Jump to content

Talk:Anna Kravtchenko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List defined references

[edit]

What's the problem with the list-defined references? I think they're a great citation style and would like to see them restored. What does everyone else think? -- Diannaa (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I try to follow the established citation style in an article. In this case, however, the only citation didn't supply a publisher and accessdate, - that is not a "style" that I (have to) follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think inline cite templates are a good compromise - they provide adequate information while maintaining ease of editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No compromise is needed when an option is clearly superior. As soon as a ref is used twice, it's much easier to be found in a separate section than in a search over the complete article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that complete citations are clearly superior. However, since inline are the most common, they are more familiar to more editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that they are more familiar. Separate, list-defined, is easier to maintain, - for me that's the greater value. I do most of my articles list-defined way, certainly those on GA and FA level, and had no complaints so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And on articles where you set the citation style, you may use those if you choose. However, here inline was set, and I suggest it's as easy if not easier to maintain and use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really belong here - general, not this article - but once we started: Inline is fine if a ref is used only once and is right where the fact is. If it is used again, there's only the name, and if you want to find it you have to search. There's no difference in finding it in another inline spot or a ref list. However, if you want to change just the ref itself (you found a page number, the title is misspelled, ...), it's easier to maintain if you know you will find it in the ref section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what was "set", before Gerda created the LDR, were created-by-amateurs, poorly formatted citations or none at all. Truly, no one here is arguing for the "dead hand of the past" to govern every WP article? would we want bare URLS to be the default forever? Let's not be silly. I've done both, each has advantages, but the person doing the bulk of the actual research, citing and editing should have their preferences respected. As for inline or ldr, sure, inline is easier to add when initially editing, but once the article has its basic structure down, LDR becomes useful in particular where there are several citations used multiple times, LDR helps aviod having to search through several sections to find where the initial insertion was buried. It does create one extra step, but for an article that could become GA or FA-class, it does become a courtesy to other editors to help them easily find the refs. I would never revert someone who created LDR. I tend to add the ref inline, then save, then move it to the LDR section, leaving the abbreviated ref behind, which, by the way, I also find a bit easier to read the text while editing if the full cites aren't there. Montanabw(talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not arguing for bare URLs to be the default, but inline is used on far more FAs than LDR, and so is more easily used by more editors. Montana, have you tried using a tool like WikEd to help with the visibility issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but toss me a link and I'll look at it. Still, even so, I suggest showing respect for the peole doing the real work as opposed to the nitpickers. Lead editor should get their preferred style. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cacycle/wikEd, also available in your preferences under Gadgets -> Editing. There's a couple of other things there that you may find helpful, but this is one I like - among other functions, it changes the colour of things like image or reference code so it contrasts with the normal text, and you can go further by automatically collapsing references in the edit window (which you can then click to expand when needed). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you know what? I did enable that -- it helps maybe 10%, not a lot. Still miss a lot of brackets, and too many inline refs it gets more confusing sometimes if there gets to be a lot of different things going on. Meh. Gotta get the damn cataract surgery this summer some time.  :-P Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Kravtchenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna_Kravtchenko&oldid=1205102251"