Thanks for the conditional support (and smiley noted, too, btw), but which changes and which guidelines? Are you asking for one of those "retrieved" thingies? Isn't it obvious from the edit history when the reference was added? --
ALoan(Talk)23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I can add it if it really exercises you that much, but how many readers are going to worry about when I last read those web pages? If they want to know where the information comes from, they can click and look for themselves. --
ALoan(Talk)01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
That is a style guide. So the problem is that the reference does not look right? Even most of the reference on that page do not comply with the mandated style! --
ALoan(Talk)13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
He, no. The issue at hand was to put the "retrieved date" on web refs, which you did anyway. I don't know where you got that idea that I don't like how it looks (style may refer to doing things consistently, by the way, cf. "writing style"). And also
WP:NOT says nothing about an encyclopedia not being subject to the same rigours an academic paper has to go through before publication. It says we aren't writing a paper encyclopedia, and that only refers to limits in the number of articles or their extent. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply