Talk:Eenoolooapik

Use of SFNs
Apologies for the revert kerfuffle there. I understand WP:CITEVAR, using an updated form of citations when bringing in a new source is perfectly reasonable. The two sources prior to my rewrite were both websources (the Canadian Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Canadian Biography) where SFNs would be proper. Switching to SFNs when bring in citations for multipage journal sources is warranted; I tend to use SFNs whenever possible for academic journals, because if nothing else it makes things so much less of a headache for any future scholars or reviewers. Generalissima (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Generalissima, SFN isn't necessary for the typical journal source - this one is only 16 pages. It also doesn't require changing the other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been told by editors much more experienced than I to use SFNs when using journal sources of more than a few pages; heck, 3/4 of the rationale at WP:SRF aren't even dependent on source length. I see it as ultimately harmless, especially since I didn't apply them to the sources already in-use prior to my revisions (those continue to use longform citations) Generalissima (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that is reflective of their own preferences? I don't see any requirement regarding journals at SRF. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's ultimately up to taste. But I think the reason people get antsy about is that it's very difficult to use shortform cites when a multipage source is so frequently cited without running up against WP:IBID, which explicitly recommends using SFNs in those sorts of situations. Generalissima (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * IBID notes that what is most commonly used is named references with pages, which is what is done here; this seems quite reasonable given the relatively short page range. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At some point you will presumably glance over WP:PAGENUM, and read CITEVAR in its context. Dahn (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have, and it doesn't support your assertion that page-by-page citation is required - page ranges for journal articles are an accepted standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, what it says is that if you cite a whole article (as in, for one single citation), you can also use page ranges. However, this is no longer a reference "to an article or book as a whole", but to pages in that article. I realize you're familiar with using online sources that have all the text on one page, but this article has moved along to something more complex. Let it grow. Dahn (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, how about using or  to give page numbers right at the footnote in the body, sparing the need for a hierarchy of reference sections? –  Reidgreg (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Reidgreg, I've already implemented exactly that Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on citation style
Should SFNs be used for this article? Generalissima (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Any page-by-page citation will have to be used, SFNs or whatever. I find 's objection incomprehensible, especially as this article is up for DYK, which specifically says that all facts invoked should be cited with utmost precision. Also, it seems that they are blindly reverting by this point. Dahn (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * DYK doesn't require "page-by-page" citation, so I'm not sure what this claim is based on - could you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. The DYK rules require inline citations, and the inline citations are defined (for instance here) as carrying exact page numbers whenever the page numbers (not full page ranges) when these are appropriate. Dahn (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This page doesn't use short cites. But in the interests of avoiding further conflict, I've added specific page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (As an academic point:) The rule I mentioned isn't just about short cites, it clarifies that long cites also need page numbers. Either way, thank you for the edit, it is a good option (as I have said in my first comment here, we do not need SFNs, but we do need page numbers). Dahn (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Philosophical differences aside, hopefully this solution is satisfactory to all - Generalissima? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes There is no compelling reason not to. They look better and I don't like the current style of page numbers added, they look odd and unclear. I'm not see any reasonable basis for the revert in the first place. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes is the first major contributor to the article and we should defer to her choice of citation style. CITEVAR states that editors should not change a citation style from the one "used by the first major contributor". CITEVAR also states that we should avoid "switching between major citation styles". The page prior to Generalissima's well sourced and written article was a stub with two citations to tertiary sources. Even if there were a valid reason to change citation style, sfn should be used over tags and rp. Sfn is easier to use and update. It is also more intuitive for readers because it keeps all of the citation information together, over the ref-rp style, which results in a popup of a full citation with the page number divorced from it in the prose. Regarding the dispute over page numbers, they might not be required for a C class article, but they are a good idea if you want to get an article through FAC. CITEVAR exists so that editors can improve article quality without being disrupted by style disputes. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although a variety of citation systems are considered acceptable on Wikipedia, I'm not seeing a compelling reason for reverting the SFNs that Generalissima added as the first major contributor to the article (per voorts's comments). If this was about whether or not to use SFNs for sources without page numbers (making SFN an arguably extra and unnecessary step), I might understand reversion, but from what I'm seeing this is not the case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No I am in favor of anything that uses precise page numbers for source-text integrity reasons. The first option would be to go full SFNs. The second, would be to use Cite book / Cite journal with precise page numbers on the first usage and harvnb/sfn on subsequent uses with other page numbers. A third, would be to use rp to add page numbers next to the citation to the book/journal. On 17 Jan the third option was put into place, which satisfies my objection. Why are you using the deprecated   over  ? Would you object to changing to match the suggested CS1 style? -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 09:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference you're referring to was changed recently by another editor. Previously and otherwise, the article doesn't use CS1 at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)