Thread:Janus100/@comment-25412203-20181217015809/@comment-27794543-20181217064958

No, there was absolutely nothing factual about your edit. After your edit, if someone scrolled down to references to see the source, instead of getting a website link, they'd get a useless "name=ibt170525". That's not factual or fixing the cite error. That's just hiding the cite error to pretend it doesn't exist.

There were two trivia points that were sourced by an IBTimes article. Since they were sourced by the same source, the reference was given the name "ibt170525" (see Help:Cite). At the first trivia point, the reference was defined. At the second trivia point, instead of defining the entire reference for the second time, only the named tag was listed (i.e. ). This worked perfectly fine.

Then on July 29th, you deleted the first of these two trivia points. And with that, you deleted where the reference "ibt170525" was defined. However, the second trivia point remained and only had the named tag. Thus, since the reference was no longer defined, this resulted in a cite error.

Then, yesterday, to "fix" the cite error, you decided to define the source as "name=ibt170525". So whenever someone would scroll down to references to see the source, instead of getting a website link, they'd get a useless "name=ibt170525". So, yeah, you got rid of the big, bold, red cite error message. However, your edit was not "factual" or fixing the cite error. You were just obscuring the cite error by pretending the identifier given to the reference was the reference itself.

The proper way to fix these types of cite errors is to recover the deleted references. That is what I did yesterday. So, if someone scrolled down to references now, they'd see a link to the IBTimes article.

Look, I'm not blaming you for not knowing all the technical details on how ref tags work. However, you should realize that "name=ibt170525" is not a website link and not an appropriate source. Also, you should have seen my edit where I recovered the reference.