From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



nb: there's also:

  • importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors2.js');

which is a variant that cuts down on some the false positives; it gets confused cuts down on some true positives, so take care. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some things to know.

  1. The items in the bibliography have to specify the ref=harv parameter. The {{citation}} template automatically includes the ref=harv parameter.
  2. The {sfn} template has to correctly specify the author name(s) and the year of the work (all must be spelled correctly; diacritics must match). For multiple authors, all must be placed in the template. Little errors such as p-11 for p=11 will cause breakage. The year specified must be the edition cited, not the original year, if that information appears in the citation.
  3. If there are tons of authors or no authors or the publication year is not known or you want something other than author and year, the {{sfnRef}} can be used in the down-below, and {sfn} in the up-above. Examples: {{sfnRef|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the article; {{sfnRef|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the article. Using {sfnRef} in the article breaks things.
  4. An unusual situation arises when there's multiple works cited by the same author in the same year. One solution is to place the book name in the {sfnRef template}. But putting it in italics breaks the template (but only in the {sfnRef}; the {sfn} is italicized the usual way), so we have to do "italics the hard way": {{sfnRef|Shackleton, .27.27South.27.27}} in the down-below, and {{sfn|Shackleton, ''South'' | loc=preface | pp=xii–xv}} in the up-above.

    There's probably more things you need to know. -- Dianna (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly papers and article names go in quotation marks, which don't break the templates. @Sitush: another handy tool is the Citation Bot, but be careful; each change has to be reviewed carefully as not all are helpful and some are the opposite of helpful :( -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:REFTOOLBAR gets tripped-up my a lack of quotation marks (as above). Likewise, it is best to do some initial clean up of gross errors before throwing citation bot and various toolserver toys at a page. They're just tools, they require proper understanding of their use. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen behaviour such as you describe. Mostly I use the diagnostic features of RefToolbar. I use some, but not a lot. I mostly just edit and check my work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See Also[edit]