SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) →break: reply to Bali |
Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) fix a mis-paste: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHalle_Berry&action=historysubmit&diff=380009545&oldid=380006685 |
||
Line 325: | Line 325: | ||
:One of the things I've noticed with LDR is that you can't just remove a citation, or you get the big red warning. You have to scroll down to find it in the references section too. If you're doing section editing, you can't do that. And editors not familiar with it won't know to do it. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
:One of the things I've noticed with LDR is that you can't just remove a citation, or you get the big red warning. You have to scroll down to find it in the references section too. If you're doing section editing, you can't do that. And editors not familiar with it won't know to do it. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::The complications with section editing are my reason for ambivalence about LDR. Sometime LDR is the only thing that can rescue an unreadable mess, and other times it's just an annoyance.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
::The complications with section editing are my reason for ambivalence about LDR. Sometime LDR is the only thing that can rescue an unreadable mess, and other times it's just an annoyance.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
o |
|||
sier for them and helps them get it right the first time. There is an aesthetic to the underlying code and it goes hand-in-hand with consistency, standardization, education and creating the best encyclopedia we can. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
+ |
|||
This is really more a discussion about whether to use a given amount of code, not the type of code per se. Besides, this is not something that should be done one huge article discussion at a time. Why not try to suggest a unified standard at WP:CITE or WP:NOTES? Peter Isotalo 06:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The result of this discussion could very well be used as an example to gain consensus elsewhere. I would rather wait and see how this discussion ends before I attempt to propose wiki-wide referencing standardization. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Except this discussion has nothing to do with standardization of reference formats. Even users who like and support use of templates can't agree on any one standard. That's why we have so many different reference templates. |
|||
Peter Isotalo 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can't see why anyone would object simply to writing <nowiki><ref name=Smith1>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref></nowiki> And thereafter <nowiki><ref name=Smith1/></nowiki> Minimum clutter, easy to add and remove, no templates, no slowing down of load time. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::I can't see why anyone would object simply to writing <nowiki><ref name=Smith1>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref></nowiki> And thereafter <nowiki><ref name=Smith1/></nowiki> Minimum clutter, easy to add and remove, no templates, no slowing down of load time. <font color="blue">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Because it's actually <nowiki><ref name="pmid5885427">Schaffner, Fenton and Philip Felig (1965) [http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen], Journal of Cell Biology 27(3):505-17</ref></nowiki>, and I'm still missing PMID, PMC, DOI and format. And how many editors do you think will format that consistently? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
::::Because it's actually <nowiki><ref name="pmid5885427">Schaffner, Fenton and Philip Felig (1965) [http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen], Journal of Cell Biology 27(3):505-17</ref></nowiki>, and I'm still missing PMID, PMC, DOI and format. And how many editors do you think will format that consistently? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:37, 21 August 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Halle Berry has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Six toes
Is it true that she has 6 toes in her feet??? That is reported sometimes in press
- And where would that be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hit and run
I don't think anyone would dispute that the incidents are attributed to sources, or that they warrant mention. The question is how strongly should the subject be dealt with and how much emphasis should be placed upon it. The subject is already covered in the article. It has to be looked at within the overall context of Berry's life and Berry's career. Having its own section and giving such a degree of detail makes it appear as more significant than it actually was. Berry's career has not been particularly damaged by the event, the publicity surrounding the case hasn't continued, it wasn't a major scandal, it was sorted out privately..... There are a few points to consider. Firstly WP:BLP. I don't see a problem with the brief discussion of these events because it's appropriately sourced. WP:UNDUE - I do see a problem here because it focusses on the events as being among the most significant aspects of Berry's biography, and this is not the case. WP:HARM - I do see a problem here also. If we place undue emphasis on something negative simply because we can find sources to support it, potentially we do harm. If you then go back to WP:BLP, the harm element becomes a problem. It needs to be kept in context. I'm not saying avoid it completely, but the previous version gave sufficient mention for anyone wanting to know about the subject. The "public"'s right to know does not negate the policies that we have in place to protect living people and ultimately to protect Wikipedia. Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution, and I think this is one of those times. Please, before adding this again, I would invite anyone to state their case, and explain why the addition of this information is more important than the policies, guidelines and general processes that I've referred to above. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation, it is helpful to know where you are coming from in order to find middle ground. A few points: I am not adverse to the idea of giving the issue an appropriate amount of attention. However, the information that was previously in the article only mentions one hit-and-run accident. You'll notice remarks at the top of this discussion page regarding the second hit and run accident --- it was in fact this remark that motivated my research. I wanted to know if there was in fact another incident, and I assumed that the person who posted the comment on this discussion page wanted clarification as well. Surely, we two can't be the only people confused about the topic. I would suggest that instead of just deleting my edits, please incorporate the facts in such a way that keeps the relevant information but does not smear Halle Berry's reputation. After all, I spent a good amount of time searching out and sourcing my edits --- it is a little frustrating for me when you just come in and erase all of the information I have presented.130.13.182.116 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's also frustrating when you thank me for my comments and mention finding a middle ground and then completely disregard my comments and the middle ground that you have referred to. There are two editors than do not support the inclusion of this information in the format that you've supplied, so it's not appropriate for you to simply paste back the entire section. If the inclusion of material is disputed - as it has been - it should be discussed and resolved at the talk page before it's added back to the article. If you want to reword it so that it covers both incidents, that's fine. It's not acceptable to have an entire section headed "hit and run" as it gives undue emphasis, and the level of detail is not appropriate. The fact that you've done a lot of research makes your frustration understandable but it doesn't make your reversion correct. I'll leave it as is to allow time for other editors to comment. I would suggest it be incorporated into the section of the article where it previously existed - not in its own section- and that it be abbreviated as follows. I particularly feel that the allegations are of a "she-said - she-said" variety and that Raythata is too strongly represented. We should stick to Raythata's actions and leave her opinion out. (The information is not meant to be exhaustive and anyone wanting more can go to the source material to read the fuller version)
Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents.[1] The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene.[2] Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm,[3] and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident.[1][4] Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run.[2] She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation.[5] Raythatha filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court.[6] Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.[6] Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash.[1] Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident, and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face.[6] Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed[1]. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver in this accident as well.[1] Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's fine to say it happened, but when we start adding fleshed-out sections that give more detail, including naming of a non-notable person who was injured and received some non-specific settlement, I believe we are giving it far too much weight in context of the rest of the article. It was a misdemeanor, it was not a felony and beyond the claim, prior to receiving a settlement, from the person injured that there was "permanent disability", there is nothing to indicate that the incident went beyond the time that it happened. There certainly is no corroboration that there was any permanent disability and for us to imply such is irresponsible. The most well-sourced content in the world can still be written in a biased manner and I feel that adding this section is such. It is in the article, that is sufficient. Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid presenting content in a way that invites libel.
It is also inappropriate to revert something in the midst of a discussion on how and where it should be presented. This does not warrant a separate section, that is one of the more salient issues with undue weight. I don't have an issue with what Rossrs has posted above as a revision, with the exception of perhaps naming the person injured. I am absolutely certain it can and should be contained within a paragraph in the personal life section and not as a stand alone section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I hadn't thought of it, but User:Wildhartlivie is right. We don't need to name the other person and she is otherwise not notable. She should be "the driver" and the information, which is only relevant to Berry, stays focussed on Berry. Also, I believe "accident" is not a correct term as "accidents" are caused by people's actions. The term is being used less frequently by police etc. "Incident" is more correct. I've reworded it again, below, and I think this is more where we should be heading with reporting these events. Rossrs (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents incidents.[1] The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene.[2] Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm,[7] and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident.[1][8] Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run.[2] She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation.[9] RaythathaThe driver of the other car filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court.[6] Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.[6] Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash.[1] Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident,incident and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face.[6] Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident incident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed[1]. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver. in this accident as well.[1] Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with these edits, even though I think it shows a bit of bias as well. As long as the information is there so that people can find out what happened, that is fine. There's no reason that this sequence of editing couldn't have been done on the main page --- this is what should have happened instead of someone just coming in and deleting all of my hard work. If you read the Focus on content section of the dispute resolution page, you'll find the following passage: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, IMPROVE IT IF YOU CAN. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, DON'T JUST DELETE IT." These guidelines are there for a reason. Show me someone who wouldn't be irritated by having their work thrown away.130.13.182.116 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see what you are referring to as bias. It states the facts without repeating unfounded allegations by the other party which tend to imply that Berry was under the influence although the same articles state that this was not the case. It is irresponsible to repeat allegations that are unfounded. In any case, WP:BLP and WP:HARM take precedent over other policies regarding editing and the actions taken in this situation were done with regard to that. It would be one thing if something that was removed permanently, but nothing is gone on Wikipedia, it still exists in the history. The series of edits occurred because experienced editors saw major issues with presentation of content in regard to WP:BLP and removing questionably skewed content based on that supersedes WP:FOC and other such policies. As for the name of the other person involved, WP:BLP also addresses presumption of privacy, which in this case, would warrant removing the name of the non-notable person involved. This is basic stuff and should be adhered to. I have no problem with the section as edited by Rossrs above, and it should go in the personal life section without its own section heading. By the way, someone else has added an unreferenced statement that the incident became fodder for comedians, and that should be removed since it isn't cited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by bias, but if you have a concern with it, all you have to do is say so. I've acknowledged your irritation. I don't think WP:FOC was important in the first instance, because both of the editors that objected to the inclusion of this information objected to it in its entirety and believed that the existing information sufficed, so it wasn't necessary to reword it. It's says "improve it if you can" - I didn't think it needed improvement, but I've offered this rewrite as a compromise. Now please stop complaining about how much time you've put into researching this, as I've spent just as much time discussing this with you. You're irritated. I get it. The information is retained in the history so it's not lost, but don't forget "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." which applies to every edit you or I or anyone else makes. "Edited mercilessly" can also mean "completely deleted". In any case, I'll take your "no problem with these edits" comment in good faith, and apply this to the article. (The fodder for comedians isn't that relevant. I'm sure Jay Leno and David Letterman etc will make quips about any current news story but only for as long as it remains topical, which is rarely long. If it entered the vernacular it may be different. It's not sourced or given within any context, so it just doesn't fit. ) Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't care if you want to admit it, but you shouldn't have just blindly deleted the edits. You can keep talking, but that's the truth, and I don't really have anything more to say about it. As far as the bias issue goes, it doesn't really matter to me. For example, I don't think calling something an 'incident' instead of an 'accident' is going to change anyone's mind about what happened. No one is that stupid. I do, however, want to commend both of you for working out a compromise with me. I know that neither of you wanted this content included, so it says something about your integrity as editors that you were willing to allow some version of these facts to appear in the article. Thanks for that.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure what this added that wasn't already there, except the mention of the civil settlement (which is now there). The 2000 accident is significant to the biography because it led to one of her marriages - and that significance is sourced. I don't have a really strong objection to a brief mention at the end of that paragraph saying she was previously involved in a different accident, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as significant as the 2000 one. Gimmetrow 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- These incidents should be placed in a context in the biography. Wikipedia is (or should be) past the time when even the better articles were disordered lists of any factoid anyone could think of. The comedian line is 1) relevant to the significance of the event, and 2) contrary to Wildhart and Rossrs, sourced. Gimmetrow 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will back up Gimmetrow about the incident being fodder for comedians. I've seen an episode of 'Family Guy' where they have Halle smash into another car and then run off on foot.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the comedian's fodder comment is untrue, I recall that it was used, but I do fail to see where it's sourced. I'm not thrilled with adding heavily to this article, but the point has been made, and is valid, that there were two separate hit and run incidents. Efforts were being made to acknowledge that and while it is certainly proper to retain the statement that Berry credited Benet with helping her through that, removing the paragraph removes mention of the second incident. I give up, apparently omissions of fact in good articles shouldn't be rectified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will back up Gimmetrow about the incident being fodder for comedians. I've seen an episode of 'Family Guy' where they have Halle smash into another car and then run off on foot.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment above, I appreciate that you've put so much into discussing this and that's the whole purpose of these talk pages and discussion. We disagree over whether the information should have simply been removed, and if we disagree, we disagree. We don't have to agree, so I'm with you in letting that go now. "Accident" / "incident" is semantics. It's neither here nor there but "incident" is a valid term. You're right though. Nobody is stupid enough to change their opinion of events because of the word used, and that was not my intent. Incident is neutral. "Accident" by definition assumes it was nobody's fault. It's semantics. I can see that the "fodder for comedians" is sourced. I missed that because the source is at the end of the next sentence, not the one discussing the "fodder", but OK, it's sourced. Considering that this is/was being discussed, I'm perplexed by Gimmetrow's reversion especially as it does not change the context. Unless it's the bit about Benet supporting Berry. I don't see this as a disordered list of factoids, something that I'm generally opposed to also. Maybe I shouldn't have changed the bit about Benet, but even so, we're back to revert rather than improve and it's not appropriate, given the depth of discussion this has been taken place today. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Berry's quote about feeling "really good about the resolution". That's superfluous at best. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's exactly "the bit about Benet" because that's why this accident is significant to her life. If it were just some accident, I don't think it would matter. Compare the 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident, which was widely reported and resulted in legislation. Hypothetically, if he had also been stopped and warned for drunk driving in 1998, but that was not widely reported not had any more significance to his life, would it need to be included here? "Omissions of fact" sounds rather negative, but we routinely select some facts and exclude others when writing. Due weight means minor items don't usually get much detail. Gimmetrow 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see that removing the comment about Benet was not good judgement on my part. I don't see Benet as the connecting factor that makes the episode significant to Berry, but I do see Benet as important and obviously this was a major event during their marriage. I don't disagree with the article as it currently stands, because this is essentially the version I favoured at the beginning. "Due weight" is one of the main points that Wildhartlivie and I were both commenting on, so I agree with you there also. Aside from the Benet reference, I don't see it as majorly different to what I changed it to. I still see no point in recording that Berry felt "really good about the resolution" because it's vague and lacking substance and it doesn't say anything about Berry except that she is able to be polite and noncomittal. Unless I'm missing something. Would you object to it being removed? Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I do object to it being removed. It was a brief line that went to her state of mind and the significance of the event in her life. I think those few words add more than does expanding "a civil lawsuit was settled out of court" to "the other driver filed civil lawsuit, which was later settled out of court". Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see that removing the comment about Benet was not good judgement on my part. I don't see Benet as the connecting factor that makes the episode significant to Berry, but I do see Benet as important and obviously this was a major event during their marriage. I don't disagree with the article as it currently stands, because this is essentially the version I favoured at the beginning. "Due weight" is one of the main points that Wildhartlivie and I were both commenting on, so I agree with you there also. Aside from the Benet reference, I don't see it as majorly different to what I changed it to. I still see no point in recording that Berry felt "really good about the resolution" because it's vague and lacking substance and it doesn't say anything about Berry except that she is able to be polite and noncomittal. Unless I'm missing something. Would you object to it being removed? Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's exactly "the bit about Benet" because that's why this accident is significant to her life. If it were just some accident, I don't think it would matter. Compare the 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident, which was widely reported and resulted in legislation. Hypothetically, if he had also been stopped and warned for drunk driving in 1998, but that was not widely reported not had any more significance to his life, would it need to be included here? "Omissions of fact" sounds rather negative, but we routinely select some facts and exclude others when writing. Due weight means minor items don't usually get much detail. Gimmetrow 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment above, I appreciate that you've put so much into discussing this and that's the whole purpose of these talk pages and discussion. We disagree over whether the information should have simply been removed, and if we disagree, we disagree. We don't have to agree, so I'm with you in letting that go now. "Accident" / "incident" is semantics. It's neither here nor there but "incident" is a valid term. You're right though. Nobody is stupid enough to change their opinion of events because of the word used, and that was not my intent. Incident is neutral. "Accident" by definition assumes it was nobody's fault. It's semantics. I can see that the "fodder for comedians" is sourced. I missed that because the source is at the end of the next sentence, not the one discussing the "fodder", but OK, it's sourced. Considering that this is/was being discussed, I'm perplexed by Gimmetrow's reversion especially as it does not change the context. Unless it's the bit about Benet supporting Berry. I don't see this as a disordered list of factoids, something that I'm generally opposed to also. Maybe I shouldn't have changed the bit about Benet, but even so, we're back to revert rather than improve and it's not appropriate, given the depth of discussion this has been taken place today. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Berry's quote about feeling "really good about the resolution". That's superfluous at best. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I do have to wonder after all the fuss made yesterday over changes that were made following discussion by three other editors to one small section in this article, why nothing whatsoever has been said about changes that were made today to that section, which include a link to a YouTube posting of a copyrighted television broadcast. I'm certainly not going to change it because our discussion and attempt to work this informatino in was essentially overruled and removed, but presently, the content contains the improper YouTube link and punctuation errors. Hopefully someone will repair these issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pleasant Irony
There is nothing ironic about playing somebody who was nominated for an oscar and then winning an oscar.
It would be ironic perhaps if she played a terrible actress in that movie who nevertheless dreamed of winning on oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.53.149 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"International Success"
is this really necessary? the only blockbusters she's made in that section are the james bond film and 2 of the x-men movies. i don't think that really needs to be there. her career has not changed much since 2001.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Success is not measured by "blockbusters" alone, but by many factors not including box office, such as exposure, reviews and accolades. It's far more appropriate to broach such a question on the talk page prior to removing a section heading, especially when the article is a good article and the removal lumps an entire career into one long section. If you have a different section title in mind, then please do suggest it, but please don't just remove section headings and post your comment afterwards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not remove the section, just the title. Is it REALLY necessary to put "international success" because if you consider winning a Worst Actress Razzie for catwoman and also getting bad reviews for movies like gothica and perfect stranger, plus box office decline, what is international success? Just what distinguishes her career pre-2001 and post-2001? it didn't really change.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say you removed a section, I said quite clearly tha you removed a section title, which rendered the career section into one overblown section. We don't put any emphasis on Golden Raspberry awards and do not generally include them in biographies as they often have little meaning regarding success and quality, but are fairly bad natured and stem from more than just "bad reviews". As I said, if you have a better section title in mind, then by all means suggest it, but WP:GA criteria isn't exactly supportive of a huge block of content in one paragraph to cover a career. Still there is a difference between success and box office and some bad reviews. International success can encompass obtaining roles in high profile films that get a large amount of international coverage, far beyond a dollars and cents total. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not break it up into sections, see Angelina Jolie's page for example.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Caucasian "race" vs. "American"
Ref.: [1].
Editor The Universe Is Cool, please discuss why you think it is necessary to change the Wikilink from "Caucasion race" to "Caucasian American"?
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- PS. Please be mindful of the 3RR policy.
- That puzzles me too, Paine. The reference is in regard to the race of Berry's mother, not her nationality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I left a Talkback, so hopefully we can discuss this. I think you're right, though, plus the "race" article seems so much more detailed, whereas I get the impression that the "American" article is a bit POV, but that's another story.
- — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be "Caucasian American" because:
- the article states that her father is African American, so I think the article titled "Caucasian American" (a redirect of the article "White American") is the best to describe her mother.
- knowing that Halle Berry's mother was American (and Caucasian), the article "Caucasian American" is a better fit.
Why is it that people seem to disagree with me most of the time? It doesn't happen exclusively on this website either. It ticks me off! The Universe Is Cool (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool
- The difference here is the definition. African American is clearly about ethnic background and the term Caucasian American has a much wider definition, and is based at least partly on nationality, but notice it also includes a group which does not encompass Berry's background, specifically Hispanics. However, Caucasian race is directly about ethnicity. The point being discussed is ethnicity, not nationality. That's why your changes keep being reverted - they don't encompass ethnicity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your first reason, editor The Universe Is Cool, is POV, and as editor Wildhartlivie points out, neutrality is achieved in this case by keeping the link to "Caucasian race". The pipe for the link is simply "Caucasian", and when one thinks of the adjective "Caucasian", one does not first think about Americans, but rather, one thinks about "race", isn't this true?
- — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
citation style
This article currently does not use any citation templates, it uses <ref></ref>-tags with ordinary wiki-markup in them.
- Should it be shifted to use citation templates?
- To use list-defined references?
Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, yes — Jack Merridew 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, there is never any need to use citation templates. It's just as fast to write things out by hand, because you have to add the information by hand to the template anyway. The only thing templates do is add clutter, slow down load time, and some of them introduce citation styles that don't exist outside WP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about list-defined references? They're all about de-cluttering the prose. There are also tools, such as WP:Reflinks, WP:Checklinks, and User:Citation bot (user operable;) that facilitate the maintenance of things. It's a big site and we should use tools to help with tasks. Jack Merridew 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some people find them a nuisance. What is the difficulty with writing: <ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book'', Routledge, p. 1.</ref> Or for an article: <ref>Carroll, Roy. "Colombian jet crash 'miracle' as all but one survive", The Guardian, August 17, 2010.</ref>
- The reason list-defined refs were developed is to get round the clutter caused by in-text templates. But if you don't use the templates in the first place, there's very little clutter to begin with. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- How many editors, esp. new editors, don't use these tools? That has to be considered also to make editing easier for everyone, not just those who know to use tools, never mind which tools to use. This really needs to be considered esp. if tools are that important, or am I reading this wrong? --CrohnieGalTalk 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- @SV; It's not about difficulty, it's about the paucity of information, and lack of structure to that style. You omitted the isbn, but if the ref was in a template, a tool could pick-out the named parameters, look it up, and add that, and more; correct something else. That sort of ref is pure nineteenth century paper paradigm; time to level-up; we're not paper, and it's the third millennium. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about list-defined references? They're all about de-cluttering the prose. There are also tools, such as WP:Reflinks, WP:Checklinks, and User:Citation bot (user operable;) that facilitate the maintenance of things. It's a big site and we should use tools to help with tasks. Jack Merridew 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes to template. Templates are always always better--they make it far easier to make changes later, they help separate information that needs to be visible (to readers) from what is not, and they're easier to make. The only logical reason I can see for not using templates is if they slow down load times; do you have any evidence that there is a significant increase, even for a low-speed connection? But....Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any 'time' concerns are about page generation time on the server, not download times; templates don't produce significantly different page sizes. The solution to that is more and faster servers, and improvements to MediaWiki itself. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- They do slow down load times. See some technical explanations here, and some examples here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Only for editors, and only for articles that should be split, anyway. All that's a server issue; buy more and faster ones, work on MediaWiki. But don't compromise the referencing of articles by reducing their structure or information. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- They do slow down load times. See some technical explanations here, and some examples here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any 'time' concerns are about page generation time on the server, not download times; templates don't produce significantly different page sizes. The solution to that is more and faster servers, and improvements to MediaWiki itself. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No to list defined references, if by that you mean not listing the references in the (hidden) text, but only in the references section. Doing that makes it extremely difficult to edit the page--it means if I want to, remove both a reference and the text supported by it (say, for example, if the reference isn't actually reliable), then I either have to make 2 consecutive edits, or edit the entire page rather than just editing the sub-pages.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Placing the refs in the reference section makes a world of sense; the mechanism that evolved to have full references inline is an artifact of the route MediaWiki evolved as a piece of software. Look to real books; footnotes appear as an unobtrusive number or character in the prose and the body of it is at the foot of the page, the end of the chapter, or at the back of the book. Collecting them together is an appropriate progressive step. FWIW, I edit whole pages much of the time. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're a nuisance when you're doing section-editing, and it's often necessary to do that with longer articles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're not a nuisance, they're about better organization of things, de-cluttering the article body. RexxS said something hereabouts regarding the joy of having the refs in another tab; try it. It works fine. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're a nuisance when you're doing section-editing, and it's often necessary to do that with longer articles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Placing the refs in the reference section makes a world of sense; the mechanism that evolved to have full references inline is an artifact of the route MediaWiki evolved as a piece of software. Look to real books; footnotes appear as an unobtrusive number or character in the prose and the body of it is at the foot of the page, the end of the chapter, or at the back of the book. Collecting them together is an appropriate progressive step. FWIW, I edit whole pages much of the time. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes to both as it help standardizing and maintaining the Wikipedia. If loading times are an issue, an idea would be to switch to {{vcite web}}. See Talk:Brad Pitt#Page loading efficiency and style for tests using this template. It is 37% smaller and loads twice as fast as {{cite web}}. Nymf hideliho! 11:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- We should not be selecting a citation style for irrelevant reasons; I see the Vancouver style as light on information and do not much like it; I believe the templates are not nearly so robust as the standard ones ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}). I view the italics and specific punctuation as mostly noise; the important thing is the information and structuring it appropriately; that's the key thing templates do, they provide structure to the information and that enables a world of goodness. It makes the information machine-readable, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes to both; yes absolutely, soon as possible to list-defined refs. The amount of clutter that inline references cause is a nuisance whether citation templates are used or references are entered manually - they're still a large chunk of distraction and needs moving out of the text. pablo 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral but leaning towards no I can see the arguements on both sides of this issue. Some of the changes I feel are because of POV IMHO. I like it when the the references are easy to access to verify what is being said campared to the way it's done say at the artcicle Ted Bundy which requires a lot of extra work to verify something. The temlate for tables are always in disagreement it seems. I have to admit though that SlimVirgin's references tend to make me lean more in her direction about this. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes to both. I find the cite template easier to use, especially with the group of editing tools available, and I prefer that they standardize the format. I also think that listing the citations makes the text of the article "cleaner" and easier to read and edit rather than wading through a mass of clutter. Segregating the list of references also makes them easier to read, and easy to see if they're correct/complete or need fixing. It's probably an inconveniece to have to either edit the full article, rather than section, or to make a second edit to the reference section, but I see it as a minor inconvenience and worth the effort. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- No. I don't think cite templates are appropriate in this article, and I found the "list-defined references" confusing. Cite templates are tools, and have their uses, but they also have drawbacks, especially in flexibility. Few citation templates can handle every possible case. Some above claim cite templates are "easier to use" and "always better". That's their opinion. I'm not entirely convinced about all the details concerning load times, but clearly there are other editors with different opinions on the "always better" and "easier to use" system. If some editors can convert an article to the system they find "easier to use", invoking IAR to support their perceived "improvements", then likewise other editors could do the same with their preferred system. The language in WP:CITE exists to prevent sets of editors of opposing opinions zipping around Wikipedia changing articles back and forth to their favoured system. It is my view that that behaviour would be (and is) disruptive to Wiki as a whole. The assertions that templates "standardize" format seems to be stated in the context of the entire Wiki, but there are at least three major families of citation templates on Wiki that are not consistent with each other:
- {{cite web}}: Jimbo (2001-01-15). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2010-08-17.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - {{citation}}: Jimbo (2001-01-15), "Wikipedia", MediaWiki, retrieved 2010-08-17
{{citation}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - {{vcite web}}: Jimbo. Wikipedia; 2001-01-15 [Retrieved 2010-08-17].
- {{cite web}}: Jimbo (2001-01-15). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2010-08-17.
- Notice the last one doesn't even recognize one of the "standard" fields. So much for ease of use. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support citation templates. There are tools that make it easy to produce citations using the templates - in fact these are the easiest way for new editors to produce citations! --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral about list defined references. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, Neutral. In my experience citation templates produce more consistent output, are easier to maintain, and support the automation of certain tasks. The speed issues are essentially moot - they only affect logged-in users, not the vast majority which is served pre-rendered HTML from the Squid cache. And if template expansion is a server side problem, that's an argument for a better implementation, not for inconveniencing humans. I see both advantages and disadvantages to list-defined cites - I have a slight preference for inline, but don't really care enough to insist on one or the other. Why don't we have a Wiki-wide BibTeX-style reference DB, anyways? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Logged-in users are our editors. You're saying the slow load times only affect editors, so it doesn't really matter. Thanks! :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Logged-in users are a very small part of the user base. And anonymous users can be and are editors, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- But there are hundreds of thousands of users with accounts who are likely to log in to edit. And with lots of templates in an article, loading is slow, and diffs and preview often slow to the point of unsustainable. That means articles with templates are often poorly edited, poorly written. Look no further than the CC articles. Always templates, always bad writing (that I have seen), but lots of editors with them on their watchlists. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Logged-in users are a very small part of the user base. And anonymous users can be and are editors, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Load time apart, here's an example I gave elsewhere of how difficult it can be to copy edit with in-text templates, because you can't see where one sentence ends and another begins:
Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction ([[hemolysis]]),<ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=JR |last2=Mengel |first2=CE |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia |journal= Aerospace Medicine |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=12–13 |year=1969 |pmid=5782651}}</ref><ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC |last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan |first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431–7 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}</ref> damage to liver ([[hepatic]]),<ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |last1=Schaffner |first1=Fenton |last2=Felig |first2=Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal= Journal of Cell Biology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505–17 |year=1965 |pmid=5885427 |pmc=2106769 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf |format=PDF |doi= 10.1083/jcb.27.3.505}}</ref> heart ([[myocardial]]),<ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=JB |last2=Shelton |first2=RW |last3=Burke |first3=JF |title=Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of Pathology |volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127–32 |year=1972 |pmid=5046798}}</ref> [[endocrine system|endocrine]] glands ([[adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and [[thyroid]]),<ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |last1=Bean |first1=JW |last2=Johnson |first2=PC |title=Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410–4 |year=1954 |pmid=13228600}}</ref><ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |last1=Edstrom |first1=JE |last2=Rockert |first2=H |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells |journal=Acta Physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55 |pages=255–63 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254 |doi=10.1111/j.1748-1716.1962.tb02438.x}}</ref><ref name="Gersh">{{cite journal |last1=Gersh |first1=I |last2=Wagner |first2=CE |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen poisoning |journal=American Journal of Physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=270–7}}</ref> or kidneys ([[renal]]),<ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |last1=Hess |first1=RT |last2=Menzel |first2=DB |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules |journal=Aerospace Medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646–9 |year=1971 |pmid=5155150}}</ref> and general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name="Brubakk-358-360" /><ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |last=Clark |first=John M |title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=American Review of Respiratory Disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40–50 |year=1974 |pmid=4613232}}</ref>
- I don't think it's fair to leave articles like this. And if anything it's even worse with the vertical templates. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of an article giving the same level of information without using templates? Not to mention that this really looks like a case for list-defined references:
- I don't think it's fair to leave articles like this. And if anything it's even worse with the vertical templates. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction ([[hemolysis]]),<ref name="pmid5782651"/><ref name="pmid4403030"/> damage to liver ([[hepatic]]),<ref name="pmid5885427"/> heart ([[myocardial]]),<ref name="pmid5046798"/> [[endocrine system|endocrine]] glands ([[adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and [[thyroid]]),<ref name="pmid13228600"/><ref name="pmid13889254"/><ref name="Gersh"/> or kidneys ([[renal]]),<ref name="pmid5155150"/> and general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name="Brubakk-358-360" /><ref name="pmid4613232"> {{reflist|refs= <ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=JR |last2=Mengel |first2=CE |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia |journal= Aerospace Medicine |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=12\u201313 |year=1969 |pmid=5782651}}</ref> <ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC |last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan |first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431\u20137 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}</ref> <ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |last1=Schaffner |first1=Fenton |last2=Felig |first2=Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal= Journal of Cell Biology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505\u201317 |year=1965 |pmid=5885427 |pmc=2106769 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf |format=PDF |doi= 10.1083/jcb.27.3.505}}</ref> <ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=JB |last2=Shelton |first2=RW |last3=Burke |first3=JF |title=Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of Pathology |volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127\u201332 |year=1972 |pmid=5046798}}</ref> <ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |last1=Bean |first1=JW |last2=Johnson |first2=PC |title=Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410\u20134 |year=1954 |pmid=13228600}}</ref> <ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |last1=Edstrom |first1=JE |last2=Rockert |first2=H |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells |journal=Acta Physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55 |pages=255\u201363 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254 |doi=10.1111/j.1748-1716.1962.tb02438.x}}</ref> <ref name="Gersh">{{cite journal |last1=Gersh |first1=I |last2=Wagner |first2=CE |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen poisoning |journal=American Journal of Physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=270\u20137}}</ref> or kidneys ([[renal]]), <ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |last1=Hess |first1=RT |last2=Menzel |first2=DB |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules |journal=Aerospace Medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646\u20139 |year=1971 |pmid=5155150}}</ref> <ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |last=Clark |first=John M |title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=American Review of Respiratory Disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40\u201350 |year=1974 |pmid=4613232}}</ref> }}
- Not pretty, but not a catastrophe, and likely better than any inline scheme giving a similar level of information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's awful either way. Without templates of any kind, there would be much less clutter. The templates confer absolutely no benefit but lots of drawbacks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that you dodged the question. Do you have any example of a similarly well-referenced article (i.e. with full bibliographic data, page numbers, URLs where available, with about 10 refs for a two-sentence paragraph...) with hand-written inline citations? Of course the templates offer benefit - they allow e.g. me to simply copy and paste Google Scholar BibTeX exports into the corresponding template fields, and know that they will come out right. Maybe you know how to format issue, number, and volume by hand - I cannot remember that, and thanks to the wonderful invention of programmable electronic machines I don't have to. I can just enter the contents, and let the computer do the formatting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's awful either way. Without templates of any kind, there would be much less clutter. The templates confer absolutely no benefit but lots of drawbacks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You still have to add the words by hand, and that's the bulk of the job. Any similarly referenced article (I don't see that as well-referenced, but over-referenced with ref tags in the middle of sentences) will be cluttered, yes. But templates add extra words, so they only ever make clutter worse. You overlook the writing and reading aspects to WP, Stephan, and I think that's because you're a scientist. I'm a writer. When articles aren't well-written people don't want to read them. We can copy and paste Google Scholar BibTeX what-nots to our hearts' content, it won't make the articles a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why would you think I'm a scientist, but not a writer? In fact, why do you think I could be one, but not the other? The result of my research is a pill that someone swallows to understand it? See [2] - and that's only my professional scientific output. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- You still have to add the words by hand, and that's the bulk of the job. Any similarly referenced article (I don't see that as well-referenced, but over-referenced with ref tags in the middle of sentences) will be cluttered, yes. But templates add extra words, so they only ever make clutter worse. You overlook the writing and reading aspects to WP, Stephan, and I think that's because you're a scientist. I'm a writer. When articles aren't well-written people don't want to read them. We can copy and paste Google Scholar BibTeX what-nots to our hearts' content, it won't make the articles a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Slim, with Stephan's example above there is clearly far less clutter in the actual text than there would be with inline references, templated or hand-crafted. The 'clutter' is handily tucked away in the references section. pablo 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to get this discussion sidetracked into a debate over reference standards, but most of the problems discussed here would be resolved by converting it all to shortened refs. It can be done with varying degrees of detail (hell, you could even add Google Books links to every single note if you felt like it), but it comes with a lot of benefits. If you settle for something like <ref>Surname (year)[,maybe ''Title'' for extra clarity], page number</ref> and leave all the specification on everything from the specific issue of the publication to publisher in a dedicated bibliography, there's a lot of to be gained, even if it creates some degree of redundancy. And it just happens to come with the nifty benefit of providing a practical overview of the number and types of sources used in any given article.
- But still, there's no question about it, adding cite templates to an already burdened raw code version of an article seems only to confirm that the templates are unnecessary to begin with.
- Peter Isotalo 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Slim, with Stephan's example above there is clearly far less clutter in the actual text than there would be with inline references, templated or hand-crafted. The 'clutter' is handily tucked away in the references section. pablo 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan is right, here. This is a question of style and it is wrong to let MediaWiki's technical limits push-back at how we structure referencing; we want better referencing across the board. Articles like Israel are too large anyway; I previewed it, and it's 66 pages. That's edging into book-territory. It should be split-up for other reasons, which solves the template expansion issue. Recall '32kb'? That too small, of course, but huge 'articles' have a host of issues their size causes. Full template use and the LDR format using a vertical arrangement of the template parameters go a long way toward reducing the clutter-factor in the prose *and* in the references themselves. Liberal use of white space (which includes newlines) is key to making the references maintainable. See the ref section of this oldid (I mean in the edit box;). The inline form of referencing is a mere artifact of how MediaWiki evolved as a piece of software. It used to be that the definition *had* to come first. The code was improved and now they can be in any order. And LDR was developed to get them out of the prose entirely. This is the direction the developers are moving things. Everyone enabled the WP:RefToolbar gadget in preferences? It should be on by default. And it will be, just sit tight.
- refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates.
- This is what new editors find; this is the future, a tide coming in. There's more coming, too.
- Efforts to mess with articles in regressive ways in response to empirical observations by non-software people are disruptive to the project. We have a nice section on the issue:
- "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil" Donald Knuth
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
break
- Ambivalent on templates; Strong support on LDR. As the author of that abortion that Slim quotes above, I can say emphatically that had LDRs been available when I worked on that article, I'd have half the grey hairs that I currently own. Slim makes the case for LDR better than I could hope to. It is simplicity itself for me now to have two windows open side-by-side, one for the section I'm editing and one for the refs. The prose in the wikitext is now much more readable in the articles I'm working on, and by adopting a standard style for naming references (<ref name="AuthorYear" /> where possible), I can go back and re-edit the text and see where I was working from at a glance. The separation of text and reference means I have to do a double copy-paste if I'm importing into other articles, but I'd have more work to do if I were only using named refs, since I often have to go hunting for the full citation somewhere in the article (and no, it's not always at the first occurrence). LDR is a godsend for content editors. As for templates, I've spent several hours today examining the prior discussions (this and others), and I'm convinced that there actually is a problem that templates slow the server delivery when editing. On the other hand, I'm convinced that templates improve an article in almost all respects. Without a solution to the server response problem, I'm torn between the two arguments. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Computers are cheap and are getting cheaper. Humans are valuable, and hopefully get more so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- There's no deadline, so we can fix oxygen toxicity. There are a few thousand very active editors, but there are millions of readers. They are our 'clients', we're building this for them. MediaWiki will continue to improve, and so will our referencing. Plain text references are a relic of the early stages of the wiki; the future started arriving some time ago.
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Templates do not per se improve referencing - it doesn't make you "add" any more information. Indeed, when you modified this article, you didn't add any info not already there, that I could tell. And if you wanted to add information to the reference, there is no reason you couldn't do that with wikitext. Did it ever occur to you that Wikitext references are the future, and will replace all the outmoded, outdated, inefficient, cumbersome templating systems? (Point is that your view of "improvements" are in the eye of the beholder.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This was a huge huge improvement. To call out a specific, I'd added issn = 0307-1235 and oclc = 49632006 to the The Daily Telegraph references. The core improvements were to the readability and maintainability of the references, and I brought organization and structure to the references themselves by templating them; that's what templates *do*. Tools can then reliably parse them. You're an editor with WP:OWNership issues regarding this article. Point being, that you're wrong, and holding this article back. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Watch NPA. Your "huge improvement" diff is very difficult to read. I looked through diffs for quite a while and couldn't find much of significance added. I did, however, notice that you added "dead link" tags to at least one cite that already had it. You also changed numerous stylistic things that had no need of changing, and which have absolutely nothing to do with cite templates or "LDR". One might ask - why? When you point at others, you have a couple fingers pointing back at yourself. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- This was a huge huge improvement. To call out a specific, I'd added issn = 0307-1235 and oclc = 49632006 to the The Daily Telegraph references. The core improvements were to the readability and maintainability of the references, and I brought organization and structure to the references themselves by templating them; that's what templates *do*. Tools can then reliably parse them. You're an editor with WP:OWNership issues regarding this article. Point being, that you're wrong, and holding this article back. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Templates do not per se improve referencing - it doesn't make you "add" any more information. Indeed, when you modified this article, you didn't add any info not already there, that I could tell. And if you wanted to add information to the reference, there is no reason you couldn't do that with wikitext. Did it ever occur to you that Wikitext references are the future, and will replace all the outmoded, outdated, inefficient, cumbersome templating systems? (Point is that your view of "improvements" are in the eye of the beholder.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- As you're aware, the "huge improvement" was a revert of your revert of me. I had made my improvements in a series of edits that are clearer to read individually:
- The dupe-dead link taggings are Checklinks not seeing the tags placed by DASHBot; that can be sorted by contacting the owners of the tools. I made number of minor clean-up of proper quotation, replaced some odd apostrophes that were likely scraped off whatever site and typically originate in some word processor. I changed some of the named references to better names, too: 'sharon' to "BBC-Ripe4Success", for example, which I view as a better form. On others I added names and typically will use something of the form:
name="Davies2001-06-26"
. Here's a typical changed cite:<ref>Hugh Davies (February 7, 2001). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1310430/Halle-Berry-earns-extra-andpound357%2C000-for-topless-scene.html "Halle Berry earns extra £357,000 for topless scene"]. The Telegraph. Accessed 2008-04-29.</ref>
<ref name="Davies2001-06-26"> {{cite news | title = Halle Berry earns extra £357,000 for topless scene | last = Davies | first = Hugh | date = 2001-06-26 | work = [[The Daily Telegraph]] | publisher = [[Telegraph Media Group|TMG]] | location = [[London, UK|London]] | issn = 0307-1235 | oclc = 49632006 | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1310430/Halle-Berry-earns-extra-357000-for-topless-scene.html | accessdate = 2010-08-12 }} </ref>
- I added cite details such as 'Telegraph Media Group', the issn and the oclc. I corrected the publication date.link The information is now in a structured form that is easy to read and understand, to people, and to software. This information can be read by tools that can look things up in other databases and add further details. This is what User:Citation bot does; 109444 times, so far.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, I couldn't find much of significance added; I didn't say there was nothing. Nevertheless, changing the name of a bunch of named ref makes it difficult for other editors. You also coupled a number of changes that have nothing to do with templates. For instance, you changed the order of the names (a visible, stylistic issue that templates don't necessitate changing), and changed the style of the date of publication. The current citation style distinguishes publication and accessed dates, which can help readers. You also made a bunch of changes to whitespace, which, coupled with moving citations around, make the diff rather jumbled to interpret. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added cite details such as 'Telegraph Media Group', the issn and the oclc. I corrected the publication date.link The information is now in a structured form that is easy to read and understand, to people, and to software. This information can be read by tools that can look things up in other databases and add further details. This is what User:Citation bot does; 109444 times, so far.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support conversion to templated citations. LDR doesn't strike me as being such a big deal, and I have no objection to mixing them. Technically, there's nothing that keeps someone from adding a citation in the normal place to an article with LDR, and, while I think that should eventually get folded to the list, I see no need to rush in doing so.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- One of the things I've noticed with LDR is that you can't just remove a citation, or you get the big red warning. You have to scroll down to find it in the references section too. If you're doing section editing, you can't do that. And editors not familiar with it won't know to do it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The complications with section editing are my reason for ambivalence about LDR. Sometime LDR is the only thing that can rescue an unreadable mess, and other times it's just an annoyance.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see why anyone would object simply to writing <ref name=Smith1>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref> And thereafter <ref name=Smith1/> Minimum clutter, easy to add and remove, no templates, no slowing down of load time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because it's actually <ref name="pmid5885427">Schaffner, Fenton and Philip Felig (1965) [http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen], Journal of Cell Biology 27(3):505-17</ref>, and I'm still missing PMID, PMC, DOI and format. And how many editors do you think will format that consistently? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see why anyone would object simply to writing <ref name=Smith1>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref> And thereafter <ref name=Smith1/> Minimum clutter, easy to add and remove, no templates, no slowing down of load time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The complications with section editing are my reason for ambivalence about LDR. Sometime LDR is the only thing that can rescue an unreadable mess, and other times it's just an annoyance.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- But it isn't always that; in fact it usually isn't. This page is about Halle Berry. And the templates don't format consistently anyway. There are lots of them and they're a mess, plus they can be changed centrally by anyone, so they're not stable. Bottom line, Stephan, is that there are very few well-written articles that are full of templates. There are some at FA, but they're not the rule. The rule is the more templates, the worse the writing. Look at the CC articles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- {ec} The big red warning is useful. It means you've eliminated that source entirely from the text and need to remove the defined reference. Without LDR, a similar thing will happen if you remove a full citation that you've reused later as a named ref, so there's no difference there. When you cite the same source multiple times in an article, you use named references anyway; LDR just means you know exactly where the full citation is kept (in References where it belongs). I'd never object to you writing the short reference you give, but personally I'd always prefer to use <ref name="Smith2010" /> throughout the text – even less clutter than the minimum! Editors not familiar can still use any style they can manage; LDR doesn't exclude them. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It makes it hard for people to do section editing, and hard for people who don't have multiple windows open, who might be editing with small screens, and so on. It's a bar to editing. It may not be a big one, but it is one. I've been editing for six years and even I find them a complex nuisance, so someone new is going to be even more confused. My argument is always to keep citation style as simple as possible consistent with no clutter, because it's not just us we're doing it for, it's for the next editor who arrives on the page. So it's like making sure we leave the public convenience clean when we leave it, and don't hide the toilet paper. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It actually makes it easier for many people to do section editing, because you always know where the full cite is for each named reference, and there's less clutter in the text. I agree that that having two windows open makes it a doddle, but even folks on smaller monitors can use tabs on the browser and switch. That's a small price to pay for having less clutter and better organised referencing. I've been working with computers for 40 years, and I never fail to be amazed at how resistant existing users are to changing "the way we're used to", while newcomers find it easy to pick up. I still think keeping "citation style as simple as possible consistent with no clutter" is the very definition of LDR. I chuckled at your analogy, but would reply by saying that LDR is making sure the toilet roll holder is in the same place in each cubicle, and not screwed to the wall above the cistern in half of them :D Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It makes it hard for people to do section editing, and hard for people who don't have multiple windows open, who might be editing with small screens, and so on. It's a bar to editing. It may not be a big one, but it is one. I've been editing for six years and even I find them a complex nuisance, so someone new is going to be even more confused. My argument is always to keep citation style as simple as possible consistent with no clutter, because it's not just us we're doing it for, it's for the next editor who arrives on the page. So it's like making sure we leave the public convenience clean when we leave it, and don't hide the toilet paper. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whereas I see LDR as always knowing there's toilet paper in the cupboard, but never having it in the cubicle where you need it. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just hang a copy of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue on a nail in that stall; it's the appropriate material for the period your preferred cite-style dates from. I'll admit that even using modern citation mechanisms, the content of some of the cites may be shite, but if it's in a properly structured form, some bot may roll by, analyze the cite (a 'sniff' test;) and tag it as such. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTOILETPAPER? pablo 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The more I think about it and read the comments above, the more I think that LDR might be better. In a certain sense, if people are using in-line ref names (which they should be any time the same reference is cited more than once), then you still have the same section-editing problem that SlimVirgin talks about above. In fact, it can even be worse, because it isn't always obvious--that is, if you remove a reference from one section, you still have to save the change (previews won't help since you can't see reflists in previews), then look and see if you broke the references anywhere else in the article. Even now, when I'm working primarily on references, I work on the document as a whole, just so I can see previews. The one thing I am worried about is situations where the last citation to a particular reference is removed, and we're left with a reference in the LDR that isn't cited anywhere in the text; it would be nice if that were automatically checked for in some way (although, that's in part just my opinion, in that I think anything that isn't directly cited shouldn't be in references but in some other section, like "Further Reading). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is better ;) If you edit-out the last invocation of a LDR, it's highlighted in big-bold-red. If your intent is to remove it, this will remind you. You have the option of commenting it out, if it is expected to be used, again. And see {{sfn}}; you don't even need to use names; use the author's name and pub year. It's sweet. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The more I think about it and read the comments above, the more I think that LDR might be better. In a certain sense, if people are using in-line ref names (which they should be any time the same reference is cited more than once), then you still have the same section-editing problem that SlimVirgin talks about above. In fact, it can even be worse, because it isn't always obvious--that is, if you remove a reference from one section, you still have to save the change (previews won't help since you can't see reflists in previews), then look and see if you broke the references anywhere else in the article. Even now, when I'm working primarily on references, I work on the document as a whole, just so I can see previews. The one thing I am worried about is situations where the last citation to a particular reference is removed, and we're left with a reference in the LDR that isn't cited anywhere in the text; it would be nice if that were automatically checked for in some way (although, that's in part just my opinion, in that I think anything that isn't directly cited shouldn't be in references but in some other section, like "Further Reading). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whereas I see LDR as always knowing there's toilet paper in the cupboard, but never having it in the cubicle where you need it. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to chime in with a no to both, especially citation templates. My reasoning is very close to that of Slim. The practical benefits are minimal when it comes to templates and they always seem to require all kinds of fixes, like LDR. And it goes without saying that Gimmetoo's argument is very relevant. In reality, this is really a kind of style issue, except that those who support templates and LDR tend not to understand why technical complexity could ever confound anyone. Peter Isotalo 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a matter of interest, why is anyone even considering adding citation templates to this? There are 85 footnotes, clearly written so far I can tell. If you replace those with 85 templates you're going to slow down load time a fair bit without having gained anything. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm pretty neutral on this. That said, I think consistency is important. No matter what practice we go with, all articles should reflect that decision. If the choice is made that cite templates are the way to go, all articles should be converted, for consistency sake. I realize this discussion is currently aimed at this one article, but this is a decision that will/should be made across-the-board. Chickenmonkey 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do not have consistency now - some articles have raw links, some have hand-written references (named and unnamed), some have inline-definitions, and some have LDR. Oh, and plenty have no sources at all ;-). Seriously, we cannot decide for all of WIkipedia here, or, probably, anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I understand that. I should have clarified; I was attempting to answer SlimVirgin's question, "why is anyone even considering adding citation templates to this?" The answer, I would think, is aimed toward consistency. Chickenmonkey 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we do not have consistency now - some articles have raw links, some have hand-written references (named and unnamed), some have inline-definitions, and some have LDR. Oh, and plenty have no sources at all ;-). Seriously, we cannot decide for all of WIkipedia here, or, probably, anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes to both for all the reasons given above, and to make the data available as machine-readable metadata. SlimVirgin's "The templates confer absolutely no benefit " assertion is factually incorrect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments. This is an RfC nominally for the citation style of a single article which has evolved in a citation style that the RfC initiator doesn't like. If the RfC is really about this article, then it is necessary for those arguing for a change to positively and convincingly demonstrate that this article needs changing. So far, I don't see that any of those arguing for templates, etc. have actually done that. The arguments must be in reference to this article, not citation templates. Consistency of the Wiki is an interesting argument, but it's an argument that has been rejected on Wiki time and time again, and from all available evidence it is still rejected, let alone that templating is just one of many ways that one could achieve consistency, if one wanted. It is especially ridiculous when this RfC concerns a single article and not the whole Wiki. If you want to make that argument, then you need to have an RfC not on this article, but on whether Wiki should or should not have a unified consistent style for citations and what that style should be and how it should be achieved. I think you know exactly what would happen if you asked that question in general, and not in the context of an individual article where certain editors have already WP:CANVASsed for their view. Remember, in cases where a style dispute cannot be resolved on individual articles, the well-established, and presumably "consensus", way to resolve it is to stick with the established style. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I look at it a No article left behind approach. Except, of course, the ones that should be deleted, which is not a concern, here. Jack Merridew 01:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did it ever occur to you that templates might be only a temporary measure, and even in those articles which currently have them, they should ultimately be replaced by much more efficient and flexible wikitext? Why are you seeking to install a regressive system on this article? (The point is to illustrate that your alleged "improvements" are very much in the eye of the beholder, as it goes with any arbitrary style.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's both pointy, and childish parroting. Jack Merridew 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did it ever occur to you that templates might be only a temporary measure, and even in those articles which currently have them, they should ultimately be replaced by much more efficient and flexible wikitext? Why are you seeking to install a regressive system on this article? (The point is to illustrate that your alleged "improvements" are very much in the eye of the beholder, as it goes with any arbitrary style.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I look at it a No article left behind approach. Except, of course, the ones that should be deleted, which is not a concern, here. Jack Merridew 01:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right, Gimme. At some point templates will quite probably start to be replaced by a more sophisticated implementation. And I have no doubt that there will be a "Gimme99" around at the time telling us that there's no point in doing that because the new implementation will one day be replaced by something even newer. There will always be something newer around the corner, but that's not really a good reason not to start upgrading now. You may choose to believe me or not, but whatever replaces template refs will be much easier to upgrade to if those references already have templates. That's because a template is a data structure; it imposes an order on the data that can be used to present the data in whatever style is desired. The extra "clutter" in a template is our means of identifying what each bit of information represents. Any "more efficient and flexible wikitext" is going to rely on markup to indicate the function of each part of the reference, and it's going to be much easier to upgrade to a better implementation from references that already have such markup (templates in the present case) than it is for manually coded references. Having said that, I can't ignore Slim's point that the current implementation of templates takes a disproportionate amount of server time to parse whenever the squid cache can't be used (e.g. editing). That is a hurdle that will have to be overcome if we are to progress to more sophisticated means of handling our data; we're not there yet. --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just to AOL that point: I have similar discussions with people over {{singlechart}}, the bastard step-child of the citation templates. Templated citations/chart references/infoboxes/etc. are machine readable. They are easily parsed and modified by bots. If changes need to be made to the citation format, they can be done by editing the citation template, and if changes need to be made to the citation call, they can be assisted, checked, verified, or done by bots. Manual citations cannot be handled that way.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right, Gimme. At some point templates will quite probably start to be replaced by a more sophisticated implementation. And I have no doubt that there will be a "Gimme99" around at the time telling us that there's no point in doing that because the new implementation will one day be replaced by something even newer. There will always be something newer around the corner, but that's not really a good reason not to start upgrading now. You may choose to believe me or not, but whatever replaces template refs will be much easier to upgrade to if those references already have templates. That's because a template is a data structure; it imposes an order on the data that can be used to present the data in whatever style is desired. The extra "clutter" in a template is our means of identifying what each bit of information represents. Any "more efficient and flexible wikitext" is going to rely on markup to indicate the function of each part of the reference, and it's going to be much easier to upgrade to a better implementation from references that already have such markup (templates in the present case) than it is for manually coded references. Having said that, I can't ignore Slim's point that the current implementation of templates takes a disproportionate amount of server time to parse whenever the squid cache can't be used (e.g. editing). That is a hurdle that will have to be overcome if we are to progress to more sophisticated means of handling our data; we're not there yet. --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmetoo, your comments are illogical. All of the generic benefits of citation templates will apply here, if they are used in this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The pushier the attitude against dissenting voices, the more we'll get the impression that this is a fairly subjective issue. Right now the discussion seems to have stalled, so how about we give it a rest until someone comes with fresh perspectives? Peter Isotalo 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, Andy, "all the advantages" of cite templates would apply if used in a particular article. Likewise, so would all the disadvantages. (I assume you agree there are, indeed, disadvantages?) Since no template is universally superior to other templates or to regular wikitext, the reasons any particular form is used depends on issues particular to the article. This article has evolved for years without using cite templates, which prima facie shows that this article doesn't need them. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The pushier the attitude against dissenting voices, the more we'll get the impression that this is a fairly subjective issue. Right now the discussion seems to have stalled, so how about we give it a rest until someone comes with fresh perspectives? Peter Isotalo 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gimmetoo, your comments are illogical. All of the generic benefits of citation templates will apply here, if they are used in this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose both proposed changes; both citation templates and list-defined references have well-discussed problems, neither are required or always desirable, nor should they be. List-defined references separate the ref from the text, and citation templates chunk up the text in editing mode; these problems have been well discussed on Wiki many times, and citation style should not be changed unless consensus is gained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, no The templates give semantics to the references, and I typically find them easier to maintain. If Jack wants to do the work of changing them here, more power to him. I disagree with list-defined references, except in cases like the one quoted above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support both - The sign of a good, professional publication is consistency of style. I am not so foolish to think that we can make every article on Wikipedia exactly the same stylistically by this time tomorrow, however we should be continually striving for stylistic consistency across the encyclopedia as a whole. Reference styles are one part of that consistency. We do have the reference templates and we ought to be using them whenever possible. If there are problems with them, those problems ought to be adressed rather than letting them just sit out there, used in some articles and not in others. Consistent aesthetic is a crucial element of good design in ANY medium, be it web page design or fruit bowl design. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has very little to do with aesthetics since no one would be able to tell whether a note was template-generated or not without looking at the code. Peter Isotalo 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- It has much to do with aesthetics. If this site were only written by a few people and the rest of the world could only read, then the underlying code would be mostly irrelevant so long as it displayed consistently. The problem is, however, this is a site that encourages as many people as possible to edit pages. So, the consistency, readability and functionality of the underlying code is important. When people wish to edit, they do not want to see 5 or 6 different variations of writing references with WP:OWNers fighting each other over which way it ought to be. In order to objectively create the best possible encyclopedia we can, we need consistency and standardization across the project. When I took my first steps toward editing here some time ago, as an IP, I knew nothing about formatting references and usually just dumped URLs into articles. This works and is easy, but is it particularly useful? The same goes for creating a reference anywhere here. We ought to determine the right way to do it and then strive to do it the right way. After I registered and then installed the referencing gadget (the name of which escapes me at the moment), I immediately saw the usefulness of the various reference template types. Giving a newbie or someone who is just not used to referencing a template to work from, whether by copying and pasting from other articles or by using a gadget, makes learning the referencing style much easier for them and helps them get it right the first time. There is an aesthetic to the underlying code and it goes hand-in-hand with consistency, standardization, education and creating the best encyclopedia we can. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is really more a discussion about whether to use a given amount of code, not the type of code per se. Besides, this is not something that should be done one huge article discussion at a time. Why not try to suggest a unified standard at WP:CITE or WP:NOTES? Peter Isotalo 06:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has very little to do with aesthetics since no one would be able to tell whether a note was template-generated or not without looking at the code. Peter Isotalo 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The result of this discussion could very well be used as an example to gain consensus elsewhere. I would rather wait and see how this discussion ends before I attempt to propose wiki-wide referencing standardization. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except this discussion has nothing to do with standardization of reference formats. Even users who like and support use of templates can't agree on any one standard. That's why we have so many different reference templates.
- Peter Isotalo 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, there are 4 built into the cite tool, for different kinds of sources (web, news, book, journal), that are consistent and cover most cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The whole point of a guideline like CITE is to document consensus on the 'pedia, not to dictate it. That very guideline suggests that consensus should be sought to determine the style/format of references to be used in any particular article, and that is exactly what is being done here. The first question is "Should templates be used?" If any firm consensus emerges, then there is a case for considering the implications for CITE or NOTES; but until we've debated the issues in a 'test case', we're not in an informed position to ask for them to be reflected in a guideline. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- The result of this discussion could very well be used as an example to gain consensus elsewhere. I would rather wait and see how this discussion ends before I attempt to propose wiki-wide referencing standardization. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support both. The chances of me ever doing it this way on my own are slim (since i'm useless on the technical side). But it is an improvement, and consistent standards and best practice across the website are very good things. If an editor were to come along and improve this sort of stuff in an article i'd worked on, i'd be delighted. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- You'd be far from delighted, Bali, if someone added 100 citation templates to an article you'd written so that you had difficulty getting it to load, or look at diffs and preview. The point of the prohibition in WP:CITE against adding templates without consensus is precisely to make sure that kind of situation doesn't arise. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Jet Magazine (March 27, 2000). "Woman Injured In Halle Berry Car Incident Sues; Cops Say Actress Was In Similar Mishap 3 Years Ago". Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ a b c d Jet Magazine (April 17, 2000). "Halle Berry Charged With Misdemeanor In Hit And Run Case". Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ Jet Magazine (March 13, 2000). "Police Probe Halle Berry's Involvement In Hit And Run". Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ "Halle Berry Sued in Hit-and-Run" Associated Press, March 9, 2000. Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ Touré (January 20, 2001). "Portrait of a Lady". USA Weekend. Accessed 2007-04-02.
- ^ a b c d e f Jet Magazine (May 28, 2001). "Halle Berry Settles Suit Filed By Woman In February 2000 Car Crash". Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ Jet Magazine (March 13, 2000). "Police Probe Halle Berry's Involvement In Hit And Run". Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ "Halle Berry Sued in Hit-and-Run" Associated Press, March 9, 2000. Accessed 2009-05-11.
- ^ Touré (January 20, 2001). "Portrait of a Lady". USA Weekend. Accessed 2007-04-02.