Talk:Chargemaster/Archive 1

Move request to "chargemaster"
I've put in a move request to "chargemaster", as this single word term is the most common usage of the term upon an examination of a preponderance of reliable secondary sources, and according to WP:COMMONNAME, we should therefore just go with "chargemaster". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅, page location at "chargemaster". Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Administrators' noticeboard/Archive246 is an easy way to bypass WP:Requested moves. Whatever works, I guess. I agree it's the common name. Now if it were so easy to get access to one of those (outside Calif.) Wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it'd take more research to see if one can access the chargemaster in other locations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: Added more sourced info
Update: I've done some research, and added more sourced info to article, please see diff of changes. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Older accessdates
Why have older accessdates? Isn't the point of accessdates to show the most recent time the links were checked? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "checked". The accessdate stamp is to denote the date on which the source was accessed and found supporting the article's text. So typically it's not enough to confirm the link is still active – you really need to read the source critically and assert the referenced material is still supporting the statements made on Wikipedia. Do you still think the superficial checking of the links (which typically just confirms some info is still there) qualifies for this?


 * So I would caution against changing accessdates simply because you found link to be still working. It's probably safest to leave them alone as a general guideline, unless you are updating old dead links. cherkash (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did do just that. I checked the links and checked the source material. Can we move on now and leave the newer updated dates in place, please? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. For as long as you are aware of not just checking for the link being alive, this should present no problem, at least factually. But since, when I (or anyone else) see your updates of this sort, and it's hard to ensure that this was the process one has truly gone through – that is why my suggestion to leave accessdates alone. Let me ask you: why would you want to update them anyway? The only viable reason that I see (apart from the one I mentioned above), is if the source has changed materially but you still can check out that it supports the statements. Is this the case here? cherkash (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions are incorrect. Template:Cite web states "Full date when URL was accessed" . End of story. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Citing sources. "Accessdate" is really used mainly to note the last time an active webpage at the URL was accessed. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you might have misunderstood the spirit in which the two references you mentioned are written. Moreover, the latter one clearly states "in case the webpage changes in the future" – which indicates that the effort should be made to refer to a particular point in time when not only the page could be accessed but also when it contained the relevant information. cherkash (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, that last bit just means if the website becomes inactive in the future or if the page becomes inaccessible. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. It's not just about inactive or inaccessible – it's mostly about content change. Think about it: why are we citing sources in the first place? Ask yourself: are we citing simply a pointer (url in this case) regardless of the content – or are we citing the content itself? cherkash (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry,, but you have blatantly failed to cite any Wikipedia policy pages that talk about "access dates" in the manner in which you are asserting. And it's a moot point, the source did change after your holy access date, please see Appended: February 26, 2013, at least, as of accessdate 7 March 2013, when I last checked that link. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cirt, first of all, please understand that I'm not arguing against your specific change in this article. I've agreed right away that this change can be left alone. So this matter is closed.


 * My discussion with you now is beyond this article's specific changes. It's about whether accessdates should reflect merely the fact the url contains some content (point you are arguing), or the fact that url contains specific content, i.e. content supporting wiki material to which it's been linked (the point I'm arguing).


 * I suggest we either close the discussion here, or move it to a more appropriate place, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources. Quick search in the archives there for "accessdate" turns up several discussions as well, some more or less touching on the subject here. Take a look. If you want to take a task of summarizing our brief discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources to continue it there, that'd be great. Or I can do it a bit later. Let me know. cherkash (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for acknowledging that the changes made to the article are appropriate and should stay as is. I agree with you that the rest of this discussion is best to take place elsewhere. Thank you for showing me those helpful links, I will take some time to read through some of those archived discussions. Have a great day, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)