Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rjwilmsi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:56, 24 September 2011 editRjwilmsi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers932,193 edits →Question: There is a limit to the number of templates that can be used on a page. If that page is now up to ~500 cite webs it will be too many.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:14, 24 September 2011 edit undoHarout72 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users31,900 edits →Question: thanksNext edit →
Line 186: Line 186:
I added big chunk of information to the ] immediately after which the entire section of references disappeared. I changed the previous ''((Reflist|2))'' to ''((Reflist|30em))'', but that didn't seem to help the refs to re-appear. Since you were at that page not long ago, could you please re-visit and see if you could fix the problem that I may have created. Thanks in advance.--] (]) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I added big chunk of information to the ] immediately after which the entire section of references disappeared. I changed the previous ''((Reflist|2))'' to ''((Reflist|30em))'', but that didn't seem to help the refs to re-appear. Since you were at that page not long ago, could you please re-visit and see if you could fix the problem that I may have created. Thanks in advance.--] (]) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
:There is a limit to the number of templates that can be used on a page. If that page is now up to ~500 cite webs it will be too many. ] 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC) :There is a limit to the number of templates that can be used on a page. If that page is now up to ~500 cite webs it will be too many. ] 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

::I didn't know that it was limited to 500. I reduced the number of citations, now the ref. section has re-appeared. Thanks.--] (]) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 24 September 2011

edit count | edit summary usage


Archives
4;white-space:nowrap;

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
[REDACTED] This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Bibcode

Hello, Rjwilmsi. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Hi. I am Jivesh. I wanted to know if you run CiteCompletion on articles on request? Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can do. Rjwilmsi 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please run it on

Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for having started. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will continue? Please. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's already run on the list above. A number of pages weren't changed. Rjwilmsi 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Date

I see your bot has been adding the date to a number of citation on articles such as here. The date it has added is the 19 April 2009, and the bot has added the same on a number of such pages, for the same type of BBC reference. I cannot figure out where the bot is getting that date from as that BBC page was created for the 2010 election, certainly not back in April 2009, unless I'm missing something? Davewild (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That BBC page's meta data says it has an original publication date of 19 April 2009. Tools -> Page Info shows it in Firefox. Rjwilmsi 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks anyway, just seemed odd. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Same with this edit . We do not put dates in with the first publication but with the most recent one. If we did not do this then books and articles would always be set to their first edition. Further in this case:

Whatever the meta data on the page says the date is before the invention of the WWW so it is not credible as the page is a web page and not a newspaper article. -- PBS (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is another serious problem with this type of edit. There was and is a year parameter in the citation which is now hidden by the date parameter, and although the short citation will still work, the year that appears on the short citation and the year in the general reference are now different which causes visual problems. There are other bots that go around removing this duplication and that will then break the short citations. So I think that this type of automated edit is a bad idea because the meta data is not necessarily accurate (for example did you look at the copyright on the page? It is set to 2007 which contradicts the meta data, and it is likely that the copyright notice is more accurate than the meta data) and it can have unforeseen consequences with short citaitons. -- PBS (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that's it's a (potential) problem if |year= and |date= are in contradiction, so I'll add validation to not set a |date= if it contradicts an existing |year=. In the case of a web page put online to cover a story originally published on TV, I suppose we would ideally split to |origyear= and |date=, though we'd then need to use {{citation}} to have the extra field available. Rjwilmsi 07:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

One Half Million Edits
You have reach the milestone of one half million edits or numerically 500,000 individual contributions to Misplaced Pages. Congratulations. Mkdw 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Can you please run CiteCompletion on Heat? Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do it. Jivesh 1205 (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I ran it, there were no changes. Rjwilmsi 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Jivesh 1205 (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

I added big chunk of information to the List of best-selling music artists immediately after which the entire section of references disappeared. I changed the previous ((Reflist|2)) to ((Reflist|30em)), but that didn't seem to help the refs to re-appear. Since you were at that page not long ago, could you please re-visit and see if you could fix the problem that I may have created. Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a limit to the number of templates that can be used on a page. If that page is now up to ~500 cite webs it will be too many. Rjwilmsi 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know that it was limited to 500. I reduced the number of citations, now the ref. section has re-appeared. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Rjwilmsi: Difference between revisions Add topic