So, as used at
Pituri:
The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine.{{Ref supports2|<ref name=French>{{cite journal | last1 = French | first1 = P | last2 = James | first2 = E | last3 = Walsh | first3 = N | year = 2012 | title = Analysis of genetic variation in a disjunct, narcotic producing, population of Duboisia hopwoodii (F. Muell.) F. Muell | url = http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/documents/Muelleria_30-1_6_French_James_Walsh.pdf | format = PDF | journal = Muelleria | volume = 30 | issue = 1| pages = 65–71 }}</ref>|"The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine."}}
This strikes me as useful in terms of verifiability, but the form seems rather painful to see widespread use. Couldn't it rather be restructured? Perhaps something along these lines:
{{Ref supported2 |refname=French |ref={{cite journal | last1 = French | first1 = P | last2 = James | first2 = E | last3 = Walsh | first3 = N | year = 2012 | title = Analysis of genetic variation in a disjunct, narcotic producing, population of Duboisia hopwoodii (F. Muell.) F. Muell | url = http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/documents/Muelleria_30-1_6_French_James_Walsh.pdf | format = PDF | journal = Muelleria | volume = 30 | issue = 1| pages = 65–71 }} |text=The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine. }}
Then subsequent uses of the source could just be: {{Ref supported2 |refname=French | pages = 70 |text=Aboriginal people frequently burnt pituri to promote new growth. }}
Page number presentation could resemble that done using {{
rp}}.
This would then render as:
The population of Duboisia hopwoodii around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine.
[1]: 65–71 Aboriginal people frequently burnt pituri to promote new growth.
[1]: 70
Think that might work? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|page=
or |pages=
argument is specified for {{
Ref supports2}}. If it is desired for it to be displayed in both the reference text and next to the reference marker, then the argument needs to be in both the cite template and {{
Ref supports2}}.|name=
(matches what is used in <ref name=""/>) or |refname=
which is more descriptive. Both parameter names work, but only one should be used at a time.|text=
/|text1=
through |text9=
.|pages=
and |page=
are both available.References
moved to meta |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks, LeadSongDog. I won't contribute here because looking at code gives me a headache. I'm happy to leave the technical design to WMF. That's what we pay them for. What I'd like us to do is work out a clear vision of how we want this thing to look and work - from the editor's perspective. My preferred solution is: the editor pastes a doi, url, ISBN, PMID or whatever into a form (via the visual editor), adds page numbers, copy/pastes the article text being supported into the form, and clicks save. That's about as much typing as I think we should be expected to do. What do you think? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
|
This template was developed as one of three different methods of indicating the supported text which I made for Anthonyhcole:
I don't consider these are the end-all be-all of how the text supported by a reference (or the reference that supports the text) should be indicated on a Wikipedia page. Of the three, I prefer the presentation of #1 where the supported text is highlighted when the cursor is hovering over the reference marker. It would be possible to have the reference marker highlighted when the supported text is hovered over (not sure if I would like it, I would want to try it prior to deciding).
If indicating the page-text supported by a reference, or visa-versa, is generally supported on Wikipedia, then it could be implemented within the MediaWiki software. This would result in widening the field of possible ways to display these connections to the user beyond the 3 examples above.
So the question is: What is the preferred/ideal way to indicate these connections to the user? I'm open to brainstorming for additional possible methods of indicating these connections.— Makyen ( talk) 08:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey
Makyen, I just discovered this template and will probably be using it in the future (it is very useful, so much so that I wish it was integrated into
MediaWiki's code), but I noticed that the
current template code uses {{
abbr}} to provide its
tooltip. As is noted in
Template:Abbr/doc § Accessibility and HTML validity concerns, using {{
abbr}} and <abbr>
for non-abbreviation purposes has
accessibility and
semantics concerns. Would you be willing to rewrite the template to avoid this? Perhaps something like {{
rp}}'s current implementation for its
|quote=
parameter?
I would attempt to do so myself (or ask someone more competent in template editing and HTML than I am to do so), but since you developed this template, I might as well ask you first. Thanks for your time and consideration. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
<abbr>
elements significantly better than those produced using any other method (e.g. a title
attribute in any other HTML element, or any of the various other methods). In the intervening time, I haven't seen anything which indicates that's changed.<abbr>
element for this isn't what that element is specifically intended for (<abbr>
is for explaining abbreviations), and that using <abbr>
in this way is something that semantic purists don't like. However, it's, again, an intentional trade-off to sacrifice what is, mostly, a philosophical HTML programming issue for the greater support of <abbr>
by screenreaders.<abbr>
for non-abbreviation uses is an accessibility issue: It is, to an extent. Screenreaders may identify it to the user as the explanation of an abbreviation. However, IMO, it's better that they do that and give the user the information, rather than completely ignore the element and not give the user the information, which is what happens with other methods of displaying a tooltip.<abbr>
.<abbr>
is the best option. OTOH, I haven't done a significant search of screenreader capabilities in quite a while, thus things may have changed. —
Makyen (
talk)
08:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
So, as used at
Pituri:
The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine.{{Ref supports2|<ref name=French>{{cite journal | last1 = French | first1 = P | last2 = James | first2 = E | last3 = Walsh | first3 = N | year = 2012 | title = Analysis of genetic variation in a disjunct, narcotic producing, population of Duboisia hopwoodii (F. Muell.) F. Muell | url = http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/documents/Muelleria_30-1_6_French_James_Walsh.pdf | format = PDF | journal = Muelleria | volume = 30 | issue = 1| pages = 65–71 }}</ref>|"The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine."}}
This strikes me as useful in terms of verifiability, but the form seems rather painful to see widespread use. Couldn't it rather be restructured? Perhaps something along these lines:
{{Ref supported2 |refname=French |ref={{cite journal | last1 = French | first1 = P | last2 = James | first2 = E | last3 = Walsh | first3 = N | year = 2012 | title = Analysis of genetic variation in a disjunct, narcotic producing, population of Duboisia hopwoodii (F. Muell.) F. Muell | url = http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/documents/Muelleria_30-1_6_French_James_Walsh.pdf | format = PDF | journal = Muelleria | volume = 30 | issue = 1| pages = 65–71 }} |text=The population of ''Duboisia hopwoodii'' around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine. }}
Then subsequent uses of the source could just be: {{Ref supported2 |refname=French | pages = 70 |text=Aboriginal people frequently burnt pituri to promote new growth. }}
Page number presentation could resemble that done using {{
rp}}.
This would then render as:
The population of Duboisia hopwoodii around the Mulligan River used in the production of a much sought after version of pituri is high in nicotine and low in nornicotine.
[1]: 65–71 Aboriginal people frequently burnt pituri to promote new growth.
[1]: 70
Think that might work? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|page=
or |pages=
argument is specified for {{
Ref supports2}}. If it is desired for it to be displayed in both the reference text and next to the reference marker, then the argument needs to be in both the cite template and {{
Ref supports2}}.|name=
(matches what is used in <ref name=""/>) or |refname=
which is more descriptive. Both parameter names work, but only one should be used at a time.|text=
/|text1=
through |text9=
.|pages=
and |page=
are both available.References
moved to meta |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks, LeadSongDog. I won't contribute here because looking at code gives me a headache. I'm happy to leave the technical design to WMF. That's what we pay them for. What I'd like us to do is work out a clear vision of how we want this thing to look and work - from the editor's perspective. My preferred solution is: the editor pastes a doi, url, ISBN, PMID or whatever into a form (via the visual editor), adds page numbers, copy/pastes the article text being supported into the form, and clicks save. That's about as much typing as I think we should be expected to do. What do you think? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
|
This template was developed as one of three different methods of indicating the supported text which I made for Anthonyhcole:
I don't consider these are the end-all be-all of how the text supported by a reference (or the reference that supports the text) should be indicated on a Wikipedia page. Of the three, I prefer the presentation of #1 where the supported text is highlighted when the cursor is hovering over the reference marker. It would be possible to have the reference marker highlighted when the supported text is hovered over (not sure if I would like it, I would want to try it prior to deciding).
If indicating the page-text supported by a reference, or visa-versa, is generally supported on Wikipedia, then it could be implemented within the MediaWiki software. This would result in widening the field of possible ways to display these connections to the user beyond the 3 examples above.
So the question is: What is the preferred/ideal way to indicate these connections to the user? I'm open to brainstorming for additional possible methods of indicating these connections.— Makyen ( talk) 08:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey
Makyen, I just discovered this template and will probably be using it in the future (it is very useful, so much so that I wish it was integrated into
MediaWiki's code), but I noticed that the
current template code uses {{
abbr}} to provide its
tooltip. As is noted in
Template:Abbr/doc § Accessibility and HTML validity concerns, using {{
abbr}} and <abbr>
for non-abbreviation purposes has
accessibility and
semantics concerns. Would you be willing to rewrite the template to avoid this? Perhaps something like {{
rp}}'s current implementation for its
|quote=
parameter?
I would attempt to do so myself (or ask someone more competent in template editing and HTML than I am to do so), but since you developed this template, I might as well ask you first. Thanks for your time and consideration. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
<abbr>
elements significantly better than those produced using any other method (e.g. a title
attribute in any other HTML element, or any of the various other methods). In the intervening time, I haven't seen anything which indicates that's changed.<abbr>
element for this isn't what that element is specifically intended for (<abbr>
is for explaining abbreviations), and that using <abbr>
in this way is something that semantic purists don't like. However, it's, again, an intentional trade-off to sacrifice what is, mostly, a philosophical HTML programming issue for the greater support of <abbr>
by screenreaders.<abbr>
for non-abbreviation uses is an accessibility issue: It is, to an extent. Screenreaders may identify it to the user as the explanation of an abbreviation. However, IMO, it's better that they do that and give the user the information, rather than completely ignore the element and not give the user the information, which is what happens with other methods of displaying a tooltip.<abbr>
.<abbr>
is the best option. OTOH, I haven't done a significant search of screenreader capabilities in quite a while, thus things may have changed. —
Makyen (
talk)
08:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)