Wikipedia talk:Inline citation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hyperlinking/using embedded links

I thought that this type of inline citation is considered 'the worst' of all choices. Is it just my opinion? Wikipedia:Citing_sources lists disadvantages of that specific inline citation style (such links do not normally provide all the information that a traditional citation would have; thus, if the material moves or is dramatically changed, it can be difficult to rediscover the cited material) but makes no recommendation whether to use it or not. Personally I think it is the least useful and it looks most lame, but what do you think? Note that very few Featured Articles use this style, and a common objection during FAC process is 'remove external links from main body, transform into proper inlince citation style.... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is more of an introduction to Inline Citations; as such all I am doing is explaining how to insert them in an article. If this particular type of citation is considered inapropriete for use in Featured Articles or Featured Article Canidates then insert a line to that effect in that section. TomStar81 07:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown of Ref function by Gallery

Recently the <Gallery> function breaks down the Reference output of the function <Ref>, as in articles Indo-Greek kingdom or Hasekura Tsunenaga. Basically, every reference before the Gallery is dropped, but every reference after appears. I have temporarily replaced Galleries by individual images, but it would be nice to repair this (recent, like 1 or 2 weeks) bug. 82.123.131.127 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge and redirect to WP:CITE

This page appears to be one of at least 3 different places where citations are cross-linked and explained (WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Inline citation, individual technique pageas). This essay has not improved my attempts at understanding these techniques, but has added to the delay. Based on numerous comments behind WP:CITE, I'm not the only one having a hard time with our introduction to citations. I would recommend this page be merged and redirected to WP:CITE, as introducing inline citations appears to be the primary goal of that page. Gritty details should be on each technique's page individually. At the least, I would like to de-link this page from WP:CITE to avoid sending newcomers in circles. Thoughts? ∴ here…♠ 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The sooner the better; this is a POV fork, and (despite being labelled essay) is being quoted as policy, which it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've redirected the hyperlink for inline citations in WP:WIAGA to the section on Inline citations in WP:CITE, and put in a missing hyperlink from there to Wikipedia:Inline_citation for anyone wanting to read the "essay" - which has the further link to the stub article Inline citation towards which WP:WIAGA originally directed people quite uselessly. I hope this solves the problem but being new to Wiki I dont know if this is a generic change that can be reinforced with bots in other places. Please let me know if so and if this is helpful! I want to use my energies where they are needed! Lucy Skywalker 14:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I re-removed the link to this article from WP:CITE. From my first comment : At the least, I would like to de-link this page from WP:CITE to avoid sending newcomers in circles. When I get an extra moment, I'd like to see this page sent to MfD. ∴ here…♠ 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge This is linked to from WP:WIAGA. Quadzilla99 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an essay, not a guideline. It does not belong on any guideline page. Cliff smith 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support It's the same topic. It should be on the same page then. Basketball110 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is 'Inline'?

I'm uncertain about what counts as an 'inline' citation. In particular, is the Harvard style

This was a big deal, (McFooBar, 1897)
==References==
*{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title = It WAS a big deal}}

an inline citation? Or is it only inline if it's

This was a big deal.<ref name=mcfoobar>
{{cite web| author= McFooBar, B|url=mumble|year=1897|title= It WAS a big deal}}</ref>
==References==
<references />

David.Throop 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Both are inline citations and are acceptable, although your cite web could use an access date. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't the project page a redirect?

While this is called an "essay", it's an instructional/information page, and as such, it significantly overlaps with WP:CITE and a number of other pages. If it were current, I'd shrug it off, but (for example) to say that Cite.php is a "relatively new method" is worse than meaningless to most Wikipedians, who weren't here before Cite.php arrived. Worse (much worse) is clear implication that the "Reference" and "Note" templates are acceptable citation approaches; they are not, per WP:CITE, as best as I can tell, and are certainly bad advice.

So, in short, this is NOT an essay; putting lipstick on this pig doesn't make it into something different; it's simply an outdated page that ought to be salvaged for anything useful, and then a redirect put in place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the "to inline citation" template?

Where is the "to inline citation" template? I have seen a template that put a box on a page requesting inline citation instead of citations just listed on the bottom of the page. Now I cannot find it — fnielsen (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it myself: It is called Template:Nofootnotes — fnielsen (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Cite.php still "relatively new"

FWICS from the cite.php edit history at mediawiki, it has been around since late 2005. Can we drop the "relatively new" characterization, or at least quantify the "relatively" part? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)