"Hands down, this is the way to go for multiple references. In a perfect world we would have "Ibid" and the author name + pages for same book but different pages but if you do that here, and someone comes and inserts a source between your sources, your Ibid refers to the wrong reference."
Few styles use 'ibid' or 'op.cit' anymore, they just give a full ref the first time and a shorter one afterwards.
(Straight from the MHRA style guide)
Tom McArthur, Worlds of Reference: Lexicography, Learning and Language from the Clay Tablet to the Computer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 59.
on the first occasion and on the next.
McArthur, Worlds of Reference, p. 9.
I find it works fine like this and it will do as long as someone doesn't come along and reference the same work earlier in the bio or change the order of the text..That hasn't so far happened to anything I have written.
Personally, I find the 1.1, 1.2.,1.3 type references confusing to read. However, I also admit that though I can just about cope with <ref> </ref>, I would probably be more adept with the clay tablet than any more advanced html. The use of multiple different methods makes it very much more difficult for me and i suspect others who lack confidence to edit profiles that use more 'advanced' methods.