|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia talk:Inline citation |
Contents |
I thought that this type of inline citation is considered 'the worst' of all choices. Is it just my opinion? Wikipedia:Citing_sources lists disadvantages of that specific inline citation style (such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material) but makes no recommendation whether to use it or not. Personally I think it is the least useful and it looks most lame, but what do you think? Note that very few Featured Articles use this style, and a common objection during FAC process is 'remove external links from main body, transform into proper inlince citation style.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Recently the <Gallery> function breaks down the Reference output of the function <Ref>, as in articles Indo-Greek kingdom or Hasekura Tsunenaga. Basically, every reference before the Gallery is dropped, but every reference after appears. I have temporarily replaced Galleries by individual images, but it would be nice to repair this (recent, like 1 or 2 weeks) bug. 82.123.131.127 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This page appears to be one of at least 3 different places where citations are cross-linked and explained (WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Inline citation, individual technique pageas). This essay has not improved my attempts at understanding these techniques, but has added to the delay. Based on numerous comments behind WP:CITE, I'm not the only one having a hard time with our introduction to citations. I would recommend this page be merged and redirected to WP:CITE, as introducing inline citations appears to be the primary goal of that page. Gritty details should be on each technique's page individually. At the least, I would like to de-link this page from WP:CITE to avoid sending newcomers in circles. Thoughts? ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about what counts as an 'inline' citation. In particular, is the Harvard style
This was a big deal, (McFooBar, 1897)
==References==
*{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title = It WAS a big deal}}
an inline citation? Or is it only inline if it's
This was a big deal.<ref name=mcfoobar>
{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title= It WAS a big deal}}</ref>
==References==
<references />
David.Throop 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
While this is called an "essay", it's an instructional/information page, and as such, it significantly overlaps with WP:CITE and a number of other pages. If it were current, I'd shrug it off, but (for example) to say that Cite.php is a "relatively new method" is worse than meaningless to most Wikipedians, who weren't here before Cite.php arrived. Worse (much worse) is clear implication that the "Reference" and "Note" templates are acceptable citation approaches; they are not, per WP:CITE, as best as I can tell, and are certainly bad advice.
So, in short, this is NOT an essay; putting lipstick on this pig doesn't make it into something different; it's simply an outdated page that ought to be salvaged for anything useful, and then a redirect put in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the "to inline citation" template? I have seen a template that put a box on a page requesting inline citation instead of citations just listed on the bottom of the page. Now I cannot find it — fnielsen (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
FWICS from the cite.php edit history at mediawiki, it has been around since late 2005. Can we drop the "relatively new" characterization, or at least quantify the "relatively" part? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't be bothered reading through all this. Could someone please make an 'In a Nutshell' for this page? Flash Man999 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |