Talk:Neptune Cable

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quote removed

It is common, in some places, to use a footnote to add a colorful anecdote, or additional explanatory material, not fitting into the flow of the main document. That practice is generally not encouraged in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I posed the question here. While the full community has obviously not weighed in, the consensus appears to me that quotes should be revered for two related classes of use:

In a case where there may be controversy about a particular fact, and whether the cited reference supports that fact, the use of the quote will make it easier for readers and editors to reach their own conclusion, by citing the specific quote used to support the fact. This is particularly important where a reference may be not online, or behind a pay wall.
When an opinion is paraphrased, the quote will help readers and editors determine whether the paraphrase is accurate.

This article did have a quote in a footnote, and it is my opinion that the quote does not support either use listed above, thus I have removed it, or truncated it. Should anyone disagree, or feel that there are other examples of allowable quotes, feel free to start a discussion. I suggest here, if you disagree with my conclusion that this quote doesn't fall into one of those two examples, or at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited if you feel there should be other allowed uses.SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really seeing the support you are referring to. I see a mix of support and non-support. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neptune Cable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526182930/http://www.neptunerts.com/default.asp?Ss=5&Pg=7 to http://www.neptunerts.com/default.asp?Ss=5&Pg=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]