Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-04 Citing sources

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Mediation Case: Citing sources

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

At Louisville Museum Plaza, Talk:Louisville Museum Plaza

Who's involved?

Stevietheman

What's going on?

user:Stevietheman changed the referencing style from Harvard referencing and footnotes to the citation template method. A changeover requires consensus per guideline and policies, and none has been reached, nor has much discussion outside of what I inputted has been initiated. My citation methods, using the Harvard style, is fully supported by Wikipedia, and not one method of citing sources is an official "set-standard" for all pages.

What would you like to change about that?

A keep for the current citing method using Harvard referencing, since it was the method that I utilized upon expansion of the page. My first edit on the page added the only source at the time using the Harvard referencing, and all substantial additional edits (where I have added information with sources) have been made by me using the same referencing methods. It is also the method of citing sources I use most often, along with MLA, on Wikipedia and in research papers, and has never been questioned until this incident.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I would like this to be as open as possible to bring forth additional comments on referencing methods. This could impact many other pages.

Mediator response

Hmm, well I'm kinda confused here. It was inappropriate to edit war over this, but is it really an issue? It seems that the formatting of citations is such a trivial issue to edit war about, I don't see what is making you guys so upset. Can't we just agree to leave it alone? :D Cowman109^Talk 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's closed as far as I can tell. An agreement was reached with Marsh (the only active participant in the discussion, although I invited Stevietheman numerous times to join in), and the changes will occur in the future. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was never provided a link to this case, so I didn't know about this until today. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On deeper review, it appears a link was given, but because I'm not concentrating much on Wikipedia lately, I just didn't realize that it was a link to an open case. I was thinking it was a link to a former case or guideline. That's what I get for going on wikibreak. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

As an editor, I have cited hundreds of sources. I use the citation method that is the most prevalent or is exclusively used on a page, whether it is a citation template or the Harvard-referencing-method. My compromise is that I will continue to choose the citation method that is the most prevalent or exclusively used to satisfy policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and to have a cooler head when starting initial discussions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

The debate that has ensued over the past few days has been over the referencing systems indicated on WP:CITE. The original method on the Louisville Museum Plaza page was the Harvard-referencing system, which is supported and endorsed and utilized on other pages.

From WP:CITE#How to cite sources,

* Embedded HTML links

* Harvard referencing (currently in effect)

* Footnotes

* Full citations

* Citation templates (which is what Stevietheman wants to switch to)

From WP:CITET,

* "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus."

Stevietheman has accused me of owning the article, but I am merely following policies and guidelines. Yes, I've invested much work and effort into the page, raising it from an unreferenced stub to a full-bodied page on an event that has a high-priority. But that doesn't mean I "own" the page - I allow outside editors to work on it, add content, etc., as long as it is not violating policies, guidelines, or is not vandalism. I have also been accused of abusing policy and guidelines, which does not make much sense since I am abiding by WP:CITE, WP:CITET and WP:FN, among others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per comment on talk:Louisville Museum Plaza by user:Stevietheman --

"I have full confidence that citation templates will be what will end up in this article, no matter what path we take. So why keep wasting our time with this? I will check back tomorrow to verify you have changed the citations back."

I am a bit weary that another edit war will ensue and that disruptions will ensue to prove a point. I would like to have the page monitored until this issue can be settled through the cabal, if possible. Thanks! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just absurd. I prefer MLA or template-based citations to Harvard style. Apparently Stevie does too. Seicer doesn't, insisted discussion, then discussion turned up no one but him wanting to keep Harvard style, and throughout he has been making various vague threats against Stevie (3RR blocks and so on). Seicer has just seemed highly antagonistic, although Stevie has probably been (inadvertently?) provoking him too. It's all just beyond silly at this point and I'm not going to change any citations in the article, but Seicer's "you must discuss PER POLICY! But wait, I'm right no matter how many people disagree with me, why must you waste space discussing this triviality?" attitude is annoying. --W.marsh 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevie has a 3RR warning that was unrelated (here), and the warning was to prevent the incident from gaining more exposure. That's not a "threat" - that's courtesy. He has revert-warred in the past, warned and been blocked once and I wanted to ensure that such a minor matter did not spill over to that. I prefer MLA to Harvard, however, MLA is not fully supported on Wikipedia (although both are very closely related they are interchangable). If you want to bend policy, I can restore them to the MLA format, although it is probably a minute difference. Speaking of policy...

"you must discuss PER POLICY! But wait, I'm right no matter how many people disagree with me, why must you waste space discussing this triviality?"

Where does adhering to policies and guidelines begin? I thought that articles on Wikipedia must be held to a certain standard, and that standard is clearly defined through strong consensus? A 2 to 1 vote is hardly consensus, hence why I wanted more discussion and hence why I started this case in the cabal. Here is a question posed to you specifically, in relation to your last statement: If we don't adhere to policy here, why bother adhering to policies elsewhere? It begins at the lowest level, and I try my best to conform to the set standards. I'm far from perfect, but as a researcher, scholar and student that must cite all sources in my papers and reports, it's second nature that I extend that professionalism and courtesy to Wikipedia. Sorry if you have a problem with me disagreeing with something that has importance to me. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, so we'd have to "bend" policy to use MLA? I thought policy didn't call for any specific citation format. If you prefer MLA to Harvard as you say above, why are you using Harvard in this article? I don't even know how to argue with you at this point... policy is always conveniently what you want it to be. I never said you shouldn't cite sources... you simply made that up. This whole argument doesn't make any sense to begin with, and inventing straw man arguments isn't helping. Policy is to cite sources, policy is to write articles to be high-quality (which to me, in part, means accessible to as many readers as possible)... I'm following policy by wanting to improve the citation style. You were adamant that we had to discuss it per policy, I'm discussing it per policy, and now I'm ignoring policy? This is what I mean about your interpretation of policy being all over the place. --W.marsh 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now looking at it, there is very little difference between the MLA and the Harvard that would make any difference; the point is quite moot on that. I switched to Harvard to prevent any changeover based on the "aha! You used the wrong format!". And now you are inserting phrases in an attempt to discredit me: I never once stated that we shouldn't cite sources. I only stated why is it that you do not want to accept the fact that others may like to use Harvard and abide by policy and guidelines? Big difference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I seriously suspect the problem is mostly a series of semantic misunderstandings of each other, and if we actually broke it down point by point and understood eachother, we wouldn't disagree about much other than style. To put it in a nutshell, I'd like to see the template-based citations used, that's been my point all along, but I think anything further I'd say would just be misinterpreted and further escalate this thing. --W.marsh 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, others have been misinterpretations my phrases and using them against me as well. Perhaps a compromise cold be done in a way that wouldn't have one cite devoted to six or seven lines? Could the template system be condensed down into two or three lines? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, it was condensed to three or four lines. Per what I offered above in another section, I'll continue to use the system prevalent or dominated in an article, whether that is the template or the Harvard. Note there is no one set-standard, and there is considerable opposition to the template-based system (as clearly noted at WP:CITET). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you can always just 'subst' the cite template to generate the actual citation, which shouldn't be particularly longer in either format. The templates just make it easier to generate for people like me who don't want to remember a bunch of rules about italics and order or have to constantly be looking them up. But if the main objection is just about the length of the citation templates, subst'ing them should get rid of that problem. --W.marsh 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to use them if subst'ing would work. I think this would be an acceptable compromise. I was just concerned with the useage and length - as what I've seen in other articles, the reference would consume 4 to 7 or 8 lines, which wastes a lot of space and makes it a pain for people like me to scroll through (at school, we use a small 15" monitor). This is why I wanted to initiate discussion, to see if a compromise could be reached, without burning bridges or instigating heated arguments. It's such a trivial issue but still one I take seriously (per reasons I stated above) - and yes, I am really anal about stuff like this. If it satisfies you and Stevie (he hasn't inputted his comments in here yet?), then go ahead and implement it if it can stay at a reasonable length with subst. There isn't much reason to do this on other articles, like the Muhammad Ali Center, where there are just brochure citations and it's pretty clear what's cited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The best solution is something technical, e.g. the ability to hide references in the article text unless you actually want to edit them. But my first preference is for templates, then the relatively cleaner and easier to follow style generated by the templates. So subst'ing would be fine with me, templates are just a means to generate a decent-looking citation style for me. It's regrettable that we don't have a better technical way of handling them. Anyway I will look at changing the templates over eventually, but I'm rather busy today. --W.marsh 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a better technical approach to referencing, but I also don't see why we need to subst the templates -- they are certainly intrusive, but not to the point of making editing that difficult. However, if subst'ing is the compromise (even though we won't see that anywhere else in the Wikipedia), I'll go with it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize but I've been somewhat out of the loop, mostly due to my partial wikibreak. I didn't realize this case was actually open until today. My position is to use the standard citation template. Why? Because based on my experience, most articles with references are using it, and I care about readability and not introducing unexpected formats. It's also painless to change the references over to using the template. I really don't understand the resistance to doing this, which, in addition to the seeming 3RR block threat by Seicer, is why I was so flabbergasted at the beginning of this issue. Further, Seicer has indicated that basically my vote doesn't count in this matter, which certainly it does. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)