![]() | Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This page is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. Having two copies of the same guideline in the Wikipedia namespace seems like a bad idea for several reasons, one of which is that the two copies are likely to get out of sync. Does anyone object to my redirecting this to Wikipedia:Citing sources? I'll wait a week or so for objections and then do it. — Caesura (t) 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Caesura, I created this page because I found the information on embedded html link citations very hard to find. The Wikipedia:Citing sources page is way too long. In the past I've become discouraged and given up when trying to figure out how to add a citation to a page. I would suggest the proper action would be to abbreviate Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. I'll probably take a stab at it myself later. -- Nlevitt 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This page and citation technique should be renamed to Wikipedia:Embedded links. Wikipedia:Harvard referencing already refers here using this term, and it is much clearer. Embedded citations could refer to any inline citation. Comments? ∴ here… ♠ 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Even the Manual of Style uses this term to refer to this technique. WP:MoS#External_links. ∴ here… ♠ 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the example to use the cite news template, as this provides consistency and is pretty common on Wikipedia. Sorry, I marked the change as "cite web" by mistake. --- Remember the dot 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The first item in the "References" section is a self-link to the article page. Is this intended as a style example? or should it be removed?-- Turangalila ( talk) 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's use the JBoss application server article as an example :
Red Hat announced that they were buying JBoss. Red Hat and JBoss have since completed the acquisition.
The sentence has two embedded links. I see the following disadvantages :
This discussion article lists the following advantages :
I agree that one-clicking a reference is nice but they're in no way easy to maintain. I see them as quick and dirty referencing because the contributors don't even have to actually reference them. They're just URL-linked to the article. I think they just clutter the encyclopedia with useless links, soon to become dead links and lower the overall quality of the project. Comments are welcome. -- Goa103 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was recently asked to remove the 'on' in 'Retrieved on' in my refs at FAC. This turns out to be difficult as {cite web} creates the word as standard per the overleaf example. This has been raised at Template talk:Cite web#Redundant word "on" before the date and I have suggested to the guardians of the template that the usage recommended at WP:CITE is at variance from the template. I now see that this is true of this page too.
WP:CITE#Embedded Links suggests the format: Accessed [[October 27]] [[2005]]. Ideally this would be changed from 'Accessed' to 'Retrieved' as this now seems to be the standard verb in use, but there is clearly a discrepancy on this page too regarding the use or otherwise of 'on' that should be cleared up. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The project page doesn't offer any guidance if there already is a "References" section that is being used for footnotes or Harvard referencing. I can see three possibilities; whichever one is the consensus, the project page needs to be changed, along with information at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As someone who thinks the embedded citations system is problematical (particularly because off-line citations are impossible with it), I'd appreciate the opinions of others - and in fact if there already is consensus on this, including someone changing the project page to address this issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How? I've asked at the citeweb template, which is scattering thousands of ons all over the place. We just don't want them. They pass the buck to this page. Who can help? Tony (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Thinking about it, an alternative may be to make a proposal here to change the current standard wording (as you did above, but lay it out a little more clearly and make it explicit that it would lead to changes in all the templates) then advertise that debate at the village pump, on each template talk page and maybe on the talk page of the main MoS talk page. If you can develop consensus that actually gets significant input you're less likely to get opposition on each template page. I'm not sure which way would actually be less work, or be best for developing consensus - I suspect many eople won't notice until they see the change trickle down to the actual articles. -- SiobhanHansa 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Copies of the same link have a different numbering, is there some way to reuse the same link and have the same numbering? One possible way is to use [url <nowiki>[2]<nowiki> but this may not be the best option available. 209.244.43.112 ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
With embedded citations, is there a way to credit more than one author? Rdavi404 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of this page is contrary to the advise in the guideline section
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. I suggest that this page is marked historical with the the template {{
Historical}}
--
PBS (
talk) 11:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
This page is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. Having two copies of the same guideline in the Wikipedia namespace seems like a bad idea for several reasons, one of which is that the two copies are likely to get out of sync. Does anyone object to my redirecting this to Wikipedia:Citing sources? I'll wait a week or so for objections and then do it. — Caesura (t) 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Caesura, I created this page because I found the information on embedded html link citations very hard to find. The Wikipedia:Citing sources page is way too long. In the past I've become discouraged and given up when trying to figure out how to add a citation to a page. I would suggest the proper action would be to abbreviate Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. I'll probably take a stab at it myself later. -- Nlevitt 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This page and citation technique should be renamed to Wikipedia:Embedded links. Wikipedia:Harvard referencing already refers here using this term, and it is much clearer. Embedded citations could refer to any inline citation. Comments? ∴ here… ♠ 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Even the Manual of Style uses this term to refer to this technique. WP:MoS#External_links. ∴ here… ♠ 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the example to use the cite news template, as this provides consistency and is pretty common on Wikipedia. Sorry, I marked the change as "cite web" by mistake. --- Remember the dot 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The first item in the "References" section is a self-link to the article page. Is this intended as a style example? or should it be removed?-- Turangalila ( talk) 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's use the JBoss application server article as an example :
Red Hat announced that they were buying JBoss. Red Hat and JBoss have since completed the acquisition.
The sentence has two embedded links. I see the following disadvantages :
This discussion article lists the following advantages :
I agree that one-clicking a reference is nice but they're in no way easy to maintain. I see them as quick and dirty referencing because the contributors don't even have to actually reference them. They're just URL-linked to the article. I think they just clutter the encyclopedia with useless links, soon to become dead links and lower the overall quality of the project. Comments are welcome. -- Goa103 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was recently asked to remove the 'on' in 'Retrieved on' in my refs at FAC. This turns out to be difficult as {cite web} creates the word as standard per the overleaf example. This has been raised at Template talk:Cite web#Redundant word "on" before the date and I have suggested to the guardians of the template that the usage recommended at WP:CITE is at variance from the template. I now see that this is true of this page too.
WP:CITE#Embedded Links suggests the format: Accessed [[October 27]] [[2005]]. Ideally this would be changed from 'Accessed' to 'Retrieved' as this now seems to be the standard verb in use, but there is clearly a discrepancy on this page too regarding the use or otherwise of 'on' that should be cleared up. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The project page doesn't offer any guidance if there already is a "References" section that is being used for footnotes or Harvard referencing. I can see three possibilities; whichever one is the consensus, the project page needs to be changed, along with information at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As someone who thinks the embedded citations system is problematical (particularly because off-line citations are impossible with it), I'd appreciate the opinions of others - and in fact if there already is consensus on this, including someone changing the project page to address this issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How? I've asked at the citeweb template, which is scattering thousands of ons all over the place. We just don't want them. They pass the buck to this page. Who can help? Tony (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Thinking about it, an alternative may be to make a proposal here to change the current standard wording (as you did above, but lay it out a little more clearly and make it explicit that it would lead to changes in all the templates) then advertise that debate at the village pump, on each template talk page and maybe on the talk page of the main MoS talk page. If you can develop consensus that actually gets significant input you're less likely to get opposition on each template page. I'm not sure which way would actually be less work, or be best for developing consensus - I suspect many eople won't notice until they see the change trickle down to the actual articles. -- SiobhanHansa 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Copies of the same link have a different numbering, is there some way to reuse the same link and have the same numbering? One possible way is to use [url <nowiki>[2]<nowiki> but this may not be the best option available. 209.244.43.112 ( talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
With embedded citations, is there a way to credit more than one author? Rdavi404 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of this page is contrary to the advise in the guideline section
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. I suggest that this page is marked historical with the the template {{
Historical}}
--
PBS (
talk) 11:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)