Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Need to add how to indicate the page numbers

When using a reference repeatedly in an article, the field "page=" cannot be used to indicate the page number as it would indicate only the referred page for one instance. As per looking around, I learned the following workaround - use a {{rp}} template which gives the page reference next to the note autonumber. An example can be found here. Thus each speific instance of use of a citation can be given its own page number, though it does look clunky sometimes.

Another method would be to use shortened footnotes which contain the short reference and page number for each use of that reference and accompanied by a bibliography section at the end of the document in which full details of all referencescan be found.

IMHO we should add this aspect to MOS so that readers have information on how to add page numbers for their refs should they so desire to do so. AshLin (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A (very) short section on "shortened footnotes" and (the far less popular) template {{rp}} would probably be appropriate, because new editors might be looking for it almost everywhere. The main section describing this is WP:CITESHORT, in WP:Citing sources. For this guideline, I think it should be about the length of the section in Citation templates (at Citation templates#Using multiple pages from the same source), i.e., just a few lines to help newer editors find WP:CITESHORT, {{sfn}}, {{rp}} and so on. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations for entire tables without intro text

I was working on a table-only section (in Working time) that had a deficient reference citation, when I discovered that there seems to be no style suggestion for how to place a citation for an entire table when: (A) the section it belongs to contains no prose to markup, and (B) the table itself doesn't seem to have a good place, like a caption or a primary column heading, that should receive the citation. I couldn't find any recommendations in either WP:TABLE or WP:FOOT, so I'm punting it ([1],[2]) to regular editors of these two project pages. Any thoughts? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When sourcing an entire table, I generally add a footer to the table; see Boy Scouts of America#Finance and Boy Scouts of America#Units and chartered organizations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What about [3]? I cited 13 sections only containing a table and placed the reference by itself between the heading and table in each case. Maybe it isn't pretty but this is simple stats from official sites and I see no need to display the source inside the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Your are right— that is not pretty with the in-text citation hanging there. I would replace the Main Draw Finals section titles with some prose that includes the in-text citation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Two observations. When I come across a table where something other than <ref>tags</ref> have been used, and it is usually means that the notes are in the same section, I replace them with <ref |group=t> so that I can keep the format as close to the original as possible. Also I recently made an addition to a table where most of the entries were from one source (so the note was after the colon of the introductory sentence, but inside the table one entry was modified by another source. So for that line I placed the tag to the LEFT of a numerical entry as the column of numbers were formatted to the right and placing the ref tag to the right of the number would have messed up the format.
Here is a simplified version of the table:[t 1]
Corps Commander Men
I Corps Master General of the Ordnance, Count Colloredo 24,400
II Corps General Prince Hohenzollern-Hechingen 34,360
III Corps Field Marshal the Crown Prince of Würtemberg 43,814
IV Corps (Bavarian Army) Field Marshal Prince Wrede 67,040
Austrian Reserve Corps Lieutenant Field Marshal Stutterheim 44,800
Blockade Corps 33,314
Saxon Corps 16,774
Totals [t 2]264,492
Table note
  1. ^ Siborne, (Fourth Edition (1894)) p. 767
  2. ^ Although Siborne estimated the number at 264,492, David Chandler estimated the number 232,000 (Chandler 1981, p. 27)

-- PBS (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That works fine for simpler tables. There are a number of very large tables (esp. for video game articles) that still use the Wikipedia:Footnote3 system simply because three characters in the in-text citation are too many. There is a pending update to cite.php to fix that. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are footnotes last name first?

I recently went through a peer review where someone suggested that last name first is policy for footnotes. I'm sure most people know this convention, but maybe not so many know that it's only the convention for bibliographic citation style, and when citations are written out in a footnote or endnote, the first name usually comes first. Is there a specific MOS policy on this? Shii (tock) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an existing style guide that uses first name first? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Like, all of them? [4][5][6] I'm not going to bother actually pulling up each and every style guide, but you get the idea now, right? Shii (tock) 13:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Those are all use The Chicago Manual of Style, which uses a separate notes and bibliography section. Notes are LNF and the bibliography is LNF. See this example. You may certainly use Chicago as documented. APA, MLA and others do this differently.
What article are we discussing— this would clarify the issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Here you go: Oyasato-yakata Shii (tock) 02:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The rule is that there is no rule. WP:CITE allows editors to make up whatever formatting system they want for citations (and WT:CITE, not this page, is a better place to ask such questions, since the answer doesn't depend on whether you're using <ref> tags). To reach FA status, all of the citations must be formatted in a style that is internally consistent (=matches the other citations used in that specific article). Outside of FAs, there are no requirements other than the barest common-sense rule that if we can't figure out what the citation says, then we're not being kind to our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

names concealed by em dash

Surely the MOS should prohibit the following style in the spirit of WP:IBID:

  • —. The Castle of Crossed Destinies (trans. William Weaver). London: Secker & Warburg, 1977

This, on the basis that each citation should be complete, self-contained, and context-free, i.e. never expressed in terms of how it differs from some previous item, which may or may not be still so. ―cobaltcigs 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree; the use of the dash (which, to be typographically correct, really should be a 3-em dash, or at least three em-dashes in a row:———) in references is operationally equivalent to "ibid" and therefore prohibited by WP:IBID. However, I don't see where it would be a problem if it were used in certain limited cases, e.g., in an article about an author, a bibliography of the author's works written using a standard citation format could use a 3-em dash instead of repeating the author's name for each work and I wouldn't object. In such a case, the hazards that WP:IBID seeks to avoid don't apply, since the author's name will be the same for every entry anyway. (See also The Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. §14.63, which gives advice similar to WP:IBID regarding 3-em dashes and computerized sorts.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the idealist’s solution would be for each citation to be stored with complete information, and feature a user-preference to hide specific datums which match those of the previous entry or are otherwise redundant to whatever is being implied by the surrounding context (at run-time, on the client side, using javascript, defaulting to show-all). That way if you shuffle them around the page, the output can self-adjust without implying incorrect relations. Of course a pre-requisite for that would be 100% use of citation templates, which will require a lot of tedious conversion. ―cobaltcigs 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

REFPUNCT October 2010

There has never been consensus on this issue. See these sections for previous discussions on this subject in Footnotes and citation archives

SlimVirgin why after all this time do you still want to mandate the use of one placement of reference tags after punctuation when there are other who do not want to mandate the use that style? -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion on the MoS talk page here. There's currently strong consensus there that we have ref tags after punctuation as the house style. You need to argue your case there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Changes to this page should be debated here. -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You were the one who started the discussion on the other page on 30 September, and so far you're the only person who doesn't want us to have a house style on this issue. A forest fire isn't helpful, so please continue discussing there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording here that I am reverting to does not suggest a house style it suggests that one style is recommended but that other recognised styles can be used it does not suggest using a house style. Where do you get the idea that the current wording is supporting a house style? -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the fire on this issue that you can not wait until the debate is ended. Changing the page in the middle of a debate is not the best way to agree changes, further changes to this guideline shoudl be debated on this page not on some other forum. SV why after all this time do you still want to mandate the use of one placement of reference tags after punctuation when there are other who do not want to mandate the use that style? -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Break/REFPUNC November 2010

I wanted to continue this conversation but also put in a break here given recent discussion at the link below. I'd like to hear others' ideas on this topic, and would invite those folks with MOS expertise to review this link and contribute here to the discussion and my proposal.

In the link immediately above, a number of other editors (great discussion and contributors, BTW) and myself engage in a conversation about how to properly apply REFPUNC in the article on Kim Jong Un. While I think the uniform application of the general rule is fairly easy and self-explanatory, the idea that the reference in the Kim Jong Un article referencing the hanja characters in the parenthetical regarding the puncutation of his name should follow the closing parenthesis instead of be inside of it, is a bit off, IMO.
Therefore, I make the following proposal to an exception to REFPUNC, similar to the existing exception for dashes, be made part of the MOS, as follows:
Proposal.
Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation, except when it involves dashes or parenthetical expressions involving translations or foreign characters, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides.

Thanks to you all for commenting here on this. I will close out the discussion at the MOS Talk Page (the link above), and reference this instead. Thanks again to all. Saebvn (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So here's the thing: REFPUNC currently refers to CMoS 14th ed., but the current edition of CMoS is the 16th edition. In the current edition, the relevant clause is 14.21 on page 666. It has this to say about the situation in question:

Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis—if, for example, the note applies to a specific term within the parenthesis.

— The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition, §14.21
I propose that the footnote to REFPUNC be updated to reflect the current edition of CMoS, which will handily resolve this issue by permitting the footnotes as they currently exist in Kim Jong Un. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
So, I gather that this means you are in favor of my proposal, though by different means. Instead of editing the text, as proposed above, just amending the REFPUNC to reference a different edition of CMoS? I think we're on the same page; if so, I would endorse such an approach. Saebvn (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd do both, actually: Update the text, but instead of your proposed copy, paraphrase the CMoS rule. It covers more cases than your proposed text. Then, to back that up, update the footnote to cite the latest CMoS. Then everybody is happy, and people whose copy of CMoS isn't 17 years out of date won't be confused. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
In my proposal below, I'm also omitting the reference to the CMoS Online website's Q&A section. The link currently provided points to a question about something else entirely now, and the only reference-related question in the punctuation section now directs the reader to clause 14.21, so it adds nothing to the quotation from CMoS. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I would endorse doing both. Adding clarification to the text of the rule itself and the footnote will be the most effective approach, as -- dare I say -- some editors won't make it down to the footnotes of the MOS. Perish the thought! Thanks! Saebvn (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed update per CMoS 16th Ed.

Here's the change I propose to make to WP:REFPUNC:

Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation—with two exceptions, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides:[5] Reference tags are placed before, not after, dashes; and where a reference applies to a specific term within a parenthetical phrase, rather than the entirety of that phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate.

  • Example: Paris is not the capital city of England—the capital of which is London[6]—but of France,[7] and is widely known as a beautiful city.[8]
  • Example: Kim Jong-un (Korean: 김정은,[9] Hanja: 金正恩,[10]) is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il with his late consort Ko Young-hee.

——

5. The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. 2010, Clause 14.21, p. 666: "Relative to other punctuation, the [note] number follows any punctuation mark except for the dash, which it precedes. [...] Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis—if, for example, the note applies to a specific term within the parenthesis."

If no one objects, I'll update the page appropriately. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse this proposal, per discussion here and above. Saebvn (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - You might want to give some folks, especially those who commented on my original question at the other MOS Talk Page, a chance to review this and comment here. They had good thoughts to add. Saebvn (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I've notified the three contributors to the original discussion of this discussion, so that they might be able to offer their input. Saebvn (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, also, have invited SV and PBS, from the discussion above, to join us here. Saebvn (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
P.P.S. - Check your commas in the example line using Em dashes...looks like you have two of them surrounding what appears to be reference mark number 7. Saebvn (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Fixed that typo. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As previously mentioned I let others make the rules, but I do think they should be consistent. A proposal to change REFPUNC should be accompanied by changes to WP:PAIC to avoid adding to my list of contradictions. For instance, change PAIC from "Where footnotes (ref tags) are adjacent to punctuation such as a comma or period" to "Where footnotes (ref tags) are adjacent to most punctuation (see WP:REFPUNC) such as a comma or period". Art LaPella (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Art, you're absolutely right; when I update WP:REFPUNC I'll be sure to tweak WP:PAIC to avoid confusion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed my invitation on my user page covers that with "A clarifying update to the text of the MOS is also on the table.", except that I didn't find such an update (the proposal was moved and PAIC was seemingly forgotten.) Art LaPella (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your first comment, I would welcome conforming changes to PAIC. Consistency is always absolutely preferred. I would endorse your changes to PAIC. As to your second comment, Macwhiz is proposing to change the text of MOS:REFPUNC within the MOS itself -- see the "examples" above and the text of the rule -- and -- Macwhiz is proposing to change footnote 5 of the MOS to reflect the 16th edition of the CMoS. Does this clarification address your second comment? Saebvn (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I misinterpreted "MOS" to mean MOS:, including WP:PAIC. But you meant the MOS including its subpages. Art LaPella (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with those edits, so long as the Chicago Manual of Style really does recommend that practice for round brackets. I know that's how dashes are handled, but for brackets I would have placed the ref outside (I think). But if CMoS says that's how to write refs with brackets, that's fine by me. If it doesn't say that, I wouldn't be keen on it, unless another major style guide does (a guide that is consistent with our refs outside punctuation default). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have CMoS 16th right here in front of me, and yes, the proposed update to footnote 5 contains a direct quote from page 666. The omission indicated by the ellipsis is merely the examples provided by CMoS. Here's their example for a ref in parentheses:

Men and their unions, as they entered industrial work, negotiated two things: young women would be laid off once they married (the commonly acknowledged "marriage bar"1), and men would be paid a "family wage."

In the CMoS example, the footnote would refer solely to the quotation "marriage bar" rather than the entire parenthetical phrase "the commonly acknowledged 'marriage bar'"; therefore, the note number goes inside the parentheses, to avoid unintended misattribution. (Were the reference outside the parentheses, one might reasonably infer that footnote 1 was responsible for the entire phrase, when in fact the source might never refer to "marriage bar" as commonly acknowledged in any way.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the apparent consensus, I've gone ahead and made the edit to WP:REFPUNC, and updated WP:PAIC to be consonant with the change. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Macwhiz, I think both of the changes you made were improvements and in accordance with the consensus discussion here. I thank you. We may need to beef up PAIC, but let's see how what you've done stands up for a while. Thanks again. Saebvn (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

ProveIt

I'd like to inform people of our new ProveIt reference management tool, developed by the ELC lab at Georgia Tech. It's designed to provide a convenient GUI for viewing, adding, and modifying footnote references. Superm401 - Talk 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"footnotes" seems like wrong term

Why do we call these footnotes? It seems colloquial and inaccurate.

1. A footnote, just means a note at the bottom of the page of text. Now, it's debatable what that means on the web, but probably endnote is more accurate. It's usually at the end of the whole article. If you print the article to read it, the "footnotes" will be at the end.

2. Since footnote really specifies location, you may (in a print document) have footnotes that are explanatory, and differnetiated from citations to the litaerature. Or for that matter, in a lot of journals, it might be common to show explanatory notes as actual footnotes and citations at the end.

Net, net: calling stuff "footnotes" just sounds sort of inaccurate and middle school. Why not call them citations (if they are) and explanatory notes (if the are) and not get into the whole endnote versus footnote thing? (and I still maintain, they are a LOT more endnotey than footnotey).

TCO (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this project page does not refer to footnotes or endnotes in general, but to the Cite citation system. This system includes an HTML style tag to place the in-text citation and a tag to generate the reference list and separate notes or bibliography lists. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There need to be no technical distinction between notes (end- or footnotes) containing citations and notes containing explanatory content. In many cases the explanatory content is indivisible from the citation as it explains how the claim in the main text follows from the cited source (for instance by explaining terminology with reference to another source) or how one source relates to other authors/sources (agreements or contrary views). --Hegvald (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So let's change the name of this page and let's stop tossing the word "footnote" around in such an inexact way? TCO (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A footnote, as a note placed at the bottom of a manuscript page, seems like exactly how it is being used. I don't see a need to do away with the term.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Do you see the Wiki-article as more like a single page of paper, or like a Brittanica or National Geographic article that may be anything from zero to several pages long. (P.s. try printing one, try doing a word count...;)
2. Look at how some journals (or even a typical report in Word) handle footnotes (formal, real footnotes, and the term refers to location not to function) for explanation and use letters for them and then use numbered endnotes at the end for source citations. Using a term (even if you think foot is more close than end) that refers to location and conflating the meaning of source citation with location with explanation is just not clear. And this is not something Wiki needs to figure out for the first time. There are all kinds of good guides on how to write research papers, periodical guides, how to write science or academic work, etc. Certain words have come to mean certain things. Using the word "footnote" the way first I used it when I was in high school, just doesn't look good for others who have learned to be more precise. Not me, I'm just a shlub, but imagine you had some real print quality technical editor or the like come by. Or even someone who's written some real academic work. TCO (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course they're footnotes. They're at the foot of the page. (And "page" is exactly what the web programmers call the totality of what shows up on your computer screen, including everything below the scroll.) If you're printing out Wikipedia articles, something is very wrong.
Numbers vs letters is irrelevant. I could tell you that everyone with any claim to typographical knowledge knows that "real" footnotes use symbols (the accepted sequence beginning with asterisk, dagger, and double dagger; the proper symbol for subsequent footnotes is the subject of holy wars), but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to use the system popular in 18th century books, either.
In fact, the English Wikipedia has been blessed with the presence of hundreds of academics and technical folks, and none of them seem terribly upset by calling these things "footnotes". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

you are getting confused because the word "page" is used in two places, but the meanings are different. These numbers are at the END. And they are not visible while reading a particular screen. And they are all grouped together (like endnotes), vice scattered in the document.

And the word footnote gets tossed around this place all the time in the sense of a source citation and shows confusion and makes us look bad. Seriously, read some style guides or research paper preparation guides. There is a world out there that has been writing documents for years and "footnote" is an imprecise and poorly used term here. Compare outside the wiki experience.

Wiki for sure has had some academics come by. It is a big and old project. that said, this place is pretty "light" on that kind of input you expect from a real editor of a journal or even a style maven. My professor would always clarify the difference in terms. so do guides on technical writing. Also if you look at Notice to Authors for Science or Nature or American Chemical Society or any of those kinds of journals (social science too), they will be clear and precise on how they describe citations.

It's not a total slam on your project. Just a place to upgrade.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

New subsection for consecutive sentences using the same source

(SEE SECTION BELOW, this is the old discussion)

I would like to summarize the discussion here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_April_20#Citing_the_same_source_multiple_times_in_the_same_paragraph and incorporate it into this article as follows:

2.3 Consecutive sentences with the same citation

For consecutive sentences with the same citation, one footnote can be placed after the end of the last sentence. Except for a direct quote, or a statement that is particularly startling or contrary to "common knowledge" (i.e., likely to be questioned); these should be cited immediately after the quote or statement.- Verapar (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

However, you may have to watch for new sentences being placed inside the group of consecutive sentences to see that citations are updated accordingly. [additional sentence to add to the above] - Verapar (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is already common practice, as well as common sense. While it may lead to confusion at times (i.e., the sentences are reordered and the ref is not copied over to where a sentence was moved; this is why quoting sources in refs may be helpful at times), there's obviously no need to have "Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1]" /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I did have to check to confirm the practice in the first sentence, just in case there are different perspectives from citing on Wikipedia than in other places. (See the archived discussion). I may have missed the recommendation in the second sentence when only placing one footnote for consecutive sentences. So I think that was a good reminder. It may also be good to add: "However, you may have to watch for new sentences being placed inside the group of consecutive sentences to see that citations are updated accordingly." Thanks. -Verapar (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This is common practice, common sense, and a common question. I think it reasonable to include "official permission" here, in the hope that people will be able to find the answer in the future without having to ask and wait for a reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it is good to recommend the removal of repeated references (Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1] Sentence.[1]). I think the slight ugliness of this method is preferable to the decay of references that occurs when there are sentences not explicitly attached to a cite. I think it's fine that it is ambiguous, because different editors' preferences vary. 38.111.13.130 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Using the word "can" in the first sentence, the intention was to present information on what has been described as a "common practice." The third sentence is cautionary and I believe addresses the issue you have raised. It's not a recommendation of one method over the other, but provides information about a method that people often ask about. -Verapar (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also there are also many cases where a section of text is fairly stable e.g. a blockquote. So you don't have to be that concerned with how well you think you would be able to watch the page for changes and/or how good you think the other editors would be in updating the citations should new sentences be inserted, which can also be factors in your decision as to which method. - Verapar (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It is also useful when you have many consecutive sentences supported by the same source. - Verapar (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Second version (last sentence changed):

2.3 Consecutive sentences with the same source

For consecutive sentences with the same source, you can place one footnote at the end of the last sentence. Except for a direct quote, or a statement that is particularly startling or contrary to "common knowledge" (i.e., likely to be challenged); these should be cited immediately after the quote or statement. The footnotes will have to be updated if sentences citing other sources are inserted inside the text using this method of citation. The likelihood of such a future edit occurring and how well the text will be monitored, may be considerations in deciding whether to use this method. - Verapar (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC) - last updated -Verapar (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Although a valid suggestion, I see no reason why one should force people to do it that way. The important thing is that it is clear from the footnote where the quote or contentious statement comes from. One might as well put the footnote at the end of the paragraph, saying something like "Smith (2000), p. 10-22, quote concerning Elvis Presley's abduction by UFO-flying Nazis on p. 16". --Hegvald (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As stated numerous times, this is NOT a recommendation/mandate/"force people to do it that way", etc. I am describing a common practice and a few issues associated with it. -Verapar (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If this is "NOT a recommendation/mandate/"force people to do it that way", etc." but just a description of "a common practice", your use of words such as "should" and "required" fails to convey that with sufficient clarity. If this is merely one of several possible ways to do something, you fail to describe the alternative possibilities (such as the one I exemplified above). But since you have decided to move this discussion to another page (and I agree that that page is a more appropriate place for the discussion), I will monitor the responses you get and comment there. --Hegvald (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Also see the section below. -Verapar (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

final proposal for "Consecutive sentences with the same source"

I've now created this discussion on WP:CITE:

  • WP:CITE may be a more appropriate place for this information as pointed out below.

- Verapar (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Using one citation for consecutive sentences with the same source (instead of citing individual sentences)

For consecutive sentences with the same source, it is a common practice to put one citation at the end of the last sentence. Note that direct quotations or statements that are particularly startling or contrary to "common knowledge" (i.e., likely to be challenged) amongst the group of sentences, are still required to have citations immediately after them. Also note that the citations will have to be updated accordingly if new sentences citing other sources are inserted inside text using this method of citation. The likelihood of such a future edit occurring and how well the text will be monitored, may be considerations in deciding whether to use this method.

The same considerations apply when putting the citation only after the first sentence, especially if it is the topic of thesis sentence of the paragraph. It is also common practice for a citation to be placed after the sentence preceding a block quote that introduces the quotation (no citations are needed inside the block quote).

Comments:

I'm re-posting the new version here just in case the thread in my last section (started Dec. 30) above got too long for people to consider reading it. I have tried to address all the issues discussed with this version.

-Verapar (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's equally common for people to put a citation after the first sentence, especially if it is the topic of thesis sentence of the paragraph. I don't see why the MOS needs to mandate one way or the other. Also, the same issue applies to parenthetical references, so WP:CITE is a better place than this page for this kind of thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. So I'll look into WP:CITE and also include the parenthetical references. I'm describing a common method of citation and the issues about using it and factors to consider whether to use it. -Verapar (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the grammar above; I hope that I didn't change the meaning in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I've fixed it again to shorten it (and direct quotations also have to be cited immediately after, that was missing in your edit in the second sentence). Also changed the section title so readers understand this it is describing a common practice and the considerations using it. I'm not "mandating" or "recommending" it's use. I'll look at WP:CITE later -Verapar (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now created this discussion on WP:CITE:

-Verapar (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I just noticed this after it was proposed on WT:CITE. I oppose it, partly because it's instruction creep, and partly because it will encourage a forest of footnotes. All that's required is that the text be clearly supported by an inline citation, at the latest at the end of the paragraph. There's no requirement for one directly after each quotation, sentence, or phrase, whether startling or not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A reason that a number of people recommended the citing of direct quotations or 'startling' phrases, is that they might be challenged and having the footnote after it makes it easier for people to verify the info before putting a ref. needed template, etc i.e. so they can be certain what source is supporting the info. As noted, it's possible someone may have inserted sentences without updating the footnotes/citations. So it may be a recommended practice for WP to have footnotes after direct quotes/'startling' phrases, although not usually required outside of WP (and yes I was already am aware of this).-Verapar (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see these guides as purely rules. Would value having a sentence saying you can go either way, and that discusses the value of each. Clearly, in an off-wiki paper, I would not do the sentence by sentence stuff. but there are some who do here, and I see the value (given how the editing process works with any able to edit).TCO (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I did say "you can go either way" i.e. note the use of the word "can" in the first sentence in the first version, then changed to "it is a common practice" (to further emphasize that is it is a choice) and also "may be considerations in deciding whether to use this method" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I believe that when I discussing the two concerns in the proposal (1.Need for citations for certain phrases/direct quotes, 2.The possible need to update citations when inserting new sentences into the text) with this method, this showed that pro's/con's of each method. -Verapar (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I think that the style guide described, while great for some forms of writing, where few people will manage the content, is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, as a work-in-progress. I for one, would not have time to baby-sit every article I've contributed to. I believe that if you suggest to people to use a single citation to cover multiple sentences, then you sacrifice future accuracy for present style. ----Seans Potato Business 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As stated numerous times, I am not "suggesting" this practice. It is already a common practice and I am discussing the considerations when using it. I discussed the concern about the insertion of new sentences as a consideration to decide whether to use this common practice, highlighting your concern. So overall, this proposal helps people decide, as people feel differently and there are different cases. Citing each sentence also takes up space/memory and often seems unnecessary in block quotes. -Verapar (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Move comments above?

So is this discussion going to continue in two different pages? Verapar started it here, then moved it to WT:CITE, but people continue adding comments here. How about moving the comments in the two subsections above to WT:CITE and putting them in a coloured box or something? --Hegvald (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can a note be cited twice?

I'm using the group=note feature on Startling Stories to separate notes from footnotes, and a reviewer at the current FAC has suggested that I insert a second reference to one of the notes. How can I do this with this markup? I know how to do it with regular citations; it's <ref name=fred>blah blah blah</ref> for the first one, and <ref name=fred/> for the second. But how do I do it with the group tag? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See the table at the end of Lemur evolutionary history for an example. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Works like a charm. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is it necessary to have the reference list into 2 columns, even if there are 7 references total? In my opinion, it seems a bit strange to divide it into 2 columns when there are only a few footnotes given. Tinton5 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Use your judgment. If seven refs look odd in two columns, then switch it to one. There has been a lot of discussion on this, but no consensus on how many refs there should be before switching to columns. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes now subscript letters instead of numbers

I just noticed this today. Instead of my cites being a subscript numeral it's a letter. This is new, is it not? Can someone direct me to the discussion? I'm just curious.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Guessing you are using a group name of "footnote". See below. Part of that discussion is whether "footnote" is an appropriate default name. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
No I'm not. I always use the standard {{reflist}} but everything seemed to have changed by default. But now they're back to numbers. It's weird. thanks for your help, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, it was my fault. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Reference formatting change?. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL. One always sees "won't break the wiki" at RFA. And you did! Briefly. :-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

New feature discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cite.php: Custom cite links. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the numbers?

Does anyone know what happened to the numbering of references when using the list defined reference format? There are no numbers anymore, just bullets. KeptSouth (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Working An update to the cite system is progress. Bear with us while we sort this out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cites for whole phrases going outside parens

WP:REFPUN seems clear enough: "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation. [Exception: ] where a reference applies to a specific term within a parenthetical phrase, rather than the entirety of that phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate." On Kevin Pereira and Jennifer Lopez, references that apply to the entirety of a parenthetical phrase have been moved outside of the parens, as guided, but that has raised objections. Can someone else clarify this, if it doesn't say what it means? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could another editor please comment at Talk:Kevin Pereira#Ref placement? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in nesting refs?

The manual states: "Only one set of <ref></ref> tags may be included within {{#tag:ref}}; attempting to nest multiple references will render the reference list oddly."

Do you mean that you can't next a {{#tag:ref}} inside a {{#tag:ref}}, or that you can't have more than one <ref></ref> block inside a {{#tag:ref}}? Because I've used the latter several times, it's visible on footnote f on List of Governors of Alabama, containing references 10, 11, and 12 (though in each case, this is the second mention of the reference, so maybe that has something to do with it?) --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I added that. I am sure I had a test case somewhere, but I can't find it. Let me poke around. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Named references are mandatory?

I have been told that this guideline actually requires the use of named references when the same footnote text is used more than once. That seems to contradict WP:CITEVAR to me. Is is really intended here that named references must be used? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do the variables passed to the ref HTML tag count as part of the citation style? I thought citation style had to do with the visual appearance of the rendered page. Insisting on consistency in the edit view seems unnecessary, although it can help with editing to maintain some degree of consistency.—RJH (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Previous discussions on what 'counts' have tripped over the citation template issue. If "the visual appearance of the rendered page" is (quite sensibly, IMO) all you care about, then (*gasp*) you could use both citation templates and manually formatted citations in the same article. Apparently, doing so would lead to utter chaos and the end of civilization, or something like that. Therefore, at least whatever goes in between the ref tags is part of the "style". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The ref name is not in between the ref tags; it's an attribute of the opening tag. Its absence, presence, or format has no effect on the rendering of the reference, save that where the same name is used two or more times, the second and subsequent instances are merged with the first. So, if the page contains the following:
A fact.<ref>Smith (1998), p. 123</ref>
Another fact.<ref name=Smith2>Smith (1998), p. 127</ref>
Third fact.<ref name="Jones 2003 p67">Jones (2003), p. 67</ref>
Fourth<ref name=Smith3>Smith (1998), p. 136</ref>
and fifth facts.<ref name="Smith3">Smith (1998), p. 136</ref>
it will display as
A fact.[1] Another fact.[2] Third fact.[3] Fourth[4] and fifth facts.[4]
  1. ^ Smith (1998), p. 123
  2. ^ Smith (1998), p. 127
  3. ^ Jones (2003), p. 67
  4. ^ a b Smith (1998), p. 136
and it can be seen that the name attribute does not affect anything, until the same one occurs twice. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. However, only the things that go between the ref tags have been previously declared to be part of the citation style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Addressing the question which I think was asked, I don't think that this guideline currently disallows, or even discourages the following:
A fact.<ref>Smith (1998), p. 123</ref>
Another fact.<ref>Smith (1998), p. 123</ref>
Third fact.<ref>Jones (2003)</ref>
Fourth<ref>Smith (1998), p. 123</ref>
and fifth facts.<ref>Jones (2003)</ref>
it will display as
A fact.[1] Another fact.[2] Third fact.[3] Fourth[4] and fifth facts.[5]</nowiki>
  1. ^ Smith (1998), p. 123
  2. ^ Smith (1998), p. 123
  3. ^ Jones (2003)
  4. ^ Smith (1998), p. 123
  5. ^ Jones (2003)
IMO, this should be discouraged in this guideline. Whether or not it should be allowed should be a matter decided by editorial consensus on a per-article basis. The collection of identical cites in named Refs should, IMO, be encouraged in this guideline, and the specification of page numbers, where applicable, (which aren't specified for Jones in this example) should be encouraged elsewhere (see WP:Page numbers). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Benefits of using WP:LDR

I've been implementing WP:LDR for some time now, and I thought I'd mention some of the benefits I have experienced:

  • WP:LDR reduces clutter within the article body, making it easier to edit the content.
  • For well developed and/or stable articles, most non-bot edits are to the article content, rather than to the citations. Having the references out of the way is more beneficial for the majority of edits.
  • By having all of the references grouped together, it is much easier to manually perform mass updates to the citations.
  • Because the article paragraphs are generally shorter with WP:LDR, it is easier to check the history page and look for harmful edits.
  • In the references section, citation templates can be wrapped onto a single line without making them difficult to read. When this is done in the article body, it only increases the amount of clutter.

Implementing WP:LDR is essentially the same as re-using a citation; in both circumstances the reference would be located elsewhere in the article. Hence it is not a major leap for most editors to follow.

The one drawback I've encountered is while adding a citation. In this case, I have to do a full article edit in order to put the citation in place. This could be alleviated by having a bot periodically auto-move all citations to the reference section (but only for articles that have implemented WP:LDR). This way, we can insert a new reference with a section edit and still maintain a WP:LDR configuration. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to have a bot maintain—or even convert, on request—the LDR list. I don't expect the average editor just happen to notice that an article uses LDR, so that work will have to be done one way or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You can use User:PleaseStand/References segregator to migrate to LDR. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise on WP:REFPUNC?

How about logical and precise reference punctuation for articles on science and computing subjects (ref after full stop if for entire sentence, ref before full stop if for last section of sentence), and the current reference punctuation system for non-science and computing subjects (ref always after full stop, even if it doesn't ref the entire sentence)? See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 7#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-21t12:44z

I can't say I favor refs before the full stop in any circumstance. They're ugly, and they break the flow of the text. Notes set that way make articles harder to read. I know CMoS frowns on the practice, putting note numbers after all punctuation save the em dash. Besides, isn't this a stale discussion? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I can understand Jeandré's concern; there is no mechanism in Wikipedia to indicate the specific portion of text that is addressed by a citation. But I don't think that putting the citation before the punctuation is the way to address it. If there is some ambiguity that needs to be resolved, I usually just add a note or quote at the end of the reference block. If the first part of the sentence is unsourced, you can always tag that portion with a 'citation needed' template.—RJH (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The current rule is ugly and imprecise. Just as the rule for punctuation inside/outside quote marks, putting the reference before the punctuation makes it clear that it is part of that clause. As a reader, when you hit a period/full stop, you expect it mean to just that - end of sentence, end of concept. But then you have to visually parse the reference notation and say to yourself "oh wait, that's not really the end, there's more." It's illogical and inefficient. Highlandsun (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors at a given article are pretty much allowed to invent whatever style they want. Follow whatever style is already there, and if no refs exist, then you can do whatever seems sensible to you. REFPUNC won't be "enforced" unless you want it declared to be WP:FA, and even then, they might agree to an exception, if you've got a good reason for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure ref tags come after punctuation, unless before a closing dash or parenthesis (but you'd try to reword to avoid that). Nature does put ref tags before, but they use small-size superscript numerals without square brackets: different game. Tony (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, it is exactly the same game. Besides although Nature was given as one example, there are other styles such as this (1), which is used by the European Union. Your logic would suggest that if the style of reference tags were changed to 1 you would then support before punctuation referencing -- something I doubt! My preferred solution would be a unique system for Wikipedia using logical punctuation but there is little support for that. There is sizeable support for placing reference tags where people usually see them in the format used disciplines in which they work or study, so I think it much better that editors should use positioning of notation that is commonly used in that academic field. We have to use [1] style because that is what is available but that does not mean we have to force homogeneous use of after punctuation positioning. -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am all in favour of the compromise wording that was used before, but there was an RFC on this issued last October and the outcome at that time was overwhelmingly in favour of no compromise (with Tony1 one of the strongest advocates of no compromise) -- See preamble and RFC: Should ref tags be placed after punctuation?. If this is to be changed -- and consensus can change -- then there needs to be another RFC. I will support change via another RFC, but I will not initiate another RFC. -- PBS (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to this sentence—"When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation"—it should not be changed without seeking opinion from a much wider group of editors. Tony (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I personally prefer and use the style described here. However, I'd be open to a compromise that says "the tag is normally placed immediately after the punctuation" (a statement that is indubitably true). If editors at an article have a good reason for using a different style, then I'm not going to stop them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking space between linked text and ref

Resolved
 – Problem isolated and defined, noted in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Known_bugs and work-around added to Help:Reference_display_customization

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion - with minor modifications for context - from Talk:Easter_Island#Non-breaking_space_between_linked_text_and_ref, because it is a general formatting issue. The problem is not unique to that article. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed a non-breaking space in the lead paragraph of the Easter Island article between the linked text "slave raiding" and the ref tag after it, to comply with WP:REFPUNCT. Beyond My Ken restored it because "without the nbsp, the ref becomes part of the link in some browsers". It seems odd that this problem should occur here, and that there is no mention of such possible problems in WP:REFPUNCT. Some questions for Beyond My Ken:

  • Which browser is having the problem?
  • Do you have the same problem with other articles?
  • When you say "the ref becomes part of the link", have you checked where clicking on the ref takes you? With both IE6 and Firefox 3.6, I see "slave raiding" and "[4]" in blue and they might look to be a single link, but hovering the mouse over "raiding" or "[4]" shows a different target in the status bar, and click takes me where it should.
  • If this is a reproducible problem, I expect that it would apply to other articles as well, and we should probably update WP:REFPUNCT accordingly. (I know we have WP:IAR, but we shouldn't have to invoke that for something that we know will happen in many places - WP:REFPUNCT should mention the problem.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a browser-specific problem -- or, rather, a number of browsers exhibit it, as both IE and Firefox will combine the ref into the link if it's not separated with a non-break space. (This doesn't happen all that often, because with frequency the ref is separated from the link with a punctuation mark, such as a period or a comma.) The problem is visual, not functional, in that the underline (which indicates the link) continues under the ref. I find this less than ideal, hence the nbsp to separate them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me backtrack on that a little bit. I first saw the problem under IE, but then I believe I also saw it under Firefox. Either I was mistaken about that, or Firefox has fixed the problem. In any case, under IE the following:
Little Boxes[1]
still shows the underline under the ref. Since IE is, still, the browser used by more people than any other, I believe I'm justified in separating the link from the ref with a nbsp. If the problem is eventually solved, it's fairly easy to remove these spacers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. If you'd like, I'd be hsppy to send you a screen shot showing the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I can't reproduce the problem at all. With all of: IE6 on Windows XP, Firefox 3.6.13 on XP, IE8 on Vista, I see the underline appear under the article link or the ref link, but never both. In all over those cases the underline appears only when I hover the mouse over a link. (Although both IEs have "Underline links = Always" in Options, probably by default, because I wouldn't have set that.) Which version of the browsers are you using? Which OS? Can you reproduce the problem on any other machine? (Perhaps its an issue with your video drive? I've tried with three separate PCs.) Is it a function of your preferences? Can you reproduce the problem if you are not logged in? (For my testing, I am logged in with FF on XP on one PC. All other combinations I am not logged in.)
I'm not denying that you can see a problem, but I'm not convinced that the problem affects anybody else. I think we should determine whether the problem is just with your unique configuration, or whether it is a general problem. If it is a general problem, we should identify and document the scope of it in WP:REFPUNCT, so that others will be aware. I would think that a wiki-link followed immediately by a ref tag (with no punctuation between) would occur often enough to warrant mentioning in the style guide, if appropriate.
Have any other editors seen this problem? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Before we go adding spaces to all refs, we need a lot more information:
  • I have done a lot of technical work on references and have never heard of this issue
  • I have been using FireFox 3.x and now 4.0 and have never seen this issue in over five years
  • Tested with IE9 and IE10preview— no problems with the sample link above; I can test with IE6 through 8 later
  • What happens if you log out and view an in-text cite?
  • What happens if you customize your CSS to add a non-breaking space before the in-text citation? See Help:Reference display customization
  • If there is a general problem, and if the CSS fixed it, then we could fix this by changing the MediaWiki interface page that controls this
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Above is the text to the left with the "Little Boxes" example, seen using IE 8.0.6001 under Windows Vista. Note that the underline denoting the Wikilink extends underneath the reference's superscripted number. (Image has been enlarged 25% over original.
I'm not sure I understand the problem yet. In the "Little Boxes[2]" example, I see underlines under both the footnote marker and "Little Boxes", but the underlining of the footnote marker is immediately under the marker, at about the height of the horizontal strokes in the letter "e", not further below at the level on the "Little Boxes" underlining. Beyond My Ken, is that what you see, or do you see something different from me? (e.g. the underline continuing horizontally throughout at the same level) --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I see the underline at the same level. I'll upload a screenshot showing it shortly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen a problem as described. The citation tag link is in the superscript position, so the underscores are in different vertical positions. If you mouse over the wikilink or the citation tag, they each resolve into separate links at the bottom of the browser. Perhaps it is a font-specific issue on the browser?—RJH (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the mouse cursor in that image. Do all of your links underline even if you don't hover the cursor over them? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
What happens if you disable underlined links per http://malektips.com/internet-explorer-8-link-underlining.html? If you go into Control Panel → Programs do you have a program named Hyperlinker?
I don't think links should ever be underlined unless you hover over them. The skin CSS for Vector and Monobook both include:
/* Links */
a {
	text-decoration: none;
	color: #0645ad;
	background: none;
}
a:visited {
	color: #0b0080;
}
a:active {
	color: #faa700;
}
a:hover {
	text-decoration: underline;
}
This means that standard links (a) should have no decoration while hovered links (a:hover) will be underlined. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Again— what happens when you log out? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have my preferences set to always underline links, which is the way I prefer them. Obviously if I turned that off, the problem would go away, as it does when I log out and my preferences are no longer in force, but that really is just ignoring the problem instead of fixing it. If an editor chooses to have links underlined, than the system should do so properly, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I see it. If Preferences → Appearance → Underline links is set to Browser default, then then IE underlines the wikilink and ref with the baseline for the wikilink. This probably has never been reported because references should come after punctuation, which would separate the wikilink and the ref. You can fix this by adding a non-breaking space before the in-text citation in your CSS per Help:Reference display customization. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
references should come after punctuation Except when the ref is pertinent to something in the middle of the sentence, and not to the sentence as a whole. Is there not any way to fix this so that other editors who use the same settings as myself don't have to fiddle with their CSS? Is it worth filing a bug report? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
We would update MediaWiki:Common.css, discuss on the talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I can also reproduce the problem now, if I set my Wikipedia preferences to "underline links = always", and use IE8 (on Vista). (With Firefox 3.6.13 or IE6 on XP, there is no problem, even when logged in with underline links = always.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So we agree that there is a definite, reproducible problem for some combinations of user preferences (underline link = always) and browser (IE8) if a ref tag immediately follows linked text. Do we agree that putting a non-breaking space in the article is not the correct solution? I'd like to remove the non-breaking space from Easter Island, and leave others to determine what is the correct article-independent solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please wait until the problem has been fixed globally before removing the nbsp, which is not hurting anybody. If Gadget850 is indeed able to fix the problem, I will myself go through and remove all the small number of instances that I've introduced this formatting. In the meantime, my "fix", although a kludge, is still a fix for an actual problem, and should be left in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's "hurting" my sense of aesthetics and consistency, perhaps just as much as your "visual, not functional" :-) Past experience suggests that band-aid fixes tend to remove the incentive to develop real fixes, and that they (the band-aids) to multiply, and should be stamped out as quickly as possible. :-) However, in the spirit of co-operation and good faith etc, I'll leave the nbsp there for now. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Should this problem be listed under WP:FN#Known_bugs? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I can fix this by adding a zero-width space to the interface page. I am tired and not going to it tonight. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I can add a zero-width space to MediaWiki:Cite reference link to resolve this problem without breaking other browsers. I am going to consult on this first. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That won't work, as it will show a square dot on older browsers. Frankly, this is a very minor issue: it depends on two things— IE and a wikilink followed by a ref, which should be rare —and it doesn't break anything. This cosmetic issue can be resolved by adding this to your Special:MyPage/skin.css: 

/* Add a zero-width space before the in-text citation */
sup.reference:before {
    content: "\200B"; text-decoration: none;
}

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you weren't able to come up with a general fix for the problem, but I'll bow to reality and take the css fix. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Gadget: Checked the fix with IE and it works fine, thanks again. Mitch, I've removed the nbsp from Easter Island and will do any others I've added (as I said, a small number) as I come across them again. Feel free to do the same if you should see them, and thanks for waiting a bit on the MoS update. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The description of the bug at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Known_bugs and Help:Reference_display_customization says "Internet Explorer", but I think we should qualify that. The problem appears with IE8, it does not appear with IE6 (the default browser installed with XP), and I don't know about other versions. I propose changing the description of the bug and the fix to say Internet Explorer 8, rather than just Internet Explorer. Has anyone tested with IE 7, 9, 10? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I can make this happen with IE7, IE8, IE9 and IE10. IE6 does not show this problem, but IE6 use here is less than 4% per Wikimedia Analytics - User Agent Breakdown by Browser. I qualified the statement without get detailed, as it appears that a lot of IE users turn off the underline, so they will never see this problem.
I knew there was a good reason not to update my XP box from IE6 :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I use Windows 7 with IE9 and IE10 preview installed. I use Virtual PC to run separate Windows XP VHDs with IE6, IE7 and IE8. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The :before and :after pseudo-elements are not supported by IE6 and IE7 and it appears that IE6 does not have this issue, therefor this will not fix IE7, but will fix 8, 9 and 10. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Style

Spacing

Shortcut

References tags should immediately follow the text to which they refer, with no space before the tag. Multiple consecutive tags should have no space between them.

Ref tags and punctuation

... The short cut doesn't exist yet, but I'll create it if we proceed.

Here's an alternative, per Avenue's suggestion in #Voting below. (I don't like this one, but others may prefer it.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC) {{collapse top|Proposed change 2, addition after REFPUNCT}}

Style

Ref tags and spacing

Shortcut

Punctuation

Shortcuts
Basic rule

Material may be referenced mid-sentence ... or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation.

Two exceptions

There are two exceptions, ... as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style ...

  • Example: Paris ...
  • Example: Kim Jong-un ...

Mid-sentence

References tags should immediately follow the text to which they refer, with no space before the tag. Multiple tags should have no space between them.

Style recommendations

...

|}

And a third one - see discussion below in #Voting. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC) {{collapse top|Proposed change 3}}

Style

Shortcut

Ref tags and spacing

Material may be referenced mid-sentence ... or at the end of a sentence or paragraph.

Mid-sentence

References tags should immediately follow the text to which they refer, with no space before the tag. Multiple tags should have no space between them.

Punctuation

Shortcuts
Basic rule

When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation.

Two exceptions

There are two exceptions, ... as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style ...

  • Example: Paris ...
  • Example: Kim Jong-un ...

Style recommendations

...

|}

Here's a fourth option. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Proposed change 4}}

Proposed update to Manual of Style - no space before ref tags

 Done Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

During the #Non-breaking space between linked text and ref discussion above, I noticed that WP:REFPUNCT says (with my emphasis added)

When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation.

however nowhere does the page say that the tag should immediately follow the text, with no intervening space (when there is no punctuation). I suggest that it should say this explicitly. The obvious place to put this would be in the first sentence of WP:REFPUNCT ("Material may be referenced mid-sentence ..."), but presumably this would require a change to the section title "Ref tags and punctuation" because the addition would apply when there was no punctuation. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Irrelevant conflation of this with previous discussion}}

What's the rush? Is there a deadline I'm not aware of? Please wait until the problem is fixed before taking any action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are incorrectly conflating my proposed change to MOS (the subject of this section) with my proposed removal of the non-breaking space from a specific article (in #Non-breaking space between linked text and ref). Although I noticed the "missing" guideline (about ref tags coming immediately after text) while discussing a specific problem in a specific article, the issue of missing guideline is independent of the display problem in the previous section. I believe we can and should discuss the guideline - and even fix it - without waiting for a fix for the display problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

|}

I think that, although 'zero space' is both the most common style and my personal preference, we should not insist that it be done this way. It would be sufficient IMO to say that "Normally no space is left between the ref tag and the preceding text", possibly with the explanation about needing non-breaking spaces (to avoid having the ref wrap onto the next line) if editors at the article choose to include spaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
In-text cites can and will wrap to the next line depending on the line length and window width— there is no way to predict if any particular in-text cite will wrap. If an editor desires to keep the in-text cite connected to the preceding text, they can easily add a non-breaking space per Help:Reference display customization. If this is desirable site-wide, then a separate discussion needs to be made. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, do you think we should have a different rule/suggestion for a ref after punctuation vs after text? My proposed change is explicilty so that the (same) rule covers both case, whereas currently there is no rule covering refs after immediately after text with no intervening punctuation. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gadget, I'm not finding anything at the linked page about the problem I have in mind. Here's what should happen: 

The Moon is pretty big.  The Sun is really, really 
big. [1]  They're both pretty far away from the Earth.

Here's what sometimes does happen (if you don't use a non-breaking space): 

The Moon is pretty big.  The Sun is really, really big. 
[1]  They're both pretty far away from the Earth.

The page you link has a script for fixing the leading, but what I want is something that prevents the "[1]" from being placed at the beginning of a line that the "[1]" doesn't support. I don't see anything there that would prevent a footnote from coming astray of the sentence it supports (maybe I missed it?). A non-breaking space solves this trivially, for all users, by preventing the "big." from being separated from the "[1]". It's exactly the same solution that we use to prevent (for example) "5" from coming astray of "grams" when writing about numbers.

Mitch, I would in handle the two issues separately, and in both instances I would tell people what is "normally" done, rather than what they "should do" or "must do". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the issue of nonbreaking spaces is perhaps best moved to another section. The question I'm trying to resolve here is whether there should be any space between text and ref tag. (Note that WhatamIdoing's example above has a ref tag after punctuation - which is already clearly covered by the Manual of Style.) WhatamIdoing, if you agree, can we please move this to a new section. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So far as how the rules are worded, I propose keeping to the same general style as we currently have - ie tell the editor what to do (implicitly, what they should do). That's what the WP:Manual of Style is for. We already have plenty of guidelines as to how strictly to follow the rules, or when to break them. Eg, MOS:CONSISTENCY, MOS:STABILITY, WP:IAR.
WhatamIdoing, what do you propose for the rule (guideline, suggestion, whatever you want to call it) on refs after text with no intervening punctuation? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we have the least amount of WP:Instruction creep possible, while preventing actual confusion by editors working on real articles.
The location of the punctuation is not the issue. This:
The Moon is pretty big.  The Sun is really, really big
[1].  They're both pretty far away from the Earth.
is just as big of a problem. The reader can figure it out (in both cases), if the reader happens to notice it, which is not guaranteed—and is actually unlikely if the citation is at the end of the paragraph. Readers who arrive at the end of a paragraph do not loop back to the beginning of the next line, just on the off chance that someone might have left something worth looking at in the blank space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
My proposal is (in general) to add to WP:REFPUNCT an explicit statement that "the ref tag should immediately follow the text, with no intervening space (when there is no punctuation)", either by adding a new sentence or modifying the existing sentence ("When a reference tag coincides with punctuation..."), and possibly modifying the section name (Ref tags and punctuation) if appropriate. Aside from appearing to disagree with me, WhatamIdoing, it's not clear what rule(s) (suggestions, guidelines etc) you do think we should have. Could you please state explicitly what you think WP:REFPUNCT should say. It doesn't have to be perfect, just indicative of your intent. If you think WP:REFPUNCT is OK as it stands and needs no changes, then please say so explicitly. (And of course other editors are invited to do the same.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
My first choice is to leave it like it is, perhaps weaseling slightly about refs "normally" following punctuation rather than making it read like a requirement. My second choice is to change nothing, and specifically not to add anything about the presence or absence of a space before the ref tag, given that nobody actually seems to be confused about this, which means that it is instruction creep (and a touching level of faith that people who are using The Wrong Style™ actually read the directions). My third choice is to point out that in the unlikely event that editors choose to place a space between the ref tag and the preceding material, then it must be a non-breaking space to prevent the ref from getting lost through line wrapping. My fourth choice—a distant fourth—is your proposal, i.e., to tell people that although they are allowed to completely invent any style at all for presenting the citations, and although WP:Ignore all rules is a fundamental policy, they're not allowed to have intervening spaces if they want to.
Is that sufficiently clear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that "nobody is confused about this". I frequently come across pages with inconsistent spacing before refs, and (unless the the article has consistently included a space before each ref) generally delete the spaces before the refs, in the interests of consistency. If we want a consistent look - which the MOS seems to suggest - we should include guidelines to editors to cover such common situations. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding breaking vs non-breaking spaces, while I accept it is a problem, I still think it is a separate problem to whether or not WP:REFPUNCT should state "no space between text and ref tag", and I still think it belongs in a separate section. Perhaps it would be better to defer the issue of non-breaking spaces until after we resolve the proposal of ref tags immediately after text. However, if the two issues really are inseparable, I'm sure that will become more obvious to me when you present your proposal of the rule/guideline/suggestion etc to go in WP:REFPUNCT per my request of 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The Cite software has been a standard for several years without the wrapping issue being a problem. I annotated Help:Reference display customization and added another rule that would fix this. Adding a non-breaking space to millions of in-text cites by hand is just not worth the effort for this. If someone has a real itch about this, there are two fixes. I started that customization page because editors want cites and reference lists to fit their desired views. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There should not be a space between the punctuation and the ref tag. Can I say that it is very off-putting to have the ref tags wrap onto the next line at the moment (i.e., without a space). Can this be fixed globally? Tony (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I really had to work with window width to make the in-text cite wrap in that manner. As best I see it, the only way to connect it to the preceding text is to use a non-breaking space which of course adds a space or to use a zero-width joiner which will show as a square in IE6 and possible other vintage browsers.I don't see any way to add no-wrap css to include the text and in-text cite. Perhaps this should be taken to WP:VPT to attract someone with more CSS fu. Frankly, I just don't see this as a huge issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've noticed this wrapping issue for years, and have regarded it as a serious deficiency. But inserting a space is just swapping that problem for another. I wonder whether the techs at the Foundation could be asked for a solution; is it worth filing at Bugzilla? Tony (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone would like to discuss the change that I've proposed (when I created this section) to WP:REFPUNCT, which has got nothing to do with non-breaking spaces ... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we split this to a separate discussion as I noted above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I propose to add this to the page:
("Style" and "Ref tags and punctuation" already exist, but are shown here to illustrate where the new "Spacing" section will be.) {{collapse top|Proposed addition}}

Style

Shortcuts

Ref tags, punctuation, and spacing

Material may be referenced mid-sentence [...] or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Reference tags should immediately follow the text to which they refer, with no space before the tag. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation. Multiple tags should have no space between them.

Punctuation exceptions

There are two exceptions to the rule about references tags following punctuation, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style ...

  • Example: Paris ...
  • Example: Kim Jong-un ...

Style recommendations

...

|}

Voting

Can I have some votes please, yes, no, alternatives etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose putting the addition before the rule for refs following punctuation, because the situation the addition deals with is much less common. I do support the basic principle, and I've suggested an alternative addition below. Whichever is used, I think an example showing both tags following punctuation and directly following text would be useful too. --Avenue (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that refs after punctuation are more common than refs mid-sentence, however, the addition is actually the general case, so should come first. Eg logically it is "tags should immediately follow the text or punctuation ..., with no space". Then "Ref tags and punctuation" is only needed to list the exceptions. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I created a proposal 3, above. Initially I just moved the first sentence ("Material may be referenced mid-sentence ... or at the end ...") to above the Punctuation heading, then I noticed the order of things in that sentence "... mid-sentence ... or at the end...", so I change the order of my sub-sections to match - and ended up with something very similar to my first proposal, but with more headings, which I don't like. The point here is that the first sentence lists "mid-sentence" first, so our rules should appear in the same order. I still prefer the first proposal. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added a fourth proposal. Too many unnecessary headings in the rest, I think. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I generally like your proposal 4 - the only change I would make to it is that the heading should be "Ref tags, spacing and punctuation", to match the order of presentation in the body text. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Alternative: add the following two sentences to the "Basic rule" paragraph:
If there is no punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the relevant text, with no intervening space. Multiple consecutive tags should have no space between them.
As noted above, the subsection name "Ref tags and punctuation" would no longer fit. It could be changed to "Where to place ref tags" or something similar. --Avenue (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
See proposal 2 above. Personally I don't like it, but it's a valid alternative. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In-text cite wrapping

Let's keep the issue of in-text cite wrapping separate from the issue of whether or not there should be a space between the text and the in-text cite.

I don't see in-text cite wrapping as a huge issue, but I'm willing to look at it

General ways to fix this:

  • Add a non-breaking space before the in-text cite— works for all browsers but adds a space
  • Ad a zero-width joiner before the in-text cite— depending on how it is presented, this may cause IE6 to show a glyph
  • Update Cite to detect the character before the in-text cite and enclose them in nowrap CSS

Ways to add the space or joiner character:

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that cite wrapping is bad. I think we're also all agreed that unless you add a regular space between the preceding text and the ref tag, that cite wrapping doesn't happen.
I don't understand how a zero-width joiner would prevent cite wrapping if you've also added a space (i.e., in the only circumstance where the problem appears). If you haven't added a space, I don't understand what problem the zero-width joiner is supposed to be solving ('really, really not wrapping the cite', instead of just plain 'not wrapping the cite'?). Surely text (breakable space) (zero-width joiner) ref tag would actually break after the text. Are you proposing text (zero-width joiner) (breakable space) (zero-width joiner) ref tag, thus creating a new form of non-breaking space?
Why not just tell editors at the very few articles that add spaces before the ref tag that they need to use a non-breaking space? It's not a case of updating millions of pages: This is an uncommon style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, in-text cite wrapping is a minor cosmetic issue that would be nice to have fixed.
With the current software and setups, in-text cite wrapping can occur at any point in the content and is dependent upon the window width. Adding a normal space before the in-text cite does not fix or break this.
You have this backwards— the zero-width joiner would fix the problem.
The issue can be fixed by connecting the text to the in-text cite with a non-breaking space or a zero-width joiner or by enclosing the preceding text and the in-text cite in nowrap CSS. As noted above, each of these has issues.
Again, this can be fixed in personal CSS, but finding a site-wide fix is going to be tricky. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
But will it fix the problem if the person adds a space? Will "Sentence. [1]" be joined, or will only "Sentence.[1]" be joined? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
So is it a problem worth putting on the agenda? I'd have thought so. Can't be that hard to fix, surely? Tony (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
At our level we can add the zero-width joiner if we want to ignore IE6 and IE7, which are 4% and 12% use per Wikimedia Analytics - User Agent Breakdown by Browser. There are other issues with cite.php that have been open over a year that I would consider more important (like ref nesting) that haven't been fixed, but we should still open a bug if we can't figure a local fix. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Gadget, would be good, and thank you for offering. But tell me, will it adversely affect the display for IE6 and 7 users? And will it need to be added manually (or by script), or will it be automatically global? I've alerted users at WT:MOS and will now do so at WT:FAC, to get their opinions about the issue. Tony (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I spent a while trying to make this happen with no success, until I thought to try out some of the examples at WP:Citation overkill. The lead on the Madrid train bombings was good to me. I think that's the first time I've ever seen that behavior.
Will the proposed change prevent long strings of footnotes from wrapping? (What happens if the list of [1][2][3][4]... is wider than the width of the screen?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My proposed addition to the Style section, in #Proposed update to Manual of Style - no space before ref tags above, may be relevant. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a standard space before the <ref> tag will not fix this issue.
  • You can manually add a non-breaking space or zero-width joiner before every <ref> tag, but there are millions of <ref> tags so this is not an effective solution. And you have to add it before each and every tag in a series to make them nowrap.
    • The zero-width joiner will show as a glyph in IE6, IE7 and maybe some other old browsers
    • The non-breaking space adds a space before each in-text cite
  • Inserting the zero-width joiner via the CSS hack will prevent wrapping for a series of in-text cites.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
How about using a CSS filter or conditional comment to add the zero-width joiner for most browsers, but not for IE6 and IE7? This wouldn't fix the problem for users of those browsers, but it seems like it would work for most of our readers. (Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about CSS. Hopefully someone will tell me if I have the wrong end of the stick.) --Avenue (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Going to need someone with some CSS fu to work that. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Just adding my 2 cents here. Placing a reference directly behind a word or punctuation will not line-break. Putting a space in between them will line-break. Adding a non-width-space is undesirable; it may still line-break and is not supported by IE6/7. If we can not fix it for all browsers, it is not worth the trouble. Hacking cite.php is a lengthy process, but is the most elegant solution; it only has to replace a preceding space with a non-breaking space. However, if we simply hold to "do not add a space before a reference", I think the majority of this problem is solved. I certainly do not feel this problem needs fixing in the way of CSS hacks; the problem is just too minor. — Edokter (talk) — 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A hook should be able to be added to... ParserBeforeStrip? All that needs to happen is that, in all cases, a non-breaking space is to be added directly before the <ref>. Seems pretty straightforward to me, even if ie is still problematic. I doubt that any solution will be perfect, but it's nearly trivial to fix.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
But we don't want a space between the punctuation and the [. Tony (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's possible that some people do want a space before the ref tags, and we have never actually prohibited it. If they want to do this, then they need to take steps to address the line-wrapping problem associated with it. But, as you see below, it looks like all of us need to do something about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand "we have never actually prohibited it". WP:REFPUNC says "the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation" with exceptions for dashes and parentheses. So if the word "prohibited" can be used for a guideline, the space (breaking or non-breaking) is prohibited in the normal cases of periods and commas. WP:PAIC is less absolute, but whenever we have dueling guidelines, I'm entitled to flip a coin. My AWB software removes the space. Art LaPella (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Edokter, feel free to vote above for my #Proposed update to Manual of Style - no space before ref tags. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A standard space before the <ref> tag has nothing to do with wrapping. By default there is nothing to join the in-text cite to the preceding text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Test

Adjust your browser screen width and watch the in-text cites.

This example has no characters before the <ref> tags:

1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

This example has standard spaces before each <ref> tag:

2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Adding a standard space neither breaks nor fixes the issue, unless you have the CSS fix applied to your personal CSS, then adding a space negates it.

This example has non-breaking spaces before each <ref> tag:

3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

No wrapping, but obviously adds a space.

This example has zero-width joiners before each <ref> tag:

4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam.‍[24]‍[25]‍[26]‍[27]‍[28]‍[29]

No wrapping, but shows a glyph (a tall f) before each in-text cite for IE6 and IE7. If you use the &zwj; entity, a lot of tools are going to convert it to plain HTML which will be invisible to follow-on editors.
In case it hasn't been obvious, the choice to wrap or not wrap is highly browser dependent. On the current Chrome only case 2 will wrap. On Firefox 3.6, cases 1 and 2 result in wrapping. On IE 8, cases 2 and 4 result in wrapping. The only scenario that never wraps is the use of non-breaking spaces (case 3), and the only scenario that will always wrap on major browsers is the use of normal spaces (case 2). Dragons flight (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed the bullets to numbers. I see IE8, IE9 and IE10 wrap on 1,2 and 4. When I look at the HTML source in FireFox, I see the &zwj; on 4, but it does IE does not show it in the source. I thought IE8 was working in previous tests. I can't figure if IE is not parsing it or it is just invisible. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
First, in reference mostly to my comment in the section above, I was really thinking of case 4 (the zero-width joiner). More to the point here though: considering the evidence presented here about the completely different handling of these things by different browsers, I think that our best course of action here is to do... (wait for it...) nothing. Just leave things as they are, and we'll worry about it later.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I don't see that there is a universal solution that we can implement. If a reader feels this is a problem, we do have a CSS fix for some browsers. I can open a bug report on this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Data

Footnotes currently can become separated from their preceding text even when there is no space between the words or punctuation and the ref tag.

I've marked the wrapped refs (5, 6, and 7) with a red arrow. You can verify for yourself that there is no space in this version of the article, which is here. Which of these strings of refs wraps depends on the exact width of your browser window; it's not just the one set.

Gadget, if we make all of the tags stick together, I'm a little concerned about what might happen with narrow screens/large font sizes when we have such long strings of citations back to back (like refs number 11 through 27 here).

(Apologies for dumping a large image on your screens.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since most ref tags are single, can it be done so at least the first tag sticks to the punctuation? Tony (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) PS WhatamI, that number of ref tags is unacceptable in running prose. It would need to be turned into a note, or some other solution worked out. That is irresepective of this issue, I think. Tony (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree on the citation clutter; this version is one of the 'bad examples' at WP:Citation overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Manual archiving from WT:Manual of Style/Footnotes

Refs inside refs

Is it possible to have refs inside other refs? Specifically, it would be nice to be able to add references inside notes (achieved with the group="note" attribute of ref). Naively trying to do this gives parse errors. Is there a workaround? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:REFNEST. And yes, it is a pain. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You might play with {{refn}} a bit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have looked for that many times and somehow I always missed it—thanks! I have already put it to use at J. C. Watts. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Also see WP:FOOT#Nesting references: citations within explanatory notes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Which uses the WP:REFNEST shortcut. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Help:Footnotes is essentially a short version of this page. It is frequently out of date. Either merge it here or redirect it to Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree The Help: footnotes page is an unnecessary short article that has all its information covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Footnotes. It should be merged. pluma Ø 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I certainly think this should be done. We should also merge WP:Citing sources, which basically covers the same subject area. Any suggestions as to what the combined page should be called (or, if separate pages are to be maintained, what the scope of each page should be)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This footnote page can have its focus changed if need be so that it does not trespass on CITE, but the details in here about how to create footnotes should remain. Just as we have pages on WP:footnote3 there may come a time when the information on how to create citations this way becomes redundant. We do not need to tie CITE up with the details of the mechanism used for any one system of footnoting. If there are details of how to create footnotes using this method in CITE they should be removed as much as possible and placed on this page. To help this process it might be a good idea to move the content of this page to Help:Footnotes and redirect to make it clear that this is a page on how to create footnotes using ref tags rather than guidance on citations that is under CITE. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there may be reason to have two pages here, but not three. We could have one page with technical advice on ways (syntax) to create footnotes, and another with guidance (such as we are willing to give any) about how we like citations to be formatted. Is that what you're suggesting? In that case, I suggest it's WP:Manual of Style/Footnotes that seems redundant. --Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I was not too clear above. I agree with you K. Guidance in WP:CITE howto on the help and link this page to the help. -- PBS (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on Help:Footnotes a bit; ultimately I hope to have all the relevant information from the MOS page transferred to there, with the rest belonging at WP:Citing sources.--Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have commented before: Citing sources should focus on the elements of a citation and how to cite specific sources. Right now it gets bogged down in content redundant to Footnotes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I count 4 articles: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Footnotes. I think MoS/Footnotes should remain how it is (or incorporate more); we need a page in the MoS describing how footnotes should be shown on Wikipedia. The others I am divided on. Perhaps Help:Footnotes and Referencing for beginners should be merged to serve as a short overview for beginners. I think the Citing sources should be collected into the MoS, as it does deal with Wikipedia style and what is expected of an article. Maybe we could tease out the "how to make footnotes" stuff from WP:CITE so that it focuses on what stuff in the sources should be cited, when and how often to make citations. So merge the "How to format and place citations" section into MoS/Footnotes. The result would be three articles: A brief article to explain to beginners about citing sources, an article to explain the different methods of formatting footnotes and the different syntax to use, and an article on when to cite, what to cite, and what information a citation should include. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think three pages (rather than four) is where we should be going, but I don't understand some of your points: "Help:Footnotes and Referencing for beginners should be merged to serve as a short overview for beginners" - if we merged these, it wouldn't be a short overview any more, would it?; "merge the "How to format and place citations" section into MoS/Footnotes" - wouldn't technical help of that sort belong rather in a Help: page than in a style guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
For the beginner article, it should be kept short for new users, and the merge would include removing duplicate or extraneous information. For the latter, I think both belong in the MoS since they both directly affect the style of articles. MoS/Footnotse is already rather technical. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So can you clarify what you think the resulting three pages should be, and what should be the scope of each?--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. We should probably RFC this since this.
  • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners – Containing merged contents from Help:Footnotes. Citation tutorial for beginners explaining both format, style, and what to cite.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Footnotes – A style guide explaining how footnotes should be formatted and the different methods of formatting footnotes. Deals with citation templates, ref/refgroup tags, list-defined references, and related technical information about creating and formatting footnotes.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Citations – Moved from Wikipedia:Citing sources, along with spinning out some content to Footnotes. A style guide explaining what needs citations, when to use notes, what to include in citations (title, date, etc.), different style for citations (harvard/inline/cite.php). I think the "How to format and place citations" section should be moved from this article to Footnotes.
I imagine there will be some overlap. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's leave the beginners' page out of it for the moment, since I think we all agree what role it should play, and it doesn't much affect the other pages (since we would expect the information there to be duplicated on the "advanced" pages anyway). As far as the other (two) pages are concerned, I think I more or less agree with you about their scope, though not necessarily about their titles. The one you want to call Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Footnotes I would prefer to call Help:Footnotes, since it's mainly going to contain technical information (this syntax produces this effect) rather than style guidance (on Wikipedia we like editors to do it like this). Given that 90%+ of footnotes are citations, it seems confusing to have two "style" pages titled as you propose.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've parachuted in briefly, from the note left at WT:MOS. Merging would be a capital idea, and Kotniski has a demonstrated track-record in this task. Tony (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree about leaving it out of the MoS since the appearance of footnotes is a style issue, albeit a technical one. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Well... depends what you mean by "appearance". The appearance that the software generates (and editors can do little about except learn the corresponding syntax) seems to be the kind of thing we traditionally put in Help: space; but the aspects of the appearance that the editors choose belong in Wikipedia: (guideline/MoS) space.--Kotniski (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So you don't disagree with the two-page solution that we've kind of settled on? Do you have any opinion on what the pages should be called? Should the "Citing sources" guideline be renamed (e.g. by making it a MoS subpage), to make it clearer that it's chiefly about presentation rather than principles (cf. WP:V, WP:IRS)?--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
CITE should be kept out of the MOS and I think is mostly fine as is; I don't think presentation should be its focus at all, but rather citation content - when to provide citations and what to include in a complete citation. It's a content guideline, with WP:V as the master policy. FOOT and Help:Footnotes should be merged; we only actually have one style rule about footnotes (regarding how they follow punctuation) so I don't think it much matters which of those 2 is the survivor. This does leave a question of where to cover the general citation style rules. There are only a couple - the rule that articles should use a consistent style and the one about avoiding all-numeric dates. Personally I'm fine with this being covered by a couple of paragraphs as WP:CITE as it currently is. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it matters which goes where. If this page survives and the help goes, then people will tend to see this as a guideline and not a technical page and so be tempted to read and edit it to be a guideline. If it is under help: then it clearly marks it as a help howto page and not yet another guideline. -- PBS (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

We have had a bit of discussion and I think this is leading us to:

* Change Wikipedia:Citing sources to focus on how to cite a source and remove the presentation material.

Support/Oppose

I am striking the second proposal for now. We can come back to that later. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Additonal proposals

I also propose that:

Support/Oppose

Wikipedia mainly uses Footnotes (a specific system using the Cite extension), parenthetical references and shortened footnotes. If we move WP:FOOT to Help:Footnotes, then the other two methods should be in help space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think of the other two pages more as subpages of WP:Citing sources (which covers all three methods). Help:Footnotes will not be about references particularly (though that will turn out to be its main application) - it should be about the technical methods of creating footnotes, for whatever purpose (those purposes happen to include, though are not limited to, two out of the three referencing methods that you mention).--Kotniski (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Odie5533's Simple Proposal

Everyone is doing these cool proposals, so here's mine. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say the previous (Gadget's) proposal makes more sense, since there is very little style guidance on these two pages - it's nearly all technical help. The only real style point is WP:REFPUNC, but it's not worth having an MoS page for that on its own - better to move it to the main WP:MOS page (where punctuation is dealt with), or to WP:Citing sources where citation style is dealt with.--Kotniski (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
After re-reading the contents of MoS/Footnotes, I agree. Most of it deals with the technical side and very little to do with style. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It actually probably makes more sense to have WP:REFPUNC in WP:CITE or some other page, since it presumably applies to other footnote implementations like {{ref}}/{{note}} in addition to the cite.php method. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
REFPUNC would apply to WP:Footnotes, WP:Footnote3 ({{ref}}/{{note}}) and WP:CITESHORT. I think I updated all uses of WP:Footnote2 and WP:Footnote4 a year ago as well as some other really odd stuff. REFPUNC would not apply toWP:Parenthetical referencing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems to be happy with the solution of splitting this page between the other ones. There's no objection at WT:MOS to moving REFPUNC to there (in place of WP:PAIC which says virtually the same anyway). I'm going to start preparing for this.--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've merged it (most of it was duplicated already, as it turns out). Suggest further work be done especially on WP:Citing sources, which is rather a mess.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further comments

It needs to be made clear that Footnotes (a generic name for a very specific method) are just one system; we also have Shortened footnotes, Parenthetical referencing and a lot of uses of the deprecated Footnote3 (hopefully I weeded out FN1, FN2 and FN4 last year). Wikipedia:Citing sources is probably the best place to note this, but it doesn't need to go into great detail.
Just to refresh: we have two separate and interlocking systems: the in-text cites and the citations that appear in the reference list or bibliography. Citing sources should mention the former and detail the latter. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference after every sentence?

Is there a guideline for this? Should there be a reference after every sentence? If the same reference is used for a whole section, should the citation note be placed at the end of the section or after every sentence in the section? Bejinhan talks 05:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing is covered (though not necessarily to the extent of being able to answer your question) at the guideline WP:Citing sources. I think this talk page should probably now be redirected to that one, since the MoS page itself has been.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ fake reference
  2. ^ fake reference
  3. ^ McNab, Brian K. (1994). Energy Conservation and the Evolution of Flightlessness in Birds, The American Naturalist 144 (4), 628–642.
  4. ^ Nudds, R. L. and Slove Davidson, J. (2010). A shortening of the manus precedes the attenuation of other wing-bone elements in the evolution of flightlessness in birds, Acta Zoologica 91, 115–122.
  5. ^ Flannery, Maura (1988). Looking at birds, The American Biology Teacher 50 (4), 236–239.
  6. ^ 1
  7. ^ 1
  8. ^ 1
  9. ^ 1
  10. ^ 1
  11. ^ 1
  12. ^ 1
  13. ^ 1
  14. ^ 1
  15. ^ 1
  16. ^ 1
  17. ^ 1
  18. ^ 1
  19. ^ 1
  20. ^ 1
  21. ^ 1
  22. ^ 1
  23. ^ 1
  24. ^ 1
  25. ^ 1
  26. ^ 1
  27. ^ 1
  28. ^ 1
  29. ^ 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)/Archive_12&oldid=1245212252"