new format for references

+6 votes
144 views
Two or three weeks ago someone posted a suggested new format for references that relieves the clutter of inlining and yet clearly identified which reference goes where. I wanted to try it out, but I can't remember the suggestion, nor can I find it through the search facility. What is the status of the suggestion?
in Policy and Style by Gus Gassmann G2G6 Mach 2 (21.9k points)

2 Answers

+4 votes
 
Best answer
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/577027/easier-cleaner-sourcing-references-method-ancestry-cleanup

Are you thinking of this?   I am still trying to wrap my head around how this one works, but it removes the cluttered references by moving them above the biography, naming them, and then referring back to their names in the biography as I understand it.

And I don't really understand the other Ultimate solution that is now Not Recommended.
by Wendy Fromme G2G6 Mach 2 (24.6k points)
selected by Gus Gassmann

While cleaner for editing, I found it confusing to read profiles using it. I do read footnotes and there is always an extra reference to each source given. which I automatically look for. It has plusses and minuses. The biggest minus is that it was declared not recommended

Yes. Thanks for pointing me to it. I tried with https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ga%C3%9Fmann-155, and it works like a charm. I even managed to retain some old references without them intruding on the rest of the presentation. I don't quite get why it was not recommended.

The link I gave you in my answer below states this:

Alternative methods add confusion. Even if a new alternative has advantages, these advantages would need to be very significant in order to justify changing our recommendations. We couldn't stop supporting the old recommendations. Therefore, a new set of recommendations introduces more than its own complexity. Members would have to understand both systems, and any future technical improvements would have to account for both.

+4 votes
This has links to what is not recommended:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Alternative_Sourcing_Methods
by Ros Haywood G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)

That which is not recommended leads to confusion in the future.

The question/contribution I was thinking of does not deal with the citation style itself, but rather with the placement of the <ref> tags. My basic recollection is that you put <ref name="..."/>s into the biography section and then place the real definition somewhere below. I forgot the actual location that was suggested, and my tests never worked as I intended.

Related questions

+3 votes
1 answer
102 views asked Nov 17 in WikiTree Help by David Chawes G2G1 (1.7k points)
+6 votes
4 answers
212 views asked Jan 19 in Policy and Style by Jaci Coleman G2G5 (5.0k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
156 views asked Feb 1, 2021 in WikiTree Help by Carolyn Waddell G2G2 (2.7k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
154 views asked Mar 16, 2019 in WikiTree Help by Lucy Robinson G2G6 Mach 1 (17.9k points)
+10 votes
5 answers
354 views asked Sep 4, 2018 in Policy and Style by Kitty Linch G2G6 Mach 4 (40.8k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...