I think this is a good proposal. Is it possible to get rid of the external reference symbol? Check out {{CategoryTOC}} for an example of a template that does this. Sorry, I don't quite understand how it was done so I can't be of anymore help. --Samuel Wantman 23:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When you say space what is it that you see? I don't get any special spaces, just the minimum for the link. See the image.
I asked about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and got the following reply:
so this is not a specific problem with the proposal but rather a problem with the general wikipedia style sheet and will be fixed when the bugs are fixed. In the meantime, probably best to install firefox if you can.
Excellent, I think this is the best proposal so far. I've used it to footnote Human shield action to Iraq and the only downside that I can see is that you can't have two or more links pointing to the same footnote. So you'll notice in Human shield action to Iraq that footnote 4 & 5 are identical to each other. This seems a very small price for what is achieved, and arguably makes for more accurate reading in any case. —Christiaan 22:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Could you briefly describe how the machanism works? I couldn't find it. --Doradus 18:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is the best footnote recommendation I've seen so far (and that's saying something because I have proposed my own footnote system in Template:Ref and Template:endnote). I like the fact that the reference and the footnote are linked by a semantically meaningful identifier that is invisible to the reader (who just sees the numbers).
I would make some important cosmetic changes. First, the template names "an" and "anb" should be something more meaningful to the casual Wikipedia editor, such as "ref" and "endnote" (which I have already taken :-). Second, the anchor names should also be more meaningful so that they can stand alone in URLs. I chose "whatever_ref" for the ref and "whatever_endnote" for the endnote.
More fundamentally, I'm nervous that there's no particular reason the automatically assigned reference numbers will match the automatically assigned footnote numbers. The good news is that the links will still work properly (because of that semantically meaningul identifier) but the numbers will look wrong. --Doradus 03:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
At first I thought this was a clever system and solved the problem of auto-numbering. It still is a clever system, but I am against its implementation for the following reason: It is too easy for footnotes to get out of order. Simply, if a Wikipedian does not enter the footnotes in the correct order in the {anb} list, it will not match up correctly. How likely is this? I believe very likely, in particular with many editors working on a project with many footnotes. At least with the original {fn} template there was no chance of inaccurate data. Auto-numbering is a stylistic concern, it is "nice" to have footnotes in correct order, but not needed. But at least with {fn} we can be assured that the numbers match up, that [1] really means [1b], that the information is accurate. I believe until the Wiki programmers implement a correct solution on the software level, we should not introduce to the world a "auto-numbering system" when in fact it is not auto-numbering, it depends on the editor to manually place the footnote in the correct order in the b list. This is not clear, and for someone without programming or computer experience, they may just assume "auto-number" means just that, and they will place new footnotes anywhere within the b-list without knowing or regard to the ordering scheme this template requires. It is too complicated and will introduce errors. Is it worth it just for a stylistic issue that will probably be resolved anyway in the future? Stbalbach 19:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<{name=anthony|comment=Anthony really said this, we have it on video|webref=http://example.com/video.avi}>
This system has two major problems:
This will not fly. IMNSHO. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 10:30, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
{{fnb|7}}
{{fn|7}}
{{fn}}
{{fnb}}
First off, problems with using the templates:
Secondly, if we aren't using the templates, then granted, it would be much more difficult to keep track of. My proposed solutions:
-- AllyUnion (talk) 11:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(SEWilco 20:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) In considering such references, remember to separate the appearance from the content issues.
This is not a problem specific to this proposal, but to the usage of the sup-directive, ...and possibly to the CSS I stole from someone a long time ago.
On my screen, a line with a footnote gets extra space between it and the preceeding line. This is irritating, and ugly, and a strong reason for me to dislike footnotes of this kind.
Oughtn't this be solved before the footnoting scheeme is marketed and sold? :-) --Ruhrjung 21:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it has been noticed much above that the templates {{ref}} and {{endnote}} have been released by their author for improvement, and seem to have been converted to this method. Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Another_opinion I suggest that usage of these templates, with names which are easier to remember, be encouraged. (SEWilco 21:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC))
By the time you click on a footnote you realize you are about to look at a list of footnotes and really don't need to be reminded that that is what you are looking at 1, 2, 3, 15 , 20 times or more in a row. IMHO. --Alterego 18:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm using Safari, and a little surprised that is doesn't render " & u A r r ; " correctly. —Christiaan 12:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm planning to change the proposal over to recommending the use of the templates ref and note. I think these are clearer in meaning and it seems that there are still reasons to keep the fn and fnb templates for use in tables such as Comparison of file systems even if everybody could be persuaded that symbolic naming is very important for futureproofing and verification.
Whilst doing this, I've made the note template taking into account discussion here and on Wikipedia:Footnotes. That is to say, I have made it without the word "note" embedded, but using an up arrow (&uarr) instead.
Articles can be changed over mechanically very quickly so there is no problem if people use an and anb in the meantime. Mozzerati 09:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Just to say I think that the work you have been doing is fantastic. :ChrisG 23:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been helping with a different problem, and I haven't seen my solution mentioned elsewhere. I wonder if the method might be useful here, such as with a linked image.
I have this query: I have one reference (say the same site, or on the same page of the book.) and I want to reference two or more topics/paragraphs my reference. How do I accomplish this?
eg.
18% of abc is green -- -- Asia's largest -- -- ABC is the safest in the world.
Say all the three are linked to the same source. How do I use the {ref|xyz} and {note|xyz} to address the above? =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think many of the participants in this debate are in agreement that the ideal solution is for the MediWiki software to support a form of markup where a note is simply made where it needs to be made in the text, [1] and then the software will automagically put an unobtrusive anchor at that point in the text, along with an autonumbered == Notes == section at the end of the article. For the time being, however, this doesn't appear to be a near-term prospect. Unfortunately.
The present solution is certainly a worthwhile one. However, it does break the ability to use external links independently of footnotes, and while I agree that under most conditions, anything you'd want to extlink to inline should be represented as a note, it seems, well, uncolaborative [1] to insist that other editors not use external links as they were intended to use, because I want to hijack their autonumbering functionality to make footnotes work.
At the same time, without using the autonumbering functionality of external links, keeping the notes and their anchors matched up in a heavily annoted article becomes tedious, and correcting others' errors moreso. The present solution does not completely address this: while unique ID's certainly make it possible to sort things out if they go awry, editors are still required to keep the footnotes at the bottom of the page in the correct order, and with the ID's hidden in the source, there's no way to, without looking at the source, know whether the notes have become disordered.
So I propose that sidenotes may be better work-around than footnotes. One advantage of this approach are they it they does, at least in the simple implementation shown here, require editors to manually number things, it only requires editors to keep their numbers straight across a single paragraph, rather than the entire article. Secondly, the note is right there if you want to look at it, not down at the bottom of the page, where you have to click to in order to even see it, before you have any idea whether you want to read it or not. It also does away with the need for back-links.
A few limitations of the system: sidenotes must be short in order to track well with the main flow of text. For bibliographic references, this means that a short form of annotation [1] together with a longer bibliographic entry for the source in a == References == section at the bottom of the page. Long notes [2] will push into the potential note space of the next paragraph. Also, I am not exactly certain whether such notations can be made to play well with other things floating on the right, like infoboxes and images.
Suggestions and comments are welcome.
But;
I can see this as a good way, in future, to layout the references when an editor is doing verification. In other words, an optional feature of some kind which lets them be turned on or off would be great. Mozzerati 05:49, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Incidentally, in any case, could you please make a template for them which is compatible with (uses the same argument structure as) the inote template. Probably you could put it at Template:snote ; the most important thing wrong with your current proposal (I keep my above disagreements, but can see that it's partly a matter of taste) is that you put inline html and don't use a template.. Using a template (or two if really needed) will let us covert to a new system much more easily in future. Mozzerati 19:58, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
I suggest footnotes presently be done in traditional ways, and later software changes may allow more ways to display the information. An obvious improvement for the present system would be for the Edit screen to include two windows: the present text window and a second window with the References section. (SEWilco 18:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC))
I don't know how many other sites are using Footnote 3, but probably the largest and most active test case is over at Pope Benedict XVI. I restructured the existing footnotes into Footnote 3 with these edits. The article has since been edited a good 400 times since then, and it's interesting to see how people have dealt with the new footnote structure.
Most people do not get it first off. When they add a footnote they put the reference in the wrong place, and then take another one or two edits to correct it. That's pretty good. On the other hand, the footnotes now are quite messed up. I haven't quite managed to track down where the errors have been introduced, but the numbers don't match between the footnotes at top and the list, and several footnotes don't lead anywhere. The difficulty is that, without seeing exactly who added the footnotes and when, the structure is such that it can very hard working out what is supposed to go with what. I won't be able to get to it today, but will by tomorrow unless someone else does.
But my point is that this article is an interesting test case to see how intuitive and workable to footnote 3 structure is. I think the article should be watched to see how the system scales up to a large article being edited by dozens of people at once. So far I'm not certain it's perfect, but possibly it will be easier than I thought to match up all the footnotes, and thus will vindicate itself. — Asbestos | Talk 11:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If this is a test case of Footnote3, it is a disaster. Proof the system is un-intuitive and error prone to the majority of editors. The old {fn} macro methos may not be perfect, but it is intuitive and less prone to error ie. it works "better" Stbalbach 18:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Phew, all correct again. Two repeating mistakes having been causing the bulk of the problems: people adding notes to the bottom of the list, and people assuming that two footnotes could both be directed to the same source. I noticed that someone added a note cautioning people against the first error (I didn't check to see whether any new notes were added after this notice was placed), and I added an instruction #5 to the list of instructions at the top:
5) Multiple footnote to the same rerence WILL NOT WORK: you need to insert two uniquely-named footnotes.
Beyond that, it seems to be going ok, and it's not too difficult to correct errors. One further minor question: do people think that the article's > 30-item long list of footnotes is looking ungainly? Should the notes perhaps be small fonts, like paper footnotes, or perhaps put them down below all the See Also's and everything? Just throwing that out, but there isn't really much problem with a very long list, so maybe we shouldn't worry. — Asbestos | Talk 16:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pope article footnotes are out of sync again. Looks to be the same problem, of not adding the notes in the correct order in the list. Stbalbach 04:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added the following list of instructions to Pope Benedict XVI, at the top of the Notes section:
<!-- Please note new footnote structure: To add a new footnote: 1) Give the footnote a unique name. 2) Add {{ref|xxx}} to the body of the article, where you want the footnote, where xxx is the unique name. 3) Look and take note of the name and number of the footnote the immediately precedes your new footnote. 4) Insert #{{Note|xxx}} to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step 3. Please see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3]] for details -->
Feel free to edit this if you think it can be explained more clearly. On related note: as of right now, the footnotes at Pope Benedict XVI are now all correct. It wasn't too difficult to work out what was supposed to go where after all. We'll see how long it lasts (and if the new instructions help). — Asbestos | Talk 11:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey thats excellent! Hope you don't mind I made some edits to the instructions, and feel free to edit again. Should help a lot.
<!-- Instructions for adding a footnote. NOTE: Footnotes in this article use names, not numbers, see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3]] for details. 1) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9. 2) Add the macro {{ref|TheSun_Dec9}} to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote. 3) Find the footnote name in the article that immediatly proceeds the one you are adding. 4) Scroll down to the "Notes" section below and decide where in the list the Footnote should be ordered. 5) Add #{{Note|TheSun_Dec9}} to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step3. NOTE: It is important to add the Footnote in the right order in the list. -->
--Stbalbach 16:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. This should be used with all articles that use this referencing style. :ChrisG 16:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A semi-final version is here:
<!-- Instructions for adding a footnote. NOTE: Footnotes in this article use names, not numbers, see [[Wikipedia:Footnote3]] for details. 1) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9. 2) Add the macro {{ref|TheSun_Dec9}} to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote. 3) Take note of the name of the footnote that immediately proceeds yours in the article body. 4) Add #{{Note|TheSun_Dec9}} to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step3. NOTE: It is important to add the Footnote in the right order in the list. -->
Do people think this (or a derivative) should be placed on the main project page, with instructions to add it above Notes sections? — Asbestos | Talk 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It looks like things are messed up again at the Pope article (see footnote 20 for example). Oh well. Didnt take long. I really think it is too complicated for most people. Frustrating, but not unexpected. This whole footnote thing needs to be solved with a software solution, which is where she should be puting our energies IMO. Stbalbach 14:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From my understanding, it seems like pretty much the only reason for creating ref and note was because of the name. Since they're both autonumbering methods, and they're virtually identical, why aren't they just one template?
It seems only logical to me that one of these templates redirects to the other, and, in my humble opinion, it can only be to the detriment of ourselves if we have two seperate formats. Why not just redirect one to the other? I might be missing something big, but as far as I know, they're virtually the same.
I can only see advantages from redirecting one to the other. This way, anybody who wants to use an can use an, and anybody who wants to use ref can use ref, and it won't matter which one they use.
The only problem is that it might be confusing, which is why there should be an informal rule that each article should only use one format, and be consistent with that. Similar to the policy on American vs. British spelling, this is merely to avoid confusion.
To me, it feels like ref/note is just a duplicate of an/anb, so I don't really see why one doesn't just redirect to the other. I'd really appreciate your opinions on this, because I feel that it's a bit silly to have two competing formats that do the exact same thing. -Frazzydee|✍ 18:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to note one problem I noticed with the footnote system, which is that if you get to a page through a redirect, then the footnote links all link to the non-redirected page, causing your web browser to reload the page whenever you follow a redirect. That is, I went to Pope Benedict 16, which redirects to Pope Benedict XVI. I then clicked on one of the footnotes, and my browser loaded the footnote in the nonredirected article. I don't know if there's anything you guys can do about that. Thanks! -- Creidieki 11:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Something seems to have changed with regard to how <cite> </cite> works causing problems with how [[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] now works. Specifically, each new note is no longer on a new page line as before (see Atlas_Shrugged for an example. A fix might be to insert a <br> at the beginning of the template definition, but that would create an unnecessary blank line before the first note. Paul August ☎ 19:57, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
{{note|abc}} Testing test. {{note|def}} Nothing ahead of each line.
I thought the standard (eg George Galloway) was
* {{note|abc}} Testing test. * {{note|def}} Nothing ahead of each line.
(or with # instead) which works fine regardless. Rd232 12:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed the "extra blank line problem" for the template "ent" by using a "div" tag instead of the "br", and I've gotten rid of the "cite" tag altogether. The same technique could be used in the template "note". Paul August ☎ 21:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "semantic linking" provided in the ref/note and rf/ent template pairs no longer seems to work. Paul August ☎ 04:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
After some more testing, I don't think the problem has to do with the "cite" tag. It seems to be that that "id" inside any tag, (I tried "sup" and "div" for example), inside a template, doesn't work. Paul August ☎ 21:28, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "id" tag inside templates, now seems to work again. SEWilco, can anyone provide any details on how it was broken and/or fixed? Paul August ☎ 04:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hey could someone help me use this in Wikisource please. I tried implementing it on this page: Wikisource:The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam - Is Religion Possible?. Everything works fine, except for the numbering in the Notes section at the bottom. It numbers each note as "1" rather than incrementing. Thanks. --82.194.62.22 29 June 2005 14:59 (UTC)
This continues the discussion here. I'm just a regular user, no special knowledge of computers. This makes me the ideal Wiki user. I can see you must make technology easy to use, otherwise no one will use it.
OK - My inexperienced hands have just added Footnote3 to the Jew article. It was very difficult to give each footnote names (Footnote2 seems easier in this regard).
And the results are quite miserable. The numberings for the same reference do not stay the same (hey, no one wants to do 18 ibids when you can just type the same dam number). And the back links don't even work - they point to the first occurrence of the <name> tag rather than the footnote I clicked to get there.
I find it humorous that anyone wants to engage in writing an encyclopedia without a decent footnote system...--Muchosucko 4 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
Works Cited
I point out that some means of editing references should help keep references up to date. I proposed an enhancement as Bug 2745: Have References text edit window on Edit pages as a starting point. If there is the ability to edit References while editing an article section, References are more likely to be kept up to date. An obvious extension is to have edit buttons which produce citation templates. (SEWilco 23:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC))
