This is my footnote testing ground. There are many issues with proper referencing in MediaWiki, so hopefully I can make this into a useful page in the future! This was initially spawned from Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes/archive3#Footnotes_referring_to_previous_footnotes.3F.
Formatting in text-editor
editThis section is for testing different ways to format the ref tag to make it easier for editors to read through without getting lost.[1] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis sed ligula eu leo dictum malesuada. Morbi aliquam, ligula vel suscipit rhoncus, velit enim porta lorem, in sodales lectus nibh sed urna. Aenean nisl lorem, pellentesque id, dignissim quis, dapibus nec, justo. Ut diam.[2]
Sed auctor metus nec enim. Aenean non justo. Proin porttitor elementum nibh. Sed at metus non massa adipiscing varius. Pellentesque vitae risus sit amet velit lacinia cursus.[3] Mauris orci nibh, pretium eu, venenatis vitae, adipiscing ac, tortor. Vivamus tempor ipsum nec ante. Donec mauris. Maecenas blandit urna scelerisque augue.[4] Pellentesque vestibulum pede eu ligula. Nullam varius urna at orci. Nunc libero augue, tristique et, tempus et, fringilla sed, leo. Nullam enim.[5]
Sed mattis quam sed dui. Integer ultricies ornare nunc. Fusce lectus ipsum, hendrerit id, adipiscing vel, commodo eget, eros. Vestibulum quam magna, malesuada ut, convallis ut, tempus in, metus.[6][7] Donec nisl felis, faucibus sit amet, vulputate eu, sodales id, lacus. Ut gravida feugiat massa. In at tortor a justo tristique euismod. Aliquam erat volutpat. So which ref(s) allow you to edit the main (non-reference) text the best? I like how >Duis aliquet... on a new line signifies the beginning of a reference whereas Dius aliquet... signifies a new paragraph if it is on a new line. Once you get used to it, I think this is probably the best way to do references.
Refined
editSince I like the latter techniques above, here is the same main text as above, but with the references formatted uniformly. You can ignore the descriptions within the references since they no longer apply.[8] Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis sed ligula eu leo dictum malesuada. Morbi aliquam, ligula vel suscipit rhoncus, velit enim porta lorem, in sodales lectus nibh sed urna. Aenean nisl lorem, pellentesque id, dignissim quis, dapibus nec, justo. Ut diam.[9]
Sed auctor metus nec enim. Aenean non justo. Proin porttitor elementum nibh. Sed at metus non massa adipiscing varius. Pellentesque vitae risus sit amet velit lacinia cursus.[10] Mauris orci nibh, pretium eu, venenatis vitae, adipiscing ac, tortor. Vivamus tempor ipsum nec ante. Donec mauris. Maecenas blandit urna scelerisque augue.[11] Pellentesque vestibulum pede eu ligula. Nullam varius urna at orci. Nunc libero augue, tristique et, tempus et, fringilla sed, leo. Nullam enim.[12]
Sed mattis quam sed dui. Integer ultricies ornare nunc. Fusce lectus ipsum, hendrerit id, adipiscing vel, commodo eget, eros. Vestibulum quam magna, malesuada ut, convallis ut, tempus in, metus.[13][14] Donec nisl felis, faucibus sit amet, vulputate eu, sodales id, lacus. Ut gravida feugiat massa. In at tortor a justo tristique euismod. Aliquam erat volutpat.
Footnotes referring to previous footnotes?
editI'd like a footnote to refer to another named footnote, for example:
- 1. A footnote
- 2. Smith J.,, "How to rename footnotes on Wikipedia articles" publ. 2005 Wikipedia
- 3. Another footnote
- 4. Smith (2005) op cit, See footnote [2]
Since footnote numbers change, I'd like to name footnote 2, eg. <ref name="smith2005">.. etc, but don't know if it's possible to include the generated footnote number in another as shown above? Perhaps something like, <ref>Smith (2005) "op cit", see footnote [<ref number="smith2005" />] </ref>? --Iantresman 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed,nested references don't seem to work out! What about references with multiple paragraphs?[15][16] [But first, a ref with comments.][17] On to the problem.Cite error: A
<ref>tag is missing the closing</ref>(see the help page)..</ref> There are ways around it, though.[18][19] Here's a commented test.
Notes
edit- ^ This first ref test has an initial
<reffollowed by two newlines, then>. The text following it continues immediately after the closingref. - ^ This second test is like the first, but it is at the end of a paragraph.
- ^ I like the first technique here. This one is a little different at the end, though, adding a newline to the end before the closing
ref. - ^ Again, like the previous example, but adding two newlines to the end instead.
- ^ Another end-paragraph reference, but otherwise just like the one before it.
- ^ Once again, continuing as before, but this is the first of several references stringed next to each other.
- ^ The second consecutive ref at the end of a sentence.
- ^ This first ref test has an initial
<reffollowed by two newlines, then>. The text following it continues immediately after the closingref. - ^ This second test is like the first, but it is at the end of a paragraph.
- ^ I like the first technique here. This one is a little different at the end, though, adding a newline to the end before the closing
ref. - ^ Again, like the previous example, but adding two newlines to the end instead.
- ^ Another end-paragraph reference, but otherwise just like the one before it.
- ^ Once again, continuing as before, but this is the first of several references stringed next to each other.
- ^ The second consecutive ref at the end of a sentence.
- ^ <<HERE in beginning. Just putting in a few lines. <<HERE, as well. Newlines don't work within ref!
- ^ This is a formatting test which spaces out the ref tag to make the editing window easier to read.
- ^ This ref has comments; this demonstrates the resolution of Bugzilla:5384.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
smith2005was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ It is possible to just put two notes in the same place.