019}}</ref>

and copies this over the original reference, defining the reference and solving the problem.

It appears that the intention is that the first three references also use this same defined reference (is that correct?), so the markup for those three references can be replaced with <ref name=post/>.

References 4 and 6 appear to use the same source as reference 12 (again, is that correct?) so the markup for these two references can be replaced with <ref name=":0">

Reference 5 appear to use the same source as reference 9, or reference 11, two references for the same source, only one ought to defined for the source, the other should reuse that. Neither has a name, but in order to use one of them it needs a name, perhaps <ref name=Constitution>, then the markup for the other reference and reference 5 can be replaced with <ref name=Constitution/>.

So no additional template is required.

So we come back to my original question, why have the URLs for references 9, 11 and 12, although not 7, been deactivated with nowiki links? The URLs appear on the screen, but deactivated, as though they are not to be used. It is not as though it saved the editors time, they have coded extra markup just to make the article less useful. Why?

Maidenhair (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So my intention wasn’t for any of the URLs to be deactivated, I’m most likely pointing to the fact that I’d have to type out the command for references for the sources in the box because there was no visual editing option, meanwhile the active URL reference was added through a visual edit. It’s a mistake on my behalf, and again it wasn’t my intention. Thank you for the feedback and for fixing the issues. CitrusArchivist92 (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not fix the issues, that was "Duckmather". I often come across URLs deactivated with nowiki tags, some of the editors have over a decade of experience, with tens of thousands of edits. I eventually got the confidence to start removing these nowiki tags, and so far no one has complained. I was not attributing blame, just interested in an explanation. Thank you.

Maidenhair (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]