| Revision as of 01:47, 22 August 2007 view sourceHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Note: hang around for a bit.← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:27, 22 August 2007 view source CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,542 edits →Note: remove shitNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself.--] 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | :If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself.--] 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Note == | |||
| Your recent edits , , and strike me as somewhat disruptive. Please refrain from adding excessive templates to referenced articles or nominating articles for speedy deletion when there is a clear claim to notability. ] 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I hope you're kidding. ] 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not. A clear claim to notability was made in the two articles you speedied. The articles you tagged as unreferenced were references, if insufficiently. I note that the admin declining your speedy request made a similar remark in his edit comment. ] 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Whatever. The articles were orphans and/or dead-ends. They should be removed. How is the Brazilian article notable? Seriously. They won something once. Not notable. Have an article on ''that'' team. I'm a wiki administrator for two wikis; if I were for Misplaced Pages, that article would be gone. ] 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We use a 'claim to notability' criterion on this wiki. This means that if it appears that a claim is made, speedy deletion cannot be used. I suggest you look through this and observe the system at work for a bit. En-wiki is huge, with a diverse set of interests; this criterion exists precisely to ensure that those without particular knowledge of an area do not enthusiastically delete stubs on notable subjects. | |||
| ::::A national team that has won a world championship in a major sport is simply not a candidate for deletion on this wiki. Neither is the chief executive of a state with a hundred and eighty million people. ] 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:27, 22 August 2007
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
Chef
McBride is a note with the page number that refers to the works cited section as per the academic citation style known as Chicago format used in most liberal arts writing, which is a suggested style for Misplaced Pages.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of well written articles cited in the way this article was, as noted on the Misplaced Pages citing format to be used, there is a suggestion to use Chicago format which is how the article was written. Below is an excerpt from the Misplaced Pages:Citing Sources article which clearly delineates a "Footnote" or shortened to "notes" section as well as "References" which is also phrased as "Works cited". In addition this article is worked on by WikiProject Food and Drink and as such, our format for articles is using the Chicago format which uses the "notes" and "works cited" headings. The inline citation style you are using is based on Harvard referencing.
- From Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
- Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"
- It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
- If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)