Talk:UniDIMM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UniDIMM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Number of columns for references

Template:Reflist#Practices says that one column of references is best for a few (10 or fewer) references. This is also discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Number of columns in references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As stated in Template:Reflist § Practices, "the number of columns to use is up to the editor", meaning there are actually no strict guidelines. From my point of view, breaking references into columns brings additional readability, simply because it's easier to follow the lines in the smaller font used for displaying references. Please, let's have a look at newspapers – pretty much all of them put their content into multiple columns, making it easier for reders to follow the lines and also to find the beginning of the line after the one they've read. Additionally, a list of references may be read independently of where they're used in the article (what I do quite often), and it just increases the importance of making it easier to follow the lines. The whole thing could be seen as an accessibility improvement, which is surely debatable. Hope it makes sense; of course, I'm more than open to discussing it further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]