Talk:Sully Historic Site

message: Offhand, I recall listing "all" of the usable external sources.
Someone who's inclined could certainly expand the abstraction of interesting information from those sources.
However, they're pretty complete (recalling that Wikipedia is not a repository of information,
I've made the article focus on tying together the sources).
Tedickey 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving article

message: In the AfD for Francis Lightfoot Lee II, referenced above, it was proposed that said article be merged into this one. Some question was raised as to the proper article for merger. Please use this space to determine if this article is the appropriate target for that merger. When a location is determined, the proper procedure for performing the merge can be found at Help:Merge. It is important that the merger be noted with wikilinks in the edit summaries of the articles to ensure GFDL compliance. As an example, in the edit summary of this article, you might say "Material merged from Francis Lightfoot Lee II". When the material in Francis Lightfoot Lee II is merged, it must be turned into a redirect to the destination article and placed into :Category:Redirects from merges by copying  beneath the redirect link. If you have any questions about this or about the procedure, please let me know at my talk page or ask them at Wikipedia's help desk, generally manned around the clock by volunteers. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the content would fit better under the Marriages and Children section of Richard Henry Lee, except for the single sentence discussing change of ownership, which would fit here. Tedickey (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Michael WhiteT·C 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for helping to determine the proper home for this material. The merger is complete. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal from AfD

message: This is a work in progress. Content will be fleshed out and formatted properly and citations added over the next several days. I am having trouble getting the picture of the pen to place properly. May place it further down the article at a later timne.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofkenny (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Improvements

message: A big part of good article status is the citations. Currently, the citations are a good bit of a mess. I would like fix that mess with shortened footnotes. Rather than having citations hidden in various places throughout the article, now the citations are all collected in references and only a tiny author, date, and page (if you need an exact page) are hidden in the article. Please chime in with your preference for the current or the proposed formatting. Abel (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: proposed I think having a tidy citation section is more critical for FA than GA, but my view is that the proposed formatting is a definite improvement.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

text: proposed I prefer the proposed formatting. --LilHelpa (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

text: proposed Agreed with both - I like the proposed formatting. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

text: proposed Yes, the new formatting is very neat, and will make it easier to add page numbers later. I recommend User:Gadget850/HarvErrors.js when working with shortened footnotes. When looking at the proposed formatting, that script tells me that "Gamble 1993" isn't linking properly to the reference "Gamble (1973)" - which year is correct? - and that the reference "Prats, J. J. (March 31, 2006)" isn't used. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for catching that! Looked at the old code and found that Langan b is supposed to be using the Prats citation. Once a consensus is reached, I'll go in and fix that mistake with . Thank you for mentioning my blunder, I would have never noticed that I messed up on the copying and pasting. 1973 is definitely the correct year for Gamble. Also have to wait for consensus, but can then just replace Gamble|1y=1993 with Gamble|1y=1973. Thank you for so meticulously looking at the proposed change! Abel (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

text: proposed agree (an improvement) TEDickey (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  From c class article to good article