Talk:Xiao (mythology): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
wml |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Regarding "in line" citations== |
==Regarding "in line" citations== |
||
The term "in line citations" in regard to article references seems to generate some confusion. I think that the Wikipedia definition of "in line references" in the case of Wikipedia articles is one made in contrast to mere hyperlink references to related Internet pages or to various nonspecific sources: that is "inline" references are references to original source pages which can be implemented various ways, such as the <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> tags in the Wiki Markup Language hypercode, and footnotes displayed, or parenthetically (and more directly visibly in the display text). Generally, which one is used in a given article seems to mostly depend on authorial preference, with the choice of the original referencing author given the benefit of choice. In this case, the parenthetical references seem to lend a nice, scholarly feel to a somewhat scholarly article. [[User:Dcattell|Dcattell]] ([[User talk:Dcattell|talk]]) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
The term "in line citations" in regard to article references seems to generate some confusion. I think that the Wikipedia definition of "in line references" in the case of Wikipedia articles is one made in contrast to mere hyperlink references to related Internet pages or to various nonspecific sources: that is "inline" references are references to original source pages which can be implemented various ways, such as the <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> tags in the Wiki Markup Language hypercode, and footnotes displayed, or parenthetically (and more directly visibly in the display text). Generally, which one is used in a given article seems to mostly depend on authorial preference, with the choice of the original referencing author given the benefit of choice. In this case, the parenthetical references seem to lend a nice, scholarly feel to a somewhat scholarly article. [[User:Dcattell|Dcattell]] ([[User talk:Dcattell|talk]]) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:[[WP:Inline citation]] does say you can use either style. But my sense is that as a practical matter, footnoting is standard practice. You can check featured articles in [[WP:FA]] to find an appropriate model. Scholarly books generally use footnoting style. So I don't think anyone will look at footnoting and think, "That doesn't look scholarly." We have hypertext technology that journals don't have. Why not use it to make the text easier to read? [[User:The Viking at Stamford Bridge|The Viking]] ([[User talk:The Viking at Stamford Bridge|talk]]) 10:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:53, 21 October 2013
 | Mythology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Regarding "in line" citations
The term "in line citations" in regard to article references seems to generate some confusion. I think that the Wikipedia definition of "in line references" in the case of Wikipedia articles is one made in contrast to mere hyperlink references to related Internet pages or to various nonspecific sources: that is "inline" references are references to original source pages which can be implemented various ways, such as the <ref>...</ref> tags in the Wiki Markup Language hypercode, and footnotes displayed, or parenthetically (and more directly visibly in the display text). Generally, which one is used in a given article seems to mostly depend on authorial preference, with the choice of the original referencing author given the benefit of choice. In this case, the parenthetical references seem to lend a nice, scholarly feel to a somewhat scholarly article. Dcattell (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:Inline citation does say you can use either style. But my sense is that as a practical matter, footnoting is standard practice. You can check featured articles in WP:FA to find an appropriate model. Scholarly books generally use footnoting style. So I don't think anyone will look at footnoting and think, "That doesn't look scholarly." We have hypertext technology that journals don't have. Why not use it to make the text easier to read? The Viking (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)