Difference between revisions of "Template talk:DisplaySource"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Known Issues: reply) |
m (→Discussion: add) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::The URL is actually shown (in brackets). That makes for a very untidy appearance and I question its utilty. Better to have the URL turn the named source into an external link since very few are existing pages on Wikispooks anyway. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 10:39, 17 December 2013 (GMT) | ::The URL is actually shown (in brackets). That makes for a very untidy appearance and I question its utilty. Better to have the URL turn the named source into an external link since very few are existing pages on Wikispooks anyway. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 10:39, 17 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::OK - Again, I'm impressed. Damn good stuff on the source websites template and few pages in it so far. Reference the root URL's thing above; Having mulled it over, I think that a link to the source root is always going to be OK. The purpose of the 3 x pieces of source information is to provide due credit for a document's content and that is not enhanced by linking to the full contents off-site - beyond providing the source page with additional traffic which I suppose IS a consideration. If we keep providing the full document URL, then it would much better (appearance-wise) to use Tiny-URL's. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2013
Known Issues
- Many documents have SourceURL pointing to the root of the website where the document was sourced, not the actual page. There is no easy fix to this; the metadata needs to be fixed wherever this is true. Robin (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2013 (GMT)
- I used to do that deliberately bacause it was easier. Most sources require the site to be credited; some ask for the full back-link. I'm OK with changing existing root links to the full document link as-and-when but don't see it as a priority so long as the primary source is valid - ie it does not really need to be as strict as a reference/citation --Peter P (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2013 (GMT)
Discussion
This change - or something - seems to have broken the source links on Document pages. --Peter P (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (GMT)
- It has changed the links. Now the link is not via text, but via the small arrows before and after. Easy if you know to look for it, but it's too subtle. I think I'll make it a text link. Robin (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2013 (GMT)
No? Can you give me an example where it's not working well, together with a suggestion to improve it? Or go ahead and fix it - I'm happy with it, so I'll leave it alone for now. Robin (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2013 (GMT)
- OK - Again, I'm impressed. Damn good stuff on the source websites template and few pages in it so far. Reference the root URL's thing above; Having mulled it over, I think that a link to the source root is always going to be OK. The purpose of the 3 x pieces of source information is to provide due credit for a document's content and that is not enhanced by linking to the full contents off-site - beyond providing the source page with additional traffic which I suppose IS a consideration. If we keep providing the full document URL, then it would much better (appearance-wise) to use Tiny-URL's. --Peter P (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (GMT)
