:Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#References not notes

The section "Use in footnotes" starts with the sentence "For a citation to appear in a footnote, it needs to be enclosed in 'ref' tags." This gives the impression that REF tags are the only way. That is how I understood it, now a year ago, when I first learned to cite sources in Wikipedia. Clearly this is not the case as the Sfn template also generates a citation in a footnote. It took me a long time to discover Sfn, which I then preferred over the quite heavy-going REF.../REF for many reasons. I think the Sfn template, which Charlie Gillingham wrote in 2009, has still not found its deserved place in the Wikipedia documentation. - I might be wrong; perhaps most Wikipedians regret that Sfn was ever accepted and would like us all to exclusively use REF.../REF? Whatever might be the case, I do not want to edit this text without consensus and probably a newby like me is not the right person to do it. What do you all think of this? Johannes Schade (talk)

{{re|Redrose64}} Discussing as requested.

On the first page (20 results/page) of {{sl|1=insource:"== Notes"}}, I counted:

{{cot|Search results, potentially offensive}}

URL, List of United States representatives from New York, Panama Papers, United States Senate, A, Georgia (U.S. state), Kendrick Lamar, Michigan, Protestantism, Nikola Tesla, Jake Gyllenhaal, List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, One Piece, New Jersey, BDSM, Auschwitz concentration camp, Greek alphabet, Sanskrit, Operating system, IBM

{{cob}}

• 6 {{t|notelist}}
• 1 {{t|notefoot}}
• 11 prose
• 1 {{tlx|reflist|group{{=}}nb}}
• 1 {{tlx|reflist|group{{=}}"note"}}

Not even 1 of these are citations. All are for the explanatory footnote system, with 6 for {{t|efn}}, 2 for {{t|notetag}} and 1 for a non-predefined group "nb" but acting as an efn. I ask proponents of "Notes" for citations to present some evidence. It's they that need to start a RfC discussion.

Most importantly, this help page contradicts the guideline WP:EXPLNOTESECT, which says "respectively" and takes precedence. My edit was to "document the good practices accepted in the Wikipedia community".

The MOS further supports my observation:

{{tqb|more often used to distinguish between multiple end-matter sections or subsections.

...

If multiple sections are wanted, then some possibilities include:

• For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes" or "Footnotes"
• For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited"|source=MOS:FNNR}}

As to {{tpq|Editors may use any reasonable section and subsection names that they choose}}, a help page should document the most common practice, not unduly present edge cases. Based on the two linked guidelines, I would like to not only reinstate {{diff||1240632360}} but consider going further with completely removing mentions of "Notes".

{{td|section usually named "Notes" or "References" near|section named "References" near}} 142.113.140.146 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:20 out of 922,951 is hardly representative. Your search will have picked up a lot of low-quality pages, not all of which will be best examples of ideal practice. It would have been better to examine our featured articles, which (according to WP:FA) {{tq|... are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles.}} and each of which (according to WP:WIAFA) {{tq|exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing}}. I suggest that you examine some recent and upcoming TFAs to see just how inconsistent they are on section headings.

:You mention WP:EXPLNOTESECT but that is just part of Wikipedia:Citing sources, which early on (specifically at WP:CITESHORT) describes the Notes/References convention. I will also direct you to Help:Shortened footnotes. Where there is inconsistency between frequently-used guidelines, you should not act unilaterally but discuss it centrally. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

::As suggested, I examined Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/August_2024:

::* "Explanatory notes" for efn: 1: Homeric_Hymns

::* Notes for efn: 17: {{hidden begin}}Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha, Aston_Martin_Rapide, Existence, Albert_Stanley,_1st_Baron_Ashfield, St_Melangell's_Church, Phoolan_Devi, Yugoslav_torpedo_boat_T2, Worlds_(Porter_Robinson_album), Hudson_Volcano, Snooker, Kes_(Star_Trek), Battle_of_Winwick, Turabay_dynasty, John_F._Kennedy_document_hoax, 24th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Karstjäger, Nadezhda_Stasova, Cross_Temple,_Fangshan{{hidden end}}

::* No notes section: 11: {{hidden begin}}Free_and_Candid_Disquisitions, Alice_of_Champagne, Blackrocks_Brewery, Flag_of_Japan, IMac_G3, Pan_Am_Flight_214, Outer_Wilds, Total_Recall_(1990_film), Black-throated_loon, Bäckadräkten, Segundo_Romance{{hidden end}}

::* Notes for bundled references: 1: Rachelle_Ann_Go

::* Notes with sfn mixed with citations: 1: Anna_Lee_Fisher

::* Notes for full citations only: 0

::If we stretch it, Anna_Lee_Fisher can be considered a {{tpq|inconsistency between frequently-used guidelines}}. When Shortened citations appear separately in ==Notes==, the full citations still need to appear in ==References== or similar. In total, the notes section is efn 18:2 non-full citations, and efn 18:0 full citations. "references" is more common overall.

::Any {{tpq|inconsistent ... section headings}} is mostly WP:CITEVAR, which is accepted. However, no {{tpq|major citation styles}} put citations in Notes.

::Mentioning Notes should require:

::{{td|Note, if this is a new page or if there are not already references previously cited, it is necessary to create a section usually named "Notes" or "References" near the end of the page|Note, if this is a new page or if there are not already references previously cited, it is necessary to create a section usually named "References" (and sometimes also "Notes") near the end of the page}}

::But that is too complex. Basically a "Notes" section requires a later "References" section created first. Articles don't generally put a bare {{t|reflist}} after ==Notes==, so proponents should at least wikilink some articles exemplifying their claims.

::In conclusion, I would like to improve the help page by editing it show the wikicode used in the featured articles you suggested that I examine. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes, some styles are in the majority over others. But that does not mean that the majority is any more "correct" than the minorities. What it means is that for those carrying our FA reviews, several different styles are considered acceptable, provided that the article is internally consistent. I would also like to point out that this is the talk page for making improvements to the page Wikipedia:Citation templates, which as its title implies, is about citation templates and how they are used to create citations. It is not about citations as a whole, nor is it about citation style. As stated at WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia does not have a single house style (see WP:PEREN#Establish a house citation style). Forcing people to use one kind of heading to the exclusion of others creates a house style. If you want to change that, this is the wrong page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

::::No, I never intended to try {{tpq|Forcing people to use one kind of heading to the exclusion of others creates a house style. If you want to change that, this is the wrong page}}. I accept all the different styles in the FA articles you linked. ==Notes== for full citations is found in neither, so presenting it here is undue.

::::I never suggested any changes to citation style. I just want this help page's {{alink|Use in footnotes}} to be more generally helpful by reflecting your FA articles and the other guidelines. This help page is not the place to controversially introduce a never-seen-before style. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

::::{{re|Redrose64}} Would an acceptable resolution be to remove the controversial paragraph and code between "Note," and "/>"? After all, you agree this help page {{tpq|is about citation templates and how they are used to create citations. It is not about citations as a whole, nor is it about citation style}}, and the references tag is not a template, while {{t|reflist}} falls outside the main topic of {{cite xxx}} {{tpq|citation templates}}. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability, Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)}}

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citations_templates&redirect=no Citations templates] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 11#Citations templates}} until a consensus is reached. Cremastra _talk 16:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citation_templates&redirect=no Citation templates] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 12#Citation templates}} until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 23:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citation_Templates&redirect=no Citation Templates] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 28#Citation templates}} until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As per this discussion, we do not currently have any documentation on the appropriate use of the quote parameter in citation templates. There is presently a "consensus" (of two) that something should be introduced. To avoid the burden of peppering all of our many citation template documentations with this, I'd like to suggest the addition of some text at this page instead.

:The quote parameter in citation templates may be used to include short, directly relevant excerpts from a source to support article content. It is not typically used, but can provide clarity for verification around specific facts sourced to a lengthy text; to eliminate ambiguity around controversial, disputed, or extraordinary claims; or in cases when a source is not available online.

To comply with fair use, material in the quote parameter must not reproduce significant portions of the source — generally less than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate. In addition, material must be directly relevant to the content it's being used to support and the quote parameter must not be used to introduce extraneous or supplemental facts.

An example of appropriate use of the quote parameter is seen in endnote 5 of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blankspot&oldid=1295435336 version 1295435336] of the Blankspot article.

Any thoughts? Objections? Edits? Chetsford (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Mostly looks good, except I don't really agree with the statement {{tq|"generally less than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate."}} As I'm sure that other copyright editors would agree, when it comes to dealing with non-free content and fair use, as is the case with quotes, context and personal discretion is more important than "hard" guidelines. While I get what you're trying to do, I don't think attempting to set guidelines is such a great idea. I think it's much more important to note that context is important in these cases and discretion should be used. The4lines |||| (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Understood, The4lines. Do you think we should strike that passage entirely, or better clarify it, e.g.:

::*"... significant portions of the source — generally less more than 150 words or 10 percent of the source text (whichever is less) is appropriate is inappropriate, but context is important and discretion should be applied."

::*... significant portions of the source (in some cases, editors have found up to 150 words of text to be appropriate, but context is important and discretion should be applied).

::Chetsford (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Chetsford}}, IMO, we should just strike that passage. There's no need to make editors think they have to keep their quote under 150 words or 10 percent. The4lines |||| (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Works for me! Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seeing no objection to this in the last four days, I will introduce the below passage (which represents what I drafted with The4lines's suggested edits) on Friday in the absence of any further discussion.

::The quote parameter in citation templates may be used to include short, directly relevant excerpts from a source to support article content. It is not typically used, but can provide clarity for verification around specific facts sourced to a lengthy text; to eliminate ambiguity around controversial, disputed, or extraordinary claims; or in cases when a source is not available online.

To comply with fair use, material in the quote parameter must not reproduce significant portions of the source. In addition, material must be directly relevant to the content it's being used to support and the quote parameter must not be used to introduce extraneous or supplemental facts.

An example of appropriate use of the quote parameter is seen in endnote 5 of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blankspot&oldid=1295435336 version 1295435336] of the Blankspot article.

:Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)