Talk:Aluminum Model Toys

In Line Citations
In line citations would not improve this article. They are cumbersome, difficult to construct and difficult to alter when new references are added. They are not normally used in most publishing outlets; professional outlets use APA or MLA. APA systems are much more direct, easy to interpret and, electronically, easy to alter. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes, References
The footnote-reference approach used in this article must be fixed. This is not how it is done. I have no skills in this area. Can someone help? Rainbow-five (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is how it IS done if one uses parenthetical referencing which Wikipedia supports, AND is much easier to construct. Parenthetical referencing is an easy concept: one places the 'citation' (author, date, page) right where the information is discussed. The name of the author or work leads one to the References at the end of the article where the source is easily found alphabetically and by date with appropriate information. It is a normal, effective and often used form of referencing, especially in professional, scholarly writing. There are issues with it just like there are issues with in-line referencing, but it IS supported by Wikipedia (though not the most common form of sourcing in Wikipedia), so would be against Wikipedia policy to change it.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy, buddy. I like your work. I question the logic that you offer, though. Just because a particular style or approach (of article creation OR of the insertion of references and footnotes) is SUPPORTED does not necessarily mean that it would be in violation of Wiki policy to change it. I would agree with you that if a particular style has been employed, and it is sufficiently good, there is not a whole lot of justification for revising it or replacing it. Perhaps we see it differently, but I think we can find agreement that a cost-benefit (or effort-benefit) analysis leans in your favor. If it would make you feel better about the whole thing, I am happy and willing to walk back my statements: okay, "must be fixed" was a little overboard. And yeah, "this is not how it's done" was a bit strenuous for the topic.
 * By the way, don't confuse my comment about your reference preference ("easier" is in the eye of the beholder in many ways) as a criticism of your work generally. The article sparkles, and what I had to say at the beginning would probably have been better stated as "these look a little cumbersome to me". Let me tell you why I think that. Numbered or lettered references are easy to match up, the citation to the body of the footnote. Parenthetical referencing does get a bit unwieldy when the notes are many. Which one is footnote 41? I am sure you get that point. But, fair enough, your method works okay, and I am not here to create a division. Rainbow-five (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank for your thoughts and concern. They are much appreciated. I too may have overreacted a bit to your initial post. I agree that parenthetical referencing doesn't work quite as well when the articles are longer. One has to get used to looking at the parentheses as directors to the references down below. I do also like where in-line citations automatically flash the reference immediately. Still, I've never found an easy way to construct them. They are murder for me and I like simply putting in the citation and going to the references below to add the complete source info. So...your point on it being time/cost effective for me is on the mark. In my profession also parenthetical referencing is very common - so I'm very used to it. So when people change the articles that I work on more often to in-line citations (like the MPC article), I get worked up a bit because then it's harder for me to add to them in a way the I feel is complete and proper. Thanks again.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't understand your question regarding matching citations to references when you asked (rhetorically?) "Which one is footnote 41?" In parenthetical referencing, there are no footnotes, nor numbering. The sources in parentheses are the citations that should always lead the reader alphabetically to the proper source cited below. Every citation in the text takes you to it's matching reference at the end of the article.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminum Model Toys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103143722/http://seekingmichigan.org/look/2011/01/18/michigan-scale-model-companies to http://seekingmichigan.org/look/2011/01/18/michigan-scale-model-companies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aluminum Model Toys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720143802/http://forums.aaca.org/f169/history-promo-car-models-211255.html to http://forums.aaca.org/f169/history-promo-car-models-211255.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)