[WikiEN-l] Why are URLs numbered?

[Anthony]

On 9/5/07, RLS <evendell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Anthony <wikimail at 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.