Talk:12th Century References

I think this is better than having separate articles for each reference but I still don't like it. It makes the printed version of an article less useful (since the references wont be included) and it means that "12th Century References" appears in our RDF feed (take a look at the main page of the KG site and you'll see it listed). Its also something of a non-article IMO.

If no one has any objections I'd like to move the reverences back into the articles that link to them. - Tobin

---

I'm not sure - a bibliography is a valid article - it tells you where to look further. Maybe if I called it a bibliography rather than a list of references? (and eventually put in an intro) Because it's going to get awfully repeditive to keep repeating the same references over and over again. Besides it seems nice to have a bibliography somewhere.

Hmm maybe we can reference each article I suppose, but I'm going to get awful bored. (and if you make them sidenotes I'll stop editing the article because it's just too messy in Netscape 4.07, and I need to get the concensus of 4 other people before i can upgrade this computer's netscape.) Tiff

---

Ok, how about this. We keep this article as a general guide to 12th century references, as you suggest, but I'll copy the references into the articles that link to them? (not in full but in enough detail that people could find the book without having to print out the page of 12th Century references as well). I'd also vote for giving the headings in this article a bit more detail (the headings would be easier to understand as the title of the book, IMO. This makes linking a little harder but would make this article easier to follow and we can list different revisions in the one place.)

As for the browser, I understand that its hard to get these things upgraded but if the side-notes are a problem then eventually you'll run into other issues (e.g. character encoding for foreign/old alphabets springs to mind) - Tobin