Difference between revisions of "Talk:HTML5 vs. SWF"

From Pin Eight
Jump to: navigation, search
(+wikipedia:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash)
 
(wikipedia:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash: How I have interpreted Wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS at e.g. Trousers)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== [[wikipedia:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash]] ==
 
== [[wikipedia:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash]] ==
 
...exists. Where could we work in a link? Does it belong in the "References" section, or should I create "See also"? [[User:Eighty5cacao|Eighty5cacao]] 20:22, 22 January 2012 (MST)
 
...exists. Where could we work in a link? Does it belong in the "References" section, or should I create "See also"? [[User:Eighty5cacao|Eighty5cacao]] 20:22, 22 January 2012 (MST)
 +
:Per [[Wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS]]: "See also" is for internal links not integrated into prose. "References" is for works actually cited in the article, whether through Cite.php or otherwise. This leaves "External links" for any WP/Trope links not integrated into prose, as was done in [[Trousers]]. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] 06:57, 23 January 2012 (MST)

Revision as of 13:57, 23 January 2012

wikipedia:Comparison of HTML5 and Flash

...exists. Where could we work in a link? Does it belong in the "References" section, or should I create "See also"? Eighty5cacao 20:22, 22 January 2012 (MST)

Per Wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS: "See also" is for internal links not integrated into prose. "References" is for works actually cited in the article, whether through Cite.php or otherwise. This leaves "External links" for any WP/Trope links not integrated into prose, as was done in Trousers. --Tepples 06:57, 23 January 2012 (MST)