User:Cplot

Just using this page as my own private sandbox. If you want play feel free.

Notation, citation, reference, source sandbox

• It may be that a note may be only a citation: e.g., (Ptolemy 1998, p43 )^[1].
• Or a note may contain a citation: (many astronomers catalogued the position of stars. See Ptolemy 1998, book vii-viii).
• A citation may contain a note: (Ptolemy 1998; This work is considered one of the earliest comprehsnive catalogs of naked eye observations of stars).
• Citations inherently contain references: (Ptolemy 1998 p43^[2]) contains a reference to The Almagest ISBN-0852291639.

Book Cite References

• ^ Ptolemy, Claudius (1998). The Almagest. City: Publisher.

Book Cite / Cite.php Advantages and disadvantages

• Issues related to multiple anchors to the same target notation (probably should be avoided). This is also related to trying to use these methods for bibliographic reference/source lists rather than as notation/notation lists.
  • Bookcite incrments the reference even when referencing the same note; Cite.php does not.
  • Cite.php more clearly shows the specific note the reference refers to through number matching; Bookcite can only number using numbered lists, according to the placement in the list, which may not match the numbers above.
  • Cite.php jumps back to any number of citations; Bookcite to only one.

Reader's perspective

• Both methods result in a similar reader experience: but only through careful maintenance of Book Cite lists.

Editor's perspective (abandoning multiple anchors to the same target)

• Cite.php adds more notation into the body of the text. Though if it's treated as notation and citation only with a separately maintained reference/source list this should not be that unfamiliar to writers/editors.
• Removing and reording text using Cite.php will not break the resulting list.
• Removing and reording text using Book Cite requires the editor to notice and carfeully remove or reorder corresponding notes in the note list
• Book Cite requires the careful use and matching of named notes to named refs to keep things in syncrhonization.

Crazy proposal

One could use Cite.php's ref element to insert an incidental note within the main body of text which Cite.php then appends to a list of notes in its references element. To handle citing bibliographic references/sources, one could insert a Book Cite reference into the Cite.php note; then create a list of corresponding Book Cite notes that are actually references corresponding to the citations. Each citation may end up citing the same reference multiple times, but then the jump back is not as crucial. Also the Book Cite citation within the Cite.php notation would have enough information for the reader to manually jump back and forth from the notation and the reference in the source list.

Conclusion

First of all, neither of these methods offer much help in maintaining lists of references and matching citations with those references. This probably just has to be done manually until the software can be improved. Also the implementations do not handle multiple anchors pointing to the same target reference (or note) very well. These features should probably be avoided.

In terms of choosing one method over the other, it's hard for me to see much advantage in the Book Cite method as it stands now. There are problems with Cite.php, but they are usually lesser than the corresponding problem in Book Cite. And the editor problem of seeing the entire subordinate note admidst the source is entirely overridden by the advantage of keeping the subordinate note amidst the text it refers to (in terms of maitenance especially).

Testing new section

just a test