Talk:Louisville Museum Plaza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] Citing sources

Note there is no official method for citing sources, per WP:CITE. There are numerous options available, including embedded citations, full citations, Harvard referencing, citation templates (what you suggest) and footnotes. Your assertion that they must be used goes against the grain per WP:CITE, as they are not required per policy. "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."

Let's come to a consensus first before changing reference styles. It adds a considerable amount of text and space that is wasted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaner formatted references are more important than "wasted space", which is rather minimal. Using the templates has become the norm, and that's what we need to use, wherever applicable. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no norm, per WP:CITET. Take it to WP:RFC if you want additional comments, but edit warring over this would not help (and would be more fodder for your 3RR page). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are you being so nasty (all of a sudden) on this minor matter? Clearly, the references as they stand now are very dirty. Why do you want dirty references in this particular article? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a variety of formatting options available. Removals or changeovers require consensus, which you failed to achieve. Plus, with additional edit warring, I did not want this to be another addition to the 3RR page that's still active (better to play it safe). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask for my assistance on any future matters. What you are staking out is untenable and indicates a WP:OWN issue. Keep your dirty references, and lose somebody who used to work with you. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you don't want to play by the policies at WP:CITET. Too bad they are well defined. You have an equal chance to achieve consensus and debate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that there's a lack of reason on this minor matter. As I said, keep your dirty references. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you don't want to abide by WP:CITET. Take it to WP:RFC if you want comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Continued at User talk:Stevietheman#Citing sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is with all this drama? I think we should use the standard citation templates. Currently they look bad for no apparent reason, primarily because they seem to be displaying the date the article was published twice. We shouldn't have to discuss endlessly every time we want to cross a T or dot an I... --W.marsh 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no set standard for citing sources. As explained, there is a wide variety of citation methods. Per policy, a consensus must be reached before a changeover can occur, hence why I requested an RFC, to which he refuted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there really a need to make such a case out of every time someone wants to use the citation templates? This is rules lawyering and silly... 2 editors want to use the templates for a stated reason, 1 doesn't apparently for no reason except that "per policy" they don't have to... using the citation templates is supported by rough consensus, and just makes sense here. --W.marsh 02:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"...make such a case out of every time..." This is the first instance, and I am only following by what it states. If you want to debate that, do it there, not here. Using the citations is not supported by "rough consensus" or else it would be clearly stated there. In fact, it is partial either way, but consensus must be reached before a changeover occurs. It's very clear in that. Once again, debate that there, not here. Let's leave this for Museum Plaza-only topics, not whether you want to debate what's clearly stated on that page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant that two editors here support using templates on this article, with a reason. One editor doesn't, apparently without a reason. We're supposed to go to the citation talk page to talk about whether we use templates on the museum plaza page? I am not sure you're really understanding my point here. You wanted an RFC on this page about using templates, now you're saying we should only discuss the museum plaza here? I think you're just paying too much attention to doing what you think some page says you need to do, rather than actually figuring out what's best for the museum plaza article. --W.marsh 03:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should there be a reason to use one method over another? I don't have a problem if Stevie uses his system, as long as he doesn't elaborate on expanding mine. Did you check just the amount of space the templates used up? It was quite extensive and broke up the page in editing. When you use a smaller monitor (15") at a library, it can take up the entire editing window...
And there is no "Seicer" editing per what Stevie states. It's Harvard referencing, sans me italicing, and straight from the Modern Language Association format (MLA). I prefer to use automatic Wikipedia footnotes system instead of the Harvard footnote method for sheer simplicity.
Now, while all this bickering has ensued, I've updated the page with very important content regarding its financing and the future of the project. I've rearranged a section, and edited sections for clarity. Can't we go back to editing content rather than bickering over this minute issue? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Having an RFC on this matter is a ridiculous notion. The way I see it, if Seicer doesn't even agree to use a standard format (instead of the 'Seicer' format), even without using the template (which isn't the ultimate issue really), then I would say there's a clear violation of WP:OWN. One cannot say their pet article is exempt from citation standards. Nobody can say that, including myself. I wouldn't be the least upset if someone tore through *any* of the articles I care about and fix the references, as needed. That's why I'm curious why Seicer seems so intent on defending the indefensible. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You went to college. You know all about the Harvard referencing method which is fully supported on Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a Harvard journal. Please change the references to the Wikipedia standard. Standards help with readability in a body of work. Why do you insist on being different from everyone else? And no, I'm not going to stop "complaining" here, nor have I stopped editing other articles. Why don't you just look at this matter fairly and allow the cite templates in? After that, I promise I won't complain any more. Again, you're violating WP:OWN. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you still ignoring WP:CITE and WP:CITET? Let me reiteriate what they have posted as options for referencing -- and note, there is no one "standard."
From WP:CITE#How to cite sources --
* Embedded HTML links
* Harvard referencing
* Footnotes
* Full citations
* Citation templates (which you wish to switch to)
From WP:CITET, which was clearly explained to you --
* "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."
WP:OWN is quite hilarious; all I've done is expand the article from a short stub to a full-bodied article, complete with references and templates. You fail to have read WP:CITET clearly. Now, can we get on with editing or are we going to bicker over misinterpretations of WP:CITE and WP:CITET? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Also from WP:CITE --
"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."
While I follow the Harvard referencing system, I apply them to footnotes, which is fully supported --
"Some publications use footnotes for both the full citation of a source, and for additional comments or information of interest to the reader."
I may actually switch new articles and all future formatting to the footnote 3 system, which is supported by Wikipedia. It's a template-based system and is easier to use. After looking at it more extensively, it is the same as the current ref method, albeit more complicated. It is also depreciated in some uses. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
From WP:FN#Converting citation styles --
"Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page."
"Similarly, individual users may be forbidden to "manually convert citation styles on any articles." ... So, tread lightly, and seek consensus first, before converting citation styles."
Certain styles are forbidden, but they were replaced with updated versions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh and I appear to be on the same side with this, making it a 2-to-1 consensus. Please change the references back to the template standard. Stop violating WP:OWN and not following the guideline you cite, as you said it requires a consensus to change. Let's end the controversy with a simple change and move on, shall we? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per policy --
"Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus."
One 'vote' from Marsh is hardly a consensus. We need more in-depth discussions regarding this in order to build a stronger consensus. I'll open up a mediation cabal inquiry tonight to solve this issue or at the very least, initiate more discussion. My edits to this article, in terms of referencing, are legitimate and are supported per guidelines on Wikipedia, as cited numerous times above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also stop the wiki-lawyering. The idea that we need some kind of deep discussion on this kind of matter, where this article unusually uses a kind of citation hardly any other article is using is ludicrous. When will you be changing the citations back? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Citing sources. "Wiki-layering"? You mean, citing policies and guidelines? How is that so bad? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You are clearly abusing policy and guidelines to foist an unreasonable position on others. That is wiki-lawyering. 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. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Has the mediation case been opened yet? By the way, I think almost anyone would agree that my vote counts too, so it is indeed 2 to 1 at this time. Perhaps I will grant you that 3 to 1 would be a better consensus, but you cannot discount my vote. The issue is not that the citations provided aren't valid, it's that they are unusual, and unnecessarily different from that used in most articles. There's no special reason to use Harvard style citations in an article about a future building. You have not to date provided a rationale for using this style over the common one. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's been open for quite a while. I encouraged you to participate in it above a while back. An agreement was reached - please see the case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I wasn't informed of it, I don't quite think this is appropriate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brochure quotations

The overall structure and content of this article (except the cites) is of high quality, but the quotations give the article a brochure feel, and I don't think this is appropriate for the Wikipedia. I think they should be removed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added them in at a time when the project was a "sure-go" from the developers. They can be removed without any content-harm; feel free to go ahead. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Is this dispute still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it still is. I'm seeking an explanation as to why the Harvard-style citations are being used instead of using the standard cite templates -- certainly there is a rationale for it but it hasn't been offered as of yet. Further, I believe there is currently a 2-to-1 consensus in favor of using the templates. Thank you for your assistance. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been covered in the Cabal. As far as I know, since I submitted the request, I will consider it closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I was never provided a link to the case, so I didn't even know it was open. I just provided responses to the case. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:02, 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 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the original submitter wants it closed, I will close it. If you want it reopened, leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)