288:'s "mandate" doesn't mean that changes can't be made (I do it all the time – with extremely little push-back). I'm going to continue with the strategy that: if questioned, then talk page discussion is required – as is happening here (and I'm comfortable with that). Any other approach is simply too time-consuming and bureaucratic (and if I eventually get banned for my approach, then so be it). I feel I'm supported by real-world practice in my approach to referencing changes because I think I'm batting about 0.994 (dropped a bit today) with lack of questioning for such changes – with other editors overwhelmingly appreciating how I'm trying to improve articles, and with the use of the more modern approach to referencing (that is, thank goodness, gaining traction across WP).
420:, for example. This leads to problems with multiple citations that are not identical yet have the same name. The second and subsequent citations are masked by the first one. Citations that click straight down to the bibliography are not a good idea, as then the reader is not told what page the information is on. For journal articles, you can list the full page range in the bibliography and use the sfn template to specify the exact page number within the article. This is useful for larger journal articles. I use the sfn system all the time, and find it easy to work with and maintain. --
443:
templates in general give me the willies, since I so frequently find things belonging in references that are not accommodated by them (series titles in book entries, for example), not to mention the fact that the formats they impose are often foreign to my experience. The cite journal template, for example, boldfaces volume numbers for journals, which is something I see mainly in scientific journals, almost never in the humanities. This can be overcome with guile, of course, but isn't that contrary to the purpose of templates?—
316:
citations, the more troublesome it gets. That said, I'm not sure that your "modernization" goes quite far enough. Once the inline reference has in effect been reduced to a marker, with a link to a list of sources using the sfn template, I fail to see the point of putting one link in the text (a footnote number) that only leads to another one (in a footnote). Why not cut out the middleman and use the sfn template the way it was evidently designed to be used—with direct links from
45:
21:
107:
55:
291:
Regarding this article, I stick by my (at least) four points that indicate that there are more advantages than disadvantages with the scheme I adopted to improve the article. I'm not aware of the disadvantages of the Cite templates (especially in this article); and if slower load time is the concern,
533:
My proposal is identical to GFHandel's initial proposal, so sorry if I am not making that clear. Both sfn templates and harvnb templates create parenthetical
Harvard citations. The sfn template is superior because it does not need the additional ref tags and the citations collate automatically. Far
461:
My comment was in response to what you said: "Why not cut out the middleman and use the sfn template the way it was evidently designed to be used—with direct links from parenthetical referencing?" which is a misunderstanding of the way the sfn template is meant to be used. The sfn template works the
315:
Let me reiterate that I agree with you in principle. The current reference format is just about the one I like the least of all: full references in footnotes. I find it especially problematic in online documents, and doubly so on a freely edited forum like
Knowledge. The greater the number of inline
172:
assist the reader by providing consistent formatting and linkages (via hyperlinks) within the article, and assist editors via a consistent parameter-driven approach for future updates to reference and citation syntax (e.g. via bot-assisted updates). The strategy demonstrated above reduces the amount
483:
that can check for you that each
Harvard citation (whether using sfn or harvnb templates) actually points to a book that is present in the bibliography, and that each book in the bibliography is actually used as a reference. This adds even further to the verifiability and accuracy of the citations.
513:
Wow. This all sounds even more impressive than GFHandel's original proposal, for which reason I understand even less than I did before. I do feel constrained, however, to point out that I have already confessed my misconstrual of sfn as harv. In that light, and supposing that my proposal to remove
338:
The bidirectional links are a result of having one described source and multiple citations to that source. I don't mind the links and I'm sure that (the one in a hundred) readers who need to follow them won't either. However I am keen to learn, so could you please give us an example of the way the
596:
change to be an improvement. My worry is rather whether the format imposed by this particular set of templates is really the most desirable one for this article. If you can convince me that it is, or that the advantages of the templates themselves override any disadvantages inherent in the format
205:
mandates retention of the established format until consensus to change it has been achieved. Personally, I prefer using source lists and shortened in-text citations. However, there may be disadvantages to the use of citation templates, about whjch I am very wary. I would like to see a discussion
442:
tell the reader what page the information is on? The syntax is ( , ), for both books and articles. Naturally, the page range of articles is given in the list of sources in any case. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I have almost no experience at all with sfn templates, and
475:
to many of the citations, increasing their value and verifiability. It was even able to locate the title for a journal article that had this information missing from the citation. Citation Bot will not be able to perform these improvements for you unless your sources are wrapped in citation
200:
Gosh! That sure does sound impressive! What does it mean in
English? ;-) Before you take offense, I think I'm on your side in this—I just want to make sure I understand what this means from an ordinary reader's point of view. I also reverted your edit only as a matter of procedure, since
351:
My apologies, I was confusing the sfn template with {{harv}} and {{harvnb}}. Obviously, the sfn template is designed for use with shortened footnotes, as its TLA might suggest. I guess what I should have said is that harv templates would be better (more "up to date") than what you are
375:– I have begun to use this style of citation more and more, as it is cleaner, easier to read inline, and easier to maintain. One point on the conversion edit: there is an issue= parameter for cite journal, so you could change, e.g. "volume=13, No. 4" to "volume=13 | issue=4". —
591:
I meant the {{sfn}} template, which I believe is unsuitable for
Harvard referencing. My concerns here, by the way, are not that the current referencing style can or should be improved. I think I have already made plain that I cannot imagine
548:
Well, you leave me in the dust, I am afraid. So long as those ugly footnotes are removed and replaced with proper up-to-date parenthetical references, I bow to the superior technology. I just don't see how that template can be used in this
518:
parameter business will eventually sink through my dense brain, but at the moment it still looks like a refugee from the 1970s computer-programming languages I abandoned several decades ago in favour of good old-fashionend
English.
633:
437:
With respect to "Citations that click straight down to the bibliography are not a good idea, as then the reader is not told what page the information is on", how does a parenthetical (i.e., Harvard) reference
258:
page range lands the interested reader somewhere within the article). If anyone does feel the need to add the page range, perhaps the |volume parameter could be used (since it's free-form text anyway).
116:
31:
248:
template, and it isn't necessary to describe the journal article in more detail than is required for location as a source (e.g. there's no need to describe the page range of the article since the
210:
citation, which I notice you did not convert. Also, the {{cite book}} template is not suitable for journal articles, because amongst other things it has no parameter for inclusive page numbers.—
173:
of citation syntax within the article text – which is a bonus for editors, and it cuts down on repeated information in the
References section (as demonstrated by the article state following the
514:
footnotes altogether and replace them with the more modern parenthetical referencing format is the most viable option here, how do these refinements apply? (I can only suppose that the
77:
476:
templates. You definitely don't want to try to trick the cite templates into not bolding the volume numbers, as
Citation Bot will no longer be able to access the material.
206:
based on the actual sources used here, as well as any sources likely to be added in future. Amongst the already-in-place items, I am particularly concerned about the
638:
320:? That way, we would at least be updating the referencing style to the late 19th century! Problems with the templates can be discussed separately, but I think
534:
from being a throwback to the early days of computing, these innovations are the simplest and best way to create citations for this website at present. --
339:
sfn template was designed to be used – either by editing a case in this simple article or by directing us to an article demonstrating that usage? Thanks.
81:
68:
26:
281:). I might ask another knowledgeable source about that, because I am keen to see if it can be moved to the Sources section in such articles.
418:, because harvnb does not automatically collate for identical references. Each citation must be named : <ref name=Hughes450: -->
577:
template. You were wondering how to incorporate the name of a book series into a cite book template, quite a ways up the page. --
382:
597:
they use, then we should have no problem achieving consensus here. This has not happened yet, but I am still listening.—
498:
system is the best one to use for articles that are mostly drawing on books and journal articles as their sources. --
324:
be discussed before moving ahead with any change in the referencing format that might only have to be redone later.—
296:
article (which does have a marginally higher hit rate than an article about Handel's flute sonatas – unfortunately).
472:
317:
484:
Regarding accommodating series of books using the cite book template, this is easily accomodated using the
480:
60:
602:
554:
524:
448:
357:
329:
265:
232:
215:
156:
292:
then I think we're okay here – there being slightly less than the 250 or so Cite templates used in the
571:
343:
305:
190:
146:
582:
539:
503:
425:
285:
202:
80:
for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
598:
550:
520:
488:
parameter. So there's lots of advantages to using citation templates, and in my opinion the
444:
353:
325:
211:
412:
73:
377:
293:
627:
340:
302:
187:
271:, but I don't think it's possible to add something like |ref=harv to it (for use in
44:
20:
578:
535:
499:
492:
465:
Hand-drawn citations are inaccessible to bots such as
Citation Bot. Have a look at
421:
402:
275:
252:
242:
166:
135:
I propose that the referencing and citation strategy be updated as demonstrated by
76:, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
72:, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
606:
586:
558:
543:
528:
507:
452:
429:
386:
361:
346:
333:
308:
219:
193:
50:
238:(as used in my reference-update edit). The inclusive page numbers are in the
106:
634:
WikiProject
Classical music compositions task force articles
105:
462:
same as the harvnb template, exept it has the <ref: -->
471:, where calling Citation Bot resulted in the addition of
567:
thing, that's not a template, it's a parameter from the
467:
175:
137:
179:of the above edit) – which is a bonus for readers.
8:
15:
419:{{Harvnb|Hughes|2002|p=450}}</ref: -->
131:Update of reference and citation strategy
463:tag built right into the template code.
17:
90:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music
7:
639:WikiProject Classical music articles
93:Template:WikiProject Classical music
66:This article is within the scope of
186:as proposer (and article creator).
14:
261:There is a specific template for
563:Which template? if you mean the
53:
43:
19:
479:There's a script available at
1:
114:This article is supported by
607:19:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
587:06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
559:06:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
544:06:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
529:06:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
508:00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
453:23:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
430:21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
387:20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
362:19:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
347:19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
334:04:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
309:02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
220:01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
194:23:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
69:WikiProject Classical music
655:
473:digital object identifiers
318:parenthetical referencing
113:
38:
96:Classical music articles
117:Compositions task force
481:User:Ucucha/HarvErrors
110:
61:Classical music portal
109:
111:
228:I meant to write
141:edit. The use of
128:
127:
124:
123:
84:for more details.
646:
576:
570:
566:
517:
497:
491:
487:
470:
417:
411:
408:are superior to
407:
401:
299:
280:
274:
270:
264:
257:
251:
247:
241:
237:
231:
178:
171:
165:
161:
155:
151:
145:
140:
98:
97:
94:
91:
88:
63:
58:
57:
56:
47:
40:
39:
34:
23:
16:
654:
653:
649:
648:
647:
645:
644:
643:
624:
623:
574:
568:
564:
515:
495:
489:
485:
466:
415:
409:
405:
399:
385:
297:
278:
272:
268:
262:
255:
249:
245:
239:
235:
229:
174:
169:
163:
159:
153:
149:
143:
136:
133:
95:
92:
89:
87:Classical music
86:
85:
74:classical music
59:
54:
52:
29:
27:Classical music
12:
11:
5:
652:
650:
642:
641:
636:
626:
625:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
456:
455:
432:
389:
381:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
313:
312:
311:
300:
294:Britney Spears
289:
282:
259:
223:
222:
197:
196:
132:
129:
126:
125:
122:
121:
112:
102:
101:
99:
65:
64:
48:
36:
35:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
651:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
629:
608:
604:
600:
595:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
573:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
494:
482:
477:
474:
469:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
450:
446:
441:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
414:
404:
397:
393:
390:
388:
384:
380:
379:
374:
371:
370:
363:
359:
355:
350:
349:
348:
345:
342:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
310:
307:
304:
301:
295:
290:
287:
283:
277:
267:
260:
254:
244:
234:
227:
226:
225:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
204:
199:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:
180:
177:
168:
158:
152:
148:
139:
130:
119:
118:
108:
104:
103:
100:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
62:
51:
49:
46:
42:
41:
37:
33:
28:
25:
22:
18:
593:
478:
464:
439:
434:
395:
391:
376:
372:
321:
266:NewGrove2001
233:cite journal
207:
183:
157:cite journal
142:
134:
115:
82:project page
67:
32:Compositions
599:Jerome Kohl
565:| series =
551:Jerome Kohl
521:Jerome Kohl
516:| series =
486:| series =
445:Jerome Kohl
354:Jerome Kohl
352:proposing.—
326:Jerome Kohl
212:Jerome Kohl
628:Categories
286:WP:CITEVAR
203:WP:CITEVAR
78:guidelines
572:cite book
519:Sorry.){—
468:this edit
378:Torchiest
208:New Grove
147:cite book
341:GFHandel
303:GFHandel
188:GFHandel
435:Comment
396:Comment
392:Support
373:Support
184:Support
579:Dianna
536:Dianna
500:Dianna
422:Dianna
413:harvnb
322:should
176:revert
549:way.—
383:edits
284:BTW,
603:talk
583:talk
555:talk
540:talk
525:talk
504:talk
449:talk
426:talk
394:and
358:talk
330:talk
216:talk
162:and
138:this
594:any
493:sfn
440:not
403:sfn
398::
298::-)
276:sfn
253:sfn
243:sfn
167:sfn
630::
605:)
585:)
575:}}
569:{{
557:)
542:)
527:)
506:)
496:}}
490:{{
451:)
428:)
416:}}
410:{{
406:}}
400:{{
360:)
332:)
279:}}
273:{{
269:}}
263:{{
256:}}
250:{{
246:}}
240:{{
236:}}
230:{{
218:)
170:}}
164:{{
160:}}
154:{{
150:}}
144:{{
30::
601:(
581:(
553:(
538:(
523:(
502:(
447:(
424:(
356:(
344:♬
328:(
306:♬
214:(
191:♬
120:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.