Talk:Ingelfinger rule
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ingelfinger rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20121228213429/http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5941/2/harnad00.lancet.html to http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/5941/2/harnad00.lancet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Order of "Further reading"
[edit]Is the "Further reading" section in some sort of order? If not, what would be the most suitable sort order? Nurg (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Edit revert
[edit]How does having a sentence about how articles used to be published anonymously provide background necessary to understand this concept?—Gen. Quon[Talk] 02:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- It explains why the original editorial doesn't list Ingelfinger as its author. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. I went ahead and moved that note to the end of the citation itself so that it doesn't just come out of nowhere.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 01:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)