This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:59, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

In some articles, references—especially those involving mathematical calculations—can grow to an extent that they do not fit with the shorter ones, as visible here, here and in other year status articles. Would it be acceptable to render them in a separate Footnotes section through the addition of group="footnotes" to the <ref> tags involved and using the following layout?

==Notes==
<div class="references-small"><references group="footnotes" /></div>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

 TK999 13:53, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I support that, though it would require an LG amendment. It would also allow the notes to contain references themselves, eliminating the need to explicitly name every source in the note itself. Example:

Statement needing detailed explanation.^{[note 1]}

==Notes==

==References==

I think this looks cleaner than have simple citations and detailed explanations mixed together. Master Jonathan (War Room) Tuesday, December 27, 2011, 16:19 UTC

Good idea. Though I think it should be optional, not mandatory. If there is only 1 reference and 1 footnote, separate sections aren't really needed. It should be left to the editors' discretion to decide whether separate sections would improve the article. --Craven 17:17, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on that. It should be decided on a case–by–case basis by the editor(s) and, if necessary, discussed on the talk page or during the article's status nomination. Thanks! TK999 17:34, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea so far. Just my two cents. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:57, December 28, 2011 (UTC)