Talk:Taiwanese indigenous peoples/Archive 2011

Harvrefcol->Citation / Wikicite->Citation

This article uses two very unusual citation templates. {{Harvrefcol}} is used in less than twenty three articles. {{Wikicite}} is used in about 100 articles, and usually only in circumstances where there is no other choice. These templates are poorly maintained and may eventually be deprecated.

I would like to convert the citations in this article to the more standard citation template, {{Citation}}, which is used in more than 56,000 articles, and is uses the same core as the {{cite *}} family of templates, which are used several million articles. This family of templates is very well maintained and well documented.

The output seen by the reader is identical in most cases; the only exception being the way the journal volume, issue and number appear.

It appears that {{Wikicite}} is being used only because {{harvrefcol}} does not support "corporate authors" (such Taipei times). Citation does support corporate authors. (Which is an example of the advantages of a main-stream template; the bugs are worked out.)

Any objections? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Your "corporate author" argument is specious. It seems, if you look into the matter, that no bylines were available for the newspaper articles whose cite format you find objectionable. Citing the name of the newspaper itself may be one format, but it is not APA. "Alphabetize works with no author by the first significant word in title." The format used in this article is obviously a variation of APA (it has some minor differences in punctuation). Locke'sGhost 02:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are right about "corporate authors". I'm starting discussions over at {{citation/core}} and WP:CITE about the recommended ways to cite "corporate authors" (what's the right term for these anyway?). The techniques used in Wikipedia for this are all over the map. It would be nice to agree on a recommendation, at least for {{citation}} (and similar templates, such {{harvrefcol}}).

(I would prefer to think of my argument as "wrong" rather than "specious", if that's okay with you. I just noticed that this article uses {{wikicite}} for "corporate author" citations and {{Harvrefcol}} for citations that have an author, and the rest was assumption, which I concede was wrong.)

You did not address the first (and more important) issue: {{Harvrefcol}} vs. {{Citation}}. Do you feel that {{Harvrefcol}} is a better choice than {{Citation}}? If so, why? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is where the "specious" adjective comes into play. Neither is better. There is no such thing as better. FA (and indeed, Wikipedia) requires only consistency within an article. People who want to pursue consistency across articles are doing something I find a bit offensive at worst, and.. uh... empty... at best. Locke'sGhost 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I argue that the major templates are better maintained. The rare templates aren't. My goals are pretty pedestrian really: just reliable software, ease of maintenance and use, i.e., the basic goals of software engineering. My arguments address these issues directly, I think, and as such, are not specious. I have no other goals here. It's not clear to me what's offensive about these goals. If there's no (major) difference in the output and it's easier and more reliable to use, what's the problem? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of context. There are many issues on which editors disagree --- date format, spelling, use of templates --- and so on. I don't have a horse in those races. Honestly, on all those issues, I don't care either way and I think it is silly to fight over these things. However, I respect the fact people have strong feelings about many of these issues, so I don't make edits that could possibly be contentious.

The changes I am recommending for this article do not address one of those issues. I believe that our discussion here is the first blood spilled over {{harvrefcol}} vs {{citation}}, at least the first blood I am aware of. So, if you feel strongly, I will be happy to back off this and go on to other problems.

While I don't care about all the major disputes, I am bothered that Wikipedia has a lot of broken wikilinks and bad citations and so on. This is an issue I care about. User:Citation bot is patrolling wikipedia fixing problems with the major citation templates, and more powerful bots will be written in the future. Articles like this one will not be checked by bots. This article is in great shape, of course, and the changeover is, as you point out, unnecessary. This article doesn't currently have any problems that need fixing, and so maybe my argument is specious in that sense. But still, if one unreliable editor comes in here and adds a bad citation, citation bot and the bots of the future will not be able to detect it, because they won't know about {{harvrefcol}}. So I am recommending that it "come in from the cold" and join the rest of Wikipedia.

I doubt I am going to convince you, because you seem to have some strong feelings about this. At the very least, I hope I have helped you to assume good faith in this case. I am still unclear on what's "offensive" about this recommendation. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very far from first blood, or second blood, or tenth blood even. Getting rid of all templates but one (or, in the perennial proponents' collective opinion, perhaps two could charitably be retained) is a perennial suggestion, and in fact, I believe it will probably happen eventually -- but it is a Bad Thing. People who make these suggestions are usually (but not always) also people who have made no real contributions to article writing. They are usually only template-makers and vandal-whackers. They have nothing to do but twiddle with the fringes, and they try very hard to assert that their twiddling constitutes a meaningful improvement or major contribution. I am not saying that you are one of those trivial twiddlers. I am only saying that people who make this suggestion usually are. And these people are almost always relative newcomers (or relative newcomers to this issue, at most, but usually simply newcomers to Wikipedia) who are blithely unaware that these issues have been argued out and consensus hammered out for five or more years now. And they don't care, in fact, about anyone or anything else but their license to twiddle. They want to standardize everything, because they think that makes them feel like real contributors. I am not saying that you fit into this category, but only that most people who raise this cry do. The reason why I think this will eventually succeed is that old-timers are fading one by one, and the pool of newcomers is refreshed nearly daily. Eventually Wikipedia will have one citation style (or, charitably, two). By extension we will also have only one citation template (or, charitably, two). But that is a Bad Thing. The reason it is a Bad Thing is because out there in the real world there are many well-established styles, and Wikipedia needs to accommodate the entire real world. Domain experts should be able to write in the style most commonly used in their field. The reason that the cry for standardization is offensive is because it discounts the legitimacy of all viewpoints but that of... standardization. Internal consistency is good, but coercing people to learn and to use one style is bad. That's all. Locke'sGhost 04:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Standardization is Bad Thing when it causes harm. I agree with that and there are many kinds of standardization that are harmful (I mentioned a few above). But that doesn't imply that this particular template merge is harmful. The only specific harm you've described is the bit about editors "the style most commonly used in their field". That's a solid objection, of course, but I don't believe you can point to a field that prefers {{harvrefcol}}'s output over {{citation}}'s, so I'm not sure that any part of your argument applies to this particular case. These aren't two different styles (I think). This is a redundant template. Or am I missing something? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Harvrefcol is LSA, the format of the Linguistic Society of America and its flagship publication, Language (journal). Locke'sGhost 12:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You win. That's a solid objection. (Sorry for the late reply.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, now this is the only page using {{Harvrefcol}}... Mark Hurd (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The reason it is the only page is because the noble,intelligent and valued contributor above deleted the format from other pages, admitted he was utterly and completely wrong to do so, but then refused to undo his wrongdoings. I forgot to admit "mature" to his list of attributes: noble, intelligent, valued and mature contributor. 'Nuff said. OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)