Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 3

message: I'm sure this issue has been addressed, but is there a plan to resolve the numbering of external links and footnotes when they are both in the same article?  A consideration of converting the external links into footnotes isn't a practical solution, especially in articles with volatile subjects and frequent edits from different camps.  Andrew73 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convert to m:Cite. It's documented on one of the pages disambiguated by WP:FN. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering of external links and footnotes 

message: I believe that Wikipedia:Footnotes/Temp, which describes the new system built into MediaWiki, is now ready to become the main footnotes page. Any objections? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  07:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still added a "helping other editors" section, hope that's OK too. Also (provisionally) updated help:footnotes. As far as I can see Rspeer can proceed as proposed. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page is ready 

message: Some edits to this page were made in a temporary version by User:Hipocrite, User:Francis Schonken, and User:Rspeer. See the contribution history of the temp page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL note 

message: I've noticed that en:Wikipedia has implemented a style difference from the apparent default described in m:Cite/Cite.php: multiple links to the same note have backlinks that are lettered (e.g., a, b, c…) rather than sub-numbered (e.g, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3…). This makes more sense to me, in that the only place the sub-numbers show up is in the "references" text that already displays the main note number, making its repetition in the backlinks redundant. Also, the use of letters is less likely to confuse readers, as they are clearly distinct from the numbering.
I would like to implement this Wikipedia style tweak for en:Wikiquote, but I can't find the customization that makes this change. I didn't notice a relevant specification in either MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and the text at m:Cite/Cite.php makes me think it might be a developer setting (possibly cite_references_link_many_format_backlink_labels). Could someone clue me in on how to do this? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple-link style difference from Meta 

message: It has been my stylistic approach to separate references and footnotes into two sections. For examples, see Jello Biafra, Grunge music, or Fight Club. Under Footnote3, this worked perfectly fine. However, I'm not sure how it will work out under this new format. It may work out well if Footnote3 is still available to use separately, but I'm not entirely sure if that will work. -- LGagnon 23:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason you can't do this. It's just that doing it would sort of defeat the purpose, since the new system allows quick maintenance of footnotes and addition of new sources. But still, there's no reason you can't do it. Just do Foo, p. 79. instead of Foo, Bar (2000). Bleh, p. 79. FUBAR Publishers. ISBN 999888776.. Johnleemk | Talk 01:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean the page numbers, though that would be an issue too. I meant the separate "Notes" and "References" sections that appear in those articles. What would result is that they would be integrated, which in my opinion would be stylistically ugly. -- LGagnon 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the citation links are needed for both the Notes and Reference sections. Each note and reference refers to a specific passage or sentence, and both need that pointed out in some way. Thus, it would be useful if, like in Footnote3, Citephp included a second method of denoting footnotes so that footnotes could appear in separate sections instead of all in the same one. The main problem here is, as far as I can tell, a technical problem that the programmers didn't consider when they created Citephp. And don't get me wrong; I appreciate their work. I'm just concerned as to how the new restrictions inherant in Citephp will effect the structure of articles. -- LGagnon 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? I don't quite get it. User:Johnleemk/mockup shows the implementation of my proposal at the top, and shows the old way of doing footnotes at the bottom. (At least, that was how I did things with .) Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do with separate footnotes and references

message: Once i figgered out how to use the new system it seems quite easy to use, however I found working out how to use it (from this page) difficult. I don't deny that all the needed info is here but it is a bit confusing, especialy on the issule of multiple footnotes; for example, it needs to be clearer that it doesn't matter what text you put in the second, third etc.. ref's. 
Q: On that issule, why does the software require that any text is used in second third etc.. ref's I found myself just addeding an arbitary "p" as it seemed a waste of space writing out the actual ref again. 
Anyway, cheers for making a neew system, all in all I think it will work better then the varrious old ones.--JK the unwise 12:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finnished February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, MAN that took some time, please no one tell me they have a bot that could have done it in 5 seconds!--JK the unwise 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ease of use 

message: I've seen several pages with a smaller font size used for the footnotes, and personally I like the look of it.  I don't know if it has been mentioned in any of the style pages, but it seems like it should be addresssed?  I've seen both   or  followed by . Шизомби 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote size for when there are many 

message: I notice that editors are starting to switch to the  footnote system, and while it makes pages look neater once saved, it makes them very hard to check for flow of writing. If you compare this page, for example, without the footnotes and here with the footnotes, you can see how much harder it is to copy edit once the citations are inserted.
Can anything be done to make the citation stand out from the body of the text; for example, can the words inside  be rendered in a different font, different size, or different color? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding of HTML and CSS, the answer to your second question is no. I suppose the various citation templates could be used instead. Another solution was used for Windows 2000, but I found it a bit unwieldy (although others may disagree). All in all, I still find this new footnoting system better than the old one. The old one when it comes to URL sources relied on the URL remaining up and not changing substantially. The new one allows us to add the information of when the page was viewed so that fact-checkers can at least try to verify matters. Johnleemk | Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's an improvement on the old system, which in part is the problem, because it's likely to be more popular for that reason, so it'd be good to find a way to make it interfere less with the text flow. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows 2000 puts each footnote on a new line, which due to the way HTML and wikimarkup work, will only put a space between the end of a sentence/paragraph and the footnote. Therefore, it usually (but not always) looks sort of tidy during editing, but readers can't tell the difference. Johnleemk | Talk 18:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we talking about the same thing here? The question, based on the links above, is what <ref> tags look like during edit, not as rendered on the displayed article. Why would Windows 2000 act differently for a ref tag in the edit window textarea, when it's not an actual tag at that point? Why wouldn't it be the case in WinXP (where I've not seen what Johnleemk seems to be describing)? Why wouldn't it be affected by different browsers and versions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...I'm talking about the article Windows 2000, not the operating system. Look at the wikimarkup for the article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, don't I feel stupid, doubly so because what you were describing was a variation of what I took some trouble to explain that I'd also done (see below). I don't know why I so thoroughly misunderstood your statement, Johnleemk, given my own attempts to do essentially the same thing. My sincere apologies! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All the text within the edit box appears within textarea tags on the HTML for the entire page in the browser window. However, the ref tags in the edit window don't appear as tags in the page, which means it is not possible to distinguish between the reference text and the rest of the text. Alan Pascoe 20:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alan, sorry if I'm being dense, but are you saying it's impossible to make the refs look different when editing? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say impossible—I'm not an expert—but the straightforward way of using CSS to change the appearance of the text within the <ref> tags doesn't appear to be available, because the tags don't appear in the markup for the whole page. You can see this by selecting 'View, Source' or similar from your browser menu bar. Alan Pascoe 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of writing and footnotes

message: No response at Citing Sources, so I'll try here:
What is the proper way to note the reprint of an article in a book?
:Article full citation
:Book full citation (reprinting Author (year))
:or
:Article full citation (reprinted in Book full citation)
:or
:Book full citation (reprinting Article full citation)
? Thanks. Esquizombi 09:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus on how to cite. Just as long as it's readable and contains all the pertinent information, I suppose whatever method you prefer would be best. Johnleemk | Talk 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noting reprints in footnotes?

message: Is there any way to get rid of the brackets around the superscript number? I think it looks much better without the brackets (see Saddam Hussein's article for an example), but I still want to use <ref>, not . Any ideas? AucamanTalk 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I will help you argue against them with the developer.  :-)  I heard they were only there to make the clickable area bigger, but this could be done with css padding instead.  I would much prefer solitary numbers. — Omegatron 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not sure what the alternative would look like, but I'm sure both versions would have their advantages and disadvantages. But it would be nice to give users options. I don't think it's a big deal. AucamanTalk 08:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally prefer the brackets, as it clearly shows that it's separate from the text. For an ongoing discussion on this topic, see Template talk:Citation needed, where people are constantly battling over this. Sections 1-4 and 6 have particularly in-depth discussions on the matter. Blackcap (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superscripts

message: Hi there, I've made a minor edit to the concealed message written for the benefit of unfamiliar editors, many of who will be people new to Wikipedia. Many of them will likely not understand Wiki markup sufficiently well, and be confused with Wikipedia:Footnotes in the edit interface. As the message is concealed, there will be no clickable link, and if they do not understand markup they may not be able to get here. Most people who use the net with any frequency however know what a URL is. Hope the minor change is satisfactory. I have also changed the template accordingly. regards —Encephalon 01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping unfamiliar editors 

message: It doesn't seem to be supported. Take a look here. How does one get around this? Any ideas? AucamanTalk 12:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a known problem, but it's not the fault of m:Cite. It's a problem with the MediaWiki software in general. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In case anyone's wondering, I have no idea how to work around this problem. You could probably resort to the old  system for now. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be related to bug 4723. See also an example of this bug. --Michiel Sikma 10:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes in image captions???

message: We really need a good references system, and I'm glad this was finally written.  It's got a lot of shortcomings, though.  I've proposed a new syntax that puts the context of the references in the references section instead of cluttering up the article text, and some other changes, like subreferences for each referenced fact.  I've written it up (with an example) here: m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#A_different_idea.  Please comment. — Omegatron 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better idea 

message: I've noticed that references with more than one reference point have arrows that aren't bolded. This makes them look out of place with the rest of the arrows. On my browser, it shows up pretty different (see link for example). Maybe this could be fixed by putting the arrow with more than one reference point in  tags? --Michiel Sikma 10:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolded arrows 

message: Overall I like the functionality the  <reference> tags provide, how easy they are to insert, and how they look once rendered.  I have a problem with how they affect the rest of the editing process, however.  By placing the reference itself in the text, the flow of the text is disrupted, both lexically and semantically.  This makes the text harder to read and edit.  Most Wiki tags and templates are pithy and unobstructive enough that the user can easily read and edit the text.  Clumps of these <ref> tags interfere with that.
I think a better solution would be to have a ref tag like this:  paired with a  reference tag like this:
== References ==
<reference name="Wilson">"My Reckless Youth," Wilson, Woodrow, Life/Times Books, New York, 2003.</reference>
This requires more keystrokes, but it leaves the text in a shape that is cleaner, more flowing and easier to read and to edit.
:Above added by User:Tomcool  16:52, 27 March 2006 at top of discussion
*The above is I think wrongly marked up for the idea being suggested? As it is, it is just a rewording of the previous  with full details given in the references section by  details. The problem with this system is the need for manual ordering of the reference section & problems of duplicate citations.
*What I think was meant by Tomcool was using in the main article just the placeholder  and then providing altogether in the reference section all the full citation details with <ref name="xxx"> details  and still using a single  to list all the references in order.
**However this has been suggested already (this thread added to top of talk-page), and basically amounts to cite.phd taking the full details from the last, rather than the first, occasion of a <ref> tag. 
*It helps to both sign ones talk-page entries and place new threads at the bottom of a talk-page rather than at the top ! I move this to the bottom of the discussion to maintain chronology next...  David Ruben  Talk  19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags too verbose 

message: In practice, it seems that reference sections generated with this system are generally in a reduced font size, with something like this:



It seems that this should be mentioned somewhere on this page. However (as can be seen in the last few main page featured articles that use this system, say), there seems to be no standard to the font size that people are using. Actually, looking through some of them, people seem to be using percentages, and I've seen everything from 85%, 90%, and 92%. Has anyone suggested a standard to this? If not, is anyone intending to do so? –Unint 02:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there's no standard because people tend to reduce the size based on how lengthy the references are? If the references stretch for pages and pages, then they'd probably use 85%, but if they're just a half a page long, 90% might do. Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've seen as low as 75%, but IMO 85% is the best option if we're going to standardize it. 90-92% really isn't all that different from just leaving it at normal size. If we want a guideline, it should say something like the font in large notes sections is typically reduced to 85-90% of normal. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't arbitrarily change font sizes, please. — Omegatron 18:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean we should be trying to eliminate font size reduction in references sections altogether? Or that I should just go and change it to a percentage in the article that I took that example from? –Unint 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Omegatron, please explain what you're saying.  What is "arbitrary" in your opinion?  To me, reducing large notes sections to a smaller yet readable font is a great idea—it's not like we're varying font size within the prose itself; rather, we're taking an appendix type section and shrinking it so that it's easier for the reader to get to the external links. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should not be setting non-standard font sizes in articles at all.  They should be changed in the site-wide style sheet, if at all.  Talk about it on MediaWiki talk:Common.css; don't make it inconsistent between articles.  — Omegatron 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, decreasing the font size is now standard practice in FAs.  I agree that we need consistency, but that's what we're working toward here.  If it's possible to implement such a thing through the .css, great, let's look into that too. But if that doesn't work, it's going to be a tough battle to get people to change all font sizes back to normal. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size 

message: This is a great replacement for  that appears to have never been publicised. Should the wikipedia:footnote3 page be updated to include this, even if all these templates are deprecated? (After all, a number of articles -- including Albert Einstein -- use .) For one thing, it avoids that nasty problem with screwing up the preview function. (Maybe we could incorporate this functionality into ...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that if I add a reference to the top of the page, I have to change the numbering for all the citations manually. What nasty problem with preview are you talking about? —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you preview an article using  and click a footnote, it takes you to the main article, destroying all your work (unless you use a superior web browser, AKA anything other than MSIE). Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you; perhaps doing it on a case-by-case basis on more popular articles would be a good start, and once it's largely out of use, deprecate it. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|rf}} 

message: This is a smart approach, Francis. —Encephalon 12:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job 

message: For example, see quasi-finite field. Check the history too, we tried a few different options. I would like to have just one entry in the "references" section, and give different page numbers in the text itself. It seems a bit clunky to do this with a separate "notes" and "references" section. Is there an option with <ref>/ to do this? Dmharvey 21:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be kind of nice, but no, I don't think there's any way to do that.  For the articles like that that I have written (like gas metal arc welding, for example), I have both sections (references and notes) --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple references to the same source, but with different page numbers 

message: Template:FootnotesSmall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Francis Schonken 12:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:FootnotesSmall 

message: There are many times when Harvard references are preferable to m:Cite.php for a given article.  Fortunately, Wikipedia:Footnotes continues to reflect this fact.  Specifically, in scientifically oriented articles, an alphabetical list of bibliographic references that may be multiply referred to by name is vastly better than an order-of-first-occurence list of references by number only.  This was an issue recently on Retreat of glaciers since 1850, when it was on the front page, and overzealous WP:BOLD deleted the consensus opinion of editors. (see also its talk page for some discussion of this).
In general, m:Cite.php is very well suited to footnotes: i.e. annotation of the main article flow that elaborate on some specific point in the article but would disrupt flow.  It is far less well suited to citations which are bibliographic in nature (where it is still relevant to support specific assertions by reference to specific external sources).
The current limitation in the MediaWiki software and m:Cite.php is addressable in prinicple.  But it doesn't do what is needed as currently implemented.  The system does allow named references as well as inline ones.  The problem is just that it forces in-line description on first occurrence, which is too narrow.  I think something that would solve the issues would be allowing an "invisible" section to layout the references as actually desired (alphabetical, etc).  For example, if I could do this, I'd probably use it more widely:
 <hidden>
 Alpha, Bob.  Cool article on topic
 Beta, Sally. Sally weighs in.  Note that Dr. Beta revises 
 this analysis in Later work
 Gamma, Yuri. Yet another one
 </hidden>
 == Main article ==
 
 A number of experts contend Foo..  However, 
 other experts believe Bar might hold.  The intermediate, Baz
 position is sometimes held by both sides.
This would let us put all the references together in a block, including annotation to the citations themselves.  But it would also allow easy reference by name, and in orders other than the prose sequence (and also repeated references to the same source).  This particular solution would still require listing references at top rather than at bottom, which might be a disadvantage; probably more important is that it would still use numbered references rather than named ones.
Another improvement that would address this might be to provide an option to the  tag.  E.g.:
 == References ==
 
In my imagination of this, this would cause all the note links to use the reference names rather than sequential numbers; as is fitting to certain article topics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case this might be an easier path to implementation, perhaps we can consider sorting by the "name" value. Since many name attributes would probably already use author last names as Harvard-style abbreviations of citations, and since one or two characters can be prefixed to the name value to force whatever order is desired, this might be easier to accomplish than sophisticated style-based methods. (Or not; I haven't thought it through. I just offer it as a possibility.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When using Footnotes3 I always try to use authordate in the reference names. Excepting webpages etc. - FrancisTyers 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Harvard is (much) better than m:Cite.php 

message: It seems that no one is fully happy with the current reference systems (templates, cite.php, etc.)  I've proposed a new version of cite.php and other people have proposed other versions.  My proposal would solve many of these, but let's take a step back and think about exactly what we want it to do first.  :-)  Add/change whatever you think would be ideal. — Omegatron 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a point about separate note/reference sections; and using "Ibid." isn't really necessary, and would probably complicate the implementation.  Aside from that, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Link to this in case it's pertinent here. Regards, David Kernow 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ideal reference/footnote system wishlist 

message: User:Cyde has proposed at WikiProject Fact and Reference Check a new project aimed at dealing with the ref/note → cite.php conversion activity.  I generally support the use of the cite.php system but ... there are enough arguments here that bring up cases where the negatives outweigh the positives that there should be some guidelines for when one system should be preferred over another.
Most of the arguments against the current implementation of cite.php revolve around two issues
* breaking page flow
* use of first instance numbering scheme
I think this group discussion here could come up with a couple of guidelines so that such an emergent WikiProject would help without contributing to controversy (a couple of other WikiProjects I've been involved with had actors that contributed to turmoil and divisiveness rather than quelling it ... I don't want to see that happen again if it can be avoided).
For instance, if an article is today primarly of ref/note or cite.php format, stick with how it presently stands until a better cite.php function can be created.  I don't think this is unreasonable consider the vast number of articles that don't use either format right now.
Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping articles with how they are for now sounds excellent. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that...I see no reason to start going around and altering thousands of articles just to get them all to follow this new style...especially since I for one am not convinced that it is that much of an improvement.--MONGO 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new WikiProject 

message: JA: That's not how the Automobile got invented.  The way I see it, a lot of time and ingenuity is being wasted on a system of citation that experienced scholars just plain don't use anymore, and never will again, for all sorts of reasons that would be immediately obvious here if WikiPedians had a longer history of actually sourcing their contributions in any routine and systematic way.  Here are some of things that normally become obvious when you do this all the time.
# Once you get more than a dozen or so items in your list of references and/or bibliography, then it's time to use an alphabetized list for both.
# The list of references needs to be in one place, not scattered throughout the text.  This allows for (1) easy error correction and omission checking, by virtue of the parallel comparison of literature entries that it facilitates, (2) extracting the references whole hog from an article, as scholars already familiar with a topic often find that the literature section is the only thing of real interest, for instance, if it cites sources that they haven't seen before.  Further, this practice helps to prevent the erosion of accurate citations that inevitably occurs as editors will tend to use more and more abbreviated reference entries as time goes on.
JA: I'll add some more items as they occur to me.  Jon Awbrey 12:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting roller skates on the horse

message: Earlier in this discussion, Francis Schonken provided an excellent example of where it is desirable to combine footnotes with citations: /Mixed citations and footnotes.  The article on my classmate Jello Biafra is also a good example of more-or-less this usage "in the wild" (also mentioned somewhere above).
Often in those cases, it is desirable to allow citations to follow Harvard style (name of source in body, alphabetical listing at end), but still enable annotational footnotes.  The more I have followed the discussion here and on some related talk pages, the less I think <ref> by itself will allow us to do what is necessary.  
Basically, the m:Cite.php system is pretty good for footnotes, but it is more-or-less worthless for citations.  There are some other problems with m:Cite.php too: chiefly the fact that you can easily and innocently change first occurrence of a particular named reference, hence messing up the article.  Trying to shoe-horn citations into the system, which is really not suited to them, seems like the worst issue though.
I think what I will do is create a semi-bot to fix some of the problems with m:Cite.php referenced pages.  Doing this is a bit more complicated than Cyde's refconverter, but should still be possible with a couple hours of programming.  Here are the capabilities I'd like to implement:
# When multiple occurrences of the same m:Cite.php named reference exist, move the one with descriptive content to the earliest position.
#* If multiple occurrences have contents, provide a manual choice of which one is "authentic"
# In a user-guided manner, convert m:Cite.php references that look like citations to either Harvard or Label reference templates.
#* What's the criterion for "looks like"? Maybe start with ones that are entirely {cite XXX} templates.
#* Any better idea of what a citation is (as opposed to a footnote), from a robot perspective?
# Create separate "Footnotes" and "References" sections for the two types of notes.
# Put the whole thing on a web interface that lets users make the necessary decisions with checkboxes and the like.
#* The final result should be text that a user may manually copy into an article.  I definitely don't want to have some errant bot make bad decisions without human guidance.
I looked over the PyWikipedia library, which looks easy to use.  So I guess I'll get started.  The page User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation_tool will have project information.  Of course, I'll release any code I write to the public domain, and all that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clever idea, but it must be pointed out that anyone eventually wishing to use such a tool would need to keep this firmly in mind. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a note to the page to indicate very explicitly that it should only be used when doing so meets the consensus of article editors.  It's exactly the problems caused by blithe application of refconverter that made me realize that a "Harvardification" tool would be helpful... but most certainly I don't want the obvious symmetrical issue of uninvolved editors imposing their generic preferences for Harvard referencing; those decisions are for the editors actively involved in a given article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good...I support this. Not being the best with the programming end of things nor the implementation of the use of this one article with about a have dozen or so Harvard style footnotes converted as an example would be most helpful.--MONGO 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper mixture of note types 

message: I still need to play with the tool to get it to automatically do more of what I want.  But I think I've moved it along far enough to be of some genuine use though.  Take a look at User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/citation tool, and particularly at the examples linked on the project page.  So far it only identifies some genuine and non-obvious problems that exist in m:Cite.php referenced pages, including two that I found "in the wild" (I copied the problem pages to the project area in case someone fixes the issues I identify)... the next thing, certainly, is to generate the a recommended replacement wikitext when problems are flagged. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reached "useful" 

message: just wondering, is there a template setup for use with the new system? i've searched about but couldn't see anything, but what i'm meaning is something like this;
According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.
The Moon, however, is not so big.
==Notes==
with any extra paramaters being passed through using |'s. --MilkMiruku 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a setup is well outside the reach of usefulness for wikipedia. However, there is a template that can be subst'ed for the bottom references:  Circeus 01:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i would argue that it would be easier for newbies and others to use familiar template code to cite references, rather than having to use an html style code syntax.  contains  so that's kind of what i'm talking about, but why subst it plus some hidden text describing how to use it in rather than just using  on an article? --MilkMiruku 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new style footnotes template? 

message: I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde to try to resolve some ongoing problems with conversions of articles in other reference formats to m:Cite.php, where contrary to consensus.  I welcome your input. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments 

message: Mongo, thanks for adding that alert at the start of this article that use of the Cite.php method is not mandatory and that we are free to use other methods. - mbeychok 01:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks, Mongo, for adding the non-mandatory note

message: Below is a proposed "How to use" section that I believe is a better explanation for people not knowledgeable in  computerese jargon (like myself, for example).  Any comments? And before anyone raises objections to my use of bolded text in places, I firmly believe it enhances the explanation very much. - mbeychok 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed "How to use Cite.php" section for beginners

message: ====Multiple insertion of the same reference====
On the Edit page, this is placed at the first insertion point of citation:
:Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984.
This is placed at the second insertion point of citation:
:
This is placed at the third insertion point of citation:
: ..... and so forth for further insertion points
====Single insertion of a reference====
For the single insertion of a reference, the "name" parameter is not needed. On the Edit page, this is placed at the insertion point of citation:
:Excel For Dummies, First Edition, Hungry Minds, Inc., 1980.
====What is produced at the points of insertion====
These are what is produced and note that the reference numbers in blue are automatically generated. Clicking on any one of the reference numbers causes the screen display to scroll down to that reference number in the Reference List section:
:First Perry's  Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984. text word referenced to Perry's Handbook
:Second  text word referenced to Perry's Handbook
:Third  text word referenced to Perry's Handbook
:The only Excel For Dummies, First Edition, Hungry Minds, Inc., 1980. text word referenced to the Excel book.
====Producing the reference or footnote list====
On the Edit page, this is placed in the References or the Footnotes section:
::
This is what it produces and note that the list numbers are automatically generated:
====Notes on the Cite.php method====
* Clicking on any of the reference markers like [1] inserted in the text of an article causes the screen display to scroll down the point where that reference is located in the Reference List.
* Clicking on the blue superscript a on a reference in the Reference List causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the first  reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted. Clicking on the blue superscript b causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the the second reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted. Clicking on the blue superscript c causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the the third reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted ... and so forth.
* Clicking on any caret (^) on a reference in the Reference List that has no associated superscripts causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where that single-use references was inserted.
|}
- mbeychok 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a good idea to have such less complicated "manual" on help:Footnotes, and link that page more clearly from this more detailed guideline page. --Francis Schonken 09:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, how about an additional section both here on Wikipedia:Footnotes and on Help:Footnotes entitled "How to use footnotes for Beginners" or "Footnotes for Dummies" or "Footnotes for Newbies" or ??? - mbeychok 02:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Reference Lists using Cite.php

message: * Clicking on any of the reference markers like [1] inserted in the text of an article causes the screen display to scroll down the point where that reference is located in the Reference List.
* Clicking on the blue superscript a on a reference in the Reference List causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the first  reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted. Clicking on the blue superscript b causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the the second reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted. Clicking on the blue superscript c causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where the the third reference to Perry's Handbook was inserted ... and so forth.
* Clicking on any caret (^) on a reference in the Reference List that has no associated superscripts causes the screen display to scroll back up to the point where that single-use references was inserted.
|}
- mbeychok 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a good idea to have such less complicated "manual" on help:Footnotes, and link that page more clearly from this more detailed guideline page. --Francis Schonken 09:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, how about an additional section both here on Wikipedia:Footnotes and on Help:Footnotes entitled "How to use footnotes for Beginners" or "Footnotes for Dummies" or "Footnotes for Newbies" or ??? - mbeychok 02:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on the Cite.php method

message: The tool (semi-bot) that I have been working on, Citation Tool has reached a usable and useful state, I believe.  The purpose of this tool is several fold, but the main (and implemented) goal is the detection and guided correction of errors in m:Cite.php markup.
As of this exact moment, the tool does the correct diagnosis of two types of errors.  By later today, it should also be able to propose specific modified text that corrects the errors (sometimes requiring operator decisions).  The web page for the tool also links back to the edit page for a given corrected article.  Notice that any modification made based on the advice of Citation Tool is made under the user's own WP username.  The two types of problems currently identified are:
# Multiple <ref name=...> tags with the same name but different contents (hence hiding all but the first in the rendered page).
# Empty <ref name=...> tags that occur before ones with content.  Same basic problem, but this is especially easy to inadvertantly create if articles are reorganized.
These type of errors seem to occur quite frequently "in the wild".
The proposed changes made by Citation Tool do not change the referencing style or technology used on a page (currently: plans are underway to aid insertion of Harvard references as an adjunct to footnotes, where a mixed style is appropriate).  So as far as I can see, the changes proposed by the tool should be non-controversial.  The only possible issue I can see is that editors might disagree about whether a currently hidden footnote content is or is not better than the one that had been visible; but that's a pretty regular editorial/content issue, per article. 
Well... the other issue is that the tool might be buggy, since it hasn't been banged on by anyone other than me yet.  That's why I'd appreciate some other people using it, and paying attention to results.  If the diagnosis or proposed solution seems to be wrong for certain pages, that matter needs to be identified and fixed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help test [[User:CitationTool|Citation Tool]] 

message: A line has recently been added to say that citations should go after punctuation.  Why is this?  It means that a citation is in a different clause or sentence to what it's referring to.  It looks completely illogical.  Is it a UK/US difference in preference?  If it is, the general practice of not mandating either way but requiring consistency within an article should be followed.  Worldtraveller 09:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this myself...what I usually do is end the sentence with a period, immediately add the reference and then ensure a space exists after the end of the reference and before the next sentence...either way though, having the refence inside the sentence is probably better.--MONGO 10:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the recommended form, the citation is not in a sentence or clause at all; it's between the sentence or clause which it supports and the next sentence or clause.   The citation is not, logically, part of the sentence it supports (since it can't support itself ;)).   Personally, however, I couldn't care less where you put the citation as long as you're consistent. HenryFlower 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't long ago that it was changed from a caret to an arrow. ;)  HenryFlower 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, however, one would never see the first example, because the author should put a citation after the first sentence of the paragraph to indicate the source of that sentence.  As it is currently, only half of the paragraph is properly sourced. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remember that we're talking about footnotes on Wikipedia, not footnotes in general.  In a Wikipedia article, most sentences are not and should not be sourced with footnotes.  We source specific categories of statements (such as quotations and contentious propositions).  It's unlikely that a whole paragraph will require sourcing. (And that kind of system for distinguishing paragraph from sentence citations, while elegant, is not something that could ever be consistently used on a wiki with thousands of editors passing through). HenryFlower 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There we disagree.  Even general information should be sourced, but to do that, the best way is to get a general reference and use that one reference for an entire paragraph.  If more than one reference is used to write a paragraph, put in two citations.  If done properly, it's usually pretty simple to cite every fact in an article while only using 1-3 citations per paragraph. Remember that we here at wikipedia have an even greater need to cite our sources than Encyclopedia Brittanica, because I'm just a college student writing articles way outside my course of study.  I've got to prove that it's not just me talking, and to do that, I have to cite published works. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if I'm bouncing back and forth between sources within the same paragraph, I'll just put both sources at the end of the paragraph, rather than putting repeat citations after each sentence. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with that is that it's not very wiki.  It's fine if the reader knows that "this is a Spangineer article, and that's the way Spangineer does it" (but then those people will already know that Spangineer is sound, and won't worry about his sourcing).   But once, in the wiki way, someone else edits the article, or the reader moves on to another article, the system breaks down and no-one (except Spangineer) knows what the references are meant to be referencing.   Sourcing selected specific points is the only system that can reasonably work across the wiki. HenryFlower 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless of course everyone sees the light and realizes that I'm the one doing it right, and they follow my lead =).  You're right though—there have been times where people add stuff to articles I've written without providing sources.  That makes me have to either revert or find a source for their contribution.  Eventually we might have something cool where editors attach a reference to each addition (like in a separate edit box) so that it's always clear what came from where, but at this point, there will always be some ambiguity. The goal ought to be to reduce that as much as possible, but we've got to have readability too.  Perhaps we could use  in certain cases, to provide specific details that might not warrant an appearance in the references section. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and punctuation

message: Could someone tell me what is going on re. the resizing of footnotes?
AFAIK,
#there was NO consensus to resize all footnotes to a uniform format via wikipedia's stylesheet, when this was discussed at Village Pump/proposals (section now archived);
#When the template for resizing () was proposed at TfD, it SURVIVED the vote, and there are many articles that apply resizing of footnotes to, e.g., 85%, 90%, 92% (smaller than 90% is discouraged, but some articles still have 85%, etc...)
Now apparently, someone PUT A RESIZING IN WIKIPEDIA'S CSS (or in cite.php? I don't know)... which, when combined with the ALLOWED template for resizing, leads to unreadable small fonts.
Could someone stop this nonsense, which has been overriding community consensus, thanks! --Francis Schonken 10:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the most stupid thing ever. Who has done this? There are a gigantic amount of articles which set the size outside of the reference tags. A lot of articles, including the one I'm actively contributing to, simply put a div at size 85 around their references if needed. A lot of FA do this, too. It baffles me how anyone could have made this change in his right mind without realizing that it would break a LOT of featured articles. For now, please just roll this back! —Michiel Sikma, 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that the change was done by User:R. Koot. See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Change_to_MediaWiki:Common.css_requested_for_references (if you, too, disagree with this change, please let them know there). Here is a diff. —Michiel Sikma, 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resizing footnotes - what is going on? 

message: Also, would someone please restore the up-arrow or another more substantial link-back character than the caret currently being used. The caret character is already pretty small at normal fontsize, so at 90% or less... Thanks, David Kernow 09:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link-back character

message: Now that I've got Citation Tool to pretty much automate fixing actual errors in m:Cite.php referenced articles, I've started thinking more (with some helpful suggestions provided to me) about the usability problems of inline <ref> tags.
Basically, many editors find that long citations in the middle of wikitext disrupt the appearance of the edit window, and make it more difficult to edit articles.  A number of editors have expressed an interest in being able to group reference contents together in one place and refer to them where needed using .  Maybe that just means that the  templates really aren't that bad; but there's something to be said for a more unified referencing system.
I've played around a bit with what can be accomplished still using m:Cite.php, even in its current form.  I'd be very interested in what editors think of either this modification of a real article:
* User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Shoshone National Forest
Or look at this test case with a bit more explanation of what's going on:
* User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Hidden refs
LotLE×talk 02:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking this over and I like it...it minimizes the space it takes up in the editing window text...again, can the refences be at the end of the article rather than the beginning and is there anyway to eliminate the "a" and "b" in the cited section, unless it is a multiple thing. I know you gave me answer on this already, so I'm just being redundant for the sake of being so. The format is not as complicated as Harvard style and I think can be quickly learned.--MONGO 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but there's an obvious problem: editing the citations requires editing the entire article, since they're contained in "section" 0 instead of either the "References" section or the section being cited.  Sort of the worst of both cases in terms of section editing ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is what I meant, trying to fumble my way through it...if the cites are subsectioned, can they be placed in the end.--MONGO 03:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I pretty much agree with Kirill Lokshin here. If it were possible to put this block of references at the bottom of the article rather than at the top, that would be a lot nicer. I don't think the main complaint is about editing the whole article as such, but rather about the first occurrence being hard to find, and often looking disruptive when the content interrupts text flow. Unfortunately, m:Cite.php currently insists on first occurrence being the definitive one. Something like looking for "first non-empty occurrence" would solve a lot of this. Then we could but the whole hidden  think down in the "References" section, immediately before the actual  tag. That would still allow footnotes to be defined inline where such was desired, but give the option of forward reference to names that were defined in one place (even a mixture of the two in the same article could be useful). LotLE×talk 03:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like what has been done here and am interested if there has been any progress in changing  cite.php code to allow reference lists at the bottom! InvictaHOG 02:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooh, that's quite ingenious. I'd proposed the same thing below, but using a "hide" tag within the reference itself to avoid the superfluous backreference ("a") being generated. Stevage 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas about overcoming m:Cite.php problems 

message: Since I posted my comment on the "hidden refs", I figured out how to properly hide them, and implemented "live" versions at Cuba and Shoshone National Forest.  There's an informal "project page" at User:CitationTool/Hybrid referencing.  I'm still waiting on the code changes to let us move those reference blocks to a later section of the page; but if the code change is made, it should be a simple cut-and-paste to move the identical reference block down, where used. LotLE×talk 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live "hybrid references" 

message: See: MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Proposing other solution (at least part of a solution for the future)
Please give me some time to make this work technically, might be a good part of a solution. --Francis Schonken 14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal regarding resizing issue 

message: I'd like a footnote to refer to another named footnote, for example:
:1. A footnote
:2. Smith J.,, "How to rename footnotes on Wikipedia articles" publ. 2005 Wikipedia
:3. Another footnote
:4. Smith (2005) op cit, See footnote [2]
Since footnote numbers change, I'd like to name footnote 2, eg. .. etc, but don't know if it's possible to include the generated footnote number in another as shown above? Perhaps something like, <ref>Smith (2005) "op cit", see footnote [] ? --Iantresman 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, though I think nested footnotes would provide additional functionality, whereby (a) a footnote in a footnote would create a new footnote, rather than (b) referencing an existing footnote. Nice workaround though. --Iantresman 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes referring to previous footnotes?

message: To give it a name, I think you're referring to "nesting" footnotes. Indeed, it doesn't seem to work! Looks like something our technical folks might be able to figure out. An alternative is to just put two footnotes in the same part of the article. See my test: User:RockOfVictory/Footnote_nesting. --J. J. 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, though I think nested footnotes would provide additional functionality, whereby (a) a footnote in a footnote would create a new footnote, rather than (b) referencing an existing footnote. Nice workaround though. --Iantresman 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nested footnotes

message: The superscripted numbers should have a title= tooltip containing as much of the text of the reference as will fit. 70.18.14.233 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tooltips 

message: I really like this system, but the results at the bottom of a well-referenced (and noted) article is a mess. Intermixed references/citations/Footnotes are not really benificial for 'quick' comprehension that should be the web... there must be some way of splitting this same system between different uses. And if you applied the same code between <ref> <foot> and  tags? (and why not <web> while you're at it?) This would be the simplest way of providing users of this system a few more sorting options - and a cleaner pagebottom!
Also, how about a little addition to end this very 'paper-esque' habit of having to flip to the page bottom to see references? Since the tag content is already extracted during the php page assembly, why not add an extra line to insert it into the 'reference number's "title" tag? (As in [<a href="#anchor_five" alt="whatever" title="reference_from_tag_here">4</a>]) - this would make the reference appear while the mouse is over the wee inline reference number that remains small enough to be unobtrusive. Thus, if the reader wants that reference desperately enough he can click down to it, but if not he can continue reading uninterrupted. The wee floating tag may be a bit small (long) to contain all reference text in some cases, but on the other hand I wouldn't suggest using the very obtrusive 'floating div' system. But to each his own tastes. Just my two cents.
--THEPROMENADER 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/Citations/Footnotes - and a 'while you're reading' idea 

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