User talk:Jaban

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Attribution)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Footnotes / References ==
 
  
There doesn't seem to be a footnote / reference system like on Wikipedia. Am I missing it or does it not exist?
 
  
Example entry:
+
== Regarding New Testament epistles ==
<pre>
+
I am sam.<ref>Theodor Seuss Geisel, [http://seuss.com/eggsham.html Green Eggs and Ham] (1960)</ref>
+
</pre>
+
  
Example resulting page:
+
Where there is more than one book in a series (e.g. 1 and 2 and 3 John), I think it wold be beneficial to write about all three in one article ("The Epistles of John"), especially when it comes to debates about authorship.
<div style="padding: 1em; border: 1px dashed #2f6fab; color: black; background-color: #f9f9f9; line-height: 1.1em;">
+
  
I am sam.<sup id="ref-0">[[#note-0|[1]]]</sup>
+
But as it is now, most of the multi-book articles are barely more than stubs, so to create another stub-sized article to talk about authorship alone seems pointless.
  
==References==
+
Does anyone have a problem with me simply merging those into single articles?
<ol class="references">
+
<li id="note-0">'''[[#ref-0|^]]''' Theodor Seuss Geisel, [http://seuss.com/eggsham.html Green Eggs and Ham] (1960)</li>
+
</ol>
+
  
</div>
+
(1 & 2 Corintians would become "Epistles to the Corinthians", 1 & 2 & 3 John would become "Epistles of John", and so on.)
  
 +
I only see it as a problem for the fella who wrote the chapter-by-chapter summary of the three Epistles of John. But, if you ask me, that's far too much info anyway. A summary should be a couple of paragraphs per book, with any important points separated into a "Highlights" section. And THAT would work fine merged. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 01:34, 9 July 2010 (CDT)
  
: I happened to notice your question, so I'll respond: No, we don't have a [[WikimediaMeta:Help:Footnotes|"ref" system]] on this wiki. That requires a special package that has not been installed here. I believe [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] and probably [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] could do the upgrade, but they haven't gotten around to it (they have been pestered about it already). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:53, 20 October 2008 (CDT)
+
== Attribution ==
  
"Are you sure? Postoperative re-transfusion of blood extracted before an operation was not a "matter of conscience" last I checked. It was disallowed outright, just like a regular whole blood transfusions.
+
Thanks for your feedback.
  
If it's kosher now, boy, things change so easily. You'd think they were just making them up as they go ;)
+
If I should happen to come up with something worth spreading, by all means I'd be very happy to have it spread! :-)
  
--Jaban 22:46, 26 January 2009 (CST)"
+
I was just allowing [my vanity?] to hope that I might be recognised as the originator of the idea. It might come in handy one day. (I know, I know. As likely as a 747 out of a scrapyard...)
 +
 
 +
It looks as if you have an interesting story to tell, I'll try to read it later today.  --[[User:BronzeDome|BronzeDome]] 02:50, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Latest revision as of 03:50, 10 March 2011


Regarding New Testament epistles

Where there is more than one book in a series (e.g. 1 and 2 and 3 John), I think it wold be beneficial to write about all three in one article ("The Epistles of John"), especially when it comes to debates about authorship.

But as it is now, most of the multi-book articles are barely more than stubs, so to create another stub-sized article to talk about authorship alone seems pointless.

Does anyone have a problem with me simply merging those into single articles?

(1 & 2 Corintians would become "Epistles to the Corinthians", 1 & 2 & 3 John would become "Epistles of John", and so on.)

I only see it as a problem for the fella who wrote the chapter-by-chapter summary of the three Epistles of John. But, if you ask me, that's far too much info anyway. A summary should be a couple of paragraphs per book, with any important points separated into a "Highlights" section. And THAT would work fine merged. --Jaban 01:34, 9 July 2010 (CDT)

Attribution

Thanks for your feedback.

If I should happen to come up with something worth spreading, by all means I'd be very happy to have it spread! :-)

I was just allowing [my vanity?] to hope that I might be recognised as the originator of the idea. It might come in handy one day. (I know, I know. As likely as a 747 out of a scrapyard...)

It looks as if you have an interesting story to tell, I'll try to read it later today. --BronzeDome 02:50, 10 March 2011 (CST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox