This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shortened footnotes page. |
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RfC:_.22Short_cites.22_vs._.22Shortened_footnotes.22:_need_uniform_terminology for question on best terminology for short cites /short footnotes. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
With the recent changes, [1] it appears we are now mandating the use of {{ sfn}} and are not going to demonstrate how it may be done in some uses. -- Gadget850 talk 01:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the documentation for the older ways short references have been created in Wikipedia articles has been removed. I go through Category:Pages with broken reference names correcting reference errors. I often run into other reference problems in articles and need to know how to fix them. There have been an amazing number of ways of creating references used since the beginning of Wikipedia. There needs to be current documentation on all of them even if they are no longer in active use. I am going to resurrect this information from the history pages, either here or in a separate article with a link in this article. StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the previous remarks.
The idea that we refer to Anne Elk as "Elk, Anne" seems crazy to me. We do it in an alphabetical bibliographies, but that is not what we are at here. None of the books in my bookshelf have the author's name that way round.
The idea that we say which of Anne Elk's books we are referring to in this way: Elk (1972) seems crazy too. If Anne Elk has written lots of books on my bookshelf, I would never think "I must get her 1972 book to refer to."
Afterbrunel ( talk) 10:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I love the sfn-style, but I wonder: would it be possible to create a reference-style in which the reference itself as used when editing is short, as in the sfn-style, but the displayed reference shows the complete reference? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Use "==Notes==" for caveats/explanatory footnotes, use "==References==" (or "==Citations==" or whatever floats your boat, but "==References==" seems to be most common) for {{reflist}}/citations, use "See (___), pg. ___" (I personally use <ref>See {{harv|Last|year}}, pg. ___"</ref>) for shortened citations, and use "====Works cited====" (forth level title) for full citations of information that was cited using shortened citations in {{reflist}}:
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
The Sun is pretty big.<ref>See {{harv|Miller|2005}}, pg. 23: "Relevant quote".</ref>{{refn|group=note|But Miller points out that the Sun is not as large as some other stars.<ref>See {{harv|Miller|2005}}, pg. 23: "Relevant quote".</ref>}} But the Moon{{refn|group=note|The Moon goes by other names, such as Selena.<ref>See {{harv|Brown|2001}}, pg. 63: "Relevant quote".</ref>}} is not so big.<ref>See {{harv|Brown|2001}}, pg. 46: "Relevant quote".</ref>{{refn|group=note|Historically the Moon was not always considered to be large.}} The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>See {{harv|Smith|2005}}, pg. 334: "Relevant quote".</ref> ==Notes== {{reflist|group=note}} ==References== {{reflist}} ====Works cited==== {{refbegin}} * {{citation |last=Brown |title=The Moon |publisher=Penguin |year=2001}} * {{citation |last=Miller |title=The Sun |publisher=Oxford |year=2005}} * {{citation |last=Smith |title=The Universe |publisher=Random House |year=2005}} {{refend}} |
The Sun is pretty big. [1] [note 1] But the Moon [note 2] is not so big. [4] [note 3] The Sun is also quite hot. [5]
|
The reason for this is because shortened citations can be confusing for some people (I wasn't familiar with them, and I thought they were just incomplete citations; I also thought the wikilinks to the full citation were links to the resources themselves), and I think "See (___), pg. ___" is a more intuitive format for shortened citations (it's explicitly telling me to look for something, and if I hover over the link, I can see it's a wikilink, and if I click it, it takes me to the full citation).
Also, having "Works cited" as a forth level title under "References" more intuitively tells you that it's not a mistake that an editor made, that it's not a mistaken duplicate or rival section to "References", but it's subordinate to "References" for some purpose (that purpose being that it lists full citations to the shortened citations used earlier). This, I believe, makes it less likely to be modified/damaged/deleted by a wiki editor who isn't familiar with the shortened citation/full citation distinction. "Works cited" also seems to be the best header to list full citations under, because it's listing full citations of the works that were previously cited using shortened citations (hence, "works cited"). I've also come across articles, such as John Quincy Adams, that had been using this format, so I'm not the only one who uses this style.
I also don't like citations being listen in the "Notes" section: I think "Notes" should be reserved for explanatory footnotes, pointing out caveats, and nitpicking the information presented in the article. This allows tangential information in the article to still be included, but not clutter the main body of the article, which should be as straightforward and concise as possible. (For adding notes to the article, I prefer to use {{refn|group=note|...}} because it allows you to add citations for the notes (<ref group=note>...</ref> does not), and I prefer it over {{efn|...}} because I prefer the [note 1] that {{refn|group=note|...}} uses over the [a] that {{efn|...}} uses.)
Bfoshizzle1 ( talk) 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
|p=
and |pp=
parameters that are provided by templates such as {{
harv}}
? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about whether to keep or delete the new template {{ Use shortened footnotes}} at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes. We could use more feedback, so please participate in the discussion if you are interested. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose to include customisable ref names in {{
sfn}} & {{
sfnp}} family templates, instead of the standard <ref name="FOOTNOTE...">
, in order to easily include them in the {{
r}} template.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
r}}
- you just give the {{
sfn}}
again, with the same parameters, and the two uses are automatically merged. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
, that it assists with article construction and maintenance. Let's say that two different sections of an article are both sourced from the same page(s) of the same book: ==History==
The main building was opened in 1901.{{sfn|Smith|2001|p=12}}
==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.{{sfn|Smith|2001|p=12}}
==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.{{sfn|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}
{{
sfn}}
used as designed, having amended the |pp=
parameter of the one in the modified section, the one in the unmodified section stays as it was - you don't need to amend that. Now let's carry out the same exercise using named refs - I shall use {{
harvnb}}
because it has a similar syntax to {{
sfn}}
: ==History==
The main building was opened in 1901.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=12}}</ref>
==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.{{r|Smith12}}
==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}</ref>
name="Smith12"
- you could leave it alone, in which case the second invocation of the ref will imply the use of page 34 as a source for the lease to Jones & Co (which might not be the case); or you alter it to name="Smith1234"
and that will break the second invocation meaning that you now need to amend that second section so that it just shows page 12: ==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=12}}</ref>
{{
r}}
: we don't always need different pages, very often we have to refer to the same page (or even the full book) multiple times. I prefer to write {{r|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th}} instead of writing several times {{sfn|1stAuthor|1stYear}}{{sfn|2ndAuthor|2ndYear}}{{sfn|3rdAuthor|3rdYear}}{{sfn|4thAuthor|4thYear}}{{sfn|5thAuthor|5thYear}}. Most of us strongly need a customisable name
parameter, that would obviously stay the standard one if not specified.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)refs
section of {{
reflist}}, using the shortened name via {{
r}} in the rest of the page.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)<ref name=...>
and {{
harvp}} on
a page I'm translating in my sandbox.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
Sfn}}
templates there is the alternative of {{
Sfnm}}
(personally I have never used it). --
PBS (
talk) 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The point about the sfn family is that it eliminates the need for {{
r}}
and the fundamental point behind {{
r}}
: we don't always need different pages, very often we have to refer to the same page (or even the full book) multiple times
are both mixed up. Trying to set such confusion straight is a hopeless task, but here's a hint: you're both overlooking the |p=
parameter of {{
r}}.
E
Eng 00:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Just to point out that the "Explanatory notes" section of this page, offering supposedly acceptable ways of creating notes, currently contains 11 highlighted "sfn errors" owing to author-year refs with multiple targets. I don't know how to fix this, but somebody needs to. GrindtXX ( talk) 17:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, do I still need to add "|ref=harv" to my citation templates for the sfn footnotes to work? Another editor took that part out of my citations on Kelmscott Press and I'm wondering if it's deprecated. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 15:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
ref=harv
is no longer needed. For example, from the documentation for {{
Cite web}}, Since April 2020, the parameter / keyword pair |ref=harv has no special meaning; this deprecated setting should not be used and may be removed from existing cs1|2 templates.-- John of Reading ( talk) 16:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I see the banner at the top of this help page saying that it should be improved and expanded. Is there a to-do list of any kind? Or a discussion pointing to what things people are expecting from the article? I'd like to clean it up and it would make sense to start with any kind of known issues. Thanks, Rjjiii ( talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you do for a sfn linking to a reference with more than four authors? Is there some way to do et al.? I am trying to do this for the Pedersen et al. source in Draft:Capitalocene. Nicknimh ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
|ref=
with {{
harvid}} in the full citation to limit the number needed in the sfn to three (or fewer, if you prefer).
Mathglot (
talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)This is an example of sfnref that illuminates nothing, and simply miseads:
|ref=
parameter to set an anchor:{{cite book |title=Lumberjack Song |date=December 14, 1969 |ref={{sfnref|Lumberjack Song|1969}} }}
It illustrates a lack of understanding of how |ref=
} works. Nobody should use a |ref=
param in this case, because 1) coding {{
cite book}}
is simpler, better, and equivalent so it has no effect and does not apply here; and 2) if that section is supposed to be an explanation about how to use {{
sfnref}}, then the example should be a "best practices" style usage that gives an illustration of when someone might actually use it in practice, and not the opposite, illustrating a counterexample where you should never use it. This can only lead to confusion for the user. A better example should be provided, and any halfway decent example will do, but until we do, it's better not to mislead the user by explaining it wrong, and providing nothing is better than providing that.
Mathglot (
talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite news |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |title=The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time |ref={{SfnRef|Rolling Stone|2004}} |date=December 2004}}
|ref=
params pointing to {{
sfnref|Einstein|1905a}}
, 1905b, etc., and then linked to from sfn's in the source like {{
sfn|Einstein|1905a}}
, {{
sfn|Einstein|1905b}}
, etc., then that would be a pretty good example. The only downside of that one (and it's a pretty minor one), is that if someone actually went to the Einstein article, then they'd find that someone *didn't* use sfnref for the 1905 sources like they should have, instead choosing to code |date=1905a
in the long citation, and so on, which is a poor choice, because it makes the short citations read, "Einstein, Albert (1905b) Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen [A new determination of molecular dimensions] ..." and that's not a proper date format—it should render simply as '1905' and still link properly; the article dates to 2001 so it's not surprising. In any case, I think it's still a good example and we could use it, unless you can find a better one, but his 1905 production (that is, the fact that it all came out in one year, beyond the transformative effect of the content) is famous in science, and some readers reading the doc page and seeing that as an example, may immediately pick up on that, and connect with the idea of why we need sfnref in this case. (Or very common alias {{
harvid}}, and that should be mentioned somewhere, too.)This page twice uses the word "handwritten" to refer to a certain style of short reference. This is confusing and misleading: these references are certainly not handwritten as any literate reader would understand the term (i.e. with a pen or pencil); they are manually inserted via a keyboard. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Best practices for a full citation with no author, when linked by shortened footnotes. Rjjiii ( talk) 22:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
When I'm reading an article that uses {{ sfn}}, it's annoying that I need so many clicks to get to the actual source. For example, I'm looking at the first citation in Rodwell–Hoskins mechanism. If I click on the "[1]", that just gets me to #CITEREFRodwellHoskins2001. I then have to click again on the "doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<3192:SAASM>2.0.CO;2" in the citation to open the source. And it's also scrolled down to the references list, so I've lost my place in the article and have to scroll back to continue reading.
By comparison, if I'm reading an article that doesn't use {{ sfn}}, when I hover over a citation number, I get a pop-up box with the reference details and I can click on the source URL in the pop-up (or, more commonly, right-click to have the source open in another window). Much simpler. Is there some way I can get {{ sfn}} to behave the same way? RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I need so many clicks to get to the actual source- you need two clicks. That's one more click than if shortened footnotes were not in use.
if I'm reading an article that doesn't use {{ sfn}}, when I hover over a citation number, I get a pop-up box with the reference details- you get the popup for sfn as well, it might show e.g. "Rodwell & Hoskins 2001, p. 3194.", but it's still a popup. The authors are linked, and the link is clickable.
it's detects a short form and automatically displays the short forms destination rather than showing the short form itself- what distinguishes a short-form ref from a full ref? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@
Mathglot and
Redrose64: thanks for keeping an eye on the documentation. Long ago the example used <ref>
tags.
[2] Early on it was switched to using {{
efn}} and {{
sfn}}.
[3] This sfn-with-postscript example was there last year when I started editing this page.
[4] I changed it when I noticed it seemed to advise misusing a template parameter,
[5] but I forgot to change the caption above the example. Yesterday I changed the caption to match the example.
[6] When the caption change was reverted,
[7] I fully reverted back to the version that the caption described.
[8] As of right now, the caption says one thing (efn and sfn templates) and the example shows another thing (ref tags and the harvnb template).
[9] I think the best way to handle these examples would be using this order:
What do you all prefer? Rjjiii ( talk) 23:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand why explanatory notes are discussed in this help. Explanatory notes cannot be shortened. They are discussed in Help:Explanatory notes, which duplicates much of what is said here. Possibly, some remarks about the use of shortened footnotes inside explanatory notes might be appropriate. The distinction between citation and explanation should not be blurred. Otherwise, it should be explained why such content is needed here. Johannes Schade ( talk) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read Help:Footnotes and Help:Shortened footnotes first, as this guide builds upon the methods described on those help pages." At one point this page offered three examples [10] while Help:Explanatory notes offered those same 3 examples plus additional examples where shortened footnotes are not used. [11] Before I offer any opinions of my own, what are the changes that you want to make or the problems that you see? Rjjiii ( talk) 05:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Efn}}
in the given example would need a citation.Non-paren version of example in section five
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
<ref>
Rawl 1971 p. 1.</ref>
is still allowed. Parenthetical citations are forbidden in explanatory notes. With best regards,
Johannes Schade (
talk) 10:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)@ Johannes Schade:: I see that as going well beyond WP:PAREN; the discussion at WT:MOS appears to agree thus far. If you check out WP:PAREN's linked RFC, its lengthy closure includes:
This discussion supports the deprecation only of parenthetical style citations directly inlined into articles. It does not deprecate the use of the entire citation format when it is used within <ref></ref> tags, nor the use of the {{ sfn}} and {{ harv}} templates.
— [13]
Also, does the added introductory paragraph make the reason for the examples more clear? It may also be wise to organize them into sections based on how they handle nesting. Each section could have a commonly used, best practices example at the top. Something like:
If the current headings are useful, they could just drop down one level within those sections. Let me know if this sounds like it would help resolve some of the confusion that started this discussion, Rjjiii ( talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Sun is pretty big (Miller 2005, p. 1), but the Moon is not so big (Brown 2006, p. 2). The Sun is also quite hot (Miller 2005, p. 3).
The Sun is pretty big, [a] but the Moon is not so big. [b] The Sun is also quite hot. [c]
The Sun is pretty big, [a] but the Moon is not so big. [b] The Sun is also quite hot. [c]
<ref>
Explanatory footnote<ref>
Citation</ref>
</ref>
. I think most of the people who adopt the Shortenen footnotes style use templates, especially {{
Sfn}}. All the help and examples must be specific to the style. Make it clear at the beginning that people who use templates can skip this entire section - think about in which cases <ref>
s might still be useful. With many thanks for your patience and best regards,
Johannes Schade (
talk) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
lower-alpha
is all. You don't have to use the template, and if you code <ref group="lower-alpha">...</ref>
, there is no difference between that and an {{
efn}} template. Whether you decide to use the template, or the <ref> tags directly is a matter of editor choice, and does not affect how the page is rendered. Like you, I use the {{
efn}} template, in my case because it's shorter and easier for me to remember, but it is not required. As for never using embedded refs as in your example, there are ways to do so, see {{
refn}} for example.
Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes has more info. As far as T22707, I assume you are familiar with the
workaround.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)This is still about the section "Explanatory notes" and its 6 subsections. Rjjiii has proposed to insert an intermediate level to organise these 6 subgroups into 3 logical groups called:
I would guess that the 6 subsubsections woud be distribiuted as follows:
If this is so and I understand this right:
Separate means shortened footnotes and explanatory notes occur next to each other in the main content (no nesting).
Nested normally means shortened footnotes are nested in explanatory notes but also includes the case when the shortened footnote is replaced by a prenthetical reference as a workaround for T22707.
Mixed means shortened footnotes that contain explanation as text.
I would therefore name the 3 section of the intermediate level as follows:
Johannes Schade ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think I will stop here, otherwise you will tell me "Not read, too long". Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shortened footnotes page. |
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RfC:_.22Short_cites.22_vs._.22Shortened_footnotes.22:_need_uniform_terminology for question on best terminology for short cites /short footnotes. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
With the recent changes, [1] it appears we are now mandating the use of {{ sfn}} and are not going to demonstrate how it may be done in some uses. -- Gadget850 talk 01:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the documentation for the older ways short references have been created in Wikipedia articles has been removed. I go through Category:Pages with broken reference names correcting reference errors. I often run into other reference problems in articles and need to know how to fix them. There have been an amazing number of ways of creating references used since the beginning of Wikipedia. There needs to be current documentation on all of them even if they are no longer in active use. I am going to resurrect this information from the history pages, either here or in a separate article with a link in this article. StarryGrandma ( talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the previous remarks.
The idea that we refer to Anne Elk as "Elk, Anne" seems crazy to me. We do it in an alphabetical bibliographies, but that is not what we are at here. None of the books in my bookshelf have the author's name that way round.
The idea that we say which of Anne Elk's books we are referring to in this way: Elk (1972) seems crazy too. If Anne Elk has written lots of books on my bookshelf, I would never think "I must get her 1972 book to refer to."
Afterbrunel ( talk) 10:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I love the sfn-style, but I wonder: would it be possible to create a reference-style in which the reference itself as used when editing is short, as in the sfn-style, but the displayed reference shows the complete reference? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Use "==Notes==" for caveats/explanatory footnotes, use "==References==" (or "==Citations==" or whatever floats your boat, but "==References==" seems to be most common) for {{reflist}}/citations, use "See (___), pg. ___" (I personally use <ref>See {{harv|Last|year}}, pg. ___"</ref>) for shortened citations, and use "====Works cited====" (forth level title) for full citations of information that was cited using shortened citations in {{reflist}}:
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
The Sun is pretty big.<ref>See {{harv|Miller|2005}}, pg. 23: "Relevant quote".</ref>{{refn|group=note|But Miller points out that the Sun is not as large as some other stars.<ref>See {{harv|Miller|2005}}, pg. 23: "Relevant quote".</ref>}} But the Moon{{refn|group=note|The Moon goes by other names, such as Selena.<ref>See {{harv|Brown|2001}}, pg. 63: "Relevant quote".</ref>}} is not so big.<ref>See {{harv|Brown|2001}}, pg. 46: "Relevant quote".</ref>{{refn|group=note|Historically the Moon was not always considered to be large.}} The Sun is also quite hot.<ref>See {{harv|Smith|2005}}, pg. 334: "Relevant quote".</ref> ==Notes== {{reflist|group=note}} ==References== {{reflist}} ====Works cited==== {{refbegin}} * {{citation |last=Brown |title=The Moon |publisher=Penguin |year=2001}} * {{citation |last=Miller |title=The Sun |publisher=Oxford |year=2005}} * {{citation |last=Smith |title=The Universe |publisher=Random House |year=2005}} {{refend}} |
The Sun is pretty big. [1] [note 1] But the Moon [note 2] is not so big. [4] [note 3] The Sun is also quite hot. [5]
|
The reason for this is because shortened citations can be confusing for some people (I wasn't familiar with them, and I thought they were just incomplete citations; I also thought the wikilinks to the full citation were links to the resources themselves), and I think "See (___), pg. ___" is a more intuitive format for shortened citations (it's explicitly telling me to look for something, and if I hover over the link, I can see it's a wikilink, and if I click it, it takes me to the full citation).
Also, having "Works cited" as a forth level title under "References" more intuitively tells you that it's not a mistake that an editor made, that it's not a mistaken duplicate or rival section to "References", but it's subordinate to "References" for some purpose (that purpose being that it lists full citations to the shortened citations used earlier). This, I believe, makes it less likely to be modified/damaged/deleted by a wiki editor who isn't familiar with the shortened citation/full citation distinction. "Works cited" also seems to be the best header to list full citations under, because it's listing full citations of the works that were previously cited using shortened citations (hence, "works cited"). I've also come across articles, such as John Quincy Adams, that had been using this format, so I'm not the only one who uses this style.
I also don't like citations being listen in the "Notes" section: I think "Notes" should be reserved for explanatory footnotes, pointing out caveats, and nitpicking the information presented in the article. This allows tangential information in the article to still be included, but not clutter the main body of the article, which should be as straightforward and concise as possible. (For adding notes to the article, I prefer to use {{refn|group=note|...}} because it allows you to add citations for the notes (<ref group=note>...</ref> does not), and I prefer it over {{efn|...}} because I prefer the [note 1] that {{refn|group=note|...}} uses over the [a] that {{efn|...}} uses.)
Bfoshizzle1 ( talk) 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
|p=
and |pp=
parameters that are provided by templates such as {{
harv}}
? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about whether to keep or delete the new template {{ Use shortened footnotes}} at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes. We could use more feedback, so please participate in the discussion if you are interested. Biogeographist ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose to include customisable ref names in {{
sfn}} & {{
sfnp}} family templates, instead of the standard <ref name="FOOTNOTE...">
, in order to easily include them in the {{
r}} template.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
r}}
- you just give the {{
sfn}}
again, with the same parameters, and the two uses are automatically merged. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
, that it assists with article construction and maintenance. Let's say that two different sections of an article are both sourced from the same page(s) of the same book: ==History==
The main building was opened in 1901.{{sfn|Smith|2001|p=12}}
==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.{{sfn|Smith|2001|p=12}}
==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.{{sfn|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}
{{
sfn}}
used as designed, having amended the |pp=
parameter of the one in the modified section, the one in the unmodified section stays as it was - you don't need to amend that. Now let's carry out the same exercise using named refs - I shall use {{
harvnb}}
because it has a similar syntax to {{
sfn}}
: ==History==
The main building was opened in 1901.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=12}}</ref>
==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.{{r|Smith12}}
==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}</ref>
name="Smith12"
- you could leave it alone, in which case the second invocation of the ref will imply the use of page 34 as a source for the lease to Jones & Co (which might not be the case); or you alter it to name="Smith1234"
and that will break the second invocation meaning that you now need to amend that second section so that it just shows page 12: ==Usage==
From opening, the main building was leased to Jones & Co.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|p=12}}</ref>
{{
r}}
: we don't always need different pages, very often we have to refer to the same page (or even the full book) multiple times. I prefer to write {{r|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th}} instead of writing several times {{sfn|1stAuthor|1stYear}}{{sfn|2ndAuthor|2ndYear}}{{sfn|3rdAuthor|3rdYear}}{{sfn|4thAuthor|4thYear}}{{sfn|5thAuthor|5thYear}}. Most of us strongly need a customisable name
parameter, that would obviously stay the standard one if not specified.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)refs
section of {{
reflist}}, using the shortened name via {{
r}} in the rest of the page.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)<ref name=...>
and {{
harvp}} on
a page I'm translating in my sandbox.
Est. 2021 (
talk ·
contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
Sfn}}
templates there is the alternative of {{
Sfnm}}
(personally I have never used it). --
PBS (
talk) 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The point about the sfn family is that it eliminates the need for {{
r}}
and the fundamental point behind {{
r}}
: we don't always need different pages, very often we have to refer to the same page (or even the full book) multiple times
are both mixed up. Trying to set such confusion straight is a hopeless task, but here's a hint: you're both overlooking the |p=
parameter of {{
r}}.
E
Eng 00:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Just to point out that the "Explanatory notes" section of this page, offering supposedly acceptable ways of creating notes, currently contains 11 highlighted "sfn errors" owing to author-year refs with multiple targets. I don't know how to fix this, but somebody needs to. GrindtXX ( talk) 17:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, do I still need to add "|ref=harv" to my citation templates for the sfn footnotes to work? Another editor took that part out of my citations on Kelmscott Press and I'm wondering if it's deprecated. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 15:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
ref=harv
is no longer needed. For example, from the documentation for {{
Cite web}}, Since April 2020, the parameter / keyword pair |ref=harv has no special meaning; this deprecated setting should not be used and may be removed from existing cs1|2 templates.-- John of Reading ( talk) 16:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I see the banner at the top of this help page saying that it should be improved and expanded. Is there a to-do list of any kind? Or a discussion pointing to what things people are expecting from the article? I'd like to clean it up and it would make sense to start with any kind of known issues. Thanks, Rjjiii ( talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you do for a sfn linking to a reference with more than four authors? Is there some way to do et al.? I am trying to do this for the Pedersen et al. source in Draft:Capitalocene. Nicknimh ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
|ref=
with {{
harvid}} in the full citation to limit the number needed in the sfn to three (or fewer, if you prefer).
Mathglot (
talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)This is an example of sfnref that illuminates nothing, and simply miseads:
|ref=
parameter to set an anchor:{{cite book |title=Lumberjack Song |date=December 14, 1969 |ref={{sfnref|Lumberjack Song|1969}} }}
It illustrates a lack of understanding of how |ref=
} works. Nobody should use a |ref=
param in this case, because 1) coding {{
cite book}}
is simpler, better, and equivalent so it has no effect and does not apply here; and 2) if that section is supposed to be an explanation about how to use {{
sfnref}}, then the example should be a "best practices" style usage that gives an illustration of when someone might actually use it in practice, and not the opposite, illustrating a counterexample where you should never use it. This can only lead to confusion for the user. A better example should be provided, and any halfway decent example will do, but until we do, it's better not to mislead the user by explaining it wrong, and providing nothing is better than providing that.
Mathglot (
talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
{{cite news |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |title=The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time |ref={{SfnRef|Rolling Stone|2004}} |date=December 2004}}
|ref=
params pointing to {{
sfnref|Einstein|1905a}}
, 1905b, etc., and then linked to from sfn's in the source like {{
sfn|Einstein|1905a}}
, {{
sfn|Einstein|1905b}}
, etc., then that would be a pretty good example. The only downside of that one (and it's a pretty minor one), is that if someone actually went to the Einstein article, then they'd find that someone *didn't* use sfnref for the 1905 sources like they should have, instead choosing to code |date=1905a
in the long citation, and so on, which is a poor choice, because it makes the short citations read, "Einstein, Albert (1905b) Eine neue Bestimmung der Moleküldimensionen [A new determination of molecular dimensions] ..." and that's not a proper date format—it should render simply as '1905' and still link properly; the article dates to 2001 so it's not surprising. In any case, I think it's still a good example and we could use it, unless you can find a better one, but his 1905 production (that is, the fact that it all came out in one year, beyond the transformative effect of the content) is famous in science, and some readers reading the doc page and seeing that as an example, may immediately pick up on that, and connect with the idea of why we need sfnref in this case. (Or very common alias {{
harvid}}, and that should be mentioned somewhere, too.)This page twice uses the word "handwritten" to refer to a certain style of short reference. This is confusing and misleading: these references are certainly not handwritten as any literate reader would understand the term (i.e. with a pen or pencil); they are manually inserted via a keyboard. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Best practices for a full citation with no author, when linked by shortened footnotes. Rjjiii ( talk) 22:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
When I'm reading an article that uses {{ sfn}}, it's annoying that I need so many clicks to get to the actual source. For example, I'm looking at the first citation in Rodwell–Hoskins mechanism. If I click on the "[1]", that just gets me to #CITEREFRodwellHoskins2001. I then have to click again on the "doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<3192:SAASM>2.0.CO;2" in the citation to open the source. And it's also scrolled down to the references list, so I've lost my place in the article and have to scroll back to continue reading.
By comparison, if I'm reading an article that doesn't use {{ sfn}}, when I hover over a citation number, I get a pop-up box with the reference details and I can click on the source URL in the pop-up (or, more commonly, right-click to have the source open in another window). Much simpler. Is there some way I can get {{ sfn}} to behave the same way? RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I need so many clicks to get to the actual source- you need two clicks. That's one more click than if shortened footnotes were not in use.
if I'm reading an article that doesn't use {{ sfn}}, when I hover over a citation number, I get a pop-up box with the reference details- you get the popup for sfn as well, it might show e.g. "Rodwell & Hoskins 2001, p. 3194.", but it's still a popup. The authors are linked, and the link is clickable.
it's detects a short form and automatically displays the short forms destination rather than showing the short form itself- what distinguishes a short-form ref from a full ref? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@
Mathglot and
Redrose64: thanks for keeping an eye on the documentation. Long ago the example used <ref>
tags.
[2] Early on it was switched to using {{
efn}} and {{
sfn}}.
[3] This sfn-with-postscript example was there last year when I started editing this page.
[4] I changed it when I noticed it seemed to advise misusing a template parameter,
[5] but I forgot to change the caption above the example. Yesterday I changed the caption to match the example.
[6] When the caption change was reverted,
[7] I fully reverted back to the version that the caption described.
[8] As of right now, the caption says one thing (efn and sfn templates) and the example shows another thing (ref tags and the harvnb template).
[9] I think the best way to handle these examples would be using this order:
What do you all prefer? Rjjiii ( talk) 23:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand why explanatory notes are discussed in this help. Explanatory notes cannot be shortened. They are discussed in Help:Explanatory notes, which duplicates much of what is said here. Possibly, some remarks about the use of shortened footnotes inside explanatory notes might be appropriate. The distinction between citation and explanation should not be blurred. Otherwise, it should be explained why such content is needed here. Johannes Schade ( talk) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read Help:Footnotes and Help:Shortened footnotes first, as this guide builds upon the methods described on those help pages." At one point this page offered three examples [10] while Help:Explanatory notes offered those same 3 examples plus additional examples where shortened footnotes are not used. [11] Before I offer any opinions of my own, what are the changes that you want to make or the problems that you see? Rjjiii ( talk) 05:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
Efn}}
in the given example would need a citation.Non-paren version of example in section five
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
<ref>
Rawl 1971 p. 1.</ref>
is still allowed. Parenthetical citations are forbidden in explanatory notes. With best regards,
Johannes Schade (
talk) 10:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)@ Johannes Schade:: I see that as going well beyond WP:PAREN; the discussion at WT:MOS appears to agree thus far. If you check out WP:PAREN's linked RFC, its lengthy closure includes:
This discussion supports the deprecation only of parenthetical style citations directly inlined into articles. It does not deprecate the use of the entire citation format when it is used within <ref></ref> tags, nor the use of the {{ sfn}} and {{ harv}} templates.
— [13]
Also, does the added introductory paragraph make the reason for the examples more clear? It may also be wise to organize them into sections based on how they handle nesting. Each section could have a commonly used, best practices example at the top. Something like:
If the current headings are useful, they could just drop down one level within those sections. Let me know if this sounds like it would help resolve some of the confusion that started this discussion, Rjjiii ( talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Sun is pretty big (Miller 2005, p. 1), but the Moon is not so big (Brown 2006, p. 2). The Sun is also quite hot (Miller 2005, p. 3).
The Sun is pretty big, [a] but the Moon is not so big. [b] The Sun is also quite hot. [c]
The Sun is pretty big, [a] but the Moon is not so big. [b] The Sun is also quite hot. [c]
<ref>
Explanatory footnote<ref>
Citation</ref>
</ref>
. I think most of the people who adopt the Shortenen footnotes style use templates, especially {{
Sfn}}. All the help and examples must be specific to the style. Make it clear at the beginning that people who use templates can skip this entire section - think about in which cases <ref>
s might still be useful. With many thanks for your patience and best regards,
Johannes Schade (
talk) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
lower-alpha
is all. You don't have to use the template, and if you code <ref group="lower-alpha">...</ref>
, there is no difference between that and an {{
efn}} template. Whether you decide to use the template, or the <ref> tags directly is a matter of editor choice, and does not affect how the page is rendered. Like you, I use the {{
efn}} template, in my case because it's shorter and easier for me to remember, but it is not required. As for never using embedded refs as in your example, there are ways to do so, see {{
refn}} for example.
Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes has more info. As far as T22707, I assume you are familiar with the
workaround.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)This is still about the section "Explanatory notes" and its 6 subsections. Rjjiii has proposed to insert an intermediate level to organise these 6 subgroups into 3 logical groups called:
I would guess that the 6 subsubsections woud be distribiuted as follows:
If this is so and I understand this right:
Separate means shortened footnotes and explanatory notes occur next to each other in the main content (no nesting).
Nested normally means shortened footnotes are nested in explanatory notes but also includes the case when the shortened footnote is replaced by a prenthetical reference as a workaround for T22707.
Mixed means shortened footnotes that contain explanation as text.
I would therefore name the 3 section of the intermediate level as follows:
Johannes Schade ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think I will stop here, otherwise you will tell me "Not read, too long". Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)