Template talk:HarvErrors

Yellow warnings?

Thanks for centralizing this, Headbomb. One comment: warnings seem brown to me, but I understand that range of colors can be subjective. After all, #ac6600 is much more red than green. I won't edit the text until someone else agrees. David Brooks (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks: see new look/text. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see brown warnings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this template?

Headbomb, thanks for making this template; good idea. I think it would benefit from a more descriptive name, like "HarvErrors script options summary" or "HarvErrors nutshell summary 2020". I'm not in love with either of those, but I think the current name is too ambiguous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the summary will apply in 2040 too, so dating it I feel is not great. Other than that, feel free to move it to whatever title you feel is best, e.g. {{HarvErrors nutshell}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarned sections

Note sure whether to put this here or create a talk page under the JS... in Trappist's version of HarvErrors.js, could "Bibliography" be added as a no-warning exception? It's pretty common especially in older articles. Example: William Allan (painter). Also, while I'm here, the comment against the "var external_links" definition is incorrect; it belongs to the previous line. David Brooks (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography is also very common alternative name for a "reference" section (see India#Bibliography for example where short footnotes points to the bibliography section), so I'd be against adding that as a section to be ignored on the same level as Further reading/External links personally. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the GA James Francis Dwyer, for example, the section for full citations that are linked from short citations is called "Bibliography". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede those articles. However I note that MOS:BIB actually discourages it as a heading name because of the ambiguity between works by and works about the subject. Another approach might be to survey the corpus and weigh the different ways Bibliography is used (ha!). Given the pushback I changed William Allan (painter)#Bibliography to Further Reading and will move on. Still, can you fix that comment?

And, while making that edit, I saw that the warnings weren't suppressed in Preview. After Publish they did go away. Technical limitation? David Brooks (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not having the warnings suppressed in Preview of Further Reading/External Links sections isn't a huge problem, but it is a little disconcerting that it doesn't verify I'm fixing the warnings. I'm staring at the HTML of both the Preview and normal pages and I don't see what would make the difference. I really don't understand JS and especially the Wiki-specific code, but the only difference between the HTMLs is the inclusion of the Edit button in the ordinary page, a sequence of additional <span> elements in the H2. I don't see how that affects the tests. But there certainly is different behavior. Sorry I can't take it further. David Brooks (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing what you're saying is a "bug" is not a bug, it's just a limitation of the script. The scripts cannot look for things that aren't in the preview, so if you're previewing only a section, they throw errors/warnings. Could be wrong about what I'm assuming it is that you are seeing though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't previewing a section. Back to the case I was looking at: open William Allan (painter) and see the Further reading section has no warnings. Edit it, don't change anything, Show Preview, and scroll down to see a buncha warnings. As the citations aren't mentioned in footnotes, they would raise a warning if they weren't in Further Reading. I do realize I'm complaining about imperfection in Free Stuff, and this is low on the priority list in this effort to fix references, and I'd like to fix it if I could figure it out. Just noting it. David Brooks (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no warnings when I do that. If you see warnings, they are caused by another script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks:, specifically, those are possibly/likely caused by .harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */ in User:DavidBrooks/common.css. Hard to know without seeing what you are seeing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: I believe that .harv-error CSS switch is to display the currently-suppressed error messages produced by the Footnotes module which show up in the footnotes themselves (the change Trappist made about a month ago). What I see in Preview is, after the first entry under "Further reading" the notation Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRichard_RedgraveSamuel_Redgrave1981. And so on, for each entry except the {{cite journal}}. If I disable User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, the warnings go away. If I delete the CSS line, they don't. Again, it's the difference between Preview and Read that made me report this, and I don't see how CSS or JS could cause the inconsistency. David Brooks (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb and Trappist the monk: p.s. I realize this is probably not the right place for the bug report against a "private" .JS; it just felt odd putting it in the talk page for another editor's userspace. I can move it there if you think it appropriate. David Brooks (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the comment. I don't get the warnings when previewing William Allan (painter)#Further reading. If I change the section name to Bibliography and preview, I get the warning messages; all this, as it should be. Are you experiencing a cache issue? When you see the warning messages, what is the title in the section header?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. This is strange. I cleared my local cache with control-refresh in both the test page and my JS page. I repeated the test on two PCs in old Edge (including an InPrivate window), Chromium Edge, and Chrome itself. I did a server-side cache clear on the page and on my common.js. Still getting the warnings. Yes, the section is also entitled Further reading in Preview, and as I said the only difference I can see in the DOM is that the "Read" version's h2 element has an additional span (with nested spans) containing the [ edit ] tool. If you can't repro, let it go, because it isn't bothering me in practice. David Brooks (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]