User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Ref web

Proposal

Is the idea here to create a template that creates a named footnote containing a citation? I think this is an interesting idea which I have been thinking about for some time. I think it would be better to generate the footnote name automatically, using a process similar to how {{citation/core}} creates the "CITEREF" anchor for {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}. Consider this:

Markup	Renders as
Just the source.{{citation footnote|last=Smith|year=2006|title=Smith's book|... other details}} Another citation, with only enough information to create the footnote name.{{citation footnote|last=Smith|year=2006}} == References == {{reflist}}	Just the source. Another citation, with only enough information to create the footnote name. References

If the template creates footnotes with names that are consistent with the "FOOTNOTE" name used by {{sfn}}, then we can use it for more complicated examples like the one below. Notice that the short citations later in the article point back to main citation, either (A) with no special page number, it's combined with the main citation, or (B) with a special page number, it creates a short citation that links to the main citation, automatically doing a kind of dynamic, link based version of "ibid."

Markup	Renders as
Just the source.{{cfn|last=Smith|year=2006|title=Smith's book}} Page 30 of the source.{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=30}} Page 20 of the source.{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=20}} Page 30 again.{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=30}} Just the source again.{{sfn|Smith|2006}} == References == {{reflist}}	Just the source. Page 30 of the source. Page 20 of the source. Page 30 again. Just the source again. References

The template call to {{citation footnote}} would be equivalent to the expanded version below:

• {{citation footnote|last=Smith|year=2009|title=Smith's book}}
• <ref name=FOOTNOTESmith2006>{{citation|last=Smith|year=2006|title=Smith's book}}</ref>

To get the FOOTNOTE name the template {{citation footnote}} would duplicate the process that {{citation/core}} uses to create the "CITEREF" anchor, so the citation has both an anchor for short cites (CITEREFSmith2006) and a name for the footnote (FOOTNOTESmith2006). I gave up on this (for the time being) when I saw all the complexity required when {{citation/core}} creates the "CITEREF" anchor. But I still think it is a good way to dumb-proof and automate the process of naming footnotes. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a fine idea. Too often ref-tags are unnamed and addressing that is a manual process that slows migration to things like LDR and {sfn}. Not having to deal with names much of the time would be ideal. I'd like to see the norm being that * {cfn}s appear bulleted in the bibliography with either {sfn} (or more short-form {cfn}) inline.

Another idea I've been muttering about is a name paramater for {sfn} that's akin to the one Gadget added to {efn}. This may be it, though. Anyway, rounding out this suite of tools would be great. Alarbus (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is the idea. But the citation/core citeref anchor requires years to sometimes be set up as "year=2000b". Year is actually a redundant argument except in these cases, as it will function off "date" perfectly well. Unfortunately AWB has been programmed to replace "date = 2010" with "year = 2010" under the slightly odd premise that a year is not a date.

There are essentially four things I'd like to see

1. Getting rid of angle-brackets
2. Simplification so that pages render and render faster
3. Proper handling of page numbers
4. A wholesale move to LDR

I'll attempt to comment more later Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

• The issue with date is in the creation of the anchor. The Citation Style 1 templates extract year from date using the #time parser function. If date is between 0001 and 1259, then #time presumes it is a time and tosses it. The resulting anchor is #CITEREFlast. AWB has been changing year only date fields to year for a long time.
• What is the issue with angle brackets?
• Ditto for page numbers?
• LDR is good, but we need some work to make it easier to edit sections. PErhaps add User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js as a gadget.
• I have had similar thoughts for "cite lite" versions of the more used templates (web, book, journal, news) which would use a stripped version of {{Citation/core}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the date v. year issue was fixed; see Help talk:Citation Style 1#date and year. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Angle brackets is a problem on the increase. In recent weeks I've seen significant numbers of refs like Some statement.<http://www.example.com/> mainly from anons and newbies. It's invalid XHTML because the tag is undefined. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have participated in two disjointed discussions on the MLA format that recently that involved that format. The only thing we can do there is clean them up as we see them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The angle brackets don't break anything. All tags go through the sanitizer and only the defined ones get passed; see Help:HTML in wikitext. But, if they don't meet the established style, then they need to go. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sometimes seen a form which is worse: Some statement.<http://www.example.com/></ref> - presumably they've clicked on the <ref></ref> link below the "Save page" button, and replaced the first ref with their URL. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that's just something that needs properly wikified. It's orthogonal to the matter of the most simple and intuitive way to mark up sub-references. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As best I see it, the intent is to have a citation template encapsulated by <ref> tags. There are a few ways to do this:

• Directly call {{cite web}}, passing parameters
  • Pro: Uses an established template and format
  • Con: Adds one more level of transclusion
• Replicate {{cite web}} within the template
  • Pro: Keeps the same level of transclusion
  • Con: Requires diligence to keep the template synchronized with {{cite web}} as it evolves
• Create a new template from scratch
  • Pro: Probably more efficient than the current {{citation/core}}
  • Con: Establishing a new style, mixing with current styles

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)