Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:MOS is unambigious clear on this. Citations should be presented . 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)[reply]
My point is concerning the templates being used, not with the naming convention. Disruptiveness has to do with editing style, not discussion style. As it says in the lede to WP:CITE, "If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it". The key word there being before. RJH (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did an outstanding job on the references for the brown algae article, thereby increasing the value of the article to readers and editors of Wikipedia, and the article was pretty good style wise before you started. If your services are not wanted here, there are many tier 1algae and protist articles withas many references but much poorer style, and it would be a great service to everyone to give these a consistent citation format. Unlike astronomy articles, these unusual organism article may be the only source on the web. Eau (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are addressing Headbomb here; otherwise your indentation makes no sense. As for citing astronomy articles, I find this type of pedantic behavior completely discouraging so I'll be moving on from the upkeep of star articles (after fixing the OR on literally hundreds of such.) I don't think you'll have any competition for Headbomb's services. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
