Confusion caused by [URL] and <ref> tags both generating a [1] in biography output

Question

I occasionally come across a biography with [1], [2], [3], etc., generated by URLs included in []s with no alternative text following the URL.

Much more frequently, biographies include ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], etc., generated by <ref> tags.

In case you didn't notice, the [1], [2] and [3] in my first sentence are normal text and those in my second sentence are superscripted.  This is a little more obvious if the [1] immediately follows a full stop (or a period, as Americans prefer to call it).  However, some contributors don't use full stops at the end of their sentences, or place the [1] before the full stop.

A biography can even contain a [1] and a ^[1].  I haven't actually found one of these, but edited an existing biography to provide an example.

Could one set of [1], [2], [3], etc., be more clearly distinguished from the other by using a different text size (as happens here in G2G) or font or colour, or in some other way, such as including "URL" or "link" or "ref" in the mouseover text?

Comments

For people who use the WikiTree Browser Extension, the Readability Inline Citation options may be of assistance here. In particular, there is one for Citation Size.

---

Thanks, Jim. I've switched that on and should eventually get used to it!

Answer 1

The reason you come across the [1] (not superscripted, but a URL without alternative text) is not because it is some fancy new way of noting something.  It is incorrect in the first place. There should be no need to indicate it with colours or extra text.

 A [1] superscripted should always zoom down to a source in the ==Sources== section, and be created by a <ref></ref>.  If there are URLs which are not being used as sources, they should be placed under the See Also heading.

Comments

Just to clarify, in looking at Paddy's example profile (in both view mode and edit mode), instead of using <ref>....</ref>, Paddy is finding profiles where people simply place a url at the end of a sentence. This creates what looks similar to footnoted references, but they actually aren't.

And yes, that type of formatting is incorrect.  

In my over-ten-years of being on WikiTree, I have not seen profiles doing this. I *have* seen people placing such URLs under == Sources == where yes, they generate another set of numbers within [brackets].

So, Paddy, where you see profiles like the example profile you've linked to, those "in line" links should be converted to <ref>...</ref> citations,  converting the URL-only text to a full citation.

---

In addition to what others have said here, links created by the format [www.google.com] will show the full URL on mouseover/hover. Inline references will not. So there is a visual indicator of sorts already built in.

---

Both types of sourcing do show the full URL on mouseover, at least if the URL is the sole concent of the inline <ref>, but turning on the WBE option recommended in Jim Richardson's comment above does at least make the styles more noticably different.

Answer 2

As others have suggested the [1] that is caused by doing [url] with no text after the URL seems like a bug and I have always thought it very confusing that WikiTree (or MediaWiki) displayed it as [1]. It would be better if it just displayed the whole URL in that case.

Answer 3

My latest edit of this sample profile showed no signs of Biocheck or WikiTree+ objecting to the [URL] syntax.  If that syntax is incorrect and/or a bug as suggested in the above answers, perhaps Kay and/or Aleš might like to start checking for it.  I will leave this sample profile as is for now in case anyone else wants to use it as a testbed.

Can anyone provide a link to exactly where in the help pages this formatting is discouraged?

Comments

I'm not sure there is one, Paddy, though I agree there should be. The Help section

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Adding_Links#Links_to_Other_Websites

says

If you include a space after the URL and then text ..., that becomes the "anchor text" in link.

with an "If". There was an opportunity to say you should include text, but it wasn't taken up.

---

I thought so. I am as sceptical of unsourced assertions about WikiTree policies as I am of unsourced WikiTree profiles!

---

It's not really a WT policy.  And I am sorry my assertion was unsourced.  I suppose I felt it was rather like saying "Walk from A to B" and not providing a Help page to say "This is how to walk: first, remove your right foot from the floorboard it is standing on, and move it forward.  Now do the same with the left foot." /jk Possibly slightly unnecessary?

---

Advice and instructions can seem unnecessary until one comes across someone who does the opposite of what seems obvious!  But I admit that instructions and FAQs can become unwieldy if amended to cover all the possible alternative interpretations.