Template talk:Sfn

Names for the references?

Is it possible to add a name for ease of repeating? I just tried out the same template twice in a row and it did properly duplicate the reference number and have a single entry in the reflist, with two backlinks. But would it be possible to name them? Being able to cite multiple times, say, {sfn|foo|2023|p=50|refname=foo-50} and then subsequent calls would just go to {sfn|refname=foo-50} would be easier to work with than having to run {sfn|foo|2023|p=50} five times. --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at {{harvnb}} (documentation and examples here). If you put it inside a ref tag, you can then repeat the named ref instead of repeating all of the harvnb details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Golbez: One of the principal design features of {{sfn}} is that it does not need ref names. Another is that it's self-adjusting if one use is amended, you don't need to worry if the others are all still appropriate. Imagine that {{sfn|foo|2023|p=50}} is used five times, because five different pieces of content are all verified by the same page. If you remove the first of these five, the ref detail does not need to be moved to one of the others, because it's already there. Now consider the situation that the first of the five pieces is expanded, perhaps by using material from page 51, you alter that one ref to {{sfn|foo|2023|pp=50–51}} but leave the others alone because they don't use anything from page 51. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair. I get it. This is a useful tool, but not for that purpose, and there are others for it. Thanks you two for explaining! :) --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Does WP:CITEVAR bar use of sfn in articles without pre arranged consensus?

Hi, I used sfn for some new citations in the Emotion article and my edit had the sfns removed in this edit for the reason that, referencing WP:CITEVAR, that I cannot introduce a new "citation style" without first gaining consensus.

I can see the POV of the editor, which by extension also means that editors cannot even employ cite templates for articles that do not yet employ them. I am a long time wikipedian but am seeking advice on how to avoid the time sink of fielding these sorts of objections in the future. I needed a place in the article to put the refbegin stuff and so I placed it in a separate subsection. I suppose I could have omitted the subsection and simply put the refbegin immediately following reflist in order to be a less visually obvious and thereby avoid this sort of objection. But it is not very tidy.

On the other hand, is the editor correct and sfn should not be introduced to an article without first gaining consensus on its use?

Any thoughts? J JMesserly (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Emotion so I don't know what's appropriate for that article. It seems to me that if an article has citations that are well-done and, at some point, were consistent, then the existing style should be maintained. If the article has become much longer and contains many more citations that it used to, it might be time to discuss on the talk page whether it is time to introduce {{sfn}} to better organize the citations. There are other methods, such as {{Rp}}, that compete with sfn. I think it would be particularly inappropriate to introduce sfn in an article that already uses a competing method.

Finally, if consensus is gained to introduce sfn, the one making the change should commit to reorganizing all the citations, not just introduce it for new citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It is interesting to note that Emotion has two instances of {{sfn}} templates. The first one was added 20 September 2012 at this edit; its still there: {{sfn|Fox|2008|pp=16–17}}. That {{sfn}} was added when there was a mix of templated and non-templated citations. In the interim, the article has become more templated but still contains a fair number of non-templated citations. Consistent in style, it is not.

Right, this is the last that I have to say about this topic. Take the question to WT:CITEVAR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think that this is not a proper question for this template talk page. Questions about how WP:CITEVAR applies should be asked at WT:CITEVAR.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, so to understand you, your view is that for an established article such as this one with voluminous citations (the typical mixture of plain text, hard linked and cite templates within refs, that a discussion is necessary before sfn is first used for a new citation. If that is the prevailing view, I would prefer not to use the template at all. I would rather improve WP articles. J JMesserly (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist, thanks for the suggestion to also post there, but this inquiry is proper because I was also soliciting potential technical use assistance as a possible response to the difficulty. I am aware of the sfnref companion template, but potentially I anticipated there might be some other usage or companion template I am not aware of that can be used with sfn which will make it more acceptable to folks with the objection I ran into. J JMesserly (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing magic about sfn here. At any article with a well-established consistent style, new citations should be formatted in that style, and changes to that style should be discussed first. If an article's style is inconsistent and no consistent style can be found in its history, making its style consistent is less problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Right David. I guess my comment should be made on WP:CITEVAR talk, but I agree that is the clear intent of the citation guideline. As Trappist pointed out, there was no consistent style, so why should an editor have to justify use of sfn if it has been used in the article for 11 years? As is unfortunately typical in wikipedia, for this article there was the usual opaque mess of plain text and idiosyncratic/ colourful uses of citation templates added in an ad hoc manner. J JMesserly (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

2 citations out of ~150 is an indication of an error to be corrected, not an inconsistent style. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently there is no use of sfn or auxiliary templates which would avoid such objections. If there are ideas on the technical side, please post. Otherwise I agree with Trappist that observations on what the guidance should be for usage of sfn be made on the Citing sources talk discussion on this topic. If you have thoughts on the difficulty of introducing sfn and other useful templates to articles where they are rarely if ever used, please contribute your thoughts. J JMesserly (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing title error using sfn for {{cite encyclopedia}}

Sfn does not appear to work with {{cite encyclopedia}}; a Missing or empty title is shown. In the example below, the title/entry value is "Suffragist Movement", and I cannot specify a title value in {{cite encyclopedia}} since I also need to cite other titles/entries of that encyclopedia using sfn (probably via loc parameter). I tried doing the following:

{{sfn|Guillermo|2012|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=wmgX9M_yETIC&pg=PA416 416]|loc="Suffragist Movement"}}

{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Guillermo |first=Artemio R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wmgX9M_yETIC |encyclopedia=Historical Dictionary of the Philippines |date=2012 |publisher=[[The Scarecrow Press]] |isbn=9780810872462}}

• Guillermo, Artemio R. (2012). Historical Dictionary of the Philippines. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810872462 https://books.google.com/books?id=wmgX9M_yETIC. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Is there a solution/workaround to suppress that Missing title error? Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Missing or empty |title= error is not an {{sfn}} error. It is a cs1|2 error indicating that the {{cite encyclopedia}} template is missing the entry title. If you rewrite {{cite encyclopedia}} to include the entry:

{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Guillermo |first=Artemio R. |entry=Suffragist Movement |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wmgX9M_yETIC |encyclopedia=Historical Dictionary of the Philippines |date=2012 |publisher=[[The Scarecrow Press]] |isbn=9780810872462}}

Guillermo, Artemio R. (2012). "Suffragist Movement". Historical Dictionary of the Philippines. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810872462.

No Missing or empty |title= error.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot specifically specify a fixed entry/title value because I was trying to reuse the encyclopedia source by citing other entries of the encyclopedia (which is why I opted to use sfn). If I leave an entry empty, that error occurs; I was hoping for a workaround, somehow. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Then treat the encyclopedia as a book without specifying the entry:

{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Guillermo |first=Artemio R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wmgX9M_yETIC |title=Historical Dictionary of the Philippines |date=2012 |publisher=[[The Scarecrow Press]] |isbn=9780810872462}}

Guillermo, Artemio R. (2012). Historical Dictionary of the Philippines. The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810872462.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you link to the page where you are trying to make this happen, we may be able to help. There are a few workarounds. For example, you can use custom wikitext below the template example shown by Trappist the monk, along with anchors for the sfn template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that definitely works. I avoided trying that very basic code since I thought entry parameter was an alias of title in cite encyclopedia. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Automatically support month and year in SFN links

It is often the case that I quote a series of articles that appear in different months of a magazine or journal. So you might have Smith May 1995 and Smith August 1995. The suggested solution is to "mangle" the date by adding a letter to the end. I would be fine with this if the letter was separate from the date, but changing something like date=May 1995 to date=1995a really makes my skin crawl.

Yes, I know I can override it with a |ref...

... but, is there any reason the template can't do this itself? That is, if the sfn has "more stuff" in the date part than just the year, it picks a more specific cite? For instance, sfn|Smith|May1995|p=6 would attempt to match on links for last=Smith date=May 1995, and if that fails, tries last=Smith date=1995.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed and rejected before, not necessarily on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The only place where you need to display the letter suffix, which is the standard format recommended by CMOS and other style guides, is in the rendered short (sfn) footnote. Here's an example: This is some text. This is other text.

References

Sources

• Smith (May 2020). Title A.
• Smith (August 2020). Title B.

That doesn't look like anything "mangled" to me, and the visual impact and typing impact is minimal. View the wikitext to see how I made this happen. There may be another template, like {{Wikicite}}, that works better for your aesthetic needs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, Redrose64, and Maury Markowitz: I just opened up the same discussion, not being aware of this one. I completely agree that the template should support a month or season, not just a year, for precisely the scenario Maury Markowitz described. It seems to go against the background WP principle to introduce as little original research (maybe not exactly applicable here, but the spirit seems to apply) as possible, and to let the reliable sources do the talking. Plus, I agree that it just doesn't look right. Scholarly bibliographies outside of WP never this, to my knowledge. I say, if there is a natural disambiguator already built into the reference, why not use it instead of a contrived one? Ergo Sum 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly bibliographies outside of WP never this, to my knowledge. Oh ... never say that something never happens. See Parenthetical referencing § Author-date 8th bullet point. And just to show that it isn't only en.wiki, this google search. {{sfn}} is a variant of the {{Harvard citation}} series of templates so it adheres to the generally accepted multiple-sources-with-the-same-author-and-date scheme.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I took a look at John Bapst. I see that you are already using ref= in your citation templates. This creates the CITEREFlastYYYY anchor and it appears to be working. The Module:Footnotes used by {{sfn}}, {{harv}}, and {{harvnb}} has a section of code that checks parameters to see if they are a year with or without lowercase letter disambiguation, and it appears that it's written to interpret any unusual date/year names as author names. (Template editors and admins correct me if I'm wrong here.)

For sourcing edge cases you can always make the shortened footnote by hand. For example, the first citation: "{{Harvnb|''Woodstock Letters''|July 1888|p=218}}" renders the incorrect visual text: "Woodstock Letters & July 1888, p. 218" You could:

• Hand write this with a wikilink, "[[#CITEREFWoodstock_LettersJuly_1888|''Woodstock Letters'', July 1888]], p. 218" which renders as, "Woodstock Letters, July 1888, p. 218"
• Hand write this without a link: Woodstock Letters, July 1888, p. 218
• Use {{citeref}} where the final parameter is displayed text, "{{Citeref|style=plain|''Woodstock Letters''|July 1888|''Woodstock Letters'', July 1888}}, p. 218" which renders as, "Woodstock Letters, July 1888, p. 218"
• And finally I experimented with a rigid harv template just meant to be used with {{sfnref}} and {{harvid}} for these kinds of edge cases, but I am hesitant to introduce another shortened footnote template if this is an uncommon issue. If there is a need for it something like, "{{harvcat|''Woodstock Letters''|July 1888|p=218}}" could render the same as the above examples.

{{User:Rjjiii/harvmonth|''Woodstock Letters''|July 1888|p=218}}

And the source from the article:

• "Fr. John Bapst: A Sketch". Woodstock Letters. 17 (2): 218–229. July 1888. Archived from the original on May 26, 2023. Retrieved May 26, 2023 – via Jesuit Online Library.

I hope something in this is helpful. I think the documentation could really benefit from an overview of all the conflicting ways to cite multiple pages. Feel free to ask more questions, Rjjiii (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

While the only place you need to display the a, b is in the short cite, the editor still has to code it in the full cites eg ref={{sfnref|Smith|2020a}} or 'mangle' the date within the full cite template, and the question remains - why not do the formatting automatically, and why not use the specific date if it naturally disambiguates the references? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't need to use sfnref at all. This is some text. This is other text.

References

Sources

• Smithers (May 2020). Title A.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Smithers (August 2020). Title B.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Again, not mangled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

True, but that method adds the article to Category:CS1 maint: date and year and emits the corresponding maintenance message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that we tend to forget that some people print our articles. Hiding the year disambiguator in the long-form reference can make it difficult for a paper-copy-reader to determine which of the several long-form references is the one specified by a particular short-form reference. Also remember that these short-form templates are used for more than just periodicals. Don't make life harder for those readers solely for the sake of your aesthetic preferences.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an answer to the actual question. Why can't it "just work"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Because no one has written the code to make it "just work"? This template is used on 140+ wikis so internationalization and date validation become issues. {{sfn}} is a short-form Harvard style citation template. The de facto standard for disambiguating Harvard references is to add a lowercase alpha suffix to the publication year (the last positional parameter in a {{sfn}} template). {{sfn}} complies with that de facto standard.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Numbers of authors

If more than four authors are given then the template still works, but a hidden error is flagged up. See for example the old version where {{sfn|Ingrey|Duffy|Bates|Shaw|Pope|2023}} generates a reference to "Ingrey et al. 2023." which links to the citation (Ingrey, L; Duffy, S; Bates, M; Shaw, A; Pope, M (2023), "On the Discovery of a Late Acheulean 'Giant' Handaxe from the Maritime Academy, Frindsbury, Kent", Internet Archaeology (61), doi:10.11141/ia.61.6). Not a major problem, and one that is easily fixed (see the edit by wham2001 (this diff), but odd that it should work when the documentation says otherwise. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Martin. I do wonder whether the current handling of citations with large numbers of authors could be improved. My understanding (albeit some of which is guesswork) of the rationale behind the current setup is:

1. Having very long lists of authors in (rendered) shortened footnotes is cumbersome, unnecessary, and inconsistent with most style guides, so the template renders at most three authors and then reverts to "X et al."
2. As a result, having more than four authors in the harv/sfn templates' parameters is unnecessary, and so is discouraged because it makes the wikitext cumbersome.
3. Since the template has all the necessary information to produce a correctly formatted shortened footnote it has been made to work when there are more than four authors, because not doing so would be a disservice to our readers.
4. The module only generates a warning in preview mode because listing more than four authors does not affect the rendering of the page (owing to point 3).

The result is that, if an editor has not previewed their edit and carefully checked the preview, there is nothing in the saved page to indicate that anything is wrong (other than a hidden category, and who carefully checks the hidden categories after saving each edit? Nobody does.) Then they have to put up with their articles being gnomed to fix "errors" that they didn't know they'd made and which don't affect the article as displayed to the reader in any way. That doesn't seem optimal to me.

Assuming point #1 in the list above we could fix this problem by changing the behavior in any of points 2 to 4. My view would be:

• #2 should not be changed, since there are many articles with very long author lists, which will lead to ghastly multi-line {{sfn}}s. Moving the number of authors at which the template generates a warning to, say, six will just add confusion.
• #3 should not be changed since replacing a working footnote with an error message would be a disservice to the reader.
• That leaves #4.

Would it be an improvement to add, say, a warning / error in the rendered reference list for logged-in editors (similar to the "multiple-target error" warning) for shortened footnotes that contain an error which places the article in Category:Pages using sfn with unknown parameters? Such a change would affect very few articles, because that category is usually empty or almost empty, but it might help alleviate the problem that Martin raises.

Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd strongly concur with that reasoning. IIRC I'd gone to the inline citation, generated the SFN and cut the inline, gone to the Bibliography, added the full citation, previewed, but only looked at the generated reference (annoyingly titled "Citations") and checked that it linked to the actual citation. I probably never scrolled right up to the top (since it was working) and then after publishing it didn't see a problem (since it's hidden). Possibly a bit sloppy, but who doesn't take short-cuts when everything seems to be working! I do stress though, whilst this may annoy gnomes, it doesn't affect the readers and therefore is a very minor issue, not even really a problem. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This template invokes two modules: Module:Footnotes which renders the actual short-form reference, and Module:Check for unknown parameters which renders the preview warning (and adds articles to Category:Pages using sfn with unknown parameters). Module:Footnotes has been made to work when there are more than four authors. In the normal way of things, when there are five positional parameters in {{sfn}}, the fifth is expected to be a year. In OP's example, the fifth positional parameter (Pope) is not a year so the module examines the sixth and subsequent positional parameters for an assigned value that looks like a year. If a year is found, the module replaces the fifth positional parameter's value (Pope in the example) with the year (2023 from the sixth positional parameter in the example).

The multiple-target error message is visible to all readers. To see the no-target error message requires logged in users to add a line of text to their personal css. These messages may someday become visible to all readers.

I see no real benefit from a modification to Module:Footnotes that would duplicate the categorization/error messaging accomplished by Module:Check for unknown parameters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Baffling sfn error

While gnoming for articles in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and Classical music, I came across the article Piano and String Quartet (Feldman) which had an error message "sfn error: no target CITEREFHamilton1993–1994" for citation #30. I was baffled because clicking on that link took me to that source and highlighted it, as expected. So why the message? Below is a simplified version of that citation; it shows that error message but clicking on the reference will highlight the source.

Article body

text.

References

References

Sources

• Hamilton, Andy (December 1993 – January 1994). "Kronos Quartet". The Wire.

Why? How can it be fixed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a limitation in Module:Footnotes/anchor id list. Because it was easiest and because it is sufficient for most uses, that module understands only year–year ranges, circa years, years, and the no-date keywords. Those are sufficient for the module to extract the year portion from a lot of dates but, alas, not from month YYYY – month YYYY dates. I'll think about how to implement year extraction for this type of date.

You can suppress the error message by adding |ignore-err=yes to the {{sfn}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have applied a fix and so removed the |ignore-err=yes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove trailing '.' ?

{{sfn|...}} adds a trailing period (example), which is out of place, since the short footnote format does not produce a sentence, nor does the period serve any other apparent purpose. In contrast, {{refn|{{harvnb|...}}}} does not (example). There are also instances where one does not want a trailing period, depending on a loc= parameter. Could we remove the trailing period from the {{sfn|...}} output? Although there will be many affected articles, this change should not have a significant impact.

References

• Sname (1934), Citation of 'sfn'
• Hname (1934), Citation for 'harvnb'

—Quondum 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Years ago there was this discussion that may (or may not) be relevant: Template talk:Sfn/Archive 1 § Option to remove terminal full stop in short form.

That was in olden days when {{sfn}} was a wikitext template. When {{sfn}} was converted to use Module:Footnotes, the default postscript character was retained.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Doing this would create gratuitously inconsistent formatting in many articles that mix manually-formatted footnotes and sfn-formatted footnotes and have carefully adjusted the manual ones to match the style of the sfn-formatted ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What David Eppstein said. No citation templates output sentences. Nevertheless, most citation templates end in periods (full stops), so sfn is consistent with those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive reference, Trappist the monk. I clearly overlooked the relevant part of the template documentation (largely because it is a wall of text), namely that {{sfn|ps=none|...}} is supported and achieves the desired result. —Quondum 19:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Summer 1993

@Trappist the monk: You may be able to help: Summer 1993 as a date, per this Citation style question causes {{sfn}} issues. If 'Summer 1993" is used in the sfn, the references becomes ' Parsons & Summer 1993, p. ZZZ.' - i.e. Summer is taken as an author. If Summer is excluded, the reference does not cause the citation to be highlighted. See the current state of this draft, for instance. Is there a cure? thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't the date that's the problem. Date should be year only. You are using 'Parsons' as the surname in the {{sfn}} templates and 'Smith' {{cite journal}} template:

• {{harvnb|Parsons|1993|p=207}} → Parsons 1993, p. 207 (using {{harvnb}} here to simplify things)
• {{cite journal|title=Founding the Hollywood Bowl|last=Smith |first=Caroline Parsons |journal=American Music |volume=11 |number=2 |date=Summer 1993|pages=206-242 |publisher=University of Illinois Press |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3052555}}

  Smith, Caroline Parsons (Summer 1993). "Founding the Hollywood Bowl". American Music. 11 (2). University of Illinois Press: 206–242.

If I change the {{harvnb}} to use 'Smith', it works:

• {{harvnb|Smith|1993|p=207}} → Smith 1993, p. 207

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks. Clearly I'm having a more stupid day than I thought. I'm much obliged to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Change to documentation about four authors and more

I find that the Sfn format does not properly work (does not achieve "bi-directional link" functionality), if a work has multiple authors (..like 20) and the top 4 names are not listed completely. Ideally it would be better to correct the code and keep the functionality for just 1 author listed (the first author). If not, and in the meantime, the documentation of this page needs to be changed:

EXAMPLE:
With this Cite using multiple authors:
* {{cite journal |last1=Jeong |first1=Choongwon |last2=Wang |first2=Ke |last3=Wilkin |first3=Shevan |last4=Taylor |first4=William Timothy Treal |last5=Miller |first5=Bryan K. |last6=Bemmann |first6=Jan H. |last7=Stahl |first7=Raphaela |last8=Chiovelli |first8=Chelsea |last9=Knolle |first9=Florian |last10=Ulziibayar |first10=Sodnom |last11=Khatanbaatar |first11=Dorjpurev |last12=Erdenebaatar |first12=Diimaajav |last13=Erdenebat |first13=Ulambayar |last14=Ochir |first14=Ayudai |last15=Ankhsanaa |first15=Ganbold |last16=Vanchigdash |first16=Chuluunkhuu |last17=Ochir |first17=Battuga |last18=Munkhbayar |first18=Chuluunbat |last19=Tumen |first19=Dashzeveg |last20=Kovalev |first20=Alexey |last21=Kradin |first21=Nikolay |last22=Bazarov |first22=Bilikto A. |last23=Miyagashev |first23=Denis A. |last24=Konovalov |first24=Prokopiy B. |last25=Zhambaltarova |first25=Elena |last26=Miller |first26=Alicia Ventresca |last27=Haak |first27=Wolfgang |last28=Schiffels |first28=Stephan |last29=Krause |first29=Johannes |last30=Boivin |first30=Nicole |last31=Erdene |first31=Myagmar |last32=Hendy |first32=Jessica |last33=Warinner |first33=Christina |title=A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe |journal=Cell |date=12 November 2020 |volume=183 |issue=4 |pages=890–904.e29 |doi=10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.015 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7664836/ |issn=0092-8674}}

Sfn will not work (not poppup window to the ref, and no active link to the ref) if written with just one author:
{{sfn|Jeong|2020}}

Only this will work (a bit cumbersome!!):
{{sfn|Jeong|Wang|Wilkin|Taylor|2020}}

Therefore I suggest the following changes to the documentation (or better, if possible, change the programming to allow for just one authors, if someone if able to...):

ORIGINAL TEXT:

• Parameters
  

Author(s) and year
The author and the year of publication are the only required parameters. Up to four authors can be given as parameters."

NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO:

• Parameters
  

Author(s) and year
The author and the year of publication are the only required parameters. If the authors are multiple, they have to be listed up to the fourth.

ORIGINAL TEXT:

• Large number of authors
  

Only the first four authors are required by the template. Listing more is not supported.

NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO:

• Large number of authors
  

The first four authors are required by the template. Listing more is not supported. Listing less will disable the "bi-directional link" functionality.

Comments welcome. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried your example, and it is working to spec, nothing needs to be changed in the template. The documentation is accurate, as far as it goes, but I can see why you were confused. The "Usage" section does say,

• <last2>–<last4> – positional parameters; surnames of next three authors

but if that isn't clear enough, perhaps something could be added to the Parameters section as well. I made a slight change to the top line under Parameters, which describes the first four authors more clearly as being "required". I don't feel that more extensive changes are needed, but I hope this change resolves any misunderstanding. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot: Do you mean that if you use {{sfn|Jeong|2020}} with my Cite example above, you do get the full ref popup and "bi-directional link" functionality? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So dropping the word "Only" from the original text would clarify the point. There's no need to says what happens if people don't use the template as documented. Kanguole 12:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have clarified the documentation text in question to make it more explicit. I hope this is helpful to less experienced editors who want to use this useful template family. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I took another crack at it as well (at the risk of some duplication from the previous edit, but to make it crystal clear—I hope). पाटलिपुत्र, with these changes from Jonesy and me, does it make more sense to you now? Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Mathglot: All very clear now! Thank you very much! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Change to documentation about maximum length for "loc="

I find that with Sfn the parameter loc= only works up to 1000 characters. Could we add the following text ("up to 1000 characters maximum") in order to warn users:

ORIGINAL TEXT:
Adding additional comments or quotes
The templates {{harvnb}} or {{harvtxt}} can be used to add quotes or additional comments into the footnote. This effect can also be achieved using {{sfn}} by adding a quote or comment to |loc=.

TO BE CHANGED TO:
Adding additional comments or quotes
The templates {{harvnb}} or {{harvtxt}} can be used to add quotes or additional comments into the footnote. This effect can also be achieved using {{sfn}} by adding a quote or comment to |loc= (up to 1000 characters maximum).

Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would you want that many? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Long quote or quotes, long notes etc... Better to have an explanation on the technical limitations of Sfn in this case, rather than leave users in the dark about why things don't work... We typically go to "documentation" when something doesn't work, so it's quite useful if the actual answers are there... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I'm opposed to this request. The parameter |loc= is absolutely not to be used for quotations, long, or short. It is for something else entirely, which is documented under § Usage. In short, it is a replacement for parameter |p= or |pp= when those params are not appropriate; for example, the book cover, unpaged copyright page, or even in tandem with one of the page parameters, where you could use |loc= to specify a figure or diagram number, as well as a page, or a page plus a footnote number, for example. If the description in the doc about param |loc= is not clear, let's fix it; but there is no need to make the max length longer; think of it as 'alt-page-number'; would you want a 1000-character long field, to describe the page number location in a book? Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I will have to review this situation further. In the past, there was a separate parameter for quotations, namely, |ps=, but apparently, according to the Nota bene in the doc, this has been deprecated, and quotations are now supposed to go in param {{loc}}. I unfortunately missed the Rfc that decided on that change, and on the face of it, I think it's a poor outcome, but maybe it was the best of a bunch of poorer alternatives. In any case, I have no answer for you right now, but will have to look further into this. For the time being, I would advise against using param |loc= for any type of quotation, and instead to borrow {{efn}}, and place your quotation there. There is no limit (that I am aware of) on the length of a quotation you may place in an explanatory footnote. In addition, {{efn}}'s may be placed in the reference section at the end of the article, instead of encumbering some section with a 1000-character quotation in the middle of the section. See WP:LDR for how to do this, or ask here for further details. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot:. Indeed the recommendation in this documentation is to use loc= for quotes, and quotes can be longish sometimes, or multiples quote fragments in the same ref can be necessary. In my mind, {{efn}} is not a ref, and is mainly used to expand on a subject in the editor's voice. It seems to me that loc= is fine (although the name is weird, quote= would be wonderful), but the so-far un-documented 1000 characters limit of loc= can be tight and bafling is one is unaware of it. I'm just trying to shift from the basic <ref>{{book=|...}}</ref> format to {{sfn}}, and pointing out a few of the basic issues in doing so... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your questions; they are very much on point. I just don't have a good answer as of yet. Perhaps someone else will. Mathglot (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to use <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2023|p=123}}:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.</ref>: .

• Smith (2023). title.

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion to use |loc= for comments or quotes should be withdrawn, and either this form or {{efn}} suggested instead – putting quotes or comments inside short footnotes stretches them too far beyond their core purpose, which is to provide short references that get merged if referring to the same place. Kanguole 10:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I look at it this way. If you feel that you need to supply a quote (of any lngth) with a ref, that suggests that you need to justify why that ref was used. If you need to provide a long quote, that suggests that the ref is weak and should probably not have been used in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggests, yes, but sometimes it is justified. I have come across {{efn}} being used for lengthy quotes where the material is controversial in some measure and not easily accessible. The result was edit warring until the quotes established the facts. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Martin. In my case, I find that including a quotation when a source is not immediately available is a courtesy to readers and editors as it enhances short-run verifiability. I regularly do so, for example, when citing a book for which Google books does not offer a snippet that includes the page in question, or when I have access to an online source via a membership where TWL does not. On the flip side, I find including a quotation that anyone can seeby clicking the title in the ref pointless and a waste of space. Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think loc= is very convenient, and even necessary (having {{sfn}} without a possibility to provide quotes would be quite unhelpful), so I do support the current recommendation in the Documentation to use loc= for quotes, and I think it should be kept (I am only suggesting that the 1000 characters cap should be mentioned somewhere as a de-bugging technicality). Shifting again to another format, and a very cumbersome one at that, such as <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2023|p=123}}: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"</ref> everytime a quote is needed, is not, I'm afraid, an elegant solution, is also not user-friendly, and is quite a mess when editing an article... Also {{efn}} is for notes, not references, so it is not a proper solution either... The current documentation provides a smart solution: it simply is necessary to have a quote option such as loc= within {{sfn}}.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Elegance is such a subjective matter. You do realize that this massive quote or comment you're adding to |loc= is going into the fragment identifier of the URL, right? That's because |loc=, like {{sfn}} itself, was designed for a different purpose, and doesn't fit this one.

Michael Bednarek's alternative does what you're asking for, and even gets the punctuation right: colon rather than comma. Kanguole 12:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Two points in response to "{{efn}} is for notes, not references": First, there is nothing inherently different between ref tags and efn tags—an {{efn}} is just a ref tag with a default group of lower-alpha; that is, efn's by default are enumerated starting with 'a' and refs with '1'. Second, there is no particular reason that a quotation is better suited to a "reference" than an "explanatory note" as a quote is content, which I find well-suited to a note. Turning it around: including the quote (short or long) in the article but excluding the reference that identifies the source would be contrary to Wikipedia policy as it fails WP:Verifiability, so is not an option; however, including the reference and excluding the quote is just fine, the point being: the quote is not reference material, it is supplementary material not required by our guidelines, and thus may be of "explanatory" help. These are not the only two choices, as Michael and others have pointed out, but to the extent that {{efn}} is an optional, explanatory note, including the quotation in the explanatory note and not in the reference makes sense, because the quote does not identify the source, it reproduces content. That said, I find the |quote= param handy and I use it myself in a <ref> tag, but as Kanguole said, the meaning of "sfn" is a short footnote, and optional, extended information, wherever it ends up, should surely not be there. Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Using |loc= to hold a quotation is semantically incorrect. I agree with others here that {{sfn}} and the other short-form templates are intended to be short. If the quotation is important to the article, put the quotation in the article and cite it; don't clutter reference sections with quotations. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.

A single {{sfn}} template using |loc= to hold a quotation will include the quotation five times in the article's rendered html. For example this:

{{sfn|Name|2023|loc=Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet}}

is translated by MediaWiki to this in the article body (Lorem ... appears twice):

<sup id="cite_ref-FOOTNOTEName2023Lorem_ipsum_dolor_sit_amet_1-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-FOOTNOTEName2023Lorem_ipsum_dolor_sit_amet-1">&#91;1&#93;</a></sup>

and is translated by MediaWiki to this in the references section (Lorem ... appears three times):

<li id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEName2023Lorem_ipsum_dolor_sit_amet-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEName2023Lorem_ipsum_dolor_sit_amet_1-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="#CITEREFName2023">Name 2023</a>, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.</span></li>

Don't misuse |loc= to do something it is not designed to do.

I believe that the recommendation to use |loc= for quotations is wrong and should be removed from the documentation for all short-form templates that use Module:Footnotes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Removed advice in the documentation to use |loc= for quotations. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Just a note

Using loc= for quotes has been policy for exactly 2 years now [1] (User:Jonesey95). And we are now cancelling this policy after a short 24h discussion? What are content contributors supposed to do? Asking editors to juggle between {{sfn||Smith|2023|p=123}} and <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2023|p=123}}: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"</ref> depending on whether there is a quote or not, is not reasonnable: it's mind-numbing and discouraging even for veterans. On the contrary, the loc= fonctionality in {{sfn}} is clean and easy. If we can't use it, I wish somebody would take on the task of programming a simple, clean, coherent referencing system similar to it... like adding a quote= functionality to {{sfn}} for example. Quotations are a key element of "easy verifiablity", using them should not be such a hassle. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your comments are well taken, and I understand your frustration, but a couple of points: firstly, this is an all-volunteer project, and not everything is in ship-shape order; problems abound, and this is very far from the worst of it. That said, your complaint deserves a response. Secondly, using loc for quotes is by no means policy, it's not even a guideline. It has some level of consensus, if it came out of an Rfc, and that deserves respect, so if you want to revert my doc change, go ahead, but I think it is terrible advice. "Loc" is short for "location"—i.e., part of the verifiability criterion of how to easily find the source location that verifies the assertion made by an editor in the article; that's what it is for; clearly, the Rfc decided to shoehorn quotations into |loc= because it solved some other problem that was, apparently, considered more serious.

And as far as "I wish somebody would take on the task of programming a simple, clean, coherent referencing system similar to it", Ouch!! We already have some volunteers who spend a large proportion of their time doing exactly that, for a paycheck of Zero per month; so, once again, "volunteer project". Yes, your issues are real and deserve action, and if you feel this is a deep and serious enough problem, maybe you could volunteer to take it on? Finally, I don't think quotations are "key" in verifiability at all—they represent content and don't verify anything; if quotations are worth keeping in the article, then perhaps they should be part of the article content and double-quoted, as MOS calls for, but surely not placed in a "short" footnote. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot:Adding a quote= functionality to {{sfn}} doesn't have to be complicated, especially since the lines would be identical with those of loc= we have today. I haven't seen the program, but normally duplicating the loc= lines and replacing "loc" with "quote" should be enough, and if we're lucky we can also drop the 1000 characters limit. Then, we can leave the philosophical question of whether quotes are useful of not to content creators. The quoting mechanism would be clean and simple: {{sfn|Smith|2023|p=123|quote="Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"}} So yes, I do volunteer to take it on, if that's any use. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not about whether quotes can be included in references – Michael Bednarek has shown how that is readily done. It is about whether they belong in this short footnotes template, which is designed for a different purpose. Did you see Trappist's illustration of what this does to the output HTML? Kanguole 11:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, was there even an Rfc? I checked Archives 1 – 5, and I didn't find one. So, the doc is subject to change, and if there's disagreement, we should just talk it out. Mathglot (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the discussion that led to adding this to the documentation – hardly a solid consensus. I also don't think previously given advice was solidly in favour of what was put in the documentation. Kanguole 22:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. In that case, we're perhaps in BRD land. I think Michael Bednarek's solution is viable, uses existing features without requiring volunteer time to alter anything, and does not "shoehorn" anything or twist the intended use of any feature out of shape. In addition, that solution has been in the documentation for at least four years now (third example), and I vote we stick with that. Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how my approach is "mindnumbing and discouraging" compared to Pataliputra's suggestion to lump a quotation into |loc=. Apart from the encapsulating ref tags and the position of some braces, they amount to the same keystrokes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Your recommendation (if I get it right) is to use a combination of three functionalities (Sfn, Harvnb and <ref></ref>) with the following codes, depending whether we want to attach a quote or not:

• If no quote: {{sfn|Smith|2023|p=123}}
• If quote: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2023|p=123}}: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"</ref>

The policy for the last 2 years [2] has allowed to use a single functionality (Sfn) whether there is a quote or not, and only use the loc= extension if there is a quote:

• If no quote: {{sfn|Smith|2023|p=123}}
• If quote: {{sfn|Smith|2023|p=123|loc="Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"}}

I can see a difference, which can be quite huge when you contribute a lot of content, or when you are trying to sort out the source code of a page... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I will repeat what I've said before: there is no policy and no guideline that says what you claim. There was not even an Rfc that said that. There was just something written on a template doc page, like you, me, or some random IP could have written. And as far as what was on that doc page for two years, the solution to the issue, as reiterated by Michael, has been on that same page for four years (at least). It is also a bit difficult to provide a technical solution to a problem when we don't have the actual problem in view, so if you can please link the article and section where you are having this issue, the concrete realities of the particular problem would come into focus, enabling other editors here to better help you find a solution that might be workable for you. Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Special characters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{sfn}} and {{harvid}} seem to be out of sync on handling special characters. See Collective work for several examples that now show up as redlinks. Thus

{{sfn|Bernard Safran: Paintings – safran-arts}}

Generates a link to

CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_%E2%80%93_safran-arts

but

{{harvid|Bernard Safran: Paintings – safran-arts}}

generates

CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts

The effect is

CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts

Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not seeing any errors in Collective work. In your examples above, you don't include a target, so here is the target from Collective work:

{{citation|ref={{harvid|Bernard Safran: Paintings – safran-arts}} |title=Bernard Safran: Paintings|work=safran-arts.com |url=http://www.safran-arts.com/index.html|access-date=5 June 2017}}

"Bernard Safran: Paintings", safran-arts.com, retrieved 5 June 2017

Where is the error?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that sfn generating a link with an url encoded dash, the way you have it. Rather, it generates a link to #CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts. If you are referring to footnote 1 in the top image caption, it links to the short footnote, which links to the full citation, so everything looks fine and I see no error here. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is something odd going on. I do not see the problem on my laptop, but see the screenshot to the side which I just took on my phone, which I think is up to date Android/Chrome. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That error message is not caused by {{sfn}} but rather is caused by User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js at User:Aymatth2/common.js#L-1 in your common.js page. Remove that line from your common.js and then refresh the page in the screen-cap. The error message should go away. If it does, try a different harv error script or report the error to Editor Ucucha.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

That did it. Duh. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow up: I wonder if the problem described above is the same problem that is described at phab:T348928 where MediaWiki is incorrectly url-encoding the short-form link when it should be anchor-encoding the link:

{{urlencode:CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts}} → CITEREFBernard_Safran%3A_Paintings_%E2%80%93_safran-arts

{{anchorencode:CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts}} → CITEREFBernard_Safran:_Paintings_–_safran-arts

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mobile view sees a citation error; desktop view sees no problem. Eh???

It gets worse. Since when has é been a "special character"? (A rhetorical question! before someone comes back with "1247" .) At Lunar month, citation 8 gets an error

• Chapront-Touzé & Chapront (1988). Harv error: link from CITEREFChapront-Touz%C3%A9Chapront1988 doesn't point to any citation

but the cited source is certainly there. Exactly the same article read on desktop view sees no problem and ^[8] resolves as expected. It does not compute, Captain. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue described (and apparently ignored) at phab:T348928.

'é' (U+00E9: Latin small letter e with acute) is not a 'special character' per se, but is a multibyte character. When rendering the html for the different views, MediaWiki differently encodes fragment wikilinks: anchor encoding for desktop view, uri encoding for mobile view. This is not something that can be fixed here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Even though it can't be fixed here, I thought it worth putting it on the record for future archive searches. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How to use it for Proceedings

Proceedings are collection of works published by academic institutions, museums, etc. They usually have one or more high-profil scholars as editors, who may or may not participate with their own work included into collection. Other authors, whose number can vary (few to few dozens), write a chapter with a unique title each (sometimes one author can contribute two or more chapters on different subject) on different, but subjects related to the field, say, history of some heretical order. So, now we have a book as a collection of chapters written by different authors, chapters have unique titles, collection is edited by one or more persons who contributed or not something. So, this is not the same thing as multiple authors of one paper in journal.

Is it possible to cite such book with sfn, and if so, how?
Imagine that you need to use few chapters in your wiki article but they should be used with separate footnote - every chapter has its title and writer, and the only common thing is the main title of the collection, date of publishing and an editor(s).

Example of one such Proceedings can be observed here: Zbornik radova - it is a first 11 pages with usual information and most importantly you can check Content ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps like this:

* {{cite book |editor-last=Šanjek |editor-first=Franjo |date=2005 |title=Fenomen "Krstjani" u Srednjovjekovnoj Bosni i Humu: Zbornik Radova |location=Sarajevo |publisher=Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu |isbn=((9985-9642-5-2)) |language=hr}}
** {{harvc |last=Ančić |first=Mladen |c=Bosanska Banovina i Njezino Okruženje u Prvoj Polovici 13. Stoljeća |in=Šanjek |year=2005 |pages=11–26}}
** {{harvc |last=Neralić |first=Jadranka |c=Srednjovjekovna Bosna u Diplomatičkim Spisima Rimske Kurije |in=Šanjek |year=2005 |pages=371–386}}
** {{harvc |last=Šanjek |first=Franjo  |c=Papa Inocent III. (1198.-1216.) i Bosansko-Humski Krstjani |in=Šanjek |year=2005 |pages=425–440 |id={{sfnref|Šanjek in Šanjek|2005}}}}

The above goes in §Bibliography. The short form references (in this example {{harvnb}} because simpler) point to the {{harvc}} templates which, in turn, point to the {{cite book}} template. Here are the {{harvnb}} templates:

{{harvnb|Ančić|2005|p=20}} → Ančić 2005, p. 20

{{harvnb|Neralić|2005|p=380}} → Neralić 2005, p. 380

{{harvnb|Šanjek|2005|p=430|ref={{sfnref|Šanjek in Šanjek|2005}}}} → Šanjek 2005, p. 430

and here is the §Bibliography section:

• Šanjek, Franjo, ed. (2005). Fenomen "Krstjani" u Srednjovjekovnoj Bosni i Humu: Zbornik Radova (in Croatian). Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju u Sarajevu. ISBN 9985-9642-5-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors (link)
  • Ančić, Mladen. "Bosanska Banovina i Njezino Okruženje u Prvoj Polovici 13. Stoljeća". In Šanjek (2005), pp. 11–26.
  • Neralić, Jadranka. "Srednjovjekovna Bosna u Diplomatičkim Spisima Rimske Kurije". In Šanjek (2005), pp. 371–386.
  • Šanjek, Franjo. "Papa Inocent III. (1198.-1216.) i Bosansko-Humski Krstjani". In Šanjek (2005), pp. 425–440.

Note the unique construction of the Šanjek {{harvnb}} and {{harvc}} templates; this to avoid circular or improper links between the templates – {{cite book}} uses CITEREFŠanjek2005 so {{harvc}} must not also use that CITREF id.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks more than promising, I am going to try how it works. @Trappist the monk, I really appreciate this, as it was always huge problem for me - I am using that kind of literature constantly (Proceedings, Yearbooks, Contributions, Collections, and similar) and it gets tiresome using RefToolbar (reflist with <ref> markup) in this case. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It works like a charm @Trappist the monk, and I thank you again so much, however, is there a way to get just a footnote number inline like "[56]", which sends → "Ančić 2005, p. 20" in References-reflist, and from there "Ančić 2005, p. 20" → Biblio. "Ančić, Mladen. "Bosanska Banovina i Njezino Okruženje u Prvoj Polovici 13. Stoljeća". In Šanjek (2005), pp. 11–26."? I just replaced "harvnb" with "sfn" and it works perfectly - thank you. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Issue with ps and pp being used together

There seems to be an issue with {{sfn}} when using the |ps and |pp parameters together. By default, in using both, you end up with two sentences without a space between them (see the Lindskoog example below). Some editors have tried to fix this by adding an extra |loc={{sp}} parameter, but then this gives you a comma you probably didn't intend. The comma either trails at the end of a sentence when you don't have a |ps parameter (pp. 18–19 example), or else separates two sentences when you do, instead of them being separated by a period (Gormley).

Also, when you have two {{sfn}} templates with the same |pp parameter but different |ps parameters, the engine renders them as the same citation, so the version with the |ps becomes unreadable (see the James Russell example).

Markup	Renders as
The book<ref>{{cite book|title=The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe|p=24|year=1950|last=Lewis|first=C. S.}}</ref> explores{{sfn|Lewis|1950|pp=18–19|loc={{sp}}}} the themes of lions,{{sfn|Lewis|1950|pp=18–19|loc={{sp}}|ps=This is explored further by James Russell.}} witches{{sfn|Lewis|1950|pp=32–33|ps=This is explored further by Kathryn Lindskoog.}} and wardrobes.{{sfn|Lewis|1950|pp=64–66|loc={{sp}}|ps=This is explored further by Beatrice Gormley.}} == Notes == {{reflist-talk}}	The book explores the themes of lions, witches and wardrobes. Notes References

I would suggest that the preferred rendering should be:

1. Lewis 1950, pp. 18–19.
2. Lewis 1950, pp. 18–19. This is explored further by James Russell.
3. Lewis 1950, pp. 32–33. This is explored further by Kathryn Lindskoog.
4. Lewis 1950, pp. 64–66. This is explored further by Beatrice Gormley.

It Is Me Here (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Like |postscript= in the cs1|2 templates, the purpose of |ps= and |postscript= in {{sfn}} and related templates is to control the rendering of terminal punctuation; a single character: a dot, a comma, a semicolon, etc.

You would be better served to write:

...explores{{sfn|Lewis|1950|pp=18–19}}...lions,<ref>{{harvnb|Lewis|1950|pp=18–19|ps=.}} This is explored further by James Russell.</ref>...

...explores...lions,...

References

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Timestamp parameter for videos

@Trappist the monk: Would it be possible to add a parameter to the template which functions similarly to |p=, but instead marks a timestamp to make it easier to use Template:Cite AV media as reference? Antiquistik (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You can use |loc= instead of |p=, it's for in-source location when |p= and |pp= are inappropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Or the obvious parameters |time= or |minutes=. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused unlike |loc=, which is available and used for this purpose, |time= and |minutes= don't work with {{sfn}} -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Confusion reigns. This is the talk page for {{sfn}} however the OP asked about {{Cite AV media}}. ActivelyDisinterested replied in the spirit of SFN whereas Michael answered correctly for AV media, which is why AD can't find the parameters in SFN! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see the confusion, I took Would it be possible to add a parameter to the template as meaning this template, and that the OP meant Cite AV Media as reference to mean the cite that SFN is linking to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP wanted to do short references to particular timestamps in a video cited with {{Cite AV media}}, so |loc= is indeed the answer. Kanguole 13:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cite court

Can this be used with {{Cite court}}?--SRuizR 20:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes you just have to setup the |ref= field as described in the Template:Cite court documentation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks.--SRuizR 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § loc, at

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § loc, at. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)