User talk:Rjwilmsi/DupeRefs

'Bold text'RJWILMSI Please contact me. This is bigger than perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ψυχήδαίμων (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Coobowie

I have no idea why you edited Coobowie, South Australia under this premise because the edit added no value at all?? Donama (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Did reverting me add value? Rjwilmsi 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. Why did you do this edit? Donama (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction of references where the same reference name is used in full <ref name=Smith>...</ref> format but the reference content is different. I have a report of ~23,000 pages to assess, in some the second reference has similar content so should be condensed to the <ref name=Smith/> format, in others the reference is the same but have different information so the information needs to be merged to provide a complete reference, in others the two references are totally different or refer to different pages so will need splitting to separately named references. I'm starting with the simple cases, in this case the second use of the same named reference had no content, hence it was converted to the short format. If the explanation I wrote on my subpage isn't clear please assist me in clarifying it. Rjwilmsi 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're converting legitimate reuses of same-named reference (of form <ref name="xxx"/>) "to the short format" (of form <ref name="xxx"></ref>)? Why can't you just leave them alone if they're already fine? Donama (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(I assume you've accidentally got the two forms the wrong way round in your last comment.) Where the second ref has no content the edit is to improve consistency; for other cases it will make a more significant difference. If you're happy that both formats are fine (I'm not) and are concerned about edits that add no value, then please do tell me how reverting my edit added value? Rjwilmsi 08:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I very, very humbly apologise. I have indeed gotten the direction of conversion mixed up. (I must be visually dyslexic). And this explains why you are doing the conversions. Sorry again. I totally agree with shortening empty reuse of named refs. Donama (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

rp template

I expect you know about the {{rp}} template and have decided not to use it, but I'd suggest it may be worth a mention in your DupeRefs page.

Present content

<ref name=Jones>Jones, Fred "My book", Oxford Press 2001, p 45</ref>...<ref name=Jones>Jones, Fred "My book", Oxford Press 2001, p 77</ref>

In this example the two references have the same name ("Jones") but different values (page number different). Since the page number is not the same the references are different, so need a unique name.

This could be handled with {{rp}}.

Example: per DupeRefs, citing two pages would generate two refs, a first one, and a second one.

This could be done with a single reference to the book, with one giving the first cited page, and the second with the same ref but a different page. I see this as having the advantage that it shows the reader that both citations are to different parts of the same work, as well as shortening the list of references. However, some people don't like this form.

This might be relevant for a mention, whatever you prefer to do.

References

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)