Talk:Jo-Han

message: This article states: "A decrease in demand for promotionals occurred through the 1970s. Earlier hobbies of America's youth such as model building and bicycle riding were gradually replaced by video games, home movies, iPods and the Internet." We'll agree that video games became popular in the 70s, but the video rental boom really was a product of the 80s, while the Internet didn't really takeoff until the late 90s and iPods didn't even become available until 2001. Of course, models are still being produced today - they're really pricey due to their increasing complexity with etched detail parts, resin detail add-ons, etc. and aimed at older adults (probably pushing their 50s and 60s) who have the disposable income to afford them (and the interest in building them).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:380:63E0:0:0:0:3EF2 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: Cstevencampbell: Most articles in Wikipedia use footnote citations. There are advantages and disadvantages of using the parenthetical referencing style. These are outlined in the Wikipedia article about this referencing style. The style guide mentions with respect to Wikipedia, that parenthetical referencing has the advantage of being very simple. However, I disagree with your opinion of holding a strong aversion to using in-line numbered citations. I am also an academic in my day job and like to improve Wikipedia for fun. After using the simple parenthetical referencing system in my first edits, I have converted to the footnote system. This is because of its usefulness for readers, as well as for its greater editing flexibility, ease of updating external links, and other various functions. Most importantly, the little numbers help a reader explore the material. Rather than being “passed over” as you claim, moving the mouse pointer over any number provides the reader a full reference associated with that number. This feature is exceedingly helpful as it instantly identifies the full citation; even then it is used multiple times. In other words, the reader can quickly evaluate a reference as it shows up in a pop up box all the reference information while reading the text. For example, it will show: Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78). - rather than the reader just seeing a mysterious (Brown 2006) that offers no clue as what is the source being used. Therefore, instead of wondering, “what are those little numbers” the reader has direct access to the reference and this encourages further inquiry. Under a simple parenthetical system, the actual text is harder to read with the constant interruptions of the names and dates in parentheses, and I would suggest that most readers will not take the extra time to scroll down to the reference section and hunt for the citation. Yes, it is true that a “reader has no need to really look at the references” because with the footnote system the references are automatically provided for them right by the associated text. Another problem with the simple parenthetical referencing style is that it gets problematic as the encyclopedia articles get longer and more references are added. Long alphabetical lists are not only difficult to maintain, but they also tend to discourage readers looking for a particular link to a specific citation. For example, after reading a passage and scrolling down to the bottom, the reader is now faced with trying to remember if what they were looking for the Doty 2003 or the Doty 2008 citation. Another problem is the incomplete information for web-based citations that often lack author information. Moreover, Wikipedia’s editing tools assist contributors to include proper footnoting and to quickly find errors or duplicates. The automatic system within Wikipedia keeps the footnotes in order and various editing tools help to automate updates to help keep the references and links current. Just some of my thoughts! CZmarlin (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jo-Han update

message: In the early 1970's, Jo-Han introduced a series of 1/72 aircraft that are still considered good even by today's standards. There is no mention of this; while Jo-Han is known mostly for their automobile models, their airplane models are worth noting.  RRLittle (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on it.  Thanks ! --Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/72 Aircraft

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jo-Han. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120619012152/http://www.planethoustonamx.com/Photo_Gallery_AMC/amc%20models/amc_models.htm to http://www.planethoustonamx.com/Photo_Gallery_AMC/amc%20models/amc_models.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210034051/http://www.hotrod.com/newsstand/hrdp_0308_land_speed_el_mirage_other_news/roadster_models.html to http://www.hotrod.com/newsstand/hrdp_0308_land_speed_el_mirage_other_news/roadster_models.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715092550/http://www.planethoustonamx.com/Photo_Gallery_AMC/amc%20models/68_amb_conv_promo.JPG to http://www.planethoustonamx.com/Photo_Gallery_AMC/amc%20models/68_amb_conv_promo.JPG
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified