Wikipedia talk:Parenthetical referencing

message: "Again, notice that clicking on the inline citation highlights the full citation."
No it doesn't. There is no CSS styling to highlight the target as there is with the templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Coloring of the cited source missing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Related discussion now underway here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: and at Template talk:Citation#Coloring of the Cited source?. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  By hand 

message: Re this edit, my guess is that it has something to do with :Mediawiki:Common.css.
2002a>
Note the following two examples: Ritter 2002a and Ritter 2002b, rendering as: Ritter 2002a and Ritter 2002b.
*body of cite for Ritter2002a., rendering as
*body of cite for Ritter2002a.</nowiki>
and
*, rendering as
*
In :Template:Wikicite, I see 
In :MediaWiki:Common.css, I see:
/* Styling for citations */
span.citation, cite {
    font-style: normal;
    word-wrap: break-word;
}
and
/* Highlight clicked reference in blue to help navigation */
ol.references > li:target,
sup.reference:target,
span.citation:target { 
    background-color: #DEF;
}
I'm not a CSS jock, but this looks like it's involved. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#Coloring of the cited source missing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 06:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot about the discussion above. I re-noticed the issue while reviewing the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 06:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: By hand:  does not highlight the full citation 

message: Anyone else find it odd that this guideline and the article Parenthetical referencing both use numeric in-text referencing instead of the reference system they discuss? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page references 

message: Propose to move this page to Help:Parenthetical referencing and make it a how-to. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Help 

message: Any thoughts on this edit? The added "Bauchet" case study doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the page. Does the deleted "MediaWiki extension" section still belong here? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The example is puzzling and perhaps spam; it certainly does not illustrate parenthetical referencing. m:Extension:HarvardReferences is neat, but is not installed, thus not useful to our editors.  ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange example 

message: The  template is up for deletion: see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:Harvard citation. Please comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard references 

message: This is self contradictory: "the citation is placed after the period, like ." Either the written rule is wrong, or the example is, since it shows the cite before the dot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The dot was moved in this edit by  -- John of Reading (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradiction 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Deprecate_parenthetical_citations for a discussion on deprecating this style. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  VPR Discussion 

message: :::  said:  Any of the harv family of templates (seen at ) can be used within  tags. "Inline" means outside of  tags. The harv family of templates is not deprecated, only their use outside of  tags. Tables and lists in the article body are outside of  tags, therefore they are "inline". As the lead of Template:Harvard citation documentation says:  At the end of this sentence are some footnotes copied verbatim from Common factors theory that show several of the harv family of templates used within  tags.Some sources summarizing common factors theory include: ; ; ; ; this conclusion is also found in, for example, , , , ; ; Lisa Wallner Samstag has argued that Saul Rosenzweig's contribution to common factors theory has often been misunderstood ()The question of whether all psychotherapies are all roughly equally effective (known as the Dodo bird verdict) and the question of whether all effective psychotherapies share common factors (known as common factors theory) are two different questions: "Though many authors view outcome equivalence as the main reason to study common factors in psychotherapy, we cheerfully disagree. Regardless of outcome, it is noncontroversial to say that psychotherapies of many origins share several features of process and content, and it follows that better understanding the patterns of these commonalities may be an important part of better understanding the effects of psychotherapies. That is, irrespective of whether some psychotherapies are equivalent to others in symptomatic outcome, understanding what part of clients' improvement is due to factors that are shared by several approaches appears to us to be a conceptually and clinically important question." () Biogeographist (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be using the Common factors theory article, which was last modified before the "parenthetical citations" RfC, as an example here: more than half of that article are appendices, and the last section of these appendices apparently contains WP:OR, by grouping further reading in subsections apparently according to assessments of the listed works by Wikipedia editors (at least no reference for these categorisations is given). In sum, as is currently, a fairly indigestible article for a casual reader. On topic:The question of whether all psychotherapies are all roughly equally effective (known as the Dodo bird verdict) and the question of whether all effective psychotherapies share common factors (known as common factors theory) are two different questions: "Though many authors view outcome equivalence as the main reason to study common factors in psychotherapy, we cheerfully disagree. Regardless of outcome, it is noncontroversial to say that psychotherapies of many origins share several features of process and content, and it follows that better understanding the patterns of these commonalities may be an important part of better understanding the effects of psychotherapies. That is, irrespective of whether some psychotherapies are equivalent to others in symptomatic outcome, understanding what part of clients' improvement is due to factors that are shared by several approaches appears to us to be a conceptually and clinically important question." ()(6th footnote of the examples above) is not OK after the RfC, whether given in a list of numbered footnotes or in the body of the article. The same goes for "Lisa Wallner Samstag has argued that Saul Rosenzweig's contribution to common factors theory has often been misunderstood ()" in the 5th footnote above. Please appreciate that parenthetical referencing is deprecated. The entire guideline is deprecated: it should not be smuggled back in via references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, so you're saying that parenthetical referencing is out in footnotes as well? But this means that providing a citation inside a footnote would entail adding a subsidiary footnote. Do we really want to have footnotes to the footnotes? – Uanfala (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:    said:  This is totally incorrect, as it contradicts both the proposal and the close of the discussion. From the proposal:  From the close:  It is very clear that the harv family of templates is not deprecated, only their use outside of  tags. Biogeographist (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's a legitimate use for parenthetical referencing (and I understand it here that the acceptable context includes case where the ref tags are generated under the hood by templates like ), then we will need to keep at least some of the recently blanked sections of this page that explain how it is used. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   said:  Have you looked at Help:Shortened footnotes? There is already quite a detailed explanation there, and anything that is missing could be expanded there instead of here. See especially, for example, . Biogeographist (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "This is totally incorrect" – no, it isn't. As has been pointed out to me multiple times, the RfC closure contains: "WP:PAREN will have its current text replaced with an explanatory note and be marked historical." – "WP:PAREN" is shorthand for "Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing", and that means that that entire guideline is deprecated. Or, as I said it, "parenthetical referencing is deprecated". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is totally incorrect! The relevant section of WP:PAREN (a.k.a. WP:HARVARD and WP:ADR) that was replaced with an explanatory note was titled "Inline citation in the body of the article". It was about inline use of Harvard referencing, not about use of Harvard referencing within  tags. Your claim that Harvard referencing is being , implying that the harv family of templates may not be used in new articles within  tags, is false. Biogeographist (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dont' see why you two should disagree so much. For all I've seen so far, the RfC hasn't left any guidance on three classes of borderline cases we're discussing here. If the current wording endorses parenthetical references inside the text of explanatory footnotes, that's simply a fluke, a side-effect of having to mention ref tags to avoid the impression that short footnotes would be deprecated as well. Ideally, we should have another RfC (or a series of RfCs) to decide on the exact extent of permissible use of parentheticals (though I hope there may not be a need for that if everyone uses good sense and doesn't start converting away parenthetical citations in cases where they don't add clutter). – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the  family of templates within  tags (including within the  family of templates) is not a borderline case. There are multiple ways of creating shortened footnotes, as shown at . And  shows an example of more than one short citation within a footnote. These are accepted variations of shortened footnotes, and there is no need for a new RfC about them as far as I can see. Biogeographist (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Note that I wrote most of Common factors theory over five years ago when I knew much less than I know now about Wikipedia. I'm not sure that I even knew about  back then, which would explain why I didn't use  in the article. Biogeographist (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I will add that in the case of Common factors theory, having a footnote to a footnote, as in your edit, is acceptable but a little silly in my opinion, as the extra footnote adds an unnecessary click to get to the full citation. I would be inclined to reserve footnotes-to-footnotes referencing for articles that have a separate section of longer explanatory footnotes: i.e., separate sections for explanatory footnotes, shortened footnotes, and full citations. But even in those cases the need for footnotes-to-footnotes may be questionable, as the extra footnotes add an unnecessary extra click to reach full citations that is eliminated by using parenthetical references in the explanatory footnotes. There is a lot of room for editor discretion in this area. Biogeographist (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Inviting to continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Explanatory footnotes with references, after a similar issue was raised in the discussion preceding that subsection. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthetical referencing in explanatory footnotes

message: Greetings  and . You must be getting close to wp:3RR by now. Just sayin' --Northernhenge (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I disagree with Seraphimblade's unilaterally implemented replacement text. It was reverted (by me): normally we should now have a discussion (see WP:BRD), before reinstating anything that has no consensus. Seraphimblade chose to disregard normal processes, and the explicit advice by the closer of the RfC to avoid rash action and discuss first, and imposed rash action by multiple reverts, instead of diligent discussion. See also above, #'.. new articles should not be created with it', where other objections to Seraphimblade's replacement text are voiced (also: no consensus thus far). Summarizing my objections:
* There's no consensus whatsoever on the replacement text
* Diligent discussion about the content of what is the most suitable replacement text is needed
* The RfC closure does not say when a replacement text needs to be instated, but the closure report does say to do step by step after discussion and consensus of each step
* Full replacement is counterproductive as long as many articles need to be converted, often by editors who still first have to learn how the system works they're converting
--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a contradiction between 's actions and closing summary. However, I think your latest comment includes a good reason for why the previous text of this page should not be removed (that was missing from your first comment), so I would support the restoration of your version as a starting point for further discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re. "I don't see a contradiction between 's actions and closing summary" – that is true up to the point where they were reverted: if the wording of the replacement text is not accepted (as said, see also above #'.. new articles should not be created with it'), nor included in the closure report, nor a time schedule for implementing the replacement is mentioned in the closing report, then normal Wikipedia discussion should take over from the point where the first revert was done – not re-reverting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed my mind, and I now agree with  that the former content of this page does not need to remain. Looking at the former content again, I noticed that it contained a lot of extraneous information, such as the "history" section. Any editors who need to review any information in the prior how-to page can access it in the page history. But other editors will be protected from confusion, as  suggested, by omitting the former content. That is not to say that the current version is perfect, but any further information that is needed can be added as the need for it arises. Biogeographist (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement text