Talk:Peter Giblin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Give me time

I've just started to put together this article. I need to get some more information together, but please feel free to google or mathscinet for evidence of the need for this article. I shall come back to this article in a day or two. please do not delete. I know that bots will place tags because I don't know how to do refs. Please leave advise if you can.  Declan Davis   (talk)  01:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:REF RedSkunk^talk 01:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me make myself clear. Please don't leave a reference. There's too much stuff on these pages to read. Why not 'cut and paste' a working link and use the 'nowiki' markup so that it doesn't try to link? I'm a bit slow you see.  Declan Davis   (talk)  01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well at least find some references, it varies by type. RedSkunk^talk 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well at least give me some time... read the article... stopstealing energy.  Declan Davis   (talk)  02:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is going really well, replaced the tag. I'm not tagging to insult your or anything, just to get possible help. It also does qualifies for being a stub. RedSkunk^talk 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Link Rot? My Foot!

I'm lost... this is an online encylopedia, and as such requires online references. I've made seven or eight links to the BRITISH NATIONAL LIBRARY and someone's tagged it saying that it might get link rot. If I can't reference the BNL then who can I reference? I know the raw links are ugly, but they're sound... maybe the phantom tagger shoud try clicking the links before s/he tags?!  Declan Davis   (talk)  02:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not used the entire template for the pages. Therefore if the page ever does get moved etc. the link will not be valid by wikipedia policy and will have to be reobtained or deleted. Links aren't bad, it just isn't wikified. I'll do it tomorrow. In the interim I have removed the tag, as now I have stated my point. RedSkunk^talk 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Declan: I'm no expert, but... you may be confusing the term "in-line reference" (having the ref cited using a superscript number, like a footnote) with "online reference". Refs don't need to be from the internet - in fact many internet-based sources are unreliable. - Special-T (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Link rot has been fixed. All book refs now have ISBN's rather than links to BNL pages. --Salix (talk): 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Special-T, but I do know there difference between the two. Thanks for trying to clear up any misunderstandings.  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MathSciNet

Does someone have access to MathSciNet? I no longer do. I would like to leave a refernce for the 104 published articles using MathSciNet (just a link to a name search will do). This is because his own bibliography isn't a good enough source, he maintains the page. We need an idependent source.  Declan Davis   (talk)  14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan Davis (talk • contribs)

Archive 1