Page 1 of 1

In-line vs grouped References

Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 08:14
by 002
I notice that we have much more action on the wiki these days which is awesome. I wanted to get your thoughts on in-line references vs grouped at the bottom.

When I first started contributing to the wiki I was doing in-line references. I noticed that others were grouping them and quickly realised that it is actually much nicer to edit a page where the references are grouped at the bottom. I noticed a page was recently updated and all the references which were previously grouped are now in-line again. Just curious if anyone prefers this method? Either way I think we should probably agree on one format and stick to it, especially for pages that are likely to have multiple contributors.

Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 10:09
by zts
Whatever linkage I put inline it also get grouped on the bottom. However, these are mostly "external links" rather than strictly references. My mistake is usually:

* Deskthority: [qwertyuiop]
instead of
* Deskthority - [qwertyuiop]

Even in that case, I'm not sure if it's "--" or just "-" . I've seen it done both ways. A brief Deskthority Manual of Style is in order :lol: . The good news in all of this is that DT wiki is being worked on, what it seem, 24/7 :!: But, yes, a bit more consistency would reduce the time spent on corrections.

Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 11:16
by Findecanor
I think that references should be in-line, so that you could see which fact is from which source.

That is the goal, anyway.. However, sometimes I am a bit lazy or short of time, think that I should correctly label the references later and then forget about it... :oops:

Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 13:39
by 002
OK, that's interesting. Maybe it would be more compelling if I give you an example. The end result is the same when the page is viewed, but I feel as though the grouped method is much easier for readability when editing the page. The other benefit is that naming all references at the bottom is much nicer if you need to use the reference more than once. You don't have to go hunting through the text to find if a reference has already been used and what name it's supposed to be.


Code: Select all

This is an example<ref>First example reference - [ Title text goes here]</ref>. It has two references<ref name=example2>Second example reference - [ Title text goes here]</ref>, and one reference is used twice<ref name=example2>.

Or this:

Code: Select all

This is an example<ref name=example1/>. It has two references<ref name=example2/>, and one reference is used twice<ref name=example2/>.

<ref name=example1>First example reference - [ Title text goes here]</ref>
<ref name=example2>Second example reference - [ Title text goes here]</ref>

Posted: 01 Jul 2015, 04:55
by 002
Tactica, please re-consider your preference for in-line references.
I see that you've done it for another page now and I am praying you don't decide to do this on pages with shitloads of references because it's just going to be an absolute nightmare to edit text on these pages.

Posted: 01 Jul 2015, 13:34
by tactica
Oops! I hadn't noticed this thread until now, I suppose I missed it among all the recent GH related activity in the spy page, sorry :)

I tend to prefer inline refs for the reason Findecanor mentioned and because I like to see them listed automatically by "<references/>" but yes, I admit it is a problem when refs are used more than once, and it makes the text harder to follow. If the grouped form is preferred, I have no problem using that.

zts, I also think a Style Guide is in order :) But I'm not writing it at least until I have more experience with the wiki, probably someone else is in a better position to do that, we only need to reach a consensus first on how things should be done. In either case, as you can see I'm the type of editor who goes to great lengths to have everything follow a certain style so I volunteer to apply all the changes that are needed.

It's probably not doable (or is it?), but also maybe a "template" of sorts for a keyboard or a switch page would be a good thing to have for users new to the wiki? I mean, so you could follow an "Enter new keyboard" link somewhere and a new blank page would be generated for you containing only a blank infobox dkeyboard plus sample "Introduction", "History", "Gallery", and such sections. And the same thing for switches.

Then again a beginner would still need to look elsewhere to see how formatting, templates... are used so maybe it's not that useful anyway.