Talk:Software Wars: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
m S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 moved page Talk:Software Wars (G1) to Talk:Software Wars: Not necessary to create a whole new page for the Animated version. |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm still not convinced a footnote is the right way to reference this stuff, thus me just putting them in as comments for future generations to decide. Oh well- if a better solution comes along we'll adopt it I guess. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 06:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | I'm still not convinced a footnote is the right way to reference this stuff, thus me just putting them in as comments for future generations to decide. Oh well- if a better solution comes along we'll adopt it I guess. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 06:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
:I was wondering what the point of those invisible-in-the-article notations of yours was. Footnotes work well enough for me. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | :I was wondering what the point of those invisible-in-the-article notations of yours was. Footnotes work well enough for me. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
::Sometimes they're just notes I want to put in with a mind for redrafting (or even drafting if nothing's there) the article later. Basically something I don't want to lose, because I feel it's signifigant. In this case- the sources are signifigant, but I'm not sure hwo to note it- so invisi-note. "This way if we DO come up with a good, instinctive system, no one has to puzzle over which sources this article used." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::There's no reason to hide references in a comment, though. Show them, by whatever mechanism, and if you decide a different way would be better later, change it. But *show* them somehow regardless. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:18, 27 July 2017
I'm still not convinced a footnote is the right way to reference this stuff, thus me just putting them in as comments for future generations to decide. Oh well- if a better solution comes along we'll adopt it I guess. -Derik 06:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was wondering what the point of those invisible-in-the-article notations of yours was. Footnotes work well enough for me. --KilMichaelMcC 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes they're just notes I want to put in with a mind for redrafting (or even drafting if nothing's there) the article later. Basically something I don't want to lose, because I feel it's signifigant. In this case- the sources are signifigant, but I'm not sure hwo to note it- so invisi-note. "This way if we DO come up with a good, instinctive system, no one has to puzzle over which sources this article used." -Derik 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's no reason to hide references in a comment, though. Show them, by whatever mechanism, and if you decide a different way would be better later, change it. But *show* them somehow regardless. --Steve-o 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
