| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip of Oldcoates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Philip of Oldcoates appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DYK nom edit
Template:Did you know nominations/Philip of Oldcoates - Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
SFN edit
Please do not convert the references to SFN. Please self revert. Reviewing an article for DYK does not mean you get to change the referencing style unilaterally. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Revert it yourself. This is better for readers. WP:Own. I have commented at the DYK nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why is it better for readers? The previous style (which is common in history works) gives the author and title in a short form - thus making it much easier to easily find the reference without having to refer to a bibliography to see what work by someone was published in a particular year. Easier to remember a title than a year. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- If the reader clicks on any of those blue links it takes you to the whole citation. Don't have to remember anything. Your memory problems (in creating the citations) are obviated by the better format in access. You are right about WP:CITEVAR, but this is just cleaner and easier. You were not being asked to do anything. My citations were more complete than yours. But if yoy can't see that there is no point in debate. Do what you want. I won't be dealing with you again. Trust me on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure why you're acting like I've insulted you or called you names. I didn't immediately revert, I didn't template you, I asked nicely that you take into account CITEVAR, not being sure if you'd ever run into it or not. There isn't a great need to immediately go on the offensive here. I'm sorry you found my requests to be somehow offensive. Thank you for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I was aware of it. I apologize for overreacting to your expressed concerns.
- You asked me to self revert. I decline.
- I would say that FAs typically use SFNs. And once you get used to doing them, you will find that it is easier and less cumbersome to write than naming each individual citation. And it displays the page number along with a blue link that highlights the whole citation. IMO, this is a 'no brainer' for readers.
- But you created the article, and I recognize your primacy. I've experienced this reaction before, and have been reverted in a grand scale on really big articles, so this is a piffle. I've said my piece, and leave it to your judgment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've worked on plenty of FAs without SFNs. If SFNs would display the title rather than the year, I'd be all in favor. But in the field I learned (medieval history) ... years are annoying because authors typically have many different works. (Using this article as an example, I will probably end up expanding it with a couple of other works by Vincent, Warren and Turner - it's easier to keep them straight if we use titles, rather than years.) I find the short title more useful as a reader because I do NOT have to go to the bibliography - I can hover over the number and see enough of the citation to figure out what was cited. Your milage may vary. Thank you for considering other sides. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure why you're acting like I've insulted you or called you names. I didn't immediately revert, I didn't template you, I asked nicely that you take into account CITEVAR, not being sure if you'd ever run into it or not. There isn't a great need to immediately go on the offensive here. I'm sorry you found my requests to be somehow offensive. Thank you for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- If the reader clicks on any of those blue links it takes you to the whole citation. Don't have to remember anything. Your memory problems (in creating the citations) are obviated by the better format in access. You are right about WP:CITEVAR, but this is just cleaner and easier. You were not being asked to do anything. My citations were more complete than yours. But if yoy can't see that there is no point in debate. Do what you want. I won't be dealing with you again. Trust me on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why is it better for readers? The previous style (which is common in history works) gives the author and title in a short form - thus making it much easier to easily find the reference without having to refer to a bibliography to see what work by someone was published in a particular year. Easier to remember a title than a year. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
For a reader, they click on the link. No fuss. Good luck. There are many ways to view the world. And an infinite number of ways to edit it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)