Just wondering: when external url's are used in a page, why are they numbered? That is, why is this:
displayed as this:
[1]
?
I imagine that once this was a useful behaviour, before we had proper referencing tools, so they kind of looked like footnotes. But there's no list of these URLs generated anywhere, so what purpose does it serve?
Would it perhaps be tidier to display something like a tiny [url] or [link] or something?
Steve PS I'm bringing this up on this list, rather than mediawiki or wikitech, as it's a question of deciding what we actually want.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Just wondering: when external url's are used in a page, why are they numbered? That is, why is this:
displayed as this:
[1]
?
I imagine that once this was a useful behaviour, before we had proper referencing tools, so they kind of looked like footnotes. But there's no list of these URLs generated anywhere, so what purpose does it serve?
Would it perhaps be tidier to display something like a tiny [url] or [link] or something?
Steve PS I'm bringing this up on this list, rather than mediawiki or wikitech, as it's a question of deciding what we actually want.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, I kind of like it that way. It's quite often helpful in discussions when a series of links or diffs is presented, and they're already identified by the context around them, since it doesn't make a massively long page. For articles themselves, we have the <ref> system.
On 9/5/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kind of like it that way. It's quite often helpful in discussions when a series of links or diffs is presented, and they're already identified by the context around them, since it doesn't make a massively long page.
I'm not clear about what you like: the fact that [1] is short, or the fact that the 13th url is actually labelled [13]? Why is that useful?
Steve
I've never really thought about why the URLs are numbered. Maybe it would be better to have a little globe icon or something? Especially now that we have proper numbered reference tags.
~Mark Ryan
On 05/09/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I kind of like it that way. It's quite often helpful in discussions when a series of links or diffs is presented, and they're already identified by the context around them, since it doesn't make a massively long page.
I'm not clear about what you like: the fact that [1] is short, or the fact that the 13th url is actually labelled [13]? Why is that useful?
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re-examining what's best to display is no bad thing. The system for URL's far predates cite.php for example.
The use of numbers is sensible; like footnotes you want to be able to say *which* link of many, if notionally discussing a page. But the numbers for URLs clash with the numbers for footnote cites, so there can be two number 1's on a page easily. That's unhelpful. Also it may be that labelling them some better way is possible. Some ideas:
1 - give them numberings that fit in with footnote numberings, so that at least url / cite numbers are not duplicated.
2 - give them a different look, maybe [url-1] ... [url-2] ...
3. - auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>. It's not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent in style.
I like #3.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Todd Allen Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
Steve Bennett wrote:
Just wondering: when external url's are used in a page, why are they numbered? That is, why is this:
displayed as this:
[1]
?
I imagine that once this was a useful behaviour, before we had proper referencing tools, so they kind of looked like footnotes. But there's no list of these URLs generated anywhere, so what purpose does it serve?
Would it perhaps be tidier to display something like a tiny [url] or [link] or something?
Steve PS I'm bringing this up on this list, rather than mediawiki or wikitech, as it's a question of deciding what we actually want.
Actually, I kind of like it that way. It's quite often helpful in discussions when a series of links or diffs is presented, and they're already identified by the context around them, since it doesn't make a massively long page. For articles themselves, we have the <ref> system.
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>. It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent in style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>. It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent in style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
On 9/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
That's because the referencing section isn't flexible enough (yet). It's also not possible to have multiple footnotes sections, for example. Perhaps some more magic words would help:
{{EXPANDREFS}} - render <ref>foo</ref> as [foo] or something, until further notice. {{URLSTOREFS}} - automatically convert [http://foo.com] to something like <ref>http://foo.com</ref>. This would solve the problem of talk pages, as that tag wouldn't be present on the talk page, so it would render normally...
(that second magic word might have to be reworded, it's pretty unreadable :)
Steve
On 9/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
That's because the referencing section isn't flexible enough (yet). It's also not possible to have multiple footnotes sections, for example. Perhaps some more magic words would help:
{{EXPANDREFS}} - render <ref>foo</ref> as [foo] or something, until further notice. {{URLSTOREFS}} - automatically convert [http://foo.com] to something like <ref>http://foo.com</ref>. This would solve the problem of talk pages, as that tag wouldn't be present on the talk page, so it would render normally...
(that second magic word might have to be reworded, it's pretty unreadable :)
Steve
It would be better, I think, to have a namespace-based variable for "old / current style", "convert to new inline form", and "convert to a <ref> tag".
New inline on Wikipedia: and Talk: and User / User talk:, convert to ref tag on article space?
Perhaps allow an inline keyword override, but a default to "do the right contextual thing" which is almost certainly correctly based on the namespace seems like the first thing to do if you're going to do anything here...
On 9/5/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
That's because the referencing section isn't flexible enough (yet). It's also not possible to have multiple footnotes sections, for example. Perhaps some more magic words would help:
{{EXPANDREFS}} - render <ref>foo</ref> as [foo] or something, until further notice. {{URLSTOREFS}} - automatically convert [http://foo.com] to something like <ref>http://foo.com</ref>. This would solve the problem of talk pages, as that tag wouldn't be present on the talk page, so it would render normally...
(that second magic word might have to be reworded, it's pretty unreadable :)
Steve
Seems overly complicated. Why not just have a bot go through and change all the instances of [url] (in the article namespace) to <ref>url</ref>, and add a references section if necessary?
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.
On 9/5/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Seems overly complicated. Why not just have a bot go through and change all the instances of [url] (in the article namespace) to <ref>url</ref>, and add a references section if necessary?
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.
+1
On 9/5/07, Anthony wikimail@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.
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.
A more useful change, though I'm unsure about how to implement it, would be to more thoroughly educate contributors that the [url] format is indeed deprecated for use as a citation format.
--Darkwind
On 9/5/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Anthony wikimail@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.
The fastest way to educate people that plain, undescribed "[http://link.com/page]" links are deprecated in mainspace is probably to rapidly change their existence or rendering.
When people see fewer and fewer of one thing, and more and more of the replacement, that's about the fastest way to educate people that exists :)
Either a bot (as someone suggested) or a rendering engine change, would work. Both have pros and cons, but (significantly) both will run immediately the code is completed.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of RLS Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 9/5/07, Anthony wikimail@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.
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.
A more useful change, though I'm unsure about how to implement it, would be to more thoroughly educate contributors that the [url] format is indeed deprecated for use as a citation format.
--Darkwind
On 9/6/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Seems overly complicated. Why not just have a bot go through and change all the instances of [url] (in the article namespace) to <ref>url</ref>, and add a references section if necessary?
Yeah, after thinking about it a bit more, a bot would be much more sensible.
However, a way to have a web cite directly clickable would be great.
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.
They seem pretty related to me. The numbers clash with the system which superseded it.
Steve
On 9/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>. It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent in style.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
How about only converting links which lack label text, then? "[http://url/]" would get turned into an inline reference of the form "<ref>http://url</ref>", while a "labeled" link of the form "[http://url/ link text]" would still generate an inline link. There are some articles where an inline link is actually desired (a link to a web site in an article about the site, for example, or pretty much anything outside article space) - but they should be labeling their links anyways.
What'd be even nicer would be falling back to the original link behavior (or some variant thereof) if there's no <references/> tag present in the page. I don't have a strong understanding of the parser, so I don't know if this would be possible to implement cleanly. It seems like the nicest possible solution, though - as talk and project pages lack <references/> tags, they fall back to numbered links, which is desirable.
On a slightly different matter, what would be nice is a popup text over reference links that displays the text of the reference. When you mouse over other wikilinks, it displays a popup of the name of the destination article, but when you mouse over reference links you get nothing.
~Mark Ryan
On 9/5/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
How about only converting links which lack label text, then? "[http://url/]" would get turned into an inline reference of the form "<ref>http://url</ref>", while a "labeled" link of the form "[http://url/ link text]" would still generate an inline link. There are some articles where an inline link is actually desired (a link to a web site in an article about the site, for example, or pretty much anything outside article space) - but they should be labeling their links anyways.
What'd be even nicer would be falling back to the original link behavior (or some variant thereof) if there's no <references/> tag present in the page. I don't have a strong understanding of the parser, so I don't know if this would be possible to implement cleanly. It seems like the nicest possible solution, though - as talk and project pages lack <references/> tags, they fall back to numbered links, which is desirable.
This seems most reasonable to me. Any other behavior that involves automatically converting links to references would make noticeboards and talk pages unwieldy when it comes to things like diff links, etc. I think I would go bat-loopy insane in short order if every time I went to help out at WQA and want to see a diff I had to click to jump the page down to the references section and then click a second time to open the diff (not to mention that it would make a page like WQA, which already is often > 200 KB even longer by creating a references section. There's currently 74 un-labelled links on that page).
--Darkwind
How about enabling the render of [link.com] as <ref>[link.com]</ref>, only for mainspace articles. Then talk pages and project pages wouldn't be affected. It's only really a desired point or under significant discussion for articles anyway.
FT2
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll throw in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders anywhere as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3 is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of adults.<ref>According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press. 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97. 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah" />, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>.
It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent
in
style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
Yes, that would be ye moste helpful. Software-coded supra/ibid sorts of links.
I wonder if any friendly developers read WikiEN-l...
~Mark Ryan
On 05/09/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
How about enabling the render of [link.com] as <ref>[link.com]</ref>, only for mainspace articles. Then talk pages and project pages wouldn't be affected. It's only really a desired point or under significant discussion for articles anyway.
FT2
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll throw in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders anywhere as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3 is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of adults.<ref>According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press. 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97. 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah" />, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>.
It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent
in
style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Would [note-1] at the bottom be a link to note 1 at the bottom, else if it's put in note 50 or something, that's more scrolling up and confusion.
On 9/5/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
How about enabling the render of [link.com] as <ref>[link.com]</ref>, only for mainspace articles. Then talk pages and project pages wouldn't be affected. It's only really a desired point or under significant discussion for articles anyway.
FT2
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll throw in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders anywhere as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3 is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of adults.<ref>According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press. 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97. 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah" />, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>.
It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent
in
style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'd envisage it as very simple. If <ref name="cnn">...</ref> was given footnote ID 1 when the page was rendered, then *any* occurrence of <reflink name="cnn" /> would auto-render as "[note 1]" (or possibly "[see note 1]" or "<sup>[1]</sup>"), *wherever* it appeared on the page or notes.
So quick answer, note 50 *could* contain a reference "Source: Jones [note 2], p.17 ", or note 2 could contain a note "see also [note 50]". But anyone seriously fact checking or using Wikipedia with care would probably be fine with this. It's effective, very flexible, and very easy for editor and reader. It means multiple used sources need be linked just once in depth. Quite likely the first mention will be the main link.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Kirk [mailto:gary.kirk@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
Would [note-1] at the bottom be a link to note 1 at the bottom, else if it's put in note 50 or something, that's more scrolling up and confusion.
On 9/5/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
How about enabling the render of [link.com] as <ref>[link.com]</ref>, only for mainspace articles. Then talk pages and project pages wouldn't be affected. It's only really a desired point or under significant discussion for articles anyway.
FT2
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll
throw
in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs
as
sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders
anywhere
as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3 is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of
adults.<ref>According
to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47%
of
employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press. 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97. 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink
name="blah"
/>, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the
main
text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 9/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
FT2 wrote:
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>.
It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent
in
style.
I like #3.
That seems reasonable to me---that's usually what people mean by the inline links anyway (an assertion that their link constitutes a reference). Of course someone should still come along and either: 1) expand them into a full citation (e.g. with {{cite web}}); or 2) determine that the link is not a reliable source, and either remove it or move it to the "external links" section. But we have to do that with links that are already in ref tags anyway.
-Mark
That will mangle attempts to do standard administrative history and link references in the context of an inline discussion on a talk or notice page, though...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/09/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd envisage it as very simple. If <ref name="cnn">...</ref> was given footnote ID 1 when the page was rendered, then *any* occurrence of <reflink name="cnn" /> would auto-render as "[note 1]" (or possibly "[see note 1]" or "<sup>[1]</sup>"), *wherever* it appeared on the page or notes.
That's how it does work...
So typing the following in the article text:
<ref name="MyLife">Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.</ref>
would obviously output:
1. Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.
And then later in the article text you'd go something like:
<reflink name="MyLife">p. 18</reflink>
and it would output:
2. Above [no. 1], p. 18
Is that what people mean? Or are they looking for a way to copy out the contents of the earlier ref tag, to make output like this?:
2. Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury. p. 18
Either way, the referencing system could use some more functionality like this.
~Mark Ryan
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
So typing the following in the article text:
<ref name="MyLife">Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.</ref>
would obviously output:
- Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.
And then later in the article text you'd go something like:
<reflink name="MyLife">p. 18</reflink>
and it would output:
- Above [no. 1], p. 18
Is that what people mean? Or are they looking for a way to copy out the contents of the earlier ref tag, to make output like this?:
- Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London:
Bloomsbury. p. 18
Either way, the referencing system could use some more functionality like this.
I don't see any reason to assign it number 2. Just leave it as number one, and put [1, p 18] in the text, linking to footnote 1.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) Either way, the referencing system could use some more functionality like
this.
I don't see any reason to assign it number 2. Just leave it as number one, and put [1, p 18] in the text, linking to footnote 1.
In that example, not especially. But remember footnotes often contain comments, quotes used to back facts in the article, and other footnote-style information, here's a practical example of where you'd want it (all [X] are <SUP>):
Tony Blair was considered one of Britain's "fresh starts" when first elected Prime Minister.[1] However, by the end of his term, the consensus of political historians was that he had lost much credibility,[2] and was becoming perceived as an electoral liability.[3] His stance over Iraq and failure to delivery on many promises had lost him much goodwill over his ten year term.[4] [5]
Footnotes and cites:
[1] John Historian, ''The Blair years: A historical analysis'', pub. Harvard Press 2007, p.45: "Blair represented a fresh start to Britain after the John Major years...".
[2] CITE WEB "10 years of Blair - an posthumous assessment", ''The Independent'' 9 August 2007, p.4 - 8: "Blair's credibility steadily plummeted during 2003 to 2005"
[3] Source, see [note 1], p.57.
[4] See [note 1] - Examples of failures noted by Historian include: p.403 "Failure to successfully reform the national health service", p.511 "the ID card scandal", and p. 745 "Failure to resolve ongoing concerns over Europe".
[5] Per [note 2]: "A large part of the public never really forgave him for what was widely seen as misleading Parliament over Iraq..."
The above is "quick and dirty" and not entirely best MOS style, but shows the kind of use I see even this simple <reflink name="something" /> facility being put to. In the above usage, both sources would have needed to be fully cited multiple times, to list page numbers or wording referenced, and this is both unwieldy for editors and readers alike.
FT2.
In that example, not especially. But remember footnotes often contain comments, quotes used to back facts in the article, and other footnote-style information, here's a practical example of where you'd want it (all [X] are <SUP>):
Notes and references should be separate. They serve difference purposes.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Mark Ryan Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
So typing the following in the article text:
<ref name="MyLife">Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.</ref>
would obviously output: 1. Ryan, Mark. ''My Life as a List Administrator'' (2007) London: Bloomsbury.
And then later in the article text you'd go something like: <reflink name="MyLife">p. 18</reflink>
and it would output: 2. Above [no. 1], p. 18
Is that what people mean?
-------------------------
Broadly, yes.
Only I'd keep it simple and keep it to just this usage: <reflink name="name" />. That would stop problems of recursion, and probably make the coding a lot simpler.
FT2
On 06/09/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Broadly, yes.
Only I'd keep it simple and keep it to just this usage: <reflink name="name" />. That would stop problems of recursion, and probably make the coding a lot simpler.
So, what would be the use of it? For putting in other ref tags, like this?:
<ref>See above <reflink name="name" />, p. 17</ref>
If it's not something along those lines, then I don't see how it's any different from just using multiple instances of <ref name="name" />.
~Mark
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Ryan [mailto:ultrablue@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?
On 06/09/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Broadly, yes.
Only I'd keep it simple and keep it to just this usage: <reflink
name="name"
/>. That would stop problems of recursion, and probably make the coding a lot simpler.
So, what would be the use of it? For putting in other ref tags, like this?:
<ref>See above <reflink name="name" />, p. 17</ref>
If it's not something along those lines, then I don't see how it's any different from just using multiple instances of <ref name="name" />.
~Mark
Yes, that's exactly the idea. See concrete example in other email.
FT2.
Ahh, I see now :) You mean it as a way to link to a footnote without generating an "a b c d e" sort of instance of that footnote. Yeah, I can see how that would be invaluable. :)
~Mark
FT2 wrote:
PS -- While we're on the subject of refs and URLs, one other wish I'll throw in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs as sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders anywhere as "[note X]". The reason's this: Suppose you have multiple cites of the same source - say cite#1 is page 17 of a source, cite 2 is page 27, cite 3 is page 45, etc, or different uses of the same source need different comments in the note. Then you have to repeat the actual source detail in each cite, completely.
What I'd like is to be able to do something really basic like this:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<ref name="doe">John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press.</ref> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<ref>See <reflink name="doe" /> page 97.</ref> and 47% of employment of adults.<ref>According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe<reflink name="doe" /> 47%</ref> ....
And have it render:
Widgets are a major part of the economy of Greenland.<sup>[1]</sup> Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP<sup>[2]</sup> and 47% of employment of adults.<sup>[3]</sup>
1 - John Doe, ''A History Of Widgets'' (1998), Academic press. 2 - Source: [note 1] page 97. 3 - According to Jane Smith, ''Life in Greenland'', 48%, and according to Doe [note 1] 47%
At present each of footnotes 1-3 must independently contain the same duplicated cite info, or {{cite web}}. Allowing simply <reflink name="blah" />, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the main text or another footnote) by number, without recursion.
So why not just use ''ibid.'' of ''op. cit.'' as appropriate?
Ec
On 06/09/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So why not just use ''ibid.'' of ''op. cit.'' as appropriate?
Ec
Because of the fluid numbering changes making it currently impossible to refer to other references except by name/author or something like that. Which certainly isn't what is done in footnotes in my uni's referencing style (I can't speak for others).
~Mark
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 06/09/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So why not just use ''ibid.'' of ''op. cit.'' as appropriate?
Ec
Because of the fluid numbering changes making it currently impossible to refer to other references except by name/author or something like that. Which certainly isn't what is done in footnotes in my uni's referencing style (I can't speak for others).
In CS, we generally use a style similar to Wikipedia's (though every journal/conference varies): Numbered references, each independent of each other and containing full, standalone citation information. "Ibid.", "op. cit.", "---" and friends are basically never used. This may be because we mostly (like mathematics) also auto-generate our bibliographies, using BibTeX. In theory BibTeX can handle auto-inserting that sort of thing, but in practice nobody bothers to make stylesheets that do.
-Mark
On 9/5/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
1 - give them numberings that fit in with footnote numberings, so that at least url / cite numbers are not duplicated.
2 - give them a different look, maybe [url-1] ... [url-2] ...
- auto-render all [http://link.com] as <ref>http://link.com</ref>. It's
not perfect but the information's the best there is and its consistent in style.
What I would really like is a way of having proper refs but that are as convenient as URLs. So for example this:
<ref>[http://foo.com Foo Times] 3 September 1968</ref>
could be rendered like:
[web-1]
where "web" is a link to http://foo.com, and 1 is a link to the footnote containing the other text. It's really annoying that we currently have to choose between a link format which is readily explorable, and a referencing format that fits in with other footnotes.
By default perhaps [http:/foo.com] could do something like the above, but that would be a pretty major behaviour change that would break stuff everywhere. For starters not every page has a <references> section...
Steve