This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
A fact from Caesar's Camp, Rushmoor and Waverley appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 July 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Oops - sorry. I realised you did it in good faith, but the webpage doesn't give a date. I'm a bit confused though, because your screenshot shows a clear cite error in red, but everything looks OK on my browser (I'm using Firefox). In fact I click on the cite, and it takes me straight to the relevant ref... I just tried in IE, and everything still looks OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks O.K. to me now. I think it had something to do with the dot you removed = then everything cleared up and it no longer showed the red. It all seems to be O.K. now and if you didn't have the tool before, maybe you can download it to show the red Harv errors for future articles. Then again, maybe you already have the tool. Anyway its a minor issue, because you got the idea now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doug - I only started using {{sfn}} very recently after someone put it an article I wrote, and it's a great idea. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to look at this. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]