396:
428:
historical section is pretty low (I could think of far easier ways to edit perniciously than to correctly use inline citations), to be honest I think a historical section serves only to make the template longer than it needs to be. It's my opinion that we should keep the template as a quick reference for
443:
itself, is a great place to include historical information on what was at one point part of the template. I could even see adding a summary and/or links to discussions as to why they are no longer included. That would certainly provide the curious types with better information than they would get by
427:
from the navbox. In my opinion, including it in its original location gives it a significance it does not warrant given its status as an inactive policy. A historical section would be better, but even though I agree that the likelihood of someone using inline citations as a result of seeing it in a
296:
I simply felt that it would be of interest for someone who would be looking up citations on wikipedia to see some historical stuff becuse why else keep an outdated page if not for people to look at it out of curiosity. I doubt many common vandals would be familiar enough with wikipedia to find this
311:
There is already far too much policy and guidance available for inexperienced editors to try to get their heads around without cluttering up navigation pages, with stuff that has been out of date for years. The relevant section for this is
209:
links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template.
62:
297:
template. As for being relevant. The literal point of a navbox is to link articles that share somthing in common, which that article, outdated or not still qualifies as in my opinion.
72:
255:
I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template?
77:
52:
57:
133:
There's also the bots which fill in fields, based on what info is avail. They don't seem to be listed in any navboxes currently? Maybe add here?
111:
I use these 2 regularly, and would have liked to have known about them earlier in my wiki-journey. Possibly they should be listed here?
444:
a simple historical section of the navbox, and keep the navbox as succinct and relevant as possible. What do the two of you think?
82:
22:
67:
440:
424:
405:
345:
230:
47:
32:
42:
27:
349:
170:
37:
159:(doi-based-lookup near the bottom) but it doesn't return wikicode information, just xml) – I read more about
206:
202:
198:
194:
215:
330:
I guess we just disagree. I don't see the harm in having it there. I don't see how it would be clutter.
423:! I have read through the conversation here and agree with PBS's recommendation to remove the link to
458:
178:
279:
478:
371:
335:
302:
260:
163:
313:
173:). I'm just mentioning them for completism, and to aid anyone else searching in the future. —
496:
482:
462:
375:
361:
339:
325:
306:
291:
264:
246:
219:
211:
182:
102:
142:
401:
95:
492:
445:
357:
321:
287:
242:
174:
474:
416:
367:
331:
298:
272:
256:
138:
148:
395:
155:
And today whilst trying to find an ottobib-equivalent for DOIs – (I found
488:
420:
353:
317:
283:
238:
116:
275:
I have copied you comment from my talk page so that others can see it.
156:
125:
63:
Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources/Example edits for different methods
435:
That being said, I think a historical section in the template
169:
and the related bot-filled templates (currently listed at
234:
121:
73:
Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources/Further considerations
78:
Knowledge (XXG):List-defined reference how-to guide
487:I won't implement it, but I won't oppose it. --
139:http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/
149:http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks
53:Knowledge (XXG):Improving referencing efforts
8:
68:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources/Example style
58:Knowledge (XXG):Advanced footnote formatting
117:http://toolserver.org/~holek/cite-gen/
7:
432:policies, advice, and documentation.
83:Knowledge (XXG):How to mine a source
23:Knowledge (XXG):Verification methods
157:http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/
473:I think it seems like a good idea.
406:Knowledge (XXG):Embedded citations
193:I'm thinking we should remove the
14:
33:Knowledge (XXG):Citation overkill
394:
366:Yes I think that would be great.
126:http://zeteo.info/references.php
344:Then I guess we should use the
282:. How is it still relevant? --
43:Knowledge (XXG):Citation needed
28:Knowledge (XXG):Overlink crisis
17:Pages to consider for inclusion
348:process. Are you happy to use
183:18:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
103:12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
48:Help:Citations quick reference
1:
350:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion
497:21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
483:18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
463:18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
439:, which would be visible on
376:09:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
362:09:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
340:19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
326:17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
314:WP:CITE#Avoid embedded links
307:15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
292:15:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
265:15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
247:09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
404:(whether to keep a link to
38:Knowledge (XXG):Bombardment
517:
251:Copied from my talk page:
408:in an historical section)
235:at 15:19, 26 October 2017
171:Template:Citation Style 1
220:06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
229:I removed the link to
441:WP:Embedded citations
425:WP:Embedded citations
402:third opinion request
346:wp:dispute resolution
189:footnote1,2,3,4 links
233:from this template (
122:http://ottobib.com/
231:Embedded citations
225:Embedded citations
468:
467:
508:
453:
451:
398:
391:
390:
168:
162:
98:
516:
515:
511:
510:
509:
507:
506:
505:
449:
448:
268:
227:
191:
166:
160:
96:
19:
12:
11:
5:
514:
512:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
466:
465:
438:
434:
433:
431:
412:
411:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
276:
253:
226:
223:
190:
187:
186:
185:
152:
151:
146:
135:
134:
130:
129:
119:
113:
112:
109:
97:Gadget850 (Ed)
88:
86:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
60:
55:
50:
45:
40:
35:
30:
25:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
513:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
442:
437:documentation
436:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
409:
407:
403:
397:
393:
392:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
270:
269:
267:
266:
262:
258:
252:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
224:
222:
221:
217:
213:
208:
204:
200:
196:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
165:
158:
154:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:
132:
131:
127:
123:
120:
118:
115:
114:
110:
107:
106:
105:
104:
101:
100:
99:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
39:
36:
34:
31:
29:
26:
24:
21:
20:
16:
447:
446:
400:Response to
399:
278:I see it as
273:User:*Treker
254:
250:
228:
192:
93:
92:
90:
87:
415:Greetings,
212:Jason Quinn
207:footnote4
203:footnote3
199:footnote2
195:footnote1
475:★Trekker
430:relevant
417:★Trekker
368:★Trekker
332:★Trekker
299:★Trekker
280:WP:BEANS
257:★Trekker
175:Quiddity
164:cite doi
452:Thomas
205:, and
143:WP:UCB
124:(also
352:? --
237:) --
141:(via
493:talk
479:talk
459:talk
419:and
372:talk
358:talk
336:talk
322:talk
303:talk
288:talk
261:talk
243:talk
216:talk
179:talk
108:More
489:PBS
421:PBS
354:PBS
318:PBS
316:--
284:PBS
239:PBS
91:---
495:)
481:)
461:)
410::
374:)
360:)
338:)
324:)
305:)
290:)
263:)
245:)
218:)
201:,
197:,
181:)
167:}}
161:{{
94:—
491:(
477:(
457:(
450:C
370:(
356:(
334:(
320:(
301:(
286:(
271:@
259:(
241:(
214:(
177:(
145:)
128:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.