On 9/5/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

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 &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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.

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, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; 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...

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.

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.^[1] Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP^[2] and 47% of employment of adults.^[3] 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(a)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 &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: It's in 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(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

in the ring - that ref's can at a very basic level, cite other named refs

sources. A markup like this: <reflink name="blah" />, that renders

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

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.^[1] Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP^[2] and 47%

employment of adults.^[3] 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

/>, rendered as "[note X]" with the correct note number, would allow something roughly similar to "ibid", referencing any other note (in the

text or another footnote) by number, without recursion. FT2. -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)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 &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: It's in 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(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

(snip) Either way, the referencing system could use some more functionality like

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.

Broadly, yes. Only I'd keep it simple and keep it to just this usage: <reflink

/>. That would stop problems of recursion, and probably make the coding a lot simpler.

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.^[1] Widget manufacture is responsible for over 90% of the GNP^[2] and 47% of employment of adults.^[3] 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.

On 06/09/07, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: 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).