Talk:Marriott International/Archives/2020

Marriott International

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoiding clutter: As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.

So in {{reflist}} |refs= have one and only one citation introduced, it is changing cite format without consensus , but my fix was reverted, so please form a consensus here. Please note that no consensus means keeping the previous format: i.e. did not use |refs= in the template. Matthew hk (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I believe this comment is in response to my addition of an entirely new list defined {{cite}} reference. Is adding a new reference a conversion of references? I suggest converting multiple inline references to list-defined references would be an instance of a "large-scale conversion between formats"... or converting multipe list-defined references to inline references. Geo Swan (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC: citation style

RFc on citation style on this article.

A. Use only <ref></ref> and remove/don't use |refs= of {{reflist}}

B. Use <ref name=> for all ref as well as using |refs= to wrap all citations

C. Keep User:Geo Swan's unique citation style, by putting one and only one ref in |refs= of {{reflist}} . 49.196.4.73 (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

B is more properly described as List-defined references. Anyway, WP:CITEVAR applies: stick with the established style unless there is good reason to use something else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, your comment uses the phrase "established style". Matthew hk also used this phrase, when he moved a list-defined reference I added into the body of the article. You refer to CITEVAR, which quotes an ARB ruling:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

So, what is a "style"? We don't have to guess. Just three paragraphs, above at WP:CITESTYLE, the guideline lists eight (largely incompatible) citation styles: "A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook". These alternate style also have support. In your wiki markup box, below, you will see {{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}} It is available to support contributors who use a genuinely alternate citation style.

I started contributing here in 2004, when zero articles used a citation style, as our body of software didn't support anything beyond inline bare-urls. In 2005 I noticed some contributors were starting to use a citation style, that while superior to inline bare-urls, was much harder to use than the {{cite}} templates that are widely used today. I adopted it too. And I happily abandoned it later when the superior {{cite}} template came along six to nine months later. The {{cite}} template citation style is so overwhelmingly popular that even very experienced contributors, like Matthew hk, and maybe you too, don't realize that the {{cite}} template system is one of several (largely incompatible) citation styles. Many experienced contributors, who weren't here in 2005, mistakenly think that so-called "list-defined" {{cite}} templates and inline {{cite}} templates are what the wikidocuments mean by "citation styles".

But, I believe the clear wording of WP:CITESTYLE makes clear that their interpretation is incorrect.

The last time I looked a little bit more than 10,000 articles used the templates for harvard style references. Presumably, those 10,000 articles must have a small handful of contributors who do understand those styles. Or there has been no one who has updated those articles for a dozen years.

The reasons guidelines warn about recklessly mixing, or rewriting, references into the genuinely distinct styles, listed above, is that they are largely incompatible, and result in chaos, broken articles whose references don't work, unless the person doing so has a very thorough understanding of both systems. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not controversial to group footnote by using <ref group=nb>, but it is controversial to change from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|refs=}}. Since an admin made a note to the RfC instead of removing it due to reason likes forum shopping / SNOW uncontroversial, then please wait for the close of the RfC.

Also, the same guideline already stated, using {{reflist|refs=}} will prevent user to use visual editor to edit the citation. Matthew hk (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification please, the administrator's note you refer to... was that this edit?
• Clarification please, I already asked you this, on your talk page, did you open this RFC? I think it is important that we do our best to behave accountably, so I would really appreciate you either confirming or refuting whether you opened it. It looks like your comment style.
• To the extent the practice is controversial only to those who don't really understand what WP:CITESTYLE really means, then, should their views the practice is controversial really be considered relevant? Sorry. I think the record of your comments showed that your initial concern was based on a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what CITESTYLE means by a citation style. You seem to have honestly thought that inline {{cite}} references, and list-defined {{cite}} references, were two distinct citation styles, and that the wikidocuments that warned against switching citation styles applied. But they aren't different citations styles. They are two completely valid ways of using a single citation style.
• I am sorry to hear that visual editor contains bugs. However, I see this as a reason for the bugs to be fixed, not a reason to rewrite our policies and procedures. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

To expand on what Matthew hk noted (it is controversial to change from {{reflist}} to {{reflist|refs=}}), Wikipedia:Citing sources#To be avoided says When an article is already consistent, avoid: ... changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

I hadn't realised that there were WP:FORUMSHOP issues here. If there are other discussions about this article (whether ongoing or not) that 49.196.4.73 was aware of, they should have been linked from the start. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• With regard to '"...moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist..." yeah, I didn't do that.
• Redrose64, in your brief reply, you also linked to WP:Citing sources#To be avoided, which has three unnumbered points.
• The first of those unnumbered points is, by far, the most important. This is the first and most important point because WP:PAREN and {{cite}} reference are largely incompatible, and require great care to mix, in a single article. Forgive me, but I checked your first contribution, 2009, years after the {{cite}} citation style superceded earlier more complicated styles, like the rarely used PAREN style. Forgive me, your first contribution was so many years after those earlier citation styles were largely abandoned. I used one of those non-{{cite}} citation styles, back in 2005, so I have personal experience of the difficulties in mixing styles that prompted the advice in this wikidocument.
• The 2nd unnumbered section warns against removing templates from references, when an article already consistently uses templates in its citations. Good advice, but only very very inexperienced contributors make this mistake. It also warns against "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates..." It is odd advice, as articles that include references that don't use templates are rarely consistent about not using templates in references -- unless no one has done any serious work on updating that article over the last decade. So I question whether this is good advice.
• Matthew has chosen to interpret the 3rd unnumbered point as if it warned against adding new list-defined references. Why, in the name of heck, would a wikidocument give that advice? The explicit wording of the 3rd unnumbered point is to avoid MOVING {{cite}} references from list-defined to inline, or vice versa. Well, sure, there are good reasons for that advice. (1) Unnecessarily moving where references are defined erodes the utility of our revision control system; (2) it introduces an unnecessary opportunity for typos to introduce errors; (3) it obfuscates when, or whether, actual corrections have been made. But {{cite}} references remain just as valid no matter whether they are list defined references or inline references. Since Matthew's interpretation doesn't make sense I believe it is a misinterpretation of what the wikidocument warned against.
• I didn't move any properly defined references back and forth from inline to list-defined, but Matthew did move a properly defined {{cite}} reference from the {{reflist}} to inline. While I regard Matthew's unnecessarily moving a reference as a mistake, I am sure this was a good faith mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what my first contribution has to do with anything here. True, I didn't use {{cite}} - but then I didn't use any kind of reference. I really don't think that your average newbie will care about including references. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Redrose64, it is not the actual article you first edited that counts here. It is the date you edited it. My point is that you first started editing in 2009, so you were not participating here, in 2006, when referencing and reference/citation styles were first introduced. You missed out on the shakedown period, where the overwhelming popular combination of <ref></ref> pairs, combined with {{cite}} templates almost completely superceded earlier and incompatible citation styles. I was contributing during that shakedown period, and learned to use the now deprecated {{ref}}/{{note}} pair system. There are strong reasons not to mix the different and incompatible reference/citation styles, unless you really know what you are doing. If you look at this diff, from early 2006, when I started the article on the Geheyan Dam, where I used the {{ref}}/{{note}} pair system, because better alternatives had not yet been introduced.
• Matthew made the claim that "...it is controversial to change from {{reflist}} to {{reflist}}" His substantiation for this claim seems to be several wikidocuments that I believe he is misinterpreting. I believe that he has a genuine good faith misunderstanding of what those documents mean by a "citation style"'. Like Matthew, you misused the term "citation style", in the way that people who don't have any experience with the genuinely different and largely incompatible alternate citations styles that have largely disappeared do. Matthew misused the term "citation style", doesn't understand what it really means, and confuses two alternate uses of the {{cite}} reference/citation style with the introduction of a previously unused citation style into an article that already consistently uses another citation style. So, I suggest, it shouldn't be relevant whether they consider using both list-defined and inline {{cite}} references "controversial", if they are misunderstanding the underlying wikidocuments.
• Redrose64, being an administrator doesn't make one infallible. It is not my intention to adopt a tone of pomposity, but I am afraid I have made valid points, which I am afraid it looks like neither you or Matthew has bothered to actually read.
• The WMF projects are supposed to be cooperative projects. We are all supposed to interact with one another in a collegial manner, show good faith to one another. I think a corollary of those principles is that each of us has an obligation to approach each question, each challenge as an instance where we might be wrong, and the other guy might be right. And, when we give the other guy's arguments fair consideration, and realize they were right and we were wrong, I think it strongly builds the projects overall store of good faith, it we openly acknowledge we changed our minds. I try hard to do this, and I think I do a pretty good job. I'd like to be able to count on the project's administrators, who are supposed to be setting an example of collegial behaviour, doing likewise. So, could you please make the effort to actually re-read what I wrote, and make the effort to actually try to understand the points I am trying to make?

  Thank you. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the first two bullets weren't violated is irrelevant; it's an "any of these" list, not an "all of these" list. That is why I replaced those two with an ellipsis when quoting it. The point about the third bullet is that it recognises that LDR and inline refs are different styles, and if the article has developed using just one of these, it is bad form to then start using the other one, even if you're not changing existing refs from one to the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, it is an "any of these list". And I didn't lapse from compliance with any of those bulleted items.

  You wrote the third point "recognises that LDR and inline refs are different styles". Okay, so do you have a basis for this claim? I've offered a history of what these wikidocuments actually meant by different citation styles, and why those warnings are very important.

  That first bulleted point warns against "...switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags." Sorry, no offense, but it seems to me you are cherry-picking phrases from these wikidocuments, while ignoring their actual meaning. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Literally no one on WP shares you view of the meaning. Even if you were correct about what the original intent was in 2006, it doesn't matter because the interpretation has changed. I wish your view were shared by others, but it absolutely is not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• A. It is clear that this is the prescribed citation style of this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Finnusertop I think I know what a "citation style" is. Enclosing {{cite}} templates, within <ref name="" /></ref> pairs, is the overwhelmingly popular "citation style" today. I listed alternate styles above.
  • Finnusertop I don't know what a "prescribed citation style" is. I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me, or with Matthew. I would be interested in you clarifying what you meant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Geo Swan: choice of citation style is subject to consensus. We're now having an RfC, which is a method of determining what the consensus is. Option A above is what I sense consensus for. I support that consensus. Matthew hk edited the article to harmonize all citations to use that style. I agree with with his edits; in that sense, I agree with Matthew. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • That still doesn't make sense. That's not a prescribed style. The word prescribed doesn't relate to anything you said. And it's not possible to "sense consensus" when there are barely any comments before yours. The discussion running its course (or becoming a massive WP:SNOWBALL) indicates the consensus direction, or it remains not quite clear until a closer does an analysis. It's not the purpose of commenting in an RfC to try to "sense consensus" and make sure you match it; it's to offer a view you actually hold, with your source- or policy-based rationales for it, to help the consensus form (and to form rationally).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option A is what 99% of editors are most familiar with, and it's the style that works best in articles that are still being dynamically edited (e.g. for a company that's still active and in the news). WP:LDR (option B) works best in FAs and other long-stable articles that see very little churn. "Option C" is just ... weird. Don't do things other editors aren't going to understand, or you impede their editing.

  Also, WP:CITEVAR is being badly mis-cited; it does not ossify a citation style that's been in use for a long time at an article. It explicitly calls for a talk page discussion like this in such a case, to settle on what the best citation style is for the article in question, rather than just going and changing it to suit your whim. People are confused; the stuff about defaulting to the style established by the first major contributor (AKA the first non-stub version) is the default we fall back on when discussion fails to come to a consensus. It's utterly wrongheaded to try to object to this discussion taking place on the basis of CITEVAR; just completely ass-backwards. This RfC is precisely the correct thing to do under the guidelines.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC); revised: 14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Which are you supporting, A or B? You start off by bolding option A, then mention B (which is indeed LDR) with what seem to be a pair of contradictory points: articles that are still being dynamically edited and long-stable article that see very little churn. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I've revised. I did have some kind of copy-paste error in there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 

Off-topic theorizing about why a guideline shouldn't mean that the community says it means ...

SMcCandlish, sorry, like others here, I think your comment is based on a misinterpretation of the term "citation style". No offense, but I think it is a serious mistake to cite wikidocuments like CITEVAR when you mean something different by "style" than they do. Like other respondents here you are arguing we should apply wikidocuments warnings about not mixing different "citation styles" -- without first getting a consensus to do so, to using both list-defined and inline {{cite}} references. However, without regard to what people who have never used one of the other rarely used citation styles may think, both list-defined and inline {{cite}} references are instances of a single citation style. Those warnings don't apply. I checked your revision history. You first started contributing in 2005. But, near as I can tell from my brief review, this edit from December 2006 may be your first use of a pair of <ref></ref>. 2006 was the year support for modern style refs was introduced. Prior to that introduction everyone used inline bare-urls. I saw instances where you used inline bare-urls. What my review of your history seems to show is that you sat out the shakedown period when what evolved into the overwhelmingly popular enclosure of {{cite}} template between a pair of <ref></ref> competed with other very incompatible alternate citation styles. If you check the revision histories of the wikidocuments that warn against recklessly mixing different citation styles they all date to 2006, to the shakeout period. If you check there are still articles that consistently use one of those other old incompatible citation styles. They seem to represent less than one tenth of one percent of our articles. The warning in CITEVAR, and elsewhere, should really only be applied to those articles. They really need those warnings because recklessly mixing styles, genuine styles, in those articles, results in chaos. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC) That's a marvelously novel interpretation (and interesting old-news digging, especially about the timeline of when various stuff appeared in relation to technological changes). However, your takes on what CITEVAR means, on what constitutes "citation style" that is "actionable", as it were, under CITEVAR, and on what articles CITEVAR does or "should" apply to, are all things with which approximately 0.0% of regulars at WP:CITE would agree, even if some of your reasoning has its merits (and I wish that it would have the effect you desire, since I would rather that WP had a single codified citation style to begin with, like every other major publisher of a large multi-author work). In particular, you should review some of the longer discussions at the archives of WT:CITE over the last five years or so. In short, CITEVAR's fans are convinced that it applies to every imaginable aspect of citations, on every single article. Even getting a hint of consensus (via sane RfC closers) that some of the the most excessive demands from the "CITEVAR crew" are invalid has resulted in simply the current status quo that CITEVAR applies to almost every imaginable aspect of citations. That guideline is completely WP:OWNed by a small WP:FACTION, and this situation is likely to continue until a bunch of them quit the project or simply die of old age (probably the latter, since most of that clique have been here even longer than I have). I do not agree with how things have gone, but I'm deeply steeped in where they have gone, that those responsible for this mess will not budge on any of it by one millimeter, and that the community at large just half-way don't give a damn about citation trivia, and half-way actively go along with this stuff for the selfish reason that they have their own favored citation-formatting nitpicks and like the idea they can make it hard for anyone else to change them in their "pet" articles. But none of this actually has anything to do with this RfC, so I'm doing to collapse-box this entire digression, especially since about 95% of it is rehash of what you posted above in response to Redrose64; please see WP:BLUDGEON. PPS: I have no idea what "like others here, I think your comment is ..." refers to, since I don't see anyone else making an argument about my comments that says what yours is saying about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• You wrote: "Don't do things other editors aren't going to understand, or you impede their editing." Well, this I heartily agree with. But adding a new list-defined reference to an article where all previous references were in-line references? I disagree that this is something "other editors aren't going to understand". When an editor sees the use of a reference they hadn't seen before, they don't know whether it is defined inline in a different section of the article, or whether it is a list-defined reference. They neither need to know, or care. Because {{cite}} references work fine, no matter where they are defined. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not worth arguing about; CITEVAR calls for a consistent citation style within the article, so "Option C" isn't valid. It's not that anyone can be "punished" for adding a cite in a different format (we're glad to have new references added), but anyone's free to normalize an inconsitent cite to the dominant style in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When did the list-defined cite method become available...

In the section above various contributors point to warnings, drafted in 2006, that warn against reckless mixing (incompatible) "citatation styles".

I did some homework. The first edit to the redirect WP:LDR dates to 2009 -- ie three years after the warnings in those wikidocuments discussed above were drafted. The edit summary says: "Creating redirect to new section on new methiod of referencing"

It redirects to WP:Footnotes#List-defined references.

On September 17, 2009 rd232 added Help:Footnotes#List-defined references Their edit summary? "update to mention cite.php update"

What does the first line of this new section say? "The cite software has been updated to enable named references to be defined within the reference list..."

I believe this confirms my interpretation that the 2006 warnings against unilaterally mixing different citations styles applies to mixing {{cite}} style references with {{Harv}} style references, or one of the other rarely used and genuinely incompatible citation styles.

Those 2006 warning couldn't apply to a "new method" of using the {{cite}} style, introduced in 2009.

Note: people involved in the rollout of list-defined references call it a "new method", not a new style, because it is was rolled out as a consistent and compatible part of the {{cite}} style. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant when LDR came into existence. What matters is a present-day consensus on what works best in this article, now, not what happened in 2005 or 2006 or 2009.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.