User talk:Srich32977: Difference between revisions

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 60 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hello. Regarding your recent change to the short description of Carrington Event, I think that the clarification is redundant. Geomagnetic storms are all caused by solar phenomena, so adding "solar" before "geomagnetic storm" in the short description seems unnatural to me. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A great enjoyment of Wikipedia is the constant, educational, and sometimes irksome feedback we get from fellow WP editors. CoronaMassAffliction, your comment is greatly appreciated! – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see you've been quite active in some things related to the above mentioned pages. I'm pinging you @Srich32977: directly to ask for some help. I've started 3 initiatives for these pages. If you could spare some time in the near future, could you please take a look at the proposal and voice your opinion? Of course, if you have interest, time, and energy to participate that would be amazing!

Here are the projects:

1. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article — this initiative is already in progress. The idea is to raise the quality of the page by switching it from a mere historical account to a more encyclopedic format.

2. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page — related to the one above. The historical account is overly detailed. It would be much better to have a dedicated page for the history of philosophical pessimism and leave only a brief history in the main page.

3. Talk:Antinatalism#A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry — here, the idea is to extract the axiological asymmetry argument into a dedicated page. This way, a more detailed presentation could be given. In addition, we could expand on the various responses others philosophers made and counters from Benatar. Other pages could have a brief description and link to the details page.

I hope at least some of this will spark your interest!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantastiera (talk • contribs) 14:11, September 6, 2023

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kidnapping, 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) 07:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page In Our Time (radio series), 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) 07:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Herald Sun, 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) 00:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these edits seem malformed. Please don't remove information/parameters from citations that are still in the pages. It's not useful. If there is an archive.org copy nothing at all need be done to the citation templates. If you want to remove dead links because there is no archive.org copy, just remove the whole citation and replace it with an appropriate template (e.g. {{cn}}). Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to do or why you are doing it. Removing the "via" does nothing useful at all. The whole ref is still there just without that piece of information. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your comment. I'm sorry that I don't get your point. If the on-line source (e.g. Highbeam) is not available to the reader, how does one WP:Verify it by mentioning Highbeam? Take for example my recent edit to Red Schoendienst. The original source (St. Louis Post Dispatch) ran a story. We have the publisher and title. But the dead High Beam link does not post any real info about the story. So how does a mention of the dead/defunct Highbeam link assist the reader? Adding or including an old "via" mention does not help. It's like saying "drive to Lost Vegas, Nevada via Route 99", when the main bridge on Route 99 was washed out and never replaced. In any event, @DIYeditor: please feel free to revert my problematic edits. And please revert or let me know about my errors! Happy editing, – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining.

To me, it's that the core URL in the citation may still point to the now missing HighBeam copy, so I'm not sure it makes sense to remove any information pertaining to that as long as that URL exists. If we have an archive.org copy of a highbeam.com copy of a work, the "archive" portion is covered by that being a separate field in the template, but the "highbeam" URL still stands as the original URL, unless we can find a better copy somewhere.

It'd arguably seem better to have the citations entirely repaired, with HighBeam removed as the URL and all mention of HighBeam removed, the publisher field set to the actual publisher, and the archive.org copy of HighBeam set as the URL. I don't see the point of removing some of the HighBeam information. Additionally, HighBeam should never have been the "publisher" of any of its material from what I understand.

I think at least one of the examples I looked at left a field (parameter) entirely empty and that may generate errors. I'll take a closer look at all this when I have a moment. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just reverted your edit to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show), as the partial reference you left generated errors. GoingBatty (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Same issue: In this edit, you removed the url and archive-url, but the citation template is cite web which requires an url. These cite errors were created as a result of your edit. Please slow down and check your work and clean up these errors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO I think you should leave these HighBeam citations alone. I did a lot of bot work to get them consistent, and it's like you are undoing all that work I did years ago removing information. At least get consensus for it. I might see an argument for removing the subscription, but I could also see a counter-argument. I don't see a good argument for removing |via=, that remains true if it's a dead, archived or live link. We have 10s of thousands of dead domains and I've never seen anyone do what you are doing. -- GreenC 01:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your question above: If the on-line source (e.g. Highbeam) is not available to the reader, how does one WP:Verify it by mentioning Highbeam?. By looking for archive copies of the highbeam URL. Those links are not devoid of information, they contain the first few paragraphs, and sometimes additional metadata. They were kept for that reason. What if the archive URL already exists? That's good. But that is not guaranteed forever, archive providers go offline, or delete archives, requiring to find new archive providers. If you can verify the cited fact is not contained in the highbeam archive URL, and the citation has enough metadata to find the source elsewhere, then it might make sense to remove everything pertaining to HighBeam including the highbeam URL. This assumes other archive providers did not archive the entire article, which could be the case, like archive.today is often able to archive full articles at subscription sites because it maintains a login account to access that subscription site. -- GreenC 01:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: I think the best answer is at WP:Citing sources. We fulfill WP:V when we give the reader a citation that supports the content. In the case of HighBeam, we had a source that was an archive of sources. They pulled the plug on HighBeam, so -- in terms of urls -- we have the archives of the former archive. But WP:V comes from the original source. So I just edited Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. The WP:V comes from the Oakland Tribune story. The particular WP text includes the quote "direct geese away from the swim area" because of bacteria levels in the lake. But the dead HighBeam url and the archived Highbeam url do not include this quote. SO you are right -- we ought to remove the HighBeam urls. But that's a project that does not interest me. The basic information about the lake is in the Tribute story and the HighBeam links with its metadata verify the title, journal, author, and date. I've simply removed the "via HighBeam" to remove the implication that HighBeam is a reliable avenue to the actual source. Also, I'm removing the "subscription required" phrasing because there are no subscriptions. And when there is no archive url for the HighBeam url I remove mention of HighBeam altogether. Those non-archived urls have no metadata. This is all part of the joy of being a WikiGnome! – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed the "via HighBeam" to remove the implication that HighBeam is a reliable avenue to the actual source - Nowhere does the documentation say the purpose of via is to indicate the current ("reliable") avenue to a source, we don't track that information precisely. Rather it indicates the content deliverer (HighBeam) is/was different from the original publisher (Oakland Tribune). That's all it means. Check the template documentation which confirms. And this remains true even when the source is dead and archived. Otherwise we would be removing via from every dead link, and we don't do that. Please stop removing via until you have consensus because your removal is based on a special understanding of what via is useful for. -- GreenC 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowhere does the documentation say... ." Okay, what documentation are you referring to? The "cite magazine" and other citation templates allow us to post url-status params, but such params are invisible to the reader. (Accordingly, I simply leave the params in the templates.) Some of the citation templates had HighBeam as the "publisher", but that is not true -- HighBeam was a search engine and archive. (In those cases I've removed the "publisher" parameter.) Sometimes HighBeam was listed with a "subscription" notation -- but that parameter is no longer helpful to readers. Accordingly I've been removing them. BTW, overall this clean-up of HighBeam from citations has taken about a month. Roughly guessing, there were 5,000 or so citations. I'm down to about 2,000. If you want to post an RFC on these issues, please do so. But I doubt that you can define what particular clean-up guidance needs clarification. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for cite templates, at {{Cite web}}, there is a section on via. If you want to discuss it, see the talk page for that template, there is a large and active community there (it's a general page for all cite templates). No doubt you are doing good work in other parts of HighBeam but it's unclear if subscription and via should be removed when a website is dead. If that is the case, the best methods might include adding them to tracking categories, emitting warning and/or maintenance messages, and employing bots to do the removals, is a lot easier and faster. -- GreenC 02:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Interesting in that it refers to the "content deliverer" and to a deliverer which presents "the sources in a format different from the original,..." Okay, I submit that "via" works in 'present tense' or active url situations. But since HighBeam is dead, it is not "delivering" (present tense) any source material. Nor does "via" provide 'additional detail' because the archive-url status is visible to a reader when they click the url. These are quibbles about how to present verification information to readers. Again, I submit that WP:V is resolved when we cite the particular publication which supports the textual material. And when I remove some of the HighBeam stuff I am cleaning up clutter. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]