This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
problem with pp=
I ran into a problem trying to make a change in one cite in the United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands article, changing a one-page citation to cite two pages, changing p= to pp= with an externally-linked pageno or pageno range, so I did not make the change. With pp=, there seems to be a problem with the semicolon character in the linked url, but not with p=. Following is the cite copied from the article, both with and without the change:.
Yeah, because editors will separate multiple individual pages with semicolons instead of commas, Module:Footnotes converts semicolon-separated page-number lists to comma-separated page-number lists. Unless there is some overwhelming reason to present readers with the 200%-size page, use a better url:
Thanks for all of that. I took the url as I found it in the article, though I vaguely remember finding that book with a web search years ago and linking urls based on that. I probably never would have found that https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/...etc. urls. I'll probably revisit this in the article and perhaps in other articles citing that book. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem... or not?
Currently, at the List of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, all the entries for DDG-85 to DDG-112 have a note "c", and the entry for DDG-127 has a note "d". These two notes use the Havard citation, but they are in brackets without ref tags, (wasn't that deprecated?) Anyway, the first note has, in full size text, the author's last name and publicatiom year, while the second note, again in full size, has the publisher name and publication year, (isn't the preference to have a small superscripted alpha-numeric digit?) These notes are hyperlinked, but they do not work. At least for me, on desktop mode on my mobile, clicking the link doesn't take me to the full entry below. (But, hovering over the note/link sometimes shows me the full ref in a hover box. Is that the goal here?) I played around with it a little, trying to get these harvard notes to look and behave like other refs, but... nada. But this is why I'm sure is this is a problem or not. Perhaps someone here more savvy with this particular markup could take a look, determine if there is indeed a problem, and if so, hopefully fix it. Thanks (sorry about the length) - wolf14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Thanks for looking, and the reply, but does that mean the full cites are only available to you when you access via the little box as you hover over them? If so, that doesn't seem right, does it? Also, these notes have brackets instead of ref tags, wasn't that set-up deprecated a few years ago? Thanks again - wolf15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I hover over the [c] or [d] I get the popup box; if I click the same two I go to the appropriate note at the bottom of the section. Whichever method I use, if I hover over the blue link it shows a further box giving the full ref; if I click that blue link I am taken to the full ref. This is as it should be. The {{harvnb}} template is not deprecated, but parenthetical referencing is. I suspect that harvnb has been used here because the four notes are in the form of {{efn}} wrapped in WP:LDR, and this doesn't play nicely with notes that contain refs of either the <ref>...</ref> or {{sfn}} form. If the {{efn}}s were moved to be in the tables, with a simple {{notelist}} at the bottom and no attempt to use LDR, it should then be possible to use non-parenthetical refs. See Talk:Arleigh Burke-class destroyer#Alternative notes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look, (thanks for doing all that, by the way), it initially looks like what I was trying to set up by swapping the parenthesis for ref tags. Except now, if you click on "d", there is a hover box with the note and a superscripted "[3]". You click on the "3" and get second hover box with the "Dept of Defense 2017" link. You click on that link and get a third hover box (with the previous two still there), and in that is the cite with a link to the ref. I'm now wondering why we even need these harvnb style cites here. I'm sure they work well in other situations, but here it just seems like it would be simpler to swap them out for regular refs. Maybe it's just me, but they don't seem particularly helpful here, (unless I'm missing something, and I'm totally willing to admit that I may be, as I not completely familiar with this particular markup). Cheers - wolf17:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources used as reference material with this message are found in an unexpected article section. Sources listed in Spinor § Further reading are not expected to be used as article references. Move those sources out of §Further reading into a separate section: §Bibliography or §Works cited or some such and leave §Further reading to hold actual 'further reading' material.
I think your referring to |ps=, but using that parameter is discouraged. You will end up with error messages if you use the same reference with a quote and then without a quote. Instead you can just include the quote after the template but before the closing ref tag. As an example: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2024|p=10}} "Blah, Blah Blah".</ref> -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since probably the last 2-3 days when I last used it, when I call up harvnb in Visual Editor, "Quotes or additional comments" appears as the final parameter.
Wow, sfn "loc", huh?! Quotes is a proper use? That's...hahaha fantastic. No more harvnb in ref tags with text beside. Is there a downside to this? It's kinda clear on the template help page now that I reread, but could be made much clearer! Tsavage (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'template data' section is part of visual editor, it isn't meant to be part of the templates documentation. Unfortunately it is more poorly maintained than the actual template documentation. The relevant section is Adding additional comments or quotes, and Help:Shortened footnotes gives some better guidance.
Oh that abomination that is templatedata. The 'Quotes or additional comments' label and its incorrect definition is a (failed) attempt to define |ps=. That mess was added at this 26 July 2023 edit. Not recent.
The purpose of |ps= is to set the terminal punctuation for the short-form template rendering to something other than its default terminal punctuation (for semicolon terminator, write: |ps=; etc; to suppress terminal punctuation, write |ps=none).
Template:Harvard citation no brackets § Additional comments or quotes has correct guidance for adding comments or quotes if you must do so. [Mixing] {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} templates is not proscribed. Use of |loc= to hold sommat that is not an in-source locator is semantically incorrect and should be avoided. It is ok to use {{harvnb}} in an article where {{sfn}} is the predominant short-form template.
The short-form templates are supposed to be short. If a quotation is important to the article, put the quotation in the article and cite it. Quotations need citations; citations do not need quotations.
I'll fix the |ps= templatedata and then go wash my hands.
What Trappist said. Also: if you feel that you need to include a quote in order to support your reference, that may indicate that the reference is weak. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
