Template talk:BaltFire: Difference between revisions

'''1904:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire Great Baltimore Fire] left 35,000 without jobs.<ref>Wikipedia contributors, "Great Baltimore Fire," ''Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia'', http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Baltimore_Fire&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;oldid=269520358 (accessed February 18, 2009).</ref>  

=== Link not used a reference ===

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Baltimore_Fire&amp;oldid=269520358  

{{reflist}}  

I added another example of how it is possible to do this, but using {{tl|Wpd}} completely (it is missing source citation information). I noticed that the reference that they created is pointing to an archive version of the article. I am not sure why this might be and it does not seem like a good idea without using what should be the permalink. If you look at the the "Coded by hand" example has multiple "amp;" following the '&amp;' character. This shows what happens when switching in and out of Wikitext &amp; WYSIWYG (or the other way around) . . . only when the '&amp;' is within a <nowiki><ref> </ref></nowiki> pair. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)  

:If you view the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=Great_Baltimore_Fire&id=269520358 cite this page link] from the article you will see that David Dilts is using the Chicago style. That being the case I do not think the example ''using the Wpd template'' is good enough for a full bibliographic citation. What has happened to ''code by hand'' example shows that the problem is still existing but only when the rich text editor is used. --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

::I agree that the full citation is not being used correctly in that example. What I am suggesting is maybe expanding the template to create the citation. I admit that I do not know that much about the different styles. Is showing possibly an old version of the article what is suggested? Anyway, back to the problem . . . I saw one '&' followed by three "amp;"). When I edited and went into Wikitext, I see one valid '&' followed by invalid "amp;amp;amp;amp;". [[User:Thomas_Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)