22 March 2025 From the editor: Hanami Opinion: Talking about governments editing Wikipedia News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far? Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players... Gallery: WikiPortraits rule! Essay: Unusual biographical images Obituary: Rest in peace Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

I see you edited on the Module talk page and I have a question about Harv errors. Is the "ref=none" code on a Harv error unused citation deprecated or something? It is listed at Template:Sfn without any disclaimers and I've always used that to retain a reference without deleting it from a bibliography or reference section. However, I've come across an edit where an editor removed the ref=none code and in their edit summary cited the article being in the "Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors". BUT there wasn't a Harv error sitting on the article when the ref=none was in the article and now there is a Harv warning on the article so I am puzzled... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: |ref=none supresses anchors. Since Abraham_Lincoln#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMeacham202238-71 wants that anchor, there was an error emitted. Removing |ref=none restored the missing anchor, and the error was thus suppressed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm slapping myself with a trout. The Lincoln article does attract a lot of editing and not everyone gets the sfn nomenclature, so I keep an eye on it and I misread the edit in question. Need more sleep or more coffee... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another wee 'harv' issue here which I've fixed - just flagging so you see it as I know you're fixing these Harv errors things all over the shop, really bad luck to have a surname Harvey in there to get caught up in a find and replace. Was delighted to see it was only a couple of days and not a couple of decades old too, unlike some other fixes I've made recently, anyways, no harm no foul, just wanted to flag it to you. Nick (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like AAB crashed midrun. So don't download and don't unzip and skip to project "WikiProject Big Brother". —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 11:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article alerts/Log says it had trouble with logins. I suppose earlier crash could have been related. Or may be servers were having issues today. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were login issues today. I've been logged out several times out of nowhere on this account. I don't know if this is related to the log entries though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headbomb
Not a big issue, but I don't like your merge of the journal there. It feels like you are implementing your vote, even though there was no consensus for it at the AfD discussion. I'm all for bold edits, but that seems a bit too bold. Nobody (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's one section, with two very short paragraphs. I don't see how it's remotely controversial to add that to the society article. It clearly is on topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also added the infobox and five primary references. If there's not even a reliable, secondary source mentioning it, it doesn't deserve more than a one or two sentence mention. You even wrote merge from, which makes it look like you would've merged it either way, regardless if the result was delete, redirect or merge. Nobody (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And? I think it belongs. Merging after deletion is nothing new. If you disagree, take it to the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't you basically circumventing the consensus formed by the Afd discussion that way? Nobody (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions are rarely consensus for anything wrt to merges. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I haven't messed enough with Afd to know all the ins and outs of what's the standard practice, but I assume you're right. Nobody (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what you had in mind here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, miscaps, it should be ': The' , not ': the'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we're going to need an article on it, given the coverage.[1] Oy. Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See WP:JWG and WP:JRES to help you write it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And prolly needs to go in WP:CITEWATCH? Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a Wikidata item for it, but I (obviously) don't find any indexing they claim on their website. Nobody (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]