Last modified: 2008-01-08 00:37:39 UTC
The <references> and <ref> tags have been amazing. However, on some articles, I've seen people use these for footnotes instead of references, which is fine, unless the article needs BOTH footnotes AND references. So what I suggest is a separate <footnotes> and <note> tags, that will function very similarly to references, though perhaps with a different rendering of the link, to make it look different.
Yes. Please give this some priority. It would be a great improvement to some of the better articles to be able to have two sections, I believe. Right now, it's still possible to do so, but only with a deprecated template (because of the new <ref> system). It would be great if this were done!
*** Bug 11899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Copy of comment seen at m:Village pump (proposals): > * The problem might be solved more elegantly/generically (and without more html tags) > by categorizing refs with a pseudo-"class type". For example, one would have... > <ref class="n">... something in class "n" (e.g. a note)... </ref> > <ref class="x">... something in class "x" (e.g. some other category of ref)... </ref> > <ref>... something without a class (e.g. a regular citation)... </ref> > The balancing <references /> would look like this: > <references class="n" /> to dump all <ref>s with class="n". > <references class="x" /> to dump all <ref>s with class="x". > <references /> to dump all <ref>s with no class. > This way, a page could have as many "notes" (or whatever) sections as necessary. > For example, examples on a wiki help page. > * Another option is to give <references/> a regex filter function: > <references name="n*" /> dumps all refs whose name= starts with 'n' > <references name="x*" /> dumps all refs whose name= starts with 'x' > <references name="[^nx]*" /> dumps the rest > This is however not suitable For refs that need different numbering schemes (e.g. notes vs citations). > * One way to resolve the autonumbering problem would be to use an alpha prefix for the > numbering, perhaps even using the first letter of the class name (or restricting the length of > the class name to 1). > Another way would be to give each group N numbers (e.g. 1000), so the default would be 1-999, > the next 1001-1999 and so on. > * The problem with using any autonumbering format except numbers and a-b-c is that Citephp depends > on ordered lists (<ol> tag). Thus, while prefix + number (e.g. 'n1') would be the most flexible > way to solve the autonumbering problem, it would require Citephp to emit CSS magic to simulate > a numbered <ol>. It would still be ol (with list-style-type:none & hanging indent formatting), > but the li's would need to provide numbering. Tables are another option. > -- Fullstop (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6271 ***
