Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 6

message: The article currently says that successive ref tags should not have any space between them.  What about a non-breaking space (nbsp;)?  Would that be acceptable? Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer not to see any punctuation between ref tags, whether spaces (of any type) or commas as some editors have used. It would be nice if wikipedia highlighted whilst editing the whole of a footnote's ref structure in a different colour, to aid readbility of the article's prose whilst editing. But this is wandering off topic and would need meta-wiki upgrade :-) David Ruben  Talk  02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successive ref tags and spacing 

message: I have noticed that when academically-trained writers contribute to Wikipedia, they commonly use Ibid in the references. This isn't a problem if only one person writes the entire article, but when other people start contributing to it, they tend to add in new references without fixing the Ibids. Depending on how long this goes undetected, it can be very tricky to fix, if it gets fixed at all. Another problem with this is that lots of readers have no idea what "Ibid" means and are confused by it. Can we officially state that Ibid should not be used in Wikipedia footnotes? If a reference is repeated (with a diffferent page number for example), they should use the format "Smith, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems. Does that sound reasonable? Kaldari 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about "ibid", and this guide could mention the disadvantages of using "ibid". But to "officially" ban it would take a consensus, and I doubt that would happen given the number of articles that use it. Gimmetrow 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't be prescriptive, since there's no way it will ever reach consensus, but we should explain on the page the problems like this that are caused by traditional reference styles, and hopefully it will encourage editors not to use them.  Preventing others from contributing by obfuscating the reference system is a bad thing. — Omegatron 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a note in the Style section stating that it is preferable to avoid using Ibid and explaining the reasons why. Kaldari 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, we could do this now with a template.  See Template:ibid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Ibid 

message: On article Yeti we are trying to simplifying footnotes.  We've used the  as much as is possible at this point, but we still have many redundant citations.  Is there any quick and easy way to have two references point to the same footnote but somehow indicate different page numbers? ---J.S  (T/C) 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that would free up some space in the text is to add a separate "References" section with the full bibliographic information of your book references. Then cite the books just as, e.g. "Heuvelmans, 129" to avoid having to repeat the whole citation every time. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about footnotes 

message: Hi guys,
is there any recommendation as to whether a full stop should be used after the footnote text? The manual page itself is inconsistent in this respect. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 09:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is similar to captions. Notes of two or more sentences need full stops. Notes of one sentence possibly should too, but phrases or "short citations" may or may not end in full stops as the editors prefer. If consistency within an article is important, then if one note has a full stop, they all should. Gimmetrow 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My two cents worth: put a full stop wherever the normal rules of grammar would call for one.  Thus if the footnote takes the form of a sentence, end it with a full stop; if, on the other hand, it's only a phrase, then no. Jimp 09:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full stop at the end of footnotes? 

message: I have added some notes and references to Haakon the Red, but it is messed up, and I have no clue as to how to fix it. I would be grateful for any help and explanation as to what has gone wrong.--Berig 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See edit summary of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haakon_the_Red&diff=95702381&oldid=95693757 --Francis Schonken 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the Reference style (as in WP:CITE), there is something else that's wrong with it:[...] If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. (see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When you add content)--Francis Schonken 10:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I agree, but I have criticized before for providing the original text.--Berig 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, although I was right in saying that Wikipedia's Cite.php implementation doesn't parse "å" in a tag name, I was wrong in saying this was due to XML in general: see XML#International use. It rather seems to be a parser limitation, which probably should better be mentioned in Wikipedia:Footnotes#Disadvantages and future improvements. --Francis Schonken 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What have I done wrong?

message: I would also like to request your assistance if its not too much trouble? Please take a look at Shilpa_Shetty#Obscene_Pictures; why are the references for that section pointing to earlier references listed for other sections of the article? Quoting the same reference several times seems to work fine in the Romanov Vodka section, so why not elsewhere? I've tried verifying the syntax and it is correct, maybe it is an issue with the template itself? Thanks in advance. Ekantik talk 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The refs were showing as [13], so I looked at reference #13 earlier in the article. It was a named ref, but was missing the "=". Should be fixed now. Gimmetrow 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, much appreciated. Ekantik talk 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shilpa Shetty

message: There really does need to be a much simplier version of this info for newcomers like myself who simply want to see the most straightforward answer to "How do I insert references and footnotes into articles?" There's this note on the article about looking at the page's code to see an example, but with so many other facets of footnotes covered it's like finding a white cat in a snowstorm.
I would also recommend that the basic tool bar on edit pages have a button for it.   RoyBatty42 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There should definitely be one of the little buttons that inserts . Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplified Version

message: Can anyone explain what seems to be an error in the auto footnote numbering using  blah .    When I highlight the superscript 1 it says "Go to #_note-0 on this page" instead of note-1.  Any reason? --mervyn 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you are seeing exists to provide a html link between the ref mark and the footnote text. Since an editor should never need to use the html tag names directly, the links between ref marks and notes could have been rendered with almost any html text. In many programming languages, array indices begin numbering at zero, so this was probably just a convenient but arbitrary decision. Gimmetrow 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in footnote numbering

message: A footnote I have just added has inexplicably turned blue (in Firefox).  Could this be because it contains Chinese characters?  Please see footnote 13 in Gwoyeu Romatzyh‎. Ndsg | Talk 11:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's happening now any time you click on a footnote indicator in article text; in addition to being taken to the note in the "References" section, the relevant note is highlighted.  The highlighting goes away if you click on the little indicator on the side to return to your former location in the text.  I assumed it was just a new feature. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: After an initial moment of distaste, I now really like this feature. What I'd really like to see is a feature that colours the appropriate letter on a multiple reference string (I mean, like: abcdefghijklm Smith, Ch 7). I find that if I click the tag, I jump to the note but don't know which letter to click to take me back to where I was (so I tend to click the next note up, to hit the rough area). If the appropriate letter was coloured blue, why how useful that would be! qp10qp 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote turned blue 

message: What to do when a footnote is not a citation, but rather a point of clarification? It doesn't seem appropriate to put it in the "references" section. For an example, see the explanatory note regarding New Hampshire at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. -Pete 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section may be re-titled "Notes" or "Notes and references" rather than "References" to accommodate explanatory notes. Alternately, explanatory notes may be placed in their own section by using a different technology such as /. Gimmetrow 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of ref/note is particularly attractive because it doesn't require the content of lengthy explanatory or digressionary notes to be stuck inline with the rest of the text. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes that are not citations 

message: There are often times when I must take a reputable author's word that another author(ity) said such and such.  While I do try to track down the original source, it can be in some obscure academic journal, or out-of-print or expensive book.  For example, Richard Diehl, a well-known and reputable professor, states in his book The Olmecs that Marcus Winter makes a statement that I would like to include in an article on Olmec culture outside the Olmec heartland.  Diehl's footnote says that Winter's essay can be found in "CLARK, John E. (Editor) LOS OLMECAS EN MESOAMERICA", which is unavailable to me (I located it on sale for $250).  Should I just cite the Winter work directly, or should I cite Diehl, or should I cite Diehl citing Winter?  Help!  Madman 05:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Citing another author's citing. Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing another author's citing 

message: Is it possible to force a particular order on the footnotes when using this system or do I need to use the older Footnote3 system?  I'm writing an article on a series of comedy short subjects, each of which has an entry in the IMdB, and I want the reference list entries to appear in the order in which the individual shorts was released.  That's not what I'm getting.  I'd like to know if need to use the Footnote3 system or is there someway of getting the footnotes to appear in id order while using this system? Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to do what you suggest using cite.php. Personally, I would say your system would be very confusing. In every setting, footnotes appear in an order that corresponds with their order in the text; changing a standard that has existed in publishing for hundreds of years is going to be unclear. Chronological order would be a good way to structure a list, either in the article or in a list of sources, but does not make sense using footnotes. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Harvard referencing?  That's been used quite a while and having a system that allowed another method such as sorting by id instead of first appearance would enable it to be done more simply than the Footnote3 scheme. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean...the Harvard system doesn't use footnotes at all. It might make sense for what you want, since you could format the full citations at the end of the article in chronological rather than alphabetical order. To your last point, people are unlikely to code a system that puts footnotes in any other order than that of first appearance since that would be highly non-standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I beg to differ with you, Christopher Parham.  In fact, this is just what I'm looking for.  I've got this table in which there are numerous references to classes of Germanic strong verbs classes are numbered one to seven.  Would it not be clearest to have footnote one corespond to class one, two to two, three to three, etc.? Of course it would.  I would think that this overrides any question of what appears first in the table, especially considering that each one appears several times (I haven't counted but at a rough estimate it looks like a couple of dozen times each class). However, with no way of forcing the order this will not be possible.  I s'pose I'll be using Footnote3.  Jimp 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forcing the  footnote order 

message: The CMS says of footnotes, "The numbers should also be placed outside closing parentheses." What if one is citing a relatively complex setence? Should it be:
:This is a cited claim (some parenthetical with an independent citationy),x but this is some other cited claim.z
or
:This is a cited claim (some parenthetical with an independent citation), but this is some other cited claim.
or something else? --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second version is correct; citation coverage shouldn't be interleaved.  I would suggest, however, that any situation where this actually comes up should probably be looked at to see if a better sentence structure is possible.  (Alternately, it's generally reasonable—when not dealing with extremely controversial topics—to pool all the citations for an entire sentence into a single footnote.) Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing in the presence of parentheticals

message: Should multiple sources be listed as separate footnotes like this,ab or as one footnote like this.a and b What if one is reciting a source in conjunction with a new source?c --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All options are acceptable, it is up to your own preference. My personal recommendation would be to combine any references for a particular statement under one footnote, which is how printed matter seems typically to be formatted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I separate 2 full references, because it,s not possible to make them legible. However, I keep "Harvard"-style footnotes like "Andrew (2003), p23; Francis (1997), p96." combined. Circeus 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing multiple sources

message: The Comparison of revision control software page uses multiple  tags, with the intention being that all of the references up to that point would be inserted, and consumed.  As it is the earlier ref tags get repeated multiple times.  Is there a way to get the behavior they are after, or should the page be edited to only have a single References/Notes section at the end?  Speed8ump 17:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to get the desired behavior with the <ref> system. A single references section at the end would be fine, however you could also employ other systems, such as  (see Template talk:Ref for documentation), that make it possible to create different blocks of notes, e.g. underneath a table. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating multiple references sections

message: Michaelas10 referred me here, saying there's a consensus that ref tags should be placed after the point they're supporting, or after the sentence, without a space. I've looked through the archive, and I can't find any consensus for this. I found a brief discussion between three or so editors, one of whom said the Chicago Manual of Style supported no space, but it doesn't that I can find. All the books I have on my shelf that I've checked so far have a space before the footnote.
I would like to make it clear in the guideline that this is a style issue to be decided by the editors on the page. Does anyone have any objections to this? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Manual of Style states that all articles should have a constant presentation and formatting. In case were going to decide whether there needs to be a space or not, the output needs to apply to all articles without a decision of the editors. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS is just a guideline and not a widely followed one, and it anyway says nothing about spaces before refs tags. It's simply not the case that all articles should have a "constant presentation and formatting." On the contrary, wide latitude is allowed, particularly when it comes to how to present citations. WP:CITE is the main style guide for citations, not the MoS. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page, however, is among many article falling under the scoop of guidance on style which needs to provide defined standards for all articles. If you doubt the original purpose of the MoS, there's really no point in continuing this argument. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that there needs to be consistency within articles, but not across the encyclopedia. Also, publishers leave a space between the previous letter or punctuation mark and the footnote number, so why don't we? It look very odd to add a number so close to a letterabc as in this example. I don't want to stop anyone from doing that if they want to, but I'd like to make sure the guideline makes clear that it's not mandatory. As for Rudolf Vrba when it was given FA status, it was definitely written with the gap. Someone then changed some of the refs but not all, so the change was reverted to maintain consistency. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Gimmetrow, your screenshot of the detached ref is an unusual example. I use spaces before refs all the time and I don't think I ever have that happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This situation is a very common occurance. Would you like a screenshot from Rudolf Vrba? Also, when I look at this link (a diff so you can see it is the Vrba article at the moment the featured template was added), it looks to me like all the ref marks follow without space. Perhaps a couple aren't, but certainly the vast majority do not have the gap. Gimmetrow 21:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The screenshot is not a common occurrence, but certainly a very real possibility. This is the reason why WP:MOSNUM recommends non-breaking spaces between numbers and unit (something that is not practically an obligation for FAC).Circeus 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was settled that editors could choose either way, but at some point someone decided they shouldn't, which is why I'd like to revisit it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not the guideline that needs revisiting, it's someone's lack of common sense in applying it. As for your statement above that "publishers leave a space", I dispute that. During the last major discussion of this, circa August 2006, I checked a variety of academic publications, in French, Italian, and English, published in France, Italy, U.K., Ireland, Canada, and U.S. (that I recall), and basically with one exception, none had gaps before ref marks.  Gimmetrow 21:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not one book on my shelves shows no gap between the last letter or punctuation mark and the number. Also, your thing about it causing it to wrap to the next line is an irrelevance. It sometimes does, but only rarely, so that's not the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the artifact of wrapping to the next line is not a major issue, but it's not rare. Essentially any article with 100 footnotes (as is typical with FACs), with spaces before refs, will have this artifact. (Even Rudolf Vrba has it, and that only has about 30 footnotes with spaces; the rest do not have spaces - I'm surprised you've left this inconsistency for a week.) I surveyed books on my shelf from a variety of subject matter. Only one publication had a note with a space, and it also had notes without spaces, so it could have easily been a proofreading oversight. Gimmetrow 14:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment detached ref marks are really a very common occurence.  Look at any article with spaces before ref marks, such as Rudolf Vrba cited above; then start slowly resizing your browser by dragging at the right edge of the window.  At certain points, each reference mark will get detached and end up on the next line.  Of course, this can be avoided by the simple expedient of having   before the reference rather than a simple space, but we can't demand this of everyone; this will make things too complicated and further confuse people. 131.111.8.97 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetrow, please stop reverting. Your change is designed to force everyone to do what you want. My suggestion is that we give people a choice so long as they're consistent within articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  That's not true, and you know it. Look through the archives. I proposed what you appear to want, and it was rejected by multiple editors. Gimmetrow 02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked, but I can't see objections. Please stop trying to force people to do things only one way. What matters is consistency within articles, but not across the entire encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you implying I disagree with that? The past consensus of editors was to say no spaces, and I accepted that. This is however a guideline, and if you really want to do something else in an article, and can maintain consistency in that article, that seems fine. Gimmetrow 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was this editor who added it  apparently without discussion. There was no consensus, Gimmetrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was discussion prior to that change. Please do not change this again without discussion now. Gimmetrow 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the discussion? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the archives. You found the diff with the edit, the discussion was before that, so check the archive for August 2006. Gimmetrow 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  In relation to FAC, the FAC reviewers (for the most part) fix headers and such MoS issues themselves, so it's not a burden on those submitting articles to FAC. Gimmetrow 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been adapted because people think this page mandates it, but it was added without consensus. What benefit do you derive from continuing to revert an addition that is disputed, Gimmetrow, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an odd question. What do you benefit from removing it? If I dispute something in a guideline, would I be justified in simply removing it months after it has been there, without at least some discussion? Gimmetrow 02:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was added without agreement, yes, and I keep asking and asking you to link to the agreement, but you won't or can't; instead you just keep reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I told you exactly where to look for the discussion. Gimmetrow 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And where, in the discussions that you linked to, is there agreement to recommend no space? I can't see any. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This how it is done Wikipedia-wide about 99% of the time, and when it isn't done this way people usually change it so that it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then do spaces, as long as you can be consistent in the article! Again, I proposed language to the effect use a space or not, as long as it's consistent in the article. The response at the time was no space. Why don't you propose language that says "be consistent" and see how it goes? Gimmetrow 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying you proposed it and it was rejected, but you won't say where! Please link to where that happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look here, August 2006 archive. Gimmetrow 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added what you suggested. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested it months ago, and it was rejected. That doesn't give you much of a mandate to add it now. Gimmetrow 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have only one question: where else are spaces placed between punctuation and footnotes? Journals? Books? I've never seen it (maybe I don't read enough :) I "nuke" these spaces every time I see them, not out of habit, ease or regard for consensus, but because they genuinely annoy me. Why would we alter this now? Fvasconcellos 15:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  SV has said a few times that every book on SV's shelf has this the way SV writes. Could SV list the bibliographic information for three books that use a space before ref numbers, or any style guide that mandates it? Gimmetrow 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard-style inlines in medical journals have spaces, but they aren't super-scripted footnotes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. I don't think a list of books is necessary—that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? The point is, WP is (or aims to be) an encyclopedia. As such, we should have our own house style; I believe no-spaces-before-footnotes is sufficiently established to remain "in force". I am, of course, open to arguments to the contrary. Fvasconcellos 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's a stretch in this case.  The editor in question has been demanding citations from others, in boldface no less, so what's good for the goose...  But I don't see what good it would do, since the odds of any other editor having the same books around is low.  It's a moot issue anyway.  The consensus practice is already very well established, so there really isn't any question about it any longer.  That said, I'm with other editors here in that I read a lot, and I honestly can't recall ever seeing Blah blah blah note, as opposed to Blah blah blahnote.  The formatting difference obviates the need for the space.  The only rationale I can think of for putting a space there is, per Wikipedia:Accessibility], reliable evidence that currently-used screen readers are confused by this notation, which I very strongly doubt, and that there are unlikely to be plans to fix them to grok it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue at hand is between Blah blah blah, note as opposed to Blah blah blah.note Ironically, this all is remarkably parallel to the discussion about refs before punctuation, except SV was demanding books. I will attempt to track down any books SV can list; I'm wondering if this is topic or region specific? Gimmetrow 23:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces before refs 

message: Are you honestly saying that you think this looks good? — X said: "This is incredibly silly."abc  And this? — The media reported that the gang had been shoutingdef and laughingghi before the boy died. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  This how it is done Wikipedia-wide about 99% of the time, and when it isn't done this way people usually change it so that it is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then do spaces, as long as you can be consistent in the article! Again, I proposed language to the effect use a space or not, as long as it's consistent in the article. The response at the time was no space. Why don't you propose language that says "be consistent" and see how it goes? Gimmetrow 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying you proposed it and it was rejected, but you won't say where! Please link to where that happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look here, August 2006 archive. Gimmetrow 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added what you suggested. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested it months ago, and it was rejected. That doesn't give you much of a mandate to add it now. Gimmetrow 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have only one question: where else are spaces placed between punctuation and footnotes? Journals? Books? I've never seen it (maybe I don't read enough :) I "nuke" these spaces every time I see them, not out of habit, ease or regard for consensus, but because they genuinely annoy me. Why would we alter this now? Fvasconcellos 15:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  SV has said a few times that every book on SV's shelf has this the way SV writes. Could SV list the bibliographic information for three books that use a space before ref numbers, or any style guide that mandates it? Gimmetrow 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard-style inlines in medical journals have spaces, but they aren't super-scripted footnotes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. I don't think a list of books is necessary—that's kind of a stretch, isn't it? The point is, WP is (or aims to be) an encyclopedia. As such, we should have our own house style; I believe no-spaces-before-footnotes is sufficiently established to remain "in force". I am, of course, open to arguments to the contrary. Fvasconcellos 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's a stretch in this case.  The editor in question has been demanding citations from others, in boldface no less, so what's good for the goose...  But I don't see what good it would do, since the odds of any other editor having the same books around is low.  It's a moot issue anyway.  The consensus practice is already very well established, so there really isn't any question about it any longer.  That said, I'm with other editors here in that I read a lot, and I honestly can't recall ever seeing Blah blah blah note, as opposed to Blah blah blahnote.  The formatting difference obviates the need for the space.  The only rationale I can think of for putting a space there is, per Wikipedia:Accessibility], reliable evidence that currently-used screen readers are confused by this notation, which I very strongly doubt, and that there are unlikely to be plans to fix them to grok it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue at hand is between Blah blah blah, note as opposed to Blah blah blah.note Ironically, this all is remarkably parallel to the discussion about refs before punctuation, except SV was demanding books. I will attempt to track down any books SV can list; I'm wondering if this is topic or region specific? Gimmetrow 23:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessarily cramped

message: This form of citation is now over a year old, and the practice of adding HTML comment blather explaining it should be deprecated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rm. "Helping editors..." section. 

message: In the case of a single source being cited many, many times in one article Cite.php only allows for two results: Either a whole boatload of redundant lines under , or one huge citation line that has so many page numbers listed it is useless, and might even include almost every page in any entire book.  Template:Rp solves this (until Cite.php itself is made smarter, anyway), by enabling easy addition of Harvard-style page-number citations, such that the results look like: Alleged fact.[4]:18-9  The template discourages use where this is not necessary, of course.  If a reference is only cited 4 times in an article,  is not called for.  NB: The point of this is also that  is incredibly tedious and error-prone under these specific circumstances (though otherwise useful in other circumstances).  Try using  50 times in the same article to cite different pages in the same source and you'll see what I mean.  Even remembering what ID to use is pretty much impossible after a while, and soon becomes an out-of-order mess, because the ID numbers do not auto-reorganize if material is moved around, as it often is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: See Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 3#The page number problem for the "origin story". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New "add-on" template for citing page numbers

message: I would advocate simply copying that topic here in it entirety and making it a (perpetual and non-archived) talk page topic, then in its place on the project page putting a concise summary.  The way it is now it is turning into a random-chatter gripes and requests and comments list, and not at all read like part of a guideline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Some of the points (those relating to refs in templates, and piped links, and maybe nested refs) in the list should be noted, since people run into them routinely. Perhaps make a "known issues" section listing these specific bugs, and archive the rest as suggested? Gimmetrow 23:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup "Disadvantages and future improvements" section

message: * In the old Footnote3 system, links and auto-numbered footnotes pulled from the same counter, which made it difficult to keep the endnotes consistent.  With the new Cite.php module, a different issue presents itself: a casual reader might not notice or understand the difference between an external link and an auto-numbered footnote and may be confused, thinking that the numbers are not in order. For this reason, some editors argue that auto-numbered external links are better not used on the same page with auto-numbered footnotes, which can be avoided, e.g., by making text links for the external references, like this: Kate's Tool, instead of: Kate's Tool. Other editors argue that both citation styles can be used in the same article, and that the disadvantage of using text links like  Kate's Tool is that it does not clearly signal to the reader that they are being directed off Wikipedia.
* Superscripts cause an increase in line spacing for the line they are on in most browsers.  Because lines without superscripts are still displayed at the original line spacing, this makes the text unevenly spaced, and this looks bad. This is a general problem with superscripts.  It may require CSS changes or even improvements in web browsers or OS font rendering systems (this should be filed as a bug in Bugzilla if it has not already). A fix has been published that eliminates the problem without reducing the size of the superscript. It requires the user to add CSS to their style sheet (monobook.css), and thus works only while logged in. 
** The new style copies the bracketed numbers from the old style, though they are now in superscript.  Typical (print) references use plain superscripted numbers with no brackets.  If the purpose of the brackets is to increase the clickable area, they could be removed and the same thing done with CSS; increase the horizontal padding around the numbers and vertical arrows instead.  Discussion here: w:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Changes_to_Cite. and w:Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Superscripts_2.
* Some people like the idea of having sidenotes instead of or in addition to footnotes, especially if this is an option one can turn on and off in Mediawiki preferences.  (You can turn a table into a sidenote with style="float: right;".)
* Some people like the idea of "hover" or "tooltip" notes, that appear only when "hovering" over the superscript with the mouse point.  (See e.g. Template:Hnote.)
* Bug 2745: Have References text edit window on Edit pages.
* The reference content is in the article source code, but displayed in the References section.  Some have proposed moving the reference content into the References section to fix these problems:
** Content from one place rendering in a different place is confusing and unusual.
** Some references require a lot of markup (citation templates, for instance), which interrupts the article source code, making navigation of the article content more difficult.
** Editing the format of references requires finding them in the article instead of editing all of them at once in the References section.  This is inconvenient and confusing.
** Section editing is useless if you want to edit references.  You cannot just edit the References section because that is not where the references actually are.  You can not just edit the section that contains the reference since that is not where the rendered references are (so they will not show up in the preview). You have to edit and preview the entire article to see the changes.
** Since they are not centralized, it is hard to know if a reference exists already, leading to duplicates which then have to be merged manually.
**Perhaps a way of referring to undefined references by name is needed, allowing you to actually define the reference at the bottom next to the references section. This would be the simplest meeting of both worlds. 
* Only the first <ref> note with the same name attribute (e.g. <ref name="foo">) is used to determine the content of a footnote.  Edits to an article can inadvertently put differing content in multiple named references (hence hiding all non-first note contents).
*If there is more than one  section, each repeats all the <ref> tags used in the article. For example, in this situation:
**First group of ref tags
**References section (renders the above set of tags)
**Second group of ref tags
**Second references section (renders all ref tags from both sections)
*:This is problematic in these situations:
*:*transcluding pages that have references
*:*documenting the references system (note that this page can not actually demonstrate references in action, for this reason)
*:*very large pages that have several different topics on them
*:*One possible solution would be a <clearrefs/> tag, that clears the current collection of stored references. See bugzilla bug bugzilla:5810, and User:Stevage/bug5810 and User:Stevage/bug5810a for examples. Stevage 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages and future improvements

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates.  I've been meaning to do this for a while.  Of some marginal relevance here, as the results of Cite.php would need to remain consistent with the handling of the inline templates in the scope of the project. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Wikiproject Inline templates'' proposed

message: Should the references section be placed before or after the External links section? What is the official, most recommended advice?  There are several articles with References being the last section, and several articles where it is placed before the External links. ---Majestic- 10:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either is acceptable to the WP:MOS. In articles submitted to WP:FAC, it seems slightly more common to find External links last . Gimmetrow 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually place it before, following the order on WP:GTL, even though GTL states it is OK to change their sequence. Somehow this feels more logical :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. I've always assumed that references and notes may be in any order, but Links should always be last. See also is almost systematically placed before, as far as I remember. Circeus 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: With preference for Wikified content first, I put See also first, External links last, as in the recommendation.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before or after External links? 

message: "The new format cannot be mixed on a page with the old Footnotes3 format—you must pick one or the other." says the text.  Of course they can, e.g. ASCII. Jimp 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the references themselves, at least. For various reasons. That needs to be cleared out.Circeus 14:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot or should not? 

message: There is a discontinuity between different broswers when using the  syntax. For example, when using Firefox, it is seen as this but when using MSN (the one I mainly use to browse Wiki), it comes out as this. Is there anyway to fix this?--十八 05:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use MSN ;-) THe problem is that style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;" is a "bonus" that only benefits those with browsers (i.e. the Mozilla suite) that can see it. Other browsers see the vanilla version. It's a feature, not a bug Circeus 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's still not fair. :P I like how Wiki is rendered on MSN much better than on Firefox. Is there a way to add the feature to the MSN browser is what I'm asking then.--十八 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser problems 

message: The guideline doesn't say where to place ref tags when using a blockquote. The natural place would seem to be at the end of the sentence introducing the blockquote, so that is what I did here. The previous version has the ref tags after the blockquote, which produces an isolated note link. --Jtir 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should definitely not be placed after the blockquote, as that causes a floating ref mark. At the end of the sentence introducing the blockquote works fine. I've also seen them placed at the end of the quoted content inside the blockquote. This is parallel to citing a regular quote (without blockquote), but the ref mark is formatted in blockquote-style. Gimmetrow 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where to place ref tags when using a blockquote 

message: Footnotes were designed for paper.  For a wiki what works better is a popup with relevent information and clicking takes you directly to the source if it is online.  Instead what we have, is you have to click once to get information about the reference, and then another click to jump to the source.  I find it better when a reference is cited just using the external link syntax [], that way I can see what is being cited by hovering with the mouse and detail info is just a click away, rather then two clicks.  Just my opinion.  What's yours?  Daniel.Cardenas 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're not obsolete on Wikipedia.  We're using the technology which we have.  It is being worked on in several ways; I think that the m:WikiCite which is linked to in the project page is undergoing testing.  Also, the links are there for verification not for your convenience. (SEWilco 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do I find the project page?  Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up to the top of this page and find the tab which says "project page". (SEWilco 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many reasons to use footnotes: (1) Abundance of paper references being used on Wikipedia; (2) Inability of our basic embedded external link technology to record important information about online sources, such as author, date accessed, title, etc.; (3) wider support for footnotes than popups in browers that our users have access to; etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes are obsolete in the information age