User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2024/May

Silent Hill (film)

Hi, my work on the page was left unfinished because I was discouraged by another editor, so it has been like that for some time. Maybe one day I'll finish it. Take care. ภץאคгöร 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (Simeon Woods Road)

Hello,

Thank you very much for your help fixing that undefined citation in the Simeon Woods Road article. I apologize for my technical confusion. I wish the visual editor did a better job when it comes to recognizing when using the same source for a template and the prose. I really appreciated your assistance!

Thanks again.

--Infrastorian (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. It's sad that referencing has become so complex and confusing. While the Visual Editor helps, it certainly has limitations and bugs. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Ref fixes at Diving weighting system

Hi Mikeblas, The fixes that you reverted at Diving weighting system were the removal of links that led to a usurped site, now a gambling site, from sources that are available in printed form as journal articles, so the basic references remain valid. The archived links are to the abstracts, the inks to the actual documents from the archived abstract go to the gambling site. If you have a better suggestion for a fix than removing the no longer useful original links and archived links, please let me know, because there are hundreds of them on Wikipedia tha need to be examined and where possible fixed in some way, as we do not need stealth spamlinks. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! Isn't the fix to use archive-url with a copy of the original page, and mark the reference url-status=usurped? The documentation for {{cite journal}} says that usurped "selects |archive-url=; used when the domain in |url= no longer serves its original intent, particularly when the domain has been (mis)appropriated by other entities, such as vice, reseller and advertising sites; links to |url= are suppressed in the rendering." That seems like exactly what we want. Completely removing both URLs, as I reverted, removed the viable archive references which are a significant aid for verifiability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, That would be fine if the archived page was the actual document, but in these cases the archived documents are just the abstracts, the other information in a journal reference, like title, journal, author details, date, volume etc, which are still in the CS1 template, and a link to the original url where the original archived document was stored, which is now a link to the usurped domain – a gambling site. Keeping those links basically achieves the goal of the usurpers, in taking our readers to their spam site, and does not actually allow verification. The original repository system was vulnerable to this in an unusual and unforeseen way, and our editors, myself included, did not understand this vulnerability, and the system we had to backup to web-archives was not set up to check that the url was to another link before it reached the actual document. Fortunately the actual documents are adequately identified so that a general web search should still find them if they are on the web, and will still correctly identify the original paper sources, so the references are still valid without the url. I have sometimes been able to find alternative internet copies, but that is not always possible, as many are pre-internet. Have you actually tested the links you replaced, to see where they go if you try to get to the actual referenced document? Please do that, as I think it will be more persuasive than anything I can say. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to provide a better URL than the archived copy of the article abstract. Maybe someone else more familiar with the subject matter and the searchable journals can do so. What is "the original repository system"? Meanwhile, with url-status=usurped there are no links to gambling sites. The overtaken link is not displayed when the article is rendered, and only the archive link is visible in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I will try to explain this differently, as it seems I am not communicating the situation adequately.

Consider a reader who wants to verify a statement referenced to the source Caruso, James L.; Uguccioni, Donna M.; Ellis, Julie E.; Dovenbarger, Joel A; Bennett, Peter B. (2004). "Do divers in trouble drop their weight belts or integrated weights? A look at the ditching of weights in fatal recreational diving accidents". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. Archived from the original on July 5, 2013. Retrieved 9 April 2013.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link). The source is a printed journal, sufficiently identified by title, auyhors, date, journal, volume, issue and page numbers in a CS1 template. That alone is sufficient for a featured article. It also has a url to the original repository, Rubicon Research Repository, which was a useful link when the repository existed. At some stage after the reference was added to Wikipedia, a well-meaning editor archived the link. Unfortunately the link that was archived was a page in the repository with the abstract, and linked to the actual journal article copy, which was stored elsewhere in the Rubicon Research Repository, not to the article itself, so it is inadequate to verify the content. However the reference remains valid, as it identifies the source, and the source still exists in various reference libraries as printed journals.

If I now try to access the source through the CS1 template link, I open the archive page which only contains the archived abstract, not the full journal article which supports the Wikipedia content. This archived page also has a link, url= http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/1538, which claims to access the journal article, but it does not. It opens the spam page on the usurped site which is now https://lalaipeta.com/, a site notorious for buying up defunct websites and using them to redirect to this online gambling site. Direct links to this site would and should be expunged from Wikipedia on sight, and blacklisted. I feel that an indirect link is also undesirable, so I remove them where I find them, and ensure that the remaining reference is free of indirect spam links, but still a valid reference for our purposes. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I thought you were somehow still seeing the link to "the original" usurped site, even though the template had its url-status=usurped parameter. (Your edit summary just said "ref fixes", nothing more ... and your explanation here said that your changes were the removal of links that led to an usurped site.) Instead, your objection is linking to a page that links to the usurped site. Do I have it right? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems correct. The two stage link to a spam site, and the fact that the direct link is not to the actual cited material, making it likely that the reader will click on the link to the usurped site. It is not an easy thing to describe in an edit summary, hence the misunderstanding. If you can suggest an edit summary that would make it clear, I will use it in future. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, why not just say it? "ref fixes" doesn't make it clear what was fixed when you've just deleted some links. Maybe something like "remove links to archive site with abstract that still links directly to usurped content". I'm still not positive it's necessary to remove these links because most people know that the archive sites are best effort and often don't correctly support secondary links. I'm told we're always only a few clicks away from undesirable content, and I can't imagine policing all external links for subsequent links to undesirable content. (And also: what's "undesirable"? What if my awesome website with great info is sponsored by a gambling company?)

Just the same, I took a deeper look. I think another issue that confused me is that the archived version of "RRR6232" doesn't link to any dubious content, so it doesn't need to be changed at all. (Right? Maybe I didn't check every link and missed one.) I've edited "RRR1538" and "RRR7763" and "so that it links to the Wayback Machine, which produces the same abstract but the links within the abstract don't go to the gambling site.

I'm hopeful this is an adequate resolution. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, those are no worse than dead links, and we have lots of those, so an acceptable resolution. Your suggested edit summary also looks like it may work. I will save it for future reference. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm glad we could find an agreeable way to fix it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe someone else more familiar with the subject matter and the searchable journals can do so. I am probably the Wikipedian with the most familiarity with the subject matter and relevant journals. I do try to find alternative urls where it is reasonably practicable and useful, but do not always have the time to invest in what is technically unnecessary work. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Journalish

The article The Journalish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of TheJournalish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TheJournalish is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheJournalish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It was like that when I got here

That referencing error at Northwest Forest Plan, I mean. There was another just like it, which I fixed. Didn't see the second one, so I'm slightly sorry (and thankful) you had to clean up after me, but these were someone else's typos (to be clear). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! Before your edits at this version, there were no referencing errors. After your edits, the article had an undefined reference error for "Building on Two Decades of Ecosystem" and was placed in the Category:Pages with broken reference names tracking category. Indeed, the article used "Ecosyste" with no em at the end in its spelling of the reference name. But that's not a referencing error -- it's jarring for human beans who want to read the text, but the article rendered without error. While you corrected the typo in the invocation of the named reference, you didn't correct the typo in the definition of the named reference, and that's what caused the error. Hope that helps, and thanks for double-checking my fix! :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Florida Power & Light request

Hi Mikeblas, about a week ago you pointed out a ref error on Florida Power & Light, related to an edit request I'd made of the article, and we were able to get that fixed together. I was curious if you'd be interested in reviewing my most recent request. I'd really appreciate it. If not, I also totally understand that. Cheers FPL Daniel (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)