![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
Thank you for your kind words, help with edits and correcting (very embarrassing) typos. The was one thing I didn't understand. What exactly does using |ref=harv| do ? I can't "see" any difference. Check out my web site www.narmer.org . Tom Heagy Heagy1 ( talk) 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor - Is this the right way to send you a message ? I appreciated your help on the formatting. I am really a beginner with regard to Wikipedia. I am amazed that 600 people a day looked at my changes. At this point ( thanks to you) all of the footnotes ( except 2 that aren't mine) point to references. I am not sure what to do with those 2. Perhaps n. 6 should be turned into a text note. What do you think ? All but 3 of the references relate to footnotes. The 3 are all relevant to Narmer. Is it a problem to have entries in the bibliography that aren't related to footnotes. Finally, does it matter if there is an error in the harv format, if it doesn't effect the the appearance of the article or the functionality of the pointing ? Heagy1 t
Iry-Hor, Thanks again. Actually the reason I use sfn is just that I was imitating the footnotes that were already in. There are a few cases, where I have 2 footnotes for the same site. Is it possible, instead of having 2 footnotes, to have a single footnote that includes two reference ? It would make the text cleaner. Heagy1 ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. Would you please look at note "a" that I just added to the Narmer article. The two web references don't go to the url that I have in the note. What am I doing wrong ? Heagy1 ( talk) 01:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Iry-Hor. Never mind , I figured it out. Thanks for all your help Heagy1 ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor, going back to my earlier question, what I want to do is have a single footnote, where the footnote will say AuthorA, yearA ; AuthorB,yearB, for two different articles, so I don't have to have two footnotes . This is even more of an issue when there are more than 2 articles. I have seen it on other web site, but not using the sfn format. Heagy1 ( talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor I don't want to put footnote in a footnote, so that is not a problem, I'm interested in putting footnotes in the text.But , when I do what is in your example, I get 3 footnotes. What I want is 1 footnote with 3 references. I've seen that in other articles in Wikipedia, but not using sfn. Thanks for your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. What I am trying to do is have a reference ( not a note) in the form of Author1,year1,page1;author2,year2,page2. Where these are two different articles. I have seen this in other places on Wikipedia, but not using sfn. Thanks for all your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. It's not a big deal, but I thought it would be a cleaner appearance. It is more of an issue when there are 4 references, but perhaps the solution to that is to use an end note , as you suggested. On a different subject, I think that to say that Aha was "probably" the son of Narmer more accurately reflects Egyptological consensus than he was " possibly" his son.. Also, the idea that Neithhotep was Narmer's daughter is conjecture based soley on the Sinai inscription. That she was Narmer's daughter is only one of several possibilities. Hence I think it would be more accurate to insert the word " possibly" in front of Neithhotp. Unless you disagree, I will make both of those changes. Heagy1 ( talk) 21:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. The problem arises when there are 4 footnotes that apply to exactly the same point. My preference would be to put them in an end note rather than having [1][2][3][4] all at one point in the text. But I think this is just a matter of personal preference. Both approaches provide the same information. Thank you for all your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Iry-Hor. I very much appreciate your help. I have a problem with footnotes. I added fn # 20 which is identical with fn # 7. I thought it would appear as fn # 7 again , since it is identical in content, but instead it appears as a separate footnote. How do I get the two to appear as one footnote ? Heagy1 ( talk) 20:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry- Hor. Thanks. Wikipedia is unforgiving. But I will remember that in the future. One thing that doesn't seem to make a difference is spaces. I have tried putting in references ( your terminology) with spaces in between things like "|" and "year", and without the space, and that, at least doesn't seem to make a difference. Heagy1 ( talk) 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I am writing a footnote ( not a reference) about dating and want to refer to a reference using hrvdnb, but it has 7 authors, and the system will only let me use 4. Any way around this ? Heagy1 ( talk) 02:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I keep using the word "reference" in the generic sense, rather than the specific Wikipedia definition. Let me be clear, I am not trying to create a reference. I have an article with 7 authors, it goes into the bibliography with no problem listing all 7. In the text, I want to say something like: According to Author1, et al,2000, Narmer never existed. And when I click on Author1 et al , 2000 it will go to the appropriate bibliography entry. I have done this successfully with {{harvdnb}} with up to 4 authors, but it doesn't work for more than 4 authors. I can always put: According to Author1 et al 2000, Narmer never existed, and not have it point to the bibliography , but that is not my preferred solution. Heagy1 ( talk) 16:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that Heagy1 ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryhor,
This would be an interesting freely licensed (cc-by-2.0) photo to upload on WikiCommons if only there was an article to use it at. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on Tell el-Maskhuta. I have not uploaded it on Commons. Best, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Djedkare Isesi article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 21, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I changed the lead image from your article because at the tiny scale of the TFA thumb it's hard to see the detail. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the article on "arguably the most prominent member of his dynasty, a great reformer he undertook–with dire consequences–the first reforms of the Egyptian administration and commissioned numerous trade and mining expeditions abroad"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a good edit. Please don't. If you are bothered about BC/BCE just change that. -- John ( talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you are a member of
WikiProject Ancient Egypt and would like to kindly request that you could assess the quality scale classes of two articles that I destubbed, if it's no bother!
The articles are as follows:
Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt
Twenty-eighth Dynasty of Egypt
HeathIsling 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HeathIsling (
talk •
contribs)
HeathIsling Unfortunately, I cannot do this at the moment, as I have nearly no wiki time. Furthermore, I am not good in post 1000 BCE Egyptian history. That said, you might want to ask Khruner, another member of the project who is quite knowledgeable on the 3rd intermediary and late periods. If he can't do it, I will do it, but probably not before April. Iry-Hor ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iry-Hor, would you be interested in working (or collaborating) on Temple of Dendur as part of the new Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of Art WikiProject? It's a major item in the collection and I thought it might be up your alley. czar 02:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Ancient Egypt Barnstar |
Your recent work on Fifth Dynasty rulers is impressive, and so are your many other contributions to the Ancient Egyptian topic area. You are a valuable asset to this project. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
Iry-Hor, You may have noticed that footnote "a" in Narmer is (necessarily) long. I tried to break it into paragraphs , but when it appears in the final formant, the paragraphs disappear. Is there a way to force it to have paragraphs. Thanks for your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 19:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Iry-Hor, I am doing a major re-do of the Reign section of Narmer. To check for format errors and typos , I have copied a draft onto my Sandbox. Everything works great except for the footnotes. I put them in using [a]. This has worked fine in the actual Narmer page, but in the Sandbox, although it shows that there is a footnote by a superscript of "a", "b,", etc. , It doesn't show the actual text of the footnotes anywhere on the page, and when I click on the footnote indicators ( a, b, etc.), nothing happens. Is there a way for me to see the footnotes in Sandbox, or do I have to go to the actual Narmer article ? I noticed on your talk page that when I put in a footnote, it appears at the bottom of the page, unlike my Sandbox. Heagy1 ( talk) 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi! There is something that keeps me rotating: clay seal impressions and stone vase fragments with the name of Peribsen mention two important cities: Setjet (today Sethroe) and Per-medjed (today Oxyrhynchos). Well, many Egyptologists still believe that Peribsen ruled only over Lower Egypt. But the cities of Setjet and Per-medjet are located at Upper Egypt! And, as we know, both of these cities enjoyed great importance and popularity through the whole history of Egypt. I highly doubt that Peribsen could have founded several(!) cities in a part of Egypt that allegedly did not accept him as a ruler. What do you think? Regards; -- Nephiliskos ( talk) 13:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Long time no see Iry-Hor. I was thinking about creating an article on king Aaqen, and it would be useful to me if you could remember the source of this old statement by you, because I can't find it anywhere in von Beckerath's Handbuch, so I believe that the source is probably another work by him (my guess: maybe the Untersuchungen??) Khruner ( talk) 08:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
S 9 (Abydos) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 20:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Still needs a
WP:QPQ.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S 9 (Abydos), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Egyptian tomb S9 suffered deliberate, extensive, and state-sanctioned stone- and grave-robbing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S 9 (Abydos). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S 9 (Abydos)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @ Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Iry-Hor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Neferefre you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Iry-Hor. I'm sorry to hear that you're so short on time and energy these days. I have several more passages of French that I'd like to have translated for the Isis article. I swear this will be the last time I need anything translated for Isis, as I'm very close to finishing the article. There's no rush, though; I don't want to put any pressure on you, and I have several other things to work on in the meantime. Just let me know when is a good time to send the passages to you.
I also intend to do a lot more work on Wikipedia once the article is finished, so I'll be happy to help with anything you may need. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Following up on this discussion, and on an email I sent you a few days ago, I've finished writing the article. I feel reasonably confident that the passages I sent to you say what I think they say, and I'm going to upload what I have tomorrow. I'd like your confirmation that the citations are correct before I submit the article to FAC, but I'm not in a hurry to do that, so no pressure. (If you go to look for them, the quotation from Bricault is the first citation in the last paragraph of "Spread across the Mediterranean", while the quotations from Humbert and Quentin are in the last section of the article.)
I'm excited to be finishing this drawn-out writing project, and I want you to know that your translation help, and that of Nephiliskos, was invaluable. Merci beaucoup! A. Parrot ( talk) 07:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The article
Neferefre you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Neferefre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
00:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Neferirkare Kakai you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mr rnddude --
Mr rnddude (
talk)
12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The article
Neferirkare Kakai you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Neferirkare Kakai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mr rnddude --
Mr rnddude (
talk)
23:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
Maaibre Sheshi, "an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh during the Second Intermediate Period. Sheshi is the best attested king of this time period in terms of the number of artefacts attributed to him and yet Egyptologists cannot agree on any single thing regarding him beyond his name. Hence the dynasty, chronological position, duration of reign and extent of rule of Sheshi are highly uncertain and the object of a strong ongoing debate in Egyptology. These issues are closely intertwined with the arrival of the Hyksos in Egypt and thus of paramount importance in understanding the sequence of events associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom c. 1700 BCE."! --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
Thank you for your kind words, help with edits and correcting (very embarrassing) typos. The was one thing I didn't understand. What exactly does using |ref=harv| do ? I can't "see" any difference. Check out my web site www.narmer.org . Tom Heagy Heagy1 ( talk) 18:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor - Is this the right way to send you a message ? I appreciated your help on the formatting. I am really a beginner with regard to Wikipedia. I am amazed that 600 people a day looked at my changes. At this point ( thanks to you) all of the footnotes ( except 2 that aren't mine) point to references. I am not sure what to do with those 2. Perhaps n. 6 should be turned into a text note. What do you think ? All but 3 of the references relate to footnotes. The 3 are all relevant to Narmer. Is it a problem to have entries in the bibliography that aren't related to footnotes. Finally, does it matter if there is an error in the harv format, if it doesn't effect the the appearance of the article or the functionality of the pointing ? Heagy1 t
Iry-Hor, Thanks again. Actually the reason I use sfn is just that I was imitating the footnotes that were already in. There are a few cases, where I have 2 footnotes for the same site. Is it possible, instead of having 2 footnotes, to have a single footnote that includes two reference ? It would make the text cleaner. Heagy1 ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. Would you please look at note "a" that I just added to the Narmer article. The two web references don't go to the url that I have in the note. What am I doing wrong ? Heagy1 ( talk) 01:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Iry-Hor. Never mind , I figured it out. Thanks for all your help Heagy1 ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor, going back to my earlier question, what I want to do is have a single footnote, where the footnote will say AuthorA, yearA ; AuthorB,yearB, for two different articles, so I don't have to have two footnotes . This is even more of an issue when there are more than 2 articles. I have seen it on other web site, but not using the sfn format. Heagy1 ( talk) 01:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor I don't want to put footnote in a footnote, so that is not a problem, I'm interested in putting footnotes in the text.But , when I do what is in your example, I get 3 footnotes. What I want is 1 footnote with 3 references. I've seen that in other articles in Wikipedia, but not using sfn. Thanks for your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 20:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. What I am trying to do is have a reference ( not a note) in the form of Author1,year1,page1;author2,year2,page2. Where these are two different articles. I have seen this in other places on Wikipedia, but not using sfn. Thanks for all your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. It's not a big deal, but I thought it would be a cleaner appearance. It is more of an issue when there are 4 references, but perhaps the solution to that is to use an end note , as you suggested. On a different subject, I think that to say that Aha was "probably" the son of Narmer more accurately reflects Egyptological consensus than he was " possibly" his son.. Also, the idea that Neithhotep was Narmer's daughter is conjecture based soley on the Sinai inscription. That she was Narmer's daughter is only one of several possibilities. Hence I think it would be more accurate to insert the word " possibly" in front of Neithhotp. Unless you disagree, I will make both of those changes. Heagy1 ( talk) 21:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry-Hor. The problem arises when there are 4 footnotes that apply to exactly the same point. My preference would be to put them in an end note rather than having [1][2][3][4] all at one point in the text. But I think this is just a matter of personal preference. Both approaches provide the same information. Thank you for all your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Iry-Hor. I very much appreciate your help. I have a problem with footnotes. I added fn # 20 which is identical with fn # 7. I thought it would appear as fn # 7 again , since it is identical in content, but instead it appears as a separate footnote. How do I get the two to appear as one footnote ? Heagy1 ( talk) 20:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Iry- Hor. Thanks. Wikipedia is unforgiving. But I will remember that in the future. One thing that doesn't seem to make a difference is spaces. I have tried putting in references ( your terminology) with spaces in between things like "|" and "year", and without the space, and that, at least doesn't seem to make a difference. Heagy1 ( talk) 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I am writing a footnote ( not a reference) about dating and want to refer to a reference using hrvdnb, but it has 7 authors, and the system will only let me use 4. Any way around this ? Heagy1 ( talk) 02:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I keep using the word "reference" in the generic sense, rather than the specific Wikipedia definition. Let me be clear, I am not trying to create a reference. I have an article with 7 authors, it goes into the bibliography with no problem listing all 7. In the text, I want to say something like: According to Author1, et al,2000, Narmer never existed. And when I click on Author1 et al , 2000 it will go to the appropriate bibliography entry. I have done this successfully with {{harvdnb}} with up to 4 authors, but it doesn't work for more than 4 authors. I can always put: According to Author1 et al 2000, Narmer never existed, and not have it point to the bibliography , but that is not my preferred solution. Heagy1 ( talk) 16:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that Heagy1 ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Iryhor,
This would be an interesting freely licensed (cc-by-2.0) photo to upload on WikiCommons if only there was an article to use it at. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on Tell el-Maskhuta. I have not uploaded it on Commons. Best, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Djedkare Isesi article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 21, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I changed the lead image from your article because at the tiny scale of the TFA thumb it's hard to see the detail. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the article on "arguably the most prominent member of his dynasty, a great reformer he undertook–with dire consequences–the first reforms of the Egyptian administration and commissioned numerous trade and mining expeditions abroad"! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a good edit. Please don't. If you are bothered about BC/BCE just change that. -- John ( talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you are a member of
WikiProject Ancient Egypt and would like to kindly request that you could assess the quality scale classes of two articles that I destubbed, if it's no bother!
The articles are as follows:
Twenty-seventh Dynasty of Egypt
Twenty-eighth Dynasty of Egypt
HeathIsling 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HeathIsling (
talk •
contribs)
HeathIsling Unfortunately, I cannot do this at the moment, as I have nearly no wiki time. Furthermore, I am not good in post 1000 BCE Egyptian history. That said, you might want to ask Khruner, another member of the project who is quite knowledgeable on the 3rd intermediary and late periods. If he can't do it, I will do it, but probably not before April. Iry-Hor ( talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iry-Hor, would you be interested in working (or collaborating) on Temple of Dendur as part of the new Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of Art WikiProject? It's a major item in the collection and I thought it might be up your alley. czar 02:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Ancient Egypt Barnstar |
Your recent work on Fifth Dynasty rulers is impressive, and so are your many other contributions to the Ancient Egyptian topic area. You are a valuable asset to this project. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
Iry-Hor, You may have noticed that footnote "a" in Narmer is (necessarily) long. I tried to break it into paragraphs , but when it appears in the final formant, the paragraphs disappear. Is there a way to force it to have paragraphs. Thanks for your help. Heagy1 ( talk) 19:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Iry-Hor, I am doing a major re-do of the Reign section of Narmer. To check for format errors and typos , I have copied a draft onto my Sandbox. Everything works great except for the footnotes. I put them in using [a]. This has worked fine in the actual Narmer page, but in the Sandbox, although it shows that there is a footnote by a superscript of "a", "b,", etc. , It doesn't show the actual text of the footnotes anywhere on the page, and when I click on the footnote indicators ( a, b, etc.), nothing happens. Is there a way for me to see the footnotes in Sandbox, or do I have to go to the actual Narmer article ? I noticed on your talk page that when I put in a footnote, it appears at the bottom of the page, unlike my Sandbox. Heagy1 ( talk) 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi! There is something that keeps me rotating: clay seal impressions and stone vase fragments with the name of Peribsen mention two important cities: Setjet (today Sethroe) and Per-medjed (today Oxyrhynchos). Well, many Egyptologists still believe that Peribsen ruled only over Lower Egypt. But the cities of Setjet and Per-medjet are located at Upper Egypt! And, as we know, both of these cities enjoyed great importance and popularity through the whole history of Egypt. I highly doubt that Peribsen could have founded several(!) cities in a part of Egypt that allegedly did not accept him as a ruler. What do you think? Regards; -- Nephiliskos ( talk) 13:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Long time no see Iry-Hor. I was thinking about creating an article on king Aaqen, and it would be useful to me if you could remember the source of this old statement by you, because I can't find it anywhere in von Beckerath's Handbuch, so I believe that the source is probably another work by him (my guess: maybe the Untersuchungen??) Khruner ( talk) 08:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
S 9 (Abydos) at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
7&6=thirteen (
☎) 20:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Still needs a
WP:QPQ.
7&6=thirteen (
☎)
20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S 9 (Abydos), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Egyptian tomb S9 suffered deliberate, extensive, and state-sanctioned stone- and grave-robbing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S 9 (Abydos). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S 9 (Abydos)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @ Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Iry-Hor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Neferefre you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Iry-Hor. I'm sorry to hear that you're so short on time and energy these days. I have several more passages of French that I'd like to have translated for the Isis article. I swear this will be the last time I need anything translated for Isis, as I'm very close to finishing the article. There's no rush, though; I don't want to put any pressure on you, and I have several other things to work on in the meantime. Just let me know when is a good time to send the passages to you.
I also intend to do a lot more work on Wikipedia once the article is finished, so I'll be happy to help with anything you may need. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Following up on this discussion, and on an email I sent you a few days ago, I've finished writing the article. I feel reasonably confident that the passages I sent to you say what I think they say, and I'm going to upload what I have tomorrow. I'd like your confirmation that the citations are correct before I submit the article to FAC, but I'm not in a hurry to do that, so no pressure. (If you go to look for them, the quotation from Bricault is the first citation in the last paragraph of "Spread across the Mediterranean", while the quotations from Humbert and Quentin are in the last section of the article.)
I'm excited to be finishing this drawn-out writing project, and I want you to know that your translation help, and that of Nephiliskos, was invaluable. Merci beaucoup! A. Parrot ( talk) 07:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The article
Neferefre you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Neferefre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
00:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Neferirkare Kakai you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mr rnddude --
Mr rnddude (
talk)
12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The article
Neferirkare Kakai you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Neferirkare Kakai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Mr rnddude --
Mr rnddude (
talk)
23:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for
Maaibre Sheshi, "an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh during the Second Intermediate Period. Sheshi is the best attested king of this time period in terms of the number of artefacts attributed to him and yet Egyptologists cannot agree on any single thing regarding him beyond his name. Hence the dynasty, chronological position, duration of reign and extent of rule of Sheshi are highly uncertain and the object of a strong ongoing debate in Egyptology. These issues are closely intertwined with the arrival of the Hyksos in Egypt and thus of paramount importance in understanding the sequence of events associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom c. 1700 BCE."! --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
07:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).