I was just about to port this to mainspace, when I notice it is in "pages with reference errors". What's the problem?--Launchballer 18:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to where you saw it listed? And please ping me using {{ping|Cameron11598}} when answering --Cameron11598(Talk) 23:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598: I saw "Hidden category: Pages with reference errors" at the bottom of this article.--Launchballer 23:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't see if you still do you can be bold and and remove it if you don't see any reference errors. I'm marking this as -helped --Cameron11598(Talk) 23:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron11598: I have uploaded a screendump of it for you: Screendump of my userspace--Launchballer 23:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hidden category created by Template:Broken ref. I'm not quite sure why there was no big red error message, but the cause was that the draft had two different references both named "christmas". Fixed. That said, three questions: Why does the reference cited for the number of episodes in series 9 say that's series 8? Why does a dozen references date from 1 January 1970? And is it really appropriate to have several hundred primary sources without any independent coverage for the largest part of the article? That last issue seems rather undue to me, bordering on an indiscriminate collection of information. Huon (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC have labelled what I have as "series 4" down as "daytime", which is anathema to me considering that series 1 went out in the same slot and they haven't labelled it as such - it is painfully inconsistent. You can blame the dozen 1970 references on Unix time. And I would argue that there isn't quite enough to qualify as excessive. It looks larger than it is because of my decision to copy very little from its parent article.--Launchballer 00:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
