Talk:Xiao (mythology): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:22, 21 October 2013

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

China Unassessed

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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 appropriate models. I doubt you will find many that use parenthetical referencing. I never heard of a scholarly book without footnotes. Parenthetical referencing is more about the technical limitations that journals have than about a "scholarly feel." We have hypertext technology. Why not use it to make the text easier to read? The Viking (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==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)
-:[[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)
+:[[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 appropriate models. I doubt you will find many that use parenthetical referencing. I never heard of a scholarly book without footnotes. Parenthetical referencing is more about the technical limitations that journals have than about a "scholarly feel." We have hypertext technology. 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 Bidge|talk]]) 10:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)