Difference between revisions of "User talk:Claire Harkins"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
FOI ref | FOI ref | ||
author, [http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/2/23/Foi.pdf title for this doc] dates etc et | author, [http://www.spinprofiles.org/images/2/23/Foi.pdf title for this doc] dates etc et | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
No need to note these unless there are actually two separate duplicate pages. You can tell that one is a redirect to the other by clicking on them and then a 'redirected from...' comes up in small type underneath the title. | No need to note these unless there are actually two separate duplicate pages. You can tell that one is a redirect to the other by clicking on them and then a 'redirected from...' comes up in small type underneath the title. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 16: | ||
making good progress. | making good progress. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== links == | == links == | ||
Revision as of 11:05, 21 June 2007
Have a look at the resources section of the page on CoRWM: http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/CoRWM or http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Bell_Pottinger_Communications#References
The key thing is to reference docuemtns fully (ie author, title, source, vdate etc) and to upload the documents to the site via the 'upload image' link under 'special pages'. To determine the url for the uploaded file right click on the name of it once uploaded and 'copy link location'.
FOI ref author, title for this doc dates etc et
No need to note these unless there are actually two separate duplicate pages. You can tell that one is a redirect to the other by clicking on them and then a 'redirected from...' comes up in small type underneath the title.
Thanks again, looking forward to the F's on Tuesday!
--David 07:19, 25 May 2007 (BST)
Hi,
making good progress.
links
Hi Claire;
I am of the opinion that it is enough to have one link per named instance in an article. A proliferation of links is detrimental sytlistically or in terms of readability. I removed some of those duplicate links in the Wollack article.
Kind rgds Paulo
not very useful
Dear CH
I am afraid that just adding links to articles, especially where there are duplicates of the same, is distinctly less than useful. Some of the links, to say, newspapers, generic names, are not useful at all.
Kind rgds Paulo
yes + example
Hi Clare;
First of all, I appreciate what you are doing -- Spin* was in dire need of some maintenance and fact checking.
Yes, what i mean is what you summarized... avoid the proliferation of links. Some people enter silly links all over the place (in wikipedia it is absurd; the year, day... every single city, name...) and this makes it less esthetically appealing (a consideration) and less readable. I also think one should think twice about adding a link if there is no underlying article...
I try to add a section "Affiliations" and try to restrict the links to that section. That is my preference, nothing else. I simply urge careful use of links... see this example: Leslie_H._Gelb
Keep up the good work
Kind rgds Paulo
