118
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Footnotes - technical help (view source)
Revision as of 15:40, June 17, 2010
, 15:40, June 17, 2010→Mechanical/Grammatical Errors
*I agree with Philip's take here. Not one rule can fit all, and our focus, always, should be on increasing content at this not mature wiki, where we really don't have the luxury of making it more cumbersome, as Conservative pointed out. Rules need to remain flexible in the formative stages, as we are still in, and can certainly be made to be more in compliance as we progress. Also, there are editors who love nothing more than to fix citations and formatting. Let us not be slaves to procedure at the risk of discouraging contributors who don't care much for formatting rules, and complications. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 07:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
*I agree with Philip's take here. Not one rule can fit all, and our focus, always, should be on increasing content at this not mature wiki, where we really don't have the luxury of making it more cumbersome, as Conservative pointed out. Rules need to remain flexible in the formative stages, as we are still in, and can certainly be made to be more in compliance as we progress. Also, there are editors who love nothing more than to fix citations and formatting. Let us not be slaves to procedure at the risk of discouraging contributors who don't care much for formatting rules, and complications. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 07:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:On the one hand, as you say, there are people who love nothing more than fixing up the formatting, etc. But on the other hand, it is less work to get it right in the first place than to do a whole lot of stuff without any guidelines then having to go back later and change it all to comply with some quality standards. One thing that Wikipedia suffers from (understandably) is a proliferation of templates, formats, and styles that have been added to in a very ad hoc way. We have the opportunity here to try and get things right before we go too far down the track of creating a mess that becomes too large to fix later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:On the one hand, as you say, there are people who love nothing more than fixing up the formatting, etc. But on the other hand, it is less work to get it right in the first place than to do a whole lot of stuff without any guidelines then having to go back later and change it all to comply with some quality standards. One thing that Wikipedia suffers from (understandably) is a proliferation of templates, formats, and styles that have been added to in a very ad hoc way. We have the opportunity here to try and get things right before we go too far down the track of creating a mess that becomes too large to fix later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:25, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree with Phil. I have been adding a lot of footnotes and follow his general practice. I also include the URL link in both the footnote and the bibliographic entry. I strongly dislike the Wikipedia templates but they are over-complicated and very constraining as to annotations. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)
== Using a footnote more than once ==
== Using a footnote more than once ==
Does anyone have a problem when they try to do this? I tried it recently with the MiG-21, to use the same ref in three different sections, and I just could not get it to work. I put the refs in exactly as I was supposed to, but it kept giving me static. I finally just had to gave up. Is there a problem, or did I just do it wrong somehow?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:35, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Does anyone have a problem when they try to do this? I tried it recently with the MiG-21, to use the same ref in three different sections, and I just could not get it to work. I put the refs in exactly as I was supposed to, but it kept giving me static. I finally just had to gave up. Is there a problem, or did I just do it wrong somehow?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:35, 8 November 2008 (EST)
: I don't follow you. In the [[MiG-21]] article, you have done it correctly. Or did you fix that after posting this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 8 November 2008 (EST)
:: Sorry, I did, and I should have added to the comment afterward. I fixed it by cutting and pasting from the help page on the subject. I still don't know what I did wrong, but it was obviously my error, and now it's fixed. I'm cutting and pasting it from now on; I always seem to run into trouble when I try to type it in myself. Thanks.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:05, 8 November 2008 (EST)
==Mechanical/Grammatical Errors==
(1) Swallowed d
Under the "Creating the References section [sic for Section]" the first line contains a "swallowed d":
:"References sections should be place [sic for 'placed'] in all articles below the . . . ."
(2) Inconsistent title style
::In this article the titles of the same order are inconsistent in style. A decision should be made as to capitalization: Choose a system and stay with it. For example, one may choose to capitalize only the first word of a title or one may choose to capitalize all the words in the title, except articles and prepositions. In the above case the title should be either "Creating the references section" or "Creating the References Sections." Then all the same level titles should conform.
(3) Lack of number agreement, subject and predicate; misplaced parentheses
:Again, under the "Creating the References section [sic for Section]," one reads:
::"Keep an eye out for articles with references ( [sic] which, as previously mentioned, are identifiable by the superscript text and link color) [sic] but does [sic for "do"] not display the references or displays [sic] them not inside the References subsection."
:::The antecedent of "which" is "articles"; thus "which" is plural. Therefore, the predicate of "which" should also be plural; "do," not "does"; "display," not displays. The parentheses should be moved so that the sentence makes sense when the parenthesis is removed:
::::Suggested correction:
::::Keep an eye out for articles with references which (as previously mentioned) are identifiable by the superscript text and link-color but do not display the references or do not display them inside the References subsection.
::::The hypen in "link-color" is suggested since as written, the words may give the impression that "link" is a verb with direct object "color."
([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 10:57, 17 June 2010 (EDT))