Talk:Move Along Home

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

Low

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

This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

More information:
/
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Please provide any citations per verifiability and reliable sources.
	A production section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section discusses the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Star Trek C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that a picture be added to this article.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Book references

This article contained a footnote referring a book called the Nitpickers guide. This was not an inline reference so it was not entirely clear where in the article this book reference was being used. It is not the most common reference style but many of the Star Trek episode articles use this style of reference and I've seen it in a few other places too. It is a bit more complicated and I might not be getting it exactly right but it seems like a good way to reference books, especially when many different pages are being referenced.

Sidenote: It was not clear why The Nitpickers Guide was added in the first place[1](way back in 2007) but it doesn't seem to have been added to support anything specific. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to another book The Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann). The reference was to Google books which includes extensive previews. The previews include several pages of that book that are relevant to the production of this episode. I added the book reference but I did not immediately add production details for this episode. An editor unfamiliar with this style of reference deleted both book references. I restored the references and then made use of the book reference to start the Production section. The editor again deleted both of the book references,[2] apparently not having seen that the book reference was now needed by the production section. If editors feel it is necessary to discuss the citation style and use another style WP:STYLEVAR then it would be helpful if they lead by example and reformat the references in the way they think is more appropriate but deleting the references entirely does not improve the article.

Please restore the book references[3]. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STYLEVAR does not support your argument; in fact, it opposes it: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" (italics added). You do not have a substantial reason to change the style that is already well established in the article just because you like it. Read WP:MOS and WP:CITE. You need to use the style consistent with the way the article is already written, regardless of what's in other articles. Styles can differ across articles, but not within articles. In this case, if you want a reference in List of References, cite it in the article and it will appear in the list of references. If you simply want a link to the websites (and if there is a good reason to do so), it can go in the External Links section. It's not a matter of me being "unfamiliar" with anything; it's following Wikipedia's style. So, no, I will not restore your inappropriate edits. You clearly have not read the links I have provided. It is your responsibility to read and abide by them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V. The book reference is needed to support the Production section. If you want to done in a particular way it is not clear how deleting the book references helps achieve that end. I point to WP:STYLEVAR not to support an argument but because I do not want to argue about styles all. This article already included one book reference and I thought I was following the existing style. (See also Past Prologue which includes a list of books after the references.) -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following the existing style for this article. Another article may not use the same style, and in fact Past Prologue uses a different style. What is it that you don't understand about: You can't mix styles within the same article? I don't think I can state this any more clearly: If you cite the source in the article properly, the citation will show up in the Reference List. Is the problem here that you don't know how to cite, or is it that you don't want to cite? If you don't know how to cite, AGAIN, read WP:CITE. If you need more detailed help, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come along to help. But don't ask for help if you're expecting someone to tell you that you can mix styles within the same article. It's pointless and a waste of time to complain about how you can't do it the way you want to, or someone reverted your edits, or other articles do it the way you want it, or you haven't taken a few minutes to actually read WP:CITE. If you ask for help, ask how to cite a source so that it is placed in the Reference List.

If the problem is simply that you don't want to cite and don't care about Wikipedia's rules of writing style, then this is not the place for you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was and still is that Sundayclose has deleted references. I was hoping it was a misunderstanding or incomplete edit and that Sundayclose or someone else would eventually fix the mistake but people still seem blind to the problem. I'll explain it again one more time, the article now has two short references, "Edrmann and Block (2000) page 36" and "Edrmann and Block (2000) page 37" but without any further information, and the full reference to the book "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion by Terry J. Erdmann and Paula M. Block (2000)" was deleted in error. The book reference either needs to be restored where it was or added in some other format but it should never have been deleted. Sundayclose went on about citation style (and accusing me of I'm not sure what) but utterly missed the problem that he deleted 2 book references, 1 of which was clearly being used in the article, I don't know how to make it any clearer that deleting references is entirely unacceptable, but this is still broken and still needs to be fixed. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The was a reasonable argument made for removing the one unused loose unattached reference, to the "Nitpickers Guide" book, but there was no excuse for deleting the other book reference to Edrmann and Block. It would be better if someone with source access to that book could instead check the "Nipickers Guide" and see if it can be used to improve the article, but from the start my objection was to the deletion of the second book reference, the reference that was not loose, and that was being used. Please do change the reference style if you think it matters, but please do not delete the content again. -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have consensus for an exception to WP:MOS. Despite your false assumption, you don't have special privileges on Wikipedia. Change it again and the article will be protected so you can't edit it. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the original edit summary User:Sundayclose wrote "These are not references that are cited in the article" but that was incorrect, one of the two book references, the reference to the "Edrmann and Block" is in use, and is needed by the article.

Go ahead and change that book reference to some other style but stop deleting it. WP:PRESERVE the content, stop deleting the ISBN that is essential to the reference. If you want a style change then make it yourself. -- 109.79.160.124 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly welcome to change the style of the entire reference list, as per WP:MOS. But you are not entitled to unilaterally decide that you have a special privilege to do it any way you wish by mixing styles in violation of WP:MOS. Sundayclose (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. (MOS:STYLE is a guideline not a core principle.) The reference is required to WP:VERIFY the Production section. "You are perfectly welcome to change the style", yes you are, any editor is perfectly welcome do change the style they just need do it without deleting the information in the book reference that is required to verify the Production section. Deleting a book reference is not constructive. Style does not come before content. From the start my object has been about the deletion of required information. Is this whole discussion really because Sundayclose believes the WP:BURDEN is me to guess what referencing style he believes is most appropriate? Sundayclose has not specified exactly what he believes the correct styling should be, he may think the best way is obvious but it is not. Deleting a reference to force someone else to change the reference style still seems edit warring over style choice: MOS:STYLE Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable. -- 109.79.161.133 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CON is also a core policy. You don't have a consensus. WP:EW is also a core policy. You are edit warring. 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)