Talk:Lewis Diuguid

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Kansas City Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Citation style

@Chaotic Enby: I'm following Wikipedia:Citing sources. I started with "Bibliography" before "Notes". I've now reversed that order and changed "Bibliography" to "References" to match Wikipedia:Citing sources. Does that respond adequately to your concern that, "This article has an unclear citation style"? DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was mostly confused about the use of Wikidata items as citations. Also, for short citations, I recommend using {{sfn}} to connect them to the bibliography, which makes it easier than having to search through the whole list each time. The specific names of the sections aren't very important, but it is usually better to have short citations before the full bibliography. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Wikidata citations routinely since 2018, and I love them, because such citations are much easier to maintain, especially if the same citation is used in multiple places: Then fixing, e.g., a broken link can be fixed in one place for all uses. They also make it easier distinguish between different people (or organizations, etc.) with the same name.

However, Template:Cite Q makes such citations opaque in the sense that no ordinary human can easily understand what a Q number refers to. I fix that problem by including a comment with the {{cite Q|...}} reference.

Thanks for suggesting Template:Sfn. I had seen it before but hadn't used it, because I didn't understand it. With your encouragement, I just replaced most of my citations with that style -- except for most of those with <ref name=..., because they were not as easy to fix.

I also love Wikidata infoboxes, but they are even more opaque and harder to understand. Their big advantage is making it easy to maintain infoboxes for Wikipedia articles in multiple language Wikipedias. That's also a huge disadvantage, because the MediaWiki code currently does a poor job of informing users when something in a Wikidata infobox has changed. (Wikidata also does makes it hard for a user to find where any Wikidata item is referenced in different WMF projects. It is very different from Wikimedia Commons, where each item includes a list of uses in other WMF project.)

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:} Why are you tagging this regarding "template:citation style"?

See my exchange with User:Chaotic Enby above: I'm following Wikipedia:Citing sources.

I vastly prefer that style, in part because it used by most of the academic outlets for which I write. I've had two Wikiversity articles published in refereed academic journals in the past two years. They followed this style.^[1]

I cannot find it now, but I believe I saw something suggesting that I could port them back to Wikipedia: I posted them first to Wikiversity as original research. Now that they've been published in a refereed academic journal, they should no longer violent the Wikipedia rule against publishing original research, correct? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not tag it with citation style. I added the orphan tag, and then grouped the tags together. Please check the page's history to see which editor did add that specific tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Spencer Graves; Douglas A. Samuelson (March 2022). "Externalities, public goods, and infectious diseases" (PDF). Real-world economics review (99): 25–56. ISSN 1755-9472. Wikidata Q111367750.; Spencer Graves (21 March 2023). "Do copyrights and paywalls on academic journals violate the US Constitution?1" (PDF). Real-world economics review (103). ISSN 1755-9472. Wikidata Q126116187.

@Chaotic Enby: Have I adequately addressed your concerns about template:citation style? I believe I have, and I will remove that flag. If you think otherwise, please let me know. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's okay, although if you published articles yourself, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and can't add them to the article yourself. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Spencer Graves; Douglas A. Samuelson (March 2022). "Externalities, public goods, and infectious diseases" (PDF). Real-world economics review (99): 25–56. ISSN 1755-9472. Wikidata Q111367750.; Spencer Graves (21 March 2023). "Do copyrights and paywalls on academic journals violate the US Constitution?1" (PDF). Real-world economics review (103). ISSN 1755-9472. Wikidata Q126116187.

[1]