On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen
Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental
Protection Agency, up for
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
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen
Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental
Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter
had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such
incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally
encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of
these
I had to revert a deletion of an article about a guy who was involved in the
Jack Abramoff scandal. It's pretty sad.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Bimmler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34
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
2008/10/21 David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How long until there's an entry on [[Citation needed]]?
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Anatomii-of-a-Hack.aspx
And another!
http://www.cracked.com/article_16822_p2.html
Cracked.com have long been Wikipedia fans, of course:
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have more such pages, whether or not we need them is less certain.
Only one way to find out (but if anyone asks, it wasn't my idea).
—C.W.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
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
phoebe ayers wrote:
Maybe we need to put more emphasis on encyclopedia as a tertiary
source -- let other people do the summarizing and the vetting and
sorting out of what ideas are going to stick around for the long-term,
and focus away from citing original research directly, which helps
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
I feel like this has come up before, but I can't find anything --
Does anyone have recommendations for good video/movie tutorials on how
to edit Wikipedia (or MediaWiki)? A colleague is looking to make some
to augment a class about Wikipedia -- no need to reinvent the wheel if
good ones already
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM, phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel like this has come up before, but I can't find anything --
Does anyone have recommendations for good video/movie tutorials on how
to edit Wikipedia (or MediaWiki)? A colleague is looking to make some
to augment a
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
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM, phoebe ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel like this has come up before, but I can't find anything --
Does anyone have recommendations for good video/movie tutorials on how
to edit Wikipedia (or MediaWiki)? A colleague is looking to make some
to augment a
26 matches
Mail list logo
