Talk:Astrothelium clypeatum

Citing
When there is just one reference, all forms of referencing are consistent. Therefore in this instance the use of WP:CITEVAR as a basis for reversion is irrelevant. I can understand why you might prefer not to have the perhaps distracting links to wikidata given by cite Q. What I cannot understand is the refusal to allow the reader a direct link to the pdf, so I have added the pdf to the reference yet again. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one mentioned consistent referencing here, so I don't know to what you are referring. You attempted to change the existing citation method (a violation of CITEVAR), so the basis for reversion is entirely relevant, contrary to your statement. Thanks for adding the link. Esculenta (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation of WP:CITEVAR. I have added the author link to Aptroot. I do not believe doing so is contrary to WP:CITEVARMargaretRDonald (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my editorial discretion not to add an author link, which is justified here considering he is already linked twice in a 127-word article. Esculenta (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)