Talk:Cross-reference
Add topic | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
unsure of correction to make
[edit]"features of the Web were is better than" That isn't correct grammar on the page, not sure what it was supposed to say.
wikipedia is correct
[edit]i cannot understand anything in this article. i think it requires cleanup by somebody who knows anything about this.
Something more like this perhaps...
[edit]Cross-referencing is merely a way of linking one article or text to another in such a way that it is easy to find the other piece of work. Cross-referencing is usually employed to either verify claims made by an author or to link to another piece of work that is of particular interest. Wikipedia uses this principal to create its vast interlinking article database.
References
[edit]I think this article lacks references (without the oozing irony). Can someone add some references, or even explain why a word definition takes up its own article? It would be nice to see everything neatly sourced! Thanks. Also, until this, someone should add in the unref tag. Josh Froelich 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
First Sentence
[edit]It is now: A cross-reference (noun) is an instance within a document of referring to information elsewhere (either within the same work or in a separate work).
It would be better without the "of":
A cross-reference (noun) is an instance within a document ***of*** referring to information elsewhere (either within the same work or in a separate work).
Then it would be:
A cross-reference (noun) is an instance within a document referring to information elsewhere (either within the same work or in a separate work).
What do you think?
2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message
[edit] | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Wikification
[edit]Is wikification a type of cross-referencing? 142.167.191.52 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
move to wiktionary
[edit]Hi. This article is basically a set of definitions for a term, therefore I propose it would be better suited to Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Also, it would be nice if the huge unreferenced slabs of computing jargon could be improved. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
link to KWOC
[edit]this article links to KWIC and KWOC. The KWOC article is about a radio station and says
"For the Key Word Out of Context concordance line format, see Key Word in Context." (= it links back to the same KWIC article).
In the KWIC article "KWOC" is not mentioned.
Basically, i guess KWOC is not covered in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.252.226 (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)