![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The error messages would be of more help if they linked to the help page:
Cite error: Closing </ref>
missing for <ref>
tag.
Cite error: Closing </ref>
missing for <ref>
tag.
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
A few problems:
This works:
Cite error: The <ref>
tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the
help page).
But not this:
The cite error also does not show where the <references />
tag is missing; see
Abbey Green ward.
Any ideas? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tried a few different fixes and none have worked. My SWAG is that cite.php is not allowing links in errors that appear in the references section. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Propose redirecting the talk pages for all of the messages here, giving a central point of discussion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
central}}
here as a reminder.
Happy‑
melon
08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Done. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I say we don't need talk pages here. But specifically only talk pages. If that's possible technically I'd propose to remove them from this category. Debresser ( talk) 10:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In short: I think we need "Article", "Template" and "Category" namespace, preferably also "Help" and even "Image" namespace, "but not "Talk", "Wikipedia" and "User" namespace. Other namespaces I dont care either way. Debresser ( talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a lot of railroad station articles, and I notices that they've got a lot of notes for broken reference tags, but I can never find out which references are broken. The articles include Patchogue (LIRR station) and many of the Amtrak stations in Florida. Why can't I ever find them in order to fix them? ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The Cat is now being scanned by my bot, It will try to slowly trawl through the articles and help by adding reference sections where and when it can. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixing the latter just by adding reflist would be a waste of the change to reveal the vandalism here. Debresser ( talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I do 10-20 every day, but there is always a lot more new articles. Perhaps we should get together with some people together and do it together? Debresser ( talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The help page clearly says what to do in such a case:
To suppress the error on the template page itself, wrap the reference in <includeonly></includeonly>.
Actually there is another obvious way. Adding {{reflist}} or <references/> inside <noinclude></noinclude>.
I have done so successfully in War on Terrorism/campaignbox. This method has a few advantages to the method mentioned in the help page:
n.b. The <noinclude> tag should be put right behind the end of the template/infobox/etc. without a break or even space, in order to avoid whitelines on the page the template is transluded upon.
In view of these advantages I would suggest to change the text of the help page to read:
To suppress the error on the template page itself, add a reference section to the template inside <noinclude></noinclude> tags.
— [ Unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 February 2009.]
<ref>test</ref>
tag on a new article but no <references/>
tag, I get an error message. But if I try the same on a new template page I get no error message. This change was made on 31 January and 7 February. However, the hidden
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting is still added. This seems to be done in a deeper level of MediaWiki, thus can not be fixed by a code change in
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references. (However, it seems we can fix it by modifying {{
broken ref}}, but that needs some more investigation and discussion.)<noinclude></noinclude>
or <includeonly></includeonly>
tags for that is a bad solution. Since that only solves it on the template page itself. When the template is shown/demonstrated on talk pages and "Wikipedia:" pages it will still add
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. So instead I recommend you do like we nowadays do to make templates only categorise in main (article) space:{{main other | <ref>test</ref> | <!-- Don't use the ref tag when not in main (article) space. --> }}
{{main other|<ref>test</ref>}}
Let's compare two related templates: {{
Annotated image/Euplectella}} and {{
Annotated image/Porifera body structures}}. Both templates and their doc pages were in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. I fixed the Euplectella template by including {{
reflist}} on the doc page. If the Euplectella template is used in an article that does not include the <references />
tag, then the Cite error will be generated.
As noted, there are other ways to do this, but I consider this the preferred method for a type 1 fix, because it shows the reference in the template, thus making it obvious that there is a reference. Allowing editors to see the reference and to verify it is a plus.
Now, let's look a template that uses method 2:
{{Infobox |bodystyle = width:20em; |labelstyle = width:33%; |title = Sample infobox |label1 = Label1 |data1 = Data1<ref group=note>This is the reference section</ref> |label2 = Label1 |data2 = Data2 |label3 = Label3 |data3 = Data3 |label4 = Label4 |data4 = Data4 |below = {{reflist|group=note}} }}
Label1 | Data1 [note 1] |
---|---|
Label1 | Data2 |
Label3 | Data3 |
Label4 | Data4 |
|
This method keeps everything within the template and does not rely on the article to have a <references />
tag.
I'm going to leave that to the concerned template editors. #1 keeps the reference in the main article reference list, where #2 puts the reference within the template. #1 relies on the article to have the <references />
tag, where #2 includes it in the template.
As to the use of {{ main other}}: yes this will work to keep the error off of the template, but does nothing to keep the error off of the article page. It suppresses the reference display on the template page an makes it difficult to verify. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If an infobox has its predefined references, independent of the page it will be transcluded onto, it might be usefull to include them in the template (your second method). But in general I would prefer to have references at the end of the article the template is transcluded onto (your first method). This is not something for guidelines or general solutions, but more a matter of personal taste. It probably has to do with the fact that I like the <noinclude>{{reflist}}</noinclude> best. Debresser ( talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
<references />
tag. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I did some tests. I knew it, I knew it! Number 1 doesn't work. It makes the references appear twice. I knew my solution 3 was the best. Debresser ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait for you to dublicate the tests and then we'll have to update the help page. Debresser ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If the article into which the template is included has a reference tag also - and which article doesn't - you get the references twice. Because of this adding the references tag to the template without the noinclude tags is a severe pain in the posterior for the writers of articles. Debresser ( talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags at the end of the template. If there is a doc page, then just add {{
template reflist}} in an appropriate spot on the page. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)So that was my solution. Then please don't edit the text in the help page. It is fine as it was. Debresser ( talk) 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea was nice, but the actual gain is very small since the user will still have to type the <noinclude>...</noinclude>
himself. It misses the {{clear}} BTW.
Debresser (
talk)
18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with programming, but I consider it sloppy from me that I didn't notice this. Debresser ( talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This template includes embedded <ref>...</ref> tags. The article page where this template is used must include a <references /> tag, usually added with {{
reflist}}. If there is no <references /> tag, the article will show:Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references /> tag was found. |
<ref>
tags exist, but no <references />
tag was foundThis is probably the message discussed most often on the Help Desk and other help pages. This message cannot handle links like the other messages; any wikilinks simply do not parse, thus disappear. We can update the message to somthing like:
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references />
tag; see Help:Cite errors.--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Debresser ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Done --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it really worth mentioning that an extension that is still in beta does things (i.e. calls Parser::parse instead if Parser::recursiveTagParse) that break other, unrelated extensions? Anomie ⚔ 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Lately I've seen a few articles with Cite error: <ref>
tags exist, but no <references />
tag was found, but:
<references />
tag in the proper section at the end of the article.<references />
tag does have a closing </ref>
tag.<ref>...</ref>
tags after the <references />
tag.It turned out they have a second <references />
tag somewhere earlier in the article, and there are references after that first <references />
tag. The fix is obviously to delete that first <references />
tag.
Debresser (
talk)
23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyway that pages starting "Wikipedia" (i.e. project pages) can be automatically excluded from the category? I don't think any of them really "need" fixing and it's a drag clicking on and on to see if there are any pages starting "Wil.." and onwards. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
from=W
but you can manually change that to for example from=Wikiq
(there are currently no pages after Wikipedia).
PrimeHunter (
talk)
09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Only letters M, P, R and S have a backlog in the category now. All other articles appearing under different letters should be seen to immediately and with relative ease. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you the editor who has been working so hard on this category? Debresser ( talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
But believe me that "with relative ease" is not true. There are close to 50 new articles in this category every day, in my experience. Some are just new articles, some are older articles (sometimes suprisingly old) that just got their first reference, some are the result of vandalism, while others are the result of some hard to find cause (I mentioned one above in the section References after {{ reflist}}). Debresser ( talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Sillyfolkboy, why don't you use the text from Help:Cite errors, which reads
<noinclude> == References == ''This reference list does not appear in the article.'' {{Reflist}} </noinclude>
? Debresser ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So is there a bot that can add a refsection to all templates? If there are any broken references, the templates shows up later in the other category and I fix it anyways. That's what happened with Template:2007_in_Australian_television_-_Ending_this_year to which Sillyfolkboy added a refsection and I spent about half an hout to fix it and a few other related templates with broken refs. Debresser ( talk) 14:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I now have AWB. And fixed my first three templates with it. Had some trouble because I started on a low screen resolution. I think using AWB is a relatively easy way to add a references section. Any advice? Debresser ( talk) 23:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I see MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references has namespace detection and a category, while MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references doesn't. Is there any reason for this, or was it just forgotten? Anomie ⚔ 11:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references />
tag" generated by
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references from talk pages after discussion at VP.See my proposal there, which namespace to include and which not. And see above that I made precisely the same proposal for MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references as for MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references. I don't see any reason to make them work differently. Debresser ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
<ref group="abc">abc</ref>
Thanks. I'll work on them. Debresser ( talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting a few pages like Category talk:Mottos or File talk:Snow leopard range.png. I can fix them, but I though talk pages weren't supposed to show up. Not to mention a Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-27. Debresser ( talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write before trying that. But yes, it's fixed now. Thanks. Debresser ( talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I fixed a few more templates, but I'll wait with the big work till the job queue removed all talk pages, portals and Wikipedia pages. Debresser ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody fixed almost all templates under the letter "T". I fixed a few new stray ones and the last ca. 25 he had left. Could you please fix Template:HighDefMediaComparison. It's editprotected. Debresser ( talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do you know why some templates are listed under the letter "T", but a few under the first letter of their name (e.g. Template:Broken ref in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references, which is listed under the letter "B")? Debresser ( talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these categories be combined? They seem be similar issues.-- BirgitteSB 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that the messages for malformed <ref>...</ref>
tags use {{
broken ref}}, we can generate a different message based on the namespace. Since the message includes the category, this means that we could show the error on a talk page, but not place it in the tracking category.
The two messages for missing <references />
don't use {{
broken ref}} since they use a different category. We could add a message that would show only on talk pages that would include the {{
reflist}}.
-- Gadget850 ( talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the message now used for cite error "problems" on templates (i.e. those cases where footnoted sources are included without a </references> or {{reflist}} tag) is poorly worded. It currently reads:
with a list of the template's footnotes following.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, because some editors working to "clean up" templates are now adding this wording directly to template documentation, it gives the appearance that the template itself is somehow at fault (probably principally because the words "the article" are used). Second, it does not give the editor any direction as to what to do to correct the problem.
I would like to suggest that the wording on this "cite error" message be changed to read :
This would 1) make clear what footnotes will display (thus allowing editors to verify that they are correct) and 2) make clear what an editor needs to do to eliminate any display problem. MeegsC | Talk 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It's not "some editors", it's me. :)
I agree with MeegsC that the wording is ambiguous. As I explained to him on my talk page the meaning is indeed that this list will not appear in any article using the template, but the references themselves will. I don't see how this could be expressed better.
The formulation he suggests here is also not good, because if indeed no references section will be made in the article, that will lead to an error message. Debresser ( talk) 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Anomie suggested to me that we could make a template for this whole references section. That way we could easily change the text at will. I've made {{ Templaterefsection}}. It would have to be used inside <noinclude> tags. Please have a look. Debresser ( talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite catch you. Debresser ( talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
==References==
creates an [edit]
link. When you use it in a template, that [edit]
always opens the template for editing. See the test at
User:Gadget850/T1. There is a fix for this, but I have to wake up first. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)I see. I added <includeonly> tags, and that solved the problem. But that has a sideeffect: that you can't edit the references section, only by editing all of the template. Which we can live with, but is a little strange. Debresser ( talk) 10:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I also added an explanatory text. And did you see that trick of mine, adding a second references section in <noinclude> tags? That can be removed, of course, should you think it better. I also made a documentation page. Debresser ( talk) 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done my daily round in all categories. Now I'm ready to start fixing templates. What will it be? We're going to use this new template or not? Debresser ( talk) 11:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
does nothing, as it does not transclude to the page. We need to document its uses in two ways:
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
I added to give an idea of what the template would look like when used. I agree it is unnecessary and may be removed. On the other hand, I did like the trick.So what do you say? Use the template, or not? Debresser ( talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Got up to the letter "M" so far. I think you can notice the difference. I'm going to make two turns, fixing in the second turn those templates that the first turn couldn't fix, due to limitations in the software. Debresser ( talk) 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed another 300 in 1h 17m (wolfish grin). Debresser ( talk) 01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed all templates in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. And those that ended up in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting too. And 133 templates that I fixed before we had this template as well. Templates gone. Debresser ( talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just had to wrap this new template in <noinclude>'s on {{ 2009 swine flu outbreak chart}}. Without them, it was adding a reference section to the top of 2009 swine flu outbreak. -- auburnpilot talk 00:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. On a template you need <noinclude> tags. In a documentation page you don't. I'll put it in the documentation of {{ Templaterefsection}}. Debresser ( talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags, but it won't work that way. But often you don't need to add tags especially, e.g. when they are already there for categories or a documentation page. Then, you just add {{
Templaterefsection}} and you're done.
Debresser (
talk)
01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags don't transclude. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
02:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, the template was semi-protected today. What an honor. Good he didn't protect it fully, or even I wouldn't be able to change it any more.
I changed the explanations in the documentation page quite extensively. I removed most of the too technical introduction to the Overview. And I made two changes in the Usage section:
Debresser ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the archives from older discussions? I didn't find all of them in the links at the top of the page. Debresser ( talk) 10:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the rest of the 1561 pages in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting? I see only 287 of them. Debresser ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That was just a renaming of an old category, as you can read here. Debresser ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
</ref>
the bot can't figure out where to insert it because that requires actually understanding what the page is trying to say.
Anomie
⚔
01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
We currently have three categories:
Propose to:
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you make the talk page of Category:Pages with broken reference names redirect here too? Debresser ( talk) 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Do you have a nicer solution for this fix of mine?
2 What about my suggestion in the section Categories above?
3 Currently Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting includes both errors because of missing </ref> tags as well as broken links (e.g. <ref name=thereisnosuchrefinthisarticle />. Can you make two different pages of this?
</ref>
triggers
MediaWiki:Cite error included refOK. Look at MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references. Each namespace is now sorted differently: main by pagename, template by !, category by ", help by # and file by $. It will take a bit for Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references to resort. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, while you're at it, could you make the pages in Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters sort A-B-... too? I've been cleaning up there very seriously. Debresser ( talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, today I had a template in Category:Pages with broken reference names under "T". Didn't you program templates to be under "!" there also? Same in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You noticed those missing articles with broken reference names didn't show up in the end? Debresser ( talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC) To be more precise, the category now claims there are only 224 pages there. Debresser ( talk) 00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And shouldn't Help:Cite errors/Testcases and Help:Cite errors/Testcases2 show up under "!' on Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting? Debresser ( talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) And Help:Cite errors/Testcases on Category:Pages with broken reference names? Debresser ( talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I now saw you didn't yet add that "!" fix with template, file, help and cat=2 to Template:Broken ref. Piece of cake, no? Debresser ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
as you can see on those category pages. They are still sorting by pagename only. Debresser ( talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) If only I understood that small line of code there... Debresser ( talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you do the same for Category:Articles with broken citations too? Debresser ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting it works now. On Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references and Category:Pages with broken reference names it doesn't,not even after null-editing. Debresser ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In the right order:
I have added the line "Below they are listed in order of preference". This order is based on various factors:
If you would like to change the order, or think it should be removed completely, please discuss this first here. Debresser ( talk) 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Figured out that external links work in the MediWiki messages where the internal links don't work. The three affected messages are now updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix the references error in List of honorific titles in popular music. I tried, but failed. Debresser ( talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tag; refTools found it quickly. Also fixed a duplicate reference definition. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Why use the deprecated h sytax and the span markup instead of WP markup? Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
The reason for adding user pages is that we had a user page polluting the category for a good six months. Until today in fact. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Someone tell me why it's so fucking hard to add references/sources/whatever to articles? In an ideal worl all we should have to do is click on the 'references' button at the appropriate point of the article and insert the URL to the source. And stop. None of this bullshit about then adding a 'ref' tag at the end of the article and then going back because the stupid thing didn't add a heading so it looks odd. Wikipedia admins why not instead of spending so much time debating stupid policies don't you make some of the annoying things like this simpler? I suppose you'd need to take a vote or "straw poll" before anyone does anything because that's what it's like on wikipedia nowadays.--
Xania
talk
19:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose we change "!" in {{
Broken ref}} to "τ"? Or more precisely τ{{PAGENAME}}
. Then we can change
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references and
MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references to something like all the others, namely {{broken ref|msg=There are {{tag|ref|open}} tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{tag|references|single}} tag.|cat=Pages with missing references list}}
. The two blocks in
Template:Broken_ref/doc#Messages could then be merged.
Advantages:
|prefix=
just for that one stubborn message. Did a lot of cleanup on the template and help page, so give it an eyeball. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)First, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this message. I cannot understand the coding you are talking about but you seem to be referring to the error message that is displayed in the references section when there is an orphaned ref tag in the article. Formerly the error message was
Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named a.
Now the message seems to be
Cite Error:Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named a; see Help:Cite errors.
I have no problem with having the additional text in the error message but I think the entire error message should be big red text. That way editors are more likely to see the message and fix the error.
75.69.0.58 (
talk)
21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The cite software has been updated with new features that I am figuring out. I have listed the new error messages and will expand as I figure out how to break things. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently we have a long table with entries like:
Message | Problem | Solution |
---|---|---|
Cite error: Invalid <ref>...</ref> tag; refs with no name must have content.
|
There is no content between the <ref>...</ref> tags.
|
Either put content between the <ref> tags (<ref>content</ref> ), or (if you're reusing a named reference that's been defined elsewhere in the article) use a single tag <ref name="ref_name" /> .
|
The solution column is getting crowded. I propose that we split each message into its own table and go vertical:
{{
<ref>...</ref>
tag; refs with no name must have content.|nocat=true}}---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Done ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Each MediaWiki message includes a link to Help:Cite errors. I also propose that we ad an HTML id to each entry in the table. We then add the id to the Help:Cite errors link in each MediaWiki message using {{ broken ref}} so that when the link is clicked from the error message, it jumps directly to the appropriate section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Done I also removed the prefix parameter in {{
broken ref}} as it was causing some really odd HTML problems. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I was testing references in my sandbox, and discovered that the namespace detection in {{ Broken ref}} hides the error message in the User namespace. I don't suggest adding user pages to the categories (that would be about 3117 of them, after all), but would anyone be opposed to adding something like this so we can see the errors? Anomie ⚔ 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Done ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Presently, the error message for broken references is placed in the reference itself at the bottom of the article. Since broken references are fiendishly hard to solve, for others than the original editor that is, it would be preferable if the error message were placed inside the text together with the footnote anchor. That way it would be a lot more likely that the original editor should notice the error message. If this is possible, I would like to request this feature. Debresser ( talk) 10:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
We are down to the last ten nine broken references on
Category:Pages with broken reference names. Not including the three helppages, of course. There are new ones all the time, but they are being taken care of. Thanks go to editors
75.69.0.58 and
AnomieBOT.
These last broken references can not be solved by looking in the article history for mistakes. They were added broken from the beginning. Usualy a message has been added to the article talkpage and to the talkpage of the editor who made the broken reference. The challange is to try and find the most likely source, or another equivalent reference.
Debresser ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Redesigning the citation errors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't fix Copt. Anybody want to try it? Debresser ( talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Current message:
Current error message:
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/>
tag.Proposed message:
{{broken ref |msg={{ambox|type=content |text=This page contains references, but it '''does not contain a reference list'''. Citations and footnotes in this article will not appear until one is added.<br />To resolve this issue, see the <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references help page]</span>. |cat=Pages with missing references list}}
Which will show as:
![]() | This page contains references, but it does not contain a reference list. Citations and footnotes in this article will not appear until one is added. To resolve this issue, see the help page. |
Can't we redirect Category talk:Articles with broken citations here as well? Debresser ( talk) 21:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there in external link inside the error messsages found on Category:Articles with broken citations? I looked at the source of {{ Cite web}} and {{ Citation error}}, but didn't see thereason. It looks like No title when using {{ [2] Cite web}}.
And when we find the reaason, I propose deleting it ASAP. The link is anyway always stated right afterwards. Not the mention the ridiculous placing. Debresser ( talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It is in {{ cite web}}:
{{cite web |url=http://example.org}}
http://example.org. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Not sure what is causing this; took it to Template talk:Cite web#Error message. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to have a go at fixing that? Half the footnotes are missing. It's driving me potty trying to find the problem. Parrot of Doom 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=abc>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=abc}}
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The error messages would be of more help if they linked to the help page:
Cite error: Closing </ref>
missing for <ref>
tag.
Cite error: Closing </ref>
missing for <ref>
tag.
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
A few problems:
This works:
Cite error: The <ref>
tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the
help page).
But not this:
The cite error also does not show where the <references />
tag is missing; see
Abbey Green ward.
Any ideas? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tried a few different fixes and none have worked. My SWAG is that cite.php is not allowing links in errors that appear in the references section. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Propose redirecting the talk pages for all of the messages here, giving a central point of discussion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
central}}
here as a reminder.
Happy‑
melon
08:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Done. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I say we don't need talk pages here. But specifically only talk pages. If that's possible technically I'd propose to remove them from this category. Debresser ( talk) 10:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
In short: I think we need "Article", "Template" and "Category" namespace, preferably also "Help" and even "Image" namespace, "but not "Talk", "Wikipedia" and "User" namespace. Other namespaces I dont care either way. Debresser ( talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a lot of railroad station articles, and I notices that they've got a lot of notes for broken reference tags, but I can never find out which references are broken. The articles include Patchogue (LIRR station) and many of the Amtrak stations in Florida. Why can't I ever find them in order to fix them? ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The Cat is now being scanned by my bot, It will try to slowly trawl through the articles and help by adding reference sections where and when it can. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixing the latter just by adding reflist would be a waste of the change to reveal the vandalism here. Debresser ( talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I do 10-20 every day, but there is always a lot more new articles. Perhaps we should get together with some people together and do it together? Debresser ( talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The help page clearly says what to do in such a case:
To suppress the error on the template page itself, wrap the reference in <includeonly></includeonly>.
Actually there is another obvious way. Adding {{reflist}} or <references/> inside <noinclude></noinclude>.
I have done so successfully in War on Terrorism/campaignbox. This method has a few advantages to the method mentioned in the help page:
n.b. The <noinclude> tag should be put right behind the end of the template/infobox/etc. without a break or even space, in order to avoid whitelines on the page the template is transluded upon.
In view of these advantages I would suggest to change the text of the help page to read:
To suppress the error on the template page itself, add a reference section to the template inside <noinclude></noinclude> tags.
— [ Unsigned comment added by Debresser ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 February 2009.]
<ref>test</ref>
tag on a new article but no <references/>
tag, I get an error message. But if I try the same on a new template page I get no error message. This change was made on 31 January and 7 February. However, the hidden
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting is still added. This seems to be done in a deeper level of MediaWiki, thus can not be fixed by a code change in
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references. (However, it seems we can fix it by modifying {{
broken ref}}, but that needs some more investigation and discussion.)<noinclude></noinclude>
or <includeonly></includeonly>
tags for that is a bad solution. Since that only solves it on the template page itself. When the template is shown/demonstrated on talk pages and "Wikipedia:" pages it will still add
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. So instead I recommend you do like we nowadays do to make templates only categorise in main (article) space:{{main other | <ref>test</ref> | <!-- Don't use the ref tag when not in main (article) space. --> }}
{{main other|<ref>test</ref>}}
Let's compare two related templates: {{
Annotated image/Euplectella}} and {{
Annotated image/Porifera body structures}}. Both templates and their doc pages were in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. I fixed the Euplectella template by including {{
reflist}} on the doc page. If the Euplectella template is used in an article that does not include the <references />
tag, then the Cite error will be generated.
As noted, there are other ways to do this, but I consider this the preferred method for a type 1 fix, because it shows the reference in the template, thus making it obvious that there is a reference. Allowing editors to see the reference and to verify it is a plus.
Now, let's look a template that uses method 2:
{{Infobox |bodystyle = width:20em; |labelstyle = width:33%; |title = Sample infobox |label1 = Label1 |data1 = Data1<ref group=note>This is the reference section</ref> |label2 = Label1 |data2 = Data2 |label3 = Label3 |data3 = Data3 |label4 = Label4 |data4 = Data4 |below = {{reflist|group=note}} }}
Label1 | Data1 [note 1] |
---|---|
Label1 | Data2 |
Label3 | Data3 |
Label4 | Data4 |
|
This method keeps everything within the template and does not rely on the article to have a <references />
tag.
I'm going to leave that to the concerned template editors. #1 keeps the reference in the main article reference list, where #2 puts the reference within the template. #1 relies on the article to have the <references />
tag, where #2 includes it in the template.
As to the use of {{ main other}}: yes this will work to keep the error off of the template, but does nothing to keep the error off of the article page. It suppresses the reference display on the template page an makes it difficult to verify. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If an infobox has its predefined references, independent of the page it will be transcluded onto, it might be usefull to include them in the template (your second method). But in general I would prefer to have references at the end of the article the template is transcluded onto (your first method). This is not something for guidelines or general solutions, but more a matter of personal taste. It probably has to do with the fact that I like the <noinclude>{{reflist}}</noinclude> best. Debresser ( talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
<references />
tag. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I did some tests. I knew it, I knew it! Number 1 doesn't work. It makes the references appear twice. I knew my solution 3 was the best. Debresser ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait for you to dublicate the tests and then we'll have to update the help page. Debresser ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If the article into which the template is included has a reference tag also - and which article doesn't - you get the references twice. Because of this adding the references tag to the template without the noinclude tags is a severe pain in the posterior for the writers of articles. Debresser ( talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags at the end of the template. If there is a doc page, then just add {{
template reflist}} in an appropriate spot on the page. --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)So that was my solution. Then please don't edit the text in the help page. It is fine as it was. Debresser ( talk) 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea was nice, but the actual gain is very small since the user will still have to type the <noinclude>...</noinclude>
himself. It misses the {{clear}} BTW.
Debresser (
talk)
18:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with programming, but I consider it sloppy from me that I didn't notice this. Debresser ( talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This template includes embedded <ref>...</ref> tags. The article page where this template is used must include a <references /> tag, usually added with {{
reflist}}. If there is no <references /> tag, the article will show:Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references /> tag was found. |
<ref>
tags exist, but no <references />
tag was foundThis is probably the message discussed most often on the Help Desk and other help pages. This message cannot handle links like the other messages; any wikilinks simply do not parse, thus disappear. We can update the message to somthing like:
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references />
tag; see Help:Cite errors.--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Debresser ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Done --——
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk -
19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it really worth mentioning that an extension that is still in beta does things (i.e. calls Parser::parse instead if Parser::recursiveTagParse) that break other, unrelated extensions? Anomie ⚔ 02:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Lately I've seen a few articles with Cite error: <ref>
tags exist, but no <references />
tag was found, but:
<references />
tag in the proper section at the end of the article.<references />
tag does have a closing </ref>
tag.<ref>...</ref>
tags after the <references />
tag.It turned out they have a second <references />
tag somewhere earlier in the article, and there are references after that first <references />
tag. The fix is obviously to delete that first <references />
tag.
Debresser (
talk)
23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyway that pages starting "Wikipedia" (i.e. project pages) can be automatically excluded from the category? I don't think any of them really "need" fixing and it's a drag clicking on and on to see if there are any pages starting "Wil.." and onwards. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
from=W
but you can manually change that to for example from=Wikiq
(there are currently no pages after Wikipedia).
PrimeHunter (
talk)
09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Only letters M, P, R and S have a backlog in the category now. All other articles appearing under different letters should be seen to immediately and with relative ease. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you the editor who has been working so hard on this category? Debresser ( talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
But believe me that "with relative ease" is not true. There are close to 50 new articles in this category every day, in my experience. Some are just new articles, some are older articles (sometimes suprisingly old) that just got their first reference, some are the result of vandalism, while others are the result of some hard to find cause (I mentioned one above in the section References after {{ reflist}}). Debresser ( talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Sillyfolkboy, why don't you use the text from Help:Cite errors, which reads
<noinclude> == References == ''This reference list does not appear in the article.'' {{Reflist}} </noinclude>
? Debresser ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So is there a bot that can add a refsection to all templates? If there are any broken references, the templates shows up later in the other category and I fix it anyways. That's what happened with Template:2007_in_Australian_television_-_Ending_this_year to which Sillyfolkboy added a refsection and I spent about half an hout to fix it and a few other related templates with broken refs. Debresser ( talk) 14:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I now have AWB. And fixed my first three templates with it. Had some trouble because I started on a low screen resolution. I think using AWB is a relatively easy way to add a references section. Any advice? Debresser ( talk) 23:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I see MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references has namespace detection and a category, while MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references doesn't. Is there any reason for this, or was it just forgotten? Anomie ⚔ 11:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references />
tag" generated by
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references from talk pages after discussion at VP.See my proposal there, which namespace to include and which not. And see above that I made precisely the same proposal for MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references as for MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references. I don't see any reason to make them work differently. Debresser ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
<ref group="abc">abc</ref>
Thanks. I'll work on them. Debresser ( talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting a few pages like Category talk:Mottos or File talk:Snow leopard range.png. I can fix them, but I though talk pages weren't supposed to show up. Not to mention a Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-27. Debresser ( talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't write before trying that. But yes, it's fixed now. Thanks. Debresser ( talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I fixed a few more templates, but I'll wait with the big work till the job queue removed all talk pages, portals and Wikipedia pages. Debresser ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Somebody fixed almost all templates under the letter "T". I fixed a few new stray ones and the last ca. 25 he had left. Could you please fix Template:HighDefMediaComparison. It's editprotected. Debresser ( talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do you know why some templates are listed under the letter "T", but a few under the first letter of their name (e.g. Template:Broken ref in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references, which is listed under the letter "B")? Debresser ( talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Should these categories be combined? They seem be similar issues.-- BirgitteSB 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that the messages for malformed <ref>...</ref>
tags use {{
broken ref}}, we can generate a different message based on the namespace. Since the message includes the category, this means that we could show the error on a talk page, but not place it in the tracking category.
The two messages for missing <references />
don't use {{
broken ref}} since they use a different category. We could add a message that would show only on talk pages that would include the {{
reflist}}.
-- Gadget850 ( talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the message now used for cite error "problems" on templates (i.e. those cases where footnoted sources are included without a </references> or {{reflist}} tag) is poorly worded. It currently reads:
with a list of the template's footnotes following.
The problem with this is two-fold. First, because some editors working to "clean up" templates are now adding this wording directly to template documentation, it gives the appearance that the template itself is somehow at fault (probably principally because the words "the article" are used). Second, it does not give the editor any direction as to what to do to correct the problem.
I would like to suggest that the wording on this "cite error" message be changed to read :
This would 1) make clear what footnotes will display (thus allowing editors to verify that they are correct) and 2) make clear what an editor needs to do to eliminate any display problem. MeegsC | Talk 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It's not "some editors", it's me. :)
I agree with MeegsC that the wording is ambiguous. As I explained to him on my talk page the meaning is indeed that this list will not appear in any article using the template, but the references themselves will. I don't see how this could be expressed better.
The formulation he suggests here is also not good, because if indeed no references section will be made in the article, that will lead to an error message. Debresser ( talk) 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Anomie suggested to me that we could make a template for this whole references section. That way we could easily change the text at will. I've made {{ Templaterefsection}}. It would have to be used inside <noinclude> tags. Please have a look. Debresser ( talk) 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite catch you. Debresser ( talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
==References==
creates an [edit]
link. When you use it in a template, that [edit]
always opens the template for editing. See the test at
User:Gadget850/T1. There is a fix for this, but I have to wake up first. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)I see. I added <includeonly> tags, and that solved the problem. But that has a sideeffect: that you can't edit the references section, only by editing all of the template. Which we can live with, but is a little strange. Debresser ( talk) 10:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I also added an explanatory text. And did you see that trick of mine, adding a second references section in <noinclude> tags? That can be removed, of course, should you think it better. I also made a documentation page. Debresser ( talk) 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done my daily round in all categories. Now I'm ready to start fixing templates. What will it be? We're going to use this new template or not? Debresser ( talk) 11:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
does nothing, as it does not transclude to the page. We need to document its uses in two ways:
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
I added to give an idea of what the template would look like when used. I agree it is unnecessary and may be removed. On the other hand, I did like the trick.So what do you say? Use the template, or not? Debresser ( talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Got up to the letter "M" so far. I think you can notice the difference. I'm going to make two turns, fixing in the second turn those templates that the first turn couldn't fix, due to limitations in the software. Debresser ( talk) 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Fixed another 300 in 1h 17m (wolfish grin). Debresser ( talk) 01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed all templates in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. And those that ended up in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting too. And 133 templates that I fixed before we had this template as well. Templates gone. Debresser ( talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just had to wrap this new template in <noinclude>'s on {{ 2009 swine flu outbreak chart}}. Without them, it was adding a reference section to the top of 2009 swine flu outbreak. -- auburnpilot talk 00:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. On a template you need <noinclude> tags. In a documentation page you don't. I'll put it in the documentation of {{ Templaterefsection}}. Debresser ( talk) 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags, but it won't work that way. But often you don't need to add tags especially, e.g. when they are already there for categories or a documentation page. Then, you just add {{
Templaterefsection}} and you're done.
Debresser (
talk)
01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags don't transclude. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
02:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, the template was semi-protected today. What an honor. Good he didn't protect it fully, or even I wouldn't be able to change it any more.
I changed the explanations in the documentation page quite extensively. I removed most of the too technical introduction to the Overview. And I made two changes in the Usage section:
Debresser ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Where are the archives from older discussions? I didn't find all of them in the links at the top of the page. Debresser ( talk) 10:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the rest of the 1561 pages in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting? I see only 287 of them. Debresser ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That was just a renaming of an old category, as you can read here. Debresser ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
</ref>
the bot can't figure out where to insert it because that requires actually understanding what the page is trying to say.
Anomie
⚔
01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
We currently have three categories:
Propose to:
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you make the talk page of Category:Pages with broken reference names redirect here too? Debresser ( talk) 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Do you have a nicer solution for this fix of mine?
2 What about my suggestion in the section Categories above?
3 Currently Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting includes both errors because of missing </ref> tags as well as broken links (e.g. <ref name=thereisnosuchrefinthisarticle />. Can you make two different pages of this?
</ref>
triggers
MediaWiki:Cite error included refOK. Look at MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references. Each namespace is now sorted differently: main by pagename, template by !, category by ", help by # and file by $. It will take a bit for Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references to resort. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, while you're at it, could you make the pages in Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters sort A-B-... too? I've been cleaning up there very seriously. Debresser ( talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, today I had a template in Category:Pages with broken reference names under "T". Didn't you program templates to be under "!" there also? Same in Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You noticed those missing articles with broken reference names didn't show up in the end? Debresser ( talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC) To be more precise, the category now claims there are only 224 pages there. Debresser ( talk) 00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And shouldn't Help:Cite errors/Testcases and Help:Cite errors/Testcases2 show up under "!' on Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting? Debresser ( talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC) And Help:Cite errors/Testcases on Category:Pages with broken reference names? Debresser ( talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I now saw you didn't yet add that "!" fix with template, file, help and cat=2 to Template:Broken ref. Piece of cake, no? Debresser ( talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
as you can see on those category pages. They are still sorting by pagename only. Debresser ( talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) If only I understood that small line of code there... Debresser ( talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you do the same for Category:Articles with broken citations too? Debresser ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting it works now. On Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references and Category:Pages with broken reference names it doesn't,not even after null-editing. Debresser ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In the right order:
I have added the line "Below they are listed in order of preference". This order is based on various factors:
If you would like to change the order, or think it should be removed completely, please discuss this first here. Debresser ( talk) 12:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Figured out that external links work in the MediWiki messages where the internal links don't work. The three affected messages are now updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix the references error in List of honorific titles in popular music. I tried, but failed. Debresser ( talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
<ref>
tag; refTools found it quickly. Also fixed a duplicate reference definition. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Why use the deprecated h sytax and the span markup instead of WP markup? Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC).
The reason for adding user pages is that we had a user page polluting the category for a good six months. Until today in fact. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
Someone tell me why it's so fucking hard to add references/sources/whatever to articles? In an ideal worl all we should have to do is click on the 'references' button at the appropriate point of the article and insert the URL to the source. And stop. None of this bullshit about then adding a 'ref' tag at the end of the article and then going back because the stupid thing didn't add a heading so it looks odd. Wikipedia admins why not instead of spending so much time debating stupid policies don't you make some of the annoying things like this simpler? I suppose you'd need to take a vote or "straw poll" before anyone does anything because that's what it's like on wikipedia nowadays.--
Xania
talk
19:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose we change "!" in {{
Broken ref}} to "τ"? Or more precisely τ{{PAGENAME}}
. Then we can change
MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references and
MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references to something like all the others, namely {{broken ref|msg=There are {{tag|ref|open}} tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{tag|references|single}} tag.|cat=Pages with missing references list}}
. The two blocks in
Template:Broken_ref/doc#Messages could then be merged.
Advantages:
|prefix=
just for that one stubborn message. Did a lot of cleanup on the template and help page, so give it an eyeball. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)First, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this message. I cannot understand the coding you are talking about but you seem to be referring to the error message that is displayed in the references section when there is an orphaned ref tag in the article. Formerly the error message was
Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named a.
Now the message seems to be
Cite Error:Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named a; see Help:Cite errors.
I have no problem with having the additional text in the error message but I think the entire error message should be big red text. That way editors are more likely to see the message and fix the error.
75.69.0.58 (
talk)
21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The cite software has been updated with new features that I am figuring out. I have listed the new error messages and will expand as I figure out how to break things. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently we have a long table with entries like:
Message | Problem | Solution |
---|---|---|
Cite error: Invalid <ref>...</ref> tag; refs with no name must have content.
|
There is no content between the <ref>...</ref> tags.
|
Either put content between the <ref> tags (<ref>content</ref> ), or (if you're reusing a named reference that's been defined elsewhere in the article) use a single tag <ref name="ref_name" /> .
|
The solution column is getting crowded. I propose that we split each message into its own table and go vertical:
{{
<ref>...</ref>
tag; refs with no name must have content.|nocat=true}}---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Done ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Each MediaWiki message includes a link to Help:Cite errors. I also propose that we ad an HTML id to each entry in the table. We then add the id to the Help:Cite errors link in each MediaWiki message using {{ broken ref}} so that when the link is clicked from the error message, it jumps directly to the appropriate section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Done I also removed the prefix parameter in {{
broken ref}} as it was causing some really odd HTML problems. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I was testing references in my sandbox, and discovered that the namespace detection in {{ Broken ref}} hides the error message in the User namespace. I don't suggest adding user pages to the categories (that would be about 3117 of them, after all), but would anyone be opposed to adding something like this so we can see the errors? Anomie ⚔ 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Done ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Presently, the error message for broken references is placed in the reference itself at the bottom of the article. Since broken references are fiendishly hard to solve, for others than the original editor that is, it would be preferable if the error message were placed inside the text together with the footnote anchor. That way it would be a lot more likely that the original editor should notice the error message. If this is possible, I would like to request this feature. Debresser ( talk) 10:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
We are down to the last ten nine broken references on
Category:Pages with broken reference names. Not including the three helppages, of course. There are new ones all the time, but they are being taken care of. Thanks go to editors
75.69.0.58 and
AnomieBOT.
These last broken references can not be solved by looking in the article history for mistakes. They were added broken from the beginning. Usualy a message has been added to the article talkpage and to the talkpage of the editor who made the broken reference. The challange is to try and find the most likely source, or another equivalent reference.
Debresser ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Redesigning the citation errors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't fix Copt. Anybody want to try it? Debresser ( talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Current message:
Current error message:
<ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a <references/>
tag.Proposed message:
{{broken ref |msg={{ambox|type=content |text=This page contains references, but it '''does not contain a reference list'''. Citations and footnotes in this article will not appear until one is added.<br />To resolve this issue, see the <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references help page]</span>. |cat=Pages with missing references list}}
Which will show as:
![]() | This page contains references, but it does not contain a reference list. Citations and footnotes in this article will not appear until one is added. To resolve this issue, see the help page. |
Can't we redirect Category talk:Articles with broken citations here as well? Debresser ( talk) 21:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there in external link inside the error messsages found on Category:Articles with broken citations? I looked at the source of {{ Cite web}} and {{ Citation error}}, but didn't see thereason. It looks like No title when using {{ [2] Cite web}}.
And when we find the reaason, I propose deleting it ASAP. The link is anyway always stated right afterwards. Not the mention the ridiculous placing. Debresser ( talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It is in {{ cite web}}:
{{cite web |url=http://example.org}}
http://example.org. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Not sure what is causing this; took it to Template talk:Cite web#Error message. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to have a go at fixing that? Half the footnotes are missing. It's driving me potty trying to find the problem. Parrot of Doom 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=abc>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=abc}}
template (see the
help page).