On 9/5/07, RLS <evendell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
There really are two separate issues. That the numbering schemes
clash is one valid issue. That the English Wikipedia has deprecated
the use of these types of links is another.
The numbering scheme for URLs without labels definitely needs to change. A
less-than-clueful reader may be confused when there's a properly cited <ref>
#1, and later on in the article an unlabelled URL, also numbered [1]. If
they clicked on the reference footnote, then they may not subsequently hover
on or click the URL with the same number; or, if they didn't click the
reference footnote, they may click the URL and believe that the URL was
being used to source both the first and second statements.
Well, the two types of links do look different, though the difference
could be more pronounced.
After thinking about it, though, I don't think there's a particularly
good solution for mixing the two together on one page. The best
solution is - don't do it. Use one, or use the other, but don't use
both.
A useful change as far as unlabeled URLs goes would be
to either eliminate
the numbers in mainspace, perhaps replacing them with a globe icon a la
MoinMoin-powered wikis; or to number them in sequence with <ref> tags,
although if we were to do that, we may as well convert them to
<ref>URL</ref> instead.
I like having the numbers. Numbers inside globes would be cool.
Numbering them in sequence with ref tags would probably be difficult
to implement. Converting them to <ref>url</ref> seems the best, and
using a bot to do so seems the best as well.
Anyway, all of this seems to ignore the fact that Cite is an extension
[
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php]. It is not
part of the standard mediawiki code at all.