Talk:Jacques Goulet

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Goulet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810215453/http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/robert-goulet/index.html to http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/robert-goulet/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Legend

I removed the following from the article. It was under the bibliography section, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. It does not appear to be encyclopedic content.- MrX 🖋 20:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Legend

• Fichier Origine - Répertoire informatisé de la Fédération québécoise des sociétés de généalogie en partenariat avec la Fédération française de généalogie
• Nos Origines - Site web, Généalogie du Québec et française d'Amérique
• PRDH - Programme de recherche en démographie historique / Research Program in Historical Demography, Université de Montréal
  
• PREFEN - Programme de recherche sur l'émigration des français en Nouvelle-France, Université de Caen

@Cblambert: Your edits do not follow guidelines. You're using non-standard formatting, headings, indents, and references. I ask that you please slow down and discuss these edits.- MrX 🖋 23:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still available and waiting to discuss why these massive changes to the reference system are undesirable per WP:CITEVAR.- MrX 🖋 20:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the citations in this article be changed to Harvard style?

The consensus is no, the article citations in this article should not be changed from citation style 1 to Harvard style.

Cunard (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the citations in this article be changed from citation style 1 to Harvard style?- MrX 🖋 20:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• No - CS1 is by far the more prevalent standard on Wikipedia for good reason. We have gadget's like ProveIt and ReFill that facilitate maintaining references. Also, CS1 allows readers to use tool tips to see references without the need to scroll back and forth. Finally, WP:CITEVAR states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."- MrX 🖋 21:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• You refer, I presume, to edits like this That is not a change to Harvard style, which uses parenthetical referencing, as with articles such as Actuary. It is a change to the shortened citations style. If carefully done, with links from the short citation to the long one (in this case, by means of the misleadingly-named {{harvnb}} template and the |ref=harv parameter), the need for scrolling is very much reduced. Nor is it a change from CS1 style - CS1 is not a style but a family of templates such as {{cite book}}. In that edit, these templates are still present, they're just in a different part of the article, where they have been linked form the short citations. The number of CS1 templates has in fact increased, from 21 to 26. Now if I look at the previous version, what I see is a lot of inconsistency - it is true that many refs are constructed using CS1 templates, but some are untemplated, and some (the first five) are already in the form of shortened footnotes. It's clear to me that what Cblambert (talk · contribs) has done is to bring consistency where there was little before. So I support the change from a mixture of styles to a consistent use of shortened footnotes. I would, however, prefer a simpler approach to the Bibliography section, where the <br> tags are redundant and an ordinary bulleted list would be better than double colons and a hyphen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It is nice to be dealing with an open-end question. I thought that Harvard style would be suitable partly because earlier this week the article had about twenty or so Citation Needed notations in the text. Today there are no Citation Needed notations in the text. As :Redrose64 intimates, Harvard style imposes discipline and seriouslness into the editing process. A few years ago I was insturmental in getting the relatively large, longstanding article Transformer to good article status. A year later I implemented Harvard style to the article. I look forward to working together towards reachingg consensus about which way to go. Havard style or usual inconsistent style.Cblambert (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not Harvard style. I already explained this. See WP:HARVARD and Parenthetical referencing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) - not unless there is local consensus - for reasons given by MrX, but just as importantly because changes to cit style etc. on an individual article should be changed only by local consensus of those affected, not by RfC-ers like me parachuting in to say which they like. Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• No (except where needed to avoid WP:DUPCITES). (Summoned by bot) - to use the example diff example diff given by Redrose, I don't personally see any utility in moving something like zonecousinage.com, which is currently only cited once, to use WP:CITESHORT and force the user to follow two links instead of one to see the actual source reference. To be clear, I know of no rule against putting one-use sources in citeshort like that, but personally I think it makes things more difficult, both for the readers and for the editors. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.