The current <ref>...</ref>...<references/> system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History Magazine, 2019.</ref>. The next day, Thursday, was cloudy.
== References and notes ==
(That's a very simple example, too. References start to become a lot
larger once they start to include other information and/or are
produced via a template.)
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref id="smith"/>. The next day, Thursday,
== References and notes ==
<reference id="smith">David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History
This makes the raw wikitext easier to read, since the text of the
actual reference is in the _references_ section instead of in the
page's primary content.
I think this could work ...
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cool_Wall we had a complete list
of cars which appear on the BBC Top Gear "Cool Wall". I removed this
as being almost certainly a violation of copyright. It is now being
argued that reproducing the list in full does not violate copyright,
because it is not published in the show's magazine or on the website
and has been compiled by collating the lists from numerous shows. It
is further asserted that compiling the list from these shows does not
constitute original research, although there is no known reliable
secondary source for any of the data, let alone the complete collated
Original research? You decide.
Copyright? I think so, but what do I know?
Fancruft? Ooooh, tricky :-)
There has been a recent intensification in the trend of deleting
I think this is a useful enterprise, in order to declutter Wikipedia
of dead projects or software with very little information to go about
Among those deletions there have been cases of articles on active
software projects, with large user bases, being deleted on grounds of
lack of notability (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki]]).
In order to assess notability, I'm wondering about the particular
situation of open-source software. OSS benefits from instant
verifiability, in that anyone can download the code and check the
claims in the article. Sure, an editor writing in detail about their
discoveries this way would constitute WP:OR. On the other hand, fact
checking in comparison tables simply requires referencing the
software's documentation, or live demos - see [[Comparison of
Often, the size of developer base, and automatically-generated
statistics about the project longevity and activity can be found on
sites such as Ohloh (example for [[Foswiki]] -
https://www.ohloh.net/projects/foswiki) or GitHub (example for
[[MojoMojo]] - http://github.com/marcusramberg/mojomojo/). Most such
software is not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent,
non-trivial, published works", and most can never be. For example, the
[[Mediawiki]] article does not satisfy these criteria, but nobody
doubts its notability.
Having in mind the above, what do fellow editors think about
open-source software under active development and with a sizable
developer community and user base: can it satisfy [[Wikipedia:Inherent
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/3/3 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> > By Hakon Wium Lie of Opera:
> > http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/infobox/
> > What is the likelihood of making as much as possible CSS? How to make
> > infoboxes degrade gracefully for non-CSS browsers and IE users?
> Youch, that's messy in IE7. Lovely though it may be, that 30-50% of
> our audience would not be happy...
Right. I agree that graceful degradation for IE6/IE7 users is an
issue. The purpose of the case study was first and foremost to explore
how Wikipedia's markup can be simplified and improved when CSS 2.1 is
fully implemented -- like it is in Opera, Firefox, Safari and IE8. I
didn't even test in IE6/IE7.
I think it's possible -- with some careful crafting -- to make things
look ok, but not pixel-perfect in legacy browsers. In lynx, the
table-free version looks better than the original one, but IE6/IE7
users outnumber lynx by a some magnitudes.
I'll look into tweaking the style sheet to aim for graceful degradation.
However, I also think the web should not be hostage to IE6/IE7
forever. Some designers have declared war on IE6 for this reason:
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
[spotted by Mathias Schindler]
Important Notice: MSN Encarta to be Discontinued
On October 31, 2009, MSN® Encarta® Web sites worldwide will be
discontinued, with the exception of Encarta Japan, which will be
discontinued on December 31, 2009. Additionally, Microsoft will cease
to sell Microsoft Student and Encarta Premium software products
worldwide by June 2009. We understand that Encarta users may have
questions regarding this announcement so we have prepared this list of
questions and answers below. Please keep reading if you would like
more information about these changes to Encarta.