Bryan Derksen wrote:
Once upon a time long long ago I remember putting in a feature request for a simple "footnote" markup, along the lines of adding [[Note:blah blah blah]] anywhere in the article and having it turn into a superscripted number linking to an anchor for the text "blah blah blah" down at the very bottom of the page. Something like that could be suitable for references too, though it wouldn't be nice for making multiple references to the same source scattered throughout an article. Maybe a [[Ref:blah blah blah]] markup that automatically combines identical "blah blah" text into the same reference at the bottom?
I would suggest a markup along the lines of [[ref:id:position]], accompanied by a separate markup of the form, [note:id]fullreference[/foot], where "id" is a unique indentifier of the reference, and "fullreference" is the full reference. For example:
[[ref:Nolan:p. 12]]
and:
[note:Nolan]Hamilton Nolan, "[http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=226978&site=3 UFCW seeking to unionize Canada Wal-Mart workers]," ''PR Week'', November 8, 2004.[/note]
One problem with a simple [[Ref:blah blah blah]] markup is that it doesn't provide a way to put wiki markup into the reference, such as italicization or hyperlinks. The syntax I've described above would also make it possible to have multiple references in a text to the same source. For example, there might be several places where the text references the Nolan article, e.g., [ref:Nolan:p. 7], [ref:Nolan:p. 12], or just [ref:Nolan]. Each reference would point to the same note. It would also be possible to choose different options for display of the notes. Someone who doesn't want to see them at all could have the option of turning them off in user preferences. In the event that a print version is published, there could be the additional option of displaying notes as footnotes or as endnotes.
I think having a footnote markup is a good idea, but the syntax should be sufficiently robust to accommodate all of the things that are currently done with footnotes in traditional publications such as books and academic journals. And I sympathize with people who don't want to feel obligated to footnote everything in Wikipedia, but personally I find references extremely valuable. Also, references can be used to help resolve editing disputes. I don't think anyone should be *obligated* to use references, but it would be a step forward if the software provided this capability as an option.
--Sheldon Rampton
At 12:43 PM 12/12/2004 -0600, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
One problem with a simple [[Ref:blah blah blah]] markup is that it doesn't provide a way to put wiki markup into the reference, such as italicization or hyperlinks.
Why not? [[Image:]] tags can have all sorts of wiki markup in their captions, we could use something similar here. Yours works too but seems a little more "fragile" to me, since it's possible to insert references that don't link up due to typos in the ids or because one half got deleted. On the other hand, it does make multiple references a lot tidier. I guess it's a personal preference.
The syntax I've described above would also make it possible to have multiple references in a text to the same source. For example, there might be several places where the text references the Nolan article, e.g., [ref:Nolan:p. 7], [ref:Nolan:p. 12], or just [ref:Nolan]. Each reference would point to the same note. It would also be possible to choose different options for display of the notes. Someone who doesn't want to see them at all could have the option of turning them off in user preferences. In the event that a print version is published, there could be the additional option of displaying notes as footnotes or as endnotes.
One could add additional fields to the [[Ref:blah blah]] syntax too, just like image markup.
I think having a footnote markup is a good idea, but the syntax should be sufficiently robust to accommodate all of the things that are currently done with footnotes in traditional publications such as books and academic journals. And I sympathize with people who don't want to feel obligated to footnote everything in Wikipedia, but personally I find references extremely valuable. Also, references can be used to help resolve editing disputes. I don't think anyone should be *obligated* to use references, but it would be a step forward if the software provided this capability as an option.
Hear hear. I'm just quibbling over minor syntax semantics; I just prefer having the footnote or reference text be inline with the text that's being footnoted/referenced. Since I don't imagine Wikipedia being as heavily referenced as a scientific article I don't expect multiple references to the same source being all that common; I guess that'll be something that time would tell, though.