Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets

broken harv link reporting
Please see the discussion at where a broken harv-link reporting scheme is proposed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 16 March 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:. 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:
 * If you use your original url, replace the semicolons with   (see percent-encoding):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you use your original url, replace the semicolons with   (see percent-encoding):
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * —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) - w o lf  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. - w o lf  14:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 - w o lf  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 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  wrapped in WP:LDR, and this doesn't play nicely with notes that contain refs of either the  or  form. If the s were moved to be in the tables, with a simple  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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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 - w o lf  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  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)
 * Thanks, that's done the trick. Jheald (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § loc, at
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § loc, at. Rjjiii (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)