User:N2e/WPhelpfulLinks

Info on Closing Discussions

 * See generally Closing discussions.
 * For mechanics of closure, see hidden archive top/hidden archive bottom (mostly people use their redirects at and  ); collapse top/collapse bottom ({{redirects {{cot}} and {{cob}} ); {{tl|archive top}}/{{tl|archive bottom}} (redirects {{atop}} and {{abot}} ); {{tl|discussion top}}/{{tl|discussion bottom}} ( {{dtop}} and {{dbot}} ) and {{tl|polltop}}/{{tl|pollbottom}}. There are even more expressly directed at specific pages and processes, such as {{tl|RM top}}/{{tl|RM bottom}} just for closing requested move  discussions.

Re: Talk pages specifically: "It is certainly appropriate in certain situations. But for article talk pages, discussion is normally left untrammeled and allowed to peter out. Where you usually see this is to quell a shouting match or to stop discussion entirely unrelated to improvement of the article (like "fan chat"). A discussion should almost never be closed by a person involved it." (helpful input from Fuhghettaboutit in October 2013).

Reusing a single source multiple times with different pages cited
Citing sources and Help:References and page numbers, December 2014

When an article cites many different pages from the same source, to avoid the redundancy of many big, nearly identical full citations, one of three approaches that might be used is:
 * named references in conjunction with the rp template to specify the page
 * GENERALLY: To cite the same source more than once on a page by using named footnotes. The syntax to define a named footnote is:
 * content
 * To invoke the named footnote a second time on the same article page:
 * MORE SPECIFICALLY: The syntax to use a named footnote with an rp page number is:
 * The sky is blue. ... details of cited source ..., which will decode as: The sky is blue.1
 * The sky is blue. ... details of cited source ..., which will decode as: The sky is blue.1

Citation/reference tools
BatteryIncluded says he uses, and has used, this for about 10 years. ; I've looked it over, but have not used it, but may investigate given the inconsistent appearance of the older cite template tool nowadays. N2e (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)