Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 7

message: What is general wikipedia policy regarding the ugly and unwieldy citations that are sometimes placed in section headers? It looks ridiculous with a giant [2] after the section title, but my attempt to fix such a situation here was reverted. In this case, if a particular source covers such a broad section of an article, should it not just be listed under "references" without the need for an inline citation? -albrozdude 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would avoid a footnote on a section header by moving it to the intro text for the section. There is a guideline saying to avoid wikilinks in section headers, but I don't think there is anything specifically on footnotes. Gimmetrow 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes in section headers 

message: See these sections for previous discussions on this subject.
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#citation_location (March 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive4#Period/Full Stop and reference location (May 2006)
*Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive5#Ref after punctuation and the no consensus trap (May 2006)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive5#Position of footnotes (July 2006)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/archive6#American/British style (March 2007)
*Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnotes are placed outside punctuation (June 2007)
----
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive14#Footnotes come after punctuation (October 2006)
* Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/archive16#"Footnotes come after punctuation" (May 2007)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, in which I have requested that the rigidity of the guidelines be relaxed a little, to allow editors the option of following the style used by the leading scientific journals (Nature, Science, PNAS). These publications consistently place footnotes before punctuation, as I also like to do, and yet the current guidelines prevent the application of this style. There have been suggestions that there are technical issues connected with the placement of citations before or after punctuation, but it seems to me to be simply a case of enforcing uniformity where it is neither required nor even particularly desirable, and on purely stylistic grounds. I would welcome any input contributors here may care to offer. --Stemonitis 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, for what it's worth.  Positioning footnote marks more freely allows greater accuracy in identifying what statements the marks relate to.  A foolish consistency, etc. --Cedderstk 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Stemonitis is advocating for superscipted footnotes both before and after punctuation within the same article. My understanding is that each article would still follow one style or the other consistently.  Two of the publications mentioned by Stemonitis place non-superscript numbers before punctuation, which I do not consider contrary to the current guideline, nor do I personally object to it. However, I see no reason Wikipedia needs to allow for the form common in Nature articles, with superscript numbers before punctuation. Wikipedia does not need to allow for every option that exists in other publications. Wikipedia does not use double-hyphen dashes--nor does it use "American style quotes." Gimmetrow 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The journals mentioned don't use superscripted footnotes as we do, and placing those before punctuation looks ridiculous.  The long-standing consensus seems appropriate and it seems this argument is mixing cite.php with Harvard style inline refs.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes are placed outside punctuation 

message: Can we please discourage head-to-tail queues of footnotes all relating to one and the same statement? We often end up with paragraphs looking like this (the current state of Armenians):
Although it is widely accepted that they have populated Eastern Anatolia for over four thousand years, some theories suggest that the Armenians appeared in this region as late as the eight century BC. 
This is just silly. A person interested in background for the "4,000 years" claim is presented with the pointless choice to click on either [1], [2], [3] or [4]. This should instead be a single link to a single footnote presenting a coherent account of the sources deemed worthy to be cited in reference of this. This is just a random example, we get this sort of thing all over the place. I cannot imagine what inspires people to do something like this, but we should sternly discourage it here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize. I think it looks rather odd. However, there may not be a good reason to choose one of three or four possible sources, as each may contain different details or nuances. I tend to think of footnotes as a mini "see also", and if multiple sources are relevant then they should be listed. However, if multiple cites are listed for a sentence, they can still be combined into one footnote if editors find that more stylish. Gimmetrow 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought it a huge pity that you can't have reference ranges on WP, as elsewhere—even on the hated EndNote application.[1–4] Tony (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style: queuing footnotes head-to-tail

message: Are scroll boxes for the footnotes and references allowed by this Wikipedia policy or any other policy? Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy forbidding them, but they're awful.  If you have an article that is frequently mirrored on other sites, I believe the refs will be lost if you use the scroll box.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This guideline doesn't address scrollboxes one way or the other. However,  says not to use it in mainspace, and references  this TfD result. The reasoning appears to be that the scroll box can prevent references appearing in printed hard copies. Gimmetrow 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I agree with the position Sandy Georgia has taken. I just asked because an anon. attempted to add a scroll box to a ref list and he/she asked why did I remove the scroll box that he/she had added. Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 02:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  scroll box for references 

message: I have a question.  On the article for the comic book Fallen Angel, someone cited a slew of issues of the comic, but in addition to providing the name of the writer, Peter David, he/she also provided the name of the penciller and inker.  This seems like overkill to me, particularly since the information cited was created by the writer, and not the artists.  Is there a convention or policy (Wikipedia or general usage) that would indicate if this is called for?  I'm thinking I should remove the references to the penciller and inker, but don't want to do so unless convention supports this.  Nightscream 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question regarding citing comic books

message: I just became aware of this discussion (because someone moved some of my references and referred me to the style guide) and would like to weigh in on putting references BEFORE (inside) punctuation.  Those who say that it's "ugly" or "unprofessional looking" are merely voicing a subjective prejudice or personal preference, akin to, "Vanilla icecream tastes better than chocolate icecream."  I also care less for what is more common than I do for what makes more sense.  (I'm not big on following the largest crowd, unless the largest crowd is going the "right" way.)  My argument for putting references before punctuation (and hopefully it's not so preference-based as the arguments that I've just criticized), will be based on a couple of examples:
:When one has a compound sentence, such as, "Jack went to Harvard, but he later went to Yale.", one actually has two sentences combined into one.  The comma is the delimitor between the two sentences.  It seems more logical that anything belonging to or pertaining to the first sentence should be located with it or on its side of the delimitor.  Therefore, if I wanted to add a reference about Jack having gone to Harvard, I would do this:  "Jack went to Harvard1, but he later went to Yale."  To those who would say that this is ugly or looks unprofessional, I would say, "Nah, it's beautiful!  It's at home with the phrase to which it belongs--doesn't that feel more warm 'n' fuzzy?"  :^)
:I would apply the same logic to a reference at the end of a sentence.  If my previous example were phrased, "Jack went to Harvard.  He later went to Yale.", the period becomes the delimitor between the two sentences.  So, again, I would put the reference on the side of the period where the text to which it belongs is located.  To wit, "Jack went to Harvard1.  He later went to Yale."  Now excuse me while I express a little prejudice and personal preference to back up my arguments:  Beautiful!  Very professional looking!  It just feels right.  :^)
::I agree with the above logic: "It seems more logical that anything belonging to or pertaining to the first sentence should be located with it or on its side of the delimitor.". WLDtalk|edits 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BEFORE is Beautiful!  ;^)  [[User:Yosemite1967|Yosemite1967]] 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Using named references makes articles more difficult to maintain, often causing structural errors when casual editors make a change to one use of a named reference with no systematic checking for collateral damage.  I think this point should be mentioned in the article.  I personally dislike the use of named references and am trying to understand what debates may have taken place before regarding the pros and cons of their use.  Has this issue come up before? Buddhipriya 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure, a very important argument pro is of course that a repeatedly used named references only appears once in the reflist, and thus does not inflate the first impression of the number of unique references; for that reason alone I am highly in favour of using them. Nevertheless I acknowledge your problems as I have run into them myself sometimes. Arnoutf 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see why people like them, especially if they are placing full reference information in their inline citations. It really declogs the page in editing mode. But I don't like the way named refs are formatted by cite.php; I would prefer if it maintained a numerically ordered system of footnotes, rather than producing pages where you read down and see [1] [2] [1] [3] [4] [2] [1] [5] etc. There's really no need to consolidate the list of citations in that fashion. There's also the problem you present. But probably we are stuck with cite.php and despite calls for reform there appears to be no developer interest in upgrading it, so there you are. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally wish that the named refs also had a parameter for page number. Named refs are very handy until you want the same ref with a different page. Much of the time, I simply use a page range that covers all the material cited, but this only works when the number of pages is relatively small. IPSOS (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I do in that case, IPSOS, is Smith, John. My Book. Wikipedia, 2007, p. 79. It's admittedly a bit of a nuisance. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have to reference an author a number of times I place the book or article in the Reference section and then use  "Fu.Smith p. 79. Bar. A pub.Smith pp. 80,81."  Then if someone removes Fu and the reference tag, the second one can be easily rebuilt as the page information is still in the reference tag as "name=Smith-79/" --Philip Baird Shearer 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  To be honest it is among other the [1] [2] [1] [3] [4] [2] [1] [5] inline appearance that is among the most elegant elements of repeated citing (IMHO). Once you know that [1] is the authorative source on the subject, just noting its reappearance inline gives information about the strength of the statement. Addition of a page number within the named ref format would be a brilliant addition  Arnoutf 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't considered that and it is a good point. Unfortunately the addition of a page-number parameter was also proposed long ago and appears to be equally going nowhere in development. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A citation to provide a page number can be provided without the need for the cumbersome named reference as follows: For a review of the health risks of excessive Wikipedia use, see: . which will target a source in the References section that can be used multiple times. That particular use of one of the Harvard reference templates does not get into the objections against the Harvard system when they references display directly within the body of the article text.  However it provides the structual enforement of using the References section to list works cited, as specified by WP:LAYOUT. I am warming up to the idea of using templates that would enable bots to assist with reference checking, and this type of structured approach could be helpful for that. Buddhipriya 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something I have not tried but is talked about in the archives (Archive 6:New "add-on" template for citing page numbers is  that SMcCandlish says can produce output: "Alleged fact.[4]:18-9" --Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template looks like a superscripted variant of the usual inline-text Harvard references, which many people dislike.  I would not use it myself, as I do not like seeing the Harvard citations visible in the text of the article body.  I prefer to see all references in one sequential series in Notes.  Buddhipriya 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance problems of named references 

message: "...(as per WP:CITE, section 3.5.2) do not continue the numbering."
Section 3.5.2 no longer exists. What should be written now?
Reinderien 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what seems best to you; this page is a fraud. The intent is probably to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Maintaining_a_separate_.22References.22_section_in_addition_to_.22Notes.22, which is itself a noticeably unclear reference to the double note system seen in Pericles, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe put  next to it?  The reference was obviously insufficient.  I'm not allowed to fix it so won't look for it.  (SEWilco 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with additional references

message: It is possible to make multiple endnotes? For example like this:
Republique di Foo
{| style="background: none;"	
{| style="background: none;"
      	
(Flag)	(Coat-of-arms)
The Republic of Foo (Fooish: Republique di Foo ) is a country[1] and a sovereign state[2][3][4] located in Western Furope. The Republic of Foo is a federal republic comprising three constituent countries: Fooland, Vooland[5] and Cooland.
Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah.
Footnotes
# ^ Some people denies the Republic of Foo is a country. They think it is just a geographical area.
# ^ Some Vooish ultranationalists denies the Republic of Foo is a sovereign state. They consider it is still a part of the former Kingdom of Vooland.
# ^ The Booish Kingdom claims the Republic of Foo is a colony of BK.
# ^ Republic of Foo. Encyclopædia Fooica.
# ^ Voolish separatists claimed the independence of Vooland in 1980.
This hypothetical article contains two citation system. One is located in an infobox, the other is in Footnotes section. I want to make multiple endnotes in one page like this. Is it possible now? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to do this you would need to use another foonote system in addition to cite.php; for instance cite.php for the main article references and Wikipedia:Footnotes3 for those in the box. However, usually the footnotes for infoboxes simply appear in the main reference section for the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an example of how some people put unreferenced content into Notes.  Since any unsourced content can be challenged or removed, statements with no sourcing may eventually need citations.  The use of multiple sections to carry general remarks, as opposed to citations (references) has recently been a subject of controversy at WP:LAYOUT.  Since the main layout standard calls for one "Notes" section carrying all citations, I would say that the above arrangement is a non-standard variant and you may want to look at the discussion on layout with regard to that. Personally I think it is a bad idea to have multiple sections. Buddhipriya 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple endnotes 

message: I've just mentioned the  template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes - since it looks like a footnote, when trying to add it I looked in these pages. Since I can't edit this page, could please somebody who can add it here too?
--Blaisorblade 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please mention <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> too 

message: To help me (and others) understand the issue(s) better, please write agree, or disagree, or no opinion for each item, and if you disagree, explain why.  Feel fry to comment or briefly explain your position.  Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very bad idea because the two options need to be looked at as a whole. Breaking the sentences of a compromise wording causes problems because what is agreed for a compromise may not be so for the individual sentences when extracted from the compromise paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment on the anonymous post above: I'm curious why successive ref tags should be discouraged.  Fairly often on a complex issue, sentence or paragraph, several sources are drawn upon, and placed at the end of the sentence, or paragraph.  It is niether unusual, nor irregular to find this in academic writing. -- Yellowdesk 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You say "There is no question about whether a consensus was established earlier this year". I strongly disagree with this statement. Whether or not a consensus was established is a matter of opinion. I look at the so-called consensus, and I see two or three editors agreeing and without looking for any additional input, congratulating themselves on the fact that they agree with each other and calling it a consensus. With regard to policies and guidelines, a little more than mutual backslapping is needed. IPSOS (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. My wording was ambiguous. I meant that there is no question in this survey about that point. I am quite sure that there will be differences of opinion on the matter. Many apologies. --Stemonitis 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no problem. There's been such a chorus of 3 voices claiming consensus that I too quickly assumed this was another. My bad. IPSOS (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: An ongoing problem exists regarding conflicts between overlapping WP guidelines. I strongly suggest that this be coordinated with WT:CITE and, hopefully, some understanding can be reached such that the guideline can be placed on one page or the other, but not on both. KLack of such coordination would no doubt lead to guideline definition drift and conflict between the two guidelines -- Boracay Bill 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording here currently matches that on WP:CITE  --Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not using Nature guidelines.  We're using references at the end of punctuation per CMoS.  It's pretty simple. —Viriditas | Talk 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we agree on? (straw poll on ref tag placement) 

message: So, what does all this tell us? Well, we agree on some pretty trivial things. Many of the questions are slightly biased, assuming a particular point of view. There is no question about whether a consensus was established earlier this year (to parallel Q2) or whether we agree that a newer consensus trumps an older one (to parallel Q1). Several of the questions are quite irrelevant. Finally, I have my doubts about the whole methodology; although the brief introduction says that it's to "help [people] understand the issue(s) better", the polling format is not the best way of acheiving that. Indeed, a poll reports proportions of people with particular opinions. It would be very tempting for someone to conclude that because xx% of respondents prefer solution Y, that that's the best option. I'm sorry, but no, that's not how consensus works. If we can't agree on having a single style, then we shouldn't try to enforce a particular style. If you want to find out what we agree on, why not ask someone from each side (this should not be inherently divisive since this debate is already polarised) to honestly summarise their opponents' viewpoint and look for commonalities? Why not read the archives and write a short text that you think we can all agree on, and then work on expanding it from there? There are many possibilities, and a straw poll may just be the worst of them all. --Stemonitis 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "There is no question about whether a consensus was established earlier this year". I strongly disagree with this statement. Whether or not a consensus was established is a matter of opinion. I look at the so-called consensus, and I see two or three editors agreeing and without looking for any additional input, congratulating themselves on the fact that they agree with each other and calling it a consensus. With regard to policies and guidelines, a little more than mutual backslapping is needed. IPSOS (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. My wording was ambiguous. I meant that there is no question in this survey about that point. I am quite sure that there will be differences of opinion on the matter. Many apologies. --Stemonitis 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no problem. There's been such a chorus of 3 voices claiming consensus that I too quickly assumed this was another. My bad. IPSOS (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: An ongoing problem exists regarding conflicts between overlapping WP guidelines. I strongly suggest that this be coordinated with WT:CITE and, hopefully, some understanding can be reached such that the guideline can be placed on one page or the other, but not on both. KLack of such coordination would no doubt lead to guideline definition drift and conflict between the two guidelines -- Boracay Bill 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording here currently matches that on WP:CITE  --Philip Baird Shearer 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not using Nature guidelines.  We're using references at the end of punctuation per CMoS.  It's pretty simple. —Viriditas | Talk 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This should have the  tag, while it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. --ais523 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please change to ; this is clearly not visible in some skins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be tagged

message: The only consensus I now see are on points not in dispute. No one argues that the CMS uses notes-after-punctuation; everybody agrees that we should permit it. Everybody agrees that each article should use a consistent style. The questions in dispute are whether it should be the "house system", and whether we should encourage edit-warring to enforce it. 
Two compromises seem possible:
*Everybody gets something: CMS is our house style, but we deprecate editing to change from one style to another.
*Nobody gets anything: No house style; nothing about changing styles.
Which? Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed that the "we deprecate editing to change from one style to another." part is clearly in dispute, if anything at all is.  Kevin Baastalk 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if one does not accept that other styles can also exist on a Wikipedia page. If so then there is no compromise at all. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the discussion is spread across sections, I just want to record that I personally favor refs before punctuation. --Error 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: please add  to this page. Melsaran 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection template

message: To "See also" please add the following related projects:
* m:Wikicite an idea for standardizing how facts are cited.
* m:Wikicat is the bibliographic catalog used by the WikiTextrose project.
** m:WikiTextrose, a text relationship database for mapping the various interactions between interpretable artifacts.
(SEWilco 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related items addition 

message: 
This section currently reads 
A similar CSS class exists to create small footnotes in two (or optionally, three) columns, but this displays as a single column in some common browsers. If desired, use  or the CSS class directly with 
This is not right. There is no class to create more than two columns, and  doesn't create the mentioned class at all, but uses inline style to accomplish the same effect.
I suggest changing the text to
A similar CSS class exists to create small footnotes in two columns, but this displays as a single column in some common browsers (like Internet Explorer). If desired, use 
The same effect (with any amount of columns) can be accomplished by using .
--Ms2ger 19:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Graham87 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resizing references section 

message: I have a question on which of two formats is preferred.
* Version 1: Blah blah (blah blah blah.Goo) blah blah.
* Version 2: Blah blah (blah blah blah.)Boo blah blah.
I know they go after the sentence punctuation, but should it go inside or outside the parentheses?  Does it matter? --JayHenry 18:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing parentheticals 

message: 
The survey above shows that half of us dispute the language about "house style" in Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_reference_tags. Please put a  on the section. This will identify the conflict for the concerned, and perhaps revive the discussion; in fact, if we tag the section, we may be able to unprotect the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I should have been clearer, but it's been a while since I used the tag. It has a switch for use with sections.  can go in the section which is actually disputed, in the link above; do preview to be sure I have the syntax right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to unprotect

message: In "(for example, 's status_reference parameter)", "status_reference" should probably read "status_ref". If I've got this right, could someone able to edit this page please fix it? -- Boracay Bill 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent minor problem