Skullcinema

Welcome!

Hello, Skullcinema, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ref anchors

Please help me with understanding the different types of anchors referenced in Wikipedia:Citation_templates_and_reference_anchors#Types_of_anchors, specifically the Reference- anchor. Thanks, Skullcinema (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify what exactly you are interested in? These types are different ways how the various citation templates name the anchors they create; the page explains which citation template creates which type(s) of anchor. For example, when you set the |id= parameter in the {{wikicite}} template, you get a "Reference- custom anchor" - that is, an anchor named "Reference-Whatever_you_set_as_id_parameter". If you instead use the |reference= parameter in the same template, you get a "plain custom anchor", that is, an anchor named "Whatever_you_set_as_reference_parameter", without the "Reference-" prefix. I hope that clears things up. Huon (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite OED template ref tag

Let's define two references, the first using the Cite OED template, which should use {{harvid}} to set a ref tag |ref=Reference-OED-term,

"ref": {
        "label": "ref",
        "description": "Anchor ID",
        "example": "OEDacronym",
        "default": "{{harvid|Reference-OED-{{{term|{{{1|}}}}}}",
        "type": "string"
         }

The second will be defined using the Cite book template. The {{Cite_book}} template does not automatically include the ref tag

"ref": {
        "label": "Ref",
        "description": "An anchor identifier; can be made the target of wikilinks to full references; special value 'harv'
         generates an anchor suitable for the harv and sfn templates",
        "type": "string"
        }

So will set ref=harv. This defines an anchor CITEREFauthordate, or CITEREFElk1972 in this case.

Blah, blah, blah.

{{Cite OED|nonsense}}

More blah, blah, blah.

{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=[[Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses]] |date=November 16, 1972}}.

So far so good, both references are present in the References section at the bottom of the page.

CITEREF

Now let's try using the OED anchor #CITEREFReference-OED-nonsense generated by the Cite OED template to link to the citation in the Reference section.

And now let's try using the ref anchor #CITEREFElk1972generated by the Cite book template to do the same.

Result: Both links are working.

Reference- anchors

Let's set up another couple of references using the shortened footnotes style (the references are at the bottom of this page).

Blah, blah, blah.

{{Cite OED|tripe}}

More blah, blah, blah.

{{{cite book |ref=Mouse |last=Mouse |first=Albert |title=Albert Mouse's Theory on Nematodes |date=November 16, 1972}}

Again, both references are present in the References section at the bottom of the page and selecting them follows the link down to the reference list.

Now let's try using the anchor #Reference-OED-tripegenerated by the Cite OED template to link to the full citation in the Reference section.

And now let's try using the anchor #Mouse defined using the Cite book template to do the same. Only the Cite book anchor works (move the reference section off the bottom of the page if nothing happens and the page should jump down to the reference).

Result: Cite book links work, Cite OED links do not.

Forcing the Cite OED template by adding the term ref=Reference-OED-tripe to give {{Cite OED|tripe |ref-Reference-OED-tripe}} corrects the functionality.

Conclusion: ?CITEREF functionality is preserved from Cite book template but Ref functionality is broken in Cite OED template.

References

Mouse, Albert (November 16, 1972). Albert Mouse's Theory on Nematodes.

"tripe". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Example showing ref working happily

• {{sfn|Reference-OED-row}}
• {{sfn|Hi}}
• <ref>{{cite OED|hello|ref=CITEREFxxx}}</ref>
• {{sfn|xxx}}

References

• {{cite OED|row}}"row". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
• {{cite OED|hello|ref={{harvid|Hi}}}}"hello". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Note: Don't try to use ref=harf, it's not documented and doesn't work. Use the default instead.

HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cite patent fixes

Hi Skullcinema

Thanks for working to fix those cite patents which are now broken because the template no longer supports the |class= parameter. I'm not sure why this doesn't currently work, since Template:Cite patent still implies it should and all the ones I added (in chemistry articles) were perfectly fine when I did them. Anyway, the classification of patents is not very important IMO, so perhaps best to remove them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your work on patent templates. In this edit], can you explain the reason for removing the archive parameters? I'm puzzled. HLHJ (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

From looking at the edit probably because the parameters aren't part of {{cite patent}} so won't be displayed, thus the page would have been flagged as containing errors. HTH HLHJ Skullcinema (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Trademarks

Hi, Concerning Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage Lighting Company.

Trademarks are not patents but they are not web sites either.

All of the "Unknown parameters" reported by the {{cite web}} templates are supported by the {{cite patent}} template. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |inventor-last= ignored (help) {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |inventor-first= ignored (help); {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |fdate= ignored (help) {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |description= ignored (help); {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |country= ignored (help);

The cites can probably be changed to avoid the errors. I have made my attempt. User-duck (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Re: Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage Lighting Company

Just because I dress a gorilla in a tutu and points doesn't make it a ballerina, which is what the original editor appears to have done in template form. The reference having the appearance of a {{cite patent}} reference but not actually doing anything of the sort.

There was, however, a web link, from which whomever was watching that article (nobody it appears) could start from to create a {{cite web}} reference. I did ask on the article's talk page for a subject expert to do just that, but there has been no response.

In the intervening time I have thought of another way to handle this (here). Hope this helps. Skullcinema (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Brief note

Regarding my edit summary, I should have said 'unless you have a policy/guideline/MOS saying that's wrong, I'm going to stick to that practice'. Apologies for the need for a talk page comment due to my clumsy edit-summary. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Self-reverted. WP:REPEATLINK mentions that citations are excepted from this rule. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, unlike some editors I don't treat a reversion as a personal offence, but as an invitation to have a conversation :-)

I wasn't even aware that there was WP on this (who has the time/inclination to read it all anyway) I was just going from standard practice. Sometimes I find the lack of repeated links a hindrance in using Wikipedia as, when using it as a reference source, I might only want to read one section of a long article (e.g. Pyramid of Sahure) and having to scroll back up to try and locate the first link can be a bit of a pain. Skullcinema (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Anna Bilińska

Thanks for the edits--the Legacy section reads more smoothly. Looks great! Would you be adverse to having a look at a couple of the articles I've been working on? Dorothy Carleton Smyth, Paula Modersohn-Becker, and May Howard Jackson? (these are the most related to the Bilińska topic, and all are quite fascinating artists, who died 'catastrophically' young)

On another note, what is your opinion of the article from the Adam Mickiewicz Institute? There is A LOT more biographical detail in that piece. It was already being used when I started looking at this piece, so--I used it a bit more. I like the piece, and it is written in a way that welcomes the Wikipedia approach (details in carefully written sentences so it is easy to extract the (apparent) facts an reorganize them in a way appropriate to the Wikipedia guidelines), but after a point I lost my nerve about bringing "more" detail over.

I appreciate very much the formatting work as well as the actual edits. When I'm not following form--mostly it's because I haven't figured it out yet.

Again, thanks. Sicklemoon (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, editing the FA/FI articles is a gymnasium activity for me and C19th School of Realism painters is quite a long way from my limited pool of expertise. Mostly this restricts me to reference checking, wiki-linking and a bit of light copyediting, so I am not sure that my input would be especially constructive.

I did find Anna Bilińska's life story quite compelling however (material for a good biopic I'm sure), so more biographical detail would certainly improve the article in my opinion. As ever though the old academic saw that 'copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from two is research' holds and unfortunately the Adam Mickiewicz Institute article is devoid of references. When I have worked on other deceased persons' pages their obituaries have often provided a useful source of information. Also I'm sure there must be some scholarly material out there but the method of finding it is outwith my abilities, as abovementioned.

Skullcinema (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverted Cite patent change

Hi. I reverted your edit on Volkswagen Tiguan because it appears the cite patent template is generating invalid EPO links for US design patents. I'm not familiar with template maintenance to diagnose, but let me know if I can help fix. Best, IPBilly (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the link and it works fine for me. Can you try it again and come back to me if it doesn't work for you please? Skullcinema (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the URL that Espace redirects me to when I follow the link from the ref. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=D647821&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP IPBilly (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That link works. Espace forwards it to https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/044839915/publication/USD647821S?q=pn%3DUSD647821 Skullcinema (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering are you viewing the article directly or through some sort of viewer/tool? Skullcinema (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Regular firefox viewing the article directly. IPBilly (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm using IE but that really shouldn't make any difference. I'll download Firefox and check. Un moment. Skullcinema (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope works fine for me in Firefox as well. Skullcinema (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just in case it is an issue with design patent searches can you try the patent ref #5 link on the linked page and see if you get the same error? Skullcinema (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That link works. However, notably, it goes to the _old_ espace interface and does not redirect to the _new_ espace search interface (like the link that you posted). IPBilly (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The template can't be doing that, my understanding is the it just take the country and number fields, concatenates them and slots them into a standard url query for the EPO search engine. Skullcinema (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The template creates a link to the url query for the old search interface, and loads a page from that old interface. The link you posted above, which you said espace is forwarding to, is the new interface. IPBilly (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I do not get the redirect in any of Chrome/Edge/FF and Espace returns "An error has occurred". The link you posted does work though.

Also tried on iOS with a different network and it does the same. IPBilly (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the EPO IP filtering you? From their Fair Use Charter EPO will block access to 'robots'. Skullcinema (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, the site otherwise works fine. (and I got the same result when testing via a device on a different network). IPBilly (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to update the template to natively take advantage of the new espace search? The template is creating this URL: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=USD647821 and from the search box from the new espace interface it creates this URL: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=USD647821 IPBilly (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see why not. But A) it is currently well beyond my abilities and B) we would need a template editor or an administrator to carry out the changes as the template is locked due to it being used on 4,800 pages. All we can do is put a request onto the Cite patent talk page I guess. Skullcinema (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Same. I Guess we'll see what happens. Happy editing. IPBilly (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)