User talk:Redblueball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RE:Citing references

Hello. You brought up two issues, and I'll address each separately:

You seem to have reverted to a redundant structure of both notes and footnotes, while including a separate references section which include unattributed references to other references and notes

Notes are footnotes are the suggested method accordign to WP:CITE. Annotations should be generally separated from bibliographical references, which is more convenient for the reader. Standard referencing for a book are (Author year page number). The full book referencing should appear in a separate references section. Go to WP:CITE and see Harvard Referencing. The unused sources I did not put there. Feel free to delete them, although we should probably keep them, as some of the information may have come from those sources and placed their by an editor other than ourselves.

...the reference to the article from the Times is again referenced twice.

You're absolutely right. I combined the references.

Later gator.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The text in the "footnotes" section can be placed in either the "notes" or the "references" section; therefore creating one redundant section. It seems overly complex to me to continue with 3 sections for the sake of 2 unattributed annotations.

Thanks for combining the repetition of the Times reference.

Redblueball (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)