User talk:Fletcherspears

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes/Citations
Just FYI, a "footnote" is different from a "citation". A footnote is an additional note that is at the bottom of the page, usually additional detail that doesn't fit in the main body. A citation is where source information is provided, including links, titles, publishers, authors, publishing dates, etc. You can combine footnotes and citations. Make sure in adding citations that you include: access date, title, url, author and/or publisher (if the source is an organization, just put publisher), work (usually the website it came from), and a published date or year (if year, change parameter from "date" to "year". Things like doi and format aren't usually used.  Format is if the link is a PDF file, you'd put "PDF" after format.  If you don't use a parameter, erase it.  I also recommend using the horizontal version of the citation templates instead of the vertical stack.  It fits into the text much easier.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to asked you how to combine citations, as the explanation on the web page went over my head. I don't know how to change the format of the citations, I'm jut copy/pasting from the web page because I'm new to all this and just want to get rid of the edit tag at the top of the page. Like I said, as far as content goes, I'm just using the template provided on the web page you directed me to. Feel free to go back through and change things, because I don't know how. At this point, I just want to get rid of that tag. Fletcherspears (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help. In terms of the tag, don't worry too much.  A lot of people seem to look at it as a badge of dishonor, but it's more to draw attention and help to the article.  Removing it too early doesn't mean the article doesn't need cleaned up, it just means no one will notice who may be able to help and the article will stay in its state longer.  See how it's working already?  :)
 * In combining sources, it's pretty simple. You have the brackets around the  or whichever template you use.  To combine the sources, you simply change to (use a simple word or phrase that gives a general idea of what the citation is for..."okl" is just for an example) and then fill in the parameters as normal in the citation template.  In the next instance where you need to use the same citation (usually in another paragraph or section), you simply put where the citation would go and nothing else.  --JonRidinger (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to that in a bit then. I'm used to writing in AP style, and wiki has its own thing. I'm really not following where you're seeing a lot of the biased language though, I thought we got rid of that. As far as the shopping center stuff goes, we took that from another city and also considered it almost a part of the "Parks and Recreation" section of the Wiki US Cities template, because it says "What do people do for fun?"... which is also where we decided to put the golf courses in, because they're a pretty big thing around here in terms of recreation; well, that and the fact that in their sports section they suggest outlining what sports are available for people to participate in. We literally just included all the information from the template at WikiProject Cities. Fletcherspears (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not a LOT of biased language, but some still exists. That's not really much of an issue but was part of why the cleanup tag was originally placed.  Like I said, once we get the citations cleared up, I support the tag's removal.  And really, it's not so much biased as it is unencyclopedic.  Mentioning the golf courses is fine; that's not the issue.  It's the specifics about the golf courses where we run into problems.  Cities the size of Stillwater generally need just a "Parks and recreation" section.  There, the number of courses and their names can be mentioned and maybe a few details, but not a bulleted list for each course.  For instance, you could summarize in about 3 sentences the names and that all of them are 18-hole golf courses.  The point is to highlight what's there without going into tangents and details.  Unless the courses themselves have some sort of notability, there isn't much reason to even mention their names.  "Stillwater is home to four 18-hole golf courses." If you have a sourced statement that golfing is popular, use that too.  The same with the hiking trails.  Making a list of the routes is pretty useless for pretty much every reader since we have absolutely no idea what the streets and layout of the city are anyway.  All we need to know is that the city has hiking and biking trails.  You have to look at the article not as a resident, but as a Wikipedia editor; what's important?  Why should this be included?  Is it necessary?  Does this really add to the reader's understanding of the subject?  What is unique or different that needs to be highlighted?  Take a look at the Kent, Ohio article if you haven't.  It's a similar-sized city to Stillwater and is a college town.  In particular, look at the Sports, Parks and Recreation, and Notable people sections.  --JonRidinger (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
Just a general note on inserting pictures, be sure to place them at the beginning of the paragraph and below a heading (where a heading is present) rather than in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. While it may look good placed there on your monitor, because it adjusts for different aspect ratios, it doesn't look so good on other monitors. On mine it created large gaps in the middle of a sentence or between sentences. You also want to make sure pictures and other images are spaced out enough so that even on most widescreen viewers you don't end up with text sandwiched between two pictures. Any questions, please ask! The pictures have been a great addition, by the way! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)