ISFN
m (minor rewordings) |
(added [0] for citation needed :)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
'''[1]''' No, not really. |
'''[1]''' No, not really. |
||
'''[2]''' Yes, really. |
'''[2]''' Yes, really. |
||
| − | '''[7]''' The g is not silent, it should be pronounced. |
||
| − | I am of course very well aware that dictionaries and most native |
||
| − | English speaking people disagree, and would rather pronounce, |
||
| − | for instance, gnome[7] with a silent g, but they are wrong to do so, |
||
| − | since the gn-words[7] are much more boring that way. |
||
Proposed footnotes (use is encouraged, but are not yet ratified) |
Proposed footnotes (use is encouraged, but are not yet ratified) |
||
| + | '''[0]''' Citation Needed |
||
| + | |||
'''[3]''' This is a troll. |
'''[3]''' This is a troll. |
||
'''[4]''' Well, almost. |
'''[4]''' Well, almost. |
||
'''[5]''' Well, mostly. |
'''[5]''' Well, mostly. |
||
'''[6]''' Ooo. Spooky. |
'''[6]''' Ooo. Spooky. |
||
| + | '''[7]''' The g is not silent, it should be pronounced. |
||
| + | I am of course very well aware that dictionaries and most native |
||
| + | English speaking people disagree, and would rather pronounce, |
||
| + | for instance, gnome[7] with a silent g, but they are wrong to do so, |
||
| + | since the gn-words[7] are much more boring that way. |
||
'''[8]''' [[ObRef]] |
'''[8]''' [[ObRef]] |
||
| + | |||
| + | '''[9]''' Well, kinda. |
||
'''[42]''' There is no hidden meaning |
'''[42]''' There is no hidden meaning |
||
Latest revision as of 15:08, 27 August 2014
[edit] Internet Standard Footnote Notation
Internet Standard Footnotes are footnotes that may be given without need to be referenced, thus saving bandwidth and effort, and therefore save time and money. Now that is it proven to be a very good idea[1], let us continue.
All footnotes should be short, simple, and relate a clear and obvious point which are not tied into a single in-joke or method of communication. ie, They should be as usable on usenet as on IRC, and not alude to another joke (though they may be acceptible if the footnote makes sense even without knowing the joke). Lastly, there should not be too many footnotes.
The standard ratified (in common usage) footnotes are listed as follows.
[1] No, not really. [2] Yes, really.
Proposed footnotes (use is encouraged, but are not yet ratified)
[0] Citation Needed
[3] This is a troll. [4] Well, almost. [5] Well, mostly. [6] Ooo. Spooky. [7] The g is not silent, it should be pronounced. I am of course very well aware that dictionaries and most native English speaking people disagree, and would rather pronounce, for instance, gnome[7] with a silent g, but they are wrong to do so, since the gn-words[7] are much more boring that way. [8] ObRef
[9] Well, kinda.
[42] There is no hidden meaning
As ISFNs become popular, it is recommended that this site be referenced so as to spread the good word. Just put a for all footnote info, check this URL at the end of the message where people would be looking for footnote information anyway. :)
It would be neat if this meme should grow and one day become a "15 minutes of fame" meme. (or maybe an AprilFool RFC) :)
Note regarding ratification of proposed footnotes: Ratification is an informal process of noticing when a footnote is used in an online document (for eg, a FAQ), or is found to exist in the wild in usenet posts. The use of proposed footnotes is encouraged.
ISFN was begun by the afda froup. ISFN is named in accordance to NINS
