Help talk:Footnotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Footnotes)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Template:NoteTag[edit]

@Redrose64: I was trying to convert articles which are using the note group for note purpose into using the template. It is not creating a new method, instead simply converting an existing usage from ref group into not template. It is also functionally different from Templalte:efn in the sense that the tip on Template:efn does not explicitly state in line that they are notes. C933103 (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This template {{NoteTag}} is new to us – it has only just appeared. It has merit in that if you want your footnote markers to be shown as "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on – a very reasonable thing to do – then using {{NoteTag|...}} and then {{NoteFoot}} is somewhat less markup than doing {{refn|group=Note|...}} and then {{reflist|group=Note}}. The two templates should however be provided with proper documentation of their own. If documentation is supplied I would favour keeping them linked in the table under question: Noyster (talk), 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for these new templates whatsoever. The existing templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}} do the job perfectly well; moreover, neither of them need a |group= parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
However, neither templates provide a visual indications that they a tips for note... As for editing documentation to more dedicatedly reflecting their usage, I would do so if others think the template is worth keeping independently instead of being change to redirect C933103 (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
efn/notelist without a |group= can only display a single character or digit as the reference marker. We're saying if you want the markers to be "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on – making it clear to the reader that they are going to find some "Notes" further down – then NoteTag provides a handy way to do that. What's it costing us? Any other views?: Noyster (talk), 10:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
You only need the word "Note" to disambiguate the number, otherwise you would have two different and potentially unrelated [1], the other neing a true reference; moreover, that word "Note" only appears in the [Note 1], it doesn't appear in the automatically-generated list later on. With {{efn}}, you get letters [a] etc. and the automatically-generated list uses the same identifiers. The non-use of numbers also means that there is no risk of confusion between the two lists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If the user of these templates provides separate Footnote sections clearly headed "Notes" and "References", then the potential for confusion should be minimal. However, to address this objection more thoroughly, C933103, would you consider amending {{NoteFoot}} so that it will prefix each note with "Note 1", "Note 2" and so on, rather than the bare numbers?: Noyster (talk), 12:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. It can probably be doable as exampled by using css listed on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26025057/add-custom-text-to-ordered-list-li this page, but is it really desirable? As then you will have a "Notes" subheading in a page, numerous notes down below, and then all of these notes will precede with the word "Note" in front of it.C933103 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. The purpose of the word "note" is not just to disambiguate the number, instead it's trying to tell readers that there are relevant information that they can click on to view. This is something that simple number or other ordering characters cannot achieve.
  3. Actually, is it more preferable to use [Note 1] or [note 1]?
C933103 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation style[edit]

Am I the only troglodyte here? Footnoting is different in every Wiki article. 'Help:footnotes' is like reading the fine print from my bank: 16 pages and no clear suggestion of how to cite a normal article in a scientific journal. However, I do note on p. 13 a section on how to cite a book, strangely without the place of publication. I guess I learned it all wrong. Azd0815 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way to start learning is to copy an existing reference from a well-developed article. Find a long science article, like Bengal tiger, click Edit, and copy a full citation that references a scientific journal. Paste it into your article, change the citation information (authors, title, DOI, etc.), and then Preview your edit to see if it looks right. When you are happy with your edit, click Publish. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Azd0815 As we say in another of these lengthy guides: "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style" as it is just not practicable to attempt to enforce a house style here. This section of the same guide has more suggestions about what information to include in a citation to a book, a journal and other types of source. I hope this will help: Noyster (talk), 16:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps documentation on pages like Template:Cite journal would be a better place to start reading about how to cite things.C933103 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Double underscores in footnote names[edit]

I have just discovered that if a footnote name, whether or not enclosed in quotation marks, contains a double underscore (i.e. __ ), there will be a mismatch between the names created for the links and corresponding anchors of the reference and the footnote. Consequently, clicking on the reference superscript or the footnote caret has no effect.[1] In the example I'm using here to demonstrate the problem, the footnote constructor is <ref name="garlic__bread">Here is an example</ref>. The anchors at the footnote and reference superscript are correctly named "cite_note-garlic__bread-1" and "cite_ref-garlic__bread_1-0", respectively, with double underscores between "garlic" and "bread" being preserved. The links to these anchors, however, are incorrectly named "cite_note-garlic_bread-1" and "cite_ref-garlic_bread_1-0", respectively, with only single underscores between "garlic" and "bread".

Until this is fixed, I suggest the WP:REFNAME section of this help page include a note that footnote names should not include double underscores. David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Here is an example
This is a different manifestation of the same problem that is discussed at Template talk:Sfn#Bug in either sfn or sfnRef. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
A Phabricator report has already been submitted for this issue.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Grouped footnotes[edit]

Sri Lankan local elections, 2018 has several footnotes but the bulk are in the main results table. I wanted the footnotes in the table to be listed in the table rather than at the foot of the article so I created groups. However, I have done something wrong and the notelist in the table is picking up all the footnotes in the article and the notelist at the foot of the article isn't showing anything. What have I done wrong?--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

There does appear to be a new bug here with the group= parameter using {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. The first call of "notelist" picks up all the notes irrespective of group. The problem can be seen more clearly in this extremely simple test page: Noyster (talk), 08:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Obi2canibe and Noyster: This is not a new problem. Before 7 December 2012, {{Efn}} did not accept a group parameter at all. All versions after that have only accepted a small list of predefined values, those shown on the template documentation page. Arbitrary group names such as "group1" and "group2" are ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, thank you. The documentation for {{efn}} and {{notelist}} is misleading where it says:
  • {{efn}} supports |name= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in <ref>...
  • {{notelist}} supports the column parameter, |refs= and |group=, which work the same as the parameters in {{reflist}}...
as it turns out you cannot use your own |group= name with efn/notelist, as you can with <ref>.
For present purposes we will have to fall back on {{refn}}, with the disadvantage that you can specify lower-alpha markers or insert a list of notes where you want it using your own |group= name, but not both at once. Possible syntax is demonstrated here: Noyster (talk), 09:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your responses. I have used the pre-defined groups as suggested and it's worked. I agree that the documentation for {{Efn}} and {{Notelist}} is misleading as it suggests editors can use any group name as with {{Reflist}}.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)