User:Lonewolf BC/Referencing proposal demonstration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Introduction

This page demonstrates the system for citation and reference-listing that I lately have proposed on Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. To fully see the "guts" of this system, this page must be viewed in editing mode -- please don't actually edit it, though -- but I explain the system's workings fairly thoroughly on the "face" of the page, as seen by merely reading it. In other words, the mock-citations placed in this text are illustrations of the very system which I explain on this page.

[edit] Outline of the system

This system is threefold, and it uses only tools that, as of this writing and to the best of my knowledge, are already available to editors of Wikipedia, are current (as against being obsolete), and are in common use, individually, but are not commonly being used together in the way suggested here:

  1. Citations are placed in the body of the text, using the existing basic footnoting tool, "<ref>...</ref>", in its nametag-using forms of "<ref name=Foo>...</ref>" and "<ref name=Foo/>". The actual citations -- they go where I have shown an ellipsis, "...", in the just-foregoing (Foo) illustrations -- are made as brief as they can be.[1] Below the body of the article go two sections to handle citations and references:
  2. First comes a "== Notes ==" section. The brief citations go there.[2]
  3. Right below that comes a "== References ==" section, where the full bibliographic references for the cited works are given.

The brief citations would be automatically assembled under "Notes", through the use of "<references/>". This function is already old hat, of course, except that I believe that "<references/>" is most commonly placed under "== References ==", rather than under "== Notes ==". It does the same thing, regardless. If my proposal is generally adopted, perhaps a "<notes/>", having the very same function, should be instituted, with the aim of reducing confusion: Intuitively, "<references/>" belongs under "== References ==", while under "== Notes ==" one would expect to use (and to find) "<notes/>".

The full bibliographic references would be arranged alphabetically under "References". In this section, templates could be freely employed -- templates of the kind now usually called "citation templates" but better termed "reference templates" in this proposed use. I say more on this potential, further down the page, but it is perhaps the core and the real beauty of this proposed system, because it allows the templates to be used to their full advantage, without any of the objectionable disadvantage they have as they are ordinarily used now.

But first, more on the brief citations.

[edit] More on the brief citations

Part of the concept of this system is to allow citations to be brief, so as to interrupt the main text as slightly as possible. As you'll see, they end up as something of a hybrid between Harvard referencing, and footnoting.

This works as follows: The first time that a particular citation of a particular referenced work is made, it is given a name-tag, generally based on the author's surname, and a very brief citation, likewise generally based on the author's surname.[1] Any repeats of that very same citation use the shortened form for name-tagged citations.[1] Where a page-number or the like is desireable, to specify where within the referenced work the cited information may be found, this is reflected simply in the name-tag and likewise in the actual brief citation.[3] Again, repeats of the very same citation use the shortened form for name-tagged citations.[3] That also applies to all the other cases that I deal with here, but I won't bother to illustrate it again. Citation of a different page (or whatever) of same referenced work is done similarly, with a different but similar nametag, reflective of the different specific place in the referenced work.[4]

Where the author's surname alone is not enough to identify the referenced work among the other referenced works, the common means of dealing with such an ambiguity are employed:

  • Where two or more different authors with the same surname are cited,[5] they are distinguished by their initials or first names (at the editor's preference as to which, but consistency within a given article seems like a good policy).[6]
  • Where two or more different works by the same author are cited,[7] they are distinguished by their publication dates[8].
  • If two or more different works by the same author, published in the same year are cited, they are distinguished by lettering them "a", "b", etc.[9][10]

The similarity of this system with, and its borrowing from Harvard referencing should be plain to anyone familiar with that latter system, the main difference being that in this system the brief citations do not appear parenthetically in the body of the article, but in the "Notes", below it. Given the internal linking abilities of this electronic medium, not available on paper, on which the Harvard system was invented, I reckon that this way is superior to parenthesising the brief references. Note also the mnemonic ease of the parallel between nametag and citation, under this system.

I won't go into all the possible combinations of specifying place-in-source, distinguishing authors and works from one another, and including direct quotations or commentary upon the cited material.[11]

[edit] The "References" section: Using templates to full advantage

I submit that this system would resolve the present controversy over the use of "citation templates" in Wikipedia articles, allowing the templates to be used in their most advantageous form, while negating the chief (and highly reasonable) objection to them, which is that they interrupt ("clutter") the the body of an article, and interrupt all the worse as their forms are made more intrinsically useful. This is, perhaps, the foremost virtue of the system I propose. The trick is to put the templates down in the "References" section, rather than intruding them into the body of the text. Thus, in this suggested use, they are better called "reference templates".

In this use, they are not wrapped in "<ref>...</ref>". They work almost identically when thus used "bare": They take the information put into them, and automatically producing from it a standardised, full bibliographic reference. The difference is that they produce the bibliographic reference in situ, instead of making it elsewhere, in response to "<references/>". Whereas they do not interrupt the body of the article when used in this manner, they can well be used in the vertically expanded form that makes them, in themselves, easiest to use and most beneficial. This, it seems to me, should please almost everyone, and make peace between the supporters and the opponents of the use of these templates. In fact, I cannot think of so much as a cavil against it.

View this page in edit-mode to see how this works. Unless I have overlooked something (which might be) there are only advantages, which are considerable, and no drawbacks.

The full reference for each work need only be given once, and specific page numbers and such-like can be left out, having already been given in the brief citations in "Notes".

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c Smith
  2. ^ The "Notes" section is also the place for non-citation footnotes, meaning asides that are worth including in an article but would break the flow of its body if put there. This footnote is an example. In editing mode, such footnotes thus appear within the body of the article, which to me seems like the best place for them from an editing viewpoint. To a reader of the article, though, they appear as footnotes.
    While I'm at such footnoting, I'll explain one other side-point: It is conventional to surround reference nametags with double quotation marks: name="Foo". As some readers might already have noticed, I don't bother with those quotation marks. They are not truly needed; reference nametags work exactly the same way, and just as well, whether the nametags are surrounded by quotation marks (name="Foo") or not (name=Foo). This omission, however, is merely a separate personal preference of mine, quite apart from the proposal of which this page is a demonstration.
  3. ^ a b Smith, p.6
  4. ^ Smith, p.78
  5. ^ Blogs, J.
  6. ^ Blogs, W.
  7. ^ Jones (1956)
  8. ^ Jones (1960)
  9. ^ Jones (1967a)
  10. ^ Jones (1967b)
  11. ^ Wiggins, A. (1886), p.907. Adam Wiggins has claimed that this system is "...a damnably poor way of proceeding because it has no efficient way of dealing with more than a trivial degree of complexity in citation and the production of footnotes...", but the present author begs to differ.

[edit] References

  • Blogs, Joseph (2005). "The folly of Willy Blogs". American Journal of Sibling Rivalry 5 (1): 1-67. Bloggery Publications. 
  • Blogs, William (2005). "The idiocy of Joe Blogs". American Journal of Sibling Rivalry 5 (2): 1-68. Bloggery Publications. 
  • Jones, David (1956). "Footnoting methods". Theoretical Footnoting 132 (4): 33-34. Footnoters Anonymous. 
  • Jones, David (1960). "More footnoting methods". Theoretical Footnoting 136 (12): 10-16. Footnoters Anonymous. 
  • Jones, David (1967a). "Footnoting revisited". Theoretical Footnoting 143 (5): 2-3. Footnoters Anonymous. 
  • Jones, David (1967b). "The perils of footnotes". Abnormal Psychology 666 (6): 66. American Psychological Association. 
  • Smith, James (2006). Footnoting in Wikipedia. Wikipedia Press. 
  • Wiggins, Adam (1886). A Treatise upon the Proper Way of Footnoting in the Wonderous Times to Come. London: Pontification Press.