Help talk:Footnotes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

This is a gruesome list, but I don't think there is any reason why editors need to read it. Just mention somewhere that {{reflist}} is important so DON'T FORGET IT. Perhaps with a small illustration of a == Notes == header followed by a {{reflist}}. Then move everything in this section to the Talk page.--Margin1522 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Help desks etc. often attract threads like this. We need to direct them somewhere that explains what happened. Not to another talk page: they get archived, so it needs to be a reasonably-stable page. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this in direct response to questions on the Help Desk and Village Pump. The implementation of AGRL continues to confound our editors. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Village Pump is where I saw it. In fact, that's what prompted these suggestions. I've seen the question myself, especially about Talk pages. But this is a basic How To page. The first (only?) thing it needs to do is explain how to do it right. I can see explaining the first 4 AGRL points of this section, with a special mention of Talk pages. But I think the highly technical stuff is off topic here. We shouldn't have to mention the MediaWiki version, much less send people to bugzilla.

About the frequently asked question, how about adding it to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/FAQ? About the bugzilla links, I can't really think of a good place for them. Maybe a permanent subpage somewhere for the definitive answer to these questions, or a public Bugs FAQ. I don't know. But I definitely think a How To page is not the place to talk about buggy behavior by the MediaWiki software. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do we explain why you can't remove the AGRL from talk pages? --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You can. You do so by putting a manual reference list in the appropriate place. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Actually what I think the first part of this list is doing is saying that it would have been better to include a header and reference list markup at the end of page. I agree 100%, at least as far as en wiki is concerned (what would the header be in French?). But this page is not the place to lobby for a better design in the next version. Users can see what's going on. What we should do here is stress that it's important to close your <ref>...</ref> tags and not forget the reference list markup.

About the second part, I had to read the bug reports to understand it. The problem is when the last </ref> is missing? That is actually a pretty rare case. In general it's easy to forget a </ref> tag, and I think users are used to what happens when they do. As an editor, I recognize it immediately. Once again, I think what we should do here is to stress, always close your <ref>...</ref> tags. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A missing </ref> is not that rare (check the Help Desk); there is an error check for it but it does not work for the last set of tags on a page. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just mention somewhere that {{reflist}} is important so DON'T FORGET IT." The problem is that the majority of novice editors do not start by reading this help page— they copy what they see elsewhere until it doesn't work, then we refer them here. We have a series of help pages for Cite errors which all start by referring the editor to this help page. So we need to show how to do it correctly, show the limitations and lead them to advanced help where needed. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors is a great page. I didn't know it existed. We should link to that. It would be a great place for the missing </ref> error, except that this one doesn't generate an error. Are there others? Maybe errors and trouble deserve a section of their own, entitled something like "Errors and troubleshooting"? --Margin1522 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Its subpages are linked, where appropriate. For example, an unclosed <ref> displays Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Try that blue link. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Redrose64, your example isn't displaying for me. Are those MediaWiki classes that it's wrapped in? Anyway, you are saying that the appropriate place for links to the error page is an error message? That's fine. What I am saying is that if you are trying to explain to a user how to deal with an error, wouldn't it be better to send them to the error page instead of the How To page?

Maybe I should explain what I'd like to do here. I'd like this page to be less function oriented and more task oriented. I have some experience in documenting complex systems (quite a bit, actually). It's always easier for the engineers to hand over the function specs and say "use this". Which is fine. The reference section of a manual should completely document everything that the system can do. But that's Part II. Part I should be a "How To" guide to accomplishing what the user wants to do. They want to write a footnote. They want separate footnotes for a table. OK, we can explain that. If they run into trouble, they can consult the Troubleshooting section. For technical details, they can read the Release Notes. And so on. We don't have to use this page to explain every function in the system just because the function exists.

This Help page is averaging over 400 views a day. People are coming here on their own to learn how to do footnotes. We should try to make the page as clear and easy to understand as we can. We shouldn't be using it as a catch-all for every detail related to footnotes, like the proper class to use for references in a {{navbox}}. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it doesn't display here without a

suitable user pref. But it does show outside of talk space, see Wikipedia:Sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk

) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You can transclude the message; see {{broken ref}} for details. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that may come in handy. But another example of something that I think should be covered somewhere (but not here, at least not in detail) is references in infoboxes. Those often have spaces for references at the bottom, and often I see those spaces occupied by what looks like [1] [2] . Is that what is supposed to be going on there? If not, then I think the proper style should be explained on a page that is sure (or likely) to be read by infobox authors. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like the ^[1][2][3] at the bottom of the infobox of NBR 224 and 420 Classes? I did it that way to avoid cluttering the individual infobox rows with refs. Generally speaking though, an infobox should summarise the article, so most (or maybe all) of the infobox content that needs a ref should be refd in the article text. But just as we don't mandate any single ref style, I think that it's something that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those infoboxes use standard references and you are seeing the footnote markers just like you would in the content.^[1][2] There is nothing different from the standard Footnote system. If there are issues, it is usually a problem with the infobox markup. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I thought it looked kind of strange to have footnote markers attached to nothing, but I guess it's OK if you regard them as being attached to the infobox as a whole. I just confirmed that its possible to write it like this. References: ^[1][2][3] So if I ever write an infobox, that's what I'll do. --Margin1522 (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

However, I still think that the AGRL deserves a page of its own. This is not supposed to happen -- it's a puzzling phenomenon caused by an error. If it had a separate page, then we could go into detail about what causes it and how to fix it. When I get some time I'll see if I can draft what such a page might look like. --Margin1522 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: @Redrose64: I have created a draft Help page for AGRLs. I think it should be easy enough for most editors to follow. I'd appreciate any comments on the content. If possible I'd like to shorten the discussion of AGRLs on this page, and direct readers to the new page for the details. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With a little help, I have created the page Help:Automatically generated reference list and linked to it from a shortened section in this article. I hope this will be acceptable to both groups of readers -- those who just want to fix the problem and those who want to understand it. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This has only one sentence. We could delete the section and just mention somewhere that {{reflist}} can be used several times on the same page. Since |close= is not not needed, don't mention it. Do mention {{reflist-talk}}.--Margin1522 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

|close= is still extant in a number of places, so we need to explain that is is obsolete.

You mean that |close= is still required is placed like {{notelist}}? That's true, but if we tell users that {{reflist}} can be used multiple times, I think they will just expect it to work. Nobody is going to ask why {{reflist}} doesn't need |close= when {{notelist}} does.

Or do you mean that it's still seen in article markup, and people might copy it? --Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

|close= is not needed, but is probably still used in a number of places. When an editor encounters the close parameter, we should document that it is no longer needed. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved this up to the section that introduces ref lists. I hope that's OK. I think it may be easier to understand while the explanation is still fresh in the reader's mind. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The other day an editor added a pair of shortcuts to the new AGRL page. Since

), and since all of the AGRL shortcuts should point to the same place, I edited the new shortcuts to point to this page, and added an invisible comment to the effect that these other shortcuts exist. This raises the question of what to do with them. I can see three options.

1. Leave things as they are, with the other shortcuts mentioned in a comment.
2. Make the new shortcuts visible in the Shortcuts box.
3. Edit all AGRL shortcuts to point to the new page, and move the Shortcuts box to the new page.

I am fine with any of these. I think the decision should be up to people who are going to cite the shortcuts, on a help desk or elsewhere. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I did the third option, because that page seemed more useful, having the bug info and complete explanation. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: @Jonesey95: I deleted a couple of these, per WP:Shortcut#Readability, and now I see that they've been restored. I can vouch for the fact that the sentence in Readability is supposed to justify removing hatnotes like this, because I wrote it. I was trying to be diplomatic about it, but that was the intention. The problem is that the top of useful Help pages are being cluttered up by redirects to completely unrelated pages.
I suggested this policy on WT:Hatnote#Redirect hatnotes for shortcuts and WT:Shortcut#Shortcut hatnotes considered harmful, and there were no ojections there. The only comments were supportive, like this is a good idea. If necessary I could add a new item to WP:Hatnote#Examples of improper use, and strengthen the sentence in Readbility to make this clear. If there are objections, could they be raised on one of those talk pages?

This is part of an ongoing project to make Help pages more focused and easier to use. I won't go into that, but there is a legitimate reason for this. Basically, hatnotes are for articles with similar titles. We don't need hatnotes for shortcuts, even if the current page has a shortcut that could conceivably point somewhere else. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why I changed the templates to {{For}} templates, since that is usually how "you might be looking for..." is often written in hatnotes. The idea is that someone might type WP:FOOT in an attempt to find football-related articles. The hatnote exists to guide that reader to the correct page. Having no hatnote in place is unhelpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But, they might also have a pain in their foot, or be wondering when to use feet vs. meters. Are we supposed to add hatnotes suggesting that they try the medical project or the MOS? And when it comes to "FN", there is no limit to what users might associate with that.

From the guidelines at

WP:HATNOTE

, there are couple of basic principles. 1) When you use a shortcut, you and your readers are both supposed to know what it means. 2) Hatnotes are supposed to be for related articles. And not just related, but related in specific ways, like contains the same words in the title or has a disamb page. There are no disamb pages for shortcuts. If you ask why, I think the reason shows why there should also be no hatnotes for shortcuts.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but perhaps it would be better on one of the related Talk pages? – Margin1522 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If somebody enters

H:ILL which don't mention the inward shortcut, since a search for help on Illinois is unlikely. --Redrose64 (talk

) 11:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming that users type shortcuts as a way to discover articles? I submit that this doesn't happen, because it doesn't work. Users discover articles and projects in the usual ways – by seeing them mentioned somewhere, by clicking links, or by typing words in the search box. Nobody thinks to themselves, "Hmm, I wonder if there is a noticeboard for fringe theories. Let's try WP:FN".

Even if someone did try that and failed, it's not like they are lost and need our help. They can always go back to the search box and try typing "WP:FRINGE". As soon as they get to "WP:FRI", a dropdown list appears with the following items: "Wikipedia:Fringe theories", "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard",... Voila! What could be simpler?

So what these shortcut hatnotes are is a solution to a very rare problem that solves itself almost immediately.

Meanwhile, what about the demerits? The problem with hatnotes is that they are intrusive and distracting. People come to this page wanting to read about footnotes. If instead they are forced to read about the fringe theories noticeboard, it's no wonder that they find that irritating and try to delete it.

If you read through the guideline on hatnotes, the spirit behind it is don't be irritating and don't force yourself on the reader. People are always trying to add information that they think might be helpful or related in some way. The policy is, don't do that. Add the information only when it is really necessary. The only thing the other stuff does is delay readers from getting to the information they want. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Boy, I can sure attest to this, Margin1522, and declare that I was both irritated and confused when I landed on this page while searching desperately for information on how to cite the same source multiple times while specifying different pages for each reference but w/o having to post redundant data - and immediately saw a distracting link for "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard" at the top of the page!

"WP:FN" redirects here. For the fringe theories noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.

I was like, "WTF?" and almost abandoned the page because fringe theories have nothing to do with the information I thought I was going to find here.

I just like to read and edit articles, and yet I'm amazed by how difficult some ostensibly more experienced Wikipedia users seem to want to make the process of finding useful information on how best to actually add and edit encyclopaedic content. Redrose64, I can assure you that "a hatnote which says "For the fringe theories noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard" is absolutely [not] better than nothing", and it defies credulity that you people think that the work of the editor is faciliated by adding distracting links to unrelated material at the top of how-to guides that are already hard enough to find. Azx2 02:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In copyediting

. I knew that was against style standards, but I could not for the life of me find where it said so. Finally I found a couple of mentions—

• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 12#References before punctuation should come after
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 12#Reference formatting bot

— the second of which has a link to

, which led only to the top of this page. Evidently there was a section before, but in editing it got lost at some point.

I've made a

) 01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@

MOS:REFPUNC. --Redrose64 (talk

) 09:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:Footnotes. I've left my table in place there, and added a link. --Thnidu (talk

) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Substitution

How does <ref group=lower-alpha> render ^[a] and not ^{[lower-alpha 1]}? 2602:306:36D8:9560:6D9A:CDE9:C65E:97A2 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a line of LUA code in Module:Citation that checks for this special value, and the others, and treats them specially. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad. I wonder if there's any way to do it without Lua... Thanks anyhow! 2602:306:36D8:9560:C136:1D60:F269:3F3F (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not

H:PREGROUP and Help:Cite link labels. --Redrose64 (talk

) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 is correct. See Cite if you want to go through the code. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have an allied problem. What I want is group=XX on all the <ref>s , then {{reflist|group=XX|liststyle=lower-alpha}}. But although the actual reflist has lower alpha, the associated refs still have decimal – [XX 1] etc rather than [XX a] -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 22:46, wikitime= 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a related issue. The short answer is to use {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: The |group= and |liststyle= (n.b. not list-style) parameters of {{reflist}} are intimately related and mutually exclusive; they're not intended for use together (if you try using both, |group= is ignored). You can use <ref group=lower-alpha>...</ref> with {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That's what I figured – what I would call an "undocumented non-feature". Definitely undocumented. I don't quite see why those two functions should be bound together, and as I'm demonstrating, they didn't ought to be. Never mind, back to Plan A (regular listing jumbled up with the rest). -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 07:18, wikitime= 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@

notification. This is because your signature uses indirect links - if you remove both instances of :en: it should work as intended. --Redrose64 (talk

) 09:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip and Redrose64:

Long answer:

• If |group= is set to one of the predefined styles (upper-alpha, upper-roman, lower-alpha, lower-greek or lower-roman) then the list style is set. <ref> must use the same group.
• If |liststyle= is set then it is explicitly used for the list style, and |group= must be set separately.
• If |liststyle= is set to other than one of the predefined styles, then the <ref> tags can not be styled to match.
• Thus, |liststyle= is really not useful. It isn't documented on this help page, only at {{reflist}}. We need to work on the {{reflist}} documentation.
• H:PREGROUP
  is the primary documentation for using predefined groups. Using the templates will eliminate confusion.

--  Gadget850 ^talk 10:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: You can use |group= and |liststyle= together. If you set |group=note and |liststyle=lower-roman then the in-text cites will show as ^{[note 1]} and the reference list will be styled as:

I don't see that as useful, but it is in use in 159 articles. (search articles) --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the {{reflist}} documentation. Do we really want to document |liststyle= here? As I recall, that parameter was added before we added the predefined groups. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was editing A Rape on Campus and came across a case where someone had reused a ref name, which caused a source to point to the wrong article. Can this be detected and produce an error message? Note that the implementation would need to check the whole article, because someone might edit just one section, so you can't just scan the text submitted from the edit window. Dingsuntil (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with RefToolbar. Select the Cite button, then Error Check. -- Gadget850 ^talk 10:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. However, what I'm asking is essentially whether we can have this run every time anyone makes an edit, or at least an edit which modifies references. Dingsuntil (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I find short footnotes cumbersome and use Template:Rp to show page numbers on repeated citations. Is there a way to use a named reference multiple times (in my case about 2-4 times...not an excessive amount), but only include a quote in one location (without converting the entire article to use short footnotes)? AHeneen (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be deleting

10:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, sorry if this not the appropriate forum, feel free to point me to one.

I can't get footnotes to work on an article. I saved an interim version here. Could you please help? For bonus points, I'd like to use numerals instead of latin letters. Thanks. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of the "cursive" footnote didn't work because the footnote text contained an equals sign. This problem affects all templates, not just {{efn}}. The usual workaround is to add 1= at the start of the text: {{efn|name=cursive|1=Lowercase...}}. A better workaround in your case would be to remove the span tags that specify a list of fonts, as Wikipedia articles should not be guessing what fonts a reader has installed. The documentation at {{efn}} shows the available numbering styles. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It worked. Now I can't change to numerical notes though. Here's my attempt. As you can see, an earlier <ref> gets dragged in for some reason... 87.112.180.82 (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, to do that you'll have to set the group name explicitly on the {{refn}} calls and the {{reflist}}; something like |group=tablenote. But I suggest you stick with letters; why have two footnotes both called "1"? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I couldn't get it to work with another list of numbers, I'm forced to use the group name. Let's stick to letters indeed.

I just tried to add a new note. Another pathetic failure. Any help appreciated, thanks. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the same as the first problem: the note named "cursived" contained equals signs and a list of font names. To make it work you either need to add 1= or to remove the span tags. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry, and thanks for your help + patience. We could do with a more helpful error message there... hard to fix I guess. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by the time that error detection becomes possible, the MediaWiki template parser has already split the parameter at the first equals sign, into what it thinks is the param name and its value. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

implies that a ref name with an apostrophe in it requires quotation marks, but such references appear to work fine and do not generate an error message. Can someone clarify this situation?

See this discussion for more detail. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Have a look at my sandbox (permalink). It looks as if the software has ignored the reference name entirely; references 2 and 3 have not been combined. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: If in doubt, quote it. It doesn't do any harm. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

John of Reading's sandbox shows me that the software does not handle ref names with apostrophes correctly. If that is the case, then (a) the documentation at

WP:REFNAME is incomplete and (b) we should have some sort of error detection for reference names that are malformatted. I'm happy to change the documentation, but how do we make the error detection happen? What part of the MediaWiki software or the en.WP configuration would need to change? – Jonesey95 (talk

) 19:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Flagging inadequate referencing

(Deleted, see below.) --Thnidu (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPT? – Jonesey95 (talk

) 02:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you for being so tolerant, and I'm sorry for setting the screen metaphorically on fire. I knew I was going way over the top, but that was the second or third time already and I couldn't take it. It's one in the morning here, I'm already up way later than I wanted to be, and I'll try to follow the rest of your advice tomorrow,– that is, sometime after sleep and waking.--Thnidu (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is the List of citations (reflist) in wikipedia in numerical order? Why it's not in alphabetical order by the names of the author, like in academic literature etc? Current style of ordering of the List of citations is in my opinion not very efficient. In case of longer articles with many references, this alphabetically messy ordering of the List of citations makes pretty hard to find a citation by the author's name, and most notably, this causes the editor to easily make unnecessary repetitions in the List of citations, because it's not easily seen whether the same reference is already existing in the list or not (references with same name does not appear side by side in the list). Are there any way to put reflist in alphabetical order? --Mustvalge (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, in the article DNA, in the reflist there are written at least two times the same reference: Watson JD, Crick FH (1953). "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". Lists of citations in Wikipedia articles are probably full of these unnecessary repetitions --Mustvalge (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References are listed in numerical order by the order in which they appear in the the article. It is possible to list sources in alphabetical order using {{Harvard citation}}-style templates and other methods. See Magna Carta for an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mustvalge: See Shortened footnotes and NBR 224 and 420 Classes. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. That's close for what i had in mind. Basically the paragraph "Notes" in article NBR 224 and 420 Classes is a mediator/link collection that has links to "References" and to text. Analogy is an article section "References" in article Magna Carta, that is basically a link collection mediating text and "Bibliography". I thought of something hybrid of "Notes" and "References" (in NBR 224 and 420 Classes), or "References" and "Bibliography" (in Magna Carta) - a compact way that links text and list of citations (reflist) that is in alphabetical order, not in numerical order.

Are there any way to include some kind of sort function to List of citations (reflist) that will sort citations alphabetically if needed, or by the order in which they appear in the the article when wanted? --Mustvalge (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, and I think that you'd need some sort of JavaScript gadget to do it - you could ask at

WP:MULTI). The reflist is built up by the MediaWiki software in the form of a HTML ordered list, with each list item being added in the order in which the <ref>...</ref> tags (or {{sfn}} templates) first appear in the page. We can't change the way that the MediaWiki software works, other than by filing a phab: ticket. --Redrose64 (talk

) 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why one would want such a thing? For your Watson/Crick example, the short footnote format would consolidate that to one full citation that would be easy to find, since it would be listed in alpha order in the Sources section. Any short citations that are reused are automatically detected and listed in the Notes section (see note 1 in NBR 224 and 420 Classes, which appears three times in the article). – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I see wiki has couple of choices/styles to arrange list of references. This short footnote style is well enough, but i'm not sure right now how useful is this for a reader - i see this short citation section basically as just a mediating link collection (Notes section in NBR 224 and 420 Classes) takeing space in article. Yes, but the short citations has a page numbers..

Does Wiki have a alphanumeric style for citations? A style that has the list of references in alphabetical and numerical order but in text the numbers corresponding to citations are randomly - that means that the numbers in the text are assigned after the reference list has been alphabetized, and numbered. This seems to be the best solution for what i thought initially --Mustvalge (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example, in case my explaining skills aren't good enoguh--Mustvalge (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the MediaWiki software as it stands cannot do this, you would need either a personal JavaScript gadget (somebody at

WP:DAW. --Redrose64 (talk

) 15:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Mustvalge: I believe your question arises from a common confusion of two related but distinctly different concepts, both ambiguously subsumed in the term "citations". What the {{reflist}} produces is a list of the notes generated by <ref>...</ref> tags. These generally contain citations, which can be either a full citation that contains the bibliographic details of a source, or a short cite, which is the abbreviated "Smith 2011" kind of reference to a full citation. But notes can also contain (say) just explanatory notes, without any references. Notes are most conveniently listed in order of their appearance in the text, and numbered.

The repetitions you refer arise from editors using a source in more than once place, and not knowing how to make mulitiple "references" (i.e., pointers) to a given source. This is where the {{

Harv

|Watson|Crick|1953}}, and a link to the full citation is created automatically.

If you want all of the sources ("citations") to be listed in (say) "alphabetical order by the names of the author", or in any other order, then put the full citations (templated) into a separate section. Order them as you will, and link to them from the text with short cites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not true that the repetitions i refer arise entirely only from editors using a source in more than once place, and not knowing how to make mulitiple "references" (i.e., pointers) to a given source, as you say. It is your assumption with no proof. By editor i mean a person who knows how to make multiple references. You can check it out by seeing who made the repetition and check whether the same editor has used this multiple references thing also or not. The thing is that editors know but still make repetitions. Another thing is that as an occasional editor myself, alphabetically ordered list of citations would make it easier to see and sort out repetitive full citation. The method of albhabetical ordering you describe seems not very convenient for editors to use alltimes.

Thanks for clearing the concepts here, but did you look the example i posted here? This should make it clear what i tried to explain. That is an another systems for organizing reference number citations in an article, and i'm surprised it's not used in wikipedia before. Or is it? It would be easier for editors and also a reader should be prefering to find the list of references in alphabetical order. --Mustvalge (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thread about alphanumeric citations started at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#List_of_sources_(reflist),_why_not_to_order_alphabetically?--Mustvalge (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Mustvalge, your "example" is just one way of doing "referencing", and has several short-comings. I could replicate that example here, just to show you that it can be done here, but the way of doing it is not recommended. If you want an ordered list of sources then I recommend the way I just explained. Particularly, put your sources into their own section (e.g.: "Sources"), and then you can put them into any order you wish. It is a lot more convenient than yo may realize, and you should try it a few times get a feel for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What shortcomings? Please explain and prove or don't answer at all. Thanks --Mustvalge (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude is uncivil, and does not encourage discussion. Note that I do not have to "prove" anything at all. But I will point out one critical shortcoming in your proposal: you do not comprehend the range of how notes are used, and of all the special cases that would need handling. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Wright. How is my attidude uncivil when u don't even bother do explain the bases of your assumptions? It's hard do have a discussion with someone who distances oneself from the discussion and the idea i try to explain by saing something like "you do not comprehend", "don't grasp the difference". Tthis is no better than hitting the wall. Could you explain how is that that i don't comprehend the range of how notes are used? Why should or would theses "special cases" needs to be handled? Besides of saing that my attitude is uncivil u have came up only with some few fuzzy arguments about why the method i mentioned should not work. But in the mean time, it's being use widely in some covermental institutions and it's one of the two basic systems for organizing Reference Number citations (if to belive what i've read about this). This method i mentioned is not somekind of my own invention. I just see it as a great tool that helps to edit references. And it would be simpler than this {{Harvard citation}}-style. In smaller wikipedias the latter one is not used also. I mean, why are you against of a thing that would just put references list in alphabetical order? And bear in mind that i'm not a native english speaker, that means i'm more into idea sharing than into case specific definitions of words. Do u understand?--Mustvalge (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This should not be so hard to do because only difference between currently used usual style/method and the method i propose is that that in case of proposed method, the numbers in the text are assigned after(!) the reference list has been alphabetized, and numbered. Currently it's like before. So i don't see overly big changes accompanying application of this method..--Mustvalge (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's so easy to do, you should check out this repository, and also this one since Parsoid reimplements the functionality of the extension, and submit patches that make it an option. If you're not a programmer, then you're not really qualified to determine whether it really is easy to do. Anomie⚔ 11:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User Anomie, but what's your opinion?--Mustvalge (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor are you really qualified to even discuss what should be done, as you evidently lack certain basic knowledge of referencing. And your incivility is demonstrated in your demand for "proof", "or don't answer at all." That is not a language problem, that is an attitude problem. As before, I do not have to prove anything. To which I add: I am not required to explain anything, either. You want an explanation? How nice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ugh :) user J. Johnson (JJ), you should make some tea maybe.. --Mustvalge (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible just do disregard this attitude- and who is qualified for what thing? This is really not very constructive. My apologies if i did made someone sensitive. In the mean time i tried to look if there's something written in wikipedia about the method i mentioned, and i didn't manage to find any. So i belive that so far it's not even known to be considered as an option. So, at least i can point out that such a method exsists if someone might like to consider it. Personally it makes more sense to me than this usual style.
Only difference in appearence that this "alphanumeric sytem" does compared to usually used author–number system seems to be that it just arranges numbers in the text differently (besides of putting references section in alphabetical order). And that seems to be all, nothing more. Is it really that only shortcoming that this "alphanumeric sytem" may have is technical feasebilty?

As my questions arised from noticeing that very frequently wikipedia articles consists unnecessary repetitions in their references section and it's rather hard to manually eyeball these out. So i thought what could make this easier. The conclusion was that alphabetical ordering would be helpful. I could prefer to use this {{

harv}} template-schema, but i can't imagine of makeing changes in all the text just to convert the references section alphabetical for better overview of possible repetitions, article by article. --Mustvalge (talk

) 11:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Split by source?

List of Alpha Phi Omega members has about 2/3 of the references from issues of the Fraternity magazine and the remaining third from various unique sources. Would it make sense in any way to do a footnotes group for the fraternity magazine (and then no group for the others). I just think it would look slightly neater with the common cite mag results being together, opinions?Naraht (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

All of a sudden I am seeing these annoying quote marks in my reference names again. Can these be permanently not used again. They were blessedly missing for a very long time. They are very unnecessary in my opinion. Not sure why they are making an unwelcome comeback. -- Erika aka

) 22:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to an example to show us what is bothering you? Quotation marks around reference names are the recommended format, as you can see at

WP:REFNAME. – Jonesey95 (talk

) 22:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The quotes all of a sudden re-appeared after being blessedly missing. The only example I could provide is a ref name in quotes. It's totally annoying. The ref names work without quotes, the quotes are obviously unnecessary, so why use them? It's just one more opportunity for a typo, adding superfluous text. --

talk

) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Quotes are mandatory for some forms of ref name, such as when it contains spaces. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I know when quotes are mandatory. this edit is just a flipping waste of time and is annoying the heck out of me. If the ref name doesn't need quotes, they shouldn't be added. Period. Please stop this bot. -- Erika aka

talk

) 19:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the bot operator, Ladsgroup (talk · contribs). -- John of Reading (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the double quotes are annoying to you. FWIW. They are being added no matter what by mediawiki. Anyway. We had a list of characters (e.g. "-", "/", etc.) and if ref name had one of them, the bot added the double quote. I thought mediawiki is changing and stop supporting them so it would be necessary to have double quotes (because I was asked to do it). Let's wait until deploy of Linter extension and see if it's going to be a problem Ladsgroup^overleg 19:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: What makes you think that "they are being added no matter what by mediawiki"? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: My vague reply at 23:48, 30 January 2016 was because you had not provided examples, so I could not tell what the ref name in question was. The most common need for quotes is the presence of a space, but there are of course several others. Now that you have provided an example, I can see that none of the eleven changes in that edit were necessary - the ref names consisted only of letters, digits and hyphens. I also always construct ref names that do not need quotes (mine are entirely letters and digits) and I have never experienced the claim of Ladsgroup that "they are being added no matter what by mediawiki". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Go to a page with named ref such as Alan Turing. Check page source (Ctrl+U in most browsers). You'll something like <sup id="cite_ref-mathgene_1-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-mathgene-1">[1]</a>. Overall attributes in html elements should have double quote all the time It's W3C standard. Ladsgroup^overleg 01:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Not going to buy this argument. Double quotes are not necessary. I saw the other threads about this. Please turn off this bot.

talk

) 01:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: Please note that the <ref>...</ref> construct, whilst resembling HTML tags, is nothing to do with HTML - it is part of MediaWiki's cite.php extension and has its own syntax rules that are not the same as those of HTML. If the double quotes are removed from the <ref name="mathgene"> tag of your Alan Turing example, producing <ref name=mathgene>, there is no effect on the emitted HTML. Before deciding to fix a perceived problem, please test to ensure that a problem really exists.

Considering now your w3schools link, please note that w3schools is not official, and indeed has come under criticism in the past for giving incorrect explanations and encouraging bad practice. But at your linked page, I see nothing that says it's a W3C standard - in fact, it says the opposite: a little more than half-way down, there is the sentence "The HTML5 standard does not require quotes around attribute values."

If you want to see the actual W3C standard, it's at HTML5 A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML W3C Recommendation 28 October 2014 section 8.1.2.3 Attributes. Notice in particular the block headed "Unquoted attribute value syntax". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think that standard is lacking something. Go ahead and change it but here is not the place to practice it. I'm not sure if you are familiar with HTML5. Mediawiki is not using HTML5 and we won't be using it anytime soon (because of compatibility reasons which translates to IE). Overall I have no opinion on whether we should have double quotes when there is hyphen or slash but we need to see if mediawiki wants it too. If it requires us, we need to it. TLDR: We don't have a choice here. Ladsgroup^overleg 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't change standards, that's the point about standards, they're stable. I am certainly familiar with HTML5, and have been studying it ever since the Wikimedia Foundation decided that we should switch from XHTML 1.0 to HTML5. This was something like five years ago: the switch eventually occurred on 17 September 2012 to be exact. More at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 102#HTML5 is coming to Wikimedia Wikis....

Please give an example of a page where a DexBot edit fixed something that was broken prior to the edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have started a proposal to switch the default behaviour of <references /> to automatic column mode. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone please let me know if this is the place, if not, where, to discuss changing the <ref name="Name"> to replace the quotation marks with something else (obviously resorting to the services of a bot to automate the process)? What I would like to address is the widespread use of quotation marks for emphasis. When you see a word in quotation marks for emphasis and want to correct it with either ''two single quotation marks'' [two single quotation marks] or with <em>this script</em> [this script] or {{em|this script}} [this script], as recommended, and decide to search for other occurrances of such use, you immedialtely see that the page is full of "quotation marks" used as part of the <ref name="Name"> script. Would it be possible to do away with the quotation marks in <ref name="Name">? Thank you for any guidance, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:REFNAME

and mainly concern the characters used to make up the name: for example, if it includes one or more spaces, there must be delimiting quotemarks. So <ref name=Name1>, <ref name="Name2">, <ref name="Name 3"> are all valid, but <ref name=Name 4> is not.

Changing the quotation marks to something else will not be done. Not only would it be a huge task (we're talking about millions of pages), but people would need to be educated to use the different character going forward: there would be resistance (for various reasons), there would be people who you had not informed, and so would continue to use the quotemarks. But before any of this could be done, you would need to get the MediaWiki software changed. That software is not just used by the English Wikipedia, but also by Wikipedia in all the other worldly languages, also the other projects like Wiktionary, Wikisource, Commons and so on. Getting MediaWiki changed means filing a change request through Phabricator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64. Thank you for such an elucidanting, comprehensive, reply, at the same time clear and concise. I did anticipate that it would be a huge task, but thought nonetheless that it would be feasible, as I have become accustomed to seeing such sysyphean tasks entrusted to bots (removal of the list of languages in which a page is available, for example). So I guess this means educating editors to not use quotation marks for emphasis. Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I was trying to convert articles which are using the note group for note purpose into using the template. It is not creating a new method, instead simply converting an existing usage from ref group into not template. It is also functionally different from Templalte:efn in the sense that the tip on Template:efn does not explicitly state in line that they are notes. C933103 (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This template {{NoteTag}} is new to us – it has only just appeared. It has merit in that if you want your footnote markers to be shown as "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on – a very reasonable thing to do – then using {{NoteTag|...}} and then {{NoteFoot}} is somewhat less markup than doing {{refn|group=Note|...}} and then {{reflist|group=Note}}. The two templates should however be provided with proper documentation of their own. If documentation is supplied I would favour keeping them linked in the table under question: Noyster (talk), 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for these new templates whatsoever. The existing templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}} do the job perfectly well; moreover, neither of them need a |group= parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

However, neither templates provide a visual indications that they a tips for note... As for editing documentation to more dedicatedly reflecting their usage, I would do so if others think the template is worth keeping independently instead of being change to redirect C933103 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

efn/notelist without a |group= can only display a single character or digit as the reference marker. We're saying if you want the markers to be "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on – making it clear to the reader that they are going to find some "Notes" further down – then NoteTag provides a handy way to do that. What's it costing us? Any other views?: Noyster (talk), 10:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You only need the word "Note" to disambiguate the number, otherwise you would have two different and potentially unrelated ^[1], the other neing a true reference; moreover, that word "Note" only appears in the ^{[Note 1]}, it doesn't appear in the automatically-generated list later on. With {{efn}}, you get letters ^[a] etc. and the automatically-generated list uses the same identifiers. The non-use of numbers also means that there is no risk of confusion between the two lists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If the user of these templates provides separate Footnote sections clearly headed "Notes" and "References", then the potential for confusion should be minimal. However, to address this objection more thoroughly, C933103, would you consider amending {{NoteFoot}} so that it will prefix each note with "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on, rather than the bare numbers?: Noyster (talk), 12:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

1. It can probably be doable as exampled by using css listed on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26025057/add-custom-text-to-ordered-list-li this page, but is it really desirable? As then you will have a "Notes" subheading in a page, numerous notes down below, and then all of these notes will precede with the word "Note" in front of it.C933103 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
2. The purpose of the word "note" is not just to disambiguate the number, instead it's trying to tell readers that there are relevant information that they can click on to view. This is something that simple number or other ordering characters cannot achieve.
3. Actually, is it more preferable to use ^{[Note 1]} or ^{[note 1]}?

C933103 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only troglodyte here? Footnoting is different in every Wiki article. 'Help:footnotes' is like reading the fine print from my bank: 16 pages and no clear suggestion of how to cite a normal article in a scientific journal. However, I do note on p. 13 a section on how to cite a book, strangely without the place of publication. I guess I learned it all wrong. Azd0815 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way to start learning is to copy an existing reference from a well-developed article. Find a long science article, like Bengal tiger, click Edit, and copy a full citation that references a scientific journal. Paste it into your article, change the citation information (authors, title, DOI, etc.), and then Preview your edit to see if it looks right. When you are happy with your edit, click Publish. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Azd0815 As we say in another of these lengthy guides: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style" as it is just not practicable to attempt to enforce a house style here. This section of the same guide has more suggestions about what information to include in a citation to a book, a journal and other types of source. I hope this will help: Noyster (talk), 16:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps documentation on pages like Template:Cite journal would be a better place to start reading about how to cite things.C933103 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have just discovered that if a footnote name, whether or not enclosed in quotation marks, contains a double underscore (i.e. __ ), there will be a mismatch between the names created for the links and corresponding anchors of the reference and the footnote. Consequently, clicking on the reference superscript or the footnote caret has no effect.^[1] In the example I'm using here to demonstrate the problem, the footnote constructor is <ref name="garlic__bread">Here is an example</ref>. The anchors at the footnote and reference superscript are correctly named "cite_note-garlic__bread-1" and "cite_ref-garlic__bread_1-0", respectively, with double underscores between "garlic" and "bread" being preserved. The links to these anchors, however, are incorrectly named "cite_note-garlic_bread-1" and "cite_ref-garlic_bread_1-0", respectively, with only single underscores between "garlic" and "bread".

Until this is fixed, I suggest the

section of this help page include a note that footnote names should not include double underscores. David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a different manifestation of the same problem that is discussed at Template talk:Sfn#Bug in either sfn or sfnRef. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Phabricator report has already been submitted for this issue.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There does appear to be a new bug here with the group= parameter using {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. The first call of "notelist" picks up all the notes irrespective of group. The problem can be seen more clearly in this extremely simple test page: Noyster (talk), 08:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe and Noyster: This is not a new problem. Before 7 December 2012, {{Efn}} did not accept a group parameter at all. All versions after that have only accepted a small list of predefined values, those shown on the template documentation page. Arbitrary group names such as "group1" and "group2" are ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you. The documentation for {{efn}} and {{notelist}} is misleading where it says:

• {{efn}} supports |name= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in <ref>...
• {{notelist}} supports the column parameter, |refs= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in {{reflist}}...

as it turns out you cannot use your own |group= name with efn/notelist, as you can with <ref>.

For present purposes we will have to fall back on {{refn}}, with the disadvantage that you can specify lower-alpha markers or insert a list of notes where you want it using your own |group= name, but not both at once. Possible syntax is demonstrated here: Noyster (talk), 09:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I have used the pre-defined groups as suggested and it's worked. I agree that the documentation for {{Efn}} and {{Notelist}} is misleading as it suggests editors can use any group name as with {{Reflist}}.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

We're having a discussion about footnotes that were originally within the text in this article. I had originally placed them right next to the year of death in the lead. Another user removed them and put them in the infobox (now they're only in the intro, not in the userbox). I prefer in the text because the reader might not even look at the infobox. Maybe they can go in both places, i.e., the infobox and within the text. Any opinions? Maragm (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead and the infobox synthesize the main text and thus the information in them is seldom referenced. I think that given this, placing citations on both is redundant. When choosing on which of those to place footnotes (referencing information not otherwise featured in the main text), I would prefer placing them in the infobox (when possible), where they won't displace large amounts of text. I ultimately think it should be done according to common sense and that each case should be looked at individually. In the article you mentioned, however, you have 2 footnotes right next to the year of death, not only causing a large spacing but also making the text look ugly as they appear just before parenthesis; in that case I would support putting them in the infobox. 6071m (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I agree in this case. The references are also in the section "Death and burial", so we could leave them in that section, remove from lead, and add to the infobox. --Maragm (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to have footnotes within a particular section of a talk page? <references does not seem to be the way to do it.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Try {{Reflist-talk}} at the foot of the section where the footnotes belong. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

When I first created American Bank Note Company Printing Plant a few years ago, I used list-defined references, because that seemed like the only sane way to organize things. Fast-forward a few years, Visual Editor is a thing, but it can't handled LDRs. Is there some easy way to convert the article back into a form that VE can handle? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I don't know of an automatic way, but this is an example of a manual conversion back from LDR. In the case of the first one, I could also have removed the name="MurrayMcNeill" attribute, since that ref isn't used more than once. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, I did some more digging, and discovered User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js. Well, actually, re-discovered, since I believe that's the same tool I used to generate the LDR in the first place. Turns out, it works in both directions. It wasn't perfect, but it got me 99% of the way there in a few minutes, so that was a big win. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Redrose64: May I also suggest User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer? It has the same functionality (automatic LDR → inline ref conversion, and vice versa) and can also be used to change ref names. Only caveat is that duplicate ref names will be removed. epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Many templates provide content which amount to assertions, and cite supporting sources. Transclusion of such templates produces footnotes in articles. There is some discussion related to this currently in progress at Wikipedia talk:Templates#Refs in templates. Though it has not been discussed explicitly there, that discussion may lead to the need for relevant additions to this guide. Please consider participating in that discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any guidance or established best practices for <ref name=…> beyond the “keep it simple and use quotes” in

) 05:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC) (RFC date) originally posted 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• The reason the IP started the RfC is this: Talk:Les Frangines#Reference tag names. When I was writing the article, I named the refs the way it was convenient for me. I'm not going to rename the references just to please someone who will never actually expand that article anyway.
  And look what the IP did there. He renamed the references to "tv5monde", "programme-tv", "rfi", "rfm", "snep", "ultratop", "album", "single" and "ep"! It's just as bad as it gets. Does he think that the duo will never release a second EP, a second album, will never again chart on Ultratop, will never have another release certified by SNEP, will never again be mentioned on the TV5 Monde website or by Radio France Internationale?
  Ref names like "News article title - Newspaper or magazine" are not forbidden. As long as they aren't forbidden (and they will never be), I will use names like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That was what prompted me to look here, yes. I admit (as I did there) that my choices of names were not ideal—because I don’t know the best practice, which is why I came here—but I still feel names like
    <ref name="Le Point" />
    are vastly preferable to
    <ref name="Mais qui sont Les Frangines, ces chanteuses qui ne sont pas sœurs ? - Le Point" />
    or
    <ref name="Новый французский шансон дуэта Les Frangines" />.
    But that’s just my personal opinion against his personal opinion. We needed a broader view. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've renamed the Russian ref long ago, if you didn't notice. As for the other ones, I don't see any reason to change them. A ref name like "News article title - Newspaper" tells something to me. When it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it's very convenient when all the references have telling names, names you can easily recognize. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've wasted too much time on this discussion already. I guess I shouldn't have written the article in question. No article, no problem. Cause I am not going to use ref names that aren't convenient for me. Never. (At least, until there are strict rules forbidding the names I like. But it will never be cause Wikipedia is a volunteer project and it "generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I've renamed the Russian ref long ago, if you didn't notice.
        non-Latin characters (which it seems you’ve dealt with). … —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC) After I first changed it from the Russian.
        We generally don’t have “strict rules,” and I’m not asking for such. I’m also not trying to take sole control of the article or its technical aspects (in fact, after being reverted once, I stopped and went to discussion). I’m only here looking for guidance on making easily identifiable and conveniently manageable ref-names. The only issue is that the two of us have different ideas of “conveniently manageable” and for whom they should be convenient. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Okay. But it's still strange to see someone willing to turn the whole Wikipedia upside down because of virtually invisible characters in an article the person doesn't plan to edit.
          if you want to do something about reference formatting in general, you should probably start with citation bots that are omni-present on Wikipedia. I mean, if anything should be done here, it might be to ask bot owners if they can "teach" their bots to use better ref names than "refN". --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Don’t have any experience with such bots myself, but I imagine the idea is to use a “safe” default label that makes no assumptions and can be changed later. But yeah, some kind of consensus on better/ideal ref-names would be great. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the ideal reference name would be somewhere in the middle of the two approaches described above. If one is writing reference names that average nine words long, that doesn't seem to be the right way to go. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it would depend on a number of factors. If I were reporting some event that had been covered in the TV news, a ref name of "bbc" might be OK if only one BBC news story was used as a ref; but it's possible that two or more stories covered different aspects, so I would find some way of distinguishing them. Something unique to the source is best; so for example, assume that I wanted to use these two URLS for stories on BBC News:

  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52696751
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52690071

  The last part of the URL is an eight-digit number, presumably the story number at the BBC (newspapers often use a similar approach). I expect those are unique, so for these two URLs I might use ref names such as name="bbc-52696751" and name="bbc-52690071" respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • When I am writing an article, I use reference names that are convenient for me. If you prefer names like "bbc-52696751" and "bbc-52690071", you can surely use them, but I find such names simply impossible to remember.
    Please understand that changing ref names in the given article serves no purpose but to annoy the only person who may expand the article in the future.
    And please understand that there are no and hopefully never be rules that regulate reference names. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • the only person who may expand the article in the future. This is only a worst-case scenario, and (I assume and hope) not a likely one for something notable enough to be here. Ideally, there will be many such persons, and one should always operate under that assumption and take them into consideration, as that’s the whole point of Wikipedia. In my opinion, it’s dangerous and inconsiderate (and invites
      WP:OWN thinking) to assume that one will always be the only contributor, and might result in decisions that actually drive other editors away, so I hope that’s not your only reasoning! I do agree though that random-seeming strings of characters are awful identifiers in terms of human readability; I’m of the opinion they should be easily recognized, easily recalled, and easily typed on a standard QWERTY keyboard. —96.8.24.95 (talk
      ) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Moscow Connection, You do not have to worry. All the rest of you please stop "wasting his time". We do not want anyone to stop writing articles --for real. I am not trying to be overly sarcastic but there are no "rules" broken, just suggestions from guidelines and other editors suggestions being ignored. The "suggestions" (words used are "should have", "please consider", "are preferred to", and as long as the "directive" Names must be unique are followed that is enough.
• @ IP editor, you are not actually wrong. I think I saw where you may have made one punctuation edit to the article so unless you are a major contributor it is usually best to follow the citation style of the author or major contributor. YES-- overly long citation names can be hard to follow and trying to add a reference in the same style maybe impossible. I do not have a lot of computer code experience so it would be like me trying to crack windows as they can be confusing. If I want to add a reference, or content and a reference to an article, with "Da Vinci code" looking names, I just add a source my way and make a notation in the edit summary or "note": See talk, and state the reference will need to be re-coded to conform. You can also just add the stuff and if someone gets a burr under their feathers remind them that we do not have to be expert editors to edit Wikipedia. You can make changes and continue a
  WP:BRD type exchange if it is reverted. The best practice is let someone bull headed have the article as there are many more to work on. I never liked that last one either but it beats getting riled up and is a good block prevention strategy. The part: Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":1", can be ignored. I don't imagine going to talk page RFC, where it belongs for any WP:Dispute resolution, would change that. "When your right, your right". As far as I see an editor (especially the author) can set the standard on citation style. I would never want anyone to "change" to make it easier on someone else as that might result in collaboration. Wait! That is not really accurate. Collaboration is a good thing but if someone is "Never" going to change it is what it is. That's better. A good thing to remember, all articles can be edited mercilessly just don't mess with the citation style unless you are a major contributor or fixing bare URL's. That is a thought! There are probably thousands of articles full of those with no style so "you" can perform maintenance and "set the style". Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk
  ) 11:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @
    is threatening to quit otherwise… that’s a problem. —96.8.24.95 (talk
    ) 02:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Dear IP editor, What I am stating is that, lacking clear violations, because of possibly intentional and vague guidelines, there is an understood protection of the right to set the reference style. I actually did not see a threat to quit just comments that an editor possibly should not have created the article. You may find many that would "prefer" shorter citations (myself included), but there is a big chance DR may not be fruitful. Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Understood, thanks for clarifying your position! I was aware that the formatting of citations themselves should follow existing precedent (as with date format, US/UK spelling, etc.), but was unaware this was also widely understood to be the case for the ref IDs. Makes sense, so long as the precedent is not obtrusive to other editors (in which case I’m sure a consensus could be reached). I just wish the guidelines for creating them weren’t so vague, for the sake of consistency and simplicity. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I use Visual Editor and its naming scheme can be overly simplistic, and therefore problematic as well. If you copy a sentence and its source from one article to another you can easily end up with duplicated names for different refs. Therefore a combo of the title of the source plus some number relevant to the source would likely work best. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you take a quick skim on the article One Piece, you will see that it's littered with Japanese text in the body of the article. This text makes the article more difficult to read. On top of that, the Nihongo template can also take a lot of space, making it difficult to edit the article. My solution was to use either use Template:Notelist or Template:Refn. But no matter which one I choose, it doesn't have the desired effect that I want it to.

The goal is to move all the references separately into a remote area in the article so that it can be easier to read and easier to edit. At the same time, I also want to give it a custom name of "Jp" so that it makes it even easier on the reader that it is a footnote giving the Japanese text and hepburn romanization (and maybe since its moved in a separate area, now room for translation if different from the official localization).

This was my attempt to fix the article. If you look carefully, the refs look great in the main body of the article, but they don't work when you try to go to the source where they're supposed to be listed, they don't show up and there's a citation error too. I don't understand why this option isn't available. There is the option for Template:Notelist with predefined groups, so why can't we do it with custom group names?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Refn#Usage. I don't see a way to use that template with list-defined references. I think you either need to put the content of each note inside the Refn template that is in the body of the article, or use <ref>...</ref> tags that are closed in the body of the message and fully provided in a list-defined reference section at the bottom of the article. I could be wrong; there might be a way to do it the way that you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Well could someone update the code to have both compatible with each other if it's not currently available?Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs}

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Your attempt very nearly works. Within the reflist, the note named "Cbelt" is missing its final pair of curly brackets, and it should be named "CBelt" with a capital B. With those errors fixed, the article looks like User:John of Reading/X3. A scheme like these should work OK until you start calling list-defined notes from inside other list-defined notes; then the software doesn't cope. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

OK i understand. it was my mistake then. thank you for helping me.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's my minimal example. As far as I can tell I'm doing the exact same thing for the first and second footnote, but they behave quite differently; I can't get the second footnote's references to appear. Can any of you see what I'm doing wrong? Thanks!

Statement one with a referenced footnote.^[a] Statement two with a referenced footnote.^[b]

Notes

1. ^ ^{a b} This is my first referenced footnote, citing W. Writer's book.^[1] — <ref>{{harvp|Writer|2020}}.</ref>
2. ^ This is my second referenced footnote, citing A. Author's book.^[2] — <ref>{{harvp|Author|2020}}.</ref>

Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page).

References

1. ^ Writer (2020).

• Writer, W. (2020). This Is A Book. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Author, A. (2020). This Is Another Book. {{cite book}}: |last1= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It's probably something silly I'm forgetting to do, so thanks for any help!

Umimmak (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Umimmak: You've run into phab:T22707. Your coding is very neat, with list-defined notes calling list-defined footnotes, but the underlying software just can't handle it. You'll have to move the {{efn}} definitions out of the {{notelist}} back into the text. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@John of Reading:, ah okay thank you for getting back to me on this! Good to know I just have to move it back into the text for it to work. Cheers, Umimmak (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask about this, but I was wondering if there are any policies or generally accepted guidelines on repeated references. For example, do the two following alternatives come down to personal preference, or is one of them to be preferred? My question has to do with the "Smith" references and the repetition of page 37.

Statement one.<ref>Smith (2018), p. 37</ref> Statement two.<ref>Field, p. 67</ref> Statement three.<ref>Smith (2018), pp. 20, 37</ref>

Statement one.<ref name="a">Smith (2018), p. 37</ref> Statement two.<ref>Field, p. 67</ref> Statement three.<ref name="a" /><ref>Smith (2018), p. 20</ref>

Thank you for the information. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Look at the section on the page of "Footnotes:Page numbers". There is a template {{rp}} that you can append after a named template use to add page numbers to repeated refs, so your example above can be cleanly redone as:

Statement one.<ref name="a">Smith (2018)</ref>{{rp|37}} Statement two.<ref>Field, p. 67</ref> Statement three.<ref name="a"/>{{rp|20,38}}

which would come out looking like:

Statement one.^[1]:37 Statement two.^[2] Statement three.^[1]:20,37

You'd only need to do this for the sources that you draw from different page numbers from. --Masem (t) 06:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That's for when the refs are long (with titles, etc) but the situation described by Toccata quarta (talk · contribs) has only author, year and page - Shortened footnotes. In this system, {{rp}} is redundant and it is largely up to the editor whether they use two separate refs or one combined ref. Myself, I use the combined technique - see for example the Rolt & Kichenside 1982 refs at NBR 224 and 420 Classes#Notes - here, we have:

35. ^ Rolt & Kichenside 1982, p. 101.
36. ^ Rolt & Kichenside 1982, pp. 101–2.
40. ^ Rolt & Kichenside 1982, p. 102.

Ref no. 36 is done as

the salvage equipment broke after the locomotive had been brought to the surface.{{sfn|Rolt|Kichenside|1982|pp=101–2}}

Instead, I could have done this as

the salvage equipment broke after the locomotive had been brought to the surface.{{sfn|Rolt|Kichenside|1982|p=101}}{{sfn|Rolt|Kichenside|1982|p=102}}

with two separate {{sfn}}: one of those would have been combined with the one in

protected by the bridge girders which formed a cage around the train as they fell together.{{sfn|Rolt|Kichenside|1982|p=101}}

the other combined with

no. 224 was used on the Sunday evening mail to Dundee via the Tay Bridge.{{sfn|Rolt|Kichenside|1982|p=102}}

and we would have had

35. ^{a b} Rolt & Kichenside 1982, p. 101.
36. ^{a b} Rolt & Kichenside 1982, p. 102.

I combined them because the relevant passage in Rolt & Kichenside spans from page 101 over onto page 102. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Footnote group has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Manabimasu (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

dear sir /mam please help me out i dont know about footnotes please help me sir 🙏🙏 here is a page named:chauhan victoria vada another sir suggested for footnotes for this page i dont know sir plzz help sir Dc 190144 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I took a quick look at

WP:CITE#Footnotes. That ought to do it. Wtmitchell (talk)

(earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards

As a long-term wp editor I have not got my head around list defined references. However, I have used cluster references. At the article ARIA Music Awards there is a section Most awards/nominations with a table showing 41 artists with six or more award wins. In the refs column are the cluster refs, which have from two sub refs up to 30. Many of these sub refs are repeated again and again down the table. Consequently the article has a huge clutter of cluster refs. This was pointed out at the Teahouse by @Didier Landner:: to try to find an easier way to do this.

I need help to display the references per artist but reduce the enormous clutter that has resulted by adding another cluster each time an artist qualifies with six or more wins or by updating existing clusters each year that an artist gets nominated/wins.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)23:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is now over 3 months since I made the above request for help and I have received no response. Is there some other place I could go to get assistance?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Stuff like this."^[a]" Whenever I hover over, or even click on it, I can't see it, until I scroll down. Why? The Unknown Editor... (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably because there is no {{notelist}}. Are you asking about a specific page (other than this one)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Could somebody give me an example of referencing an efn, please?

Specifically in Nicolaus Copernicus I've had to change an efn to a refn so that I could re-use the footnote (that's footnote n 1), which looks untidy,etc. Our text here says this should not have been necessary as name and group parameters work with efn just as with ref. But it gives no actual example, and as a result I have wasted much time trying and failing to get it to work. Once an example has been given and found to work, we can presumably then add it into our Help article here as well, thereby also improving this article. Thanks in advance. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: I'm not quite sure what you're looking for but something like this? Citing an efn once^[a] and citing the same efn a second time^[a]?

Umimmak (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Umimmak. At first glance it looks like that should do the trick, tho I'll need to check it out and then get back if necessary, perhaps especially regarding then amending this Help page (particularly regarding whether using refs is necessary, as it isn't needed with refn). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: you also don't have to define the footnote within {{notelist}}, for instance^[a] and again:^[a]?

Template:Efn and Help:Footnotes have some discussion under the headings With named references and Named references can also be defined in the notelist Umimmak (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked.

For some reason or other (perhaps they were below the bottom of my screen), I never saw the 3rd and 4th efn examples despite spending perhaps 30 minutes looking at the page, and I only saw: {{efn}} supports |name= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in <ref>. Do not enclose values in quotes. So I looked at the <ref> syntax and it is quite different from the efn syntax, tho it works for refn (the efn syntax also works for refn, but this is seemingly not mentioned, unless I have again somehow missed it). The first issue is easily fixed by adding (see, for instance, the 3rd and 4th examples below), and I'll then try to work out what needs to be done about refn. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added "(see 3rd and 4th examples below)" but I think a couple of examples using groups might also help. But I'm a bit confused by things like "Wiki No include" etc, so I'm not going to add them today (and perhaps not at all, and the same goes for mentioning that the efn format also works with refn. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the help pages have examples where {{reflist}} is under the "Notes" section with the full citations listed under the "References" section. This page's examples put the {{notelist}} under "Notes", {{reflist}} under "References", but doesn't address a section for the full citations. I have seen many pages name the missing section "Bibliography" or "Sources". What is the recommended layout? Jroberson108 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 17:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What a mess

Who messed up those titles, please, place Footnotes:-prefixed subsection into a Footnotes section. It really makes me hard to navigate this article comfortably. Thank you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I can use the

13:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

Never mind, I think I've got it; better use this system in that situation, right? Bishonen | tålk 14:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: That's one good way. That and others are described at Help:References and page numbers - take your pick. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right, excellent. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

The cognoscenti prefer the sfn method. I do it the first of the other suggested ways. :

The brontosaurus is thin at one end.<ref name=elk1972>{{cite book |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=[[Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses]] |date=November 16, 1972}}</ref>{{rp|5}} Then it becomes much thicker in the middle.<ref name=elk1972 />{{rp|6–7}}

DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

] (she/they) 23:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

] (she/they) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Section names for citations and explanatory notes

@

references

}} and additional references in the References section. Some articles have a Further reading section with bibliographic data. A recent edit to Directive (programming) split the References section into a Footnotes section containing the {{reflist}} and a References section containing additional bibliographic data. I can't find any guidance on whether those section titles are appropriate, or whether section names such as Footnotes and Notes should be reserved for explanatory notes. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:SRF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. What about guidance on changing (not changing) existing names and guidance on the order of explanatory notes, references, external links and additional reading? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is

WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 21:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SFN, so per the first example at WP:SFN - there's two sections "Notes" and "References". So, my edit [1] split the sole section into two similar to the example. As for naming them, I used "Footnotes" and "References", but feel free to change "Footnotes" to "Notes" if you wish, I'm neutral about either. But, I'd actually consider as the predominant style is common WP:REFLIST, dropping back to one section and removing the sole shortened one would be more consistent. Widefox; talk
  17:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As all of the footnotes are citations, I would have expected them to be listed under the heading References, with Steele 1990 under the same heading and that terms like Notes and Footnotes would be reserved for explanatory notes. Given this discussion, I guess that if explantory notes are added they could go under the heading Explanatory notes.

--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you cite a work and refer to a page. However since many articles combine them the terms have become rather intermixed. Also the word "citations" is often misunderstood, so sometimes "Bibliography" might be prefereble, particularly for short lists where there is no need to split the citations and Further reading For my 2d worth I would nowadays use the following:

== Footnotes == {{notelist}} == References == {{reflist}} == Citations == OR == Bibliography == {{Citation ...

HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Method of surname clarification. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Vote to add new list item in Footnotes: using a source more than once: Unnamed identical references can be mass merged (e.g. by bot) to one reference definition and the other template name call and named them CHARACTER + NUMBER (e.g. #13).

• Yes.
• No.

Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am not against the idea, but would prefer names that have some meaning and are helpful to identify them when choosing from a list, like Author date, or title. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: More about one implementation and implications for enwiki. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• No There are far to many edge cases to cover in such situations, and given your figures even a tiny fraction of changes resulting in problems would generate thousands if not tens of thousands of cite errors. There is simply no pressing need for this to happen, I doubt the Foundation will runout of space to store plaintext. Also this should probably be at held at the village pump. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: So policy change has set some boundaries for the shoe. Bot should only be an auxiliary tool. Ie. it doesn't have to be like a "super-robot" to solve every problem. But the shoe should not create other problems. It can only solve a certain set of problems. However, this should already be addressed when using the implementation.

  Look at the benefits. For example, bot makes the replacement flawless. What a large amount can be an advantage if one doesn't fix it now. For example, a bot modification can specialize in extremes, where there are many new references or their calls. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not solving every problem, is the problem. How would any bot know its limits, unless it knew all edge cases it shouldn't do and if it knew all edge cases why not do them. reFill2 is already a semi-automated tool for user to deal with this issue, and it regularly causes error or just straight up nukes articles. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested My request is just a "part" of Wikipedia:ReFill.

  My request does not change the content of the reference. See my own one implementation (nothings with ReFill): The theory and manual practice. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  reFill is way from perfect, doing this on mass will create massive amounts of cite errors. Changing the content of the ref is in no way the issue, cite errors are causes by issues with cite format and refnames. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: Please, You comment my RFC and You give the answer on the right question / problem. We evaluate the idea or basic concept of realization. Not someone to implement. Get rid the world presentation only from the ReFill. There is also a new implementation of the problem from me in the world.

  Otherwise, I been used my one implementation on cswiki, hrwiki, srwiki, plwiki and several manual changes on dewiki; and none bug report with the problems with "cite errors are causes by issues with cite format and refnames". Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  The answer to the basic question is still no. Edits like these should be checked by the user before saving, the complete opposite of the proposal. Maybe no-one is checking cite errors on those wiki's, I can't say. What I can say, with absolute definitive certainty, is that these errors happen quite often on enwiki. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested Can You write, how is the problem with references on enwiki? I think, the example. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  No I can't. We would go back to talking about specific problems, rather than the policy change. But you're free to look at my editing history, cleaning up citation errors is mainly what I do. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: I saw Your profile page. I saw the list with the category about the page with wrongs pages.

  So, the reference problem sites are problematic. These should be left for adjustment for people. It is right for these pages (in those lists of wrong pages) to be omitted.

  So omitting those pages is RFC ok? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  No, these are the categories that pages with errors are added too. Automating the de-duplication of references will generate more errors, which will add more pages to these categories. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  For instance if the reference is de-duplicated but the refname is already in use in text that is transcluded to the article it will generate a duplicate key error. If it's de-duplicated but incorrectly handles the reflist (something reFill2 commonly does), then it will cause a missing key error. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: You don't write the problems of actual RFC, but the problem of the implementation bots. Both have a solution. Check if currencies are used. If so, change the name. And the second problem, you just need to program and test. Which is also not a problem, as the site can be tested without changing online.

  If you are concerned about whether the bot is correct, then be part of the approval process for the bot who has to do this task.

  Feel free to create a document with all your requirements and publish it. They are not unreasonable. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is why I didn't want to give details, because you would immediately turn round and say that. But my original comment still stands, and my mind is not changed. Regardless of implementation, this policy change should not happen. Any implementation cannot, ever, cover enough edge cases to not generate massive amounts of cite errors. A 99.99% accuracy, given your own figures, would result in 40,000+ cite errors. This type of change should only ever be done by users, and the results checked before saving. This was my point before you dragged us down this hole, and it is still my point. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also my other point in regard to purpose has not been addressed, what issue would this solve. If a reference is listed twice

  WP:V is still fulfilled, and the Foundation could store near endless duplicated sections of plaintext. So given there could be a downside what benefit would this bring. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

  ° 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also the bot doesn't make the replacement flawless, it makes it dumb as the bot doesn't (and cannot) know all possible variables. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, duplicate unnamed refs are not a problem that needs solving, especially by grouping them into meaningless names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• No, it would be far better to collect all the citations into a single alphabetic bibliography and use short-form references to refer to them. The existing software would collect them together appropriately. What you are suggesting is not a good solution, if multiple pages or page ranges are used you will still be repeating the bibliographic information in a random order. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Any process for gathering citations into a bibliography should handle anonymous sources, e.g., manuals, news reports. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  There seems to be a difference across the Atlantic in how "Author" is defined. In the UK we don't have a problem with corporate authors, but some US based editors do, changing them to publishers. I would file a newspaper article that doesn't have a by-line under the name of the newspaper since that is the way readers would find the article. Likewise manuals. For instance:

  • Digital Equipment Corporation (1984), VAX FORTRAN Language Summary (Revised ed.), Maynard, Massachusetts: Digital Equipment Corporation
  • Methodist Conference (1933), The Methodist hymn-book with tunes, London: Methodist Conference Office

  This is, after all, why there is an "author" synonym for the "last" field and why software such as Zotero uses "Creator" for the field. Back in the card index days (yes, it was that long ago I worked in a library) you tried to avoid having half a dozen drawers attributed to "Anon", it helped no-one. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  For a large corporation there may be a lot of manuals published in the same year. E.g., z/OS V2R5 Library has 321 files, most in the same year, and an article related to z/OS might reference a lot of them. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and that is why the use of letters after the year is shown. This is something of a fringe case, after all

  WP:RF and (2) references and citations are to enable the facts to be checked, not to provide a smokescreen that no-one can challenge. Martin of Sheffield (talk

  ) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  That is a false dichotomy; it is possible to use editor-friendly names without "scattering citations in amongst the references at random".

  Your second sentence is a straw dummy lacking in civility; NOBODY has suggested that it is appropriate to "provide a smokescreen that no-one can challenge." Again, the point at issue is whether a mass merge generating date-based names is the best way forward. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it is possible to keep the citations in a sensible order by using list defined references, but this is rarely done. Have a look at History of India for example and try to find where the full citation for Dupuy & Dupuy (1993) is, and then tell me it is not effectively a random list. Actually, that article mixes two sorts of citing, which is not really a good idea! Far from being a straw dummy, that certainly seems to be how some editors (and I am emphatically NOT pointing the finger at any particular editor) regard them. When you just see a title with a URL pointing to Google books it can hardly be designed to help any reader. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd really like a clean way to cite multiple separate sections of a single document in such a way that it was clear to the reader that they were the same document, without taking up an absurd amount of space in the rendered text. {{rp}} and {{sfn|loc=|p=}} help, but not enough. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I like this idea, but it would fall apart with transcluded text. As the cites wouldn't be transcluded with the text and short forms. Either way that's all to do with implementation, not policy change. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not quite sure when you would use transcluded text in an actual article, can you give an example please? There's no work needed on the implementation, it's already in reasonably widespread use, I just think that trying to invent a bot to patch up an inferior (IMHO) method is wasting time. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Try looking at the Responses of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article. This type of transclusion between articles is quite common, and the same goes for transclusion from templates which also include references. I agree of short form refs are better, bit changing the style of referencing in an article is also not allowed. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well I must say that that is the first time in 11 years of editing that I've come across it. Usually I see a precís with a {{main}} hat note. Changing the style of referencing is allowed, but only with consensus established on the talk page BTW. I can see how citations embedded in simple references in such articles would be propogated, but named references would also fail, so this proposed bot would be unhelpful. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hatnote and precís should be the way to do it. I clean up a lot of problems caused by doing it with transclusion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, at least not until there is a clean way to deal with multiple chapter references within the same source. Even then it would be difficult to ensure that the bot didn't break things. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: Is the problem with transclusion? So none problem, because the new refname must be only unique for local wiki. Maybe then to create the references list. Minimal for one time statistical purpose. For perfect way, the new project as Wikireferences. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  No that's not the issue, as stated previously. The issue is this policy shouldn't be changed. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. A good refname explains what it is, so that other editors can easily see what it is when it's referenced elsewhere. An essentially meaningless number assigned by a bot is the opposite of that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• No. I don't like numbered ref names and, per other comments above, I do not trust a bot to properly clean up problem refs. - Donald Albury 17:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• No. This couldn't be done by bot; quite aside from the false-positive issue, an incomprehensible (or worse, inaccurate) reference name is worse than no reference name at all so you'd need to name the merged references manually. Just load
  Iridescent
  19:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Repeating the same source multiple times can make it seem like there are more references than there really are, and it can make it difficult for readers to see how much a source is being re-used. If you see^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} in an article, you might assume that there are seven different sources. If you see only^{[1][1][1][1][1][1][1]} instead, you might notice that the same source is being used for everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: You mention 2 others implementations, my as "3rd implementation" is both as online use. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but.
  1. Firstly, this is for identical references. I assume, unlike (e.g.,)
     WP:CITEVAR
     violation. NB that <ref>{{cite book|author=Alice|title=The Sun is Big}}</ref> and <ref>{{cite book|author=Alice|title=The Sun is Big|chapter=5}}</ref> are not identical, and therefore must not be merged. Even a difference in the order of the parameters in the citation template should result in the ref not being merged.
  2. Secondly, I'd like to suggest a better naming scheme. If you merge a ref that uses a citation template, it would be preferable to extract an author's name, a website name, or a keyword from the title (e.g., first word that has more than three characters). Try "Alice13" instead of "#13".
• Overall, though, I think this proposal would involve many fewer changes than its opponents fear, and that it would be a desirable thing to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  with every single character being exactly the same Even if they are identical there are some cases where they shouldn't be merged. I don't think we should merge identical identical citations when they've got cleanup tags like {{

  pages?}} in the ref tags (or sometimes they're present outside the ref tags). Umimmak (talk

  ) 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Umimmak: Possible conflict? Not a problem. Pages or references will be skipped with such templates – they will not change. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• No assuming this is still the case: if the text the first instance (containing the name declaration) is editorially removed (for example if the statement it is attached to is removed), all other instances instantly become unreferenced. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: If you do, the result page will print an error. Try it in the preview. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Dušan Kreheľ, that is a council of perfection. Very many editors, particularly the one-time or inexperienced type, do not do that. Then at some later stage another editor has to waste time wading through histories to sort out the mess. Cut-and-paste from another article is also a fruitful source of hanging, undefined references. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Martin of Sheffield: Why should honest writers suffer because of the dishonest? Why punish honest? Do honest people have to be punished in this case? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  No-one has impugned anyone's honesty, merely their competence. I don't comprehend how you get to "Do honest people have to be punished in this case?" there has been no talk of punishment, just as no talk of dishonesty. I merely stated that "Very many editors, particularly the one-time or inexperienced type, do not do that", which judging by the number of errors that slip past is a simple observation. Please stop and think very carefully before accusing fellow editors of dishonesty. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Then at some later stage another editor has to waste time wading through histories to sort out the mess. More likely, a bit later User:AnomieBOT comes along and does exactly that, as it has been doing for over a dozen years now. Anomie⚔ 22:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  AnomieBOT usually corrects the issue. Otherwise someone does have to crawl through the history to work put what went wrong. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  If there's a case where AnomieBOT doesn't correct the issue and you think it should have been able to, check User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log for details and then ask on the bot's talk page. Anomie⚔ 22:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not going through and checking all of these. Some had been missing for quite some time. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I can't fix the bot if I don't know about problems. If you see problems in the future, let me know.

  I looked at the ones you fixed in April: Kilwinning Rangers F.C. was vandalism leaving broken wikitext, which the bot leaves for humans; Dextroamphetamine and COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden the bot doesn't try to fix due to T235882; Colman's was apparently someone deleting a ref and introducing a new orphaned ref in its place, which isn't something the bot can handle; Russo-Japanese War is due to {{r}}, which is a silly template that the bot doesn't try to handle at all; and Mendota, California, Demographics of the United States, and United Arab Emirates look like you got to them before the bot did. Anomie⚔ 00:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sometimes I get there first as I'm just working alphabetically through the cite errors. But everything else you said is my point. Wikipedia allows such leeway for editing, and such variation of referencing that automation as proposed couldn't work accurately enough not to produces large amounts of errors. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  The original proposal here does have problems, most notably that names like "#1" would be terrible. But "people might orphan references" IMO is not one. Anomie⚔ 22:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW grounds. --Izno (talk
  ) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• No – A solution in search of a problem. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment:

  My implemented implementation: The plan was to have 2 types of reference name. The first according to the rank (a la #NUMBER), the second standard - nice name. The first one should be temporary until the person modifies it. Code tested on 5 wikipeds, no error message. transclusion call pages (count 250 pages for 2022-04-20) would have an original temporary index (ie from 1000 it would start and be used once). This adjustment would be good for sites where there are many such references (eg with 3+ new tempate names).

  Implementation should not do things worse. Either I will change the complexity, or it will improve for users - less references in the reference list.

  The proposal only allows me to approve the community - its expression. The rules do not prohibit this change if someone tries to apply it now to a site, such as non-mass automatically with bots.

  ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Duplicate references like this inflate the ref count, which inhibits a rule of thumb glance on how dependent an article is on one source. Assuming the bots implement it as outlined by WhatamIdoing, I support the change (although it might not warrant its own edit, and should be done in addition to other bot changes) —
  PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c
  ) 22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

References

This article is labelled "footnotes", but the text is only about references. Footnotes are not mentioned. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia interchangeable uses a collection of words for references. For inline references Footnotes, Notes or References are commonly used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

At 07:56, 31 July 2022‎, User:Redrose64 reverted my edit intended to avoid confusion as to the purpose of the reference. The reason why I made the edit is because after coming to this page to find how to name a reference, I went to the relevant part and got confused, wondering why the reference wasn't rendering the custom name provided. I spent a good while analyzing until I figured out that the purpose of named references was not to provide a custom name to the superscript, but to name the reference in the wikitext to avoid writing again the whole reference.

In order to save other editors time in case they went through the same situation I experienced, I decided to add an explanation. Redrose64 stated that their revert was because of "improper use of parameter", ignoring the purpose of my edit; basically, it was a drive-by revert. I am not that versed in markup, so I don't know if their revert was helpful or not. My question is, what problem my edit could have caused that it had to be just reverted without even adding the comment with the use of a proper parameter? I didn't know what the proper parameter was. In my opinion, this revert is a classic case of

16:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of reverting the change myself, as I thought the language could use some work. I believe the reason you were reverted was due to its placement inside a template, but let's wait for Redrose64 to answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as per

WP:BRD, not re-addimg the contested content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 18:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

In the {{markup}} template, the |title= parameter is, as its name suggests, intended for the title to be shown above the table. Nowhere in the documentation does it suggest that explanatory text may be placed here. That should be placed outside the template; either before or after, depending upon which explains the markup most appropriately. Regarding text like With this references, there is no need to add again the information of the note, this is badly written and nearly incomprehensible. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out what is badly written and incomprehensible? It is rare for an editor to tell me that what I wrote is incomprehensible. Besides, I excelled in English in school, trained as translator, and dedicate a fair amount of time to analysis of the written word—although of course no one is perfect. I have to say also that you didn't answer my question nor you addressed my concern that your revert was not complying with WP:BURO. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the content of Redrose64's message, if not the wording. With this references is bad, your second attempt is better if still clunky. As to the original revert as I suggested, and as Redrose64 said, you inclusion within that part of the template was wrong and so "Improper use of parameter" was a completely valid revert reason. As to the relevance of

WP:BURO you appear to be sticking to a very rigid interruption of a section that states Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. As per policy you shouldn't try to enforce your change, but discuss it with other editors. I again suggest you self revert, and try to convince us of the need for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 01:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

1. ActivelyDisinterested, even the best writers have detractors or make mistakes, what can I say. Not that I am saying I am one of the best, but just pointing that out. You can suggest another wording and if you want you can be more specific in your criticism of my text, because "clunky" is highly subjective and doesn't really tell me much. I do strive to improve every day in everything I do.
2. "Improper use of parameter" may or may not have been a valid revert reason, depending on whether there was sufficient reason to revert. As I pointed out before, per
   WP:BURO
   , "A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed." My question hasn't been answered, "what problem my edit could have caused that it had to be just reverted without even adding the comment with the use of a proper parameter?" Because Redrose just drive-by reverted without minding the reason why I made the edit.
3. Setting aside the syntax or wording of my comment, is there opposition to the inclusion of its intended message, namely, making editors more aware of the purpose of the named references to help some editors avoid confusion? I am an experienced editor who regularly uses references wikitext and I was confused.
4. You stated, "you shouldn't try to enforce your change". I have a personal policy of following the 1 revert rule, I almost never revert a revert of my edits. If someone reverts me, I take it to the talk page or just let others deal with it, unless, as in this case, I can edit my previous edit in a way that seems to address the reverting editor's concerns. Redrose reverted with the message "improper use of parameter". When I saw their summary message, I proceeded to make an edit addressing it, therefore my new edit was not a revert of their revert, but rather was a new edit that didn't make "improper use of parameter", taking my comment out of the title markup and placing it outside of the markup. If Redrose also had written in the summary that she didn't agree with the change or something similar, I would have not added my new edit. Thinker78 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

   1. I'll try a rewrite and come back to this later.

   2. Your interruption is wrong. Correcting technical mistakes is a noncontroversial action.

   3. Clarification is usually helpful, I'm not against the idea.

   4. Reverting back in more or less the same content is just reverting, again it's the principle of the act not the absolute wording that matters. It's always better to discuss it with other editors than to try and find a work around. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

   1. Looking forward to it.
   2. Again, per WP:BURO, "A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed."
   3. Got it, thanks.
   4. I already have a strict personal practice regarding reverts (
      0RR / 1RR) that few editors adopt. I don't know if you also practice what you are telling me or if you revert when others revert your edits. Since some time ago, when someone reverts my edits I almost never revert or make a new edit of the challenged material. My new edit after Redrose's revert was reasonable. If they or someone else reverted again, then I wouldn't have made a new edit for the revert. There is a balance between being efficient and excessively bureaucratic. I believe my standard is fair enough. Thinker78 (talk)
      17:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

      1. It will likely be sometime tomorrow, today is a mess.

      2. Again Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures, your trying to use a policy to demand an answer that that policy says is moot.

      4. I always follow

      WP:BRD, the site would be better if more did. If I am reverted I talk to the editor who reverted me, without making any further reverts. You edit after Redrose64's revert was reasonable, but it was still a revert. Making an edit that is substantially the same is still a revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

      ° 18:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

      1. Sounds good.
      2. You are stuck in a logical loop. We all edit according to policies and guidelines, which I followed, but I point out that Redrose may not have. Per
         WP:BRD
         , "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." When I point out WP:BURO's text that "A procedural, coding, or grammatical error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it, unless the error cannot easily be fixed", I present evidence that the revert was not an improvement nor necessary.
         1. I made a good faith edit that in my opinion constituted an improvement to the existing page. It maybe was not even an improper use of a parameter as Redrose claimed. Take a look at my edit. The text I added within the "title" parameter did not become part of the title. Otherwise, it would have had bold font as well. That's suggestive that the parameter "title" is designed to accept prose within its range. Said prose can then be used as in general writing after titles. For example, as running or explicative text or description of the title or section, which I did.
         2. Then my unanswered question comes up again, what problem would my edit have caused if it was not reverted? Or why was the revert an improvement or necessary, per the relevant edit summary of parameter use? I have to point out again to WP:BURO's grounds for revertion for said assessment.

      4. I agree. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

      The text I added within the "title" parameter did not become part of the title. Otherwise, it would have had bold font as well. Boldface or not, it ended up in the caption element of the table, which represents the title of the table that is its parent. Putting non-title text into this element is a semantic misuse of the element, which will also cause accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

      Ok, if that's the case, then I would agree with the revert you made. Thinker78 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Note: With named references you only need to add the details once. For each use after the first you just need to re-use the reference name. Doing this will not cause the inline superscript to display a custom name.
   My attempt at the language, I tried to keep the sentences simple as this is a help document. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

   Sounds good. But I was left with the doubt as to whether the markup "title" is to display both a heading and a description of the heading or only a heading. Because as I pointed out before, if it was only heading, the text I added probably would have been bolded as the heading was. Thinker78 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

   It should definitely not appear on the title field, that would go against the meaning of the word title. Where it is now would seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I just attempted to add an (awkward) endnote here ([[2]]), and it is showing in the mainspace, but when I cursor over it, it is not giving the normal infobox, and clicking on it does not actually take me down to the note (nor does clicking on the caret in the note take me back up to the inline location). Could anyone let me know what I did wrong / troubleshoot? Thanks. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 09:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for {{r}} could be clearer, but apparently refname is not optional. I've added a temporary refname here, and the note works as expected. Feel free to change the refname to something more appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I had some difficulty with that documentation, so I ultimately just attempted to wing it. Thank you for your assistance! Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest include in the Overview section the text, from the RefToolbar section:

You can use the citation toolbar to name references. When you first create a reference, you can enter a value in the "Ref name" box.

When you want to reuse this reference, click the "Named references" button on the citation toolbar and choose which reference you would like to insert.

147.84.199.21 (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Section Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once describe the case where there are multiple identical citations of the same source. It does not, however, describe, e.g., the use of {{rp}} to cite different locations within the same source, quoting different passages within the same source. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

See also Help:Shortened footnotes. Using shortened footnotes you write the source citation once at the bottom, then use references to link to it. The references can include page numbers or other location information which will be collated automatically. See as an example NBR 224 and 420 Classes and note that, for instance reference 10 shows 5 references to page 66 being collected together and that there 8 different pages references in SLS (1970), yet the full bibliographic citation is only required once. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, {{sfn}} is useful, but |ps= doesn't provide the functionality of |quote=, and repurposing |loc= to provide a quote is kludgy at best.

IAC, shouldn't there be some guidance for new editors in that section? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You can use the {{

harvp

}} is used inside ref tags. So you can include anytext, including urls that can't be used in quote fields, after the template but before the closing tag.

I think the issue with going to far into the details of any particular way of referencing is that it's just one way of doing referencing, and none of them are more or less acceptable (apart from parenthical per

WP:PAREN). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Period at the end of a footnote

This guide doesn't specify whether to put a period at the end of a footnote that isn't a complete sentence. It contains some examples that do and some that don't. Something should be said about this – either that a period should or shouldn't be placed, or that this should be handled consistently within a footnote section, or that it's up to the author of the individual footnote. Joriki (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The footnote text "LibreOffice For Starters, First Edition, Flexible Minds, Manchester, 2002, p. 18" is used several times, mostly without a period at the end, but in the section Footnotes: using a source more than once it's used with a period (twice). In the section Footnotes: embedding references, all the footnotes end in a period. In the section Footnotes: predefined groups, none of them do. In the section Footnotes: groups, the ones in the Notes section don't but the one in the References section does. Joriki (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. I think in general they should have a period at the end, because that indicates more that a word set has ended rather than not having it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Beware that this can be an issue of

WP:CITEVAR. The reason some of the references have a period at the end is because they use {{cite book}}, which generates an output with a period at the end. If {{citation}} was used it wouldn't have a period at the end. Obviously when plain text is used it will be a matter of preference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. References are mostly nowadays automatic. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So, if I understand

WP:CITEVAR correctly, this should be handled consistently per article, based on the prevailing style of the article? If so, I think it would be good to mention that on this help page, and to make the footnotes in the section Footnotes: groups consistent (since they're meant to be in the same article). Joriki (talk

) 11:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Any guidance given should distinguish between explanatory footnotes and references; if the rules are the same, it should use wording like "for both explanatory footenotes and references,". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a hard and fast rule to distinguish between what is a footnote and what is a reference. You can use {{

WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 11:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting setting one hard rule after you pointed out

WP:CITEVAR. Please see above for my suggestion. Joriki (talk

) 12:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This was in reply to Metz's comment about clarifying the difference between footnotes and references, not your suggestion. I have nothing against making the page more consistent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I removed a period in

) 10:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)