Changes

*Rosa, Don. ''The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck.'' Timonium: Gemstone, 2005.</blockquote>

*Rosa, Don. ''The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck.'' Timonium: Gemstone, 2005.</blockquote>

We can do even more to this snippet of text. It's not allowed by Turabian, but we could also put two endnotes here: one containing the reference, and another to amplify the statement about Scrooge's estranged relative. This would be inconsistent and confusing in text, and would muddle the semantic structure of the document here, but it's at least readable. It may be preferable to have no less than three sections to an article: the main text, the notes to the text, the reference notes, and the reference list.  Unfortunately, wiki markup does not ''yet'' seem to be able to handle two separate sets of notes in one article. Ideally, we would be able to have two sets of end notes interleaved, perhaps one with numbers and one with letters. Until that day, we have to continue mixing content and bibliographic notes.<ref>Or, I could be wrong. There's a lot about MediaWiki markup I don't know.</ref>

We can do even more to this snippet of text. It's not allowed by Turabian, but we could also put two endnotes here: one containing the reference, and another to amplify the statement about Scrooge's estranged relative. This would be inconsistent and confusing in text, and would muddle the semantic structure of the document here, but it's at least readable. It may be preferable to have no less than four sections to an article: the main text, the notes to the text, the reference notes, and the reference list.  Unfortunately, wiki markup does not ''yet'' seem to be able to handle two separate sets of notes in one article. Ideally, we would be able to have two sets of end notes interleaved, perhaps one with numbers and one with letters. Until that day, we have to continue mixing content and bibliographic notes.<ref>Or, I could be wrong. There's a lot about MediaWiki markup I don't know.</ref>

I think that is a universally appropriate structure for including references in a Conservapedia article, and I think it should be encouraged. It is flexible enough that extraneous sections can be dropped, and they can be added by later editors. I do not think it should be required; subject matter experts who are used to other styles, such as APA or CBE, may wish to use those.

I think that is a universally appropriate structure for including references in a Conservapedia article, and I think it should be encouraged. It is flexible enough that extraneous sections can be dropped, and they can be added by later editors. I do not think it should be required; subject matter experts who are used to other styles, such as APA or CBE, may wish to use those.