Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 4

message: Just informing, the vote is going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:How to use Cite.php references. See also above at #Proposed "How to use Cite.php" section for beginners --Francis Schonken 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Help:How to use Cite.php references]] up for deletion at MfD 

message: I found recently that addition of  delimited comments inside the  and  tags results in an odd error.
User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've known about this problem for quite some time now, so I think the developers should know about it as well. You could always check the known issues section of m:Cite... Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments inside ref tags 

message: (questions copied from user talk:Francis Schonken:)
* Is there a new template for smaller sizes?
*::Yes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Helping editors unfamiliar with this system of footnotes. Whether the template is "new" is a relative question, note that it survived a TfD vote a month ago (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 18#Template:FootnotesSmall), but it is "new" in the sense that it has now an updated technology.
* Is it a temporary fix?
*::Well, erm, I fixed it, whether that solution is carved in stone or written in sand is too philosophical a question for me. Anyway the resizing technology is now driven to a single template (), though that template is also used by the usual template (, that is the template that adds the help-line when used subst:). PS: currently some 150 articles use the  template.
* Have the smaller sizes been standardized?
*:: "standardizes" in that it allows only 100% and 92%.
*::There is a css trick with which resizing to 90% is possible  - don't know how much it is used, anyway, currently that ".references-small" css feature is not used by the  template. The reason is: anything smaller than 92% looks bad on my monitor. So I suppose there are other monitors, and other people who would have trouble reading such smaller stuff. Note that there is still some continuing "size" discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css, even a poll going on right now MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Straw poll for footnote font sizes - which I wouldn't have known about if you hadn't asked me these questions. Anyway any technology can be implemented in , but I object to anything smaller than 92% for the mentioned usability reasons. --Francis Schonken 07:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Some editors have taken to throwing a ... around the reference tag. Is this a 1.) suitable solution, 2.) recommended solution, and 3.) can </references> just default to that class somehow? —Rob (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size: some questions by Encephalon

message: I suggest the message "This template is deprecated." be removed from  and  since Cite.php is still only a beta version with bugs and limited functionality and can not replace the templates yet. (see m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#Grouping the references + m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#Allowing sub-references and Requests for references at the bottom). Thank you. --V111P 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please... if any admin sees this, please remove the vandalism by User:Cyde who has repeatedly abused administrative powers to push a personal agenda on references... including most recently this damage to the templates.  If ever there was an admin in desperate need of desysop'ing, this is the one. LotLE×talk 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure of the exact wording that you added in replacement, but the passage that relates to this isn't quite accurate I think: "Before Cite.php footnotes were available, the same functionality was achieved with a system called Wikipedia:Footnote3..."  I don't think there are many people here who would say that the two systems deliver the same functionality.  Perhaps the passage could be revised to read something like "Before Cite.php footnotes were available, similar functionality was achieved with a system called Wikipedia:Footnote3..."? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the message "This template is deprecated." msg from {{[[Template:Ref|Ref]]}} and {{[[Template:Note|Note]]}} 

message: I would like to know if I could turn off superscripting the reference number and tag.  Superscripting messes with intra-line spacings and makes paragraphs look ugly.  If this option is not available, I would like to make a feature request.  Thanks. Chaipau 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superscripting

message: *Refs not restricted at end of sentences. You can force users to place the text after the period if you wish, but don't make the tool do it on its own.(discussed above)   
**Does this have anything to do with actual technical features? As far as I know, this is entirely an issue of style; cite.php will work just fine anywhere in the sentence. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solved 

message: * Separate footnotes from citations. In LaTeX/BibTeX this is done by differentiating between \footnote{This is a footnote.} and \cite{Smith2006} which is a citation that can be found in the citation list. 
** See my comments to the first point.  In many cases, the reason why footnotes are chosen over Harvard-style citation is precisely to allow the mixing of raw citation information with commentary. Kirill Lokshin 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected 

message: If anybody wants to add anything here, feel free to add to the list above. Developments or further comments on these can be posted below each respective comment.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a few comments inline. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...more below each... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and more! Kirill Lokshin 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds like an ideal system to me! InvictaHOG 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comments

message: The "consensus" here is apparently between four users only. Namely: User:FrancisTyers, User:Kirill Lokshin, User:InvictaHOG and me. If anyone disagrees, please comment. I suggest we leave this note here for a week, until 14/6/2006 15:00UTC.
==== Summary of proposals ====
(For details/explanation on each of the proposals, check the respective proposal numbers in the "Extensive discussion" section right below)
# Option to separate the bibliographic references from the editor's notes or other notes.
## By two different functions:  and e.g. <note> and by creating two sections in the bottom of the article (e.g. under ==Bibliography== to have  and under ==Notes== to have <notes/>).
## And/or by different numbering systems (eg Latin or Greek, or letters)
## And/or different formats (eg (1) rather than [1] or b[1] rather than n[1]).
## And/or, even better, the same ref function could be modified to include the option for multiple sections (and/or numbering systems). (e.g. <refX="noteref">note text could produce X[1] and the result under <referencesX/>, allowing multiple options for X).
#:
# Turn off tag superscripting at will (only on a global site-wide basis)
#:
# XML comments within refs
#:
# Notes/refs that have separate paragraphs without using , but by just pressing [enter]. Also, some formatting option to help keeping the text flow while in the edit window: The [enter]s right after the  tag and right before the  tag should not print. See #Example format below.
#:
# Use of refs within templates.
#:
# Be able to separate the bibliographic information from the article body by:
## Having a hidden section where all bibliographic notes can be placed together and 
## Canceling the truncation of the text contained in the second (or following) instance of the same ref name provided the first one(s) is(are) empty, which will also facilitate article re-organisation, paragraph moving etc.
==== Extensive discussion ====
(Numbers here match the points in summary above)
1. Two different functions: <ref> and e.g. <note> to separate the bibliographic references from the editor's notes by creating two sections in the bottom of the article (e.g. under ==Bibliography== to have  and under ==Notes== to have <notes/>).
**Depending on how this is implemented, it could cause problems for printing articles, which would remove the links and make it impossible to determine which section a footnote number was pointing to. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that will work because the full text ref has to come before the subsequent id ref. - FrancisTyers · 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it and it works fine :-). See here, before I reverted. Even if it didn't work we could ask that it should work (that's the point of this discussion). NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it and it didn't work :( Please see here and tell me what I am doing wrong. If this worked, I would be happy. - FrancisTyers · 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. :-( It says so too in the actual project page that all subsequent texts in the next instances are removed. We can ask for it not to be so, though. :-) Ok? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great :) - FrancisTyers · 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals to developers after consensus 

message: (Numbers here match the points in summary above)
1. Two different functions: <ref> and e.g. <note> to separate the bibliographic references from the editor's notes by creating two sections in the bottom of the article (e.g. under ==Bibliography== to have  and under ==Notes== to have <notes/>).
**Depending on how this is implemented, it could cause problems for printing articles, which would remove the links and make it impossible to determine which section a footnote number was pointing to. Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that will work because the full text ref has to come before the subsequent id ref. - FrancisTyers · 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it and it works fine :-). See here, before I reverted. Even if it didn't work we could ask that it should work (that's the point of this discussion). NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested it and it didn't work :( Please see here and tell me what I am doing wrong. If this worked, I would be happy. - FrancisTyers · 16:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. :-( It says so too in the actual project page that all subsequent texts in the next instances are removed. We can ask for it not to be so, though. :-) Ok? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great :) - FrancisTyers · 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive discussion 

message: As per past discussion, html tags can neaten (somewhat) the appearance in edit mode and also help identify the refs whatever method of citation is used (direct html links, Harvard, < ref>  < note> or cite.php):
In 1845 the Russian scholar Viktor I. Grigorovič travelled in the Balkans in order to study
the south Slavic dialects of Macedonia. His work announced to the world for the first time the existence of
two separate Bulgarian dialects: Eastern and Western. According to his findings, the
Western Bulgarian variety, spoken in Macedonia, was characterized by traces of Old Slavic nasal vowels.[http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/97macedTK.html Seriot, P. (1997) "Faut-il que les
langues aient un nom ? Le cas du macédonien", in Andrée Tabouret-Keller (éd.) Le nom des langues. L'enjeu de
la nomination des langues, Vol. 1, pp. 167-190 (Louvain : Peeters)] (in French)
It wasn't until the works of Krste Misirkov that parts of what had been regarded as West Bulgarian
dialects were defined as a separate 'Macedonian' language. Misirkov was born in a village near Pella
in Greek Macedonia.
or
In 1845 the Russian scholar Viktor I. Grigorovič travelled in the Balkans in order to study
the south Slavic dialects of Macedonia. His work announced to the world for the first time the existence of
two separate Bulgarian dialects: Eastern and Western. According to his findings, the
Western Bulgarian variety, spoken in Macedonia, was characterized by traces of Old Slavic nasal vowels.[http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/97macedTK.html Seriot, P. (1997) "Faut-il que les
langues aient un nom ? Le cas du macédonien", in Andrée Tabouret-Keller (éd.) Le nom des langues. L'enjeu de
la nomination des langues, Vol. 1, pp. 167-190 (Louvain : Peeters)] (in French)It wasn't until the works of Krste Misirkov that parts of what had been regarded as West Bulgarian
dialects were defined as a separate 'Macedonian' language. Misirkov was born in a village near Pella
in Greek Macedonia.
David Ruben  Talk  15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but it is only a microscopic improvement, the reference still completely blocks the flow of the text. :( - FrancisTyers · 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using indentation

message: ::Fran, would you settle for the following option (provided we can have [enter] rather than  as requested above and that [enter] right after the  and right before the  tags wouldn't print?):
In 1845 the Russian scholar Viktor I. Grigorovič travelled in the Balkans in order to study the
south Slavic dialects of Macedonia. His work announced to the world for the first time the existence of two separate
Bulgarian dialects: Eastern and Western. According to his findings, the Western Bulgarian
variety, spoken in Macedonia, was characterized by traces of Old Slavic nasal vowels.
[http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/97macedTK.html Seriot, P. (1997) "Faut-il que les langues aient
un nom ? Le cas du macédonien", in Andrée Tabouret-Keller (éd.) Le nom des langues. L'enjeu de la nomination des
langues, Vol. 1, pp. 167-190 (Louvain : Peeters)] (in French)
It wasn't until the works of Krste Misirkov that parts of what had been regarded as West Bulgarian dialects
were defined as a separate 'Macedonian' language. Misirkov was born in a village near Pella in [[Macedonia
(Greece)|Greek Macedonia]].
::Huh?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still trying to digest this?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be very confusing for a reference appearing at the end of a paragraph - there will need to be two blank lines (one in your proposal is ignored as part of </ref>, then other needed to indicate a new paragraph).David Ruben  Talk  16:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it (personal preference I agree) less clear  to quickly parse through the text and identify one paragraph from another, without slowing down to determine where the </ref> tag is (end of line means a new paragraph, at start of line means paragraph continues). But I suppose I could get use to it... :-(   Rather than having spare blank lines to distinguish references, it would be easier to have such markup shown in a different colour. I'll mention the obvious counter arguements: wiki-server load, wikimedia reprograming, issues of which colour for those with colour blindness or poorer visual acuity. David Ruben  Talk  17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! I really don't know if we can have different colors within the edit window anyway. So let's not push for things that may not be feasible. I think we are now complete, as to what we want. The Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Proposals to developers after consensus are ready. Care to give them a look? I'll post a poll below and hope you agree!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example format

message: Note that I proposed a specific code fix to address most of this, about a month ago.  If anyone wants to stir the pot and knows active MediaWiki developers, the fix is <http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5885>.  Moreover, if this fix is made active, it will give the technique discussed at User:CitationTool/Hybrid referencing more flexibility.  Basically, the idea there allows hiding the verbose references, and refering just to the name; but with the mentioned bugfix in place, we could move those hidden blocks to the "References" footer instead of sticking it at top. LotLE×talk 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Now all we need is a LOUD consensus that will help push implementation. I understand those guys who miraculously create all those funky tools for us, though. Sometimes it is harder to understand what users want than to actually do it. That's why all of these proposals were hanging around here and there for so long without anyone taking the responsibility to fix the darn bugs! I hope that after this poll everything will be crystal clear for the developers!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution just needs to be acted on 

message: Do you agree with all of the improvements suggested above in Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Proposals to developers after consensus for the <ref> function?
Sign below, indicating your preference. Poll closes in one week, at 14/06/06 15:00 UTC. All users are eligible to vote, apart from anons and users with less than 50 edits before June 6th 2006.
Please avoid comments along with your vote. Instead, place them below in the proper section.
:This poll is closed.
:Final result: Support: 32 [33], Oppose: 5 
:- FrancisTyers · 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #1 is a solution for a problem that does not exist.  I have never seen a scholarly publication that had multiple classes of endnotes.  Footnotes vs endnotes, yes, but since wikipedia pages are limited to a single height we will never really have footnotes anyway.  It will create reader problems, with people looking in the wrong section.  There will be standardization (I guess, I would call it internal consistency) issues with some articles using a single class of endnote and other articles using multiple classes.Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem exists in many articles. Most editors split the biblio-refs from the note-refs manually. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was orignally fine with #2 until I read Ruben's comments.  Unless someone goes through and converts every inline link to an endnote, the added confusion will not be worth the tidier page display.  When I read an article and see a note[1], I don't want to have to think about whether that is to endnote 1 or to an inline link that will take my browser to who knows where.  (In fact, I never use inline links and recently saw on WP:ANI where someone was altering links to take people to a spam/p0rn site that infected them with a virus.)  People like inline links, though, so in that case the endnotes need to be supered.Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about this. See my comment for User:Titoxd below. I hope it fixes it for you. I think this is a trivial issue anyway and wouldn't mind if it was dropped alltogether. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 6.1 is a good idea I think.  I don't understand 6.2.  The cite.php module should be able to pick up the appropriate ref info no matter where on the page the parent reference is.  If one group of editors wants to put all the parent refs in one place and hide them, and use the nametags in the article, that should work.  It would also have the benefit that an outside editor visiting the article could add a ref in the body of the article without breaking the ref system or getting them out of order (without the outside editor having to conform--the regular editors can move it later if they really want).Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.2: The function as it is now, looks ONLY in the first instance of the "ref name"X in the article body and prints ONLY this. If this is empty then it prints NOTHING, regardless if the ref text exists in a lollowing paragraph. We ask that if the ref-text is empty, it should look for the first one in the body text which is FULL, and print that instead. This will also help people move paragraphs around in articles, without moving the ref-text from the paragraph that used-to-be-first-but-now-is-second to the paragraph that used-to-be-second-but-now-is-first. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 4 is another solution without a problem.  In an encyclopedia (which generally is a much shallower coverage of a topic than a scholarly book, and properly so) if information is important enough too require a multi-paragraph endnote, it should probably make its way into the main article. Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Macedonia (terminology) ref#5 and advise how we could do it otherwise. My main point in these issues is: Let us not limit the system by software, because there are things we can't imagine being useful to particular instances. We can always have it done by a guideline. Also, see the #Example format which could help editors separate the footnote from the body text and make it easier to read while in the edit window.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I copied your sig to every paragraph above and inserted comments. Hope it's ok! :-)
(more comments moved here below from within poll)
Too much lumped together, some are better than others. Thatcher131 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Responses posted above. Keep in mind that all suggested improvements are not to be mandatorily used. If you disagree with anyone of them that doesn't help you personally, then just don't use it in the articles you edit.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to that too. ("Global basis"). I'll add it to the proposal. It will slightly modify the result of the previous 25 supporting votes, but since it can be done anyway globally, and since this is a trivial issue, I suppose it doesn't matter. Please don't disagree on this procedural detail, so as to save time and effort.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: #  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: (comments made by opposing users were moved right below in comments section)
#David Ruben  Talk  18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: * I think implementing Proposal 1.1 above ("Option to separate ... references from ... notes ... [using <ref> and <note> tags]") would be a significant improvement. I need to make some time to digest the other intriguing ideas. Regards, David Kernow 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #1 is a solution for a problem that does not exist.  I have never seen a scholarly publication that had multiple classes of endnotes.  Footnotes vs endnotes, yes, but since wikipedia pages are limited to a single height we will never really have footnotes anyway.  It will create reader problems, with people looking in the wrong section.  There will be standardization (I guess, I would call it internal consistency) issues with some articles using a single class of endnote and other articles using multiple classes.Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem exists in many articles. Most editors split the biblio-refs from the note-refs manually. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was orignally fine with #2 until I read Ruben's comments.  Unless someone goes through and converts every inline link to an endnote, the added confusion will not be worth the tidier page display.  When I read an article and see a note[1], I don't want to have to think about whether that is to endnote 1 or to an inline link that will take my browser to who knows where.  (In fact, I never use inline links and recently saw on WP:ANI where someone was altering links to take people to a spam/p0rn site that infected them with a virus.)  People like inline links, though, so in that case the endnotes need to be supered.Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about this. See my comment for User:Titoxd below. I hope it fixes it for you. I think this is a trivial issue anyway and wouldn't mind if it was dropped alltogether. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 6.1 is a good idea I think.  I don't understand 6.2.  The cite.php module should be able to pick up the appropriate ref info no matter where on the page the parent reference is.  If one group of editors wants to put all the parent refs in one place and hide them, and use the nametags in the article, that should work.  It would also have the benefit that an outside editor visiting the article could add a ref in the body of the article without breaking the ref system or getting them out of order (without the outside editor having to conform--the regular editors can move it later if they really want).Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.2: The function as it is now, looks ONLY in the first instance of the "ref name"X in the article body and prints ONLY this. If this is empty then it prints NOTHING, regardless if the ref text exists in a lollowing paragraph. We ask that if the ref-text is empty, it should look for the first one in the body text which is FULL, and print that instead. This will also help people move paragraphs around in articles, without moving the ref-text from the paragraph that used-to-be-first-but-now-is-second to the paragraph that used-to-be-second-but-now-is-first. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 4 is another solution without a problem.  In an encyclopedia (which generally is a much shallower coverage of a topic than a scholarly book, and properly so) if information is important enough too require a multi-paragraph endnote, it should probably make its way into the main article. Thatcher131 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Macedonia (terminology) ref#5 and advise how we could do it otherwise. My main point in these issues is: Let us not limit the system by software, because there are things we can't imagine being useful to particular instances. We can always have it done by a guideline. Also, see the #Example format which could help editors separate the footnote from the body text and make it easier to read while in the edit window.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I copied your sig to every paragraph above and inserted comments. Hope it's ok! :-)
(more comments moved here below from within poll)
Too much lumped together, some are better than others. Thatcher131 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Responses posted above. Keep in mind that all suggested improvements are not to be mandatorily used. If you disagree with anyone of them that doesn't help you personally, then just don't use it in the articles you edit.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to that too. ("Global basis"). I'll add it to the proposal. It will slightly modify the result of the previous 25 supporting votes, but since it can be done anyway globally, and since this is a trivial issue, I suppose it doesn't matter. Please don't disagree on this procedural detail, so as to save time and effort.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on vote

message: ...with the developer who wrote the damn Cite extension in the first place. Special:Version is your friend, and it tells you that that's Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Who happens to also be User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. robchurch | talk 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke to him about it around three weeks to a month ago. - FrancisTyers · 15:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get in touch... 

message: :I think these proposals need more discussion, before being presented to the developers as a "consensus".--Srleffler 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment was moved here from within the poll proposal! I suggest you discuss more then, and obstruct an ongoing vote less! To your point: Nobody alleged consensus (without quotes) before obtaining it. On the contrary, I put scary quotes in "consensus", wrote that it is only by four users who happened to be discussing (where were you?) and introduced a poll before I transferred the results to the developers without asking anybody (as I definitely could). Aslo, (duh) why would there be a poll if there was a consesus in the first place anyway? Now is there anything productive you want to discuss? Do you have any better thoughts? Any proposals?   NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  NikoSilver, I agree with Srleffler. In the Proposals to developers after consensus section above you are suggesting that 'we leave this note here for a week, until 14/6/2006'. Then you start the pool a few hours later - that's way too early.  --V111P 09:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, the way I see it, we wouldn't even have this discussion in the first place had I not started a poll. People respond to polls, but don't respond to talks. We had 4 users here, and now we have 40! Now this is a solid basis for a consensus (without scary quotes anymore). See the history of the talk. A week wouldn't have been enough anyway! We'd probably get a couple of more opinions. Let's please drop the technicalities and focus on the issue, now that it has become hot (because of the poll). The result so far proves that it wasn't so bad an idea. It also proves that the proposal didn't need as much more work as some imply here. In any case, you don't drop a note within a proposal which has been put to a vote, when there is a specific section called "#Comments on vote" for that purpose.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the poll was a good idea (a good way to attract more discussion), as long as nobody starts counting votes (counting votes is evil). --cesarb 02:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Davidruben, don't you understand that in some articles the some reference  are used in multiple places? --V111P 09:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Of course, hence the  tag. What I was trying to point out is that the current system ensures that the first full details ensures at least one link is provided in the article. Whereas allowing for hidden definitions in a separate section opens up the possibility of entries for which there are no links at all in the article. This might be because the full reference was added but no link in the first instance was inserted, or that a link is removed by a later edit. Note for the latter that currently the removal of a duplicating  is ok because somewhere in the article the full reference remains, but if such a tag now becomes used for the first link too (rather than just subsequent duplicates), then its removal leaves the article with an orphaned full reference. David Ruben  Talk  11:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As I said just 2 paragraphs above, we will force the hidden refs that don't correspond to a non-hidden ref within the body text to produce an error, so you will not be able to include un-linked refs.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * And what happens if somebody removes that first full ref tag with the details? With the current system if the "details" are included in every details then removing the first instance won't be a problem, but some of us think that the "details" should be included in only one place, and that one place should be in the references section. (There's no need to reply to this - it's just my opinion). --V111P 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a lighter note, can you imagine correcting/modifying/adding to a ref that appears e.g. 10 times in the body-text with the current system? (btw I have no problem the hidden section being between <references> and  and think that nobody here would be WP:DICK enough to argue about it)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For me, this is the most important part. It is (I think) the only current advantage of Footnotes3 wrt. Cite.php - FrancisTyers · 10:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forget what I said above. I think the "hidden section" should be between  and  --V111P 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I just meant that there should be a parameter, not different tags, which limits the number of the "groups" we can have. But if we want different numbering for every "group" then we probably need different tags. Do we really need different numbering? --V111P 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. You were speaking about group numbering in the above sense (example at m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#Allowing_sub-references) and I was talking about what you would call super-groups (or sections). i.e. you could have one ref section for all your books (with groups for each book showing pages etc) and one more for e.g editor's comments, or footnotes, or whatever. I liked also your note about the top of the screen (repeating book title in sub-refs). I like it even more now!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments here and there

message: Why is this called "ref" and "references" instead of "foot" or "note" and "footnotes"? It is used for and serves the purpose of general notes. —Centrx→talk 09:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's  callled "legacy code". It was like that in the original, and now it's beyond any reasonable limit to change it. Circeus 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They could however allow both "ref" and "references" and "note" and "footnotes" to work the same way. --V111P 00:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...whatever... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why called "references"? 

message: Is it possible to have both inline refs and footnotes in an article, without the footnotes being listed in the references section. The only idea I have is using a depreciated template for the footnotes, but the usage info seems to have been removed. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & Footnotes 

message: I've noticed this example page uses the heading "Notes" for the footnotes section. I think "Notes" is misleading. It confused me when I first got to Wiki, because I kept thinking it was stuff I was supposed to read.
The obvious heading for a bunch of footnotes is, like, Footnotes, isn't it? 
Therefore, I think this example page should have its example reference heading entitled "Footnotes", not "Notes", to encourage people to use that expression. Gatoclass 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree. —Centrx→talk • 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, if the article is printed, we get endnotes, not footnotes; whereas if the article is viewed on-screen, they can be regarded as footnotes.  The usage of "Notes", while not necessarily optimal, at least avoids having something utterly nonsensical in either case. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, using the less specific 'notes' is adaptive to the multiple output/viewing modes the articles are subject to. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the article is viewed on-screen, it is still "Endnotes", they are not at the bottom of a screenful and they are at the end of the article. However, this may be less commonly understandly terminology. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes or Footnotes?

message: Is there a way to define footnotes in their own section, then using the reference with just a short name, rather than defining them in the body of the article? —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See User:CitationTool/Hybrid referencing for a semi-solution.  For the complete solution, we need to convince the MediaWiki developers to implement a submitted patch in m:Cite.php.  Or you can use the older style  notes. LotLE×talk 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A way so footnotes do not clutter text? 

message: Would it help if I summarized the #Proposals to developers after consensus (particularly the Results)? I noticed that there were a couple comments to User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason afterwards, but I haven't seen any kind of final proposal. I can try and round up the most recent comments over the past week or two, as well. --J. J. 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, any help is good :) - FrancisTyers · 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey JJ, would you like to also include the bug links as they appear here please? :NikoSilver: 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do that. Working on it right now! Hopefully will have it done tonight, assuming I don't get lost trying to catch up with all the little issues and bugs mentioned. --J. J. 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a lot of work! I've worked through a lot of the discussion and am editing a summary on my local computer right now; I'll post the completed version when I'm done (posting the working draft somewhere would just confuse you, trust me). Sorry to those who are waiting, but "you can't rush quality" ;-) --J. J. 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your efforts are deeply appreciated. Take your time, we've already wasted a lot of it anyway, since nobody dared take the initiative.:NikoSilver: 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Seconded. David Kernow 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of poll needed