User talk:Elrondil
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| I don't know how we lucked into a virtuoso such as yourself volunteering here but it is a blessing. Can't thank you enough for your good work! jengod (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC) |
- @Jengod: Thank you, that is high praise. Elrondil (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Recent edit to Otto von Bismarck
[edit]Thanks for fixing some of the issues with the Bismarck article. Wanted to let you know that your recent edit to this article did introduce a Harv warning error. The Abrams reference has no sfn cite in the article to link to - as seen in Template:Sfn - so I have used the workaround parameter "ref=none" to get rid of the new Harv warning. If you aren't familiar with the Harv & Sfn cite warnings/errors script & usage take a look at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. That explains what this script does and how to install it. - Shearonink (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: Shouldn’t sources without inline citations go into a general reference section? Elrondil (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure but right now I am concentrating on eventually fixing all the many many Harv warnings in the article. The Bibliography section with the subsections of Bibliographies/Surveys/Specialized studies/Historiography and memory/Primary sources does seem somewhat excessive to me but in my opinion any rearranging of the "ref=none" cites into a General references or References section should please wait until the remaining 39 cite issues are straightened out. - Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now the article's count is down to 36 Harv warnings. Am taking a break - will get back at it in the next couple of days. - Shearonink (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: I would also very much support moving to a single style, such as short footnotes. Elrondil (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well...that would be a massive undertaking, the article has a readable prose size of over 11,600 words, with the refs being 166kB for their HTML code & 23kB for text. Converting all of the references to Sfn cites? I'm not taking that on, I just want to make sure whatever is in the article now works for the purposes of verifiability. - Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- It isn't too hard to write a script to do that programmatically (for those citations ready to be harmonised), but why bother writing something I probably wouldn't get to use.
- Elrondil (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well...that would be a massive undertaking, the article has a readable prose size of over 11,600 words, with the refs being 166kB for their HTML code & 23kB for text. Converting all of the references to Sfn cites? I'm not taking that on, I just want to make sure whatever is in the article now works for the purposes of verifiability. - Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: I would also very much support moving to a single style, such as short footnotes. Elrondil (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Shearonink: I agree that all those subsections for sources are unnecessary and would support a flattening into a single list for referenced sources and another single list for general references. Elrondil (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Before tearing apart and reassembling the present referencing in the article into a new or different or unified format I would suggest possibly posting on the article's talk page about doing that. - Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nah, I've given up on trying to make any article consistent. But technically it would be quite possible to let any reader see an article the way they want to see it if it were tagged appropriately and we added a few nuts and bolts to Wikipedia. Elrondil (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Before tearing apart and reassembling the present referencing in the article into a new or different or unified format I would suggest possibly posting on the article's talk page about doing that. - Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Now the article's count is down to 36 Harv warnings. Am taking a break - will get back at it in the next couple of days. - Shearonink (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure but right now I am concentrating on eventually fixing all the many many Harv warnings in the article. The Bibliography section with the subsections of Bibliographies/Surveys/Specialized studies/Historiography and memory/Primary sources does seem somewhat excessive to me but in my opinion any rearranging of the "ref=none" cites into a General references or References section should please wait until the remaining 39 cite issues are straightened out. - Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Otto again...
[edit]2 of the Hajo Holborn references - the harvc ones, 1982b & 1982c - are now throwing Harv warnings. I realized with my latest foray into this article that it looks like none of the 1982 Holborn cites are actually used. Does the article need the cites to the 1982 edition? There are so many other references & sources already listed in it... - Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Those two chapters of the 1982 edition seem to be general references. Perhaps delete the harvc's, add |ref=none on the 1982a, and change 1982a to 1982? Elrondil (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds good to me, I'll try that. Sometimes it seems that teasing apart all the citations & the references & getting them adjusted so they work correctly in this article is like fully assembling a jigsaw puzzle that was partially assembled many many years ago... - Shearonink (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anzac Day, 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) 18:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)