Talk:The Arrangement (2017 TV series)

|author= vs. |first= and |last=

@IJBall: I'd like to revert to using "|first=" and "|last=" for the citations... it provides more metadata/information, which is why I initially added a reference formatted that way (that's the default I go with when adding citations). Reading over WP:CITEVAR, it mentions substantial changes in style (like from footnotes to parenthetical, or listing the references inline vs. in the "References" section); I don't feel improving references by providing greater granularity about authors' first and last names qualifies as a substantial change, and not when the citations have been (somewhat) variant for nearly a year. The version of the page where only "|author=" is used that you're referring to only had 4 references and was much less fleshed out. Let me know what you think. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: I'm not sure I understand the "metadata" claim. But WP:CITESTYLE makes clear that Wikipedia does not have a "house style" for references (though apparently a number of editors believe that "last, first" author format is the "established" style on Wikipedia, when it is in fact not so), and WP:CITEVAR says you shouldn't change the established ref style at an article without consensus. On my end, I feel strongly that things like author format should follow the format used in the sources themselves – IOW, (entertainment) press and media sources nearly always show authors in "firstname lastname" format in the sources themselves, whereas scientific journal articles tend to follow "lastname, firstname" format much more often and so that should probably be used as the author format for references at the types of articles where science journal article sources predominate. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Ah, I see how you're looking at it. I wouldn't claim that "Last, First" is a house style myself, although I do find "Last, First" "more formal" and therefore more appropriate for an encyclopedia (a WP:TONE argument, I guess). But the reason I go for using two parameters rather than one is because it provides more information about the information (i.e. metadata): with "author" you just have one string, and if you ever wanted to pull out last names or first names using anything computerized (like a script), you couldn't, because you'd require human intervention to determine where to split that name. Or if a reader comes from a culture where name formatting is different, there is ambiguity when "|author=" is used that can be avoided by having the split made explicitly. When "|last=" and "|first=" are used, that splitting has already been done. The side effect of that is that {{cite}} does render it as "Last, First", probably because, with respect to WP:CITESTYLE, all the major citation styles it refers to list authors' names using "Last, First", so I think you may be conflating "style of byline" with "style of citation". In most books, for instance, the author is listed as "First_name Last_name" but in most (all?) citation styles, that author's name would still be cited as "Last_name, First_name".

As for following the style used in the sources referenced... what do we do, though, if there are a mix of author name styles in the sources used? I would argue consistency of formatting within a single article (not across the project) is more important than following the formatting used by a source and while I believe we're encouraged to use the same vocabulary to talk about our subjects as is used by reliable sources, we already regularly change the formatting used by sources. MOS:CURLY, MOS:LQ, MOS:DASH, and the use of sentence case are great examples of this. I think going with more information (i.e. which part of the name is the last name, and which is the first) is better than maintaining fidelity in our citations with the byline formatting used by sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In the latter example, where the sources are "mixed", you'd either go with the "predominant" style (i.e. the style used in more of the sources), or you'd have a discussion among the editors about it. Beyond that, again, there is nothing in there that says author style must be "last, first" (otherwise, why would there even be an 'author' parameter available?) and simply following the author style used in the sources avoids a lot of the kinds of discussions we're having here – e.g. Editor #1: "I prefer 'last, first' author style!" Editor #2: "I prefer 'first last' author style!" Rinse. Repeat. Best answer: Just follow the formatting used in the (preponderance) of sourcing. Just doing this solves a lot of potential problems, and not just with ref author format, but potentially other grammar, punctuation, and ENGVAR-type issues... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Except again, as I mentioned before, citation styles do not necessarily match how author names are listed in a source, so "following how they're listed" is not a valid argument. I assume "|author=" exists for corporate/organizational authors where first names and last names are inapplicable. And no, I haven't made a WP:ILIKEIT argument: I've pointed out that using "|last=" and "|first=" provides more, and more granular, information and also that the approach likely falls under WP:TONE. We're an encyclopedia, not the entertainment press, so the notion that we have to hew to entertainment press standards is unfounded.

Also, turns out "|author=" is an alias for "|last=", so by using it to hold an entire name, that's misuse of the parameter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument you are trying to make requires a much wider audience to confirm its validity, IMO. I have never heard anyone try to claim that any other format aside from "last, first" author format is "invalid". (And, again, I am skeptical because our very own citation article includes examples that are not "last, first" name format.) I would want to see a far wider opinion from Wikipedia editors confirming that this is the case before I believe it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The argument I am trying to make is that we should generally "defer to sourcing" on questions even like this, so I'm not sure how that's "not a valid argument", considering the basis of this encyclopedia is that we follow sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything other than 'Last, First' is invalid. I implied "First Last" wasn't as formal as "Last, First" but that's not the same thing. You're saying we should list names like they are listed in the articles we cite. But as I pointed out, there are several well-established examples where how names are listed in a source (like in books, where it's generally "First Last", or newspaper articles) is not how they are formatted when cited (most citation styles, again as I pointed out, tend to follow "Last, First"). That is, there's no requirement or established precedent for citing author names the same way author names are displayed/listed in the works being cited. I've provided plenty of examples where we change source formatting when referencing a work. And, again, this doesn't address how using the |last= and |first= parameters adds valuable information, while using |author= omits it. Surely more/better information should trump mimicking the formatting of the source? —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)