I'm trying to properly format the citations in Forest 404 and noticed that two of the sources appear to be syndicated content from Press Association. Specifically, this source in the Irish Indepenent and this source in The Independent. How should I format the citations? At the moment I have Press Association listed as the publisher, but I don't think that's quite right. Is this a scenario where I'd use the "via=" parameter? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

For the Irish Independent use: |agency=[[Press Association]]. Not obvious that The Independent sourced their article from Press Association so omit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please take a look at the Aesthetic Realism Talk page and the auto-archiving that is set up? It is supposed to archive after 14 days of inactivity with a thread of 4 or more posts. It doesn't seem to be working. Can you look at the code and see there is something that can be fixed to run the auto-archive? Thank you, Lore E. Mariano (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@LoreMariano: The bot does not care about the number of posts in each talk page section; the code minthreadsleft = 4 tells the bot to leave four sections on the page. Currently there is only one section at Talk:Aesthetic Realism. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @John of Reading. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@John of Reading Is it possible to set the auto-archive by date stamp instead of number of threads--e.g., once a month? Lore E. Mariano (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@LoreMariano: If you want the bot to archive any section once the discussion has died down, set minthreadsleft = 0. Then the bot will be free to leave the page empty. There's no option to have the bot look at the page only once a month. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@John of Reading Great. Thanks. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@John of Reading Sorry, but the code is still not working, even though I changed minthreadsleft = 0. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If a source cited by a user is listed in Oxford Bibliographies, does that guarantee its reliability, regardless of being published by a non-academic press? Hu741f4 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the name Oxford Bibliographies, Hu741f4. Just what is the publisher? -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please check this out, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sambhaji?markasread=334700739&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Akshaypatill-20250227044100-Hu741f4-20250227041200 Hu741f4 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Hu741f4, I am not going to read that wall of text. It turns out that Wikipedia has an article Oxford Bibliographies Online. This lacks any obvious warning signs ("Edwin Mellen Press", "lulu.com", etc). This does not mean that you can't have legitimate concerns. You're welcome to ask about "Oxford Bibliographies", but the place to do so is WP:RSN. Be sure to specify what claim it is that "Oxford Bibliographies" is being used to support. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussions seems to be about using a book, Gajanan Mehendale's Shivaji: His Life and Times, which is included in Oxford Bibliographies, so any RSN discussion should be about that book not Oxford Bibliographies. TSventon (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please fix up the references - 12, 13 and 14 - they are all the same citation so shouldn't they all be linked in some way? - I cannot do this - sorry. Thank you in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Choose a name for the reference, Srbernadette. I'll call it "ECW". Choose any one of the three instances. In this one, change <ref> to <ref name="ECW"> (and note that there is no "/" in this); for each of the others, change <ref>[various details]</ref> to the much shorter <ref name="ECW" /> (and note that there is a "/" in this). If this poses a difficulty, then please say precisely what the difficulty is. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE!! I replaced ref number 13 (which is identical to number 12) with what you suggested - but it didn't work. Could you please check - sorry again. (Just to help you again - citations 12, 13 and 14 are all the same refs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs)

Srbernadette, I see that Jessicapierce has cleared up the mess. That's kind of her, but not so educational. It seems that you logged out, and while logged out, made this edit. But what I'd invited you to do was both (i) to change any one of the three instances of <ref>{{cite web |title=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |url=https://www.emmanuel.vic.edu.au/ |publisher=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |access-date=28 February 2025}}</ref> to <ref name="ECW">{{cite web |title=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |url=https://www.emmanuel.vic.edu.au/ |publisher=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |access-date=28 February 2025}}</ref> and (ii) to change each of the other two to <ref name="ECW" />. (Within that, the choice of "ECW" was pretty arbitrary.) You got (i) wrong (perhaps I'd described it poorly), and you didn't attempt (ii). Little wonder that you got an error message. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary and Srbernadette: In future you might try using the ReFill tool for this kind of thing, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, it's not the fault of ReFill that so many people using it don't bother to read or anyway to act on the clear instruction to check the accuracy of its results and, where appropriate, to correct these. But anyway they don't act on it. Which of course isn't to deny that many people do act on it. That aside, it's not clear to me how ReFill would have helped here. Srbernadette just needed to digest this about the reuse of references. (And perhaps still needs to do so. Srbernadette, please feel free to ask here about anything that isn't clear.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

In Natural language, when you scroll down below References, there is a text box "Authority control databases". Next to that box there is a link saying "Czech Republic" and opening to a database. What is this link? Should it be there, and if no, how to remove it? Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lova Falk, that is a link to a unique identifier for that article on a Czech library system. This is explained a lot better than I can at Help:Authority control. Ultraodan (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Ultraodan! Lova Falk (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

On Type 072 landing ship i used a source from news.qq, which would normally constitute as WP:BLOGS, however it is published by the official PLAN account. If i remember correctly, last time I asked a similar question the answer was that as long as the publisher is reliable then it can be used, but I will ask just to make sure Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thehistorianisaac, questions about the reliability (or not) of sources are better asked at WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The information in the article and the links supporting it are outdated and untrue. The situation has changed. I want to add information that is relevant today in order to make Tamaz Somkhishvili’s article objective.

The article is under protection. I want to add additional information so that the article becomes relevant and objective. I found many links in the media space that will help make the article objective.

Here is an example of a link that gives current information about Tamaz Somkhishvili as of today.

James Wilson (2025-01-23) «Seeking Justice for Investors» https://eupoliticalreport.com/seeking-justice-for-investors/ Армен Меликян (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is protected, but the talk-page of said article isn't. Please use an edit request there. Lectonar (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the page. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've just suggested in the talk page certain amends to this page: Martin Green (musician) and outlined my connection with the person in question, I just wanted to check I'm suggesting amends correctly - absolutely great if I am and if it's just a matter of time for someone to check them then that's great. I've read a lot of the articles now and I think I'm doing it correctly. It's just to get a sense of what happens next. Thanks again, @Martinproduces Martinproduces (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Martinproduces. Thank you for being open about your COI. The most obvious problem was that you had nowiki tags round your {{edit COI/significant}} template, so that it did not get expanded, and - crucially - did not get added to the list of COI edits awaiting attention. I've corrected that. (I don't know how this happened - I suspect it's something the Visual editor does, but I've never used that). I haven't looked at the content of your suggestion - I know that generally we recommend splitting requests into smaller, independent sections, so that some can be accepted even if others aren't; but I don't know how that works with /significant. ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that will have definitely been my mistake for not being input properly, apologies for that, still getting my head around this. If it's better for me to just edit each section then I'm really happy to do so also - it's just so much of it isn't accurate/missing information I thought it might be easier to start from the beginning. But I'll await further feedback. Thanks again! Really appreciate it. Martinproduces (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)