Template talk:BaltFire: Difference between revisions
m (→Using Cite web template: change from publisher to work) |
(→Testing results: possible fix) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::P.S. Coming in for this P.S., I see 1+4 displayed and in the Editor's box when hit the "<nowiki><R></nowiki>" in the toolbar with 1+5 when going into Wikitext. Going to WYSIWYG still shows 1+5 and going back to Wikitext shows 1+6. In other words, switching from WYSIWYG to Wikitext is where the problem occurs. Expanding {{tl|Wpd}} may work, but even better may be using {{tl|cite web}} as you did with your new example. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | :::P.S. Coming in for this P.S., I see 1+4 displayed and in the Editor's box when hit the "<nowiki><R></nowiki>" in the toolbar with 1+5 when going into Wikitext. Going to WYSIWYG still shows 1+5 and going back to Wikitext shows 1+6. In other words, switching from WYSIWYG to Wikitext is where the problem occurs. Expanding {{tl|Wpd}} may work, but even better may be using {{tl|cite web}} as you did with your new example. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Oops, I spoke too soon. The URL used in {{tl|cite web}} is still within the '''ref''' tag, so it still has the same problem. [[User:Thomas_Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | :::Oops, I spoke too soon. The URL used in {{tl|cite web}} is still within the '''ref''' tag, so it still has the same problem. [[User:Thomas_Lerman|Thomas_Lerman]] 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Yes still the same problem. I thought that the plain URL would have got messed up too, but it hasn't. I hunted around and found this reference to [http://dev.fckeditor.net/ticket/2544 fckeditor bug 2544] which seems to match what we are experiencing. The last post gives a fix for the '''fckplugin.js''' --[[User:Cottrells|Steve]] | |||
Revision as of 12:21, 22 March 2010
Bug testing[edit source]
Using this template, that has been created as a workaround for a bug, to try and find what the problem is so that it can be documented for the engineers.
Using the template[edit source]
1904: Great Baltimore Fire left 35,000 without jobs.[1]
Using the Wpd template[edit source]
1904: Great Baltimore Fire left 35,000 without jobs.[2]
Coded by hand[edit source]
1904: Great Baltimore Fire left 35,000 without jobs.[3]
Using Cite web template[edit source]
1904: Great Baltimore Fire left 35,000 without jobs.[4]
Link not used a reference[edit source]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Baltimore_Fire&oldid=269520358
Sources[edit source]
- ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Great Baltimore Fire," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Baltimore_Fire&oldid=269520358 (accessed February 18, 2009).
- ↑ Great Baltimore Fire
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ Wikipedia contributors. "Great Baltimore Fire". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Baltimore_Fire&oldid=269520358. Retrieved 18 February 2009.
Testing results[edit source]
I added another example of how it is possible to do this, but using {{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 '&' character. This shows what happens when switching in and out of Wikitext & WYSIWYG (or the other way around) . . . only when the '&' is within a <ref> </ref> pair. Thomas_Lerman 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you view the 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. --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 1 (valid '&') + 3 (invalid "amp;"). When I edited and went into Wikitext, I see 1+4. Thomas_Lerman 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Coming in for this P.S., I see 1+4 displayed and in the Editor's box when hit the "<R>" in the toolbar with 1+5 when going into Wikitext. Going to WYSIWYG still shows 1+5 and going back to Wikitext shows 1+6. In other words, switching from WYSIWYG to Wikitext is where the problem occurs. Expanding {{Wpd}} may work, but even better may be using {{cite web}} as you did with your new example. Thomas_Lerman 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I spoke too soon. The URL used in {{cite web}} is still within the ref tag, so it still has the same problem. Thomas_Lerman 18:12, 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 1 (valid '&') + 3 (invalid "amp;"). When I edited and went into Wikitext, I see 1+4. Thomas_Lerman 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes still the same problem. I thought that the plain URL would have got messed up too, but it hasn't. I hunted around and found this reference to fckeditor bug 2544 which seems to match what we are experiencing. The last post gives a fix for the fckplugin.js --Steve