This article was nominated for deletion on 1 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jill Ovens. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jill Ovens at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This talk page has not been used in a decade. Those editors with an interest in the subjects's activism in a contentious topic-area should establish their differences—and common hround—here and by consensus decide how to describe the subject and political party in neutral, well-sourced terms, conducive with WP:BLP. Serial 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Kiwichris, I made this edit [1] to make the refs the same per WP:CITESTYLE. You reverted that:[2]. Why is having 1 References and all the others Notes "improve referencing"? There is no good reason to have one sfn-ref mixed in with others in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
|name=
parameter of the <ref> tag. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
((rp)) is an alternative to the method of using shortened footnotes. Please note the word "alternative". It does not say it’s the only way to quote specific pages. Schwede66 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
((Rp))
which was always a rather clumsy kluge. It was necessary when I invented it, but it has been surpassed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)((sfn))
citation style, which is an unnecessary complication, for just one or a couple of sources that are reused, especially when plain use of <ref>
completely dominates in an article. And ((rp))
is basically obsolete (and I say that as the creator of the template). If you want to cite the same source multiple times at different pages, a solution requiring no additional templates at all is provided by the |ref=
parameter of the citation templates. E.g. first do <ref>((cite book |last=Grant |first=David |title=Anderton: His Life and Times |date=2022 |publisher=Te Herenga Waka University Press |location=Wellington |isbn=9781776920563 |ref=Grant |page=123))</ref>
and later do <ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
This system is more robust than ((sfn))
, which doesn't support any annotations; with |ref=
you can so something like <ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234; citing: ((cite journal |... additional citation details here for original source)).</ref>
The |ref=
approach requires no dual-section referencing. And using "Notes" as the heading name in either section when you do dual-section referencing is a terrible idea, because that usually refers to non-citation footnotes. If you're going to do dual-sectional referencing, try "References" and "Sources", or "Citations" and "Sources". PS: ActivelyDisinterested above is correct that WP:CITEVAR can't be used to suppress addition of valid sources just because they're not in a format you personally prefer or which better matches the rest of the article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
((sfn|Gruen|1995|p=BLAH, citing ((harvnb|Dio|1.2.3.))))
to provide contextual details. Ifly6 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="Gruen1995p17">((harvnb|Gruen|1995|p=17)), any additional context or quote as text, even more templates.</ref>
<ref>
citations, and someone (not going to dig through history to find out) introduced a completely different refercing system, the ((sfn))
style, for a single source used twice, and then unhelpfully forked the References section into two sections. That was pointless and was done without consensus, and the WP:CITEVAR procedure is to remove the inconsistent style someone injected and replace it with consistent citations that match the rest of them. ((Sfn))
makes sense at pages where numerous sources are being cited multiple times, but it is an unnecessary and unhelpful complication for both readers and editors when injected to handle a single source or just a couple of them, especially when we have multiple other methods for handling this that don't result in contrary templates and multiple refs sections. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Short citations can be written manually, or by using either theWhile Kiwichris was certainly free to add more citations, it was a mistake to diverge from the established citation style without establishing a consensus to do so. And yes, the point of WP:CITEVAR and reminders like the one in WP:SFN are to forestall citation format warring. Someone like Kiwichris adding a citation in a format "foreign" to the article should simply be (and by Gråbergs Gråa Sång was) normalized to the format used in the rest of the article; it is not an excuse for another editor like Schwede66 to decide there is magically a new consensus in favor of the format used in a one-off edit by Kiwichris. This discussion literally should not be happening, because CITEVAR and SFN were quite clear to begin with, and their point is to prevent this kind of conflict from arising. in the first place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)((sfn))
or ((|tlx|harvnb)) templates or the((r))
referencing template. (Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)
This source [10] may be dubious per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)