18 Mar

User talk:Bdcousineau

‎next small project: an answer, I hope
← Older revision
Revision as of 17:10, 18 March 2013
Line 839:
Line 839:

This will be considered a win by the Ford working group. And certainly a way for the papers to be useful on the wiki. But first, is it spamming? [[User:Bdcousineau|Bdcousineau]] ([[User talk:Bdcousineau#top|talk]]) 13:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This will be considered a win by the Ford working group. And certainly a way for the papers to be useful on the wiki. But first, is it spamming? [[User:Bdcousineau|Bdcousineau]] ([[User talk:Bdcousineau#top|talk]]) 13:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

+

+
: The Stanton article is an article that used the "notes + references" format for citations, not the simpler "references only" format that I use (the primary sources are a subsection of the "references" section). What this means is that citations are in two parts: this is not just a list of primary source materials, it is the "more detailed" part of the citations (the "less detailed" part is under the "notes": essentially, the advantage to this is you can use separate page numbers in the "notes" and then give the full bibliographic citation in "references", so it is a good choice for an article that draws heavily on written sources). But, please not that these "primary sources" are just like any other citations in this (or any) article. They are not an arbitrary list, they are part of a carefully organized bibliography. So, what we need to do is use Ford sources as references (just like I did for the Vladivostok Summit article): "spamming" pages with lists of primary sources (which, again, is not what is happening here) is out of the question. Hope this helps. [[User:Michael Barera|Michael Barera]] ([[User talk:Michael Barera|talk]]) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bdcousineau&diff=92826127&oldid=92814498