Talk:Johann Fust Community Library

Keep, the world needs all its libraries and it needs to know about them. Jmbryant1 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Layout
This is what happens when you try citing too many things. You cited FNNR as the reason for the change. FNNR clearly says: "The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material." Actually READ the MOS that you cite instead of looking at the pictures. Second, neither of those is being used as an inline citation. Again, READ the MOS that you cite and learn what an inline citation actually is. Stop skimming multiple MOS's and contradicting yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your rationale to keep the source out seems to be ever-shifting. It started at WP:ELNO, and I'm not quite sure what it is now. In the second place for the second time: per WP:GENREF, A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor. ... If both cited and uncited references exist, their distinction can be highlighted with separate section named, [FOR EXAMPLE], "References" and "General references". WP:FNNR clarifies that the section headings can also be "Notes" and "References" and shows a picture. I have not "skimm[ed] multiple MOS's and contradict[ed] [my]self". — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , it hasn't shifted at all. ELNO does apply. You claimed this was exempt because "inline citations" don't fall under ELNO. The book I removed is NOT AN INLINE CITATION. You're just wrong. In correcting your error, I noticed the headers and fixed them to reflect the most common use. You reverted and claimed FNNR supports that. Problem is, you're using the picture, while the actual words in the MOS YOU cited support me. No matter what you call the section, you're not using it as an inline citation and it's a mere mention that doesn't help establish notability at all. Notability is established significant coverage by reliable sources. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * External links under WP:ELPOINTS: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or  general references , which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." The headings may not have been the most common, but they were not incorrect as is demonstrated by the picture above. You've already nominated it for deletion, if it is kept, there is no harm in the source the you keep removing from the article remaining: #FFF68F It helps with general verifiability; all the inline citations are from the library itself. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Verifies what? That it exists? That's not in dispute. That's it's as notable as fishing shacks? I won't dispute that either. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that you've seen these replies. I know you've responded to them already and this has been a conversation between us, but apparently you believe it's important to start each reply with a notification. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to add your contested source back, use it as an actual inline source (and then you can see what one actually is), while leaving the section headers in the most commonly used format. Will that end your crisis? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as a compromise, with a tweak to the citation template. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I always appreciate a ping, and yes, I've seen all the replies. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you saw them. I could tell if you saw them just because you replied to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see that reply above? I can't tell for sure? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * do you know there is a discussion going on here? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disrupting to make a point. I'm ensuring that you are properly notified. It appears that you believe that every reply needs a template to notify, even when the person has responded. So, to work with you on your level, I've adopted using the template. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's another reply on this page for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Somebody might like to add this
http://scholar.library.miami.edu/treasure/chapters/chaptr11.html Mathmo Talk 06:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Add it in what manner? It's a paragraph and a half from a catalog entry. It really doesn't tell us much that we don't already know. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johann Fust Community Library. 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/20160319141614/https://www.leegov.com/library/about/branches/bg to http://www.leegov.com/library/about/branches/bg

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) 20:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)