www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/

https://www.clivebates.com/smears-or-science-the-bmj-attack-on-public-health-england-and-its-e-cigarettes-evidence-review/ Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Say, QG,

aren't citations supposed to be outside any ortographic signs? Periods, I'm sure of; other signs no reason I can see why not.

Thanks, 87.8.88.240 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ref citation is verifying only the text inside the orthographic signs. That's the way it is done in journals. I do not know if there is a policy for this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always seen references _after_ periods, colons, semicolons, references go after it, at least on english wp; I don't remember anybody reverting me before. But then I've found nothing on the help pages about the topic. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the text inside the orthographic signs I have seen the ref placed both ways. I could not find any guideline on this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it appears that there is no intrinsic "right" way to place citations. Thanks for your time and patience. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: I've found this, which is a guideline, and, according to some, not mandatory. For the sake of consistency, I'd follow it, but feel free to ignore it if you so wish. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:REFSPACE: "Exceptions: ref tags are placed before dashes, not after; and where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Also see "Example: Kim Jong-un (Korean: 김정은;[10] Hanja: 金正恩[11]) is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il with his late consort Ko Young-hee." The ref belongs just before the closing parenthesis. I am following the guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to go far enough. Thanks! 87.8.88.240 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buona. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any hints as to when that SPI (informal SPI?) is coming? If you don't wanna say on-wiki per BEANS that's cool. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Failed verification span. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Failed verification span redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't have to add "close=1" to reflist anymore. Personally I like having the refs tucked away at the end of each section, but having them after the relevant comment works too. --tronvillain (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the "close=1" ref format is make it easier to click on them. See WP:CAPTION for wording for captions. The word "some" may be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK for the proposer of an RFC to withdraw it at any time - see the first bullet at WP:RFCEND. Please don't exacerbate the situation. Thx Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They withdrawn the RfC and started a new RfC with the same proposal except for a quote. It was not really withdrawn. It was closed to archive the oppose votes and to start it up again. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit heavy handed way to work through versions but the 2nd is an improvement. there is nothing wrong here, process-wise. Thanks for keeping your eye on that aspect. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. It is like I am talking to this editor. They act the same. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]