Forum:Separating Footnotes and References: Difference between revisions
NateBumber (talk | contribs) m (NateBumber moved page User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1 to Forum:Separating Footnotes and References without leaving a redirect) |
NateBumber (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|The Panopticon}} | |||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | |||
== Proposal == | == Proposal == | ||
As someone who loves using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and {{tlx|reflist}} on this wiki, I've long noticed that our current | As someone who loves using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and {{tlx|reflist}} on this wiki, I've long noticed that our current practice mixes together two distinct purposes: | ||
#footnotes, i.e. explanatory or clarifying comments; and | #footnotes, i.e. explanatory or clarifying comments; and | ||
#references, i.e. external links which serve as evidence for the claims, usually through {{tlx|cite web}}. | #references, i.e. external links which serve as evidence for the claims, usually through {{tlx|cite web}}. | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 9 September 2023
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Proposal
As someone who loves using <ref> and {{reflist}} on this wiki, I've long noticed that our current practice mixes together two distinct purposes:
- footnotes, i.e. explanatory or clarifying comments; and
- references, i.e. external links which serve as evidence for the claims, usually through {{cite web}}.
Mixing these two very different use cases results in confusion. As an example, see Faction Paradox (series)#Footnotes. Of the 68 "footnotes" on that page, 62 are source citations and 6 are explanatory comments. How quickly can you identify which is which? Spoiler: it's borderline impossible!
Other wikis have an established way to solve this problem: separating "Footnotes" and "References". As an example, see the #Notes and #References sections on Wikipedia's "Earth" page. Explanatory footnotes are listed in one section, and external links are listed in the other. This is achieved by using two parallel versions of <ref> and {{reflist}}.
Surprisingly, the tools for this already exist on our wiki as well: {{note}} and {{notelist}}! To see how these would look on Faction Paradox (series), see User:NateBumber/Sandbox/2. Isn't that much better? Besides clarity, there are several other advantages to using {{note}} in addition to <ref>:
- The pipe trick doesn't work in <ref> tags, which make them poorly suited for footnote-style commentary. {{note}} doesn't have this problem.
- You can use <ref> within a {{note}}! This is hugely helpful, for instance in Footnote 5 on the sandbox.
- There are many pages where our in-universe coverage would benefit from out-of-universe explanatory footnotes; Chubby Potato has suggested one case on Talk:Fifteenth Doctor, and Infinity Doctor is an awesome example of footnotes done right. But due to the <ref> muddle, we've been held back from using them to their full potential.
If we already have {{note}}, why haven't we been using it? Because the obvious names for the two sections are "Footnotes" and "References", and "References" was already being used on our story pages for a different purpose. However, as of Forum:References into Worldbuilding, that usage conflict no longer exists. The way forward is finally clear: all that's left is for us to take it! – n8 (☎) 18:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
to be added
