Can someone point out to me [closed]

Question

Where it is written that  removing the ref tags is now an error and why they have to be there? I have at least 30 profiles that have been edited in the last 3 days where they have been put pack in. This seems beyond nit picking. Having a line reading  "A source for this information is needed" put back in right on top of the sources given is needless.

Comments

Hi Jim

This I don't believe would be a data error unless it is a new one. Been a few weeks since I read over the different errors. However the <references /> line must be added as this is the line that tells the profile how to coordinate the <ref></ref> tags used on inline sourcing for example I might put John was born in 1832 to John Doe and Sally unknown if I'm not quite positive on this connection I might put {{citation Needed}} or <ref> A source for this information is needed </ref> this would show genealogist specific points that have not been completely verified. This is also needed if I'm using the same source as evidence for multiple points by using <ref name="Source name"> followed by the complete source </ref>

 

However I don't know how to answer without seeing the profile

---

You need <references /> underneath == Sources == or it will come up as an error.

---

This one has be a little bit confused. I thought part of the sharing part of WikiTree was to standardize how we present things (e.g. the codes, how we identify sources, etc) so that others can know where things stand. No profile "belongs to me", even if I spent hours researching, drafting the Biography, and setting it up on WT. I thought that, as other media have style books, so does WikiTree. I've been making an effort to learn that style, how to do coding, etc. Now you're saying it's whatever you feel like, go ahead.  I've certainly seen that in GedComs and multiple merges that no one has bothered to edit, but it certainly doesn't seem preferable. If there is an incomplete ref code that is bringing up the automatic little bio line, it is apparent to me that someone hasn't truly edited the text. I don't know that it automatically points to someone's  "preferred style of sourcing", nor do I believe that individual preferences should override a standardized approach. I guess it's my 20 years editing that is kicking in!

---

Hi Tess,

Thanks for letting me know. :)

---

No, Denice, I didn't say that at all.  I asked when this became a policy and where it was written as such. I am fully aware of how this site works and that "no profile belongs to me". I personally do not like having 15 footnotes to tell me when someone was born, We're talking about our relatives not writing a thesis on physics. Since most of those edited came from you, here's a tip  (added tag WikiDoctors Project)  is not an explaination of what was changed, I spend a good 15 min of wasted time figuring out what you changed. 

 

I'm closing this topic now, as my initial question was answered. 

---

Sorry it wasted your time. I have been noting "added <references /> tag - WikiDoctors Project", which I thought was clear. I guess it got truncated, and will try to be more clear in the future.

Answer 1

Missunderstandings all round.

When you created the profile, the system created a little bio like

Blah was born in 1799. He was the son of ...  He passed away in 1824.<ref>A source for this information is needed.</ref>

I usually delete the whole thing.  But if you want to lose just the footnote, delete the <ref>...</ref> part at the end.

Deleting <references /> instead has a similar apparent effect, in a 2-wrongs-make-a-right sort of way, though it leaves a stray [1] behind.

The data doctor has put back the <references /> without realizing that this unhid the footnote which was still there, but which you had intentionally hidden.

Blame the system.

Answer 2

• 861 Inline citation doesn't start with ref
• 862 Inline citation doesn't end with /ref
• 863 Missing references / tag  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:DBE_863

Answer 3

As far as I know it is quite OK to present your sources at the end of profiles, as you seem to prefer.

You do not need to use the inline references.

But if there are leftovers of the tags from inline references <ref> </ref> <references /> the error report (now suggestions) will find the incomplete ones. In this case the data doctors should probaly have left the corrections to you - or been more sensitive to your preferred style of sourcing. I suppose the incomplete tag system should have been removed, rather than reinstating the "A source for this information is needed".

Actually, being a heavy user of inline references myself, I'm grateful for these new "suggestions". If I have forgotten the <references /> under the Sources heading, I notice immediately, because I use the footnoted list of sources to get back to what I'm researching. But an incomplete ref-tag will leave the source up in the text; it's ugly, but I didn't always notice.

Answer 4

The person making corrections should have REMOVED "<ref> A source is needed...</ref>" as well as adding back "<references/>"

And when the original user added sources, he/she should have removed "<ref> A source is needed...</ref>"

 

But I think  the focus of the challenge is finding mismatched <ref>...</ref>, or missing <references/> when there are <ref>...</ref> containing real sources.

Comments

That's what I understood too.  I've been adding the missing <ref></ref> indicators back in so that it shows up as an inline reference. Or taking them out.  

I see many complaints about a data doctor changing a profile and don't want to step on any toes.  Should we message the profile manager in these cases?

What I am seeing most of is [[Yates-2773]]

''This biography was auto-generated by a GEDCOM import. And it has the <ref> but not the end </ref> tag   and then should that be considered and inline ref?   Or is it the result a Gedcom upload error