Talk:The Level, Brighton

Citation format
This article appears to use a mix of shortened footnote citations, apparently via harvnb and ordinary full-length footnotes, using cite web and other Cite XXX templates inside  tags. I think this inconsistency is confusing. Some footnotes refer to the bibliography, and some do not. In my view a single consistent style should be used, either short footnotes or full ones. This came to my attention because a comparatively new editor wanted to use this as an example and justification for using a similar mixed styles. But before just making the change, i wanted to consult the active editors here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree it is confusing to have inconsistent referencing styles, but this is completely fine under wikipedia guidelines and I suppose reflects the fact that different editors use different styles. As you can see above, this article passed as a Good Article without a comment on referencing since there is nothing in the GA criteria that says the referencing style must be uniform and indeed even featured articles have inconsistencies, per the discussion about my query at the end of the review for Knap Hill. So the new editor is right to use this as an example, even if personally I don't think it is best practice. Mujinga (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (Comment from other partial contributor to this article) I must admit, I had no idea that mixing Harvnb and cite web/cite journal etc. was inconsistent. That was the way I learnt to "do" WP citations about 10 years ago, and every article I have ever written will have the same mix.  I think the mindset I developed was something like this: "Use Harvnb for books and stick them in the Bibliography, use cite web or whatever for non-books and don't mention them in the Bibliography".  I admit that I've never studied WP citation styles in great detail, which is probably why I have picked up this misconception/inconsistent practice.  Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  15:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this was not questioned during the GA review, but I see that the GA criteria do not mention a consistent citation format as one of the requirements. However, WP:CITEVAR (a section of the guideline Citing sources) says that among the changes and which any editor may make freely is . These days with more books being online and with many significant and reliable sources being in non-book form, I think such a mix leads to potential confusion for readers and is not helpful. At any rate I convinced the new editor not to use this as a model. But do not be mislead, I am pretty sure this article is not in compliance with that guideline. Guidelines can, of course, have exceptions. But I would urge that this one is not a good idea. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would note that unlike the GA criteria, the FA criteria (item 2c) require so I don't think this would pass an FA review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)