![]() | Siletzia has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 27, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
@ Psantora: re your recent edits:
Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line. It certainly isn't required, but I think it makes for cleaner formatting. Would you prefer to use one of the {{ spaced ndash}}/{{ snd}} templates instead? That may be a better long-term approach.
ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking fromis the main thrust and I think that is what I was trying to do. If there are specific links you deserve particular discussion (or reversions), by all means do go ahead (with either action).However, if you mean in the references, then I don't think I am. Though I understand there may be some general disagreement on that point.
I hadn't realized there was any concern with en-dashes at the beginning of a line, but then it's been awhile since I perused MOS:DASH. I tend to use spaced dashes relatively often, so you may have a fair amount of work just from me. But I would not want to see {{ snd}} – that amounts to significant clutter in the wikitext.
As I said, I am not too fussy about linking per se. (Wikilinking every cite of a journal seems excessive to me, but not something I have any time for.) But that Grays River link should be fixed. If you want, perhaps do a S&R on "GSA Bulletin"; that should be spelled out. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Re your last but one edit: negative on using "named-refs". There are good reasons for not having "duplicate" ("near" or otherwise) full citations, but no need for making short-cites into named-refs, and reasons not to. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there a specific preference for "km3" over "cubic km" or vice versa? I see that both are used interchangably throughout the article. I'm not aware of any specific MOS guideline/policy on this, but I think regardless of which is preferred I think there should be consistency unless there is a good reason not to. My preference is for "3" instead of spelling out "cubic" but, I can easily be convinced. - Paul T +/ C 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Format exponents using <sup>, not special characters.
For areas or volumes only, square or cubic may be used (before the unit being modified).
sq or cu may be used with US customary or imperial units, but not with SI units.
cubic centimetre | cm3
cubic foot | cu ft
The SI Brochure [1] should be consulted for guidance on use of other SI and non-SI units.
volume | V | cubic metre | m3[2]
References
![]() | Siletzia has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 27, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
@ Psantora: re your recent edits:
Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line. It certainly isn't required, but I think it makes for cleaner formatting. Would you prefer to use one of the {{ spaced ndash}}/{{ snd}} templates instead? That may be a better long-term approach.
ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking fromis the main thrust and I think that is what I was trying to do. If there are specific links you deserve particular discussion (or reversions), by all means do go ahead (with either action).However, if you mean in the references, then I don't think I am. Though I understand there may be some general disagreement on that point.
I hadn't realized there was any concern with en-dashes at the beginning of a line, but then it's been awhile since I perused MOS:DASH. I tend to use spaced dashes relatively often, so you may have a fair amount of work just from me. But I would not want to see {{ snd}} – that amounts to significant clutter in the wikitext.
As I said, I am not too fussy about linking per se. (Wikilinking every cite of a journal seems excessive to me, but not something I have any time for.) But that Grays River link should be fixed. If you want, perhaps do a S&R on "GSA Bulletin"; that should be spelled out. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Re your last but one edit: negative on using "named-refs". There are good reasons for not having "duplicate" ("near" or otherwise) full citations, but no need for making short-cites into named-refs, and reasons not to. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there a specific preference for "km3" over "cubic km" or vice versa? I see that both are used interchangably throughout the article. I'm not aware of any specific MOS guideline/policy on this, but I think regardless of which is preferred I think there should be consistency unless there is a good reason not to. My preference is for "3" instead of spelling out "cubic" but, I can easily be convinced. - Paul T +/ C 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Format exponents using <sup>, not special characters.
For areas or volumes only, square or cubic may be used (before the unit being modified).
sq or cu may be used with US customary or imperial units, but not with SI units.
cubic centimetre | cm3
cubic foot | cu ft
The SI Brochure [1] should be consulted for guidance on use of other SI and non-SI units.
volume | V | cubic metre | m3[2]
References