Talk:41 Arietis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
References not supportive[edit]
The references listed do not seem to support the contents attributed to. While containing interesting and worthwhile information, they seem not to function as indicated. The information presented in the article does seem accurate, from other, more easily understood and relevant sources. In most cases what is obtained, going on line, is an abstract telling of some research conducted with further information either for a fee or membership in some organization. There are good websites however that do corroborate the information presented, such as Jim Kaler's astronomy website at [1]. Hipparcos stars at Astrostudio [2] and others that can be obtained by direct internet query. Pending good reason not to in the next few days, I plan on replacing the references given with more directly supportive and placing those given in simpler form in "See also" J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC
- This is an article on a scientific topic and therefore scientific journal articles are preferred. Additional supporting references, particularly where they improve accessibility, are of course welcome. But there is no reason to remove the existing references, which readers might find useful for more in-depth research (this is one of the most useful aspects of Wikipedia). The See also section is not for external links or references but for internal links to other Wikipedia articles. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Superfluous information[edit]
In references that is. Bibcodes, dois, and other such indicators seem unnecesary extras that simply take up space, especially when standard url addresses reach the intended page. Moreover even when any of these methods is used, the url address still shows at the top of the page.
When clicking on some inline reference simply sent the reader to "References" at the bottom, extras probably didn't matter all that much. But with on page pop-ups it seems that references should be as succinct as reasonably possible J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. They cause no harm, and alternative lookups are useful in cases where web sites are unavailable at the time. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)