Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Footnotes

Quick Tip: If you find that newly-added footnotes are misbehaving or appear jumbled, try adding ?action=purge to the end of the page's URL and reloading it in your browser.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3: January – May 2006 Archive 4: May – July 2006 Archive 5: July – October 2006 Archive 6: November 2006 - June 2007 Archive 7: June 2007 - September 2007 Archive 8: September - November 2007 Archive 9: November 2007 - April 2008

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 MacDui^Talk/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. SandyGeorgia (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)

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— I mean via the History, I don't mean reverting to an older version—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)

Discussion archived for posterity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article" in the How To Use section of this article to read "Place the <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes," "References" or "Endnotes" section near the end of the article"?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) So far no objection to this change. Meanwhile, I find that perhaps "footnotes" is the right term (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management). So I'll alter my proposal to: Place the <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes," "References" or "Footnotes" section near the end of the article" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I think there's real value for readers in using consistent terminology. A few people (including me) have recently reverted your changes of "References" sections to "Footnotes", and since I see that you've brought this issue up here, I'm mentioning it here, too. "References" and "Notes" are the two standard names for footnote sections on wikipedia. I think it would be good to have just one standard name, but we definitely don't need a third one. At this point, there are millions of articles with "References" and "Notes" sections, and since it's not realistic to change all of those articles, I think we'll have to keep both of those names. For those two names, my personal preference would be to have a "References" section be for references to sources that arent connected to specific citations in the text (as with the References or Bibliography section of a book) and to have a "Notes" section be for footnotes, but the most common practice does seem to be to use "References" for footnotes. So if you wanted to change "References" sections to "Notes", I wouldn't object myself, though I suspect that such changes might be reverted by other editors. But in any case, I don't think adding another name (even if it may be a bit more descriptive) is a good idea. Klausness (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) First of all, "footnotes" is acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management and Wikipedia:References#Section headings. Secondly, "references" is something different from footnotes (or notes) per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions ("Notes" is for footnotes containing source citations or commentary on the main text. "References" is a list of referenced materials (books, websites, etc. cited in the main text). Notes and references are often listed under one heading.) and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Notes. Thirdly, I thought the goal of Wikipedia was constant improvement (e.g., adding a more descriptive heading), not calcification (e.g., continuing to use an unenlightening heading because "that is the way we've always done it"). Can anyone respond to these three points or should I just go ahead and make the change I am proposing? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) It would be helpful if it were possible to distinguish in the editing. A <ref> section should then only contain source information</ref> while a new <note> section could contain a true footnote, with explanation</note>. Of course the <references/> command should then create a list from the references, while a <footnotes /> tag creates the notes section. This is however not available, making it close to impossible to disentangle this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I feel your pain. Do you agree that, given the limits within which we find ourselves, my proposal is at least mostly harmless? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (repeating what I said on Butwhatdoiknow's talk page) I actually agree with you about "References" meaning something else, but I don't see how "Footnotes" is significantly better than "Notes", and "Notes" has the advantage of consistency with current practice. Inconsistency, on the other hand, can make for a worse user experience. Will notes be in a section called "References", "Notes", "Footnotes", "End Notes", or something else that made sense to a particular editor at the time? "Footnotes" may be slightly better than "Notes", but are you going to personally change the millions of articles that already use "References" or "Notes"? It might be a good idea to change the section name to "Footnotes" in all articles, but changing it in just a few is a bad idea. Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus, so if you think these sections should be called "Footnotes", then the best approach is to work towards getting consensus for a change in the style guidelines (which I guess would be done here, if we could get some input from other editors). Without changes in the style guidelines, people will keep reverting your changes, and other editors will continue to call these sections "References" or "Notes". Or, rather than using "Footnotes", you could go with the current guidelines and change the names of these sections from "References" to "Notes". Klausness (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC) The only issue here is whether to add "Footnotes" to the list of acceptable headings for the footnote section. Whether it is a wise or futile practice to change footnote headings from "References" to "Notes" (or "Footnotes") is a topic that can be left for another forum. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) You cite no article in support of your position. I have cited four style pages that say "Footnotes" is an (not the) acceptable heading for the footnotes section. There is no need to get a consensus on this issue. There is only a need to make the footnotes article consistent with the four other cited articles that discuss this topic. It would seem to me that if you are against adding Footnotes to the list of acceptable names for the footnotes section then YOU should work on building a consensus to change the four articles I have cited. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) My position is supported in this very article (which I didn't think I needed to cite specifically, since we're on the article's talk page). Under "How to use", it says, "Place the <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article", which seems pretty unambiguous to me. Klausness (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) My proposal is to change the very text you are citing. So saying "it currently says X" is not an argument against it saying Y, particularly when four other style guidelines say Y. Do you have any other rationale for leaving this article in a state of conflict with the other style guidelines I have cited? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I only see three guidelines cited (two of your references are to adjacent sections of the same guideline), and two of them mention "Footnotes" parenthetically as an alternative to "Notes", clearly preferring "Notes" (and using that in all examples). But, yes, they do list "Footnotes" as an alternative, so that puts them into some conflict with this guideline (which I would think should be the definitive guideline for footnotes). So the question is whether we should change this guideline or the others, and I'd say we need input from some other people to decide that. Lack of input from others shouldn't be interpreted as a consensus for changing the guideline. Klausness (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [Yep, now that you draw my attention to it, it IS "only" three.] This article, discussing the mechanics of footnotes, is not necessarily more authoritative with regard to the name of the section in which footnotes appear. Indeed, those articles that take a global view of section naming would seem a better source because they have a better idea of how the name of the section fits in with the rest of a Wikipedia article. And, since you and I seem to be the only two people discussing this topic with any passion, is it fair to say that a lack of input from others shouldn't be interpreted as a consensus for your position either? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Indeed, the lack of other input so far doesn't itself show consensus for any position, but the current guideline is presumably the result of consensus. So changes should only be made based on consensus, with the default being to leave it as it is. Klausness (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think someplace back in the archives is a discussion where "Footnotes" was considered archaic for Wikipedia use, because the term refers to stuff which is placed at the "foot" of physical pages. Most footnoted books only have a few short notes at the foot of pages. Due to the way articles are presented on Wikipedia, all the notes accumulate in one section which can be rather large, which is more similar to books which gather all the notes for a chapter at the end of that chapter (or at the end of a book, often grouped by chapter). Thus the "foot" part of the "footnotes" meaning is arguably not quite how notes are used on Wikipedia, as the large clump is less similar to footnotes than to references/notes sections. -- SEWilco (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for providing a meaningful and substantive answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this section. This answer gives rise to a new question: Do you know why the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section management and Wikipedia:References#Section headings articles weren't changed to reflect this reasoning? Is this something that should be done now (better late than never)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You might look in the archives, particularly after the above-mentioned previous discussions, to see if whatever changes you're referring to were discussed. Particularly as I'm not sure of your meanings of "this reasoning" and "changed to reflect". -- SEWilco (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing WP:CITE from here.

The out-of-sequence entry in the Notes section mentions WP:CITE in its explanation of why such out-of-seq entries bad things and what should be done to correct them. However, WP:CITE#Footnotes says to see this article for details about that. This seems a bit circular (Yes, I've made recent edits to this stuff, but just to correct details which had gone stale -- the general problem predates my recent edits). I would try to straighten this out myself, but I'm too pushed for time just now. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted quotes

Based on the recent discussions at ANI, various talkpages, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, and places where this has actually been discussed, such as Talk:G. David Schine, I'd like to add a couple lines to this page, perhaps:

The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some use extensive quotes, others use none, and both styles are acceptable. The general consensus is that quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader. Where there is disagreement on whether or not quotes should be used in footnotes, normal dispute resolution techniques should be followed, such as building consensus at the talkpage.

Everyone okay on this? --Elonka

It seems to me to be saying nothing that is not covered by more general policy/guideline content and is therefore just instruction creep. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Could you please point to where you feel that it is already covered? I spent quite a bit of time reviewing guidelines and policies, looking for clarification, and couldn't find anything. Even ArbCom commented about how there's a lack of guidance on this. And that the issue got as far as ArbCom, would seem to indicate that some mention of it in a guideline page would be useful. Elonka 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is covered by this at WP:Verifiability: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." Since the quote parameter is part of the full citation transclusion, it should be included. Arbcom had a chance to pull the quote parameter from citation templates, but did not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your wording says "...whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article ... Where there is disagreement on whether or not quotes should be used in footnotes, normal dispute resolution techniques should be followed ..." where is the substance? When there is a dispute over content then one uses the usual methods of building a consensus. I don't see that this is saying anything more than that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we could delete the final sentence, that would make sense. I have crossed it out --Elonka 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement looks great to me (speaking as a participant in many of the various disputes and discussions that Elonka mentions at top), but of course the real dispute has always been and will continue to be what constitutes "brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader." Still, I think it could be very helpful to have this added as an official part of the Footnotes style guidelines page. RedSpruce (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you measure that a quote is of "use or interest to the reader"? It seems like a weasily phrase where anyone can delete a quote and subjectively say it would not be of interest to the reader. The quote should be the actual text of the cited article, if the person adding chooses to use it. It should be a sentence or two. I use the quote parameter for several reasons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Such a thing is indeed hard to "measure." However, guidelines that are difficult or impossible to measure are common throughout the MOS: Phrases like "may be unfamiliar to some readers", "when they would be confusing to the reader", "might be disruptive to the reader", "readers are unlikely to care...", and so on. Many guidelines can't be based on measurable things. But by having the above phrase as a guideline at least calls upon an editor to show that there is some basis for arguing that the added text will be "of use or interest." For example, if an editor simply refuses to give a real reason for including a footnote quote, other editors would have better grounds for challenging that evasion. RedSpruce (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of quotations in footnotes is a basic requirement to comply fully with WP:V. Why on earth would someone need a "real reason for including a footnote quote"? The real reason for all footnote quotes is that they support the summary text in the article, and make it clear for the reader that the summary does indeed match the source. Footnote quotes have the additional advantage of presenting relevant information that is too detailed for the body of the text, but perhaps of interest to the reader who wishes to know more. There is no rational reason for excluding footnote quotes, except in the case when they are completely irrelevant to the point being supported. However, if the latter is true, then one must question the relevance of the entire footnote, not just the quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, the use of footnote quotes that you're describing is one where they are "relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader," so there's no argument there. An example of a footnote quote that doesn't fulfill that description would be here, where the article text reads "... a Bryn Mawr graduate. She had previously been married to Thayer Hobson." and the footnote quote reads "a Bryn Mawr graduate, ... She had been previously married to Thayer Hobson."

And BTW, Wikipedia:Verifiability mentions footnote quotes only briefly, only recommending their use under very narrow circumstances. RedSpruce (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that the footnote you mention is both relevant and of interest to the reader, since it helps show that the material being cited is being accurately cited - and in this case, likely being plagiarized, so it should actually be re-written or included in quotation marks. As for WP:V, it's a bit behind the times, but there's a reason all those annoying citation templates have a "quote" parameter. Again, unless the quotation is completely off-topic, or extremely long, it is only of benefit to the article and the reader. And if it's completely off-topic, then the citation itself is bad. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Repetition does not verify that the material is being cited accurately, since the quote can be falsified as easily as the paraphrase. Repetition is not "of benefit to the article and the reader;" it's repetition, i.e. "the action of repeating something that has already been said or written".

Any entire article in Wikipedia can be a hoax, and at times are, that doesn't mean we should make it easier to create hoaxes, or stop making an encyclopedia. Quotes in references make it easier to detect fraud, since all you have to do is cut and paste the quote back in Google and find the reference again. A forged quote will very quickly be detected. A forged, unquoted reference can sit in the article for months, such as in the G. David Schine article. There was a reference that he started a group called "YIP" and a reference to a website. The problem was that the website made no mention of that at all, just that he was a member, not a founder. That sat unchallenged in the article while RS was removing my correctly referenced material, and deleting the quotes from references. In the end false material was allowed to stay, and correct information was being deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

<- Some guidance on the use of footnoted quotes, even if it can only be fairly general, is likely to be more helpful than no guidance—especially to the less experienced (or the more forgetful) editor. The proposed statement, which might have helped a little in a recent discussion about the Stradivarius article, looks fine to me, too. Even the encouragement to build consensus through discussion would not, in my view, go amiss. It might be optimistic to expect a newcomer to know the usual method for any situation, so surely a little reiteration here and there can do no harm? The advice is already given in several sections on the project page and, since a particular section might be briefly accessed for quick reference, this seems a sensible approach. In the context under discussion, I'd be inclined to use a form more along the lines of: "Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes, consensus should be sought on the talk page." (This covers not only the question of inclusion, but also that of content.) As RedSpruce rightly points out, the statement won't necessarily resolve major differences of interpretation. But in such cases, the sooner we resort to discussion, the better our chances of finding a way forward. --Error -128 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The key point here is that quotations in footnotes do no harm, and in fact only do good vis-à-vis WP:V, so excluding them is irrational at best, and harmful to the project. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Footnotes do no harm, and in fact only do good" is not the "key point"; it is your contention, which you have not supported nor found any agreement on here. And no one has suggested excluding them, so it's not clear why you bring that up at all. The key point is that when used, they should be with care, in a manner to be useful and relevant to the reader. Repetition is not useful or relevant. RedSpruce (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, you haven't actually been able to articulate and "harm" caused by them, whereas others have articulated how they are helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Useful and relevant to the reader" is a 100% subjective, weaselly phrase. The standards for use should be 100% objective. Allowing a weaselly phrase, just leaves us where we were before, where any editor with a grudge can follow another editor around and sweep through a group of articles, and say they are not "useful and relevant to the reader" and delete them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here is my summary of reasons of why using the quote parameter in citations is important. I have include examples from actual articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All of which reasons I dispose of here. RedSpruce (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to, and "disposing of" are not the intellectual equivalent of each other. If I remember your main argument was that they are "repetitious and irrelevant". Which seems to be your subjective problem with them. That doesn't violate the objective Wikipedia rules for using them. I find whole articles subjectively "repetitious and irrelevant", but I don't delete them. That is because the encyclopedia wasn't written just to be useful to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think this has nothing to do with footnotes. RAN creates new well sourced content. RS follows him everywhere and deletes footnotes. This WP:STALK should stop.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, you know now from discussion elsewhere that this statement is incorrect. Considering how serious the accusation is, you should withdraw it. RedSpruce (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We still have no policy that requires the use of brief quotations in footnotes, nor do we have one that forbids it. This is a matter of personal preference that makes an extremely WP:LAME justification for an edit war, but would most certainly benefit from guidelines on its use. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka's proposed emendation properly summarizes the way the WP:FN guideline should address the use of brief quotations in footnotes. I fully support the wording as it currently stands. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"brief" is the operative word here. Including gigantic blocks of text in footnotes, as I've seen contained in some diffs related to this controversy, borders on copyvio and bloats articles and makes them difficult to edit. And as was pointed out above, quotes in footnotes don't really prove anything about the reliability of the text since they can be easily faked. They should be used very sparingly, IMO. - Merzbow (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But I looked through ~7 articles and did not see any "gigantic blocks of text in footnotes". All quotes were quite appropriate and enhanced the articles. With so many poorly sourced articles in WP, I would not blame an editor for making a lot of sourcing effort.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles were: G. David Schine, Annie Lee Moss, Elizabeth Bentley, Mary Stalcup Markward, and William Remington and Frank Coe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so it looks like the consensus is to add the following to the guideline:

The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some use extensive quotes, others use none, and both styles are acceptable. The general consensus is that quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader. Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page.

If anyone disagrees, please suggest specific wording changes, otherwise we'll go ahead and add this. Thanks, --Elonka 18:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort being made here, but I disagree with that wording. Not only does it avoid making anything like a specific recommendation, but it vastly overplays the notion that "Some [editors] use extensive quotes", It's an established fact that the huge majority of WP articles use no footnote quotes at all, and if you then subtract the thousands that RAN has edited, you're left with essentially none. As it's written, this text encourages the use of footnote quotes (if only inadvertently). This non-standard practice should not be encouraged until and unless there's a consensus that it's a practice that's good for Wikipedia. RedSpruce (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce, I think you are vastly overstating the case, by implying that it is only RAN's articles that use footnoted quotes. Many high-quality articles on Wikipedia use footnoted quotes: Alcibiades, Rudolf Vrba, Franco-Mongol alliance, David Irving, just to name a few. If you don't like the suggested guideline wording though, then please make a specific suggestion for something different, thanks. --Elonka 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much of a grammarian, but shouldn't that first comma precede "and", rather than following "footnotes"? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I would not have "of use or interest to the reader" that requires a crystal ball. That is just a weasel phrase not needed. Whoever was deleting before and calling them "trivia" and "irrelevant", and "repetitive", now would only have to swap in "not of interest to the reader" or "not of use to the reader" and we just start back where we were. We just need that they are allowed, and if consensus is to "not display them" they should be hidden with <!--, not deleted. When consensus was not to have them display such as at Lizzie Borden, I conceded to the majority. I am not one to sweep through articles and revert against consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence three offers three standards: "brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader". All three are subjective to varying degrees. "Brief" is probably easiest to judge; "relevant" is a bit more challenging; "of use or interest to the reader" is pure opinion. I have added them to thousands of articles because I think they are useful in most case, while others think they are never useful under any circumstance. How can we discern what readers do or do not find useful? I would suggest omitting this clause and sticking with "brief and relevant". Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not offering a suggestion for specific wording earlier. My suggestion is:

If quotes are used in footnotes, they should be used in a way that fulfills the correct use of footnotes in general. That is, they should expand upon or add detail to a specific portion of the text. They should not simply repeat information that is already in the article.

RedSpruce (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that is the definition of an "note" not a "reference". People still add notes, and we used to have separate note and reference sections at the end of an article. Notes even had their own numbering system apart from references. A note adds additional information that is demoted to the bottom of the article, while a reference is the actual text cited from the original source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "if you change the definition to fit my use, then my use fits the definition." RedSpruce (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have left out the most important reason for using footnotes; that they verify the claim made in the text. As such, quotations are an invaluable part of that process, and, as of yet, no good rationale has been put forth for removing them. Keep in mind, this is Wikipedia, where people often, and unfortunately, change wordings in articles regardless of what footnotes say (footnotes, being small, are often ignored by casual editors). The quotations are invaluable for other editors in evaluating such changes, and seeing when they diverge from the actual reference. I propose the following:

The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some use extensive quotes, others use none, and both styles are acceptable. Citation templates include parameters for quotes, as the general consensus is that quotes are useful for verifying material in an article, and are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, or are otherwise of interest to the reader. Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some use extensive quotes, others use none, and both styles are acceptable. Citation templates include parameters for quotes, as the general consensus is that quotes are useful for verifying material in an article, and are acceptable if they are brief, and relevant to the article text that is being footnoted. Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This eliminates the weasel phrase, so that anyone deleting before as "trivial" can't just substitute in "not of use" and go on a deletion binge again. We should stress the more objective measures and delete the subjective ones, so they aren't abused. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again the "verification" argument is used, as if quotes were magically immune to being falsified or used out of context. The only true verification is the information that points to the source material. My text only asserts that if a quote is part of your footnote, it should still follow the rules for footnotes in general. If it clarifies and adds information, then it's good. If it's nothing but repetition, it's bad. As this discussion amply demonstrates, repetition is really boring and pointless. RedSpruce (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When I was in elementary school, we would be expected to follow along in a book as children were asked to read a few sentences each. The students were expected to follow along with the reading, and the teacher would walk around the class and spot check if a child knew where the place was. When asked, those distracted students who had lost the place would often place their hand on the page, fingers splayed, hoping that one of their fingers was pointing to the correct place. The issue of verification is far more important on Wikipedia, and the inclusion of a brief quotation makes it infinitely clear as to what in the reference is being cited. Sources can be readily falsified or used out of context, with or without brief quotations, but their inclusion allows any reader to go back to the source and know what is being cited and to make a proper determination if the quoted material is present in the source, is accurate and in context. How can you verify a source if you don't know what is being verified? The absence of a quotation specifying what is being cited in the source often leads readers on a wild goose chase, hoping that they can try to guess the sentence or words that are being referenced in the citation. I can't force any editor to use these brief quotations, but there is a clear benefit to their use for those who take advantage of the feature. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotes have a place in notes, but I've seen too many articles which look like

Smith was born January 1, 1800 in Alphaville, and grew up in Betaville.<ref>Source. "Born in Alphaville on New Years 1800, Smith's family soon moved to Betaville".</ref>

What do quotes like this add to the article? Not much that I can tell in most cases. It also encourages a form of writing where each sentence corresponds closely to a sentence in a source. I've seen well-developed articles formed almost entirely by weaving together sentences selected from the sources. The resulting prose tends to be choppy and lacking originality. I don't want to encourage more of that sort of writing. Gimmetrow 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because articles are built one fact at a time. So you end up with short sentences with individual facts arranged in chrono order. Once all the facts are in chrono order a second round of editing polishes the prose. But that has nothing to do with references, its more of an article in a beta stage, like the ones that come from congressional biographies that are just dates and places. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I question cause and effect here. Does using quotations cause editors to craft sentences that are modeled on a quotation or is it a matter of poor writing skills? If anything, use of the quotations allows readers to identify such minimal paraphrases and allows other editors to reword the text to address the issue. Eliminating quotations from the references seems most unlikely to solve the paraphrase problem. If anything, it would only camouflage it better. Alansohn (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles based mostly on quotes already exist without note-quotes. My fear is that encouraging note-quotes will implicitly encourage this form of writing. Not encouraging is not the same as eliminating. Gimmetrow 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I read the proposed wording, the statement is rather neutral on the subject, neither encouraging nor discouraging the use of footnoted quotes. Those who use them can use them, those who don't want to are free to eschew their use. Prose issues would be more easily identified and addressed -- and thereby discouraged -- if the practice is plainly identifiable rather than requiring editors to search through each source to find if a sentence in article is a simple paraphrase. Alansohn (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gimmetrow; nice to see a new voice here. I think more important and more central than whether the use of quotes encourages badly-written articles is the fact you started out with: What do quotes like your example add to the article? Nothing. When something that adds nothing to an article is inserted into an article, it makes the article look bad and amateurish. And when one editor is responsible for making thousands of such edits to thousands of articles, and when that editor won't listen to dozens of opinions against him... blah, blah, blah... circle back to a debate that started months ago. <sigh> RedSpruce (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Most note-quotes I have seen add little or nothing, and I think wording should discourage note-quotes which essentially repeat what's in the text. However, I can visualize rare cases where that may be useful, for instance if some piece of numerical info is regularly vandalized. Having the info in another place, even as a HTML comment, may in particular cases help other editors identify the vandalism. Gimmetrow 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

←User:Jayjg Rcently added this text to the project page: "as the general consensus is that quotes are useful for verifying material in an article" The above discussion makes it quite clear that there is no such consensus, so I've removed that text. The section now reads:

The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Citation templates include parameters for quotes, and the general consensus is that quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader. Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page.

Is this acceptable to all present, or should we remove the passage altogether and start the discussion from scratch again? RedSpruce (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've only loosely followed this discussion. I'd just like to add my observation that most of quotes that I've seen added in footnotes are pretty much useless for the purposes of verification -- often being nothing more than the opening sentence of the publication, presented without any context, and often entirely unrelated to the detail(s) in the article that the footnote is purported to be supporting. Such gratuitous quotes are, IMO, completely useless. There may be places where intelligent and selective quoting is helpful, but this guideline should not encourage stuffing footnotes with irrelevancies. older ≠ wiser 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give examples of what you are describing? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can point you to some examples, Jayjg: just look for pretty much any article edited by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). RedSpruce (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a good consensus for its inclusion, and a strong rationale as well. Please gain consensus for removing it before doing so. BTW, sorry about the rollback, I hit the wrong button, but please don't remove the material without consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no consensus to include it in the first place and to claim that a consensus is needed to remove it is not a fair use of the term consensus. AFAICT few people have taken part in the discussion and of those that have about half have expressed the point of view that little is added by this extension that is not already covered by the guideline. Is it really worth the wp:instruction creep? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the point about quotes altogether until and unless something resembling a consensus is reached about its content. A vague and generally useless guideline is bad, but a guideline that makes false claims of a "consensus" on some point is totally unacceptable. RedSpruce (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And now User:Alansohn has replaced the passage, joining the "I declare there is a consensus" school. This is blatantly disruptive and dishonest.

I count the following people as participants in this discussion:

• User:Elonka
• User:Philip Baird Shearer
• User:RedSpruce
• User:Error -128
• User:Biophys
• Gimmetrow
• older ≠ wiser
• User:Jayjg
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
• Alansohn

Of these, a total of 3 have specifically endorsed the version that Jayjg and Alansohn have inserted: Jayjg, Alansohn, and RAN. Others have expressed reservations and I have expressed outright disagreement. That is not a consensus. Indeed, I don't see how anything that has been discussed by so few people could be called "consensus" for a Wikipedia style guideline in the first place. I strongly propose that the whole issue of adding a passage regarding footnote quotes be dropped. There isn't a consensus, and there isn't likely to be one (except perhaps one to drop the issue). RedSpruce (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explicitly stated that I do not agree with the wording added as a result of the consensus process. The wording inserted is far too restrictive and subjective in determining where the use of footnoted quotes is appropriate. While I disapprove of the exact wording, I am willing to accept the wording as a compromise drafted by User:Elonka to reflect the concerns raised throughout the process, reasonable or not. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion without participating heretofore and am happy to endorse Elonka's draft of 18:22, 4 July 2008. Ben MacDui 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ben - Elonka's draft looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Re.

...quotes are useful for verifying material in an article...

This is not by definition so. I propose to replace by

...quotes can be useful for verifying material in an article...

and improve the flow of the sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The replacement of "are" with "can be" looks reasonable. I would also point out that this dovetails nicely with WP:RSUE, where quotes (and translated quotes) are encouraged when dealing with foreign-language sources. --Elonka 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note also the FOF of this 2007 RfAr case:

The [...] article, despite containing many citations, remains weakly sourced due to [...] and the uninformative nature of the citations.

It is important not to set up unintended traps for unsuspecting contributors, who might be encouraged to give large quotations & translations in order to give context, and then afterwards find themselves entangled in procedure for having quoted too much (which was what had happened leading -among other problems- to the RfAr I quoted from). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding an idea

See this talk page discussion:

...I'm not a too big fan (e.g. in Prem Rawat reduction of the text quoted in footnotes is highly desirable imho). At the one side I'm waiting for a wikipedia-wide consensus to develop. On the other side I think the "collapsible" format I introduced in Bibliography of Prem Rawat and his organizations an acceptable solution, if used in a thoughtful way. The Prem Rawat article might benefit from it as a beneficial step in the right direction.

What do others think about the "collapsible" format as used in Bibliography of Prem Rawat and his organizations#References? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote farms in footnotes should be discouraged. They are often used to work around the proscription placed on editors by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. They are often used to make a point (and are created by trawling using an internet search engine using a biased phrase and then selecting an impressive number which make the point). The thinking seems to be that as one may not write "Many scholars ..." I will put in a quote farm and that will give the impression of many scholars although I have not explicitly written it as such in the text of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have definitely seen a few cases where quotes have been used in citations to add undue weight to a particular POV. However, I don't think that such occasional misuse should prevent the majority of cases where quotes are useful in verifying information in the article. --Elonka 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but loopholes should be avoided though, for which I added an additional caveat to the guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could a couple people list a few articles which, in their opinion, appropriately use quotes in footnotes to aid verification? Gimmetrow 15:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Battle of Waterloo Fitchett --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would also like to add to the paragraph, that when the consensus is to not display the citation quotes that they be marked with the <!-- hide markup, rather than be deleted. That way they are still available to the researcher, even if they are determined to be not of interest stylistically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nah, currently we have "... not used as an evasion of other guidance...": Current MoS guidance has "Editors use invisible comments to communicate with each other in the body of the text of an article," (my bolding) and there are other places that narrow the scope of what we generally do with hidden comments ("Note that most comments should go on the appropriate Talk page"). I don't think cluttering mainspace with hidden verification material – that may or may not be acceptable but sort of evading further talk page discussion while invisible for those not accidently clicking "edit" – would be anywhere near to a solution we should actively support. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The most fundamental benefit of footnoted quotes, and one that has not been addressed yet, is that it specifies what exactly is being cited in the reference. Narrowing down a source to an article or publication is great, but it can often bu unclear as to what words or sentences are being used to support the claim made in a Wikipedia article. A brief citation leaves no doubt as to the text in question. Again, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to include brief quotes in references. Nor is there anything in Wikipedia policy that forbids their use. Footnoted quotes seem to have become a handy issue to edit war over, when it ought to be a mere preference. While I still disagree with the exact wording, it's clear that there is no consensus whatsoever to forbid the use or to justify the removal of quotations in references. Those who choose not to use the feature are free to do so. Alansohn (talk)

• Re. "The most fundamental benefit" – disagree.
• Re. "not been addressed yet" – it has, in general terms: "can be useful for the verifiability of material in an article". As we disagree about what is the "most fundamental" aspect of that usefulness, I'd keep it to the broader description.
• Re. "While I still disagree with the exact wording" – vaguish: could you propose an improved wording on this talk page if you're convinced another wording would be better? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For other good examples of the use of footnotes, I would point to Franco-Mongol alliance, where quotes were used to help in verification of offline sources. Similar styles were used in Mongol raids into Palestine, and Knights Templar (a Featured class article). I could also provide other examples of articles where quotes are used per WP:RSUE to help in verifying foreign-language sources, such as Hedvig Malina. Many quotes were added during disputes, and helped a great deal to help stabilize things: Any place where a dispute would erupt over a portion of the article, where the editors could not access (or read) the sources for themselves, a good quote in a footnote usually calmed things right down. --Elonka 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and parenthesis

If a footnote concerns a sentence in a parenthesis, should it be located before or after the parenthesis ? As an example, should we write "(he was very happy [2])", or "(he was very happy)[2]", or something else ? SyG (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "happy [2])" In fact, if it is an entire sentence within parentheses, I'd put the period after "happy." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so something like "(he was very happy.[2])" then. Thanks for your answer! SyG (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the "ref label" tag (linked to "note table" entries)?

Can someone please educate an ignoramus? Is there an article that discusses and explains the "ref label" tag (e.g., Gettysburg Address#Notes)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Ref/doc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I see that this approach to footnoting is "deprecated." Should we modify this article to alert editors that they may see alternate approaches to footnoting but that the <ref> tag is now preferred? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref num is deprecated. Ref and note are already mentioned on this page. And ref group is in development and not yet documented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we do more to alert those who are not as familiar with the subject as you are. Perhaps by changing You can add a footnote to an article by writing your note within <ref> ... </ref> tags, as explained below. in the introduction to You can add a footnote to an article by writing your note within <ref> ... </ref> tags, as explained below. (There are other ways of creating footnotes, but using the <ref> tag is preferred.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to that, but with this new ref group thingie in development, it may be premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. My inclination is to go ahead and do the change now, it can always be updated when the ref group finishes its work. However, I will give it a day or two to see whether anyone else wants to chime in. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It looks like WillowW's edit moots this discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on our experience over the past few months, the code is safe to use as is. It's dubbed "experimental", I believe, because Steve is planning on making some improvements to it on the year time-scale, improvements such as allowing references within references. I think we needn't wait for those improvements. Other systems may come along, such as my own or a variant thereof, but I think this method will continue to work indefinitely. Willow (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Documentation for the "group=note" extension to ref tags

Hi, I'd like to add some documentation to this article explaining the usage of the group=note extension to the ref tag. Since I'm leaving tomorrow for a few weeks, and since it's been urgently requested at FAC, I'm going to be BOLD and just do it. Anyone can revert or amend my additions, if they're unwelcome. Thanks for being patient! :) Willow (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First sentence terminology

I am concerned about the following text: It is often desirable for an article to have two sets of footnotes: one for citing the sources, and another for explanatory notes. To harmonize this article with wp:layout should it be changed to It is often desirable for an article to have two sections of supporting material: one for citing the sources, and another for explanatory footnotes? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I prefer "footnotes" to "supporting material", since it's more specific and informative. It's also the subject of which we're speaking in this article, right? I'm sorry, though, that I don't see the inconsistency in wp:layout (at least for this aspect)? Willow (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes. I prefer "footnotes" as well. In fact, I recently suggested that "Footnotes" be added to this article as an acceptable section heading. This suggestion was vigorously rejected. Finally, it was explained to me that someplace back in the archives is a discussion where "Footnotes" was considered archaic for Wikipedia use, because the term refers to stuff which is placed at the "foot" of physical pages. Most footnoted books only have a few short notes at the foot of pages. Due to the way articles are presented on Wikipedia, all the notes accumulate in one section which can be rather large, which is more similar to books which gather all the notes for a chapter at the end of that chapter (or at the end of a book, often grouped by chapter). Thus the "foot" part of the "footnotes" meaning is arguably not quite how notes are used on Wikipedia, as the large clump is less similar to footnotes than to references/notes sections. So, despite what you and I prefer, "footnotes" is a term of art that should be used with some care (at least in this article).

Inconsistency. The inconsistency is that, as I read the Layout article, "Notes" (i.e., footnotes created by embedded links - the kind that are discussed in this article) and "References" (a typed list of citations - something which is not discussed in this article) are two different things. Am I misreading Layout? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolving conflict

A similar concern relates to the next sentence: The former are often called "References", whereas the later are called "Notes". While "often called" is certainly true, should that practice be discouraged as not in accordance with wp:layout#Notes and wp:layout#References? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the difficulty, but I would favour changing wp:layout to match this, rather than the reverse.Willow (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the Layout mavens would favor changing this article. And I believe they would have a point. This article is about how to create and use footnotes, it is not the place to resolve global issues of how an article is structured. That is the subject of the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A clear division of explanatory notes and source citations seems to be current Best Practice in Wikipedia's Featured Articles, and it seems to agree with common sense. I also see the spirit of that division in the final sentence of the Notes section at wp:layout#Notes: "...name the section References unless some of the footnotes are notes and not citations, in which case name the section Notes and references." Willow (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WillowW, thanks for the documentation. I concur that the wording on refs and notes agrees with practice and is fine. I'm not sure if these additions, though, are premature of if the system should gain acceptance somewhere, for example, the Village Pump or some centralized discussion location, since it's marked as "experimental" and "use with caution" and still under development. If the system gains acceptance, perhaps we can add examples at some point. Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:FAC#New references feature, where it seems that this system first appeared, and there is some concern that it hadn't gained widespread acceptance yet and shouldn't be implemented yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that explanatory notes ("Notes" - embedded footnotes) and source citations ("References" - typed in list) should be clearly divided and I think that is what the Layout article does. The text leading up to the partial sentence you quote reads: If there are only a few cited sources in an article and all of the references are cited, then the sections "Notes" and "References" can be combined. If this is done then ... So the text you quoted only applies in very limited circumstances. (And, in fact, "cited sources" is a bit ambiguous - it sounds like "References," not "Notes".) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Discursive notes; I wish this discussion had occurred in a central place before this experimental method was added to many pages, but ... it's a Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

links between page refs and bibliography

Is there a way to get page refs that link to the book and then back again? I can go to the book, but when I go back, it goes to the first ref that links to the book instead of whichever one was clicked. I read something about this in the archive where it could be achieved by using the browsers back button, but maybe that hasn't been implemented yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Links in footnotes to newsarticles requiring payment for access

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but I could not find the relevant answers in other places. I have a question regarding the appropriateness of including an http link in a reference to a newspaper article, if this link leads to a short abstract/excerpt of the article on the newspaper's site, where payment is required to access the full version of the article. I am unsure on this issue myself. Many newspapers, such as New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc, have archival sections for older articles where payment (usually a few dollars) is required to see the article. Doing googlenews searches often leads to such sites. On one hand, icluding a link like that in a reference (rather than just giving a plain text reference, with the publication name, date, etc), makes it easier for people who really want to verify the information cited or maybe learn more about it, to access such information quickly. Paying $3.95 to read an article is easier than going to the library, and, with the gasoline prices being what they are, it may even be cheaper as well -:). On the other hand, providing a footnoted reference link to a non-free site might look like a form of advertisement or commercial endorsement of a particular site.

Is there a policy/guideline or at least some preferred WP convention regarding how to deal with this issue? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

linking to the abstract is fine, just a few months ago the NYTimes all required payment, now post 1985 or so is free. At least with the abstract you can verify the date and most the info. Most of what I use comes from the abstract anyway. MY concern is that the links may change, as the NYT changes its links once they hosted the articles themselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would always include full-specs of the print edition (as that will never change), and a link to the non-free internet version (with date); when available, as this allows people with a subscription to access (and those willing to pay). Basically this is what we do with many articles from scientific journals too (most of which are not free - $20-$40 for a single article is the rate.......); although scientific journal have adopted the DOI standard to cope with changing links. Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And Time magazine was pay last year and free this year, using the same links. Newsweek started to add their archive, but so far not much. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark-up would be better than encouraging people to remove reference information

With reference to my recent edit, [1], I think it would be better to have a JavaScript implementation of syntax highlighting for wikitext, than to shorten references such that they are likely to become broken. In my experience, most editors, when finding a broken reference, will not repair it, but remove it instead. After that point, it becomes very unlikely that anyone other than the original author (if we happen to be lucky enough that he/she is watching the article) will become aware that the reference needs to be reinserted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to completely reverse a long-standing recommendation, without getting some consensus here. Being WP:BOLD has it's place, but a complete reversal seems to be going a little far. Yes there is a potential for a prolem, but with well-structure references, it's usually pretty clear what has gone walkabout. Generally there should be no reason to remove referenced text without some discussion, so such breakages are often the result of overlooked vandalism. JavaScript has it's weaknesses, I cannot use it on the browser session I am currently editing from. David Underdown (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Often what the guideline pages say is not the same as what the experienced editors adhere to. Hence it's appropriate to change guidelines when they are felt not to conform to current best practice. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm a pretty experienced editor (my account appears to be about a year older than yours for a start), and the existing guidline certainly reflects my normal practice, and as I say, I've not expereinced any major problems that way. David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be because the articles you work on are edited by a small group of dedicated users that probably also watch the articles.[2][3] I think your vandalism claim is tenuous - a lot of people will not be familiar with the references scheme, and will, for instance, remove a sentence when they feel the information given has been duplicated in the article. They will not, in the vast majority of cases, check the references section after making the edit, so they won't ever see the big red sign that says "broken reference". And in all likelihood, the next "editor" (who may be a simple reader who feels they want to do something about that big red sign) who comes along won't ever have looked at the history tab, so may simply remove the reference to supply a short-term, and short-sighted solution to the problem. The next person that comes along won't even know there ever was a problem. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

David, my account is quite a bit older than yours and I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey. pschemp | talk 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David particularly since the change that puts up Big Red letters if the main reference is removed. and having text after ref tags with the same name can lead to subtle editing errors when one instance of the text is changed but not the others. Typically to fix a broken link. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)