On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I know I've done this once before, but this one's worse: Can you believe that in that chunk of text, there are actually three separate pieces of text, with two references between them? It's totally unmanageable - attempting to actually edit the text that's buried in there as a cohesive whole is next to impossible. Solutions desperately wanted.
Yeah, that's bad. The detailed part of the references really should be under a 'Works cited' subsection of the ==References== section while something like this <ref>bbc.co.uk "The Girl that named Pluto"</ref> should be inline. The whole point of wiki syntax is to make it possible to easily read and edit source text (unlike HTML). But having complete reference info directly inline defeats that.
Yes; that's the argument we were having last week.
Cheers, -- jra