User talk:Only Memories Remain

Emily's D+Evolution
Hi. I'm pleased to read that you will fix the broken references, but can I ask why you have removed the use of a citation template for the Pitchfork source and changed the date format for the AllMusic one? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with it? The page was pretty disorganized so I'm fixing it. Only Memories Remain (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The references were all consistently formatted before, using citation templates and consistent date formats. For some reason, you seem to have deleted some (but not all) of the citation templates, and re-written those references manually in your own style. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears the exact same way so I don't see what the problem is. Only Memories Remain (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Compare the following references in the article now (and note the duplicate):
 * "Emily's D+Evolution – Esperanza Spalding". AllMusic. 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-04-12.
 * Layman, Will. Esperanza Spalding: Emily's D+Evolution. PopMatters. 11 March 2016. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
 * Layman, Will (11 March 2016). "Emily's D+Evolution". Pop Matters. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
 * I will fix this now, so could you please refrain from editing the article for a few minutes? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The duplicate only exists because there is no ref name to the other one. Yet again, I don't see the problem. I can just change the citation of the other two, not all the other ones to stay consistent with the template of just two. That is simply wasting time. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Before you started editing the article, all of the references used citation templates, so you shouldn't have removed them, nor should you have changed the date format of one reference so that it no longer matched the others. No problem though - I have now fixed all this. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'll use the template but I'm still going to change a bunch of things like the ref name for the PopMatters review shouldn't be Layman. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing the name of the reference is fine - as far as I know there are no rules about the correct name to use, and it's not as if that is visible to readers, unlike the date format. As Manual of Style/Dates and numbers states, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, so please respect the existing date formats of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but my point was that maintaining consistency is logical but not when you are changing the majority to remain consistent with the minority, those two news citations. I get your argument for the citation template, though. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - you've lost me. How was I changing the majority to match the minority? You introduced a new date format for one of the references, so that was the minority case that I changed back. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My change was not the minority, it was the majority. There was only one remaining reference (NYT) that was not consistent with my change, making it the minority. Yet again, I'll follow your preferred style but the argument invoking Manual of Style/Dates and numbers as guide for consistency does not follow the chronology of my edits on that page. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm now utterly confused! This is how you left the article. Note that one reference uses the "2016-03-03" format, while all the others use the "20 March 2016" format. Before you edited, all references used the latter format. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about that one date format, I'm talking about the citation templates Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but again, all of the references used citation templates until you changed that, no? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps you are referring to the difference between cite web and cite news templates? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We got there in the end! OK, but note that there is no difference in the appearance of the references between those two - try it out by changing some from web to news or vice versa and you will see that. Sorry for any confusion caused. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. No problem. Only Memories Remain (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)