I'm not clear on why you disagreed with my edits on Ashley Revell. The links to internal articles seem preferable than just website names, providing a reader a better explanation of the sites in question. Also, I'm at a loss on the "Retrieved" dates - are those the dates that you looked up those links? Are the links any less valid today than they were on those dates? I'm not sure what is meant by that and why it is necessary. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Those are the dates the links were looked at, yes, and as for why: things disappear, move, and are altered. A proper citation of an electronic document includes the date that document was accessed.
- As I mentioned over on Talk:Endless Round MUCK, the reference format I came up with is an in-house format. APA, Chicago, and MLA get rather complicated and cryptic, and readibility is important. I didn't feel there was a need to repeat the actual URL of items, as we can provide a link as part of the citation; however, all necessary information should be in the citation if available from the source. For an online item, that's author, title, date updated, URL, and date retrieved.
- -- Sine 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be fine, except that the format you have chosen is different in usage from almost every article on WikiFur. I did a bit of research and I now see the style to which you refer in Wikipedia. If you wish to adopt such a format (and more importantly, expect others to follow it and not revert your edits, as I did), I would recommend that you write up a proposed policy for it, solicit comments, etc. etc.
- In the case of this particular article, the links in question are not actually references (in the WikiFur sense of the term) since they are not actual citations of facts stated in the text of the article. They would probably fit better under the heading of External Links. I'll hold off on making any edits until we come to some agreement, though. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)