Talk:Battle of the Hatpins

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Battle of the Hatpins appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the Battle of the Hatpins, women protestors repelled police officers with rolling pins and skillets?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Hatpins.

Wikipedia

Canada: Ontario / Ottawa / Law / History / Education / The 10,000 Challenge Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Ottawa may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Cite and ref edits.

@Nikkimaria:

The following should be eliminated.

"Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help)."
"CS1 maint: uses authors parameter"

The following situations need to be corrected.

REFS SHOULD BE IN ORDER: ... disregarding an order forbidding them from entering the grounds.[5][1][6][7][8]
REFS SHOULD BE IN ORDER: ... school for several weeks and protest marches were held objecting to the policy.[11][5]

I read this somewhere on wikipedia, but I couldn't tell you where.

Why were the following changes made?

|title=Canada 1896–1921 |author=Robert Craig Brown |author2=Ramsay Cook ===> |title=Canada 1896–1921|authors=Robert Craig Brown, Ramsay Cook
- "authors=" generates the warning and CS1 maintenance messages.
- "en dash" is available on the insert bar and does not require use of "–". (I just discovered that there are no page ranges in this article and the only other date range uses –. And, yes, for consistency, they should both be the same. Personally I would change both occurrences of – to the single character to unclutter the wikitext.)
|access-date=4 December 2018 ===> (REMOVED) (8 times)
|access-date=4 December 2018 ===> |accessdate=4 December 2018 (2 times)
archive-url ===> archiveurl (10 times)
archive-date ===> archivedate (10 times)
- The cite templates' documentation refers to "accessdate", "archiveurl", and "archivedate" as aliases. To me, this implies that the hyphenated forms are preferred.

I moved my reasons to the talk page. Now what? User-duck (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User-duck, can you provide any policies/guidelines to support your assertions here? I'm not aware of any requirements for refs to be in a particular order, for parameters within refs to be in a particular order, or for spacing/coding to be done only in the way you propose. There is consensus against deprecating aliases, and accessdates are only required when publication date is unknown. About the only thing I can find supporting your proposal is that the maint message is discouraged, but "discouraged" is not synonymous with "should be eliminated". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually cannot find a specific guideline/policy when I search. I usually use documentation pages.

This is my source for The following should be eliminated: The cite documentation pages state, "List of authors as a free form list. Use of this parameter is discouraged, "lastn" to "firstn" are preferable. Warning: do not use if last or any of its aliases are used."

Also, that is why I stated, "The cite templates' documentation refers to "accessdate", "archiveurl", and "archivedate" as aliases. To me, this implies that the hyphenated forms are preferred." Turns out the source obscurred by "consensus against deprecating aliases" supports my statement. I have not verified the accuracy of the statements, only that they exist. (Notice the word "standardized".) ("deprecated" is probably not the correct "wikipedia" term.) (Obviously, they have not been completely removed from the CS1 templates.)

The referenced RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention includes the paragraph, "So far, through the work of scores of editors and bots over the seven years since we standardized on hyphenation of multi-word parameters, we have deprecated, removed from pages in affected namespaces, and then removed from the CS1 templates themselves (as WhatamIdoing suggests above), many dozens of different unhyphenated multi-word parameters in CS1/CS2 templates. All new multi-word parameters during that time have been introduced using only a hyphenated form. This RFC is essentially asking: should we finish the job, or leave it at over 90% done, in a sort of limbo state, with six parameters as exceptions to the overall pattern, just because those parameters are used in a lot of articles? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)"

I never proposed "deprecating aliases" as the reason for my change. However, I do not support preferring aliases. P.S. I did not find a consensus in the RFC.

From your respose, I interpret the answer(s) to my question, Why were the following changes made? to be:

"accessdates are only required when publication date is unknown". Uncluttering is a pretty good reason. They state the currency of undated info. They are also useful when adding an archive URL to a deadlink, but are obviuosly not needed when an archive URL is included. The referenced source actually states: (Does not infer that they should be removed.)

Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:

...
the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)

Prefer non-hyphenated parameters.

I know of no guideline/policy about the use of "&ndash". There is a "How-to" somewhere.

Use of multiple references for a statement is poorly documented. The only thing I have encountered recently is that they clutter an article and how to avoid them. Talk about an editting nightmare.

User-duck (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find a consensus in the RFC. The closer did find a consensus. The quote that you cite is from a perspective that was not it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]