Talk:1 Arietis: Difference between revisions
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:: This again? Well, regardless of the validity of the naming issue, the same changes could have been made without revising the citation format. [[WP:CITEVAR]] is pretty clear on the matter. [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
:: This again? Well, regardless of the validity of the naming issue, the same changes could have been made without revising the citation format. [[WP:CITEVAR]] is pretty clear on the matter. [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::[[WP:MOS]] is unambigious clear on this. Citations should be presented consistently. Smith, John (November 2005) does not jive with Smith, J (2003). "Regardless of the validity of the naming issue"? Who's beeing disruptive now? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::[[WP:MOS]] is unambigious clear on this. Citations should be presented consistently. Smith, John (November 2005) does not jive with Smith, J (2003). "Regardless of the validity of the naming issue"? Who's beeing disruptive now? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::: My point is concerning the templates being used, not with the naming convention. [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::: My point is concerning the templates being used, not with the naming convention. Disruptiveness has to do with editing style, not discussion style. [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:27, 27 August 2012
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Astronomy: Astronomical objects Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
Consistency of citation templates
Editor User:Headbomb modified the article citation templates, changing them from {{citation}} to {{cite}} in violation of WP:CITEVAR. This guideline states that "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change". The editor did not do so, so I reverted the change. He then reverted my revert. The WP:CITEVAR says in bold font, "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". This editor did not do so, nor was an attempt made to communicate what was found to be inconsistent about the citations that all used the same template. Hence, to me, his actions appear to clearly violate WP:DISRUPT. I am attempting to begin a discussion of the topic here, and supplying a notification on his talk page, prior to reporting this behavior. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It basically comes to do this. There was no "established" citation style. Some were in Smith, J. format, and others in Smith, John format, and other citations simply had the wrong information. So I made them consistant, adding journal links, made them much more readable in the editing window, etc... If fixing citations is a sign of disruption, you better block any and all WP:GNOMEs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This again? Well, regardless of the validity of the naming issue, the same changes could have been made without revising the citation format. WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear on the matter. RJH (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MOS is unambigious clear on this. Citations should be presented consistently. Smith, John (November 2005) does not jive with Smith, J (2003). "Regardless of the validity of the naming issue"? Who's beeing disruptive now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- My point is concerning the templates being used, not with the naming convention. Disruptiveness has to do with editing style, not discussion style. RJH (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MOS is unambigious clear on this. Citations should be presented consistently. Smith, John (November 2005) does not jive with Smith, J (2003). "Regardless of the validity of the naming issue"? Who's beeing disruptive now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This again? Well, regardless of the validity of the naming issue, the same changes could have been made without revising the citation format. WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear on the matter. RJH (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)