Help talk:Shortened footnotes

See question on terminology

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)

For the record, archived at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 33#RfC: "Short cites" vs. "Shortened footnotes": need uniform terminology. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

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)

Including the older ways of creating short references

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)

Better citations

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)

sfn with full title?

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)

It wouldn't be short then. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Hope you don't mind the ping? Just wondering, would you know how to do a sfn with multiple page nos but not as a range? E.g., Redrose, p.6,4  :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ver much, Redrose64, much appreciated. Does t only work in articlspace, do you know? Rather than, say, sandboxes? ——SerialNumber54129

All namespaces (except the very specialist ones like Gadget Definition: that you've probably never looked at, let alone edited). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll make that an immediate priority, Redrose64 Many thanks for the advice, it worked a charm. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for alternative style for footnotes

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. But the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot. Notes References Works cited Brown (2001), The Moon, Penguin Miller (2005), The Sun, Oxford Smith (2005), The Universe, Random House

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)

Why are you using the abbreviation "pg." instead of the widely-recognised "p." for a single page or "pp." for multiple pages? On that matter, why are you not using the |p= and |pp= parameters that are provided by templates such as {{harv}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You could use "p." or "pp." for pages, but I've always used and preferred the abbreviation "pg." for both "page" and 'pages" (I specifically object to "pp." as an abbreviation for "pages", and if you list multiple page numbers, "page(s)" is implied anyway). As for not using the page parameter, I think that using the harv template without it looks better, and if you're using many short citations of the same work, you're referring to the full citation without pages indicated: the alternative would be "See (Last 2019, p. 100): "Relevant quote".", but the full citation refers to the work as a whole, so I think (Last 2019) is better for referring to the full citation ("See (Last 2019), pg. 100: "Relevant quote"."; using the abbreviation "p." instead would be "See (Last 2019), p. 100: "Relevant quote"."; or just skipping abbreviations altogether: "See (Last 2019), page 100: "Relevant quote"."). Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please give any example of a bibliographic standard of style guide that requires, suggests or prefers "pg." instead of "p."? Not that some people use it, but as a serious codified rule. I haven't seen any, and this sort of "abbreviation" looks quite broken. Regrading using "pp." for "pages", I agree that it is as silly as using "chch." for "chapters" or "volvol." for "volumes"; "p." is perfectly fine for citing multiple pages. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The simplest system of all is without templates. I think we should present that first here (or at least the link WP:CITESHORT). This style is fairly standard in printed books, which frequently have either footnotes on each page and a bibliography at the back of the book or both notes and bibliography sections at the back of the book. Notes typically include both explanatory material and citations to sources listed in the bibliography. Separating these increases the complexity. The problem of some readers or editors not knowing where to find the full citations could be addressed by adding an explanation at the top of the Notes section stating that the full citations can be found in the bibliography section. This simple style is easy to edit and is already found in numerous articles in Wikipedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Template:Use shortened footnotes

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)

Customise ref name

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)

Please don't. The point about the sfn family is that it eliminates the need for {{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)

@Redrose64: The problem is that {{r}} allows you to make multiple recurrent references writing just, for example: {{r|1st|2nd|3rd}}, while using {{sfn}} you should write several times: {{sfn|1stAuthor|1stYear}}{{sfn|2ndAuthor|2ndYear}}{{sfn|3rdAuthor|3rdYear}}. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If we give {{sfn}} a name parameter, we could use it just one time in the page, being able to introduce a bunch of them just with an r the rest of the times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are missing the fundamental point behind {{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}}

Then you modify one of the two sections such that the page numbers that were used for the first ref no longer accurately describe the source, and need to be amended:

==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.{{sfn|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}

With {{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}}

Then you modify one of the two sections as previously:

==History==
The main building was opened in 1901. An annexe was constructed in 1951.<ref name="Smith12">{{harvnb|Smith|2001|pp=12, 34}}</ref>

The question is what to do about that 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>

I can see no benefit from your proposal that cannot be handled by existing methods; I can see a number of disadvantages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are missing 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. 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)

For example, when there is just one book for every author, the custom name could be just the author's initials (e.g. the 57th page of a 2007 book by John Smithfield would just be {{r|JS}} instead of {{sfn|Smithfield|2007|p=57}}, and you still have the possibility to add other recurrent works to the same {{r}} template. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We could even put the {{sfn}} inside the 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)

I made an example using <ref name=...> and {{harvp}} on a page I'm translating in my sandbox. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user:Redrose64. I had a look at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/Fisichella (2) and I don't see the advantage. What I see, (using the first short inline citation as an example) is a short citation "Sciascia (1989)" which links to a long citation in a References section with no page number, so what you have done is create a citation to a book and left it to the reader to read the whole cited book to verify the text. The Google link returns for me "No preview available for this page. Buy this book." Ie I still do not know which page in the book I am supposed to look at to verify the text. This is a breach of WP:V policy and the guidance in WP:Cite guideline to provide page numbers for books. As for multiple adjacent {{Sfn}} templates there is the alternative of {{Sfnm}} (personally I have never used it). -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Having just encountered R when editing an article, I found that if I wanted to check the source, I clicked on the ref number, which took me to the list of refs, where I could see the author and year of the ref, I then had to scroll down past the remaining refs to get to the bibliography where I could see the actual work listed. (By comparison {{sfn}} is click to jump to the short ref and then click to get to the work). To edit any ref using {{r}} you have to work in both the list of refs and the article text at same time. {{sfn}} works well - don't fiddle with it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• This thread betrays a complete misunderstanding of the relationship among alternative citation formats, syntaxes for invoking those formats, list-defined refs versus [whatever the opposite of list-defined refs is called, I forget], and probably more. These discussions always bring everyone to talking at cross purposes almost immediately. The statements 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}}. EEng 00:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Explanatory notes" problem

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)

GrindtXX, changes to the documentation templates over the years have changed how the examples are parsed. I have changed the examples to avoid the duplicated names that caused the error messages. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ref=harv still a thing?

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)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): No, 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)

Thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To-do list

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)

@Rjjiii: The banner has been there right from the start, being present in the initial edit at at 13:23, 19 September 2011 by Gadget850 (talk · contribs). The page has been through so many changes in the last twelve years that I would say that it can be removed now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Et al./>4 authors

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)

Give the template four authors and it will output et al. Rjjiii (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

To follow up, I have added examples of Template:sfn using 3 and 4+ authors to the help page. If it has confused one editor, it has likely confused others. (Also, I am the same person as above; I switched to a formatted signature after a couple of editors described my name as nearly unreadable.) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 03:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Use param |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)

Misleading example

This is an example of sfnref that illuminates nothing, and simply miseads:

The Lumberjack Song. December 14, 1969.

The full citation above can use the |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)

Thanks Mathglot. What would you say is a "best practices" example. The template documentation uses: {{cite news |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |title=The RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time |ref={{SfnRef|Rolling Stone|2004}} |date=December 2004}}

Let me know if you're fine with that or have something else in mind. I don't mind updating the page with a better example.Rjjiii (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I had misread that Rolling Stone example earlier, but that is an acceptable example, as it matches one of the use cases (no last name). Somewhere, there's a page which lists some of the usages, but I couldn't find it, but what some things that come to mind are no last name, no year, authorname script issues (e.g., last name is in Arabic or Chinese in the long citation, but you want to have a simple, Latin representation in the {{sfn}}s that link to it), multiple works in a year, multiple "Smiths" but different first name, and more. Probably a pretty common one is "multiple works in a year", which I did find a decent link for, at Template:Harvard citation documentation#More than one work in a year.

A good example of that is Einstein in 1905, when Einstein knocked science on its ass. If you made up an example showing two or three of those papers in the "Works cited" with |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.)

Maybe it would be worth another example, illustrating one of the other use cases, but "multiple years" is probably the most common, so if we only go with one example, it should probably illustrate that case. If you wanted to do the "two with the same last name" case, then a good example might be the Freuds: Sigmund, and Anna, who iirc are sometimes cited in the same article; I think an advanced search might turn up some examples. Mathglot (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I have to do a complete reset, here, and apologize to a certain extent: the original example (Lumberjack song) is, in fact, a legit example because it doesn't include the author, and uses the title instead in the sfnref. I've self-reverted my last edit due to this. However, I think it's not a great example, because it doesn't call this out, and isn't the most common use case. I would use one of the other ones as a better one, but if this one is kept, it needs to be better explained. Sorry for whipsawing you on this, but I hope the discussion has been helpful, and I still hope the page ends up with a couple of good examples, illustrating different use cases, along with an explanation of why sfnref is needed in those cases. Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It's all good. I actually really like the Freuds idea. I'll try to update that section with your realistic example soon.Rjjiii (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I've tried an update with the Freuds. Is this closer to what you had in mind? I haven't touched the {{wikicite}} example yet. Rjjiii (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: Oh my gosh, that's so much better and clearer; thanks for this! I feel pulled in a million directions, or I'd have taken it on myself, so thanks for taking the time. Since sfn's are based on author(s) and year, there's basically three paths to collision (same name, same year, missing item); you've just handled the first one (and the 3rd one was previously handled via Lumberjack song, although not necessarily contextualized). Ideally, there'd be one example based on the other path: year collisions (such as the Einstein-1905 pubs). I really like the way you've done it, and the care you took in presenting it clearly. If something looks pellucid, it may at first glance appear to be simple, or even "obvious" to a casual observer, without realizing the care that went into constructing it, so that it appeared that way. I realize it; bravo. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

handwritten?

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)

@GrindtXX: How do you feel about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help%3AShortened_footnotes&diff=1173838839&oldid=1173750827 Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. GrindtXX (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Best practices for a full citation with no author, when linked by shortened footnotes

 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)

How do I get to a sfn with fewer clicks?

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 don't think there's a perfect method, though I think the trade-off for sfn are worth that inconvenience. You could link the doi in every page parameter, though readers might expect to be taken to the specific page mentioned and not the whole piece.

One small pointer: your browsers back button is usually a faster way back to where you were last reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess mediawiki could be changed so that it's reference pop-up auto-skips the short form, e.g. it's detects a short form and automatically displays the short forms destination rather than showing the short form itself. But that would require a feature request to the people maintaining the wiki software. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

One way would to be to link the page # to the page when this is available. Since {{sfn}} is often used for books, this is easy to do when a page is available from the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, Google Books, or other source. See what I did for Miles 1993, p. 9. or Allen 2002, p. 13. in Anton Chekhov for example.

Note that this only works when one can link to a specific page. Peaceray (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Regarding 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.

Regarding 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.

@ActivelyDisinterested: Regarding 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)

The software detecting that it's in an internal hyperlink, and display the other end of that hyperlink. As I said this would require modification of the wiki software, it's not something that could be handled here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

All refs (other than parenthetical refs) are "in an internal hyperlink". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes, because what I mean would be the same as parenthetical links but not other refs -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Shortened footnotes mixed with explanatory notes

@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:

1. A section like "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" but using {{efn}} and {{sfn}} as this seems most common.
2. The current "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" section which shows how the efn and sfn template functions are available from grouped references.
3. A section like the original "Shortened footnotes mixed with explanatory notes" showing that it's not technically necessary to separate different types of footnotes or use templates.
4. The last 3 sections in their current order.

What do you all prefer? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the first example, and moved the previous first example down to the third spot and rewritten it to use only the most basic syntax. There is now a separate {{efn}} + {{sfn}} example (one) and "mixed" example (three). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Explanatory footnotes

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)

Have you ever combined them before? You can run into real difficulties with the syntax, and having examples helps make it clearer, and gives a user trying it out for the first time something to cut and paste. Beyond that, there are some issues with embedded notes that the MediaWiki software doesn't play nice with, and there are some outstanding Phab tickets open on them. Even for an experienced user who uses them in combination only occasionally, it's helpful to be able to come here and copy–paste an example that you know works for sure. There may be other reasons, but those are the ones I'm familiar with. That said, if there is duplication between this page and the other one, we should have a piece of text in one place that can be transcluded into the other; there are multiple ways to do this. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Looking back at the history of both pages, it seems that Gadget850 created both pages. The intro for Help:Explanatory notes says, "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)

@User:Rjjiii, thank you very much for encouraging me to reply here. Explanatory notes should be discussed in "HELP:Explanatory notes" and shortened footnotes here. Combinations should be mentioned only if they present special difficulties, such as known bugs or limitations. Phabricator numbers should be cited. I am not aware of such problems, but my experience is limited to nesting {{Sfn}} in {{Efn}}, which seems to be with problems.

I feel the entire section "Explanatory notes" with its 6 subsections is irrelevant and should go.

If you are not convinced, read the discussions of the 6 subsections below.

The 1st subsection "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes" simply discusses juxtaposition of the two templates. What difficulty could there be? It does not even mention the somewhat more difficult case of nesting the one in the other. Besides, the first {{Efn}} in the given example would need a citation.

The 2nd subsection "Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes (using groups)" explains how to use ref tags instead of Sfn and how to code explanatory notes using groups, these topics should be covered in WP:CITING SOURCES and in HELP:EXPLANATORY NOTES, respectively.

The 3rd subsection "Shortened footnotes mixed with explanatory notes" shows how to mix citations with notes. This is trivial. Besides, if you ask me, it is very bad style and should be forbidden.

The 4th subsection "Separate explanatory notes with shortened footnotes and their references" discusses nesting citations in explanatory notes. This is trivial. The example shows that the third inline citation [3] does not appear in the text as it is nested and only used inside the explanatory note. I feel this is a minor inconvenience and acceptable, but some might feel it is a problem. This should probably be discussed in WP:CITING SOURCES as it is not special to shortened footnotes.

The 5th subsection "Explanatory notes containing parenthetical references" seems to maintain that parenthetical references are still allowed inside explanatory notes. That might have been true at some stage, but WP:PAREN now says "deprecated on Wikipedia". I therefore believe this subsecttion is obsolete.

The 6th subsection "List-defined explanatory notes with nested links to full citations" discusses an interesting way of how to provide citations nested in list-defined explanatory notes despite the limitation (Phabricator T22707). However, the citation produced is a parenthetical one and therefore not acceptable.

There might be other reasons why explanatory notes should be discussed in HELP:Shortened footnotes. I just do not know them. I hope somebody can illuminate me. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Johannes Schade (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to lay it out. I see several actionable things to do:

1. I've posted a question on the Manual of Style talk page.[12] If parenthetical citations within explanatory notes are deprecated, we should remove the examples, but I do not think that is the case. All explanatory notes are footnotes in "ref" tags. The Manual of Style and the linked RFC seem okay with those.
2. I'll take some time to write an explanation of this, but they do "present special difficulties." The trouble comes from the inability to place a "ref" tag within another "ref" tag. The most obvious method is unsupported by the software.
3. I'm confused by some of the other concerns. Some of the examples objected to are presented in an almost identical manner in Help:Explanatory notes. Once we get one set of examples looking good and reflecting best practices, I think both pages should use that same set of examples.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, but regarding your comment about § 5, there is no reason to consider it obsolete. Just alter it so it creates a non-parenthetical version with {{harvnb}} instead of {{harv}}:

Non-paren version of example in section five

Markup Renders as The Sun is pretty big.{{sfn|Mahler|2005|p=23}}{{efn|But Mahler points out that the Sun is not as large as some other stars; see {{harvnb|Mahler|2005|p=23}}.}} But the Moon{{efn|The Moon goes by other names, such as Selena; see {{harvnb|Brauner|2001|p=63}}.}} is not so big.{{sfn|Brauner|2001|p=46}}{{efn|Historically the Moon was not always considered to be large.}} The Sun is also quite hot.{{sfn|Ferrero|2005|p=334}} ==Notes== {{notelist}} ==Citations== {{reflist}} ==References== {{refbegin}} * {{citation |last=Brauner |title=The Moon |publisher=Penguin |year=2001}} * {{citation |last=Mahler |title=The Sun |publisher=Oxford |year=2005}} * {{citation |last=Ferrero |title=The Universe |publisher=Random House |year=2005}} {{refend}} The Sun is pretty big. But the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot. Notes Citations References Brauner (2001), The Moon, Penguin Mahler (2005), The Sun, Oxford Ferrero (2005), The Universe, Random House

So I don't see why we should remove that example solely for reasons of the parenthetical. Duplication or appropriateness in the section is another question. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The above looks good to me. If the consensus at the MOS is that we don't use parentheses in footnotes, let's use that in place of the two existing examples. I first want to see if that is the case. The RFC that deprecated the older inline {{harv}} references is messy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAREN merely forbids "short citations in parentheses placed within the article text itself" (emphasis in original). So it doesn't refer to citations in parentheses within footnotes, as those are not "within the article text itself". Nothing in WP:PAREN says that "parentheses in footnotes" should be forbidden, it only applies to references in parentheses outside of footnotes. So I see no reason so replace {{harv}} with {{harvnb}}. Within footnotes, both of them are acceptable (though I'd still prefer to use {{sfn}} instead, as in the 4th subsection), while outside of footnotes, both should be avoided. Gawaon (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Even better, we don't have to do anything for that one. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mathglot, with all respect due to a senior wikipedian like you, you might misunderstand the "within the article text itself". WP:PAREN thinks it necessary to explain that something like <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:

• Separate footnotes
• Nested footnotes
• Mixed footnotes

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)

Johannes Schade, agree with Gawaon and Rjjiii, and I think you are misreading it. Explanatory notes are not inline in the text, they are rendered by the mediawiki in the appendixes, so, as WP:PAREN says, the following is deprecated:

N

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).

References

• Brown, R. (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51 (78).
• Miller, E. (2005). The Sun, Academic Press.

and only that. The following explanatory notes are not rendered inline, therefore they are permitted:

Y

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.

References

• Brown, R. (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51 (78).
• Miller, E. (2005). The Sun, Academic Press.

Notes

It is permitted, because the references are not inline, they are in the appendixes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I note that the following usage is more typical & uses the {{sfn}}, {{cite journal}}, & {{cite book}} templates. Note that the footnotes are linked to the full citations by using these templates.

Y

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.

Notes

References

Sources

• Brown, R. (2006). "Size of the Moon". Scientific American. 51 (78).
• Miller, E. (2007). The Sun. Academic Press.

Peaceray (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the year for Miller from 2005 to 2007 to avoid the multiple target error. Peaceray (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Peaceray, yes of course it is more typical of what happens (and should happen), and would make a great example at WP:SFN or here, but is irrelevant for this discussion. I'm afraid you've missed the whole point of the discussion, which is about the deprecation of inline parenthetical referencing and whether that applies to explanatory notes. Your version contains no parenthetical citations, inline or otherwise, so doesn't address this question. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did not miss that at all. The method that I listed above completely sidesteps parenthetical referencing, so I do think it relevant. Peaceray (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it does sidestep it, and that is why it is not relevant. Namely, because it avoids the question of whether WP:PAREN deprecates the use of parenthetical referencing in an explanatory note. One editor says yes above, others say no. What do you say? Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I think that WP:PAREN deprecates the use of parenthetical referencing even in an explanatory note, I do think it relevant as a correct method. Peaceray (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot that it's permitted, but I think it's more user-friendly to hyperlink the author-date citations to the long citations and not leave them as plain text. Biogeographist (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Rjjiii, I always use {{Efn}} for explanatory footnotes and {{Sfn}} or {{R}} for the citations nested in them and have no ploblems other than Phabricator T22707 (hits me when I try to list-define such notes). I have never written something like <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)

Johannes, that's all fine, but I get the impression that you think of <ref> as something fundamentally different from the {{efn}} template and it really isn't. {{Efn}} is a template that generates a <ref> with a default group name of 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)

Separate, Nested, and Mixed

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:

1. Separate footnodes
2. Nested footnotes
3. Mixed footnotes

I would guess that the 6 subsubsections woud be distribiuted as follows:

1. Separate footnodes: 1 & 2
2. Nested footnotes: 4, 5 & 6
3. Mixed footnotes: 3

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:

1. Separate
2. Nested
3. Mixed

Johannes Schade (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have thought about this while letting discussions on parenthetical citations run their course. The most relevant distinction is probably whether the footnotes are nested or not. I've made a demonstration using the current examples, a similar introduction, and revised headings:

User:Rjjiii/sandbox4^{[ permanent link ]}

@Johannes Schade: is this more clear? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Rjjiii I looked at your demonstration. I mostly agree. You seem to have dropped the "Mixed" example (the third, named "Shortened footnotes mixed with explanatory notes"). Well done. It might even be contrary to WP:CITE to mix citations with explanations. Please see some suggestions below:

• Explanatory notes, 1st paragraph. I find that the three sentences focus too much on explaining what explanatory footnotes are and neglect our subject, namely citations in the shortened-footnotes style. Only in the third and shortest sentence is our subject entered and even then with as a possibility with "may". This is not the right attitude. We must centre on our subject. I propose as first sentence something like: "This section explains how to write citations inside explanatory notes, as far as possible in shortened-footnote style." This should probably be followed by an introduction to the particular difficulties that might be encountered so that the reader can understand why we dedicate a special section to explanatory nodes, but not for instance to tables or image captions.
• Explanatory notes, 2nd paragraph. If I understand this right, the purpose is to introduce the two subsections below. The first sentence should start with "citation", rather than with "explanatory note" to stress what is our subject. The paragraph seems a bit long and still does not achieve its purpose. I still have not understood in what "nesting" can be opposed to "combination" or even "separation". Looking at the methods I seem to find that 1 and 2 use {{Sfn}} inside explanatory notes, whereas the other three use parenthetical citations in this place. Should not this difference be used in the name?
• Nested footnotes, heading. The heading "Nested footnotes" might be more precise saying "Nested citations" or even "Nested shortened footnotes".
• Nested footnotes, 1st paragrap, 1st sentence. I would try to make this a bit more explicit, something like "These methods can nest citations in shortened-footnote style inside explanatory notes declared using templated designed ...". I would add here that the two methods differ by the template used: {{Efn}} or {{Refn}}. I would also say here that both methods use {{Sfn}} for all citations whether inside or outside of the explanatory notes, moving this information from the heading "Using {{Efn}}". I would avoid the term "main footnotes" which might not be understood. I do not think it is used in any other documentation.
• Using {{Efn}}, heading. The verb "using" is a bit weak. I propose "Nesting Sfn in Efn". For the rest this headings is much improved.
• Using {{Efn}}, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. All that is necessary here is to say that the explanatory note is created using {{Efn}}.
• Using {{Refn}}, heading. The verb "using" is a bit weak. I propose "Nesting Sfn in Refn". For the rest this heading is much improved.
• Using {{Refn}}, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. All that is necessary here is to say that the explanatory note is created using {{Refn}}.

I think I will stop here, otherwise you will tell me "Not read, too long". Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll revise and when I'm done revising, I'll ping you. I'm not rushing it but am taking on the feedback. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I've read your feedback and revised again.[14] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Note tag

{{notetag}} is not motioned anywhere. Is its use not recommended, or has the page simply not been updated yet? There's a part about using <ref group=Note and surely {{notetag}} would be recommended then? Eievie (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Eievie: It's often better to use {{efn}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)