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 England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
It isn't inconsistent. At all. There are short form citations in the form of "Author Title of work page number" and then there are full references in a reference section. There is not a single inconsitency there. Citations do not have to use Template:sfn to be consitent. Please kindly restore the previous version. Ealdgyth - Talk20:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does one footnote include the name of what I presume to be a chapter when the other does not? I have never known that to be included in a citation when there is (as best as I can tell) a single author for the entirety of the work, and it seems odd that one footnote would include it when the other does not.
In addition, I fail to see why we wouldn't want to include anchor links. And I've never seen a style that spells out the word "second" rather than "2nd" with respect to the edition of a work.
Graham, the citation style shouldn't be changed over objections, per WP:CITEVAR. If there's something inconsistent about the previous version, it can be fixed without templates. There seems no point in adding a template to help us jump a few lines. SarahSV(talk)20:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEVAR doesn't apply when there is not a "consistent citation style" and the two footnotes don't seem consistent, as I noted. And it may just be jumping a few lines now, but I would like to hope the article is expanded eventually. Graham (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's an encyclopedia - the citation is to the specific entry. Standard for that type of work. You cite to the "article" just as you would in a journal. Entries in that encyclopedia are written by differing authors, this one just happens to be written by the editor also. The Saul entry SHOULD be a "cite encyclopedia" template, not a cite book. No idea how that got borked. I shall fix that if we can return to the previous style. I don't mind the removal of the extra external links (frankly, all of them should go). We do not have to include author links - they were not needed for something this short. It just adds extra complexity. As to expansion, there really isn't a lot TO expand to. As far as I know, there aren't any book length or monograph length discussions of this particular subject devoted to just it rather than treating it as a part of government processes in general. Ealdgyth - Talk21:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoria (Ealdgyth): While it seems silly to me to insist on a non-standard format, unlike anything I've seen in or outside of Wikipedia, I'm not going to start a war over citation formatting of all things. Go ahead and return to the previous style (except with Saul noted as the editor in the bibliography with {{cite encyclopedia}}) if you must, though I still fail to see the rationale. cc: Sarah (SlimVirgin) Cheers, Graham (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
