Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Footnotes in section headers

What is general wikipedia policy regarding the ugly and unwieldy citations that are sometimes placed in section headers? It looks ridiculous with a giant [2] after the section title, but my attempt to fix such a situation here was reverted. In this case, if a particular source covers such a broad section of an article, should it not just be listed under "references" without the need for an inline citation? -albrozdude 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally would avoid a footnote on a section header by moving it to the intro text for the section. There is a guideline saying to avoid wikilinks in section headers, but I don't think there is anything specifically on footnotes. Gimmetrow 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding a long list of letters from multiple references

If the <ref name> tag is being used to make a note about something in a list that appears multiple times, is there any way to keep the "Notes" section from becoming flooded with a string of letters? -Nameneko 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this in reference to a specific article? Re-using a named ref 5–10 times doesn't seem out of the ordinary. Another option is to cite the entire list, once, to a handful of sources combined in one footnote. Gimmetrow 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm trying to make a list here possibly to be made into a list on the main namespace. If you look at the "notes" section, number 2 talks about subprefectures. The way the list works out, it'll be noted 13 times in the section "Tokyo" alone. Right now it's specific to the prefecture, but I'd like to be able to just have the note say "This is a subprefecture" (something short and to the point) for when I begin adding other prefectures to the list. -Nameneko 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. This is an explanatory note, rather than a citation. Some editors use the {{ref}}/{{note}} templates for explanatory notes. I think, if you just use note rather than {{note label}}, it does not produce the "back links". See Wikipedia:Footnote3. Gimmetrow 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! For now, I'll make it prefecture-specific, but if it becomes too cluttered, I may use that. -Nameneko 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just been campaigning at Apocalypto to fix a bunch of improperly used multiple-citation footnotes. The original editor used ibid; this is much weaker than our lettering scheme for multiple citations of the same source. I have added a bit of commentary to the guidelines. Please feel free to modify it; let me know if you make any adjustments. Nimur 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the {{Notes}} template and backlinks
  • The {{Notes}} template will error if not provided with a required parameter. That required parameter is a backlink name. The template will produce a clickable backlink to an ID named with that name prefixed with "ref_" and presumed to be present on the page.
  • The {{Ref}} template provides targetable ID named "ref_", suffixed with its optional initial parameter. {{Ref_label}} (and _harvard, and _harv) provide targetable IDs named "ref_" followed by a combination of their first and third parameters (i.e. "ref_parameter1parameter3"). Generation of target IDs by Ref family templates can be suppressed by providing the optional parameter noid=noid. This should be done if the templates are used in such a way that they would otherwise generate (illegal HTML containing) duplicate-named IDs.
  • See Template:Ref#Documentation.
Regarding use of "ibid", see WP:Ibid. For a workaround, see e.g. Bill_Finger#Footnotes.-- Boracay Bill 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes are placed outside punctuation

See these sections for previous discussions on this subject.


A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, in which I have requested that the rigidity of the guidelines be relaxed a little, to allow editors the option of following the style used by the leading scientific journals (Nature, Science, PNAS). These publications consistently place footnotes before punctuation, as I also like to do, and yet the current guidelines prevent the application of this style. There have been suggestions that there are technical issues connected with the placement of citations before or after punctuation, but it seems to me to be simply a case of enforcing uniformity where it is neither required nor even particularly desirable, and on purely stylistic grounds. I would welcome any input contributors here may care to offer. --Stemonitis 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Positioning footnote marks more freely allows greater accuracy in identifying what statements the marks relate to. A foolish consistency, etc. --Cedderstk 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Stemonitis is advocating for superscipted footnotes both before and after punctuation within the same article. My understanding is that each article would still follow one style or the other consistently. Two of the publications mentioned by Stemonitis place non-superscript numbers before punctuation, which I do not consider contrary to the current guideline, nor do I personally object to it. However, I see no reason Wikipedia needs to allow for the form common in Nature articles, with superscript numbers before punctuation. Wikipedia does not need to allow for every option that exists in other publications. Wikipedia does not use double-hyphen dashes--nor does it use "American style quotes." Gimmetrow 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The journals mentioned don't use superscripted footnotes as we do, and placing those before punctuation looks ridiculous. The long-standing consensus seems appropriate and it seems this argument is mixing cite.php with Harvard style inline refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes by SlimVirgin at 05:38, 17 May 2006 without any agreed consensus to do so. The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Citing sources by SlimVirgin at 18:54, 29 October 2006 with no consensus to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

SV See discussion already held at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. There is no point having two different instruction on two related guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please place any additional thoughts on this in the section below called #Where to place reference tags --Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Style: queuing footnotes head-to-tail

Can we please discourage head-to-tail queues of footnotes all relating to one and the same statement? We often end up with paragraphs looking like this (the current state of Armenians):

Although it is widely accepted that they have populated Eastern Anatolia for over four thousand years,[1][2][3][4] some theories suggest that the Armenians appeared in this region as late as the eight century BC.[5][6][7][8]

This is just silly. A person interested in background for the "4,000 years" claim is presented with the pointless choice to click on either [1], [2], [3] or [4]. This should instead be a single link to a single footnote presenting a coherent account of the sources deemed worthy to be cited in reference of this. This is just a random example, we get this sort of thing all over the place. I cannot imagine what inspires people to do something like this, but we should sternly discourage it here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize. I think it looks rather odd. However, there may not be a good reason to choose one of three or four possible sources, as each may contain different details or nuances. I tend to think of footnotes as a mini "see also", and if multiple sources are relevant then they should be listed. However, if multiple cites are listed for a sentence, they can still be combined into one footnote if editors find that more stylish. Gimmetrow 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought it a huge pity that you can't have reference ranges on WP, as elsewhere—even on the hated EndNote application.[1–4] Tony (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

scroll box for references

Are scroll boxes for the footnotes and references allowed by this Wikipedia policy or any other policy? Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy forbidding them, but they're awful. If you have an article that is frequently mirrored on other sites, I believe the refs will be lost if you use the scroll box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This guideline doesn't address scrollboxes one way or the other. However, {{scroll box}} says not to use it in mainspace, and references this TfD result. The reasoning appears to be that the scroll box can prevent references appearing in printed hard copies. Gimmetrow 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree with the position Sandy Georgia has taken. I just asked because an anon. attempted to add a scroll box to a ref list and he/she asked why did I remove the scroll box that he/she had added. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding citing comic books

I have a question. On the article for the comic book Fallen Angel, someone cited a slew of issues of the comic, but in addition to providing the name of the writer, Peter David, he/she also provided the name of the penciller and inker. This seems like overkill to me, particularly since the information cited was created by the writer, and not the artists. Is there a convention or policy (Wikipedia or general usage) that would indicate if this is called for? I'm thinking I should remove the references to the penciller and inker, but don't want to do so unless convention supports this. Nightscream 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to place reference tags

I copied the new text from WP:CITE into the WP:FOOT article 09:17, 4 July 2007 Philip Baird Shearer with the edit history "Altered to the same wording in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Placement of footnote reference tags as agreed in Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation" By this I meant that in the section above that this issue would be discussed on the Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. It was and a compromise wording was thrashed out. But since I introduced this compromise wording in to this article it has been reveted by:

  • SlimVirgin twice with the comments: "there is agreement that ref tags go after punctuation, as in the overwhelming majority of books/journals" and "this is the place to discuss changes to this page, and when it was last discussed there was a strong consensus in favor of this version; if you want to re-open that discussion, please do".
  • Crum375 "I think this [perscription to use CMS] is the consensual version"

So now we have the position where the two guidlines WP:CITE and WP:FOOT that contradict each other. I guess at SlimVirgin's insistance the debate will have to be held all over again on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See these sections for previous discussions on this subject.

The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Footnotes by SlimVirgin at 05:38, 17 May 2006 without any agreed consensus to do so. The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Citing sources by SlimVirgin at 18:54, 29 October 2006.

After a long debate (Wikipedia talk:Cite sources#"Footnotes come after punctuation") the consensus that emerge among those editors that took part was that the CMS style should be advanced as that used by many editors, but that other styles were not prohibited, and that there should not be edit wars between styles. This has been edited into the CITE article. But those edits have been reverted on this article page.

Given that we now have two closely related guidelines that are no longer in harmony on the issue of where to place references tags what is to be done? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is now clear that there is no consensus for either method to be required. The consensus viewpoint is therefore to allow any internally consistent method of referencing throughout an article. This guidelines should be changed to reflect that. The consensus for this more tolerant approach has been demonstrated elsewhere, but I am not aware of any consensus having been shown for limiting editors to a single style. --Stemonitis 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, abandoning any attempt to get one clear guideline will result in countless hours of bickering over this on individual articles. Would it not be better to try once more to get a consistent statement of policy? Editors work on multiple articles. It should not be necessary to re-negotiate such basic MOS issue every time you take up work on a new article. Buddhipriya 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No – Unless we adopt the one I prefer ;-) There is no agreement on which style to use. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Another guideline article which is in the consensus clash stew re placing of notes and refs and re naming of sections in which they are placed is WP:GTL. Also note Template:Refend/doc. -- Boracay Bill 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Not really it gives an example, but that is fine as the other guidelines mention that that style is where "many editors put the reference tags". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but I've taken a deep breath and removed this from my "hot button" list. See the specific guidance offered at WP:GTL#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions vs. the conflicting (somewhat compatible, but not the same) specific guidance offered at WP:CITE#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. Nobody really follows the guidelines anyhow and most people can sort this out, but newbie editors who stumble over the realization that guidelines actually do exist can be confused by conflicting guidelines. I was.
I clearly am picking nits here. I believe that the nits which I am picking are important enough to be dealt with. Some others do not think that these nits have that importantance. So be it. -- Boracay Bill 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you and I are talking at cross purposes, because having re-read what you wrote I realise that as I was only talking about the placement of reference tags in the text, not any of the other discrepancies that are in the guidelines, my answer was confusing. I think that such discrepancies should be ironed out if possible, and if that is not possible then the discrepancies should be noted in those guidelines. However I think those points should be noted and discussed in a section on the talk page of those guidelines not here. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What would be best is to abandon any effort to legislate the position of footnotes, and require consistency within articles. We have too many shibboleths which can be employed by the sort of editors who enjoy grading articles, but don't know a illiterate and ignorant article when they read one - but, boy, are they death on misplaced commas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should allow multiple options. This whole "let everybody do it the way they want but don't let them convert from my way" makes everyone suffer from the ambiguity of the guidelines. We should adopt the KISS principle and not be afraid to specify "the way we do it on Wikipedia". IPSOS (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that your position leads not to simplicity but to masses of legislation that leave new users confused as to which matter and which are trivial. It takes energy to propagate and enforce rules and creating rules about trivial issues simply because we are capable of doing so is not productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if the rules were simple, they could be handled by bots. It's the lack of simplicity that leads to confusion. If one way was preferred, users could make mistakes and know they'd be fixed eventually by a bot. Now it's actually a case of, who cares. I don't bother to fix it if the article is mixed, because it could simply be a case of two rights make a mess. IPSOS (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It was precisely the use of bots to alter the placement of tags which got me involved in this in the first place. As there is no accepted way to place the reference tags the simplest way is to ask for consistency of style within an article without starting an edit war over styles. can I take it from what you said above "I don't think we should allow multiple options. ..." that you would be willing to support the nature style placement of reference tags providing that is the only style recommended? -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone give me an example of a well-written article (if possible, an FA or GA) where ref tags are placed before punctuation? (I promise not to change it; I just want to see an example). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't give an example of an article, but I have a book where it is done that way. It looks completely unprofessional. Needless to say, it's a very small press, quite possibly a on-demand printer which simply got the file that way from the writer. IPSOS (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a PDF copy of a Nature article and I disagree that such reference tags look completely unprofessional. Also IPSOS you have not answered my question above. Can I take it from what you said above "I don't think we should allow multiple options. ..." that you would be willing to support the Nature style placement of reference tags providing that is the only style recommended? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is fine when there are no surrounding brackets. Both Wikipedia and the publication I was referring to had brackets around the footnote number. That looks terribly unprofessional when placed before the punctuation. And no, I would not support officially changing from one style to another. That's an incredible amount of makework, when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the style which has been heretofore preferred. Much ado about nothing if you ask me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. IPSOS (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is your opinion that it looks terribly unprofessional, the EU guidelines recommend it. You say "I would not support officially changing from one style to another." that is not what I asked. I asked was "would [you] be willing to support the Nature style placement of reference tags providing that is the only style recommended?". Further you say "That's an incredible amount of makework," but you are willing to support the make work of converting thousands of articles to one style from another, when the compromise wording suggests "Each article should be internally consistent, but editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change." Further you says "the style which has been heretofore preferred." by now I would have thought that you would realise that not everyone preferred the style that had been foisted on them by this guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a very interesting thing to analyze, because FAs and GAs are exactly the articles that have been molded to fit the MoS. Nobody's denying that until recently the guideline said to do it one way, and so predictably all the FAs do it that way. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mature enough to adopt its own style; the one that conforms with most publications and manuals of style. Refs before punctuation look awful online, and it makes sense to have the ability to have scripts to place refs correctly according to a defined Wiki style. Refs after punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is you opinion that it looks awful, and I think reading colour spelt color looks awful so following you logic, lets force everyone to use CE English. Or on this specific issue inverting your aesthetics lets adopt the EU style and convert all the documents to punctuation before the punctuation. This forcing a style on people reminds me of the Lilliput and Blefuscu endian wars over which end of an egg to open. Why not just go with the compromise wording?--Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Looks to me like a small group of editors is trying to change a long-established standard without considering the repercussions of doing so. I say, stick to the previous presumed consensus. I say presumed consensus, because the number of editors editing this guideline without changing this detail can be presumed to agree with it. This is something which the small group pushing for change always seem to ignore. IPSOS (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have demonstrated a number of times there is no "long-established standard". If there is then please demonstrate where it existed. Further what do you think are the repercussions that have not been considered? As for you "presumed consensus" have you bothered to read the archives on this issue -- Just because those who disagreed voiced their disagreement on the talk pages and did not alter the text in the guidelines does not mean there was ever a consensus on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Footnotes-after-punctuation is WP's de facto house style. In my humble opinion, inconsistency in ref placement across articles is far more visually arresting (and not in a good way) than BrE/AmE distinctions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Philip Baird Shearer; looking back in the history of this debate there has been protest ever since the strict rule was written first; hence there has never been consensus only massive POV pushing by the -reference after punctuation- side. By the way several scientific journals (e.g. Risk Analysis) allow for multiple referencing style (either nature, harvard or APA) so in that journal you will see several styles within a single issue; I have never ever been bothered about that. There are worse things that differ over the articles compared to minor cosmetic issues. Arnoutf 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My main trouble with enacting your personal aesthetic preferences as Wikipedia's house style is that ultimately you're not the one who will be asked to do the work of changing articles. So why are we catering to you? "Wikipedia" isn't adopting its own style; a small group of editors who monitor these pages is adopting a style and then demanding the rest of the editing population to conform. The ultimate result is, as at FAC, a lot of tedious work that does not detectably improve our articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

  • (cur) (last) 18:53, 23 July 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs | block) (16,219 bytes) (Rvt to IPSOS - this is the current consensus and prctice - you need very wide consensus to change it) (rollback | undo)

Crum375 where is your proof that this is the current consensus or that it has ever been the consensus for one specific style? The last agreed consensus was a compromise reached about two weeks ago see Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation". If you can not show a consensus for a prescription then please stop reverting to a version that contains a prescription. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll

While I hate polls, I'm having a hard time counting up the people supporting each position. Perhaps if we had more input... IPSOS (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes after punctuation
  1. IPSOS (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Buddhipriya 16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes before punctuation (like Nature)
  1. Rjm at sleepers 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. WLDtalk|edits 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Allow both styles
  1. Arnoutf 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (and not at all happy that my previous vote has been arbitrarily shifted to discussion)
  2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) and it is clear that there are other supports for a wider choice of options, including PBS below.
  3. Rjm at sleepers 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll discussion

I disagree with the wording of this poll. No one as far as I can tell is suggesting that only refs before punctuation is the only style allowed. Instead of these questions put in the alternative wording of the two versions and discuss those. Which amount to endian or no endian options --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an obvious third choice, and preferable to allowing both. IPSOS (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil; footnotes after punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both points, but it is completely unclear what the consensus actually is without it (in my opinion). IPSOS (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus—seems as appropriate as a poll could be on WP :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow both Flexibility while maintaining quality standards makes (IMHO) good articles and happy editors. Being rigid about cosmetic stuff (like this is) is likely to alienate good editors to the project. Arnoutf 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also dislike the use of polls except in the sense of "straw poll" to determine what the general sense of the group is on an issue. Voting is a divisive practice and should be avoided. Getting a clear sense of who thinks what can be a helpful step toward dialog, and in this case something needs to be done to try to move the conversation forward. The "flexibility" argument in favor of allowing both only leads to bickering about this on multiple articles. The purpose of a MOS is to simplify life for the editors and increase time spent on content development. I favor getting the standard so clear that a bot could handle formatting cleanups. Buddhipriya 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The most disruptive arguments I have had over this has been with bureaucrats, when there is willingness to get an article better these issues are in my experience always solved in a single go in each article I have worked on so far. Arnoutf 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is likely to lead to a lot of bickering since the vast majority of the editing population is fully capable of realizing that this is a trivial issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because it is trivial, the complication of having multiple options is not needed or desirable. IPSOS (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed because it is trivial there is no reason to be rigidly enforcing a single style. Arnoutf 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
All style issues can ultimately be seen as trivial. Nevertheless, house styles have developed for the sake of consistency and to resolve disputes, and refs after punctuation is definitely our house style. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes by SlimVirgin at 05:38, 17 May 2006 without any agreed consensus to do so. The prescription on where to place references tags was added to Wikipedia:Citing sources by SlimVirgin at 18:54, 29 October 2006 with no consensus to do so. The new wording was arrived at by editors working to build a consensus, and was implemented after a discussion that lasted from 16 June until 5 July 2007 (see Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation") So SlimVirgin please explain how the prescription "is definitely our house style". --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The formulation has been in place for over a year without protest. If this had been a controversial issue it would have been pounced upon before now. The fact it has been stable for so long looks like proof that it was considered appropriate by most editors. Buddhipriya 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it demonsrates that no editor has seen fit to amend this page; but rather to ignore it, like most of MoS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya you write "The formulation has been in place for over a year without protest"? Please read the archives listed at the top of this section because in there you will read that this has been a controversial issue and the talk pages are full of protests throughout the life of the prescription on where to place reference tags. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've looked at the archives, Phil, and in almost every case the complaints are from you and maybe two other people. Three people do not override a long established convention. Even if all the cases were put together, there is hardly any support for your position. Please stop misrepresenting this as "consensus". IPSOS (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a long established convention and there has never been consensus for it. I am not trying to prescribe any way for placing reference tags. As you have read the archives you will be aware that in a previous discussion that shortly after the prescription was edited in by SlimVirgin that there were about 12,000 articles where the footnote came before the punctuation mark. Even if one assumes that 90% of those were unintentional that still left 1,200 articles that had been deliberately structured that way. Those footnote tags on those pages were probably added by a lot more people than have expressed agreement with the prohibition on placing reference tags before punctuation marks. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Two quick points. First, I agree with IPSOS: it doesn't show a lack of consensus that an editor or two have been fighting this convention for a year. Second, whoever decided to change the header to "where to place the references tag" have made a grave mistake confusing "reference" tags and "ref" tags. Gimmetrow 23:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the archives it is many more than "an editor or two"
There are many more who have objected on the talk pages right from days after the initial "style recommendation" was put in place. There never has been a consensus for this to be a prescription. Indeed today the debate is between those who want a prescription and those who are happy to have a recommendation but want to keep the option open of other styles and no edit waring between styles. Something which seems to work well most of the time with national differences. As to the issue of "ref tag" or "reference tag" choose which you prefer it is a detail which in my opinion is of little consequence and would not be worth a reverting. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BEFORE is Beautiful!  ;^) Yosemite1967 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just became aware of this discussion (because someone moved some of my references and referred me to the style guide) and would like to weigh in on putting references BEFORE (inside) punctuation. Those who say that it's "ugly" or "unprofessional looking" are merely voicing a subjective prejudice or personal preference, akin to, "Vanilla icecream tastes better than chocolate icecream." I also care less for what is more common than I do for what makes more sense. (I'm not big on following the largest crowd, unless the largest crowd is going the "right" way.) My argument for putting references before punctuation (and hopefully it's not so preference-based as the arguments that I've just criticized), will be based on a couple of examples:

When one has a compound sentence, such as, "Jack went to Harvard, but he later went to Yale.", one actually has two sentences combined into one. The comma is the delimitor between the two sentences. It seems more logical that anything belonging to or pertaining to the first sentence should be located with it or on its side of the delimitor. Therefore, if I wanted to add a reference about Jack having gone to Harvard, I would do this: "Jack went to Harvard1, but he later went to Yale." To those who would say that this is ugly or looks unprofessional, I would say, "Nah, it's beautiful! It's at home with the phrase to which it belongs--doesn't that feel more warm 'n' fuzzy?"  :^)
I would apply the same logic to a reference at the end of a sentence. If my previous example were phrased, "Jack went to Harvard. He later went to Yale.", the period becomes the delimitor between the two sentences. So, again, I would put the reference on the side of the period where the text to which it belongs is located. To wit, "Jack went to Harvard1. He later went to Yale." Now excuse me while I express a little prejudice and personal preference to back up my arguments: Beautiful! Very professional looking! It just feels right.  :^)
I agree with the above logic: "It seems more logical that anything belonging to or pertaining to the first sentence should be located with it or on its side of the delimitor.". WLDtalk|edits 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance problems of named references

Using named references makes articles more difficult to maintain, often causing structural errors when casual editors make a change to one use of a named reference with no systematic checking for collateral damage. I think this point should be mentioned in the article. I personally dislike the use of named references and am trying to understand what debates may have taken place before regarding the pros and cons of their use. Has this issue come up before? Buddhipriya 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, a very important argument pro is of course that a repeatedly used named references only appears once in the reflist, and thus does not inflate the first impression of the number of unique references; for that reason alone I am highly in favour of using them. Nevertheless I acknowledge your problems as I have run into them myself sometimes. Arnoutf 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see why people like them, especially if they are placing full reference information in their inline citations. It really declogs the page in editing mode. But I don't like the way named refs are formatted by cite.php; I would prefer if it maintained a numerically ordered system of footnotes, rather than producing pages where you read down and see [1] [2] [1] [3] [4] [2] [1] [5] etc. There's really no need to consolidate the list of citations in that fashion. There's also the problem you present. But probably we are stuck with cite.php and despite calls for reform there appears to be no developer interest in upgrading it, so there you are. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally wish that the named refs also had a parameter for page number. Named refs are very handy until you want the same ref with a different page. Much of the time, I simply use a page range that covers all the material cited, but this only works when the number of pages is relatively small. IPSOS (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What I do in that case, IPSOS, is <ref name=Smith79>Smith, John. ''My Book''. Wikipedia, 2007, p. 79.</ref> It's admittedly a bit of a nuisance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If I have to reference an author a number of times I place the book or article in the Reference section and then use "Fu.<ref name=Smith-79>Smith p. 79.</ref> Bar.<ref name=Smith-79/> A pub.<ref name=Smith-80-81>Smith pp. 80,81.</ref>" Then if someone removes Fu and the reference tag, the second one can be easily rebuilt as the page information is still in the reference tag as "name=Smith-79/" --Philip Baird Shearer 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest it is among other the [1] [2] [1] [3] [4] [2] [1] [5] inline appearance that is among the most elegant elements of repeated citing (IMHO). Once you know that [1] is the authorative source on the subject, just noting its reappearance inline gives information about the strength of the statement. Addition of a page number within the named ref format would be a brilliant addition Arnoutf 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that and it is a good point. Unfortunately the addition of a page-number parameter was also proposed long ago and appears to be equally going nowhere in development. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A citation to provide a page number can be provided without the need for the cumbersome named reference as follows: <ref>For a review of the health risks of excessive Wikipedia use, see: {{Harvnb|Jones|2003|p=281}}.</ref> which will target a source in the References section that can be used multiple times. That particular use of one of the Harvard reference templates does not get into the objections against the Harvard system when they references display directly within the body of the article text. However it provides the structual enforement of using the References section to list works cited, as specified by WP:LAYOUT. I am warming up to the idea of using templates that would enable bots to assist with reference checking, and this type of structured approach could be helpful for that. Buddhipriya 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Something I have not tried but is talked about in the archives (Archive 6:New "add-on" template for citing page numbers is {{Rp}} that SMcCandlish says can produce output: "Alleged fact.[4]:18-9" --Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The {{Rp}} template looks like a superscripted variant of the usual inline-text Harvard references, which many people dislike. I would not use it myself, as I do not like seeing the Harvard citations visible in the text of the article body. I prefer to see all references in one sequential series in Notes. Buddhipriya 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue with additional references

"...(as per WP:CITE, section 3.5.2) do not continue the numbering." Section 3.5.2 no longer exists. What should be written now? Reinderien 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do what seems best to you; this page is a fraud. The intent is probably to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Maintaining_a_separate_.22References.22_section_in_addition_to_.22Notes.22, which is itself a noticeably unclear reference to the double note system seen in Pericles, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe put {{cn}} next to it? The reference was obviously insufficient. I'm not allowed to fix it so won't look for it. (SEWilco 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Intellectual honesty

The facts of the present situation are fairly clear. The present text on footnotes was written a year ago by a handful of editors. A handful of editors (three in the discussion above; more elsewhere) wish to change this to agree with WP:CITE. An equal handful of editors (again, three above; perhaps more elsewhere) are willing to revert war to keep this page as it is.

What is deplorable is the willingness of the second faction to suppress all evidence of the existence of the dispute (except to those who are willing to crawl around into histories and talk pages). This converts the claim of guideline template into a lie; it is not "generally accepted among editors"; it is not generally accepted, it is 3-3; and is likely to be equally divided among those who have not come here.

I do not doubt the good faith of the reversion faction; but I also accept the good faith of our various breeds of nationalist. No doubt both see themselves as acting for the Truth, and the good of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

{{incomprehensible}} (SEWilco 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
Hmm .. it's perhaps a tad harsh to compare refs-after-punctuation supporters to "various breeds of nationalists." :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I read it the other way around, the reversion faction are the prescription faction and the non-prescription faction are the "various breeds of nationalist" :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Intellectual honesty means being forthright and candid about the facts of an affair, regardless of one's personal biases or sentiments, and avoiding any fallacies or decietful substitutions regardless of their rhetorical benefit. For instance, presenting a vote of:
  • 3:one way,
  • 1: the other way,
  • 3:doesn't matter,

as an "equally divided" 3-3 vote is disingenuous, at best, and certainly not "intellectually honest". Kevin Baastalk 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are not the way to build a consensus, it is better to build the consensus first and then have a poll to confirm it, otherwise polls tend to entrench people on one side or the other and make reaching a compromise more difficult. In this case the wording of the poll was not agreed and is in my opinion not worded in such a way as to present the issue fairly. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As IPSOS said, he was simply having a "hard time counting up the people supporting each position", so that's what the poll was for. And it is in keeping with the straw poll conventions of wikipedia (non-binding, informal) It may not tell you what YOU want to know, but i'm sure it helps IPSOS count the people supporting the three different positions he listed, and I'm happy to help him out. In any case, you should appreciate that it informs you, among a small sample size, who prefers "Footnotes after punctuation", who prefers "Footnotes before punctuation", and who thinks we should "Allow both styles". If you want to discuss another set of options, or perhaps something else altogether, feel free to start a new discussion on it. In the meantime, we will continue to discuss these three possibilities, and you are welcome to participate in this discussion. As you have stated that you do not feel "the issue" is presented "fairly" by the wording of the poll, i am curious to know what you believe "the issue" to be, if not whether footnotes should come before or after punctuation, or whether we should allow both. I'd also be interested to know what part of the wording you take issue with; whether for instance, it is with the word "footnotes", the word "after", the word "punctuation", the juxtaposition of these words, or the order that they are in. I'd also be interested in hearing your suggestions as to how the poll should be worded. For instance, maybe you feel that the options should be made more clear with something like "People who think that footnotes and/or refs should come after punctuation, should vote here." Kevin Baastalk 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


What's disingenuous about it? On the central issue -- i.e., whether to allow "punctuation after reference" style in addition to the reverse -- the poll was evenly divided. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Insofar as this can be construed as an attempt to dispute an earlier statement that it is generally accepted that references should come after punctuation, it is dishonest. 3 people saying refs should come after punctuation and 3 people saying they don't care either way, does not demonstrate that it is not generally accepted that refs should come after punctuation. To the contrary, it demonstrates that 6 people accept refs coming after punctuation. In the total poll, only 1 person (the person voting before punctuation) does not accept refs coming after punctuation. The poll shows that 6 out of 7 - (now 7 out of 8, including me), "accept" refs coming after punctuation. I would say that this 87.5% constitutes "general" acceptance for the sample, and thus supports the statement that "it is generally accepted that refs should come after punctuation."
In fact, from the poll, of the three possibilities: 1. refs before punctuation; 2. refs after punctuation; and 3. either way, 2. refs after punctuation is the only possibility that is "generally accepted". Kevin Baastalk 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically everyone supports refs coming after punctuation as an acceptable method. That is not at issue. But saying that refs after punctuation is acceptable is different from saying that it is mandatory. The question is whether refs before punctuation is prohibited; at the moment we are about evenly split on the issue. Your analysis seems to conflate "may" with "should." It also may confuse the poll, which has three options, with the discussion, which has centered on two possibilities. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Kevin Baas, that you draw that conclusion from the poll is why the wording of the poll was flawed. The difference is those who want to place a Wikipedia wide prescription on where to place reference tags and those who are willing to have a recommendation on the style to use, but want the decision to be delegated to the individual article if there is a dispute over the issue. The first wording is
Wikipedia's house style is that ref tags are placed at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the footnote refers. This has been Wikipedia's house style since April 4, 2006. This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.
When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line. The same is true for successive ref tags. The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.
Against a second option of
Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS). Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature which place references before punctuation. Each article should be internally consistent, but editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change.
The second wording was a compromise worked out in a previous round of debate on the issue, (see Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation") and ought to be one that most reasonable people can consider as a compromise wording. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Okay, so we are all in agreement that footnotes after punctuation is "generally accepted", and that that wording is fine. Now, if I understand correctly, some people are proposing that this be made mandatory? Or some people are proposing that this be optional, and furthermore that "editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change."? If this has not been agreed upon, then it should not be stated on the policy page. Modifying a policy "article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change." The community is clearly not in agreement on the matter of whether "editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change.", so the policy page should not make it look like it is. Kevin Baastalk 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the second wording "ought to be" one that most "reasonable" people can consider as a compromise wording, it is not one that most people, "reasonable" or not, accept, and therefore should not be on a policy page. Kevin Baastalk 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There was consensus to make the change to the compromise wording (see Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive17#"Footnotes come after punctuation") so by your logic (which BTW I disagree with) the page should remain with the compromise until such time as there is agreement to change it. What is for sure is there is no agreement nor has there ever been a consensus expressed on the talk page for a prescription. That was introduced unilaterally by SV (see above for details). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple endnotes

It is possible to make multiple endnotes? For example like this:

Republique di Foo
Flag of the Republic of Foo Coat-of-arms of the Republic of Foo
(Flag) (Coat-of-arms)
Motto: Foo ist le gutenist saund1
(Fooish: Foo is the best sound)
Anthem: Ich lieve la Republique di Foo2
(Fooish: I love the Republic of Foo)
Capital Fienna3
Official languages Fooish4
  1. ^ Voo ist le batenist saund (Fooish: Voo is the worst sound) is also used.
  2. ^ Dou lobe le Kaiserium von Voo (Vooish: You love the Empire of Voo) is unofficially sung by Vooish separatists.
  3. ^ Faris is the cultural capital of the Republic of Foo.
  4. ^ Because Vooish people can not speak Fooish, Vooish is also recognized as a regional language.

The Republic of Foo (Fooish: Republique di Foo [ˈʀeʙ̥uβlik diː ˈfuː]) is a country[1] and a sovereign state[2][3][4] located in Western Furope. The Republic of Foo is a federal republic comprising three constituent countries: Fooland, Vooland[5] and Cooland.

Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Some people denies the Republic of Foo is a country. They think it is just a geographical area.
  2. ^ Some Vooish ultranationalists denies the Republic of Foo is a sovereign state. They consider it is still a part of the former Kingdom of Vooland.
  3. ^ The Booish Kingdom claims the Republic of Foo is a colony of BK.
  4. ^ Republic of Foo. Encyclopædia Fooica.
  5. ^ Voolish separatists claimed the independence of Vooland in 1980.


This hypothetical article contains two citation system. One is located in an infobox, the other is in Footnotes section. I want to make multiple endnotes in one page like this. Is it possible now? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to do this you would need to use another foonote system in addition to cite.php; for instance cite.php for the main article references and Wikipedia:Footnotes3 for those in the box. However, usually the footnotes for infoboxes simply appear in the main reference section for the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of how some people put unreferenced content into Notes. Since any unsourced content can be challenged or removed, statements with no sourcing may eventually need citations. The use of multiple sections to carry general remarks, as opposed to citations (references) has recently been a subject of controversy at WP:LAYOUT. Since the main layout standard calls for one "Notes" section carrying all citations, I would say that the above arrangement is a non-standard variant and you may want to look at the discussion on layout with regard to that. Personally I think it is a bad idea to have multiple sections. Buddhipriya 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please mention {{fact}} too

I've just mentioned the {{fact}} template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes - since it looks like a footnote, when trying to add it I looked in these pages. Since I can't edit this page, could please somebody who can add it here too? --Blaisorblade 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we agree on? (straw poll on ref tag placement)

To help me (and others) understand the issue(s) better, please write agree, or disagree, or no opinion for each item, and if you disagree, explain why. Feel fry to comment or briefly explain your position. Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very bad idea because the two options need to be looked at as a whole. Breaking the sentences of a compromise wording causes problems because what is agreed for a compromise may not be so for the individual sentences when extracted from the compromise paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia's house style is that ref tags are placed at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the footnote refers. 6-4


This has been Wikipedia's house style since 2006-04-04. 4-4


This is the format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. 3-0


When placed at the end of a clause or sentence the ref tag should be directly after the punctuation mark without an intervening space, in order to prevent the reference number wrapping to the next line. 6-4


The same is true for successive ref tags 7-3
comment on the anonymous post above: I'm curious why successive ref tags should be discouraged. Fairly often on a complex issue, sentence or paragraph, several sources are drawn upon, and placed at the end of the sentence, or paragraph. It is niether unusual, nor irregular to find this in academic writing. -- Yellowdesk 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


The exception is a dash — which should follow the ref tag, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. 6-2 (conditionally 8-0)


Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. unanimous


Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS). 4-1


Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature which place references before punctuation. unanimous


Each article should be internally consistent. unanimous


Editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article is deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change. 5-5


Editing solely to change from one style to another throughout an article should be deprecated unless there is a consensus to make the change. 5-5
  • disagree. changing an article to the house style is preferable, and does not need consensus on the page anymore than editing to use proper citation formating or proper grammar needs consensus. Kevin Baastalk 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Very strongly agree on the same basis as WP:MOS#National varieties of English. If editors have nothing better to do that flip punctuation about, we've reached deadline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree as above. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the premise of the question, which is that multiple styles should be permitted. There should be one house style, and all articles should comply with it. Buddhipriya 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree as per Septentrionalis. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, although it is easy to make mistakes so I would recommend a bot do the work of making articles conform to the house style. IPSOS (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, but then it already is deprecated, along with any other change that is likely to rile other editors for little practical gain. Stemonitis 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree as above. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Disagree 'The statement assumes that the prior style was properly, uniformly and and successfully implemented, which is not always the case. Agreed that consensus is important. In more than a few cases, there is apathy, which is not exactly consensus. -- Yellowdesk 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Per above. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. --WLDtalk|edits 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Wikipedia should choose a single style and then stick to it. --JHP 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Wikipedia should decide on a style and then all articles should be changed to suit that style for consistancy. --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely disagree - Some people really misunderstand what the Varieties of English rule is all about. Even within the context of that rule, deferring to the first contributor is a last resort. It's not a catch-all principle to be used any time three editors disagree with a guideline. On a minor point like this, we should just pick one style and stick to it everywhere. To allow multiple conflicting styles with non-rules like "stick to the first contributor" or "don't change the style of an entire article" just makes editing needlessly complicated and tedious. There is absolutely no reason why editors should have to go around counting all the punctuation marks in an article before they add a reference, so that they can determine which of several conflicting "preferred styles" is the most prevalent in that particular article. Or slogging through the article's history to find out which style was used first? Don't be ridiculous. We pick one style - in this case, the one that's most prevalent and makes the most sense - and stick to it everywhere. That's what style guides are for. Therefore, no, there is nothing wrong with editors changing articles to suit the house style, though there is nothing wrong with leaving them the way you found them (or adding things the wrong way because you don't know any better), either. — Omegatron 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

So, what does all this tell us? Well, we agree on some pretty trivial things. Many of the questions are slightly biased, assuming a particular point of view. There is no question about whether a consensus was established earlier this year (to parallel Q2) or whether we agree that a newer consensus trumps an older one (to parallel Q1). Several of the questions are quite irrelevant. Finally, I have my doubts about the whole methodology; although the brief introduction says that it's to "help [people] understand the issue(s) better", the polling format is not the best way of acheiving that. Indeed, a poll reports proportions of people with particular opinions. It would be very tempting for someone to conclude that because xx% of respondents prefer solution Y, that that's the best option. I'm sorry, but no, that's not how consensus works. If we can't agree on having a single style, then we shouldn't try to enforce a particular style. If you want to find out what we agree on, why not ask someone from each side (this should not be inherently divisive since this debate is already polarised) to honestly summarise their opponents' viewpoint and look for commonalities? Why not read the archives and write a short text that you think we can all agree on, and then work on expanding it from there? There are many possibilities, and a straw poll may just be the worst of them all. --Stemonitis 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You say "There is no question about whether a consensus was established earlier this year". I strongly disagree with this statement. Whether or not a consensus was established is a matter of opinion. I look at the so-called consensus, and I see two or three editors agreeing and without looking for any additional input, congratulating themselves on the fact that they agree with each other and calling it a consensus. With regard to policies and guidelines, a little more than mutual backslapping is needed. IPSOS (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. My wording was ambiguous. I meant that there is no question in this survey about that point. I am quite sure that there will be differences of opinion on the matter. Many apologies. --Stemonitis 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. There's been such a chorus of 3 voices claiming consensus that I too quickly assumed this was another. My bad. IPSOS (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be that there are heated opinions on this matter and not much consensus, nor argument. The debate thus far seems to be largely about cosmetic considerations and convention. However I will here propose an argument regarding the criteria that should be used to judge one referencing style above another.

An encyclopedia's value lies in its accuracy. In order to ensure this accuracy a high value is placed on verifiability. To facilitate verification high quality references are desirable.

I believe that thus far there should be consensus. These criterion are used to make an argument for a peculiar referencing style.

When referencing a fact, it is often not clear whether the reference refers to the entire paragraph, a particular sentence or to a particular clause within a statement. In order to verify a particular statement it would seem prudent if once could easily distinguish if the reference did indeed refer to it.

The following schema is proposed:

  • When a reference refers to the entire paragraph this is indicated by placing the reference at the end of the entire paragraph, after the last punctuation mark.
  • When the reference refers to the entire sentence but not to the entire paragraph the reference is placed within the sentence just before the last punctuation mark.
  • When the reference refers only to a specific clause and not to the entire sentence the reference is placed within the sentence just after the clause

The references formated in this style, would make it easier to verify the content. By enhancing the verifiability, accuracy can be improved. --Mig77(t) 10:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

An ongoing problem exists regarding conflicts between overlapping WP guidelines. I strongly suggest that this be coordinated with WT:CITE and, hopefully, some understanding can be reached such that the guideline can be placed on one page or the other, but not on both. KLack of such coordination would no doubt lead to guideline definition drift and conflict between the two guidelines -- Boracay Bill 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The wording here currently matches that on WP:CITE --Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We're not using Nature guidelines. We're using references at the end of punctuation per CMoS. It's pretty simple. —Viriditas | Talk 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental issue

I think Kevin Baas misunderstands my concern here. In fact, I do use footnotes after punctuation, and I do not insert a space; but the issue here is whether to prescribe a style at all.

We should treat our editors like adults. There are several alternatives here; each has advantages, and editors who prefer it. We should give the reasons, and perhaps a recommendation; and let editors make up their minds on the issue. Three or four editors can revert war to make this page say what they like; but they cannot police Wikipedia.

To choose one issue: Editors may, in good faith, prefer to have a space between punctuation and a following footnote. Omitting the space has its advantages: it will prevent orphaned footnotes, and CMS recommends it; but it looks odd to some. We should list its advantages; we should note that some prefer the other way. (I believe there is also a technical fix involving non-breaking spaces, which has the compensating disadvantage of cluttering edit space with &:nbsp; we should mention that too.) We can even recommend omission, for the benefit of those who want to have a decision, any decision; if "most editors use it", "it avoids orphans", and "it's CMS" can be made stronger by a recommendation from half-a-dozen editors.

But it is silly to require it; and switching pages from one style to another is a waste of time. The only merit of such a project is WP-wide uniformity; and it will never achieve that. It will annoy editors who prefer another way. Leave it alone, like "colour". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put. From what you say, it sounds like you'd prefer no prescription. This is quite different from saying that switching an article's style is deprecated, and requires a consensus first -- that constitutes a prescription.
Well then why don't you just say something like "Don't be mean." As I said down below, if editors can't come to an agreement on something this simple, I wouldn't trust them to write an encyclopedia. Kevin Baastalk 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"The only merit of such a project is WP-wide uniformity; and it will never achieve that. " - Wikipedia will never achieve perfect spelling on every article, either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't correct spelling errors when we see them.
  • Ingenious; but fixing spelling is useful on each individual article; so is consistency within the article. Wikipedia-wide consistency is only useful, if at all, if it is Wikipedia-wide; which it won't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing a standard with something being wikipedia-wide, and using the fallacy of the excluded middle. We have, for instance, article naming conventions, which is not useful on each individual article. These conventions are used all the time, are not wikipedia-wide, and never will be. Nonetheless, they are useful conventions. Using the fallacy of the excluded middle does not make for a valid argument. Kevin Baastalk 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, your logic is founded on a false premise: "The only merit of such a project is WP-wide uniformity." This is false. The merit is not derived from being universal. For instance, lack of spaces between footnotes is useful because it prevents a series of footnotes from being split into two separate lines, making them more difficult to follow. This benefit comes even if it is only done this way once. It is easier to read. That is the benefit; that is the merit, not WP-wide uniformity.
In sum, your argument is of the form "y is only desirable if x. x is impossible. therefore, y is not desirable." This argument form is always wrong. Never reason from the impossible. However solid the argument may seem - in that it "impossible" for things to be otherwise, the first premise ("y is only desirable if x.") is necessarily false. Kevin Baastalk 02:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
iff stands for "if and only if", which is logically quite different from "only if". "if and only if" has the important property of being bijective; that is, "x if and only if y" implies "y if and only if x". whereas "x only if y" does not imply "y only if x". bla bla bla. anyways, back to logical fallacies...
the one you used this time is called a "non sequitur". I said that you were using a logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of the excluded middle, when you assumed the premise "The only merit of such a project is WP-wide uniformity." I said that this is the argument form "x is only desirable if (something that is impossible)", and that this form of argument is never correct. This is a little more obvious when you replace the last part with an arbitrary impossibility. for example given "y is only desirable if pigs can fly." the reader thinks, "ofcourse pigs can't fly!" and reasons, therefore, that y is not desirable. however, the critical thinking reader should realize that there are things other than flying pigs that would make y desirable. And I gave an example.
Your statements about syllogisms does not speak to the example I gave about footnotes, nor does it address any issue i brought up about your usage of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Nor does it even try to. Neither does your statement where you say "See iff". This makes your response a non sequitur. Kevin Baastalk 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
only if is half of if and only if "Y only if X" = "If X then Y". Where do you see anything else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I do not appreciate being patronized. Please respond to my arguments. Kevin Baastalk
Then let me try recasting, since you insist on using "only if" in some other meaning than the one I believe standard:
  • Is consistency between separate articles, on this minor point, which reaches only (say) 10% of our articles, going to be visible to, much less appreciated by, the reader?
  • But it will certainly annoy some of the authors of those 200,000 articles.
  • We should not incur a certain cost for a doubtful gain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia 1.0? And other distributable versions of Wikipedia? For distributions of Wikipedia in a book form, we'd want quality that is not merely comparable, but competitive with the best encyclopedias. And I'd be unpleasantly surprised to find a book that changes reference style from page to page or chapter to chapter. And if someone told me the book was like that because the editors couldn't agree on a referencing style, well I wouldn't recommend the publisher. Kevin Baastalk 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not particularly value Wikipedia 1.0; it is, after all, either a non-free encyclopedia, and thus a rival; or else an advertisement. Given the poor judgment consistently displayed by GA, and often by FA, it will have more pretty pictures and footnotes than it will have useful text.


But that is a separate question; a book is a different matter than the whole of the on-line encyclopedia. The publisher can impose his house style, and it may not be this one; publishers do it all the time, even to hand-scrawled MSS.
Furthermore, the matter here, while some editors feel strongly about it, is going to be scarcely visible to most readers; much less so than the mixture of footnotes, Harvard referencing, and external links which we expressly permit, and which the publisher will have much more trouble forcing into uniformity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think this will be much trouble, and I don't see it as an issue, really. It's been like this for a while now, and there hasn't been a problem.
And whether you like it or not, (and apparently you don't), wikipedia 1.0 will be published, and either it will have a consistent referencing style, or it won't. Kevin Baastalk 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
And the outcome of this discussion is almost entirely irrelevant to whether it has a consistent referencing system. Any decision on this minor point can be changed in producing WP 1.0; and it will vary between footnotes, Harvard and link references anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No it can't be. If you say, in policy, that it can't be changed - that it's deprecated and requires consensus to change, then it will take a lot longer to change it for wikipedia 1.0, and if even one out of the thousands of articles in the wikipedia 1.0 selection doesn't get a consensus, then it cannot be changed in producing WP 1.0. And that is precisely the relevancy of Wikipedia 1.0 to this discussion. Kevin Baastalk 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia 1.0 still says, I see, that it is publishing articles in print and on DVD; that should mean that it is taking them out of Wikipedia, and publishing them elsewhere (and selecting and processing their text to avoid vandalism.) In short, it should not be publishing in main article space at all; to do so, it would have, not merely to tweak the footnotes, but freeze text altogether. Has there been process creep? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In "(and selecting and processing their text to avoid vandalism.)" and whatever else they do, they are still obligated to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is nothing in the policies and guidelines that say you cannot select a subset of articles to be published elsewhere, or that you cannot revert vandalism.
To publish on paper a particular version of an article, be it one clear of vandalism, a "good article", or even a "featured article" does not require freezing the article on Wikipedia. Using a permalink like this will suffice. Kevin Baastalk 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is useful, we can of course include an exception for the purpose of producing such a permalink; just remember to put them back afterward. So also if Wikipedia 1.0 decides to regularize the style of dates, the warning against Date Wars would not apply. Whether this would be a good idea is another question. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be tagged

{{editprotected}}

This should have the {{protected}} tag, while it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Already done. --ais523 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Please change to {{protected}}; this is clearly not visible in some skins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

The only consensus I now see are on points not in dispute. No one argues that the CMS uses notes-after-punctuation; everybody agrees that we should permit it. Everybody agrees that each article should use a consistent style. The questions in dispute are whether it should be the "house system", and whether we should encourage edit-warring to enforce it.

Two compromises seem possible:

  • Everybody gets something: CMS is our house style, but we deprecate editing to change from one style to another.
  • Nobody gets anything: No house style; nothing about changing styles.

Which? Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You missed that the "we deprecate editing to change from one style to another." part is clearly in dispute, if anything at all is. Kevin Baastalk 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Only if one does not accept that other styles can also exist on a Wikipedia page. If so then there is no compromise at all. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the discussion is spread across sections, I just want to record that I personally favor refs before punctuation. --Error 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} please add {{pp-dispute}} to this page. Melsaran 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} To "See also" please add the following related projects:

  • m:Wikicite an idea for standardizing how facts are cited.
  • m:Wikicat is the bibliographic catalog used by the WikiTextrose project.
    • m:WikiTextrose, a text relationship database for mapping the various interactions between interpretable artifacts.

(SEWilco 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Resizing references section

{{editprotected}} This section currently reads

A similar CSS class exists to create small footnotes in two (or optionally, three) columns, but this displays as a single column in some common browsers. If desired, use {{Reflist|2}} or the CSS class directly with <div class="references-2column"><references /></div>

This is not right. There is no class to create more than two columns, and {{Reflist|2}} doesn't create the mentioned class at all, but uses inline style to accomplish the same effect.

I suggest changing the text to

A similar CSS class exists to create small footnotes in two columns, but this displays as a single column in some common browsers (like Internet Explorer). If desired, use <div class="references-2column"><references /></div>

The same effect (with any amount of columns) can be accomplished by using {{Reflist|amount of columns}}.

--Ms2ger 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing parentheticals

I have a question on which of two formats is preferred.

  • Version 1: Blah blah (blah blah blah.[9]) blah blah.
  • Version 2: Blah blah (blah blah blah.)[10] blah blah.

I know they go after the sentence punctuation, but should it go inside or outside the parentheses? Does it matter? --JayHenry 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Style question

I'm a new editor and I have a style question related to footnotes. While it's not uncommon for an academic paper to reference multiple sources in a single note, I've noticed that many articles on Wikipedia use a separate note for each individual source. For example, ". . .end of sentence." [1][2][3] in the case that three sources are referenced. Is this the standard that I should follow and, if so, what is the reason for it? – SJL 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a standard, and you can use consolidated notes if you prefer. Either method is acceptable. One reason for the style you are seeing is that an editor might want to use the "refname" feature to indicate sources. For instance, say that you want to cite three sources you have already used, using the refname feature, you would have to put something like <ref name="name"/><ref name="name2"/><ref name="name3"/>. This saves space in the page source, but there is no way to consolidate the notes into a single footnote. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That really should be deprecated, although permitted. It looks ungainly, and the saving is minimal on most articles. If a long article intermixes two one-page passages and uses no other source, it is reasonable; but so is simply putting the two pages into references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was typing my response at the same time as Christopher. Here's a really basic example, "Hippos are herbivores.[1] They weigh 4,000 lbs.[1][2] They live in Africa.[2]"
Then in references you just have: 1. Hippo Book 2. Hippo Journal
Compared to, "Hippos are herbivores.[1] They weigh 4,000 lbs.[2] They live in Africa.[3]" and references: 1. Hippo Book 2. Hippo Book and Hippo Journal 3. Hippo Journal.
For some articles this system makes sense, for some articles multiple sources in a single note would be better. --JayHenry 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses! – SJL 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to unprotect

{{editprotected}}
The survey above shows that half of us dispute the language about "house style" in Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_reference_tags. Please put a {{disputedtag}} on the section. This will identify the conflict for the concerned, and perhaps revive the discussion; in fact, if we tag the section, we may be able to unprotect the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I should have been clearer, but it's been a while since I used the tag. It has a switch for use with sections. {{disputedtag|section=yes|talk=What do we agree on? (straw poll on ref tag placement)}} can go in the section which is actually disputed, in the link above; do preview to be sure I have the syntax right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent minor problem

In "(for example, {{taxobox}}'s status_reference parameter)", "status_reference" should probably read "status_ref". If I've got this right, could someone able to edit this page please fix it? -- Boracay Bill 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

<span style="display:none"> trick

I've never seen it before; you can see it here. It's a clever trick that appears to fix the central problem of cite.php-style referencing, with references all over the place and difficult to find, the article body cluttered. I'm tempted to say that all articles should be referenced like this. Is there an "official" stance on this style? I'd like to hear more opinions. GregorB 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. That would solve a lot of the named references issues; although for long articles with many references it may not be always usable. Arnoutf 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that at M200G Volantor myself. If we can now use named forward references and collect all the full citations in the reference section, as an editor not versed in Mediawiki might expect, then perhaps we could even incorporate the display-none XHTML/CSS code and the {{reflist}} code in a single template, so that the entire resulting edit-text in the "References" section would look something like this:
{{refgroup
| <ref name="Miller"> blah blah blah </ref>
| <ref name="BBC-2007-08-31"> yada yada yada </ref>
}}
This would (A) render the full "dummy" citations invisible; (B) include the <references/> element and its CSS styling; and (C) make the actual edit-window text easily comprehensible, both for general editing work and for learning-by-doing. How about it? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking... And who knows, maybe even {{reflist}} could be retrofitted? As for long articles - yes, they might be problematic, but benefits from this style for long articles might in fact be greater compared to short articles. GregorB 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I often see articles with orphan <ref name=whatever/> named refs which have no associated parent <ref name=whatever>...</ref> -- the orphan having usually lost its parent in past editing which deleted a block of inline text which included the parent. Collecting the parents up into a block at the end of the article (where noobs intuitively expect them to be located anyhow) would lessen this problem. Perhaps consideration can be given to having a bot collect inline named refs as described here. -- Boracay Bill 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if span into which the named refs are collected is placed at the top of the article, the display order of the refs can be be controlled -- they could be grouped and/or alphebetized. -- Boracay Bill 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This "trick" makes one of the backlinks non-functional, which is very counter-intuitive even to experienced editors. Gimmetrow 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I started occasionally using this system when writing articles about a month ago. I had been working toward a featured article and there were so many references and cite templates that I was finding it extremely difficult to copy edit my own text. I thought: if I can't edit this text, having written all the words in the first place, then how on earth is someone else going to? To even a relatively new editor, the edit window of a featured article looks like pure gobbledygook. So when writing DYKs I started trying this new system, putting the references under the reference heading (intuitively this is where they belong) and only using <ref name=NYTimes/> in the article. I would say that this improves edit/readability by a factor of five. The biggest con I was going to mention is Gimmetrow's -- indeed the last backlink on each reference is non-functional. When you click on it, it simply doesn't move. A minor con is that when adding a new source on a larger article you have to either edit the entire article, or edit the section with the note and the references section. I wonder if the broken backlink issue can be fixed somehow? Otherwise, I've found this system vastly superior. --JayHenry 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even notice, but yes - the last backlink on each reference does not work. In fact, it points to the hidden section, so it shouldn't exist at all. My line of thinking is now something like this: <ref name="foo" display="none">...</ref> - basically a reference that is not displayed inline and does not generate a <references/> entry. A small extension, but it would make a vastly superior system, I agree. GregorB 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You could add the nodisplay hidden reference at the top of the reference section. That keeps the 'trick' sections close together for better maintenance and eliminates the change that another reference is placed after the hidden one, recreating the problem.Arnoutf 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This really should not be done. Using display:none does not work with older browsers and with some types of accessibility software, and this "trick" leaves a non-functional backlink. The cite.php mechanism itself should be changed to support this sort of thing. Gimmetrow 03:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On a website I operate, I'm seeing browser stats like this From 1 Jan 2007 onwards:
  • IE 64.88%,
    • IE: 6.0 72.91%,
    • 7.0 24.53%,
    • 5.5 2.11%,
    • 5.0 0.1%,
    • 5.14 01.%
    • (97.44% IE6 and IE7)
  • Firefox 30.79%,
    • Firefox: 2.0 and later 77.71%
    • 1.5.0.11 6.75%,
    • 1.5.0.12 2.88%
  • Safari 2.74%,
  • Opera 1.08%,
  • Netscape 0.24%
I've confirmed that display:none works fine on Firefox as far back as 1.5.0, on IE6, and on IE7. By my calculations, that would cover 94% of the browser hits I've seen this year, and probably a similar percentage of WP browser hits. That leaves 6% of browser hits where it is unknown whether display:none works, and my guess is that it does work on a large portion of those. I don't think "Using display:none does not work with older browsers" is a strong argument against this.
I'm less sure about the contention "some types of accessibility software" have problems with display:none, but the seat of my pants tells me that it's probably a small portion of the accessibility software out there, and the broken versions are probably mostly upgradeable.
The nonfunctional backlink is an annoying artifact. Perhaps there is a workaround or a simple fix inside of cite.php -- I dunno.
Also, please see this. -- Boracay Bill 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually more or less agree with gimmetrow. This isn't a system that should be put into widespread use; I was just experimenting with a couple of articles, to see if it might be worth pursuing further. I actually didn't notice the backlinks problem myself until quite recently. I have no idea how to request a change in cite.php or how difficult it might be, but I do think it's probably worth asking. --JayHenry 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Various people have written extensions/modifications to cite.php that would incorporate this sort of functionality, but it would still take developer time to test and implement. This would need a lot of people demanding it so the modification would have some priority. See also Wikipedia:Ref reform. Gimmetrow 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that a very similar idea was proposed at Meta a year ago: M:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#Request for extension of ref/references templates. The proposal to create an invisible reference/no backlink is probably quite simple, and the best part is that it doesn't have any backward compatibility issues and, in my somewhat limited understanding of the topic, doesn't require the parser to make an extra pass. The old system still works perfectly, but it does give editors an option. As I said, there are some articles where it doesn't make sense, and some where it does. Should we maybe bring it up at the Village Pump? --JayHenry 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
By all means, start a thread at WP:VPT, because it's going to take a fair number of voices to get cite.php changed, but that's far preferable to losing readers. Gimmetrow 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a worthy cause, so I was bold enough to start the thread myself. --Slashme 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with gimmetrow (albeit for slightly different reasons). The way I see this situation now:
  1. display:none trick is very close (tantalizingly close, I'd say) to a working solution, but not close enough; nonfunctional backlinks are a problem.
  2. Hence, a change to Cite.php mechanism is necessary: most likely an introduction of a new kind of reference tag. Similar ideas already exist.
  3. But: this hypothetical change would be of no use without an actual change in policy that would allow (or perhaps dictate) such a citation style - and Wikipedia:Ref reform show surprisingly strong opposition to such a change.
So, it is perhaps more a problem of policy then of an idea or implementation. GregorB 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the cite.php code, and it looks to me like this difficulty could be easily solved by introducing a new optional <ref> definition usage. Two possibilities might be:
  1. allow a currently nonallowed prefix char in the name of a ref (e.g."~") to indicate that no link or backlink should be generated.
  2. support an optional argument to <Ref> (e.g. nolink) which, if supplied, would suppress the link and backlink for this <Ref> instance. -- Boracay Bill 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "includeonly" better than "display=none" for interoperability? I used it at list of steroid abbreviations, and looking at the HTML source that Wikipedia serves up, I don't think it's showing up, whereas there is a display:none CSS tag in the source of the Volantor article.

As for whether to use this "trick", that list article takes the form of a table, which already introduces some syntax for the editor to navigate, and having the refs inline with that was so bad and unreadable that I figured that the broken backlink was a lesser evil.

I am a longtime user of BibTeX, and really find "blah~\cite{smith77}" extremely useful. I immediately felt right at home with cite.php, but the fact that the reference has to be inline the first time is not that great.--Slashme 15:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good thought, it works with <includeonly> I'd really like to push for this, but I've seen proposals at the Village Pump and they generally take either broad support, or a couple of people pushing very, very hard for a proposal. I'm not reliably at a computer throughout the day to focus on this enough. Perhaps we should notify the editors from these previous discussions, and see if any of them would be interested in helping to push for this slight change? --JayHenry 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Includeonly seems better than display=none, as it is server-side, but this may not work with featured lists because WP:FL adds some onlyinclude tags to select part of a list for a synopsis. And, this still has the backlink problem unless cite.php is changed. Gimmetrow 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would onlyinclude tags mess with includeonly tags? And yes, I agree, the backlink problem definitely needs help from the cite.php crew.--Slashme 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Because onlyinclude will not show anything at all that is not encompassed by it, including includeonly tags that are outside it:
<onlyinclude><noinclude>This doesn't show on inclusion</noinclude>
This always shows</onlyinclude><includeonly>This doesn't show either way</includeonly>
Circeus 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Separating Footnotes from Citations

Does anyone know of a means of keeping two separate sections for footnotes (in the sense of explanatory comments) and citiations (e.g. Burke (2004), "Article Name", Publication pp.12-34)? Is the <references> system splittable at all? Skomorokh incite 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See Pericles, which uses <ref></ref> and <references /> for one, and {{cref}} and {{cnote}} for the other. You do need to use two separate systems; but we have several. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ref}} and {{note}} and/or {{ref label}} and {{note label}} can be used similarly. See Template_talk:Ref#Documentation) -- Boracay Bill 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know if any pair of these have problems working together? If they don't, this sounds like a useful paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use the {{ref}} template; the template says it has been "deprecated" - Wikipedia-speak for "outdated - do not use". For a separate content notes section, use the templates: {{Cref}}, {{Hcref}}, and/or {{Cnote}}, as mentioned above. Examples of this approach can be found at the articles Che Guevara and Pericles, among others. (I suspect that ref and cref templates essentially do the same thing; if so, the reason why "cref" templates are okay and "ref" templates are deprecatd would be that having both ref templates and ref tags on the same page is a potential source of confusion for editors.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Was there a discussion which I missed leading to a consensus about deprecating {{Ref}} in favor of {{Cref}}?
  2. What about {{Ref label}}, {{Ref harvard}} and {{Ref harv}}?
  3. I note that this Footnotes project page has a link to WP:Footnote3 which describes the use of {{Ref}} and related templates, but neither mentions {{Cref}} and related templates nor provides a link to a page describing their use. What's up? -- Boracay Bill 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I could well be wrong in ascribing more rationality to the current system (that is, using cref rather than ref templates, to minimize confusion). I do know that this entire issue of footnotes/references sections and (separate) notes sections is a muddle, starting with the naming of sections (WP:CITE now says that "Notes" is the preferred name for a footnotes section, for example), and including mixed Harvard/Chicago referencing - see Charles Darwin, essentially a third way of referencing (or fourth, if you count Embedded citations, which some people do - because the guidelines say this is a co-equal method - although it can't handle offline citations).

I'll speculate that there is a divide here between (a) those people (I'm in this camp) who want both consistency and (relative) simplicity (which sometimes clash), so that editors of all experience levels can be encouraged to include citations in what they add to Wikipedia, and (b) editors who have a preferred style of citations and see a consistent, relatively simple system as stifling creativity and elegance (for the reader, not editors). One way to possibly reduce the problem, if not eliminate it altogether, would be to an improved version of cite.php.

In the meantime, the number of options and the lack of consensus are big factors in making the quality of the documentation for footnotes, notes, and Harvard referencing among the worst that I've seen at Wikipedia (and I've seen a lot of documentation). That's perhaps ironic, it's a quality problem that impacts the problem of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. I'd volunteer to do something about it, but I've got larger commitments (to Wikipedia) in real life. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus is Wikipedia policy. Your boldface request above conflicts with what the project page for this style guideline says ("An older system using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates is still common."). AFAICT, no consensus presently exists supporting the deprecation of {{Ref}} —the edit to the template description which introduced the mention of deprecation seems to have been done without consensus. I'm pursuing that on Template_talk:Ref.
I agree that the whole area of how footnotes and citations are organized in Wikipedia articles is in a real mess. The guidelines related to this area are in a muddle, and some of those guidelines are themselves muddled. WP:CITE in particular seems to be in a perpetual state of flux. I have my own opinions about what needs to be done to sort things out, but this is not the proper forum to start pushing an agenda and I am not presently ready to do that. If you want, we can exchange ideas on the wider issue less publicly. -- Boracay Bill 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
See Bugzilla 6271 "Allow multiple classes of footnotes on the same page". (SEWilco 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
  1. ^ "The Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union". Retrieved 2007-03-01.
  2. ^ Chahin, Mack (2001). The Kingdom of Armenia. Routledge (UK). pp. p. 182. ISBN 0700714529. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ Redgate, Elizabeth (1998). The Armenians. Blackwell Publishing. pp. p. 25. ISBN 0631220372. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  4. ^ "Armenian community". Retrieved 2007-03-01.
  5. ^ "Urartu on Britannica". Retrieved 2007-02-27.
  6. ^ "Iranica". Retrieved 2007-02-27.
  7. ^ "Armenian MFA". Retrieved 2007-02-27.
  8. ^ "The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. Armenia, country, Asia". Retrieved 2007-02-27.
  9. ^ Goo
  10. ^ Boo
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)/Archive_7&oldid=1085473447"