Talk:1 Arietis

Consistency of citation templates[edit]

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]

The current set of citations in this article has high affordance; the prior set of citations did not. All these little details taken care of by wikiGnomes, as Headbomb calls them, create an encyclopedia that is easy for both the reader and the editor to read and to access citations. I can immediately compare all the dates in the list, whereas before, with some including months, and some not, and with the cryptic link, my ability to immediately scan and utilize the citations was hindered by the conflicting styles. Asking someone to lower the utility of an article because rules says something that appears to support maintaining the lower utility is the definition of pedantic. Eau (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I basically rewrote and cited this article, providing readable, reliable content, removing invalid OR, and inserting solid references. Headbomb's sole contribution was to switch to different citation templates, truncate a few names, and add some low utility links. Then he was disruptive when I had the effrontery to apply a valid policy. If that's the type of support you're looking for, well best wishes to you then. I won't work with him. Regards, RJH (talk)

You really ought to become familiar with WP:OWN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to put me on the defensive, Headbomb? At this point I don't really care. Your aggressive style is decidedly not one I want to collaborate with. Bye. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a researcher. This type of janitorial work that is done by an entire cadre of editors on Wikipedia means that I can spend my time doing something very few editors on Wikipedia have the expertise to do: I can accurately add knowledge to articles about complex and obscure organisms and topics and correct badly written articles in these areas. I could spend my time doing the type of tedious and picky formatting that makes an article very easy for a reader to access the information and the citations; but, then a lot of other editors can do this well and faster than I can, and other editors like doing this, so I am going to give them my respect and enlist their help if at all possible. So, why spend my time doing the picky detail work, when other editors will do it, are better at it, and would not know the difference between a coccolithophore and a cyanobacterium if one poisoned and the other infected them? It is a waste of resources. But, we are all volunteers and free to use and abuse our own resources (time) as we see fit. Eau (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]