WikiTree Code: Wrong [closed]

Question

Hi,

Making a profile and I was doing my last check. The WikiTree code is messed up and I do not know how to fix it. I just can not find the problem. Please Help!

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rutherford-4701

Answer 1

Hi Francis. Nice page! But I notice that near the start you have

<ref name=Census1891 /> <ref name=Census1881 /> <ref name=Census1871 />

when those references have not been defined yet. You must put in the contents of the ref the first time it occurs, like this:

<ref name=XYZ>source content</ref>

I'm still looking to see if I can find other problems.

Edited to add: Kathie has fixed the worst problem. But you should either remove the census references at the beginning, or bring the content of those references up to the very first occurrence. Let us know if you need further help with this.

Edited again: Thinking about this further, perhaps I'm wrong, and the references can be used before they're defined. They do seem to work at the moment. I wonder if they will cause suggestions however, e.g. error 872. Maybe someone can clarify this please?

Comments

Thanks Jim!

---

It seems it is working.

---

Yes it does. Thanks for the star, Francis. I'm not sure I deserve it though. It seems it may not matter if you use a named ref before defining it. On the other hand, perhaps it's good practice to define it the first time it's actually used, because then somebody reading the edit text (rather than the formatted page) will better appreciate what the sources are.

Anyhow, wait and see if you get suggestions about it next week.

---

Thanks, Jim,

I think that you deserve that star for the thought you gave!

---

Hi Jim,

"... when those references have not been defined yet. You must put in the contents of the ref the first time it occurs"

Just to clarify - source reference definitions aren't required to be located in the physically first occurrence of the source reference to function correctly. A source reference just needs to be defined somewhere before the references tag in the profile in order for the source references to function correctly.

Here's an example profile for which the source references work just fine with the source reference definitions being located after the initial occurrences of the references: Jacob Span

Edit to fix typo

---

You're very kind, Francis. Thank you!

---

Thanks for the confirmation, Rick. Do you think there's any merit in the argument that it is nonetheless a good idea to define them the first time they appear? For people working later to edit the biography, this could make things easier to follow.

---

When creating a new profile, the first thing that I do is add a citation and associated abstract for each of the sources that I have at the time. By doing this, I ensure that I'm only creating sourced profiles. When I subsequently compose and make updates to the Biography and/or Research Notes, I leave the source reference definitions where I initially created them (in the abstracts).

In order to keep a source reference definition in the physically first occurrence of each source reference, I'd likely have to move each source reference definition multiple times, as I'm developing the bio and notes, each time potentially introducing errors. Additional benefits (just my opinion) of leaving the source reference definitions in the abstracts are that it reduces clutter in the actual bio and notes, and groups all the source reference definitions in the same place.

---

Thanks for the explanation, Rick. This is a different style from what I've seen before, but what you say sounds very logical.

---

I feel the same way as Jim. I just try to move things as little as possible. It can have benefits but also, cause errors. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

---

I agree Francis, that's why I leave the source reference definitions where I initially place them.

And Jim, to answer your question re: a possible 872 suggestion, references used before they're physically defined (as long as they are defined before the references tag) won't cause an 872 or other suggestion.

Answer 2

Added a missing ref code.

Comments

Your the best, Kathie!