Talk:Les Frangines

Reference tag names
I recently converted the reftag names in this article from the full titles of the sources (including foreign titles using non-Latin alphabets) to more compact identifiers per WP:REFNAME. Over at WT:CS1, User:Moscow Connection objected in particular to my names for the Apple Music sources, like for their eponymous album. I don’t disagree that this was a poor choice, but I’m not sure how best to concisely refer to these. I do strongly feel that ref names in general should be something easily typed by hand on a standard QWERTY keyboard. but beyond that I have no objection to any changes to my edits. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) P. S. There is a duplicate ref because it gives a different release date and I planned to look into this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC) – I have considered it and decided against it. :-) (I don't type the names, I copy-paste them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to revert your edits, but since you continued, I will revert everything now. Sorry, but I don't see the point in making the reference names less precise.
 * The point isn’t in making them less precise; it’s in making them possible and feasible to enter by hand on standard English-language keyboards, which often don’t even include a user-friendly way to enter accented letters, let alone non-Latin characters (which it seems you’ve dealt with). If you can make it so without losing precision, then please. Perhaps an abbreviated translation of the titles? For instance, an internal identifier like  just seems excessive to me. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:REFNAME: Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals. That’s ultimately all I ask. As far as I know we don’t have any conflicting (or further) guidance on this, but I frankly wish we had more. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Please consider keeping reference names."
 * Do you have any policy/guideline/essay basis for your decision? Any compelling reason for going against the “simple and standard alphabet” guidance? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is convenient for the person who's working on the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it dubious that many others share that opinion (it seems far too lengthy to be convenient, and again contradicts what guidance there is), but I think we’d need some uninvolved editors to weigh in on that question. I asked at Help talk:Footnotes last week, as that seems the best forum for it, but no responses yet; I might convert it to an RFC. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC
 * "Many others" don't edit this aticle. I named the references in such way as was the most convenient. The readers don't see the names anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer service and regulating such minor things will only drive contributors away. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone could edit this article—no one owns it, so any decisions like that should be made in consideration of all editors. I have no doubt the names you chose are convenient for you; my concern (which, I would argue, we all share) is that they be convenient and accessible for all, in order to, as you say, not drive contributors away., or having to repeatedly hunt them down in the editor in order to copy and paste them, or even just having them clutter up the edit view, is hardly what I’d expect anyone to consider convenient or accessible. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then go and expand the article. Right now you're wasting everyone's time over something that the readers don't see anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you feel it doesn’t matter, then why not err on the side of making it simpler for other editors? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I'm very, very sorry, but I won't reply anymore. You've already distracted me enough. If not for you, I would have probably created two more articles yesterday. I would very much appreciate if you found another outlet for your time and energy. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it doesn't matter. I feel it shouldn't matter for you or anyone who doesn't actually work on this article. Why are you insisting? Can you understand that you are only going to obstruct any future work on the article? What you do is simply disruptive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one who will ever work on this article. Even I might. Right now, all I’m trying to do is make it a little easier, not harder, for editors who are not you or me to work on it. I ask you do the same. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Renaming the references doesn't have anything to do with "improving the article or building the encyclopedia", hense WP:DE. The ref names I prefer are not forbidden and will never be forbidden. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that they are or should be “forbidden.” I’m asking to change them because they seem problematic (not to you personally, but to any other editors who ever work on this article) for the reasons I’ve given—a hindrance to improving the article. And as you pointed out, my suggested names were also problematic (and also not forbidden). So let’s try to come up with a solution that satisfies all concerns. How about dated site or author names? Like, name="Smith 2006" or "example.org 2006". Or maybe a short and unambiguous English-language description rather than a complete headline? name="example.org second album release". —96.8.24.95 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nested French quotes
Picking up a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (it was closed, so I'm not re-opening it there). One citation is to a title of a French-language article that uses «...», and referring to one part of MOS, some editors changed it to '...'. Not "..." because in the final form it's a nested quote.

But I just saw the more relevant MOS section WP:MOS: "When quoting text from non-English languages, the outer punctuation should follow the Manual of Style for English quote marks. If there are nested quotations, follow the rules for correct punctuation in that language." The outer punctuation is provided by the cite web output, so by that rule the title itself should revert to the French marks. If nobody disagrees I'll restore them tomorrow. David Brooks (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC) By the way, the French Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that "opening quotation marks («) are preceded by a space and followed by a non-breaking space; closing quotation marks (») are preceded by a non-breaking space and followed by a space", and there's a reference pointing to a book titled Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale. But I guess that book is not the only style guide in existence. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) – I haven't even noticed this before. :-) I am myself over-preoccupied with accuracy and precision. I hate it when people remove the original song titles (a recent example) and alter reference titles. But I can't fight every injustice, so I usually try to look the other way and forget it's happening. I remember someone changing capitalization in the titles of some Japanese news articles I used as sources. Namely, that person changed "BABYMETAL" to "Babymetal" everywhere. In Japanese text! (The Japanese media never ever change the original capitalization.) I reverted him, but I am still afraid it will happen again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about "Les Frangines : découvrez le clip de «Donnez-moi»"? I agree that it should be changed back.
 * Yes, that set of quotes. Since we are reproducing a citation, I'll observe the (lack of) spacing in the original. David Brooks (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It also occurred to me that the cited page displays in all-caps, but I think the MOS would say this should be modified to sentence case. Anyway, the HTML source is in sentence case but uppercased by a class definition in a style sheet. I've obsessed far too much on this. David Brooks (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "It also occurred to me that the cited page displays in all-caps".
 * I reverted him, but I am still afraid it will happen again. If there is sufficient consensus for it, you could always bring attention to that fact with a  in the article. Anyone who goes to change it should see that they shouldn’t. Edit: This has gone slightly off topic for here, but it’s applicable anywhere there’s an established consensus and occasional unawareness. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)