Help talk:References and page numbers

p. vs. pp.
I recently had another editor change my references which look like this:
 * and Johnson, 2008, p. 300–305

to this:
 * and Johnson, 2008, pp. 300–305

Is there any guidance in WP:MOS or other Wikipedia-namespace pages on this point? I never use pp. and never thought twice about it. Daask (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Conventionally, "p." is short for "page" and "pp." is short for "pages". So if you want to cite a single page whose number is hyphenated, use "p. 300-305." If you want to cite multiple pages, use "pp. 300–305" (note also the en-dash in place of the hyphen). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A real-world example of 's hyphenated-"p." example would be the Olean Times Herald newspaper, which like many print dailies is divided into several letter-designated sections. So, a page number from the paper would be e.g. "p. A-1" or "p. D-4", whereas a range of pages might be "pp. A-2–A-4". (Or would that be "pp. A-2–4"? Come to think of it I don't really know the convention on that myself.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm familiar with the convention, but didn't realize it was used on Wikipedia. I figured page numbers could be parsed to present ranges as pp. if they really wanted to, but you remind me that parsing isn't always easy. Daask (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What about the studio album source
What arpbout the L.P.? Oreratile1207 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:References and page numbers. I cannot find what your question relates to. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * On the Citation Oreratile1207 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really confused. Which citation? But from your two posts here, it looks like you are asking for help about using or editing Wikipedia. This is not the right place: you should post at the help desk, but you will need to state where (such as: which article, which section) you are experiencing difficulty. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Help-page guidance re: parenthetical referencing
has taken both the time and the initiative to improve this help page both generally, and specifically by removing the parenthetical reference examples in the wake of their recent deprecation.

(And if I might be permitted to editorialize...) Biogeographist was one of the more vocal opponents of the proposed deprecation. Ultimately, it was determined that consensus went the other way. In summary, we are an awesome community of which Biogeographist is an awesome example, and we should all be proud of how terrifically awesome we are. Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
 * For a proposal's opponents to accept and abide by the proposed deprecation is simply what's expected of all Wikipedians.
 * Taking action to implement such decisions is also the norm for both supporters and opponents among Wikipedia's dedicated core of contributors, including Biogeographist (as these recent edits reaffirm). The community enjoys a long history of respecting consensus above both personal opinion and ego. (There's no shortage of history demonstrating the complete opposite, of course. But I like to think that as a group, we generally take our ideals to heart and strive to embody them.)
 * But for an editor to then take the opportunity, in the course of performing those necessary edits, to also make sweeping improvements to the rest of the page, goes above-and-beyond.

Regarding parenthetical references, though, the implementation plan for the deprecation proposed by was outlined by  thusly:

I concur that this strikes a good balance and provides a reasonable way forward on existing articles containing the now-deprecated reference style. However, given that some parenthetical referencing will remain in Wikipedia articles (or at least small pockets of them) for the foreseeable future, there's a reasonable chance for any editor to encounter those references at some point. So, I'm wondering if this help page should still make mention of the fact that some articles may contain references in a now-deprecated format, and what the options are in making new edits to those articles. Perhaps just a quick one-sentence note linked to the updated section of WP:CITEVAR? (NOT, by any means, to the deprecation discussion/decision itself!)

I understand the need to keep things simple, and to generally avoid creating confusion for new/inexperienced ones with documentation on how things aren't supposed to be done (anymore). There's no question in my mind that the help page should no longer provide examples in the deprecated format. My only concern is whether we should try to prepare editors who may encounter parenthetical references "in the wild", as that could otherwise be a source of confusion as well? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the appreciative "TED Talk" above and for raising these important issues here! I don't yet have an answer to your questions but wanted to acknowledge your gracious mention of my efforts on this page. Biogeographist (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the outline I posted in the RfC's lead section was not followed, neither by those participating in the RfC, nor by its closer. Which resumes to "zero traction" for that implementation proposal. Of course the second part of the suggestion, i.e., don't make a mess when converting, should always be understood, whether made explicit or not. Indirectly that was reflected in the closer's comment that bot conversions need separate approval (unapproved bots would be a sure path to messy conversions...). The closer's report did not provide for "local" consensuses outdoing the general deprecation, so I no longer support the first part of my implementation suggestion (it would be undermining what was already decided via the RfC – and I no longer think it a good idea either). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I suggest waiting to answer this question until we see how the issue is resolved/reworded at . There is still some disagreement at that page about the wording. Biogeographist (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What about quoting the source?
Often the text being referenced is just a one liner? What do you think about quoting the text in the citation as a method of referencing the source? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Can you give an example? Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Here is an example:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waymo&diff=prev&oldid=977570594&diffmode=source
 * I often quote the text in long web pages. Seems the best way, but I don't see the article suggesting that technique. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. This help page only shows various ways to cite page numbers of paginated material. That's why the citation information in the examples on this page is really minimal: just author, date, and title. It's not the purpose of this page to lay out all possible citation information. Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates shows pretty clearly (in my opinion) how to use the quote parameter in citation templates. (By the way, as that page shows, you don't have to put quote marks around the quote within the template, as you did in your example.) There's a pointer to that page at the end of the first paragraph of . Biogeographist (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Check Template:R and Template talk:R —Arthurfragoso (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

ebooks
Since page numbers in ebooks can change depending on the font size that's set by a reader, how should ebooks be cited? rootsmusic (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)