Talk:USA Today

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:USA Today as edited by TK (Talk | contribs) at 21:40, 18 March 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

LOL! Sid I have no idea what you did, or why.....but sometime tell me, so I will learn! --TK--Terry

Hm? I just converted your links to footnotes. If you just add [] into an article, it will just appear like this: [1]. In longer articles, such numbered links are fairly confusing.
Using references is more comfortable because you can add link description and general footnotes without overloading the main text body. So if you add <ref>Conservapedia: [ Main Page]</ref>, it just appears like this [1], and you can click the number to jump to the References section at the bottom.
Of course, you have to add the Reference Section with <references/> like I did below.
Keeping this in mind, take a look at the edits I made, and you should see how it works in normal articles. :) --Sid 3050 10:40, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I prefer the citations to follow normal publishers rules, and keeping them in the same paragraph in which the material being cited is. If they are at the bottom of the page, how is one to know? Since I didn't add other information, and it was not needed, I just don't see the reasoning, lol. Without the stuff at the bottom, mousing over the number shows the links, etc. Oh well, different strokes, as they saying goes.  :-) --TK 11:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Um, actually, the "short footnote marker, longer explanation of source at the end" style can also be considered a normal publisher rule. And in longer articles, you can click the footnote to jump directly to the note at the bottom (and from there, you can jump back up). It's also nice to have a link description to give people an idea what is behind the link. Things get worse when you want to quote books and such. A "References" section also allows a reader to check quickly what material the article is based on. A good example of where footnotes would be VERY helpful is Theory of evolution. 114 unnamed links, spread all over the article. Compare that (for example) with the Wikipedia page on Evolution, and you will see how a Reference section can contain helpful extra information about a source. --Sid 3050 11:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Sid, I have seen some of the posts (back and forth) about the Evolution deal, and I agree on such train wrecks it might help to be able to glance down and see the source, rather than mouse over. However, those notes at the bottom can be spoofed, you know, so where something at first glance might seem to be and actually be Anyway, personal preferences, as I biggie --TK 20:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
    • ...yes, and then somebody simply edits it. Welcome to the Wiki world. Not to mention that inline links can also redirect oddly. But sure. Whatever. --Sid 3050 20:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I also don't quite get why you remove the example Reference section with each edit. --Sid 3050 20:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I have no idea what that stuff, on this page is....maybe some of you more technically minded shoud be offering explanations as to why it is there. Please remember that most of us have no idea of how to use the formatting codes. Everyone here needs to slow down, and take the time to explain, and use the instant messenger technology that we all have. Communication, instantly, sure beats 50 posts, back and forth, and saves a hecka lot of time! --TK 21:40, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


  1. Conservapedia: Main Page