Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets

broken harv link reporting

Please see the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes/Archive 1 § broken harv link reporting where a broken harv-link reporting scheme is proposed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Template name

Since the parenthetical citations RfC, concluded 5 September 2020, which did *not* deprecate this template, but the Harvard citations technique, in Wikipedia, it might be considered to rename this useful template in a way that the confusing "Harvard citation" expression is avoided in its name.

Short citations are an acceptable replacement for parenthetical referencing in Wikipedia, so I was thinking about this alternative name for the {{Harvard citation no brackets}} template:

• Full name: {{Linked short citation}}
• Shorthand (redirect): {{lsc}}

I'd like to gather some response to this idea, before proposing this (or something along these lines) in a more formal way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, current names for this template ({{Harvard citation no brackets}}, {{harvnb}}, etc...) should be retained as redirects to the new name, but the template documentation would, of course, best be rewritten based on the new name, in order to avoid confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: To avoid the naming confusion (Harvard citations versus Harvard referencing) that we have recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Parenthetical referencing § Extent of deprecation and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 9 § Template:Use Harvard referencing, the entire family of Harvard citation templates (listed at Template:Harvard citation documentation § Author–date citation templates and Wikipedia:Citation templates § Harvard reference and shortened footnote examples) would need to be renamed: {{Harvard citation}}, {{Harvard citations}}, {{Harvard citation no brackets}}, {{Harvard citation text}}, {{Harvp}}. These are all still permitted in footnotes per the community discussion that only deprecated inline parenthetical referencing. Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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:.

• Kalaw 1927, p. 453
• Kalaw 1927, pp. cc=philamer, idno=afj2233.0001.001, frm=frameset, view=image, seq=473, page=root, size=s 453-454

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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:

{{Harvnb|Kalaw|1927|pp=[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/afj2233.0001.001/473 453–454]}}

Kalaw 1927, pp. 453–454

If you must use your original url, replace the semicolons with %3B (see percent-encoding):

{{Harvnb|Kalaw|1927|pp=[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer%3Bcc=philamer%3Bidno=afj2233.0001.001%3Bfrm=frameset%3Bview=image%3Bseq=473%3Bpage=root%3Bsize=s 453–454]}}

Kalaw 1927, pp. 453–454

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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) - wolf 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR - could someone please have a look at a pair of harvnb notes in the List of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, designated "c", for entry DDG-85++ and "d" for entry DDG-127, to see if they are set up and working correctly. Again, thanks. - wolf 14:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Works for me --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@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 - wolf 15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 - wolf 17:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Harv error: linked from CITEREFCartan1913."

The "Further reading" section of the article Spinor is currently (permalink) full of these error messages. What do they mean, and how can one make them go away? Thanks, Jheald (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks, that's done the trick. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)