Template talk:Infobox darmstadtium
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 3 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Duplicate reference defininition
[edit]A few weeks ago, this article started causing a duplicate reference definitio error. It looks like the error is coming out of the {{infobox darmstadtium}} template. People are doing all kinds of crazy metaprogramming in templates, and as far as I know there are no tools for diagnosing any errors -- even for visualizing the different includes and parameters that are being passed around.
Is there any way to diagnose the problem? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- re Mikeblas. I have removed the duplicate. Cause was: recently,
|electron configuration=was moved to centralised data for reuse throughout enwiki. The Haire ref was moved with it. That ref also remained in this infobox (unused), causing the warning. - Having refs named in infoboxes is tricky, but I think it is important enough to do so. When used also in the article body, best is to copy/paste the named ref exactly (to prevent spelling differences). Does this answer your question? -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've made a fix. Thanks! Thing is, my question still remains: I dug through the reference definitions and was hard-pressed to understand where the duplicate reference definition came from. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, very hard to get it. Nicely, wiki software recognises similar named references. But is also accepts these named refs whan defined repeatedly. So I practice: make sure all same-named same-references are copypasted (=spelled the same for wiki software) between infobox, centralised data and article bodytext. This is not the diagnoose tool you ask for, but a solution it is. May be more difficult in other situations (these element infoboxes are ~easy to check).
- One other solution: put the ref in a single template (like {{CIAAW2016}}). Guarantees code copy always. -DePiep (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've made a fix. Thanks! Thing is, my question still remains: I dug through the reference definitions and was hard-pressed to understand where the duplicate reference definition came from. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)