Talk:Rhomboid protease

Ref groups vs rp
Per Book referencing, the template rp will be deprecated and replaced with a built-in Media Wiki function that will render as. Once this is implemented, a bot will replace rp with the built in Book referencing system which in my humble opinion is a much better solution than ref groups. Boghog (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again Boghog. Clearly there are a lot of us. (This one is especially strange given that, by your own description, you moved from a working cite format to one that is being phased out.) ArbCom has recognized that this is disruptive Requests for arbitration/Sortan as I've already pointed out several times. It is especially disruptive to do this without contributing to any of these pages. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In Rhomboid protease, you had introduced a new citation ref groups style. I was just returning the style before your edit while preserving the information that you added. The rp cite format is completely functional, but will be smoothly converted by bots to a system that accomplishes the same thing as ref groups, but is cleaner. In this case, your edits are disruptive, not mine. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hitting back? All the usual catchphrases. Well, at this point it's become clear you're merely writing for the audience and not for me, or anyone else who has actually been reading the edits involved. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Before your edits, there was an established citation style that did not involve ref groups nor full first author names. Now we have a mix of styles. Why?  Also how can I be writing both for the audience and not anyone else?  That makes no sense. Boghog (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this will be eventually converted to Book referencing. Your use of ref groups is a kludge that breaks up the consistency of how the citations are rendered. Ref groups do not play nice with Reflist and multicolumn ref lists. For example, adding "32em" to the template (e.g.,  has no effect. Boghog (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is already an established citation style in this article, why are you changing it? per WP:CITEVAR, imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. My edits are consistent with CITEVAR, yours are not. Your edits are disruptive, not mine. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Editing citations to change them – but why didn't you follow the existing style?
 * Especially en masse – I have changed 3 references to match the style of the other 64. Why don't your respect the existing citation style? Boghog (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your game is coming to an end. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, now is the time to discuss and your not disussing. Please respond to my questions. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * group is normally used to separate a single group of explanatory footnotes from the main reference section. Now you have introduced five separate group templates, one for each reference.  Ref groups were never intended to be used this way. This application is redundant, messy, ugly, and hard to maintain. If you have no objections, I will replace these ref groups with standard citations supplemented with rp. Do you agree? Again, these rp templates are fully functional but will be automatically replaced with a Book referencing system which is a much better long term solution. It is completely irrelevant that the rp templates will become deprecated. Currently they are not deprecated. Boghog (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't respond, you will have implicitly agreed with my points above. If you don't agree, please answer my questions.  Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)