The apple <ref name=foo> {{cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |title=Foo panel disagress with bar |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2006-10-17 |publisher=The Sunday Times |accessdate=October 17 |accessyear=2006}} </ref> is red.
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
-sv
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each page looking like a numberline.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each page looking like a numberline.
I had the notion once of a reference: namespace, used just like the template: namespace but solely for references. That way instead of having every last detail duplicated in every article that used that ref you could have
<ref name="foo">{{reference:foo}}</ref>
or perhaps for larger references like books,
<ref name="foo">{{reference:foo}}, p. 21-22</ref>
If we wanted to be daring we could have the <ref> tags be automatically generated for transclusions like this, perhaps using a bar to tack additions on like a parameter. {{reference:foo|, p. 21-22}} for example.
This would have the benefit of:
*preventing duplication of effort between articles that use the same reference *maintaining a more uniform format for reference text *allowing easier tracking of which articles use which references
It would have the downside of:
*making it harder to find the text of the reference if you want to edit it, much like with regular templates *requiring some sort of naming convention that is consistent, unique, but not so elaborate as to make it pointless to put the reference in a separate page *cross-article references could be more vulnerable to subtle vandalism or honest mistakes. If one article used a source to cite one fact and another article used the same source to cite another fact, and then someone who only knows about its use at the first article fiddles with it, it might invalidate its use in the second article.
This is just an idea I kicked around once, there's probably all sorts of other problems I haven't thought of yet.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each page looking like a numberline.
Easy solution: <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html Foo panel disagress with bar], The Sunday Times, [[October 17]], [[2006]</ref>
Perhaps this is cheating, and it seems to upset some people, but I basically use Harvard Referencing within the <ref> templates, and give the full citation in the ==References== section. So, within the wikitext, you have: "Blah blah blah.<ref>Kilmer, pg. 7</ref> Blah blah." and at the bottom of the page you have the full information for Kilmer. This also makes it easier to put in page numbers for books sources. The downside is that you can sometimes get long lists of different page numbers for the same book, which takes up space and looks somewhat messy, but I figure it's at the bottom of the article anyway. Makemi
On 12/10/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each page looking like a numberline.
Easy solution: <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html Foo panel disagress with bar], The Sunday Times, [[October 17]], [[2006]</ref> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah, I do that too. I know it's standard for citing things like books, but can it be applied to things like websites?
On 12/10/06, Mak makwik@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps this is cheating, and it seems to upset some people, but I basically use Harvard Referencing within the <ref> templates, and give the full citation in the ==References== section. So, within the wikitext, you have: "Blah blah blah.<ref>Kilmer, pg. 7</ref> Blah blah." and at the bottom of the page you have the full information for Kilmer. This also makes it easier to put in page numbers for books sources. The downside is that you can sometimes get long lists of different page numbers for the same book, which takes up space and looks somewhat messy, but I figure it's at the bottom of the article anyway. Makemi
On 12/10/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Do you have a solution? The only thing I can think of is putting all the references at the beginning and then just putting <ref name="foo"/> in the main text, but that would mean a big block of code at the top of every page (or at least every page that is properly sourced) and I'm not sure if it's possible to stop the top of each page looking like a numberline.
Easy solution: <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html Foo panel disagress with bar], The Sunday Times, [[October 17]], [[2006]</ref> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real" one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article, above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is surmountable.
Thoughts?
On 12/9/06, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
The apple
<ref name=foo> {{cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |title=Foo panel disagress with bar |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2006-10-17 |publisher=The Sunday Times |accessdate=October 17 |accessyear=2006}} </ref> is red.
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
-sv _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real" one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article, above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is surmountable.
If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so, then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the "real" one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref name="foo"/> in the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the article, above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose that would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is surmountable.
If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so, then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
See Bug 5997.
I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way around.
<ref name="foobar"/>
then, at the bottom,
<references> foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan. 1997 </references>
or something like that
On 12/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the
"real"
one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref
name="foo"/> in
the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the
article,
above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose
that
would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is surmountable.
If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so, then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
See Bug 5997.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Messedrocker has a pretty good suggestion, there, I think. Difficult to say, but I *think* that setup might make more sense for newcomers? In addition to fixing the problems originally brought up in this thread.
Given the number of lines of text these things might entail, it might be easier for parsing and human readability if there's something just a little more elaborate to delineate the start of each ref. I'm not sure what that would be, though.
On 12/9/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way around.
<ref name="foobar"/>
then, at the bottom,
<references> foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan. 1997 </references>
or something like that
On 12/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yep! As I recall, the first use of a particular <ref> need not be the
"real"
one, anymore. It may be beneficial to start just using <ref
name="foo"/> in
the article text, and then shove the main refs to the bottom of the
article,
above or around the <refereces/> tag. For the time being, I suppose
that
would cause a few extra footnote links, but surely the problem is surmountable.
If they can go at the bottom, then it should be ok. I was under the impression the first use had to be the full one, if that's not so, then great! A numberline at the bottom isn't too bad, although the extra letter on each reference linking to the bottom of the page would still be annoying... we need some kind of noinclude option for refs...
See Bug 5997.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Hare wrote:
I think it should be reformed -- that is, it should be done the other way around.
<ref name="foobar"/>
then, at the bottom,
<references> foobar=When "Thingamajig" Isn't Enough: A History of Foo Bar. Jim Cadigan. 1997 </references>
or something like that
The old {{ref}}/{{note}} template system was like that and I've developed a strong distaste for it. I've done a lot of cleanup since cite.php was introduced and there were a lot of articles with dangling {{ref}}s that pointed nowhere or orphan {{note}}s that were no longer referenced. Cite.php isn't perfect but I like that those errors either can't happen at all (orphan footnotes don't exist) or produce obvious visual effects that allow them to be easily noticed and fixed (refs with no content appear as empty footnotes).
I suppose it's possible that by having it built into the wiki code explicitly rather than tacked on with a template hack will allow some of these issues to be made less of a problem, but my gut reaction is still negative at the thought of going back to a system similar to the old one.
On 12/9/06, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Me. The idea that one puts a reference near the referred-to text is good in principle - in that it makes it harder to lose the reference - but the interaction of that with the 'cite blah' templates is poor. They're bulky, and that causes a problem. The flow of the text is lost, making editing less natural.
The problem with putting the actual reference text in the references section and referring to it by name in the text is that the two are then separated and easier to break. However, I'd prefer that to the ugly mess the current <ref> tags make of the running text.
-Matt
stvrtg wrote:
The apple
<ref name=foo> {{cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |title=Foo panel disagress with bar |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2006-10-17 |publisher=The Sunday Times |accessdate=October 17 |accessyear=2006}} </ref> is red.
Anyone else bothered by how much these clutter up and interefere with editing text?
Looks like the geeks are running amok again. What's the matter with normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags? Promoting better sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.
Ec
On 12/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Looks like the geeks are running amok again. What's the matter with normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?
You are free to do that. Certianly it is what I do
Promoting better sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.
It isn't garbage formatting. It is a template designed to make reference more standard and less work and it manages both for those who learn how to use it. For the rest of us there is long hand.
On 12/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Looks like the geeks are running amok again. What's the matter with normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?
You are free to do that. Certianly it is what I do
Ditto. And woe betide anyone who goes after me "clearing up"!
Promoting better sourcing, and adding all that garbage formatting are mutually exclusive.
It isn't garbage formatting. It is a template designed to make reference more standard and less work and it manages both for those who learn how to use it.
True. Solution: {{subst:cite web|...
Sam Korn wrote:
True. Solution: {{subst:cite web|...
Oh really? :-)
{{subst:cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |title=Foo panel disagress with bar |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2006-10-17 |publisher=The Sunday Times |accessdate=October 17 |accessyear=2006}}
inserts the following verbatim into the wiki source of the article:
{ #if: {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html | {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |1}}}} ||Error on call to [[Template:cite web]]: Parameters '''url''' and '''title''' must be specified }}{{ #if: {{{archiveurl|}}}{{{archivedate|}}} | {{#if: {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}| {{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |1}}}} ||Error on call to [[template:cite web]]: Parameters '''archiveurl''' and '''archivedate''' must be both specified or both omitted }} }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar | {{#if: {{{authorlink|}}} | [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: Bar | Bar{{#if: Foo | , Foo }} | {{{author}}} }}]] | {{#if: Bar | Bar{{#if: Foo | , Foo }} | {{{author}}} }} }} }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar | {{#if: {{{coauthors|}}}| <nowiki>;</nowiki> {{{coauthors}}} }} }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar| {{#if: 2006-10-17 |  (2006-10-17) | {{#if: {{{year|}}} | {{#if: {{{month|}}} |  ({{{month}}} {{{year}}}) |  ({{{year}}}) }} }} |}} }}{{#if: Bar{{{author|}}} | . }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}} | {{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}} | {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar | [{{{archiveurl}}} Foo panel disagress with bar] }}}} | {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html | {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar | [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html Foo panel disagress with bar] }}}} }}{{#if: {{{language|}}} |  <span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-weight: bold; color:#555; position: relative;">({{{language}}})</span> }}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format|}}}) }}{{#if: {{{work|}}} | . ''{{{work}}}'' }}{{#if: {{{pages|}}} |  {{{pages}}} }}{{#if: The Sunday Times | . The Sunday Times{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar | | {{#if: 2006-10-17{{{year|}}}{{{month|}}} || }} }} }}{{#if: {{{author|}}}Bar ||{{#if: 2006-10-17 |  (2006-10-17) | {{#if: {{{year|}}} | {{#if: {{{month|}}} |  ({{{month}}} {{{year}}}) |  ({{{year}}}) }} }} }} }}.{{#if: {{{archivedate|}}} |  Archived from [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html the original] on [[{{{archivedate}}}]]. }}{{#if: October 17 |  Retrieved on [[October 17]]{{#if: 2006 | , [[2006]] }}. }}{{#if: {{{accessmonthday|}}} |  Retrieved on {{{accessmonthday}}}, 2006. }}{{#if: {{{quote|}}} | “{{{quote}}}” }}
On 12/10/06, Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
True. Solution: {{subst:cite web|...
Oh really? :-)
{{subst:cite web |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html |title=Foo panel disagress with bar |first=Foo |last=Bar |date=2006-10-17 |publisher=The Sunday Times |accessdate=October 17 |accessyear=2006}}
inserts the following verbatim into the wiki source of the article:
{ #if: {{#if: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/389438794343.html | {{#if: Foo panel disagress with bar |1}}}}
[snip]
Yuck yuck yuck.
I retract my previous comment. This is what comes of absurdly complicated template syntax.
I retract my previous comment. This is what comes of absurdly complicated template syntax.
Or the lack of a recursive subst option. There should be a way to get MediaWiki to include just the code that is actually displayed, so automatically substing any subtemplates, resolving any if statements when you make the edit, rather than each time it's displayed, etc. something like {{totalsubst:template}}.
Sam Korn wrote:
Yuck yuck yuck.
I retract my previous comment. This is what comes of absurdly complicated template syntax.
No. Just non-intuitive behaviour of subst. :-)
You might want to "vote" for http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2777
In the mean time, you can copy/paste the call into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates and paste the result into the article.
If that's what you prefer (or the consensus may be)...
The Germans use a list of red tape for the formatting at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur#Format.
And they never change that. For obvious reasons :-)
In the mean time, you can copy/paste the call into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates and paste the result into the article.
How did I not know that page existed? Is it not linked to from anywhere?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
In the mean time, you can copy/paste the call into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ExpandTemplates and paste the result into the article.
How did I not know that page existed? Is it not linked to from anywhere?
It's a "special page".
These are all listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Specialpages.
Click on "Special pages" in the toolbox on the left (assuming you use the default Monobook skin).
On 12/10/06, Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
Yuck yuck yuck.
I retract my previous comment. This is what comes of absurdly complicated template syntax.
No. Just non-intuitive behaviour of subst. :-)
... allied with an absurdly complicated template syntax. :-)
You might want to "vote" for http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2777
Have done so. Thanks.
Ligulem wrote:
The Germans use a list of red tape for the formatting at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur#Format.
And they never change that. For obvious reasons :-)
Addendum: just found out that the "full" German red tape is even longer: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Literatur/Formatierungsregeln
Quote from that page:
"Die bisher verwandten Regeln unter Literatur sind unvollständig und werden uneinheitlich angewandt, weshalb detailliertere Regeln notwendig sind."
("The current rules are incomplete and not applied uniformly. Rules which go into more detail are needed")
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Looks like the geeks are running amok again. What's the matter with normal WYSIWYG text inside simple <ref> tags?
You are free to do that. Certianly it is what I do
Ditto. And woe betide anyone who goes after me "clearing up"!
Escellent! I'm glad to see that some forces of sanity are still alive.
Ec
On 12/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't garbage formatting. It is a template designed to make reference more standard and less work and it manages both for those who learn how to use it. For the rest of us there is long hand.
The benefit of storing citations in a semantically marked up format (such as the cite templates) should be self-evident. The fact that this is difficult to achieve at the present without producing unreadable wikitext is a problem - but it doesn't mean we should abandon the goal of maintaning references at a high level.
The references: namespace idea is certainly attractive, but would need more advanced searching capabilities than mediawiki has at present, both to find existing references, as well as to assure yourself they don't exist if you can't find them. Definitely worth exploring this idea further...
Also, if the major problem with separating the reference to a reference from its definition is broken references, then maybe some more technical solutions would help. Warnings to the user as soon as they break stuff, that type of thing.
Steve