Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Invasion/archive1

References

I've seen a lot of different suggestions about cites and references. I have a few questions and comments.

• Kirill Lockshin says, "the 'References' section should be properly numbered. More inline citations might also help."

• According to the Wikipedia style guide, the reference section should be bulleted, not numbered.
• Why do people mix in-line cites and footnotes? Why would you want to have both? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to either have everything together in the references/external links sections or just link straight to them?

• AdamZ says, "inline citations need to be provided, generally in the form of Wikipedia:Footnotes."

• Also according to the style guide, footnotes are somewhat controversial and actually don't seem to be appropriate for our purposes. The guide says, "Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources." Which is exactly what our footnotes do. Some could argue that footnotes are a good way to quickly check sources, but the article isn't exactly the controversial kind of topic that would be used for. I don't think anyone is going to say, "There's a Great Wall in China? That can't be right. Let me check this footnote."

Not to beat this horse to death, but going back to the manual of style again, it seems to me that the method of citing sources is (on Wikipedia, at least) a matter of personal preference. Harvard style, footnotes, inline citations... no one particular method is required or preferred by Wikipedia. If statements are cited, no matter how, there should be no problem. I've always used APA style, so a lot of this is new to me. Rentastrawberry was very helpful in making some footnotes (I'm assuming he did it right) but I'm just not clear on exactly what everyone wants to see, and how any style of citation (or mix of styles) can be more "featured article quality" than another. Kafziel 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is that any style chosen must work when the article is printed. Thus, if you have numbered footnotes in the body of the article, those same numbers must appear in the "Notes"/"References" section; otherwise there is nothing to link the citations in the text to the references. (Note also that the "References" section is usually done with bullets because a separate "Notes" section exists for any specific footnotes.) Other than that, it's a matter of personal style. —Kirill Lokshin 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So why shouldn't we just remove the footnotes altogether and return the cites to Harvard style as I originally had them? That seems to be the simplest solution to all of this. Kafziel 21:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No reason not to. The decision between footnotes and Harvard style is entirely up to the editors of each individual article. —Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just changed the refs back to Harvard style (sorry, Rent!) and also added several inline cites. Question on the inlines; since they are linking to external sites, and wouldn't be visible if the page was printed out, should I list them separately in the "external links" section, or put them in the "references" section, or make them their own section, or what?

By the way, thanks for all your help and suggestions thus far. This kind of interaction is exactly what we were hoping for when we nominated the article for featured status. Kafziel 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I created a new section at the bottom and listed each external link used in the text separately, numbered to correspond with the numbers of the inline citations. That way each one can be referenced if the page is printed. The section title is kind of awkward; if you know the right one, please let me know (or go ahead and change it). Hope this is good. Kafziel 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, regular external links work fine when printed (it's only footnotes that have special markup for printing). I would just add the sites to the "References" section, particularly if you can pin down an author for them. —Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! Kafziel 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)