Help talk:References: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Asimong moved page Help talk:Using Citations to Help talk:References: More direct name) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Well, I'd suggest that just the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag is well worth looking at. It's very quick and easy to learn, takes little or no more time than not using it, and makes things ''much'' easier for readers, particularly by providing the back links. In retrospect, it would have '''saved''' me time to have used it with [[Vocabulary of Commons]], as well as the advantages to the reader. See MediaWiki about ref,<ref>https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Cite</ref> example at Evergreen State College,<ref>http://wikis.evergreen.edu/computing/index.php/References_-_Mediawiki</ref> MediaWiki about footnotes.<ref>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes</ref> What do you think? [[User:Asimong|Simon Grant]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 10:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | Well, I'd suggest that just the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag is well worth looking at. It's very quick and easy to learn, takes little or no more time than not using it, and makes things ''much'' easier for readers, particularly by providing the back links. In retrospect, it would have '''saved''' me time to have used it with [[Vocabulary of Commons]], as well as the advantages to the reader. See MediaWiki about ref,<ref>https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Cite</ref> example at Evergreen State College,<ref>http://wikis.evergreen.edu/computing/index.php/References_-_Mediawiki</ref> MediaWiki about footnotes.<ref>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes</ref>, Wikipedia on footnotes.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes</ref> What do you think? [[User:Asimong|Simon Grant]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 10:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:53, 10 February 2017
I think this is useful, as guidance for intermediate users, rather than complete beginners. It looks most readable if references are done in this way. There are also the quote and quotation templates which we could suggest to people as just as easy if not easier than doing things their own way. However, other parts of this page probably just get in the way.
Simon Grant (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
remember though this is not the wikipedia, in fact, we are almost entirely citational because of our methodology of 'opportunistic updating', i.e. using sourced material from outside is our rule , not the exception.
our practice has been simple, and I don't think needs complications, i.e.
- use authors on top
- add (source) at bottom of citation
that's it really
Well, I'd suggest that just the <ref> tag is well worth looking at. It's very quick and easy to learn, takes little or no more time than not using it, and makes things much easier for readers, particularly by providing the back links. In retrospect, it would have saved me time to have used it with Vocabulary of Commons, as well as the advantages to the reader. See MediaWiki about ref,[1] example at Evergreen State College,[2] MediaWiki about footnotes.[3], Wikipedia on footnotes.[4] What do you think? Simon Grant (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)