Talk:Caesar's Camp, Rushmoor and Waverley

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hampshire Low‑importance

	Hampshire portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Fortifications / British / European B‑class

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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

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:

Did you know... that a Bronze Age sword and a Roman tile were found at Caesar's Camp, a large multivallate Iron Age hillfort on the Surrey–Hampshire border?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caesar's Camp, Rushmoor and Waverley.

Wikipedia

Harv error edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

typical Harv error

This is what it looks like now:

I corrected in good faith with a date as it needs one.

See Help Desk as to how to install the tool that shows this

You need it on for all the articles you are working on as other editors will bring it up eventually.

Hope this helps.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

Add topic