When did "Error 864 Almost empty <ref/> tags" start?

Question

I have a lot of these errors now showing up in the suggestions for my profiles.  Is this something new?   I use a lot of abbreviations and links for in-line sources, e.g. <ref>[[#C1850]]</ref> for the 1850 Census with the details written in the sources section with a link to the source.  .   Do I need to do something about them?

Comments

The style guidelines are confused and don't address the issue.  The problem is the ambiguity in the word "source".

If you want to cite something in a big book with no index, it's no use just giving the book, you want to give a page number (and ideally a link to the page).

So what's the "source" then?  Is it the book or the page?

So cross out the word "source" and replace it with "book" or "page".

Then the problem arises here:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources#Repeated_use_of_the_same_source_in_the_same_profile

In the subheader, "source" means "page".  The named-refs method only avoids identical footnotes.  It's no use for citing several different pages in the same book.

But in the bracketed last paragraph, "Other methods for using the same source multiple times", "source" means "book".  Nobody's suggesting another way of making multiple references to the same page.

But there needs to be a way to refer to a bunch of different pages in the same book.  And the only supported method is the "not recommended" method.

---

RJ,

Not true; one could easily use (as I do)  "Anderson (1995), p 1276: 'Pertinent quote' " as a subsequent footnote, assuming an earlier footnote provides a full citation.

---

This isn't the only problem with this error.  One problem is that during this challenge, the source reference <Insert reference here> is simply being removed.  I have used that phrase in order to document where a fact has no source citation.  There is a suggestion in a g2g post and in an improvement suggestion that we use the template {{citation needed}} to document and track those facts, but that suggestion remains unapproved.   So now many of my profiles have unsupported facts and no identification of that need.  Is this the approved WikiTree guideline to leave unsupported facts undocumented?  It is not simply that people are not following the rules, but that new errors are listed which weren't errors.  With this challenge, it seems that a source should be found and inserted by the participants rather than to simply remove the documentation that a source citation is needed.

---

I've been using {{citation needed}} since I started here in 2012 or 2013, following what others had already been doing. I didn't realize it was not approved.

---

unapproved or not... its still better than removing any placeholder text and making the problem worse

---

Hello Edie

You shouldn't  leave the Insert Reference here which is the default when you click on the Cite reference button when editing profiles. Otherwise how does the Bot know it is not a mistaken press of the button.

A better option could be to put This Needs a Reference or Reference Required which would bring attention to the fact that there isn't a source without it being picked up by the Bot which checks for suggestions. 

---

Well that would work, I guess.  I like the citation needed template personally.  But the bot wasn't picking up <Insert reference here> until recently, right?  And why are we simply removing <Insert reference here>?  If there is no reference, shouldn't we leave it until there is one inserted?

---

Have a read of https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:DBE_865 which is the suggestion info page regarding the Insert Reference Here suggestion . 

It was first started on 2nd January 2019. One of the suggested action steps is remove tags and the text if there isn't an associated citation. So if people removed the text and tags then they technically were following the instructions given on the info page. 

If you wish to suggest a different way to deal with the suggestion then please start a new G2G post so it doesn't get lost in this G2G post. 

The Citation needed template is unapproved according to the info you found in G2G. I suggested an alternative  which could be useful. It is your choice if you want to use them.

---

Good idea, Darren!

---

Simple enough.  The Suggester makes a list of "Insert reference here".  You look at one, and if it looks like an accidental button press, you remove it.  But if it looks like it was done on purpose, you leave it alone.

Not every Suggestion is an error that needs to be fixed.  That's why the name was changed.

This needs to be spelled out on the Suggestion help pages, because at present they seem to give the impression that all Suggestions are errors and must be dealt with by the steps given.

Answer 1

You can tell when any 'Suggestion' started.  When you go to its description page, at the top is a date.  That's when it started.  For example, the Error 864 page, referenced in your question, has the date of 2 Jan 2019.

Answer 2

Some people had been putting a dot or space between the ref tags, presumably intending to add the source but never got around to it.

You can always hit ‘false suggestion ‘ if you are sure they are correct.

Comments

It is not a case of a single character, e.g. dot or space.  I always have at least 5 characters in abbreviations.  Now I have several hundred suggestions to fix.  

The error message says "If length of <ref></ref> is shorter than 20 letters, it triggers an error. That means 9 letters of actual citation." 

It is kicking in for me when I have tags that are 7 or 8 characters long.

---

Would it still work if you put a couple of extra spaces in?

Not done much in this way of sourcing.

---

Now I'm puzzled, because <ref>[[#Blah]]</ref> comes in at 20 characters and shouldn't get a Suggestion.

---

I think only Blah gets counted toward the 9 & only [[#Blah]] toward the 20. Pretty sure the ref tags don't count for either total - the count is for what's between <ref> and </ref>.

---

There you go then

 blah,blah,blah is it!

Answer 3

The error code is based on formatting of sources and using the references tags per WikiTree guidelines at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources

When done per these guidelines, you should not have errors.

Comments

Hi Robin, Can you check the link you provided? I'm getting a 'this page does not exist' message.

---

Fixed the link for Robin (it was missing an 's').

Answer 4

As Steve Harris said, it is due to using an unsupported methodology. I find this particular shorthand particularly confusing. It depends on using obscure wiki encoding and is just as likely to get broken as any other. We should all be using recommended practices. Recommended practices enhance collaboration.

Comments

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Alternative_Sourcing_Methods

---

See below

Answer 5

Yeah if you are using your own made up system that would be fine if it were your tree on your computer but this is one tree for all of us and we are not going to know what your shorthand means - please cite so that others can go see the source and what it says about the person in the profile so we can all understand

Comments

It's not made up. It follows this : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Alternative_Sourcing_Methods 

---

If you read that section carefully it says 

"Overall, this sourcing style is not ideal and is not generally recommended for manually-created sources. It is supported because it has to be. We may be able to find a way to fix this in the future."

Basically it is only supported to work around the broken way Ancestry does things. So, it is most definitely in the "not recommended" category

---

"Overall, this sourcing style is not ideal and is not generally recommended for manually-created sources. It is supported because it has to be. We may be able to find a way to fix this in the future."

Why do something that will have to be fixed later?

---

I hear you.  I always include the complete source references in the source section with at least a link that is meaningful to it.  I inherited a large number of Gedcom imported profiles that I have to clean up.  Expanding upon incomplete Ancestry sourcing is very time consuming in of itself.  I have tried and will continue to try to put the complete source in the Biography Section.  The problem is that adding a complete source to the biography section makes the biography almost impossible to read for editing purposes.  It doesn't help with the clarity of knowing which sources pertain to sections of the profile when the <references /> section consolidates the sources, either.   I guess there isn't any easy way around this.

---

@ Doug McCallum .. yeah, I know what it says.  As I posted up there ^^^ I apologise for the "hit and run" posting.  Please read my words up there.  I don't think I have it in me to type them out all over again.

. . . Peace.

Answer 6

Hi, I notices <ref>[[#xxx]]</ref> links are marked as a suggestion for being too short.

Using inpage hyperlinks is not recommended to use, since many user's don't understand the concept of inpage links mixed with inline sources or even named inline sources. But they work as on any Wiki page.

Using this convention also requires 2 clicks to came to correct source and after first click, you can get lost between 10 inline citations and you don't exactly know which one is the one you clicked on and have to click on again based on number like S48 to come to actual  source citation.

My reasoning is to at list put in some more text in the inline citation, so user will know what they are clicking. Like <ref>[[#xxx|Birth certificate]]</ref> would look much nicer on a profile. The best way in my opinion is to use Named inline references in this case (<ref name="xxx">...</ref> and <ref name="xxx" /> for additional usage of the same source).

I can also exclude [[#xxx]] from 864 suggestion, in case community decides for it.

Comments

Thanks  Aleš   One, two or maybe three  character links are probably not meaningful and could be automatically added to the Suggestions.   Beyond that it becomes a subjective call as to whether the links is not meaningful.  Links like #C1850, #Death, #Marriage, #CSA, #FaG, are often used and could probably be expanded as you say, e.g.[[#C1850|1850 Census]], [[#Death|Death Certificate]], [[#CSA|CSA Military Record]], [[#FaG|Find a Grave]], etc.  

I would much rather edit text like the following that is supported as inline sources that are links to the full source at the bottom of the page: 

Hosea Bowman was born on 17 Oct 1831 in Lincoln County, North Carolina, USA.<ref>[[#MarriageJLB]], [[#FindaGrave]], FSTID:   LKMD-6MD</ref>  (Note:  Alexander County was not formed until 1847.)  His parents are [[Bowman-3564|Jonas Bowman]] and [[Little-2647|Elizabeth (Little) Bowman]].<ref>[[#HistAlexCo]], [[#C1850]]</ref>  Hosea was confirmed at Friendship Lutheran Church in Alexander County, North Carolina, USA on Oct 16, 1852.<ref>[[#Confirmation]]</ref>  Hosea Bowman married [[Price-10773|Minerva Caroline Price]] before 1860.<ref>[[#HistAlexCo]], [[#FindaGrave]], [[#C1860]], [[#MarriageJLB2]]</ref>  Hosea Bowman died in August 1862 and is buried at Friendship Lutheran Church in Alexander County, North Carolina, USA.<ref>[[#FindaGrave]], [[#CSA|CSA Military Service Record]]</ref>

Than the following text that conforms to the recommended standard with full in-line citations.  

Daniel Sharp<ref>Daniel and his children used the spelling of Sharp without an "e".  Succeeding generations have added the "e" after Sharp.</ref> was born in either England or Germany in about 1723 (uncertain).  He married Elizabeth Swicegood (uncertain about last name but this is what is quoted in oral history)  in Pennsylvania.  He died on Dec 7, 1823 in Davidson County, North Carolina, USA.  He is probably buried at the Sharp Family Cemetery, which was located above Horshoe Neck on the east side of the Yadkin River in Davidson County, North Carolina, USA. (The Sharp Family Cemetery was destroyed sometime after World War II.)<ref name="RSS">This profile is based with permission on research by Roger Dean Sharpe, handouts at Sharpe Family reunions in 1930 and 2003, and news accounts of these reunions, "The Sharp/Sharpe Family of Horseshoe Neck, Davidson Co, NC" by Roger Dean Sharpe, June 4, 2000. received by Esther Campbell Moore, daughter of Georgia Dora Sharp, at the Reunion in 2000, history of the Daniel Sharpe and Abraham Sharpe family updated in 2000 from the 1930 version</ref><ref name="RDS">"The Sharp/Sharpe Family of Horseshoe Neck, Davidson Co, NC" by Roger Dean Sharpe, June 4, 2000 at the Reunion in 2000, history of the Daniel Sharpe and Abraham Sharpe family updated in 2000 from the 1930 version.</ref><ref name="DSS">Paper prepared by David S. Sharpe in about 1930 for the Sharpe family reunion in September 1930, [[#DSS]]</ref><ref name="Mathias">Interview with Mathias Sharp in ''Lexington Dispatch'', Lexington, North Carolina, March 18, 1903</ref><ref name="Sandy">Response to the Mathias Sharp interview by descendants of Alexander (Sandy) Sharp, published in the ''Lexington Dispatch'', Lexington, North Carolina, March 25, 1903, page 8 [[#Sandy]]</ref><ref name="Sand Creek">Sandy Creek, [http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/nr/DV0294.pdf St. Luke's Lutheran Church Cemetery], National Historic Site, [[#SandyCreek]]</ref>, <ref>''Sharpe Family Holds Reunion'', News Report from September 4, 1930. Statesville Record and Landmark, Sept 4, 1930, page 7, [[#Landmark]]</ref> <ref name="1800 Census">Daniel Sharpe, "United States Census, 1800", "United States Census, 1800," database with images, FamilySearch ([https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XHRW-HDW Link]: accessed 1 March 2017), Daniel Sharpe, Salisbury, Rowan, North Carolina, United States; citing p. 412, NARA microfilm publication M32, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 33; FHL microfilm 337,909. Probably Daniel Sharpe's son John or Johann Daniel Sharpe</ref><ref name="1810 Census">Danl Sharp, "United States Census, 1810", "United States Census, 1810," database with images, FamilySearch ([https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XH2V-9GD Link]: accessed 1 March 2017), Danl Sharp, Carolina, Rowan, North Carolina, United States; citing p. 326, NARA microfilm publication M252 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 43; FHL microfilm 337,916.  Checked the original microfilm to verify that "Jr." appears after Danl Sharp. See the attached image.</ref> 

Most new profiles that I am familiar with start with a list of sources in a sources section, which is required.    The user then has the choice of how to make the inline citations.  Many users never go beyond the list of sources.  
 

---

While both styles are used in the profiles on Wikitree I personally don't understand the [[#C1860]] style of citations. It is a bit more advanced styling than I am comfortable with.

I also have some profiles which are at the List of sources stage too.

Everyone has different preferences but If you want to use the [[#C1860]] style of citation then It isn't a big ask to expand in a little more to [[#Census1860]] or [[#C1860|1860Census]] is it? So just adjusting in a small way to prevent how you are doing your source citations being caught up with the real useless citation like <ref>.</ref> or <ref>CSA</ref> without context.

Answer 7

What bugs me most about this suggestion is that:

• It flags a footnoted citation to an author's name (associated with a much longer source listing for the relevant article by that author) as an error (for example, at Duncanson-15 I am seeing 3 errors -- one  for each of the citations to "Remington" and "Bielinski").
• But it doesn't identify any problem when the entire source citation (footnote only, no source listing) is something like "DAR Patriot Index" or "Source: #S11810" (for example, this error doesn't show up for the page Mitchell-15567, which has no identifiable sources in any of its seven footnotes).

Comments

It is flagging on references with 9 Letters or less which the Remington source just gets caught. I would use the full name  Remington, Gordon L which might make it clearer what the source is referreing to. After all if you search Remington on Google it comes up first option for an Arms company whereas searching Remington, Gordon L has the Author in 2nd position.

As for the Mitchell-15567 profile the source citations are longer than 9 letters so it isn't caught in this suggestion. One of the source citations was for a .FTW file which got removed from the sources yet the citations remained. 

Maybe ask if the Footnote only with no source listing can be made a suggestion.

---

Unfortunately, at least one data doctor has been diligently removing these footnotes as "empty." Evidence: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Yates-2717

Answer 8

864 is one of the most popular Suggestions - 86,000 of them.

Large numbers to particular users.

One story seems to be that some people use a template method.  They paste in a blank proforma

=== Birth ===

<ref> . </ref>

=== Christening ===

<ref> . </ref>

etc, and then add details.  So a lot of empty refs are attached to empty facts.

Answer 9

There are needs categories you can us instead of a place holder

For example Category: Surrey, Needs Death Record  use the usual [ brackets around the category

Not all of the States have these categories made yet  while the England Counties all have these and other under the Maintenance category very useful for highlighting were sources are still need

Here is the link to a maintenance category https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Surrey%2C_Maintenance_Categories 

USing these can avoid the reference tag issue

Answer 10

This has just become a major problem in that some "fixes" to the issue have consisted simply in deleting the offending sources.  Since the source, regardless of the number of characters, may provide vital information regarding where the information came from, removing it can be considered vandalism.

Message to Data Doctors:  Please do not "fix" this issue by destroying existing sources.  At the very least, leave a note for the profile manager.  Certainly, there is no shortage of sources on WikiTree which can be improved, but deleting them and not replacing them is no answer.