Talk:TREAT-NMD

Consistent citation formatting
Thanks for your message at my talk page. In response to your request to take it to the talk page: My edit with the edit summary "consistent citation formatting" was reverted in this edit with the edit summary "[as] far as I can see, referencing WAS consistent, revert unnecessary edit". My first edit was partially restored in this edit with the edit summary "what was inconsistent was the formatting of first names, Vancouver style formatting insures a consistent format". Hence the rationale for the reversion is debatable. In addition, I have made additional edits, such as removing redundant PMC prefixes and redundant URLs from citations with DOIs and adding refbegin/refend templates. As a compromise, I have left in place the first, last parameters and added vanc.

What WP:CITEVAR says is not to change the original established citation style but also says that it is generally considered helpful to impose one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. Before my first edit, there was no consistent first author style. After my edit, there was a consistent stye. Furthermore the only difference between the initially established CS1 mixed style and the consistent Vancouver style is the removal of commas and periods from initials and the replacement of semicolons with commas. Boghog (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * So you like Vancouver. And "vauthors". All your edit accomplished was that some first names disappeared in one reference and that three authors disappeared from another one, being replaced with "et al". I don't think this is helpful at all. Note that in many fields, the last author -which your edit removed in at least one instance- is actually the most important one. And yes, you did also do some DOI/URL/PMC stuff which also got reverted, but that is the problem when you make a huge number of edits all at the same time. I request that you restore the original formatting of the references, with all authors present. And if the presence of author first names in that one reference bother you so much, then feel free to replace them with initials. --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The full first names, when they were provided, are still there in the meta data. The 6 is a completely different issue.  I have removed them in this edit. Boghog (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the last author -which your edit removed in at least one instance This is 6 issue and is completely independent of CS1/Vancouver author formatting. Both can display all authors or truncate the number of displayed authors. Boghog (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the removal of commas and periods from initials and the replacement of semicolons with commas so important? Boghog (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, as someone who spends a lot of his time here doing just that kind of stuff, I think I'd better ask that question of you. And I note that you haven't undone your edit, contrary to WP:BOLD. --Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I respectfully ask that you please answer the question that I asked above. And here is an additional question. All your edit accomplished is to replace the following mess:
 * Willmann R Rüegg M.A. Fairclough R. Davies K.E. Possekel S. undefined T. | and
 * Mercuri E. Mayhew A. Muntoni F. Messina S. Straub V. Van Ommen G.J. Voi T Bertini E Bushby K.
 * with:
 * Willmann R, Rüegg MA, Fairclough R, Davies KE, Possekel S, Meier T and
 * Mercuri E, Mayhew A, Muntoni F, Messina S, Straub V, Van Ommen GJ, Voit T, Bertini E, Bushby K
 * Why is preserving cluttered wiki text so important? Boghog (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If preserving periods, commas, and semicolons is so important, perhaps we can add CS1 parameter value to accompany vauthors. That way, we can avoid the unnecessary first1, last1 clutter. Boghog (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If preserving periods, commas, and semicolons is so important, perhaps we can add CS1 parameter value to accompany vauthors. That way, we can avoid the unnecessary first1, last1 clutter. Boghog (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * YOU started making sweeping changes here, so it is up to YOU to explain yourself. Please explain why the first1 etc is "a mess" and why you want to get rid of all those periods etc. What's the big deal? --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * First1. Last1, etc is a mess because compared to vauthors, it takes many more characters to store the same information. Nevertheless I replaced vauthors with verbose first1, last1, ... in this edit. In contrast to the state of this article before my fist edit, both the meta data is now completely consistent (full author names for all citations), and the display authors are completely consistent (clean Vancouver author formatting). If you insist, you can now remove the vanc parameters and I will not object. I am done here. Boghog (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You won't object. Wow! How magnanimous. You realize how arrogant all this looks? You come barging in and start making huge changes, then when you're requested to revert, you just keep going on because some completely fine wiki templates irritate you and you prefer something else. And now you're done here. Wonderful! How kind of you. --Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have explained in detail my reasoning. You haven't. All it takes is a simple search and replace of
 * "| name-list-format = vanc |" with
 * I am certainly not going to revert my other edits, especially this one or this one. Boghog (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tired of arguing. The solution is pretty simple. Boghog (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tired of arguing. The solution is pretty simple. Boghog (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And we still don't have any explanation about why you care so much to spend so much time to change citation styles. Well, whatever. --Randykitty (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * My reasons were explained above, in short: (1) consistency and (2) simplicity. Boghog (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)