Talk:Pharmacare

Citation style
This version provides sufficient bibliographic information to identify the sources used; there is no requirement to use citation templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. According to WP:CITEVAR, which you linked, it is helpful to work on "improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;". As well, "If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it."
 * The only difference is that the bare URL citations in the proposed version have different display text with some having dates. The issue with this format, other than what I just quoted, is that it supports little expansion (for example, archive links, which I just added), especially visually, and does not provide readers with enough information (such as when the source was retrieved to support the data, which is crucial because pharmacare has had a lot of development in the past few years. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 00:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue with this format, other than what I just quoted, is that it supports little expansion is not true - content can readily be added, it's just formatted differently from what you propose. I have expanded the references to address your concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue still remains. Also, I initially added my new citations (here) in the accepted format when adding new information and you reverted them to your preferred, individual format. As well, you've made changes to your format but it's now redundant as the template fullfills the same purpose, albeit better as it's compatible with the visual editor and matches the format on most other articles. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 01:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What specific issue still remains, and what specifically do you feel is redundant? There's no such thing as "the accepted format" - citation templates are not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my reply and address each point. Why should the unconventional format that the article was published with be preferred despite the issues I've raised? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 02:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the valid issues you raised were addressed with this edit; if you disagree, please identify what specifically is still concerning you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure: Therefore, why should the unconventional format that the article was published with be preferred despite the issues I've raised when the templates used standardly on most articles alleviates these problems? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "I initially added my new citations (here) in the accepted format when adding new information and you reverted them to your preferred, individual format."
 * "As well, you've made changes to your format but it's now redundant as the template fullfills the same purpose, albeit better as it's compatible with the visual editor and matches the format on most other articles." "The issue with this format, other than what I just quoted, is that it supports little expansion (for example, archive links, which I just added), especially visually"
 * Both of these points seem to be premised on the idea that citation templates are "the accepted format"; they are not. Any content or formatting that can be achieved using templates can be achieved without them. Citations created without templates are not "redundant" to templates, they're an alternative, and an alternative that is considered valid per policy. If you think the use of these templates should be mandated you're welcome to raise that for discussion centrally, but at this point, you don't have consensus to impose their use here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your justification for employing this bizarre citation format is that it's permitted. However, that does not mean it is the most suitable format for the article. I outlined the issues with it in point form, but you haven't addressed the issues that make it an inferior alternative. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 06:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues you've outlined presume that your preference is "the accepted format", and are based on general arguments rather than what is most suitable for this article. You're welcome to believe that citation templates are universally better, but this isn't the discussion for that argument. Given the article's length and stage of development, hand-formatting provides less clutter and more flexibility, and the previous version did not include the errors and redundancy of the current iteration. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The issues you've outlined presume that your preference is "the accepted format", and are based on general arguments rather than what is most suitable for this article." Nope, the issues I've raised aren't simply based on a preference. "You're welcome to believe that citation templates are universally better, but this isn't the discussion for that argument." You're right, this isn't the discussion for the argument, yet you've brought that up. "Given the article's length and stage of development, hand-formatting provides less clutter and more flexibility, and the previous version did not include the errors and redundancy of the current iteration." Exactly how does hand-formatting provide less clutter and more flexibility? What errors did I introduce? In fact, manual formatting is redundant because the template better fulfills the job, for reasons I've previously mentioned. Perhaps it would be best for your response to be in point-form as you still haven't fully refuted my points. Thank you, – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "I initially added my new citations ... in the accepted format when adding new information and you reverted them to your preferred, individual format." There is no such thing as "the accepted format". You converted the article to use citation templates, and I converted it back to untemplated.
 * it's now redundant as the template fullfills the same purpose - that's not what redundant means. As already explained, handwritten citations are an accepted alternative to templates.
 * Exactly how does hand-formatting provide less clutter and more flexibility? Fewer bytes, less daunting code for newer editors, not constraining citations to what a template is capable of interpreting and displaying. Also see next point.
 * What errors did I introduce? Using templates appropriately requires understanding which content belongs in which parameter, how that should be formatted, and which parameters should be included when. The conversion edit demonstrates some common issues along those lines, such as introducing extraneous content in title, using work and aliases when not appropriate, incorrect dates, incorrect language codes, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You've only responded to and quoted parts of what I said. Nonetheless:
 * "There is no such thing as "the accepted format". You converted the article to use citation templates, and I converted it back to untemplated." True, I initially converted the bare link references to a more detailed format. I added additional content and cited my sources like most articles do. Then, you converted ALL citations including the new ones to your preference.
 * Citation styles are meant to be consistent within an article, so it would not have been appropriate to restore the original citations and leave the new ones templated. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "that's not what redundant means. As already explained, handwritten citations are an accepted alternative to templates." Redundant means not needed as the template fulfills the same purpose as a manual citation but is preferable for this article, as I will get to.
 * the template fulfills the same purpose as a manual citation which means that including both would be redundant. But a manual citation is no more redundant to an equivalent template replacing it than vice versa. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Fewer bytes, less daunting code for newer editors, not constraining citations to what a template is capable of interpreting and displaying. Also see next point." Wikipedia is not a hard drive where space is rationed. Wikitext is not formatted for "newer editors" or censored in any way. But, since you bring up accessibility, the template is a better option because unlike manual citations, the fields are easily editable from the visual editor, like nearly all other articles. Why should this one be an exception?
 * My argument is not based on the hard drive space, but the visual space. The vast majority of edits are not made with the visual editor, so the space taken up in wikitext by citations has a far greater impact - this is not a matter of "censorship" (?!) but of usability. Talk of "exception" assumes a default that is not supported by policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Using templates appropriately requires understanding which content belongs in which parameter, how that should be formatted, and which parameters should be included when. The conversion edit demonstrates some common issues along those lines, such as introducing extraneous content in |title=, using |work= and aliases when not appropriate, incorrect dates, incorrect language codes, etc." For titles, I used the article or page title. For the website/publisher, I simply chose to use the "Name of the website" field rather than "Publisher". Note that I used the website name. According to the template, "Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases." As for dates and language codes (other than the acceptable en-US that was automatically detected) which were incorrect? I've also noticed that you changed the date format from YYYY-MM-DD (permitted format|a permitted format). Is this also one of the problems you're describing with dates? – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 00:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on your comment about language I'm assuming you're relying on an automated tool - these tend to produce errors of this kind, with using page titles other than those displayed, conflating publishers and work titles, and language codes that do not make sense in context. Similarly this most recent edit introduced blank parameters that ought not to be included for this reference - another common problem with templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to use VisualEditor (despite having wikitext skills) as I find it more efficient. Ultimately, those empty fields are irrelevant. Remove them if you wish, but they don't show up in the published version anyways so I won't bother. As for the "visual space" point and accessibility concerns you brought up, unexperienced editors would likely use VisualEditor so having the interactive fields of the cite templates help and we cannot simplify the source code of every article to help new editors, especially when it's a format they'll encounter on nearly all other articles. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 07:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most inexperienced editors also use wikitext, and I wouldn't describe edits that require manual cleanup afterwards as "efficient". Ultimately, we will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we cannot cater to all users with "pointless perfectionism". If needed, we can direct them to Help:Wikitext. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 02:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)