Talk:Glossary of cue sports terms/Archive 3

message: Can someone look at this issue with new eyes?  I've tried everything I can think of.  If you page down the article, there are two instances of LARGE red error messages about one of the reference citations not working in its shorthand  form.  I can't for the life of me figure out what the issue is.  If you are not seeing these errors, please tell me; it means my cache or session or something is hosed and the article is actually just fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. See the edit summary for the problem.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken ref citation

message: It strikes me that it would be helpful to the reader if wikilinks to other terms in this glossary were somehow visually distinct from wikilinks to other articles, perhaps by use of a font change, such as to monospaced.  This could be done with a  that works much like  but is only for use in this article.  It would be a very simple matter (with my text editor, anyway) to substitute all instances of:
#Something
and
something
with

and

respectively.
If there's any interest in this at all, it should probably actually be taken up at the Village Pump before being implemented, either because it may go against the Manual of Style too much, or it might be something that should be implemented more broadly, for use in all glossaries, e.g. a  template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: What's our rede collectively (and with WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:EL, etc., in mind) on the value of citing billiardsforum.info and other bloggish online forums?  One thing I've noticed about Featured Article/List status is that such sources generally have to go, in favor of "hard" ones.  Then again, if the particular one being cited is at least semi-authoritative it at least makes the article more reliable in the short term.  Hmph.  I really don't know where I stand on this one.  I think the anti-web slant of some of these guidelines is off-base, ironic, and hypocritical given what WP is, but sometimes they raise good points too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and think we should only use it where we can't find a better source (and have looked). With that in mind, I am leaving it in for on the lemonade but removing it for on the snap, which already has three book citations.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Copying this to :WP:CUETALK and replying further there.  I think it's important to start kind of archiving this stuff over there, because general consensus on what to do about this or that with regard to all these articles is spread around, well, on all these articles' talk pages!  Kind of a mess.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Webby sources

message: Unbearably pointless as a separate article, but after cleanup a good glossary item expansion, with a reference. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal: [[:Kick (snooker)]]