User talk:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates

Suggestions

I think the very first bit should be basic sfnp (only). Target the first bit to an editor who knows not a thing but wants add a sfnp. So I don't care if it replaces blah-blah because I don't know blah-blah; I don't care about harvp because I'm here to read about sfnp.

When to use. (add sentence that this is an rp alternative)
Why its great.
How to use. Stepwise would be great.

Once we get the basic sfpd, then variations.

Is the CS1/2 stuff important? As an editor I know "cite", full stop. Ok I know about ref tags but I'm fuzzy after that. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It would be better to have a separate article on harvp because sfnp just works for most people most of the time. It is only the arcane exceptions that need harvp and that's where you leave the teaser trailer. You have almost done that already, just needs a slight rephrase so as not to frighten the horses at the first fence.

I wonder if it is worth adding something like this to the lead: Citations using sfnp generate the same ^[123] notation as does <ref>. On mouse over the citation number, the short citation Miller (2017), p.37 pops up: if the mouse pointer is held, the long citation

Miller, C J (2017). Perry, David (ed.). Miller on contempt of court (Fourth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198793465. OCLC 1021256255

is displayed. Is that clever or is that clever??? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is all good feedback; I'll revise accordingly after I get some rest. I finally broke through the regex barrier on my <ref> cleanup scripting (over here), which in turn will normalize <ref>...</ref> and <ref /> formatting enough that search-replace operations involving them (for {{rp}} cleanup and such) will actually be practical. But I'm mentally exhausted for now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oddities to check

For the past few weeks, I've been working to get Robert Hooke up to GA standard, which meant spring cleaning the citations and moving them all to use sfnp. I came across a few special cases that you may wish to add (maybe in a "special cases" section at the end?)

⟨ref⟩{EB1911|Newton, Sir Isaac}⟨/ref⟩: needs to be replaced using {sfnp|Chisholm|1911} and {Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Newton, Sir Isaac |volume= 13 |editor-last=Chisholm |editor-first=Hugh |pages= 583-592}. I assume that the same is true of {cite EB9} and {cite EB15}
Instances of {{cite Grove}} need an explicit date to be cited by sfnp
Nested citations: the nested one can't also use sfnp, it has to use harvp (example: {{sfnp|Rigaud|1838|page=66 |ps=, cited in {{harvp|Ball|1893|page=69 }}).

Your call. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want a real can of worms to test...

... see Relativity priority dispute. It breaks every rule in the book: take this for instance:

However, it is known that he knew [Poi00] in 1906, because he quoted it in [Ein06]. Lorentz's 1904 paper [Lor04] contained the transformations bearing his name that appeared in the Annalen der Physik.

(Copied as written, the shorthand is not linked, just given in a legend at the bottom of the page.) I briefly entertained the idea of cleaning it up but decided that I would have better luck on getting to grips with quantum mechanics.

Have you dropped the idea of trying to expand the scope of WP:PAREN? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]