Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Larsenlarsen.thoma...@gmail.com
wrote:
If I may make a suggestion? That syntax is kind of clunky - maybe we
could have a simpler syntax, something like '{{ref|foo}}'
'{{note|foo}: text'...
Reviving a year-old
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:54 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Larsenlarsen.thoma...@gmail.com
wrote:
If I may make a suggestion? That syntax is kind of clunky - maybe we
could have a simpler syntax, something
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Larsenlarsen.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Magnus Manske
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Well, AFAIK we all agree that metadata like categories and interwiki
links don't really belong into wikitext. Maybe we could find a general
solution that also encompasses references (that is, the contents, not
the position
Hi,
On 12/5/08, Matthew Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The problem with the prior methods of doing references was that they
associated references with footnote numbers only by order of use in
the text, which meant that any moving things around broke the system.
A system which used
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It was a sunny day on WednesdayrefDavid Smith. ''History of Wednesdays.''
History
2008/12/4 Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually _defines_ and _displays_
the note. For example:
A popular approach
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/4 Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Once way I could conceive of correcting the problem is to have a
reference tag that provides only a _link_ to the note via a label and
another type of reference tag that actually
Ting Chen wrote:
I believe sometime we will go in this direction. But at the moment this
would mean that the edit would be more complicated. The problem is if I
edit a section, I put in ref id=smith /. But at the same time I
cannot add reference id=smith.../reference into the References and
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
It was a
2008/12/4 Carcharoth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A popular approach? No offense, but isn't this just the way it should
have been done all along? It is certainly the way many journals and
books do it, and it is common sense.
Yes, yes it is. :-)
In practice - as far as I've seen it - most referencing
On Thursday 04 December 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
A popular approach? No offense, but isn't this just the way it should
have been done all along? It is certainly the way many journals and
books do it, and it is common sense.
By which standard? Short notes with bibliography is not that common
Al Tally wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Thomas Larsen wrote
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
...
I think
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
The current ref.../ref...references/ system produces nice
references, but it is flawed--all the text contained in a given
reference appears in the text that the reference is linked from. For
example:
[snip]
Once
2008/12/4 Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This type of edit box mediation has been done by other edit-helper
userscripts, so it's certainly possible.
Thoughts?
While there are some theoretical risks (people making text changes
without taking all the markup into account) I don't believe
2008/12/4 Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Instead I propose: Have javascript mediate the edit box so that inline
references are converted to little red [R] text, moving your cursor
into the [R] area by clicking or arrowkeying causes it to expand to
display the full reference. You can add
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'd put in a vote for applying the same thing to infoboxes, too! And
then maybe an option for experienced users: turn off javascript and
see the whole smess as it is now/s wikitext.
Or reveal codes button, a pretty
Hi,
On 12/5/08, Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Thats a lot like what we used to do, the problem is that references
were *constantly* orphaned, scrambled, etc. The references were often
nonsense.
[/snip]
That's probably one flaw with the system I propose. Nevertheless, as
one
2008/12/4 Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps it's worth the cost of having a few
orphaned refs to set up an easier-to-use system. (Of course, we could
always have Special:OrphanedRefs :-).)
It's not a few it tends to be rather a lot. Trying to keep two
different sections of wikicode in
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'd put in a vote for applying the same thing to infoboxes, too! And
then maybe an option for experienced users: turn off javascript and
see
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:22 PM, geni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/4 Thomas Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perhaps it's worth the cost of having a few
orphaned refs to set up an easier-to-use system. (Of course, we could
always have Special:OrphanedRefs :-).)
It's not a few it tends to be
21 matches
Mail list logo
