Talk:Nebojša Glogovac

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nebojsa-glogovac-02.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

sfn "multiple target" errors

@Mikeblas, your recent edit added two Њежић (2019) sources, with the result that the short footnote missing source errors turned into multiple target errors. If you understand Serbian, could you check which source is meant for each of the ambiguous references and disambiguate them, following the instructions here? Many thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak Serbian. And the same issue exists in the Serbian version of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. Probably still better to have the sources in the article than not. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs. This article also contains unreliable sources. Vacant0 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0 Which ones ? Please, advise Боки ^{Talk page ↔️ Contributions} 09:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ref 16 is a Facebook source, Ref 27 does not look reliable, Ref 28 redirects to a dead URL, Ref 32 seems to be a news aggregator (replace the ref with the original source), Ref 36 and 39 are WP:PRIMARY, Ref 41 redirects to a dead URL, Ref 42 is same as Ref 32, Ref 43 does not verify anything, Ref 44 does not have an author (Laguna is also a publisher, not a news website), Ref 46 needs to be replaced. Vacant0 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vacant0

1. Ref 16 is a picture where you can clearly see it's him with his class at the university
2. Ref 27 has his name on it confirming he is a member. I don't think I need to translate this to you since I know you are also member of Serbian Wikipedia.
3. Ref 28, 32 - fixed
4. I dont understand what are you referring to with ref 36 and 39
5. Ref 41's archived version points to the text that states the following "Акцију су подржали Светислав Гонцић, Вања Милачић, Рада Ђуричин, Вјера Мујовић, Небојша Глоговац" (same as ref 27 - dont think I need to translate)
6. Ref 42 - fixed
7. Ref 43 - removed
8. Ref 44 - Author is Rajko Grlic (https://www.laguna.rs/n4023_knjiga_neispricane_price_laguna.html)
9. Ref 46 - which way does it need to be replaced ?

Боки ^{Talk page ↔️ Contributions} 23:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

More sfn errors

There are at least eight orphan sfn errors, with short citations that point to nothing in the bibliography, #51 and #52 for example. You can visualize them by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Боки, are you still interested in this? Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot Interested in what ? Editing this article ? If that's what you were curious about, yes I am still interested. Боки ✉ 21:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Боки:, No, it's not about editing, it's about fixing referencing errors which you may be the best person for it. What I meant was, the article has a particular type of citation problem, which is *not* about syntax errors or anything like that, but missing information, namely: we have {{sfn}} that seem to name a source, but that source does not exist in the § Bibliography. If the problem were just bad parameters, invalid syntax, or something like that, I (or anybody familiar with citation templates) could fix it, but that's not the case here. This kind of problem needs someone with knowledge of Serbian and who might recognize the missing source and be able to create a citation for it in the Bibliography, or else who would know how to search for it, and recognize it when they found it. I'm very ill-suited to do that for Serbian biographies, and I thought you would be very well-suited to that kind of task, and could help out here.

For example, if you look at section § Family of the article, you will find footnotes [51] ({{sfn|Ђуричић|2021}}) after the words: "...his family migrated to Herzegovina via Montenegro"), and [52] ({{sfn|Ђуричић|2021}}, after the words: "...he married Milena, Nebojša's mother"). If you click footnote [51], it will jump to the References section, where you will see short citation "51. ^ ^a b Ђуричић 2021, pp. 7", and if you click Ђуричић 2021, it should jump down to the Bibliography, and show the full citation, i.e., the author, title of the book, publisher, and so on; but it doesn't, because the full citation is missing. That is what needs to be fixed.

So the task here, is for someone to find the details of the full book citation, which very likely is in the original Serbian article from which this was translated. Unless they forgot to add it there, and then it needs someone who can search around on Google books to find it, and again, you are better placed than me to do that. Once you find the citation in Serbian, or the book in Google, just recreate the {{cite book}} tag, in English, add it to the Bibliography section, and then the {{sfn}} should link to it properly.

Same idea, for footnote [52], and there are six more orphan sfn's like that, which I can list for you, or you can see them on your own if you add the extremely helpful script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to your common.js. Are you up for doing this? The problem as the article stands now, is that significant sections of the article *appear* to be sourced, because they have superscript, bracketed notes like [51] and [52], but actually those are an illusion, because they don't lead anywhere; which could lead to all that content being removed from the article as un-verified, . Let me know if you can take on this referencing task, and if you need additional support on this. (I'm subscribed to this discussion, so you don't have to ping me.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly everything, this is a known issue and all I need to do is add this code to my common.js page ?

Please, advise

Боки ✉ 23:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Боки:, Yes, you could say it's a known issue, but not a "known issue" in the sense of a software bug that isn't fixed, but rather, it's a "known way that users get confused and forget to include a full citation". Put in other words, it is a clever script that knows how to detect these common user errors, and will add warning messages to the article to point them out, so they can be fixed, because otherwise, they are hidden verifiability problems, because article content that appears to be sourced, actually is not sourced. (After installation, you can change the style of the messages if you don't like the colors and so on; I have restyled mine, so that the messages have a border around them to make them stand out even more, so I never miss them, now.) If you install the script and reload the article, you will be able to see the eight {{sfn}}s in this article that are orphans. Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you, please, point me then in the right direction as to where do I go to find a proper way to cite sfns ?

Also, could you, please, look into the issues that were posted for me on this article and see what can be fixed ?

Боки ✉ 23:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Боки:, By, "issues posted for me", are you talking about section [[#sfn "multiple target" errors|]] above? As for sfn's, they live in the body of the article, and exist in a many-to-one relationship with full citations found in the bottom matter of the page (section "Bibliography", or "Works cited", or "References"). Every in-line {{sfn}} must have exactly one associated full citation template (could be {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} or any of the other "cite" templates) in the "Works cited", but a full citation template may have one to infinity {{sfn}}s pointing to it. If a full citation template has zero {{sfn}}s, that's not serious; it just means you have cited a book in the "Works cited" section, that nothing in the article needs for verification; in effect, it's like a suggestion for "Further reading", and the unlinked citation should ideally be moved to "Further reading", but it's no big deal if it isn't. On the other hand, if an {{sfn}} does not link to any citation, it's an error, because it means the article content right before the {{sfn}} is unsourced, and that's contrary to WP:Verifiability. Sometimes, an {{sfn}} appears to have two citations it points to (for example, if John Doe wrote two books in 2004 and both are in the article), but that's an error as the software can't tell which of the two books you meant; that's a "multiple target error" that needs resolution so that the sfn only points to one book. More details at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Short and full citations. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For "issues posted for me" I am referring to multiple issues template that has been posted at the top and I've been waiting for over a year now to get a response on what I need to do to fix this and to remove this template

For the rest, I will fix it tomorrow as it's WAY past my bed time and I am off to bed now.

Боки ✉ 00:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait, sleep? I didn't think that was allowed for Wikipedia editors. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Mathglot !

This has not been noticed by me at all for the past few months as I have been busy with my personal projects.

Can we both, please, relook into this matter for me as I would love to have this article (eventually) posted as Good article or something like that because it has a lot of potential and a lot of material ?

Thanks ahead for any assistance !

Боки ^{Write to me!} 17:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Боки, welcome back. I'm not sure what assistance you need, but before the article has a chance for Good Article status, you will have to fix the referencing, notably the sfn issues described above. All of these problems still exist, and you could start by rereading the discussion and fixing the sfn errors. Installing Trappist's script as explained above will make it easier to see the errors. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask. Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Mathglot I thought you forgot about me :)

Thanks again for reply and willingness to help and Happy New Year btw ! Wish you all the best in 2024.

Let me reread this through in details and then if I have any questions I shall reply back.

Боки ^{Write to me!} 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot

Issue has been fixed. The issue was the fact that for some of the references, the author's name was written in Serbian Cyrilic letters (Ђуричић instead of Đuričić) so it was an easy fix.

I have checked all of the references and if my eye sight is good (which I believe it is), everything should be fixed now.

Please, confirm when you get an opportunity.

Боки ^{Write to me!} 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Very good; you only missed one: short footnotes 70, 74, 78 all point to Nježić (2019), which is missing in the bibliography. In addition, in section Bibliography, the middle item (Nježić & Šukuljević-Marković (2018)) has nothing pointing to it; that one should be moved to (new section) "Further reading", just above the "External links" section. (For proper section ordering, see MOS:ORDER.) All of these errors (as well as the ones you fixed earlier) would be visible if you install Trappist's script, and you wouldn't need to wait for my answers, because it would identify the issues for you. Mathglot (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I just installed the script and it seems to be working. I will go over all of these tomorrow and then I will keep expanding the article. Once I finish the whole article, we can look into the whole structure and order of the sections because those are WAY different for every language.

Thanks again for your help. I'll be bugging you in the near future, that's for sure :)

Боки ^{Write to me!} 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Section names and order

This kind of follows the last bit of the section above, but it deserves its own discussion. Sections are a lot easier to move around when they are small, so I'd recommend you do some of that now, before expansion. The first thing that jumps out at me, is section 1, "Biography". The whole article is a biography, so you can't really have a section called that. Something like, "Personal life", "Early life", "Childhood and early education", are common in articles, or just have a look at other biographies, and see how they do it. This disambig page ⟶ Bronte lists all three Brontë sisters (Anne, Charlotte, and Emily) and you can click through and see the slightly different treatment at each one; or just look at biographies of anyone you're interested in. The current biography section is too long (as is normal for a too-broad section heading) and contains information about birth, early life, education, and career; that's too much. I'd break it into several sections. Maybe the current "Family" section could become a subsection of it. I would change the title of "Acting career" to "Career", because it gives the impression he had some other career (professor? military? politics?) and if so, then "Actor" (or "Acting") could be one subsection of "Career", and if not, that will become clear in the section, and is already mentioned in the lead paragraph. The "Selected filmography" could use an introductory paragraph (selected how?) and the section is unreferenced. Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot

Thank you very much for your dedication and assistance in this matter. I fully agree with you when it comes to breaking it down. I will definitely take that into consideration when it comes to "applying" for good article. My first goal is to get all of the content translated from Serbian article to English and removing all the referencing issues that you have appoint for me. Afterwards, moving sections are around is easy (at least for me) when it comes to making this article look brilliant vs. average.

Thank you again for your assistance and we will be in touch.

Боки ^{Write to me!} 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot

I have changed headings for the first part of the article. Would you mind checking them for me and provide me with the feedback on it, please ? Боки ^{Write to me!} 20:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Боки, that's starting to look better. A couple of things about section headers:

• use sentence case, that is, capitalize the first word, not the others. So, "Early life and education" (not "Education"); same for all the other ones.
• some subsections seem to be under the wrong major section, such as "1.2 Acting Career and Artistic Contributions" under "1. Early life and Education"; same with 1.6 Teaching career. Or 2.1 "Early Life and Family Dynamics" which is under 2 "Family Background and Ancestry" even though section 1 "Early life and Education" and it seems like it should go there, instead.

That's one of the good things about adding subsection headers as you did, as it points out where the content may need to be reorganized into a more logical order. I'm curious about the subsections under "Acting career"; how did you decide on 1987–2000, and 2001–2010; is there some logical division there, by theme, or where he was living, or the type of acting he was doing, or was it arbitrary to match the end of the century? If the latter, I think it's okay to do that, rather than have one, very long section, but if there is a logical or thematic breakdown that fits naturally, even if the years are not round numbers, that might make a better subdivision of his career in acting. Just my two cents. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Before anything, thanks for your "two cents" when it comes to advices.

I will change headings as we speak. I am used to writing them in SEO format as I do SEO for living :))

I will edit all the headings once everything is finalized and translated just so I am not going back and forth and putting things all over the place.

In regards to your question for the acting years, yes, it is based on 20th vs 21st century. Serbian Wikipedia did the same thing so I have just put them the same way on English Wikipedia.

Greetings, Боки ^{Write to me!} 15:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)