The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

I welcome comments below for the proposal found on this associated page.

Comments

Click here or the + sign next to "edit this page" to add a new thread

General comments

One obvious one: actually applying "should mainly encourage both parenthetical notes and parenthetical citations unless they become too unwieldy" will be make most newly promoted FAs utterly unreadable. We've reached a point where, on average, every other sentence will be cited, often from a number of sources; putting all of this information directly into the text will render it unreasonably convoluted for anyone not given to reading scientific proceedings. This is particularly true in cases where existing footnotes contain both source information and further commentary; ignoring the CMS and using both styles together may be acceptable in theory, but it really does tend to produce more convoluted text.

[comment from the footnote manual of style page] (I question the relevance of making this proposal here, incidentally. This is a style guide for footnotes, and it would be quite inappropriate for it to open by recommending a different format entirely.)

In general, though, I think that the most important thing is to strenuously discourage converting from Harvard to footnotes, and vice versa, without the approval of an article's regular editors. Any style guide that encourages such changes—even implicitly—will only produce massive edit-warring (which will disproportionately affect our better articles, since those tend to be the ones with heavier citation). Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on structured source referencing

One other thing I forgot to mention is the distinction between freeflow and structured source dats. BIBTeX, for example is a structure bibliographic reference. The one I use in the proposal example for Ptolemy's The Almagest is unstructured or freeflow. I didn't think to raise this at first because, I think the software enhancements I propose would abstract editors and readers alike from worrying about this distinction (except in the case of manually entered sources). Also the problems I outline in the proposal and the distinction between bookcite and Cite.php are somewhat independent of this issue. I would welcome other views on this however. Any other comments? --Cplot 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nested notes

Comment: While restraint of the editors can be hoped for in created new texts (as on Wikipedia), it cannot be counted on in reproducing extant texts (as on Wikisource), where footnotes to footnotes are simply reality. Since all the wikimedia projects run on the same software, hopefully note support will become as general as possible. Shimmin 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate more on the points you're making? What are you referring to with "restraint of the editors"? What is the significance of "footnotes to footnotes are simply reality"? Respectfully, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. --J. J. 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first comment in this thread is referring to nested notes as I described them in the proposal. In the proposal, I discuss continuiing or creating the technical ability for the software to permit these types of nested notes (regardless of footnote or parenthetical note), and then limiting use through manual of style policy or the like. So I think Shimmin is simply saying that the nested notation is arleady taking place and I think saying that it can't or shouldn't be stopped.

Part of what I hope to introduce with this proposal is more separation between content and presentation. By treating nested notations semantically as simply notations regardless of how they're presented (parenthetical, footnote, endnote, curor hover, etc), we can leave the presentation details to the moment of presentation. The reader can determine through preferences or changing environment settings (e.g., buttons on the top of the page) how much detail is displayed and where it is displayed.

However, I think keeping notations within the source wiki code within the body text they refer to is a good policy as well. Many complain that it makes editing the text dificult because, one has to read past all the notes and the associated tags for the notes. I think this too is something that could be improved with better editing tools so that hiding/revealing the notes could also be accomplished in an editing mode. When it comes to so many editors involved in the project it's important to keep the text and subtext together. --Cplot 20:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Detailed proposal responses

See also my related response: Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Look at the bigger picture

I really appreciate your ideas on semantic separation. Indeed, clarification of note/cite/ref/source also seems to be at the root of all <ref> issues. Nonetheless, most MOS guidelines are common sense or just depend on the article; guidelines don't need to be that specific (e.g. your recommendation to set a number-of-words boundary on parenthetical references). I'm not a librarian or editor, but I do have a Bachelor's degree; even so, it's been very difficult to determine what you're referring to with a lot of your suggestions. Examples and/or links for each point you make would be very helpful.

My first question is in regards to the differentiating the elements explanation. Is my understanding correct that a "Reference" is like GTL "Bibliography"; likewise, your "sources" would be the "References" in this same GTL? --J. J. 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOS responses

Which Manual of Style page are you referring to in your list of MOS revisions?

1. Parenthetical notes/citations. Are you refering to longer notes (e.g. this would be a footnote if it were longer or "more unweildy") and Harvard references (Smith 1980)?

2. Are you referring to Template:Ref from Wikipedia:Footnote3 when you mention "bookcite" or "citebook" in this proposal? I'm not familiar with bookcite and citebook.

5. Discouraging changing existing referencing systems. There are already several warnings: (1) Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_and_where_to_cite_sources

If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.

(2) Wikipedia:Footnotes

Footnotes are an excellent way to cite sources, but they are not the only way; some articles use inline links instead, or Harvard referencing. Also, Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes. Many articles use templates to create footnotes. For more information, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is the main style guide on citations.

(3) Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles

6. Only using two or three Harvard references. At this point, this is probably a good idea! Once some of the Cite.php bugs and issues are worked out, this practice could probably be revised.

7. Discourage multiple anchors to same note. Mentioned here, but still unresolved: m:Talk:Cite/Cite.php#Distinguish between references to same item.

8. Encourage manual reference lists. Already being discussed with Bugzilla:5997 and Bugzilla:5885.

Software request responses

RE: Software requests

1. <ref> tag nesting (only for notes). See Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#Nested_footnotes, although unresolved.

2. Cites in notes/notes in cites. Indeed, this is probably a good recommendation, depending on how things turn out with current bug suggestions.

3. Link cites to sources. See MOS response 7 above.

4. What are "sources that cannot be automatically recovered"?

5. Automatic ref/source sorting. This would only be possible after other <references /> issues were worked out, if I'm understanding you correctly.

6. Why the mdash recommendation? Do you have a source for this exact standard? This would definitely be a low-priority request regardless.

7. Good annotated bibliography idea, similar to 2 and 3 above.

8 through 10. Lookup mechanism sounds like "fluff" to me; not a bad idea, but not particularly useful, either. Would be difficult to manage manually-added sources, too.

Thanks for the detailed response to the proposal. Your suggestions are quite helpful. My motivation in developing this proposal arose from my own confusions and the confusions and frustiations I saw expressed by verteran editors on the MOS talk pages (in various places). I think your suuggesting of providing examples is a good one. it's difficult to clarify these terms without providing examples. I'll try to incorporate some into the proposal. My main interest with this proposal is in seeing the software improved to meet the needs of edistors and readers of wiki material. The MOS suggestions were mainly intended as a stop gap measure. Anyway, thanks again for your comments. I reflecton them as i make my revisions.--Cplot 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]