Contents – Help talk
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(references) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:: OK, I can cope for the time-being... that's not very intuitive or helpful to be honest. Footnotes or making reference to a source is a common feature in any type of document and should even be encouraged. Is there going to be this 'addon' installed at some point hopefully? --[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 23:27, 3 August 2006 (CEST) | :: OK, I can cope for the time-being... that's not very intuitive or helpful to be honest. Footnotes or making reference to a source is a common feature in any type of document and should even be encouraged. Is there going to be this 'addon' installed at some point hopefully? --[[User:CrashDome|CrashDome]] 23:27, 3 August 2006 (CEST) | ||
:::Actually, the use of references in footnotes sort of goes agains the whole concept of the Web. It's a fairly "antiquated" method of pointing to something. That method might be appropriate for a book (where you don't have the space of possibility of having hyperlinks), but on the Web there's really not much use for it. And I'm not the only one to think so, as you can see on the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#Criticisms extension page itself]: | |||
:::''The major criticism regarding Cite.php is that it renders the editing of references much more tedious. Moreover, because many casual Wikipedia users are not familar with the cryptic Wikitext tags that they find with the use of Cite.php, it is likely that the net effect of Cite.php is often to deter new users from making edits to reference sections. Although Wikipedia supposedly got its name from the Hawaiian word "wiki-wiki", meaning "quick-quick", Cite.php is arguably neither quick nor easy for the average Wikipedia user.''<br> | |||
:::''Another criticism is that, unlike Footnotes3, it is currently impossible to separate bibliographic information from article copy.'' --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 23:37, 3 August 2006 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 22:37, 3 August 2006
Footnotes
I can't seem to get footnotes into my pages using the MediaWiki <ref> tags? Is there a replacement or some other possible way? --CrashDome 20:41, 3 August 2006 (CEST)
- The use of footnotes is a MediaWiki extension that isn't installed by default. You should probably just use either in-text links, or a list of external links at the bottom of the article. --Kronzky 23:11, 3 August 2006 (CEST)
- OK, I can cope for the time-being... that's not very intuitive or helpful to be honest. Footnotes or making reference to a source is a common feature in any type of document and should even be encouraged. Is there going to be this 'addon' installed at some point hopefully? --CrashDome 23:27, 3 August 2006 (CEST)
- Actually, the use of references in footnotes sort of goes agains the whole concept of the Web. It's a fairly "antiquated" method of pointing to something. That method might be appropriate for a book (where you don't have the space of possibility of having hyperlinks), but on the Web there's really not much use for it. And I'm not the only one to think so, as you can see on the extension page itself:
- The major criticism regarding Cite.php is that it renders the editing of references much more tedious. Moreover, because many casual Wikipedia users are not familar with the cryptic Wikitext tags that they find with the use of Cite.php, it is likely that the net effect of Cite.php is often to deter new users from making edits to reference sections. Although Wikipedia supposedly got its name from the Hawaiian word "wiki-wiki", meaning "quick-quick", Cite.php is arguably neither quick nor easy for the average Wikipedia user.
- Another criticism is that, unlike Footnotes3, it is currently impossible to separate bibliographic information from article copy. --Kronzky 23:37, 3 August 2006 (CEST)