2008/9/25 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/9/25 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>:
I was going to say as well, what happened to that
proposal to define
references at the bottom of the article instead of inline? And then
Pathos posted a nice implementation above. It does make a whole lot
more sense from both a reader and an editor's point of view to have
reference metadata in a single place, away from the wikitext. Defining
refs with a "refname" in the text doesn't seem too bad... other than
the mess of trying to get a different stylistic system going, is there
some reason we don't do this?
-- phoebe
Basically it results in a high maintenance cost with a fairly high
chance of errors. It means you have to keep the article text and the
end section in sync rather than just keeping all the stuff in one
place.
If a reference is used more than once, it's not all in one place
anyway. It actually solves the issue of someone accidentally deleting
the text for the ref not realising it is used elsewhere. For refs only
used once, it makes maintenance of the ref a little harder, but
maintenance of the rest of the article much easier.