What should we do with these pages? According to our policy, the references should be put in each article, not move them to a new article and these articles could be speedied for no actual content.
Articles discussing the historiography of each subject would be OK, but as actual articles, not just as lists of books/links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Darfur_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Lord%27s_Resistance_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Canadian_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Rwandan_Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(resources) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Railway_Bibliography etc.
On 01/09/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with these pages? According to our policy, the references should be put in each article, not move them to a new article and these articles could be speedied for no actual content. Articles discussing the historiography of each subject would be OK, but as actual articles, not just as lists of books/links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Darfur_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Lord%27s_Resistance_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Canadian_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Rwandan_Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(resources) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Railway_Bibliography etc.
Surely there are wikiprojects on en: that would like to look at those and turn them into proper articles? Or at least move them into project space, which is another really good thing to do with pages of this sort that have become superfluous in the article space itself. (Some may be a bit contentious for this ...)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/09/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with these pages? According to our policy, the references should be put in each article, not move them to a new article and these articles could be speedied for no actual content. Articles discussing the historiography of each subject would be OK, but as actual articles, not just as lists of books/links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Darfur_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Lord%27s_Resistance_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Canadian_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_the_Rwandan_Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(resources) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Railway_Bibliography etc.
Surely there are wikiprojects on en: that would like to look at those and turn them into proper articles? Or at least move them into project space, which is another really good thing to do with pages of this sort that have become superfluous in the article space itself. (Some may be a bit contentious for this ...)
Why should anyone want to delete them? Bibliographic surveys (particularly annotated bibliographies) would be particularly useful to encourage further study in many broad areas.
Ec
On 01/09/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why should anyone want to delete them? Bibliographic surveys (particularly annotated bibliographies) would be particularly useful to encourage further study in many broad areas.
Well, yes. Annotation would be the best thing to try first - a good bibliography is certainly not an *indiscriminate* collection of information.
But if people go "ewwww" at the list, see if there's a wikiproject that can put it to good use in project space. This works well with "List of articles about x" that were popular before categories - such lists may be superfluous with the category, but they're still very useful for a wikiproject.
- d.
I suggest any text not in the standard 'references' and 'external links' be <noinclude>'d, and the page left as it is but transcluded into the relevant pages (if it isn't already).
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Why should anyone want to delete them? Bibliographic surveys (particularly annotated bibliographies) would be particularly useful to encourage further study in many broad areas.
Well, yes. Annotation would be the best thing to try first - a good bibliography is certainly not an *indiscriminate* collection of information.
But if people go "ewwww" at the list, see if there's a wikiproject that can put it to good use in project space. This works well with "List of articles about x" that were popular before categories - such lists may be superfluous with the category, but they're still very useful for a wikiproject.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 01/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest any text not in the standard 'references' and 'external links' be <noinclude>'d, and the page left as it is but transcluded into the relevant pages (if it isn't already).
Transcluding blocks of article text (as opposed to, e.g., article box templates) is not considered acceptable on en:.
- d.
Ok then, we either link to the bibliography or manually update each article with the text in the bibliography. However, how then does the referencing system work?
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest any text not in the standard 'references' and 'external links' be <noinclude>'d, and the page left as it is but transcluded into the relevant pages (if it isn't already).
Transcluding blocks of article text (as opposed to, e.g., article box templates) is not considered acceptable on en:.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we either link to the bibliography or manually update each article with the text in the bibliography. However, how then does the referencing system work?
By hand, at present - there isn't a central bibliographical reference base, as some have mooted. If you can code something that will both work and be sensibly usable by casual editors, I suspect it would be most welcomed ...
- d.
Well, what do you mean by a central bibliographical reference base? I could code it, if I knew what I was coding. Currently we have the <reference> system, which is simple enough, but getting entries in the right format is hard. Using the cite templates makes life simple, but not everyone knows about them. Is there a wikiproject on improving wikipedia's bibliographical standards?
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we either link to the bibliography or manually update each article with the text in the bibliography. However, how then does the referencing system work?
By hand, at present - there isn't a central bibliographical reference base, as some have mooted. If you can code something that will both work and be sensibly usable by casual editors, I suspect it would be most welcomed ...
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Akash Mehta wrote:
Well, what do you mean by a central bibliographical reference base? I could code it, if I knew what I was coding. Currently we have the <reference> system, which is simple enough, but getting entries in the right format is hard. Using the cite templates makes life simple, but not everyone knows about them. Is there a wikiproject on improving wikipedia's bibliographical standards?
If not there should be.
SKL
I'd be happy to start one if nobody has already, I have experience in starting wikiprojects after [[WP:WWF]]. It seems [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikicite]] did something, but it wasn't very clear. And then there's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]. However, neither really actively encourages the improvement of referencing in en:wp articles, using the <reference> system, cite templates, both, or any other relevant system.
On 9/2/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Akash Mehta wrote:
Well, what do you mean by a central bibliographical reference base? I could code it, if I knew what I was coding. Currently we have the <reference> system, which is simple enough, but getting entries in the right format is hard. Using the cite templates makes life simple, but not everyone knows about them. Is there a wikiproject on improving wikipedia's bibliographical standards?
If not there should be.
SKL _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
However, neither really actively encourages the improvement of referencing in en:wp articles, using the <reference> system, cite templates, both, or any other relevant system.
The <reference> system is simple enough *conceptually* as well as syntactically to be highly usable. It lets you write your citation down in the exact place a claim is made, then formats everything nicely.
The cite templates are byzantine. I'm not going to figure them all out any more than I'm going to learn every variety of stub template - I know a few, but often I'll just put {{stub}} and let someone who wants to pick the precisely correct one. I hope this comes across more as "division of labour" than "too lazy to do it properly" ;-)
- d.
If everyone labelled it 'too lazy to do it properly,' [[WP:WSS]] members would be out of a job :)
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
However, neither really actively encourages the improvement of referencing in en:wp articles, using the <reference> system, cite templates, both, or any other relevant system.
The <reference> system is simple enough *conceptually* as well as syntactically to be highly usable. It lets you write your citation down in the exact place a claim is made, then formats everything nicely.
The cite templates are byzantine. I'm not going to figure them all out any more than I'm going to learn every variety of stub template - I know a few, but often I'll just put {{stub}} and let someone who wants to pick the precisely correct one. I hope this comes across more as "division of labour" than "too lazy to do it properly" ;-)
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The cite templates are byzantine. I'm not going to figure them all out any more than I'm going to learn every variety of stub template - I know a few, but often I'll just put {{stub}} and let someone who wants to pick the precisely correct one. I hope this comes across more as "division of labour" than "too lazy to do it properly" ;-)
Part of the Wiki way is the fact that your work doesn't have to be 'finished' before you put it up.
In terms of the cite templates, someone who knows nothing about the actual reference should be able to turn a handwritten reference line into a templated one, so those who care about that can do it themselves.
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
-Matt
Would it make sense to start a WikiProject for organising skilled labour that can take basic data submitted by users and insert it into articles in the form of cite templates in <ref>'s?
On 9/2/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The cite templates are byzantine. I'm not going to figure them all out any more than I'm going to learn every variety of stub template - I know a few, but often I'll just put {{stub}} and let someone who wants to pick the precisely correct one. I hope this comes across more as "division of labour" than "too lazy to do it properly" ;-)
Part of the Wiki way is the fact that your work doesn't have to be 'finished' before you put it up.
In terms of the cite templates, someone who knows nothing about the actual reference should be able to turn a handwritten reference line into a templated one, so those who care about that can do it themselves.
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
-Matt _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Would it make sense to start a WikiProject for organising skilled labour that can take basic data submitted by users and insert it into articles in the form of cite templates in <ref>'s?
If there isn't, there probably should be. I'm *amazed* how many people got to work on stub sorting on en: ... it seems there's a lot of people who may not be great writers or researchers, but want to do what they can for the project. You could start with some of the people who did the stub sorting :-)
- d.
It is not a matter of learning any specific cite template that is the problem. All of them have sufficient documentation to make them usable. The problem is that in about 80% of the cases that I have used them (almost always referring to a web page of varying degrees of officialness and sometimes news web pages) the correct cite template to use is very very very far from obvious.
SKL
Akash Mehta wrote:
Would it make sense to start a WikiProject for organising skilled labour that can take basic data submitted by users and insert it into articles in the form of cite templates in <ref>'s?
On 9/2/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The cite templates are byzantine. I'm not going to figure them all out any more than I'm going to learn every variety of stub template - I know a few, but often I'll just put {{stub}} and let someone who wants to pick the precisely correct one. I hope this comes across more as "division of labour" than "too lazy to do it properly" ;-)
Part of the Wiki way is the fact that your work doesn't have to be 'finished' before you put it up.
In terms of the cite templates, someone who knows nothing about the actual reference should be able to turn a handwritten reference line into a templated one, so those who care about that can do it themselves.
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
-Matt _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/09/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
It is not a matter of learning any specific cite template that is the problem. All of them have sufficient documentation to make them usable. The problem is that in about 80% of the cases that I have used them (almost always referring to a web page of varying degrees of officialness and sometimes news web pages) the correct cite template to use is very very very far from obvious.
Indeed. As with the stub-sorting project, if we have reasonably sane people who care sorting this out and working out what seems a good idea that will go over okay, then we will easily reach whatever level of detail people actually care about.
- d.
On 9/2/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
It is not a matter of learning any specific cite template that is the problem. All of them have sufficient documentation to make them usable. The problem is that in about 80% of the cases that I have used them (almost always referring to a web page of varying degrees of officialness and sometimes news web pages) the correct cite template to use is very very very far from obvious.
I was about to say that there were only a few, and then I checked and found (like all process) they've multiplied and grown while I wasn't looking. That's far too damn many. OTOH, one doesn't have to use the complex ones; you can just use a standard cite web or whatever.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
There's something to be said in favour of a bibliographic project. Wikipedians could register what they have, in case someone wants details looked up. Maybe the software could even put up a red flag when the owner hasn't put up a single edit in the last three months essentially telling others that they are wasting their time asking him.
I do have seriously increasing concerns about the trend toward excessive templates. They tend to reflect an obsession toward uniformity that can obscure the basic values of simplicity where anyone to edit. The counter-argument may well be, "Go ahead and add the data; we can fix the format later." That still makes it difficult for a non-techie to correct data that he considers incorrect.
Ec
Well, the plan for templates containing citation data would involve all templates being substed, so users could freely edit data after it had been added.
In terms of a bibliographic project where users consults others for fact checking, I'm not so sure thats viable. There are 'ask an expert' sites out there which serve the purpose, but Wikipedia would not really suit such a project and the flexibility would be limited - that said, I could develop such a site in php for the Wikipedia community should the need arise (on the toolserver, anyone?).
On 9/3/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
There's something to be said in favour of a bibliographic project. Wikipedians could register what they have, in case someone wants details looked up. Maybe the software could even put up a red flag when the owner hasn't put up a single edit in the last three months essentially telling others that they are wasting their time asking him.
I do have seriously increasing concerns about the trend toward excessive templates. They tend to reflect an obsession toward uniformity that can obscure the basic values of simplicity where anyone to edit. The counter-argument may well be, "Go ahead and add the data; we can fix the format later." That still makes it difficult for a non-techie to correct data that he considers incorrect.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
That sounds like a really good idea, and we could use a formal wikiproject to encourage people to help establish these citation collections. I'm starting a draft at [[User:Draicone/WikiProject Reference Help]] if anyone wants to help. If we get a decent plan we can move it to the WP space.
On 9/3/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The draft is coming along; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Draicone/WikiProject_Reference_Help for current progress and feel free to edit.
On 9/3/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a really good idea, and we could use a formal wikiproject to encourage people to help establish these citation collections. I'm starting a draft at [[User:Draicone/WikiProject Reference Help]] if anyone wants to help. If we get a decent plan we can move it to the WP space.
On 9/3/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Lovely. I hope this can someday contribute to a cross-project wikicite initiative as well; added linkns to [[m:Wikicite]] to the page.
SJ
On 9/2/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
The draft is coming along; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Draicone/WikiProject_Reference_Help for current progress and feel free to edit.
On 9/3/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a really good idea, and we could use a formal wikiproject to encourage people to help establish these citation collections. I'm starting a draft at [[User:Draicone/WikiProject Reference Help]] if anyone wants to help. If we get a decent plan we can move it to the WP space.
On 9/3/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
That makes sense, but WikiCite, while having the right idea, seems rather overcomplicated. I really doubt Wikipedia needs such a flexible and powerful citation checking system right now, we should really wait for stable versioning.
On 9/3/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Lovely. I hope this can someday contribute to a cross-project wikicite initiative as well; added linkns to [[m:Wikicite]] to the page.
SJ
On 9/2/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
The draft is coming along; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Draicone/WikiProject_Reference_Help for current progress and feel free to edit.
On 9/3/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a really good idea, and we could use a formal wikiproject to encourage people to help establish these citation collections. I'm starting a draft at [[User:Draicone/WikiProject Reference Help]] if anyone wants to help. If we get a decent plan we can move it to the WP space.
On 9/3/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- ++SJ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a really good idea, and we could use a formal wikiproject to encourage people to help establish these citation collections. I'm starting a draft at [[User:Draicone/WikiProject Reference Help]] if anyone wants to help. If we get a decent plan we can move it to the WP space.
I've forwarded this to wikien-l as well.
- d.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
I've learned, personally, {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}'s fundamentals, and look stuff up from time to time. I've also created subst:able templates for reference works I cite a lot, so I don't have to do the thinking.
Way back when I was doing a bunch of work citing various articles about Stargate subjects and I kept using the same episode citations over and over. I considered creating a group of templates specifically for those cites, for example
<ref>{{cite stargate sg-1/broca's gap}}</ref>
So I wouldn't have to keep looking up airdates and other details to fill in, and if the citation format changed or more information became available they could all be updated with a single edit. Perhaps some sort of formalized system along these lines might be useful for common references? <ref>{{cite collection/Oxford dictionary 2006}}, p. 1245</ref> for example. These big bibliographic lists would then become collections of templates like this and they'd make better project pages.
I really like this idea. It seems to me that even if it is not likely to be immediately useful for all articles, the ones that have major wikiprojects and a limited number of well known sources could not only use this to great effect but we would also have the ability to use "what links here" to see which articles are using a specific book as a reference (which is especially useful for things like published scientific papers where someone might have published conflicting results.)
SKL
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Well, what do you mean by a central bibliographical reference base?
There are various mooted plans on en: to have a central list of reference works that can be just referenced in an article. (I'm not entirely convinced this is workable or won't make editing the wikitext even more opaque than it is already. The <ref></ref><reference /> syntax seems to work nicely, for example.)
I could code it, if I knew what I was coding. Currently we have the <reference> system, which is simple enough, but getting entries in the right format is hard.
I tend never to worry about the format, as making sure there's a decent reference at all is the main struggle at the moment; if someone else cares they'll go over it later.
Using the cite templates makes life simple, but not everyone knows about them. Is there a wikiproject on improving wikipedia's bibliographical standards?
Probably several :-)
- d.
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:28 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Ok then, we either link to the bibliography or manually update each article with the text in the bibliography. However, how then does the referencing system work?
By hand, at present - there isn't a central bibliographical reference base, as some have mooted. If you can code something that will both work and be sensibly usable by casual editors, I suspect it would be most welcomed ...
That would be :sweet:
Fran
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org