Talk:Air gap (magnetic)

Depreciated reference style
Please convert all reference to in-line references with the full reference being in-line. Please include page numbers. Constant314 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proofreading the article! (1) I am not aware of sfn being deprecated. Please advise. (2) Wherever it was possible, the references already include the page numbers. Викидим (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples of fully inline citations:
 * Subsequent references use an abbreviated form:
 * The rp template is used to override pages specified in the full reference.
 * The full reference does not have to precede to use of the abbreviated form. Constant314 (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will try this system in some new article, although I do not use the VE, and the benefits are thus unclear. Are the sfn style citations really on the way out? They look so much nicer (and closer to the scientific publications I am familiar with). Викидим (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does look nice, but that is not the preferred way. The main issues, from my standpoint,
 * Other editors will randomly add sources to the source list even if the source is not used. Sometimes it is a source that the editor thinks would be useful.  Sometimes someone just wants to bring attention to their favorite source.
 * When other editors work on your article, they will likely use the preferred method which will leave you with an ugly mess.
 * Wikipedia has an automatic system for vetting sources that is incompatible with your method. When I hover over your sources, the source is highlighted in yellow and I get a tooltip warning that the source may be self-published or predatory.  I think seeing this is an option that must be enabled to be visible.  It is the Reference Tooltips option under the Preferences/Gadgets menu.   See
 * Constant314 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The full reference does not have to precede to use of the abbreviated form. Constant314 (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will try this system in some new article, although I do not use the VE, and the benefits are thus unclear. Are the sfn style citations really on the way out? They look so much nicer (and closer to the scientific publications I am familiar with). Викидим (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It does look nice, but that is not the preferred way. The main issues, from my standpoint,
 * Other editors will randomly add sources to the source list even if the source is not used. Sometimes it is a source that the editor thinks would be useful.  Sometimes someone just wants to bring attention to their favorite source.
 * When other editors work on your article, they will likely use the preferred method which will leave you with an ugly mess.
 * Wikipedia has an automatic system for vetting sources that is incompatible with your method. When I hover over your sources, the source is highlighted in yellow and I get a tooltip warning that the source may be self-published or predatory.  I think seeing this is an option that must be enabled to be visible.  It is the Reference Tooltips option under the Preferences/Gadgets menu.   See
 * Constant314 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   12:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)