On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/4 Thomas Larsen
<larsen.thomas.h(a)gmail.com>om>:
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:
A popular approach just now (and one I'm trying to convert to using) is:
It was a sunny day on Wednesday<ref>Smith, p.9</ref>. The next day,
Thursday,
was cloudy.<ref>Jones, p.40</ref>
==Notes==
<references/>
==References==
* David Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.'' History Magazine, 2019
* Susan Jones. ''History of Thursdays.'' History Magazine, 2020
This mostly implements what you're trying to do (ie, as little stuff
in the body text as possible) and can be done without major change
:-). It looks a little silly when you've only got three references,
but works very well for thirty.
A popular approach? No offense, but isn't this just the way it should
have been done all along? It is certainly the way many journals and
books do it, and it is common sense. There is also a way to set things
up so that a second click from the specific reference (Smith, p7) will
take you to the full source details in the bibliographic list of
references - handy if there are lots of them and they are split up in
various ways. But I can't remember an example right now. The best way
to find out how referencing systems work in practice is to go to the
featured articles page and click on one or two and just see how its
been done before.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Lissitzky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#cite_note-34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#CITEREFCarrollGrenie…
The #CITEREF anchor is produced by and explained at the Citation template page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation
Plus lots of other stuff if you read around from there to other places.
In my view, the real problem with references is people coming along
later and changing or moving the text, without reading the source.
That can eventually lead to completely misleading statements
disconnected from the original source. Adding references can stablise
or ossify a piece of text, but when that piece of text goes back into
flux, the sources often need to be redone or re-examined.
Carcharoth