User:Santasa99/Links2

Assuming that your problem page is User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/Nationalization of history, I see that there are two refs named "Laboratory", identical apart from the quote; and five named "Hopkins", again, identical apart from the quote. The problem does not lie with the template, but with how you've used the construct. If the ref is unnamed, it's used as it stands. But if it's named, the reference processing checks through a list to see if the ref name has previously been used. If it hasn't, the ref is used as it stands, just as if it was unnamed; and then the name is noted in the list. If a ref name is used a second time, the whole of the content of the reuse of that ref is discarded and the ref is linked back to the first use of the name. So, if the following is encountered:

First statement. Second statement.

it is exactly the same as putting this:

First statement. Second statement.

I notice that in each case the quote given is quite lengthy: is it necessary to have all this? I'm thinking mainly of copyright issues. If you can eliminate the quotes entirely, then you can condense the refs like this:

First statement. Second statement. Third statement. etc.

If you do need to show the different quotes, you must first remove all the names from the Second statement. Third statement.

Note that for the second and subsequent cases, is not used. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)