2:59 AM

12 hours later…
2:32 PM
This question is fairly recent and we usually like to hold out for a while before nuking stuff, but does anybody support nuking this?
^ @GaurangTandon, generally we only need a couple of people to agree. In other words, once one person proposes deletion and another person seconds it, it will be nuked

@orthocresol aye aye

@GaurangTandon I missed this message, obviously. Anyway, it is standard to use superscripted numbers for references, in papers/theses/etc

@orthocresol nuke it!

So I just went with a style that is sorta well recognised (and one that I like)

Oh, alright, but I've found a lot of inconsistency in this regard. Some people write square brackets, some superscript numbers, others use markdown lists, others use other different formatting...
That said, I personally preferred the markdown list, because it is nice to read and gives a neat indent ^_^

2:38 PM
You are right, we are pretty inconsistent and I think even within my posts I have used quite a lot of different things.
still, kinda lazy to go through them and sort them out

Yeah, of course, all of the variations are still readable, so there's no need to search and correct them
But we may wish to adopt a standard layout for referencing papers in the footnotes of our answers
For future

We have this:
13

In our post about the recommended style of citing on chemistry.se we state: The highest principle should always be: Give credit. I like it how many answers substantiate their explanations with external references. Giving the citation correctly is especially important when (block) quoting f...

I think there is still a very long way to go before we can do something like that. For one, it is not super common for references to be included, and when they are included they are often not formatted in the "recommended way".

Also, trying to have too many trivial rules/recommendations may not work all too well.
that reminds me, I was supposed to post my citation faq thingum...

3:02 PM
@Loong that post was gold. One thing I would add for preventing link rot is using the official wayback machine chrome extension to archive pages and link them without the slightest inconvenience.
@Loong yes
@orthocresol yeah true

1 hour later…
4:30 PM
@[super-users] how do you deal with a user who repeatedly uses the wrong mathjax format even after being told more than five times not to do so, being linked to proper FAQs, told to ask for help if necessary, etc.? for ex: using \ce like this $\ce{$\Delta$G =$\Delta\$G^0 + RTlnQ_c

to be honest, i'm not tired of correcting their posts, but the user hasn't improved at all even after thirty days. that's a bit disappointing for me, hence I seek resolution

1 hour later…
5:30 PM
[done] I am better answered by Wikipedia: chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/61357/194

5:42 PM
I upvoted the Q and A and I don't know why: chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/59603/194
[done] obviously this isn't an ideal question... chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/90437/194
[done] this thing keeps reappearing and I don't know why: chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/91235/194

6:17 PM
@pentavalentcarbon This one is not that bad, I guess... some poor misguided soul may find some use in it...

I think it was because it has an assumed answer that isn't explicitly stated, just understood to be known. I won't fight it.

7:12 PM
@GaurangTandon I think I know who you're talking about. I wouldn't get too worked up over it, it's better that good content needs formatting help than the usual stream of not-so-good content. They might just have other priorities.
Though, in the editing, unless they fight back, I'd change most of the bold text to italics...less harsh on the eyes.