This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Actually, changing from short citations in the body with a longer citation in a separate section IS changing the reference style. It's been objected to. It shouldn't be changed without discussion - and definitely should not be re-reverted when someone objects. It's easier for folks to grasp the citations when they are short form in the text - they break up the flow of the actual article less that way. Ealdgyth - Talk14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How do the refs in this version [1] "break up the flow of the article less" than those in this version [2]? In both versions the article text, including superscript callouts to refs, is exactly the same. The only difference is that your version has some kind of medium-sized (certainly not, as you call them, "short form") refs linked from the text, which the reader then has to match up with the duplicative full-size cites further down, whereas mine just has the one full-size ref in the first place, and is done with it. Anyway, this is a 5-sentence article with 2 sources, so talk about "established citation style" seems premature, to say the least. EEng (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot easier to edit around smaller non-templated text. There IS an established citation style, however, and it's been set for a while. As it's most likely to be myself that expands this article ... it would be quite nice to defer to the person likely to do the work - I find it much easier to edit with this style than the one you're trying to use. Ealdgyth - Talk16:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to banish cite verbiage from the source text of the article proper, try using list-defined references WP:LDRHOW, but it's inappropriate to subordinate clear presentation for the reader to your personal preferences about the mechanics of editing. EEng (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the citation style employed in this article is quite clear to the reader and in fact is in use in many articles ... not just ones I've worked on. Including FA and GA quality articles - where many editors have weighed in on all aspects of the article. I do not find list-defined refs easy to use either. Nothing you're arguing is actually enough to make WP:CITEVAR not apply ... the change you made has been objected to, and there are no policy-based reasons for you to insist on the change. Your opinions on "clear presentation" aren't anything more than opinions and CITEVAR specifically states that citation styles shouldn't be changed on that sort of opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions on what's easy to edit are "just opinions" too, but at least my opinions address the mission of the project -- presenting information rather than what one editor likes or doesn't like about the experience of editing: you find it difficult to "edit around" full citations -- you "do not find list-defined refs easy to use either". But hey -- knock yourself out. EEng (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to "the mission of the project" seems off-base - either citation style "presents information", just in a different form. However, your opinions do appear to be out of line with the project's editing guidelines (particularly CITEVAR, but also those around consensus, etc). For that reason, I would suggest you not impose them absent consensus here, which you currently do not have. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<snore> How ridiculous you two are acting [comments modified to focus on ridiculous actions rather than ridiculous people], making all this fuss [3]. With the person "likely to do the work" now so solicitously convenienced, I look forward to another five sentences being added to the article over the next seven years. [4]EEng (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my comments to focus on the ridiculousness of your actions rather than on any personal ridiculousness. The encyclopedia is certainly better served by defending personal preferences and coddling fragile egos than by considering what best served the reader. Good day. EEng (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack to point out that editors are ridiculously fussing about their right to maintain an arbitrary preference for the appearance of source text (instead of what will best help the reader) when they are, in fact, ridiculously fussing about their right to maintain an arbitrary preference for the appearance of source text (instead of what will best help the reader). Unfortunately there's no WP:SANCTIMONY for me to point you to. Anyone else want to show up mysteriously to emphasize form over substance? EEng (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
