→Birth-Death: And while we're at it, a standard for references.
Line 363:
Line 363:
:: You many be correct, Learn together, that it is not ''necessary'', but it is still quite useful and worth doing.
:: You many be correct, Learn together, that it is not ''necessary'', but it is still quite useful and worth doing.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::I agree with [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] that there should be standards that Conservapedia is striving for. As to the birth/death date, I like the proposed suggestion (putting aside the issue of a fact box of some kind). --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:58, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
+
==References==
+
:I would also like us to agree on a standard for references. Too many articles include only the URL of a reference. If that page is moved, we are left with no idea where the information came from. (I've been coming across this quite a bit - I'm the sort of person who actually reads the references.) If a full reference is provided, then the information can often be relocated and the URL updated. In addition, a full reference gives much more information at a glance, and writing it to some extent forces the writer to ask themselves "where is this fact actually coming from" before using/believing it. Format would vary a bit based on the type of reference. The MLA handbook suggests author's name, title of document, information about print publication (for example, if it is an article from a magazine), information about the web site (name of site, date updated), date of access, and URL. That seems like a sensible approach to me. Here's an example:
+
:<nowiki><ref>author, title, published in Newsweek, date of publication, Newsweek.com, date of posting, retrieved on date, [URL] any notes about the reference</ref></nowiki>
+
:--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:58, 16 October 2008 (EDT)