Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes)/Archive 10

op. cit.
Footnotes may have reason to link to the reference section for a title, and op. cit. seems the best way to mask this. Should we modify to include this, which may be useful? should we leave it as WP:IAR? or can you suggest some other phrasing? This is no more dangerous than "above", "below", which routinely masks other internal links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well this was my view, but I got a rollocking in the FAC room for using it even tho' only ibid was specified at the time. I added it as a specific essentially as a warning to other users. If there is an appetite for resurrecting it that is quite OK by me. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't introduce these because Wiki is a dynamic environment, text order can change, and we have named refs for these purposes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Named references are undesirable for citing books, unless you're repeatedly citing the same page of the book. We should say that too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Op cit implies only one work by an author, so it has the same type of problem as loc cit. The issue of masked links to a references section is only relevant to footnotes with "short citations" and internal links and no templates. If so other straightforward options for the mask exist: the author, the short title, or the author-page as unit. Gimmetrow 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter where the op. cit. refers? Ordinarily, it would refer to another footnote, which could disappear; my suggestion would refer to the References section, which is not likely to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The problem is when you have a reference to "Smith, op cit" already in the text, and then someone adds a new book by Smith. If the old cite were "Smith 2005" or "Smith, My Book", it wouldn't become ambiguous. Gimmetrow 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Has this ever actually happened in Wikipedia history?
 * I was also taken aback by the "Style recommendations" comment that "not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the terms." OK, op. cit. [Shakes head], Pete Tillman (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has actually happened. An article referenced an author's work without title. Later, when a second work by the same author was referenced, all existing refs had to be changed to specify the first work. Gimmetrow 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have used Op. cit. a few times recently. These uses have been additions to articles which already had their citation styles solidly established, with full citations given in those articles directly in &lt;Ref>s, and where I wanted to refer to different specific pages of a cited book at several points in the article. Two examples recent enough that I remember them are Vietnam war and Separation of church and state {search for "Op cit." there to see what I've done). If this looks OK, perhaps this sort of usage can be explained in this project page. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange cite error
Hey, can someone look at omega-3 fatty acid and tell me what's up with reference #85? It's saying "no refs named simopoulos2003" when there is one. —Werson (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's usually an unclosed ref tag shortly before the one that generates the error. Fixed. Gimmetrow 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BUG: repeated refnums
Hi,

In Matsuo Bashō, the two column-version produces two notes numbered "8" on Firefox... Ref 8 is where the column breaks... I temporarily switched to the one-column version; problem solved...so what's the source of the problem..? ... OK, I just looked at Georg Cantor also. Yep, same problem with repeating refnums whenever the column breaks from one column to the next! Definitely a bug... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another interesting tidbit: If you look at the versions stored in the article's History&mdash; I mean via the History, I don't mean reverting to an older version&mdash;there's no problem with repeated refnums. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Except I don't see it. What version of Firefox? Does Cantor still have the issue? Gimmetrow 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firefox/2.0.0.14  yes Cantor has two notes numbered 33. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox/2.0.0.14 on WinXP and don't see the problem on either article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Windows Vista here... Also, Chinese Windows. BUT my PC in my office is XP with English Windows, and I think it has the same problem. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Footnotes"?
Is there a particular reason why the section containing footnotes is usually given the label "References" or "Notes" rather than the more precise and informative "Footnotes"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of those who wish to remain awake I have deleted an exhaustive but, ultimately, unenlightening discussion of this and related issues that took place between the entry above and the entry below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)] Discussions should, in general be archived, not deleted, no matter how unenlightening they may be, so I've restored the discussion and hidden it inside a collapsed hat. Klausness (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. I would have done it if I had known how. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just editor preference, all three names are acceptable. I don't know that Footnotes is any more precise or informative. It would probably be more precise to call them Endnotes, and References may in many cases be the most informative title. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So it would be o.k. to change the phrase "Place the ''', I get strange messages when I try to use the reference twice. The only solution I've found to work is enclosing the name with quotations (like this: ). An example of this problem is here (I forgot to remove the temporary references tag when I edited the Political career section, but it by itself doesn't cause the problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Norton (talk • contribs) 2 August 2008 11:40 (UTC)
 * IMO the quotes should always be used anyway, but you are correct that the this page states that quotes are optional unless the name consists of more than one word. I've added to it that certain non-ASCII characters will also require quotes. Anomie⚔ 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It seems I had forgotten to sign. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What if you need to add a reference to a note?
I tried to add a reference to a note I made, but it broke... Help please? diff -Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Reference tags can't be nested, so you can't include a citation reference inside an explanatory note reference. I would suggest simply including citation reference(s) for the note immediately following the note. - So where you had...



I would suggest...



--SallyScot (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for your help!! :D Should the help section here be changed to make that clearer (you can't nest a reference-footnote in a text-footnote)? -Malkinann (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the #tag magic word, you can nest references. For example,
 * This is noted in the Known bugs section. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is noted in the Known bugs section. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I read that on the page, but I didn't understand it. Thank you for the explanation! -Malkinann (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New text
I have no idea what this new text is trying to say ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Undo and ask for an explanation. --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Undone, and waiting for User:Pmanderson to clarify. Anomie⚔ 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's trying to avoid "footnotecruft", where there's a statement and a million footnotes behind that statement? (as in shoujo manga, "Other female artists of the same generation, such as Riyoko Ikeda, Yukari Ichijo, and Sumika Yamamoto, garnered unprecedented popular support with such hits (respectively) as Berusaiyu no bara (ベルサイユのばら, "The Rose of Versailles"), Dezainaa (デザイナー, "Designer"), and Eesu wo nerae! (エースをねらえ！, "Aim for the Ace!").[16][17][18][19][14][15][4]") ? -Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

RfF, unicode support for the value of the name attribute
Please let it work, . --Cheol (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation footnotes
I also tried to create a note to a reference and I only got it halfway, couldnt get them to link to eachother! So I was wondering, in the case of a possible Featured Article, is it possible to just make the translations directly after the reference within?

I was wondering, considering the FA criteria etc, what would be the best way to do such? I was thinking of doing something like this:

REFERENCES

1.Croatian John Smith (2007-10-09) "Croatian story". Retrieved on 2008-08-14. Translation - 3rd paragraph: The Croatian national team has played games sine 1909 and had its first international game against Indonesia. This was during the first world war and all further Croatian teams ceased to exist after this game.

Would that be acceptable or would I need to use inline citations (which I have already posted help for because I have absolutely no idea how they work even after reading all the help articles!). THANKS! Domiy (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing sources/Example edits for different methods should help. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also WP:RSUE for information on dealing with foreign-language sources. There's no standard formatting, but one system that I've seen used is to put the English translation first, followed by the foreign-language original version, in italics and within parentheses. For example: "The Historical Chronology of Hungary" (Magyarország történeti kronológiája). --Elonka 14:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Text to be removed at WP:CITE
These sections may be removed from WP:CITE. I'm placing here on this talk page in case there is something which should be salvaged and used in this article. I'm fairly certain that all the information they contain is already covered in this article and in more detail. I think there might be a topic sentence or two in here that would improve this guideline—the language in these sections is a little more elementary and makes a better introduction, IMHO. CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a version of the middle section below to the article. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the same citation again
If you want to use the same citation to support another point in the same article, you do not need to add the whole citation again. In fact this would add unnecessary clutter, both in edit mode and in the references list. Instead you can give the first citation a name. Then you only need to use that name in future in that article, instead of the whole citation.

The name you want to use goes inside the first ref tag. So instead of just.

From now on, at the point where you want to use the citation again, you just add: In other words, it is the same as the ref tag used to give the first citation a name, but with an added / symbol. And you don't add anything else. If you forget the /, it will blank the rest of the article, so preview your change first.

Making an article use the footnotes system
If you are creating a new article or editing one that doesn't have automated citation listing (the footnotes or "ref tag" system), you can easily create this by making a new section towards the end of the article (usually headed "References") and adding one of these tags to it:, it sees the quoted string  followed by some extra characters, and it ends up failing.
 * In fact, the parser will also accept no quotes as long as the value contains only printable ASCII characters excluding space, straight double quote ("), dollar sign ($), percent sign (%), straight single quote ('), plus sign (+), equals sign (=), and backslash (\); it also cannot actually contain the greater-than sign (>) as that will close the tag, but the parser would accept it were that not the case. With either variety of quote, the only restriction is that it cannot contain whichever quote is being used and cannot contain the less-than sign (&lt;). If you can read PCRE regular expressions, all this is in the MW_ATTRIBS_REGEX in Sanitizer.php. When used as, the name can contain anything any template parameter can contain.
 * Yes, that means  would be correctly parsed, while   would fail. Some screw-ups will blow up, some will "work" by ignoring the attempted name completely, and some will "work" by pretending you said ; the last is a side effect of the parser converting HTML constructs like   into XHTML.
 * WP:REFNAME at the moment doesn't specifically say you can use single quotes; whether it should or not, I don't know. Anomie⚔ 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update?
We mentioned a couple of months ago that this page probably shouldn't go into the monthly updates at WP:Update because it has more of a "how-to" feeling to it than all the pages there, including WP:Layout. I'm just double-checking; my feeling is that WP:Footnotes works just fine as it is, but I want to make sure there's no confusion about what kind of page it is. Look at the other style pages at WP:Update and you'll see that they don't generally have code, they tend to have minimal examples, and they're generally prescriptive ("editors should do this", not "here's how you do this"). Does anyone want to go a different direction with WP:Footnotes? Much of the "prescriptive" content here is already in WP:Layout, WP:CITE an WP:MOS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Location of section "Footnotes" is in question
Please join to discussion Wikipedia talk:Layout.--Namazu-tron (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple footnotes needed to verify a single sentence
Hi, I'd like to clarify how foot notes can legitimately be used: If I have two sources that are basically in agreement, but each provides slightly different details, can I construct a sentence based on both in combination, and cite them at the end of the sentence? This feels like common sense, and I'm sure I've seen it often done. The particular example we're trying to resolve is one sentence at Triple Goddess:
 * Triple female fate divinities, typically "spinners" of destiny, are attested all over Europe from the Iron Age onward and in Bronze Age Anatolia.[1][2][3]
 * 1. West, M. L. (2007) Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford University Press. pp. 379-385.
 * 2. Petreska, Vesna (2005) "Demons of Fate in Macedonian Folk Beliefs" in Gábor Klaniczay & Éva Pócs (eds.) Christian Demonology and Popular Mythology. Central European Press. p. 225.
 * 3. Georges Dumézil in 1970 controversially proposed an Indo-European "trivalent" goddess was the origin of a number of later goddesses, including the Iranian Anāhitā, the Vedic Sarasvatī and the Roman Juno; in each of these goddesses resided three qualities corresponding to the three functions of the major trinity of Indo-European gods: magico-religious, martial and fertility. These goddesses expressed the three qualities through different aspects or epithets. (Nāsstrōm, Britt-Mari (1999) "Freyja — The Trivalent Goddess" in Sand, Erik Reenberg & Sørensen, Jørgen Podemann (eds.) Comparative Studies in History of Religions: Their Aim, Scope and Validity. Museum Tusculanum Press. pp. 62-4.)

Footnote 3 is simply a "further info" footnote, and not really relevant to this question. The issue is that neither West nor Petreska (the first two footnotes) individually give all the details in question; Petreska for example doesn't mention Anatolia, nor does she use the phrase "all over Europe" (although she does list a large number of European countries). West, on the other hand, doesn't specifically state when the European attested deities date from, and we have to turn to Petreska to find they come from the Iron Age.

I believe it's valid, common practice and common sense to simply cite both together at the end of the sentence, and this avoids awkward sentence structures or multiple repeated footnotes within the same sentence. If the two authors weren't in such close agreement it might be seen as synthesis, but as it is they are in complete agreement and merely providing different points of detail. I also believe both citations could be useful to readers who wish to research further. Those who are interested can find extensive summaries of both sources here, but I'm not asking you to resolve our dispute, just give an indication of how footnotes should/can be used in principle. Have I misunderstood their use? Fuzzypeg★ 13:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it may be valid use of multiple footnotes (in most cases it tends to be duplication of information e.g. Bush announces farewell (1- NY times 2- Washington Post 3- The Guardian, etc.). My only doubt would be whether your collation of arguments from different sources would be a problem with WP:SYNTHESIS, but that is something else. Arnoutf (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may like to consider (a) combining all three footnotes together as just one, which would reduce the length of the superscripts and brackets at the end of the sentence; and (b) having a separate section that gives the full book details for all books used in the article, with the footnotes being reduced in size to just the short-form, as can be seen in that case of similar book references in Peterloo Massacre, for example. This last point may be of particular use especially when you are going to use different pages from the same books in different places throughout the article, but would also probably help even if they are used once if you combine the footnotes together into just one.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After checking the summary of the sources you linked, I'd say you're 100% good with that sentence. And it's not even close to WP:SYN, because you're just summarizing what the sources already plainly state and not drawing any conclusions. Anomie⚔ 17:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify what my suggestion would end up looking a bit like, here is the text: "Triple female fate divinities, typically 'spinners' of destiny, are attested all over Europe from the Iron Age onward and in Bronze Age Anatolia.[1]" 1. West, M.L. (2007) pages 379-385; Petreska, V. (2005) page 225; Furthermore, Georges Dumézil in 1970 controversially proposed an Indo-European "trivalent" goddess was the origin of a number of later goddesses, including the Iranian Anāhitā, the Vedic Sarasvatī and the Roman Juno; in each of these goddesses resided three qualities corresponding to the three functions of the major trinity of Indo-European gods: magico-religious, martial and fertility. These goddesses expressed the three qualities through different aspects or epithets. (Nāsstrōm, B-M (1999) pages 62-64.) The full references used in shortened form would be given in a separate section reserved for books, etc. In these full references, pages numbers would not be given, as they have been supplied in the short-form footnote. You  may be able to tie the references together a bit more than the "furthermore" I've added.   DDStretch    (talk)  18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Asterisks in
The single most used reference label in English typography is the asterisk (*), but these templates don't seem to allow it to be used as a label. This really ought to be fixed. In the meantime, I'll be removing these templates from a couple of articles. —Michael Z. 2008-12-27 20:39 z 
 * I strongly oppose such an idea for 2 reasons.
 * The numbers automatically renumber if a footnote is removed, the sequence of asterisks should also automatically be updated, for that we need a huge set of asterisk signs for footnotes in a predetermined order.
 * An asterisk for a footnote is fine if there are only a few footnotes; after the first occasion alternative symbols (e.g. + o etc.) have to be used, or multiplications (*, **, ***). As many Wikipedia list over 100 footnotes it is completely impossible to use these signs, where numbers remain more or less relevant. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I realize that this is the talk page referred to by many templates. I'm referring to, ,  and.


 * My point is that entering an asterisk in the label parameter of {note label} is broken—at the beginning of a line, wikitext turns the asterisk into a bullet point, and entering &lt;nowiki>*&lt;/nowiki> doesn't work. The example in question is the table notes at Romanization of Russian—an editor recently rewrote it to use ° instead of *, but it's stupid to invent new conventions as workarounds for template bugs. Better to form all the links manually, because we are supposed to favour readers over editors.


 * (Since you mention it, automatically using symbols may be useful for short lists of notes, like this example. The traditional order is *, †, ‡, §, ‖, ¶.  The last three are unfamiliar, so it may be more useful to support *, †, ‡, **, ††, ‡‡, ***, †††, ‡‡‡, instead, or as an option.  But this is not what I am complaining about.) —Michael Z. 2008-12-27 21:48 z 
 * Ok for use in tables I would support indeed it. (BTW I know the order with the first three or four being common, but with 100+ references as with citations that would still be unwieldy going into many repetitions of the symbol - so this style should never be used for citation type references). Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the brackets?
The brackets around the superscript numbers[1] are visually jarring and break up the flow of reading when used anywhere but after punctuation. What is their purpose? Can't we do away with the brackets1 and just use the numbers alone? It would be much less obtrusive, cutting down the increased space between words by about half, which greatly improves readability. Further, this is standard practice so more readers are used to scanning past footnotes displayed this way. I can see how this could be useful in cases where multiple refs run together, but those are special cases and should be dealt with accordingly. – flamurai (t) 07:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the Spanish Wikipedia uses the style without brackets. For an example, see . As can be seen in that article, the problem of multiple refs occurring in direct succession (refs 7 and 8) has been solved by spacing. The French Wikipedia uses superscript numbers without brackets as well: . Printed English books tend to use numbers without brackets. I am not sure why we do it differently here. Perhaps users feel that the brackets aid visibility, or help differentiate citations from mathematical notation. Jayen 466 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I second the motion - the footnote brackets are indeed unnecessary and obtrusive. Though perhaps they should still be available at ones option if it improves clarity - as in the case of mathematical or scientific articles. What is the procedure for formally raising this proposal? --Wormcast (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, this would be technically easy to do. Hard-coding it would require a one-line change to the Cite.i18n.php file in the code for the Cite extension on Mediawiki, or as a Wikipedia-specific modification to that file. Making it an install-time configuration option would probably take a two line change to that file and several changed lines in the Cite_body.php file. The Cite extension already has some install-time configuration accommodation for Wikipedia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Resizing references
Some editors are using WP:FOOT as justification to remove reflist from articles that have fewer than ten references. The current phrasing is somewhat unclear. For myself, I stick reflist into most articles I edit regardless of how many entries there are. Is it the intent of this section to justify removal of reflist where there are less than ten entries? Or is it rather simply a rule of thumb that reflist is commonly used when there are more than ten entries? If the latter, could the section perhaps be modified to remove the basis for editors making a point of removing the template from articles that fall below the non-threshhold? older ≠ wiser 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * should be used by default, because references should not be resized just to resize them. reflist should only be used when there is a justifiable reason to lower the size the references, which is generally considered having at least 10 well formatted references, not just because some people think they look nicer. The current threshold has been discussed several times recently (see archives), and thus far, 10 was considered a good one. General rule of thumb: less than 10, use the regular, more than 10, you can use reflist, more than 20, you can split to two columns. This should be more strongly worded, instead of people sticking a two column reflist on an article with only 4 references, which just looks really silly and like someone is trying to make the references hard to notice. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this a problem? Bkonrad, if you really think it looks so ugly, then why don't ou just source the hell out of the page and make it bigger than 10 sources. Or is it that you just can't find enough sources for the article, and you want to cover that up by making it look "nicer" with the Reflist? Is that so? Well then, it should be merged with something else or brutally deleted (in the words of Jimmy). Jimmy Wales is the creator of Wikipedia and you are not, therefore you will not alter his rules. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think artificially increasing the number of footnotes for the sake of looks is a good idea in the slightest. Artw (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for implying that articles need 10 references or they should be deleted, um, no. Artw (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The hell? That's not what I said! –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bkonrad, I think you are missing the point. The purpose of is to show the refs that come in small numbers. 10 is a fine rule of thumb. I agree with AnmaFinotera, this needs to be made clear in the guideline. Any suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that the guidelines are clear that there are no guidelines, see below. Artw (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The choice between and is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule."  Artw (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, asking for reiteration is kind of the goal of this discussion ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you all (Sessh, Jump Guru and AnmaFinotera) saying that the thousands of articles that currently use reflist and have fewer that ten references are incorrect and they should be corrected? Are you also saying that the many editors who have either added or edited those articles and did not change reflist to are mistaken or that their practice do not count in determining consensus here? Why should be presumed to be the default? I don't think that the current guidance actually supports what AnmaFinotera states above: reflist should only be used when there is a justifiable reason to lower the size the references, which is generally considered having at least 10 well formatted references, not just because some people think they look nicer. What the guidance says is simply that reflist is common when there is a long list of references, not that it should not be used when there are less. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it. You're taking advantage of what it doesn't say, do you think that this page is supposed to list every single, little, tiny, microscopic, piece of crap? The only reason you're argueing with us is so that you can stylize the articles you created. Oh yeah, if it doesn't say anything specific that have to change the templates due to size issues, how come before you said you wanted to change the rule because it does? Y'know, instead of argueing about how crappy your articles would look now with the, why don't you just work more on them now and give them a measely 10 reliable sources, then your article would look nice with the reflist. You're being very selfish. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me! Why are you turning this into a personal attack? I'm seeking clarification about what this guideline is supposed to mean. Some editors are using this guideline to remove reflist from articles. I don't see that this guideline provides any basis for such removal. You (and AnmaFinotera and Sessh) appear to be interpreting this guideline in a way that is at variance with many other editors as evidenced by the thousands of articles with fewer than ten references that use reflist. You might want to consider toning down you ad hominem attacks. Until the last day I was completely (and blissfully) unaware of your existence. I'm not sure why you consider yourself to be such an authority on [my] crappy articles. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I lost my temper. : ) Why don't you just use the and then the Reflist after 10 references, so simple!, unless you don't have sources then it needs to be either merged or deleted. :-D Just give it up. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You ask why -- as I said above, I think it looks bad for the references in various articles to be of differing sizes? Not only bad, but reflects poorly on the quality and consistency of Wikipedia (which admittedly is pretty happenstance). I (and apparently many others) find it much easier to always use reflist rather than doing some conditional calculus. Why do you expect me to just give it up? How about if you and your cohorts just give it up? older ≠ wiser 23:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How about if you respect more experienced editors then you are, and respect the guidlines. I'm going to eat my Top Ramen, while you mindlesly blabber about how much you want to stylize your articles. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say that Bkonrad is the only editor who is against this practice for personal reasons. Guidelines don't exist just to be ignored. Anyway, we have number consensus, so what should we clarify Jump Guru? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who might these more experienced editors be that you refer to? Certainly not you three. As for Sessh, I quite assure you that I alone am not responsible for all the thousands of articles with less than ten references that use reflist. That you three cohorts, who all came here together based on your communications here and here all agree with each other does not constitute any sort of meaningful consensus with regards to this page. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Experienced editors? Have you ever gotten an article to a GA? Well we have, don't know about you. Right now i'm working on Santa Inoue's article, which i'm planning for to be at that rank. How many articles have you gotten to GA Sesshomaru? (not Sessh, by the way) –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple. Beelzebub (Sand Land) was my first (then it got redirected). I helped Himura Kenshin, Sagara Sanosuke, and others meet that standard. Tried doing the same for Naruto Uzumaki and Pegasus Seiya up until recently, still gettin' there ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * *Note Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) - I was the one that helped User:Tintor2 obtain GA status for Sagara Sanosuke and not you (unless you standards for "help" are quite low) - please look at the article history,, so I believe you should not take credit (I have hundreds, if making relatively few edits counted). I suggest you remove Sagara Sanosuke from your list here. (I have not looked at the other articles for which you take credit.  Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * *Note I am very much aware thank you very much. If you actually saw my past discussions with Tintor2, you'll find that there have been plenty of conversations on improving Sano and others. One article I won't take credit for though is Fullmetal Alchemist, since I did little to no effort in giving Tintor2 a hand. Please stop thinking that I'm exaggerating my statements or something, and assume good faith for once in your life. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *You underestimate my knowledge and involvement with the article. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Swell. That you guys are experienced writing about trivial topics doesn't count for much. That you show such disrespect for other editors says volumes more about you that any articles you might have written. older ≠ wiser 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like some people here desperately need to re-read WP:CIVIL. Just because you have 9000 edits or enjoy playing the GA game doesn't make you better than anyone else here, and even if that were the case it still wouldn't excuse belittling other editors. And it's particularly amusing in this case, since the implications made above are so very wrong.

FWIW, I don't see any need for supposed "clarification" here; in fact, I would support removing the arbitrary "10 reference" language to discourage this type of wikilawyering. Anomie⚔ 03:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What a wonderful New Year's gift, how amusing. Jumpguru, and whomsoever else, perhaps you wish to turn your belittling eye in my direction. I've never produced a GA or FA or anything close, in all my 8,000 edits. By the criteria above, I'm worthless. However, I'm happy when I add three or even one reference(s) to an article, and I regularly add reflist to articles where myself or other enthusiatic editors contributed tags. Does this thread have any connection to reality? Delete any article with less than ten sources? Franamax (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I feel sorry for Bkonrad, and that if people are seriously fighting over reflist, then they are probably not doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is working on this encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps folks should be aware that using and further splits plays absolute havoc on smaller than average screens (making the references largely unreadable), and dramatically increases pageload time, especially on dial-up or other internet connections that are not high-speed.  These should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for accessibility reasons.  Risker (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC) I have commented directly on JumpGuru's talk page about his disappointing treatment of fellow editors on this page.
 * Does or similar syntax have the same effect? Jayjg (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, Jayjg, I am not sure. Are you aware of any articles that use that style so we could check it out? I'd think we could find a few editors with appropriately small screens and/or dialup connections to test the differences. Risker (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, actually I use that style on all my FAs, GAs, and most other articles. I was advised to use it because it specifically handled the issue of small screens. Jayjg (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I believe it does though maybe like Risker said, get someone to test? Yes, I strongly prefer seeing reflist only be used for at lesat more than 10 references, since resizing references to a smaller font causes accessibility issues as well as appears to belittle the references. The guideline here on resizing seems to support that view, however as I already noted to at least some of the parties above, it is not worth edit warring over. Some folks just run around replacing reflist with references under the claim of "modernization" (which I do believe is false, as if reflist were now modern, references wouldn't exist) or just an automatic thing because they believe it "looks" better. Either way, using splitting (either via reflist or by div wrapping) definitely should be reserved for longer lists due to the issues it can cause some readers. Of course, splitting also doesn't work in IE at all, so its primarily something for a minority of readers. I will say, I bowed out of this discussion after the way things went above. While I do feel it should be clarified here and that it should be a more strongly followed guideline to not just resize references for cosmetic reasons/personal preferences, the attacks against Bkonrad were beyond unnecessary, as was the remark that if he can't find 10 references for the article, it should be deleted. In general, one could argue that any notable topic should be able to have 10 references, but that isn't always the case (see Hershey Creamery Company, an article I more than doubled in content, but that still only has four references; certainly a notable company however). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker - The reflist|2 and up variety are intended mostly for standard harvard note style (Author, Year, Page), which would result in very tiny notations. Thus, if used as intended, there should be little difficulty with formatting. I know because I use monitors of different with. However, I must note that when there are over 50 references, long columns of references is absolutely insane and destroys the flow of a work. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I tried to investigate this claim of slowdowns due to the use of a multi-column reflist when it was brought up several months ago, but even using the same browser I could not reproduce it. I also note that it adds negligibly to the length of the page (only 95 bytes!), so the speed of the Internet connection should really have absolutely nothing to do with it.
 * Another thing to test is whether following the instructions at Template:Reflist cures the issue. Anomie⚔ 12:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As Emperor pointed out on my talk page when AnmaFinotera and Sesshomaru tag-teamed me on this issue:


 * The guideline most commonly used to back up not using when you have a few references is: "it is common when there is a long list of references (as a rule of thumb, at least ten) to replace the basic tag with  " Also I read that as saying that when you get to 10 you should consider using  and it doesn't work the other way round to say under ten you shouldn't use it (so WP:Footnotes can only really be invoked when swapping for  and not vice versa). The guideline leaves the matter open on this issue. This is reinforced by the other usage guidelines:


 * From WP:FOOT: " displays the footnotes in a smaller font. The choice between  and is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule."


 * From : "Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references; when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use instead."


 * Which is, as far as I'm concerned, pretty clear - around 10 footnotes the editors should think about using and below that it is up to the editors. It is clear enough to me that I don't think this needs further clarification but that shouldn't stop editors from asking if they feel they  are unclear on what the above is saying. (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC))


 * --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bkonrad. That's not what I meant to do. I'm truly sorry. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what's the consensus? Can this be clarified further or is it specific enough? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Emperor as quoted by Tenebrae was very clear, and makes good sense. --Bejnar (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Anomie⚔ 19:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that pretty well sums up my take on the guidance. The only unequivocal statement in the guidance seems to be that the size of the references is a matter of preference. Although likely not his/her intent, SandyGeorgia's comment below illustrates the preferential aspect of this and reinforces why this guideline should not be used as a blanket license to replace reflist simply because the number of references falls below some arbitrary count. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad, the meaning of this discussion is to have a decision on whether or not this guidance will be in strict usage or not. By the way it's going, it looks like there will be number consensus on enforcing this rule. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "it looks like there will be number consensus on enforcing this rule"? Anomie⚔ 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the majority agreed with AnmaFinotera. Was I wrong? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The opinions expressed here run the gamut with no clear consensus. By my count, it looks like a small majority do not support strictly enforcing an arbitrary threshold of 10 references for the use of reflist. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By my count, 3 agree with AnmaFinotera: Jump Guru, Sesshomaru, and SandyGeorgia. 7 disagree: Bkonrad, Artw, Anomie, Franamax, Emperor, Tenebrae, and Bejnar. 4 do not state a position: Mattisse, Ottava Rima, Risker, and Jayjg. Anomie⚔ 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For an interesting recent case-study, consider Matt Smith (British actor), an article which has seen a sudden spike of interest since the previously little known actor has just been named as the next Doctor Who, to star from 2010. Four different editors in the last 24 hours have switched to reflist, against only Sesshomaru resolutely switching it back.  That suggests to me that, with reflist now much more widespread across the project than when this guideline was first written, consensus has now probably moved on, and probably now sees reflist as the norm even when there are only a few references. Personally, I would count myself in with the seven above, and what I believe is probably now the majority view.  I prefer reflist, even when there are only a few references, because I find for me it makes the references tidier and easier to scan; I like the added structure the change in typesize gives to pages, which I find makes the style more distinctive and easier to navigate; and I like the consistency with all the other pages using reflist.
 * I therefore doubt the guideline still has any consensus behind it, and given the balance of views here I think reversions from reflist to can no longer be justified by it, if indeed they ever were. If there are problems with reflist for some users, solutions to the problems need to be found globally; they do not have to do with whether or not there are n references, for some arbitrary n. Jheald (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with AnmaFinotera; is the default, the small font of is hard on the eyes and should only be used when there are a number of references and when talk page consensus warrants the change. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the guideline that says is the default. That is simply not true. The guideline clearly says, "Some editors prefer references to be in a smaller font size than the text in the body of the article," and only refers to the arbitrary ten items as a "rule of thumb." Please, let's keep our terminology honest. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * is the default in the software. Reflist is a special template created in 2006 and is basically an intricately created template that adds dynamic CSS wrappers around the references tag. The terminology is completely honest. References was here long before reflist and is still the default. Nothing in the software has been changed to make references do what reflist does, while reflist relies on references to work. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not look like will we achieve consensus, so let us wrap it up and not change each other's edits. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's that supposed to mean? This has to be decided immediately in order to get rid of the whole "preference" vs. "guideline" disputes. So I was wrong, more disagree with the rule of thumb, whatever. Can we change the rules and get on with our lives? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to change anything here; what is in place is standard practice, there is no reason to automatically add reflist without consenus, and WP:CITE deals with not changing referencing style without talk page consensus. (And for the record, we haven't even linked to the many discussions throughout Wikipedia about the various problems with reflist ... that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And for clarity, there is also no reason to automatically remove reflist without consensus either. This is implied by mention of WP:CITE, but for the sake of editors fond of parsing words to mean whatever they want it to mean, I think it needs to be stated very explicitly. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If such "clarity" is added, it should also be noted that editors should not run around replacing references with reflist (or worse, reflist|2 on an article with like 4 references) just because they think it looks better which is what happens far more often than the other. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's what editors do, that suggests that actually that is the real consensus. The guideline should follow that majority, rather than vice-versa.  Jheald (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't show any real consensus. Most of it is done with automated tools with people just doing random defaults rather than actually looking at what they are doing. That is no better claim for consensus than saying that all vandalism should be reverted by Twinkle just because a lot of editors use it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just automated tools. AFAICS the clear preponderance of hand-edits is also from references -> reflist, rather than the reverse, as seen for example in the Matt Smith example I cited above.  And from Anomie's count that seems to be the majority preference expressed in this discussion, too. Jheald (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Deciding that reflist should now be the default over what is actually used by the software itself and that replacing references with reflist is acceptable for any number of references requires far more discussion than the handful of editors here. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that more discussion would be needed to make any claims about a preferred default. But at the same time, it would be helpful if editors avoided the misleading logic that because something was coded in a particular way, therefore that is the preferred default. I don't recall that there was much discussion about text styling prior to implementation. It was (and I believe still is) a kind of bolt-on extension to fix a gaping lack in built-in MediaWiki functionality. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd ask that whichever editor moved my posting before not to do so again; that's a major violation of Wiki etiquette. Secondly, I see three editors using tortured logic in an attempt to have their way in the face of a clear consensus that no change is required and to leave the status quo. The resizing of footnotes is a matter of preference, not policy. User:AnmaFinotera, User:Sesshomaru and User:SandyGeorgia are, obviously, free to edit in good faith as they wish. But they certainly cannot claim that their personal interpretation of policy is the only one.

They have their preference, other editors have their &mdash; both are equally valid. C, S & SG are not acting in good faith if they insist to other editors that they (C, S & SG) are right and other editors are wrong. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have got !vote-counted without actually giving an opinion, so here it is just in case. As someone who tries to add references and make them visible where the section doesn't exist, I'll likely continue to add reflist when I newly create the section. My basis is that the section eventually will contain more than 10 ref's (right?) and my robotic tendencies at mundane tasks. With respect for both Sandy's and my failing eyesight, and with a nod to the argument that reducing the font somehow depreciates the importance of the Footnotes section, I think if that's the way it's going to end up, why not start it that way too? I probably average one source per content sentence or so, so I generally expect the Footnotes section to expand - in fact I think it's the most important part of any given article.
 * I'd not expect anyone to change the style I first establish, and I'd not wish to change the style established by another. Having become aware of this discussion, I would consider changing references to reflist if I was expanding the section - but whatever, as long as they show up...
 * And using an IE browser, reflist|2 means nothing to me, so no opinion there. And I'd be hard-pressed to identify any editors here not acting in good faith. Franamax (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, since above you said that you add reflist to articles you've added "three or even one reference(s)" to, I took that as opposing the "less than 10 == no reflist" view. It seems I was correct, but perhaps my assumption was unwarranted. Anomie⚔ 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The unwarranted assumption you made was that I used reflist on principle, when in fact I've used it 'til now due to sheer ignorance. :) Franamax (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New consensus?
Since it appears that there won't be an agreement on anything above, I propose that we end this "fiasco" with a standard survey. Doesn't look like there is a quicker option. Any thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought: Just drop it. The consensus above is clear enough. Anomie⚔ 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a consensus! The various debates bewteen editors who are sticklers for guidelines and those who like to ignore some of them won't stop ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that loaded phrasing by Sesshomaru says it all: "It's a debate between we who got it right and everyone else." That seems to me to be a remarkably arrogant way of thinking.


 * In the absence of a consensus for change, the status quo obviously remains. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ibid., op. cit. and loc. cit.
"" I read the references, but I can't find an alternative to ''ibid., op. cit. & loc. cit. — named references are only useful if you are making the same'' references each time. How does one refer to the same book multiple times, with different page numbers? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This difficulty is one reason the system developed of using short cites like, in the text, coupled with a section of full citations at the end. The other common way is to repeat the entire citation: , . This doesn't require maintaining a section of full citations, but can make the wikitext somewhat more difficult to read. Gimmetrow 19:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard to read and a waste of typing. And with the first method, it is not clear what "Smith" means: is it possible to make the "Smith" in the ref link to the appropriate entry in the section of full citations? Shreevatsa (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can use Harv templates, but if you're going to do that you could just as well use inline parenthetic references of some form (Smith, p.12), (Smith, p.43) and not use cite.php. Gimmetrow 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst I am sure we are all grateful to Smackbot for reminding us of the deficiencies of articles is using procedures frowned upon here, I wonder if anyone shares my concern? Ideally we would be attracting more editors with a professional understanding of their subject - do these tags not also advertise what might, in some circles, be thought of as a "dumbing down". Ben   Mac  Dui  09:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is you don't know what else may be inserted in the article afterwards. If someone inserts an additional reference between wehre it's given in full, and where you use ibid or whatever, suddenly ibid appears to be referring to something entirely different to that which was intended.  It's not dumbing down, just using tools appropriate for the medium.  David Underdown (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue, and ibid itself could be a problem, although op cit has always struck me as a theoretical rather than a practical difficulty. If I am honest, having just had about a dozen GA Reviews to contend with, due to new rules, I am not overjoyed about having a similar number articles to trawl through because they have an innocuous MOS breach and in no way misleading references. Instead of badgering editors who have gone to the trouble of actually referencing their work, how about asking Smackbot to tag articles with a message along the lines of: "This article has no references or footnotes at all. It will be deleted automatically in x days unless this is fixed"? Now that would be worth seeing. :-) Ben   Mac  Dui  18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A Google search of WP articles for ibid turns up over 8,000 hits. Some of these are false positives, but that's still a lot of potential problem articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ben MacDui, potential confusion with ibid is one thing, and templating articles over it is another thing. People should be a little more reserved about making yet more giant cleanup tags. Gimmetrow 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The tagging is pretty ludicrous. I expect we'll see people tagging serial commas next. Tags like this - if they belong anywhere - should go on the talk page, not the article proper. We don't need to warn our readers that "ibid" appears in an article. - Nunh-huh 03:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. When we say "a lot of potential problem articles" it is possible that we are discussing articles that, for the most part, are amongst the best 10% of articles we have quality-wise. As problems go, it's likely to be pretty trivial. Ben  Mac  Dui  09:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There'd be nothing wrong with them if it weren't for the fact that they'll get moved around and become useless. That however doesn't justify using automated tools to spam this template into articles.
 * Sometimes they are beneficial, such as on bibliographies when they save time. We want to stop Latin abbreviations when they are bad not just for the sake of a simple generalized rule; because they are sometimes bad is not enough to regard them as Satan's own writing.
 * What is for sure though is that the uigly template at the top of pages, useless and distracting for the readers, are far worse than the abbreviations. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There have also been complaints voiced at Template talk:Ibid. There are three separate issues:
 * should ibid, etc, be discouraged/forbidden at all by policy?
 * if so, should there be a Template to flag violations of this?
 * if so, should a Bot be licensed to add this Template?
 * My opinions are (1) don't care either way (2) definitely not (3) no no no no stop stop stop. jnestorius(talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

jnestorius(talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jnestorius analysis there are 3 issues. My opinion is slightly different
 * My opinions are (1) Because of robustness with further edits ibid etc should be discouraged by a guideline (not a policy) (2) there should definitely NOT NEVER EVER be a mainspace template againsts this (there are way too many of these at the moment already) (3) Bots to place these templates no NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. (ps intentional shouting) Arnoutf (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinions: 1) Such a minor issue that I don't really care. I don't mind if there's an obscure guideline somewhere recommending non-use. 2) No. 3) Absolutely not, no, please, for the love of the gods. Haukur (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a thought. If we have the named reference (e.g., ), but then add the page number (e.g., ), the markup would be done to list them as two different references, but the page number would be different. Does that make sense? If there's a second named reference, but it has a small bit of standard extra information in the tag, it would avoid extra typing, but list the reference separately as if it had been typed up completely. Can that be done? Hires an editor (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Citing sources, we have four methods for inline citations: footnotes, shortened footnotes Citing sources, parenthetical referencing (Harvard) and Embedded citations (not recommended). See also Citing sources/Example edits for different methods. Shortened footnotes use two lists, one with a short reference name and page number and one with the full cite. Parenthetical referencing also uses two lists, but the page number goes inline. For the footnotes system, most of the citation templates support a page number, but that limits the use; you can put the page number inline with rp. Bottom line: you need to decide where you want the page number: inline of in the references list. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this constitute as correct usage of a footnote?
Martin called for punishment against "Rampage", but no action has been taken to date. There has been no announcement from the NSAC, and "Rampage" is scheduled to face Keith Jardine at UFC 96

I thought it might qualify as original research, but I'm not sure... Thanks for any input. Bad intentionz (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't really OR, per se, but also completely unnecessary. Its just repeating that no one knows anything. I'd probably just remove the note and reword the sentence to "Martin called for punishment against "Rampage", but it is unknown of any action was taken as no further announcements have been made. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll use that. Bad intentionz (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resizing references, Multiple columns
The content of the sections "Resizing references" and "Multiple columns" is largely duplicated in the "How to Use" section. Suggest it makes more sense to treat this under "How to use". Jayen 466 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see it under how to use (found the material under resizing that talked about fixed number of columns, and figured made sense to add the column width option). Agree that listing in multiple places makes it harder to keep everything consistent. Wherever listed think it makes sense to have section breaks (at whatever level is appropriate) so shows up in the table of contents.  Zodon (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexpected Cite error in "External links" section
Why does the processor generate a "Cite error" when a appears after the "References" section (ie. in this version of the Alektra Blue article) ? Is there a way to fix this so that the "External links" and "References" sections can be put back in the right order? Valrith (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um...why is there a reference on an external link anyway?? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because the external links section in articles on pornographic performers tend to gather spam links easily and if there's no reliable source that shows that a MySpace page is actually connected with the performer, the link shouldn't be used... Valrith (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A hidden comment and maybe a note on the talk page should be sufficient to note the source, rather than a ref tag. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a similar thought, and have already added the hidden comment. Thanks for the help. Valrith (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to the original question, Refs are expanded wherever the &lt;References /> tag or reflist template appear, and that's in the References section of that article. A Ref tag placed after that point without a subsequently-appearing &lt;References /> tag or reflist is an error, as it will not be expanded. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A recent update to cite.php added error checking: if  exists, but not, then the message is generated. Some tweaks were made to the related MediaWiki messages so that the error no longer appears on talk pages. I have documented all of the error messages and their cause at Help:Cite errors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alektra Blue triggered the message because there was a after the reflist. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite error with use of Template:Botanist
Similar to the issue above, we've had confusion over at Template talk:Botanist. The template has an auto reference, but the reference was inserted relatively recently. Prior to the reference, the template had often been placed below the references section or it was placed on articles that had no references section, reflist, or, leading to plenty of articles that now show this error. Any ideas on how to ameliorate this other than doing lots of heavy lifting? Might a bot help? Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I left some specifics on that talk page. You have 36 botanist articles with this error. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. All fixed. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

problem with ref tags?
There seems to be a problem with ref tags in the article Israeli legislative election, 2009 (this revision), at least on my machine (WinXP with Firefox 3.0.6). The last ref tag (#51) does not appear in the ref list when the page is first loaded. When you click on this ref tag (in the last table in the article), the ref suddenly appears but is stretched awkwardly across two columns. Anybody know what's going on? Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: just checked this on a computer with IE and it seems to work. Is this a bug with Firefox or WP? --Zvika (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't see any problems on Firefox 3.0.5 and XP SP2 on current or previous revision you link to. Perhaps just a temporary/cache glitch? Rjwilmsi  12:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine on Firefox 3.0.6 running at 1600x1200. But very occasionally colwidth reflists do have glitches that seem to depend on individual users' browser window and font sizes; see  Jayen 466</i> 13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That revision still looks broken on my computer (at resolution 1200x1024), though newer edits to the article do not have this problem. Strange. It's not clear to me if this is a bug in Firefox or WP. --Zvika (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Same source for one paragraph
I couldn't find it on the page (though I might just be suffering from selective blindness), but what is the rule for citing an entire paragraph (not quoted, but paraphrased) from one source? Should you cite each individual sentence, statement, or just place a single citation at the end of the paragraph? Is there such thing as "over-citation"?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, a single citation at the end is sufficient (except where a sentence includes a direct quote or if something is challenged). There is a thing as "over-citation" but its usually said in terms of having like 4+ citations on a single sentence. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's always been my interpretation, but there has been some recent activity on some pages with one sentence being challenged out of a collection of sentences that goes to a single source. There isn't a direct quote, but one side will argue that it needs sourcing, while the other will argue that the source is at the end. It creates conflict, and I was hoping this page would provide a more concrete answer for those times.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple &lt;References/> tags
Sometime after mid-January 2009, a new version of the cite.php extension apparently went into effect. The updated cite.php handles multiple &lt;References> tags in a reasonable manner. Situations such as this, then, can now be addressed by adding a second &lt;References/> tag, e.g. in the Link notes section below:

Article text.

<References />
 * References


 * External links
 * An external link.

<References />
 * Link Notes

So, the question here is whether this WP:Guideline should provide guidance about this and, if so, what guidance should be provided. (Note, I've asked a similar question in Wikipedia_talk:Layout} -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, text on talk pages sometimes contains &lt;Ref>s, sometimes intentional and sometimes not. This can be usefully exploited in a talk page section which intentionally contains &lt;Ref> material as follows:

Talk page section header
Talk page text.

<References/> -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * References


 * multiple references tags have been handled for about a year, at the same time as reference groups, with 32290; I guess it's just taken until now until there's been a need for it. From the sounds of these discussions, it seems like the guidelines should be updated. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Columns
As a matter of style is there any reason (except historical) for keeping the number of columns option in the reflist? Our references are now getting long enough so that even a single line (without column) is insufficient. A single column is also easier to scan. kevin Mccready (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to see the fixed number of columns deprecated in favor of using colwidth. (As you say, easier to read, also single column is a lot faster to load/render if there are a lot of references.)  Not sure if there are browsers that will support fixed number columns, but not colwidth.
 * Of course there are citation styles (e.g. author, page #) that wind up with a lot of short citations, but still better served if define item width and let browser handle it.
 * Especially important as we continue to get broader range of displays (everything from PDAs and internet appliances to big wide-screen monitors).
 * There is also discussion of this at Template talk:Reflist/Archive 2008. Zodon (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war
I've copied this from User_talk:AnmaFinotera for discussion here.

Hi Can we talk about my edits on footnotes. I thought they made the article simpler to read. Can you tell me if you see it differently. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry...I found it to be rather more confusing than less so, and harder to read/understand. In general, parentheticals should really be avoided in prose, I think, and with the switch from straight sentences to that, it ended up being the kind of distraction being discussed, to me. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I see your point. Happy to remove parenthesis. Can we take it step by step? I replaced: "they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail" with: " First, to add explanatory material" . Is that OK do you think? Kevin McCready (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will I make the change or would you like to do it? Kevin McCready (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you might like to since you reverted. Hope you don't mind. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera has reverted again citing the fact that the second part of his revert wasn't discussed. I thought it would have been clear that the same logical process might lead to a more streamlined version. Here are the versions in dispute
 * 1 Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article.
 * 2 Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly to avoid distraction in the article. Second, to cite reliable sources to support assertions in the article.

Would other editors like to comment? Kevin McCready (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We discussed the first part and appeared to agree, but then you changed the rest back to, what I felt was a less clear and less easy to read version. Again, just saying it should be discussed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK so let's take it step by step again. What is unclear about 1 "to add explanatory material, particularly to avoid distraction in the article." 2 "Second, to cite reliable sources to support assertions in the article." ? Kevin McCready (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Part one: I agree that the word main modifying the word article is unnecessary, but harmless. However, I find the version: First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. clearer because it focuses on what might be distracting.  The second version implies that, but doesn't say it. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Part two: I agree that the word main modifying the word article is unnecessary, but harmless. The first version emphasizes "citation" while the second emphasizes "reliable sources". I think that we should emphasize the function. In this case the function is citation, even though the result is reference to reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)