Talk:Armathwaite Castle

Harvnb templates in support of harv referenced cite family templates
Editor Hchc2009 recently reverted an edit that implemented templates with this comment:

"Undoing change to harvnb format citation system; as per WP:CITE, " If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it.""

I made the change that Editor Hchc2009 reverted because I noticed that three of the four citations in §Bibliography included the harv parameter. were added by Editor Hchc2009 and each included the harv parameter. As the parameter serves no purpose except to create the CITEREF anchor required by  and similar templates, it seemed that Editor Hchc2009 intended to use   or perhaps ; else, ref would have been left blank or merely omitted as were other unneeded parameters.

The  and   templates are short-form reference / citation mechanisms as was the ref / cite structure that this article already used. This is not a whole new restructuring of the "system"; merely a completion of something already started. For these reasons, I have reverted Editor Hchc2009's reversion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd actually included the harv parameter because I thought it affected the formatting of the bibliography (NB: but clearly not!) I'll have to admit, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:CITE - I think changing the appearance of the citations in this way is contrary to WP:CITE. Rather than continuing a revert cycle, would you be content if I instead raised this example on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and requested a third opinion? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are of course free to do that; I won't object.


 * I think though, that we would be better served were we to ref / cite this article differently. Short form ref / cites have their place: long article, lots of references to many many citations—MACVSOG is one such example. This Armathwaite Castle article isn't long, nor does it have a lot of references to a large number of citations. This article should be ref / cited with simple inline citations.  I propose that we do that and be done.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a message as suggested. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned this up and simplified the ref/harvnb to sfn. This is a much better mechanism. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the clean-up, but changing the citation style again in the midst of the discussion above and on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources isn't necessarily helpful in terms of generating a consensus. Give the debate a chance to finish first. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That page matters for boo. This is the discussion. See below; *you* forced the plain-text refs and don't then get to call it "established". harvbv&rarr;sfn isn't a change of style, anyway, it's simply an optimisation of the implementation of the mechanism. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing shortened references to harvnb or sfn is most definitely a change in citation style. The reason we have such awkward rules about citation style is partly motivated by the fact that some editors like templates and some hate them.


 * The proper way to change a citation style in an article is to get consensus from local editors on the talk page, wait a month or two, make the change. It's not impossible. It just important to give anyone interested in the article a chance to object to the change. In practice, someone will object in only a very few cases, because most editors don't care. But if it does happen, don't pursue it, because the people who care about citation style can get extremely cranky. (also posted at WP:CITE).


 * Below, I've demonstrated how this is done. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing shortened references to harvnb or sfn is most definitely not a change in style. A change in style would be going from harvard citations to footnotes, or from long footnotes to short footnotes. At best it would be a change in method and there is nothing in the guidelines about changing from one template to another. -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hchc2009 has only made to this article other than two reverts and changed the style off using templated refs to using plain text ref (to biblio templates). That's the problematic change. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in citation style
Some editors would like to change the shortened footnotes in this article so that they use the template sfn. (Please see the documentation at the template to see what this would be like.) If anyone objects, the article will stay as it is. What style should this article use? Why or why not? Please comment. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Picking up Trappist's comments above, there's also the proposal to use simple inline citations. Given that there's not much more literature on this castle, and the article's not going to get much bigger, I'm fairly neutral; Trappist's put forward a logical reason for inline citations, so I'd probably support that option. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)