This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WP editors who are watching this important Idaho 2012 caucus (and primary; and convention) page will note that I just added the second sentence to mention the Primary which follows the caucus. Both sentences use the excellent and only Green Papers as the authoritative reference to what will happen. I wanted to refer to the reference(1) that was already made in the first sentence (but do not know how) and so I added an additional [1] in the body of the Article, which is not as nice as it could be. If any editor 'fixes' it, then I will learn. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Otherwise, at least WP readers will be able to click (as is).
WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
Ground Zero | t 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Of the three polls cited, two were online surveys from a site of dubious reliability, and one has a dead link from a local news channel as a reference. Any reason we shouldn't find a working source for the latter and axe the rest? -- BDD ( talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, that working source was much easier to find than I thought it would be. Looks like it was just one digit off in the URL. I still say we remove the online polls. If Ron Paul wins this caucus with over 70%, I'll eat my hat. -- BDD ( talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva ( talk) 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WP editors who are watching this important Idaho 2012 caucus (and primary; and convention) page will note that I just added the second sentence to mention the Primary which follows the caucus. Both sentences use the excellent and only Green Papers as the authoritative reference to what will happen. I wanted to refer to the reference(1) that was already made in the first sentence (but do not know how) and so I added an additional [1] in the body of the Article, which is not as nice as it could be. If any editor 'fixes' it, then I will learn. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 13:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Otherwise, at least WP readers will be able to click (as is).
WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
Ground Zero | t 18:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Of the three polls cited, two were online surveys from a site of dubious reliability, and one has a dead link from a local news channel as a reference. Any reason we shouldn't find a working source for the latter and axe the rest? -- BDD ( talk) 03:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, that working source was much easier to find than I thought it would be. Looks like it was just one digit off in the URL. I still say we remove the online polls. If Ron Paul wins this caucus with over 70%, I'll eat my hat. -- BDD ( talk) 03:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva ( talk) 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)