Talk:Mary Rose/2011/July

Archives

Reference consolidation

The article has more than a hundred reference entries, many of them to some dozen works. High time for the Rp template.

—Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to revert all that converting, but I'm not going to support this. Out of all the variants of references we have to choose from, this is probably the only one that I flat-out refuse to recognize as useful. It's difficult to read, virtually unknown outside Wikipedia and overall extremely tedious. It forces readers to basically scan a note twice, and it doesn't even do it consistently. Overall, I'm not even keen on any reference templates since I believe they only add unnecessary code which make article more difficult to edit for newbies.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a new medium, and calls for new styles. The thing is that having all the notes replicated for each page mentioned make it difficult to see which are the works cited, and make the reference section ugly and confusing; it does not do to carry over to web pages styles originally intended for footnotes, segregated by pages. Also, the reference templates actually make it easier to edit for newbies, because they are easier to understand and follow than the guidelines for manual formatting. As I see you have quite strong personal preferences, I hope you are not the one to have final say alone.

—Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The format you're suggesting is probably the least attractive reference system out there. In practice, it's a complicated mix of several standards where the type of notation varies depending on whether a reference is used multiple times or not. It requires the reader to first remember the page number and then click the link to see the specification of the article note. And that's just for those who actually understand the system at once. For those who don't, it's bound to be confusing, thereby lowering its usefulness drastically. And that's without even pointing out one of the strongest arguments: it's not familiar system to those who are actually used to notes. If there's actually a need to reinvent the wheel for Wikipedia, it has to be done by coming with a system that is actually intuitive and easier to handle than the old standards. This one is neither. The endnote system we use on Wikipedia, with its lack of multiple-page stucture, works just as fine as in any printed material (where endnotes are anything but a rarity). I've never seen anyone complain about that.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of clickable and non-clickable didn't help usability at all. Clumsy and awkward. And I'm a fan of reference templates. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that flew right over my head.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already been advised on this matter before. Please don't make such major alterations to articles - especially articles that have endured the rigours of an FA assessment - without discussion. I see no benefits to your preferred manner of referencing, nor any support for it here or anywhere else. Can you please link to the appropriate guideline? Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro, as far as I understand, Moonraker was referring about the fact that the Rp-template provides an internal link to the expanded reference details right next to a page specification, which isn't clickable. At the same time the two look extremely similar. That's also my opinion. It's quite impractical in digital form and even moreso on print.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]