User:Chaosdruid/templates/Refs


 * Full list of all cite and ref templates

Refs needed

 * Template:Cn
 * = citation needed
 * = clarification needed
 * = unreferenced

Page numbers

 * Template:Rp For those annoying book refs which are 60 repeats of the title with a different page
 * Nested note and ref
 * Template:R
 * Good example is in Phaeacius
 * Template:R
 * Good example is in Phaeacius
 * Good example is in Phaeacius

Refs and cites banners

 * = This section needs references
 * = this section has no references

FAR citation styles

 * From User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

Hi

I think I might be misinterpreting criterion 2c from the FAC.

I took it to mean that either footnotes or Harvard should be used in an article, not both. The problem is how I see the usage. The article I am having difficulty with uses

I thought that these were incorrect, as they had commas and were a Harvard style ref, but it seems I may be mistaken. Any chance you can clarify with links to other discussions or your own experience? (I have already been pointed to Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 10)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly OK, a lot of editors don't like the citation templates and prefer to format manually. Ealdgyth does it somewhat like that, see Gerard (archbishop of York) for instance. I'd prefer to see either the year or the title included in the citation, as in "Owen 1983, p. 3", or as Ealdgyth does it, but so long as the style is consistent and there's no ambiguity as to what "Sammon, p. 211" is referring to there's no problem. The important point is that the citations all have a logical and consistent style, however that's achieved. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I also had to query my use of a couple of templates, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles, as I was uncertain as to how best to link the pages to the ref. - something I am still unsure of. It seems silly to have 30 refs to the same book listed separately under "References" when it is just the page numbers that are different. I started using the {{rp template but have run into a couple of instances where editors feel they are no good, or even detrimental. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the shortened refs format .. see WP:CITESHORT. That way you only repeat the huge bibliographical stuff in one spot at the bottom, but are able to specify exact page numbers. You can either do or or Besides the examples above that Malleus mentioned, you can also see Maximian or Richard Hawes. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not that fond myself of the {{tl|rp}} style of citations, but I can understand that some prefer it, and I've got no problem with that. One thing you have to learn Chaosdruid is that whatever you do here there will be someone jumping up and down shouting that you've done it wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AKAIK there are 6 ways to give page numbers for books or long journal articles:
 * etc. forces readers to search manually for the work. IMO that's horrible.
 * {{rp|n}} has the risk that the ref name and the page number(s) are split by a careless editor.
 * Using different refs for different parts of the same work. Becomes unusable for both editors and readers if there many parts of the same work.
 * Cite with {{tl|r}}, where each use of {{tl|r}} links to a citation and also shows a page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: shows page number (range) in the main text. Advantage: gets the reader to the work in 1 click rather than 2.
 * {{tl|Harv}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text. Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; (I think) equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.
 * {{tl|sfn}} etc. Advantage: does not show page number (range) in the main text; sorts page numbers in the same work so that each group of refs to the name page(s) appear as {{sup|abcdef...}}, as in the output of  - while AFAIK {{tl|Harv}} does not sort and group page numbers, and you get a longer list of "refs". Disadvantage: gets the reader to the work in 2 clicks rather than 1,and 2 more clicks back to the text; equivalent of a ref name= appears after the 1st click, and can be as long and obscure.
 * Are there other choices? --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS If you want realistic examples, I used Cite with {{tl|r}} at e.g. Phaeacius and {{tl|sfn}} at Robert Rossen. --Philcha (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS I current use Cite with {{tl|r}}, as IMO the page numbers in the main text are not obstructive and this method uses fewer clicks; YYMV. This method also plays nicely with the basic , which is most editors learn first, and avoids a mixing of citation methods, which Cite does not like. --Philcha (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)