This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Dates in short citations
From the history of the article:
16:40, 25 July 2020 PBS talk contribs block 6,736 bytes +20 uses Interwiki linking rather than a url to wikisource. Added years to the short citations so that a new edition of book by a cited author will not mess up the citations undo
14:46, 26 July 2020
Spinningspark Undid revision 969470600 by PBS (talk) There is no disambiguation of sources needed on *this* page, changing the citation style forces page editors to comply or be inconsistent, and
WP:CITEVAR says don't do it without discussion
I do not think this is a
CITEVAR issue as no change in style was made (I have been editing since before citevar was put into the guideline by SV and am well aware of why she added it, although my opinions on templates has changed over time). It was put in place for changes to style, which meant from harvard style to footnotes etc. It was never intended to be one that covered such things as whether the first letter in a citation template is in capital or not. Likewise the change that I made did not alter the style.
I do not think your revert helps and CITEVAR does not support
your revert, because CITEVAR it states (my underline):
If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data.
The reason for including dates in short citations is because it future proofs the citations and they ought to be added for precisely the same reason that ibid is discouraged: "as these may become broken as new references are added". So what is your substantial objection to the change that I made? --
PBS (
talk)
08:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
My substantial objections are (1) it adds unnecessary clutter, and (2) you are not adding anything substantive to the article, just setting rules for others to follow, which they might find inconvenient. Your wikilawyering over CITEVAR is just nonsense, it doesn't support you one little bit. The data is not "missing", it is all there in the full citation in the bibliography. That's how short citations are supposed to work, by their very nature they won't have all the data.
In any case, this is not the place to argue the pros and cons of citation styles or set global standards. Do you have a substantive argument why this article in particular (as opposed to general principles) would benefit from a change?
SpinningSpark11:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I did not raise the issue of CITEVAR you opened that door, and as I pointed out it does not prevent this change. The date is missing in the short citations and they ought to be included. This is demonstrated by its include in every example section
WP:CITESHORT in
WP:CITE (where the short citation includes an author) and in
Help:Shortened footnotes. As they are universally used in examples clearly most editors do not consider them clutter, and it does add something substantive to the article as it future proofs the short citations against other citations from the same author being added .
You ask "why this article in particular (as opposed to general principles) would benefit from a change?" As I have shown above using dates in short citations is well documented in the guidelines and help pages, and this article like any other that just uses author will benefit from this change. I would add dates to the short citations in most articles I come across where short citations are used and they do not have them, for the same reason that I would remove ibid and replace them with the appropriate citation whether that is with a named ref..tag or a short citation. --
PBS (
talk)
16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No, that's not "specific to this article". It's all general arguments that you would apply (because you said you would) to any article. But I'll answer you anyway. It's not relevant that all the examples are given in that form, it still doesn't mean they are prescribed.
WP:CITESHORT says Forms of short citations used include author-date referencing (APA style, Harvard style, or Chicago style), and author-title or author-page referencing (MLA style or Chicago style) (my emphasis). I'll also note that I have put several articles through FA with this style of referencing. This is the last comment I will make here on styles in general. If you want to discuss it further, take it elsewhere.
SpinningSpark17:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you have any other argument against adding the date to a short citation other than typing an extra 4 numbers in a short citation is something "which they might find inconvenient"? How do you know that "they" may find it inconvenient? Or do you mean "I will find it inconvenient [to add a four digit dates to a short citations]"? --
PBS (
talk)
11:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
For the record I have not (and will not) agreed to 3O as a suitable means of resolving this dispute and do not agree to be bound by its results.
SpinningSpark18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Third opinion here. As someone who spends time cleaning up
Category:Pages with broken reference names, I think there's a lot of value in "future-proofing" citations, which also reduces problems when citations are copied or moved from one article to another. So I'd say, why not add the year? It does no significant harm and can prevent future issues. —
Granger (
talk·contribs)
19:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Did you even read the converstation? I gave my reasons why not. And these citations are NOT BROKEN so raising broken citations is irrelevant.
SpinningSpark21:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I did read the conversation, and as far as I can tell the only substantive objections you've raised to including the years are that they add "unnecessary clutter" and that editors might find them inconvenient. It's true that the citations are not broken right now—the value of adding the year is to prevent the citations from becoming ambiguous in the future if someone adds more citations or moves them to another article. I think this outweighs the minor clutter of having a year included in the citation. —
Granger (
talk·contribs)
22:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)reply
While it is a site wide consideration, that is an
WP:OTHERSTUFF issue. I arrived at this article to fix the
EB1911 citation which used a URL to Wikisource rather than a sister wiki link. This was one of hundreds of pages (see
this link). Normally I would use the template {{
cite EB1911}} to fix the issue. However I did not fix it that way as it would have changed the visual format. So that is the reason for me reviewing the citations on this page and not the millions of others that may or may not follow the advise given in the guidelines. As both
User:Mx. Granger and I have pointed out while the citations are not broken at the moment they are not future-proofed. The question you (
User:Spinningspark) have asked can be turned on it head. Why should this article not follow the examples given in both
WP:CITESHORTHelp:Shortened footnotes? --
PBS (
talk)
18:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
German crews misrepresentation in regards to survivors
I feel like German U-boat crews were slightly misrepresented here, as there were incidents where captains would try and take aboard survivors of downed ships or provide supplies to increase chances of survival when this wasn’t possible and occasionally provide medical aid. This quickly stopped after the Laconia incident and Admiral Dönitz ordered that such actions would stop in the Laconia order. So there is truth here, but I think it could be improved.
Harveywalker500 (
talk)
10:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)reply