Talk:Red House (London)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Architecture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Museums (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Reference format[edit]

There was no reference section in this article until I added one with this edit on 27 June 2013. When I did so I chose the referencing system I personally prefer, list-defined references, and added a {{Use list-defined references}} maintenance tag to the page. Midnightblueowl, without discussion of any kind, changed that to a different system on 22 June 2014, despite our very clear guideline at WP:CITEVAR:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

I converted the references back to the established system with this edit, citing that guideline in my edit summary. Midnightblueowl has now again reverted to a different system. Perhaps that editor would care to explain why he/she thinks that WP:CITEVAR does not apply here, and why he/she is edit-warring? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there Justlettersandnumbers. First and foremost I must apologise for undertaking actions that have (in effect) constituted edit warring. That was not my intention, but rather a byproduct of the massive expansion of this article that I have begun to undertake. Before I came along, this particular article was in a very sorry state, comprising mainly of information that was simply un-referenced, and the reference section itself had barely anything in it. I have gone to great efforts (and will continue to do so), to bring the whole page up to a far better state and to ensure that it gains GA status. I have been undertaking a similar project of massive improvement over at the William Morris page, as you can see. I certainly will apologise for edit-warring, which is wrong, but in the Wikipedia spirit of co-operation, I'd like to really ask that you cut me a little bit of slack as I undertake the massive improvement to this page that it so desparately needs. I'm using a referencing system that is a lot cleaner and clearer and which will certainly serve the purposes that I have in mind a lot better; it is also the primary referencing system that is employed over at the Morris page, which strongly links thematically to this one. On a personal level, I find it a bit pedantic having to deal with arguments over the referencing system when I could be spending this time in actually improving the quality of the article itself! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, apology accepted. I appreciate that you are working on the article, agree that it was indeed much in need of that, and don't want to stand in the way of it. However, I'd be grateful if you'd restore the referencing system that was established in it. I see no reason for it to be changed (please note specifically "... to make it match other articles ...") and I happen to disagree (quite strongly, actually) that it is either cleaner or clearer. That is just my personal preference and of course carries no more weight than yours. And yes, I agree about time wasted talking about this; really, when I had once restored the previous format, you could have taken that as definitive. Regards, and thank you for your work here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The templates, i.e. {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}}, and {{efn}} are most preferred in articles that reach GA and FA status. Prhartcom (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)