Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) →WP:CITESTYLE: Reply Tag: Reply |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
* Here from [[WP:Citing sources]]. The purpose of CITEVAR is to stop editors edited warring other the 'right way' to reference. It doesn't stop editors from adding references that don't match the current article style, but is does allow for is imposing one style of referencing in an article. Which referencing style to use should be a matter of talk page consensus. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]»'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°</small> 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
* Here from [[WP:Citing sources]]. The purpose of CITEVAR is to stop editors edited warring other the 'right way' to reference. It doesn't stop editors from adding references that don't match the current article style, but is does allow for is imposing one style of referencing in an article. Which referencing style to use should be a matter of talk page consensus. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]»'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°</small> 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:Hi @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]], thanks for commenting. Would you say this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Ovens&diff=prev&oldid=1184630950] counts as changing referencing style, or is it something else? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
*:Hi @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]], thanks for commenting. Would you say this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Ovens&diff=prev&oldid=1184630950] counts as changing referencing style, or is it something else? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::To butt in, from my point of view that was not a change a referencing style, it was a normalization of an off-style citation to the citation format used in all the rest of the article, which is what [[WP:CITEVAR]] instructs us to do in the first place. But see below for an alternative to using {{tlx|Rp}} which was always a rather clumsy kluge. It was necessary when I invented it, but it has been surpassed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* There is no reason to impose {{tlx|sfn}} citation style, which is an unnecessary complication, for just one or a couple of sources that are reused, especially when plain use of {{xtag|ref}} completely dominates in an article. And {{tlx|rp}} is basically obsolete (and I say that as the creator of the template). If you want to cite the same source multiple times at different pages, a solution requiring no additional templates at all is provided by the {{para|ref}} parameter of the citation templates. E.g. first do <code><nowiki><ref>{{cite book |last=Grant |first=David |title=Anderton: His Life and Times |date=2022 |publisher=Te Herenga Waka University Press |location=Wellington |isbn=9781776920563 |ref=Grant |page=123}}</ref></nowiki></code> and later do <code><nowiki><ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref></nowiki></code> This system is more robust than {{tlx|sfn}}, which doesn't support any annotations; with {{para|ref}} you can so something like <code><nowiki><ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234; citing: {{cite journal |... additional citation details here for original source}}.</ref></nowiki></code> The {{para|ref}} approach requires no dual-section referencing. And using "Notes" as the heading name in either section when you do dual-section referencing is a terrible idea, because that usually refers to non-citation footnotes. If you're going to do dual-sectional referencing, try "References" and "Sources", or "Citations" and "Sources". PS: ActivelyDisinterested above is correct that WP:CITEVAR can't be used to suppress addition of valid sources just because they're not in a format you personally prefer or which better matches the rest of the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Article ref Poor, Christopher J. (2005) == |
== Article ref Poor, Christopher J. (2005) == |
Revision as of 21:25, 21 November 2023
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recent edits
This talk page has not been used in a decade. Those editors with an interest in the subjects's activism in a contentious topic-area should establish their differences—and common hround—here and by consensus decide how to describe the subject and political party in neutral, well-sourced terms, conducive with WP:BLP. Serial 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a bit of an effort just now, and I should have checked the talk page first. I did not find adequate sourcing to use the "transphobic" label in Wikipedia's voice nor at all really; this party suffers from the lack of reliable coverage common to very small (in terms of both size and ideology) political parties. Based on the not-obviously-biased sources I did find, I think it is fair to describe the party as I have, that it "advocates for the rights of biological women", with a wikilink to gender-critical feminism. I pulled the source from the party's article which is being used to support "The party's main ideology is trans-exclusionary feminism" (which also links to gender-critical feminism), which I think is wording that's inappropriately skewed to the negative, but that can be discussed on that article. I also added the party's own "priorities" page as a primary reference, which reads as a mission statement: "Sex is binary / Human beings cannot change sex / Women are adult humans of the female sex". Thoughts on that? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- We have to be incredibly careful with bad faith dog whistle phrases like "biological women". "Biological women" can only be used in quotations and it would need to be contextualised so that readers can understand that it a dishonest way of saying "cisgender women" while snidely implying that other women are not biological, i.e. are less than human. I put the phrase in quotes as a quick fix but Ivan took it out completely because it looked like scare quotes. That absolutely was not my intention but, in retrospect, I agree that it looked like that so it was perfectly fair to remove it. I don't see any strong reason to bring it back but, if we do, it would have to be as part of an attributed quotation of a sentence or a longer sentence fragment. DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I used that wording in a bit of a rush, but I agree completely with not using "biological women" in this sense. I didn't have time to explain properly, but I thought that not describing the party's ideology at all was preferable to using a term that we use quotes to indicate is politically loaded; using the quotes made it a weasel word, I thought. Not having time to think of a better approach, I just removed it and hoped that my edit summary would suffice. Apologies for that, no offence was intended.
- As for what to do about it, I think some kind of statement about their openly stated anti-gender stance should be noted; it would be falsely neutral to leave it out, particularly since that is the only thing that the organization is broadly known for. But they also deny that they are transphobic, and absent any sources saying otherwise, Wikipedia also can't say that. The Newsroom source seems to be the best we have, that article describes the party's platform as "mostly based around upholding binary views of sex and gender, preventing trans women from accessing female spaces and resisting language that portrays gender and sex as a continuum", which seems like a good match for gender-critical feminism. We could describe them as "a gender-critical feminist political party" perhaps? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Ivanvector, for tidying it up - my immediate concern was the claims made in Wikipedia's voice, but it's much better now. Serial 13:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- We have to be incredibly careful with bad faith dog whistle phrases like "biological women". "Biological women" can only be used in quotations and it would need to be contextualised so that readers can understand that it a dishonest way of saying "cisgender women" while snidely implying that other women are not biological, i.e. are less than human. I put the phrase in quotes as a quick fix but Ivan took it out completely because it looked like scare quotes. That absolutely was not my intention but, in retrospect, I agree that it looked like that so it was perfectly fair to remove it. I don't see any strong reason to bring it back but, if we do, it would have to be as part of an attributed quotation of a sentence or a longer sentence fragment. DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kiwichris, I made this edit [1] to make the refs the same per WP:CITESTYLE. You reverted that:[2]. Why is having 1 References and all the others Notes "improve referencing"? There is no good reason to have one sfn-ref mixed in with others in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is more than one now, and I'm sure more will be added as the article grows. Kiwichris (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- And per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR new ones should not be sfn in this article. I will change again, and please follow established citing going forward per guideline. And again, the Notes/References division makes no sense as it was done, compare for example Shakespeare authorship question. Waikato Times is also a reference. Other editors, please comment if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following your logic, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. This article was using shortened footnotes until you changed that on 12 November. And now you are accusing Kiwichris of changing to a non-established citation style? I'm trying to assume good faith but this is bordering on disruptive behaviour. Would you please self-revert? Using shortened footnotes is an appropriate citation style. Schwede66 08:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 My logic is that the article had one sfn reference (Grant, and it was used for 3 cites) that I changed on 11 November (says my edit-history to me[3], I'm guessing a time-zone-thing), but 30+ (I think) others. That makes sfn not "established" in this article per WP:CITEVAR. Using shortened footnotes is an appropriate citation style, yes, but not mixed in with others, per WP:CITESTYLE guidance it's all or nothing.
- Since I think I'm right and reasonable (!), I will not self-revert. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, does the Notes/References division you want me to revert to [4] look WP-good to you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve written ten articles that have passed as GAs (see my user page if you are interested) and six of those use the citation style that this article had until you changed it. You appear to misunderstand what it is that the guidelines say, or are you telling me that those six GA reviewers all got it wrong? Would you now please self-revert, Gråbergs Gråa Sång? Schwede66 14:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, take Kathy Lynch for example. IMO the only sfn ref that article has should be done ref-tag style (with in-text Template:Rp), making it land under "References" like all the others. It would also get rid of the "Citations" section. We tend to use ref/cite/source interchangeably when we discuss, but as I understand it, citations are the in-text hyperlink thingies, to have a section titled that for a lone ref doesn't look right to me and per my reading doesn't follow WP:CITESTYLE. Doesn't it look weird to you? I don't know if GA/FA-people care about that, but I'm pretty sure I've seen them asking for consistent cite-style at times.
- For another WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, compare FA William Shakespeare where every cite is sfn-style (not counting a few ones no one has bothered to put in in sfn-shape, probably because the editor who added them didn't know how). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it doesn’t look weird to me. Schwede66 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it doesn’t look weird to me. Schwede66 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve written ten articles that have passed as GAs (see my user page if you are interested) and six of those use the citation style that this article had until you changed it. You appear to misunderstand what it is that the guidelines say, or are you telling me that those six GA reviewers all got it wrong? Would you now please self-revert, Gråbergs Gråa Sång? Schwede66 14:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble following your logic, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. This article was using shortened footnotes until you changed that on 12 November. And now you are accusing Kiwichris of changing to a non-established citation style? I'm trying to assume good faith but this is bordering on disruptive behaviour. Would you please self-revert? Using shortened footnotes is an appropriate citation style. Schwede66 08:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- And per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR new ones should not be sfn in this article. I will change again, and please follow established citing going forward per guideline. And again, the Notes/References division makes no sense as it was done, compare for example Shakespeare authorship question. Waikato Times is also a reference. Other editors, please comment if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article, as it existed before the first edit by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (as far as I can find) had a logical reason to use sfn for one source. The book by Grant, Anderton: His Life and Times, was the only source that had more than one inline citation to it. Also, different pages were cited each time, so it would not have been sufficient to just use the
|name=
parameter of the <ref> tag. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)- That is what Template:Rp is for. And no it wasn't, check "Young, Audrey (6 August 2006)" in your link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- May I draw your attention to the template's documentation?
{{rp}} is an alternative to the method of using shortened footnotes
. Please note the word "alternative". It does not say it’s the only way to quote specific pages. Schwede66 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)- Agree, we can use one variation or the other. If we ref an article sfn-citestyle, we note pagenumbers the sfn-way. If we ref an article ref-tag-citestyle, we use the page-param or the rp-template, whichever we think is needed per specific ref. The Poor, Christopher J pdf could atm be done with a "77-81" param and skip the rp. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- May I draw your attention to the template's documentation?
- That is what Template:Rp is for. And no it wasn't, check "Young, Audrey (6 August 2006)" in your link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Here from WP:Citing sources. The purpose of CITEVAR is to stop editors edited warring other the 'right way' to reference. It doesn't stop editors from adding references that don't match the current article style, but is does allow for is imposing one style of referencing in an article. Which referencing style to use should be a matter of talk page consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for commenting. Would you say this [5] counts as changing referencing style, or is it something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- To butt in, from my point of view that was not a change a referencing style, it was a normalization of an off-style citation to the citation format used in all the rest of the article, which is what WP:CITEVAR instructs us to do in the first place. But see below for an alternative to using
{{Rp}}
which was always a rather clumsy kluge. It was necessary when I invented it, but it has been surpassed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- To butt in, from my point of view that was not a change a referencing style, it was a normalization of an off-style citation to the citation format used in all the rest of the article, which is what WP:CITEVAR instructs us to do in the first place. But see below for an alternative to using
- Hi @ActivelyDisinterested, thanks for commenting. Would you say this [5] counts as changing referencing style, or is it something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to impose
{{sfn}}
citation style, which is an unnecessary complication, for just one or a couple of sources that are reused, especially when plain use of<ref>
completely dominates in an article. And{{rp}}
is basically obsolete (and I say that as the creator of the template). If you want to cite the same source multiple times at different pages, a solution requiring no additional templates at all is provided by the|ref=
parameter of the citation templates. E.g. first do<ref>{{cite book |last=Grant |first=David |title=Anderton: His Life and Times |date=2022 |publisher=Te Herenga Waka University Press |location=Wellington |isbn=9781776920563 |ref=Grant |page=123}}</ref>
and later do<ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
This system is more robust than{{sfn}}
, which doesn't support any annotations; with|ref=
you can so something like<ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234; citing: {{cite journal |... additional citation details here for original source}}.</ref>
The|ref=
approach requires no dual-section referencing. And using "Notes" as the heading name in either section when you do dual-section referencing is a terrible idea, because that usually refers to non-citation footnotes. If you're going to do dual-sectional referencing, try "References" and "Sources", or "Citations" and "Sources". PS: ActivelyDisinterested above is correct that WP:CITEVAR can't be used to suppress addition of valid sources just because they're not in a format you personally prefer or which better matches the rest of the article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Article ref Poor, Christopher J. (2005)
This source [6] may be dubious per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)