# Talk:Impedance analogy

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impedance analogy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cirt.  I see that you have picked up all at the same time several other articles I nominated.  Thanks once again for your hard work. SpinningSpark 00:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure, Spinningspark, thanks for your contributions to Quality improvement projects on this site. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The author uses 'u' not as displacement, but for velocity, which is a bit confusing and not as common in the literature.
In much transducer literature where both mechanical & electrical domains must be represented, 'u' is reserved for displacement, and 'e' is commonly voltage-- then 'v' can be available for velocity.  Perhaps this would make it more clear?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.189.121 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 

I'd like to convert this article to CS1 citation style using {{cite}} templates for the citations, and {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates for the inline references. The {{sfn}}/{{harvnb}} references automatically link to the referenced {{cite}}, making references much easier to use and refer to on the mobile Wikipedia app, as well as making it more accessible.
Yea? Nay? Thanks.  — sbb (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've never really understood the sfn and harvnb style, and why people like it.  Maybe you can explain better, what that looks like in the source, and why it's easier to maintain and use on mobile.  Or point us to a tutorial that's less cryptic than what you linked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: (I outdented my reply because some of the formatting doesn't like being indented w/ wikitext ':') Sorry I haven't replied to you until now. I forgot to add this to my to-do list. =) Briefly, the Harvard-style referencing is just "Author date, p. 123". That's it. It's not substantially different to how this article already uses most refs (other than this article doesn't use 'date' in the refs, such as: "Talbot-Smith, p. 1.86").
The main difference comes when we use the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates (but only in conjunction with {{cite}} templates in the references list):

{{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} templates generate consistent punctuation & formatting. No need to copyedit periods, spacing, ampersand vs. and, etc.; it takes those nitnoid decisions / minor error potentials away from the editors.
Same thing, but even more importantly with the {{cite}} templates in the reference list(s) at the end. The data is automatically formatted consistently.
Also regarding {{cite}} usage: the biblio fields are marked-up as metadata, as COinS data, which allows other sites and data consumers to automatically parse bibliographic metadata, rather than parse human-formatted biblio data (with the possibility of formatting errors, that trips up computer parsers).
The sfn/harvnb templates automatically general refids to the existing {{cite}} template. This makes it so that hovering over a sfn/harvnb reference brings up a highlighted link to the citation. And the reader can click the link to go directly to the citation at the end. For example, the reference here was generated with <ref>{{harvnb|sbb|2021|p=69}}</ref>. {{sfn}} is basically the same as {{harvnb}}, just without needing to use <ref>...</ref> tags around it. (generated with {{sfn|sbb|Smith|2021|p=123}})
For mobile site and mobile app users, clicking on a reference superscript number shows the same thing as if you hovered over the reference on a desktop browser. If the reference is a {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}}, the mobile user can also click the "sbb & Smith 2021, p. 123", and it will take them straight to the reference, rather than them having to remember the reference name and page number, and scroll down to the citations, etc. It comes down to usability and accessibility issues.
As some concrete examples, the first few refs and cites in this article would be written as such:

"... especially in the field of filters." ({{sfn|Talbot-Smith|2013|p=1.86}})
"... electrical and mechanical domains." ({{tag|ref|attribs=name=Carr|content={{harvnb|Carr|2002|pp=170–171}})
"... thus anticipating the electronic Butterworth filter. ({{tag|ref|content={{harvnb|Darlington|1984|p=7}}
The citations at the end would be written as:

{{cite book|last= Talbot-Smith |first= Michael |date= 2013 |title= Audio Engineer's Reference Book |publisher= Taylor & Francis |isbn= 1136119736}}
{{cite book|last= Carr |first= Joseph J. |date= 2002 |title= RF Components and Circuits |publisher= Newnes |isbn= 0-7506-4844-9}}
{{cite patent||ref= {{sfnRef|Harrison|1927}} |inventor-last= Harrison |inventor-first= Henry C. |fdate= 11 October 1927 |gdate= 8 October 1929 |title= Acoustic device |country= US |number= 1730425}}

 — sbb (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless the citation style is obstructing you from making a major addition to this article (and the hsitory seems to show you have made zero substantive contributions) it is beneficial to no one to change to something that gets in the way of the actual content creators.  You have put forward no rationale whatsoever why this article in particular would benefit from the change.  In the absence of that then WP:CITEVAR should be respected. SpinningSpark 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm respecting WP:CITEVAR by asking for consensus. WP:CITEVAR by itself doesn't prevent wholesale change of citation style if consensus is to change. That's what I'm seeking, consensus to switch the change of citation style over to {{cite}} + {{sfn}}/{{harvnb}}.
"You have put forward no rationale whatsoever why this article in particular would benefit from the change"... strongly disagreed. My rationale is that every article benefits from accessibility improvements, and I assert (whether or not people agree, is another matter) that my proposed change would provide those improvements.
As far as myself having made no substantial edits to this article... that doesn't matter. I'm a wikignome, I'm good at the {{cite}} templates. I've made hundreds of edits improving articles regarding their citations and references. Please judge my proposal based on what's possibly good for the article, not based on any article gatekeeping or WP:OWNership. Thank you. =)  — sbb (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
For an example of what I'm proposing, see the before and after ref/{{cite}} cleanups I made at Battle of Iwo Jima. While Impedance analogy doesn't suffer from several duplicated <ref>s like Battle of Iwo Jima did, it would benefit from the discoverable links that {{sfn}} + {{cite}} would provide.  — sbb (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
My point was exactly that your rationale is that every article benefits from your proposal.  If that's what you believe, go and argue that on a policy page.  If it becomes policy I will start to comply.  In the meantime, I'm not going to get into an attritional discussion about it on article after article.  Every system has its pros and cons.  You can read my thoughts in my essay on the subject.  You can discuss it on the talk page there if you like.  Let me know if you open a discussion anywhere else. SpinningSpark 11:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It looks like neither of us opened with our best foot forward here, it seems. I'm not so much interested in dictating policy, but even if I were, these are not exclusive efforts. I could hypothetically advocate policy, while simultaneously making my case for each article where required by WP:CITEVAR.
In this article's case: this article is GA, and it has a consistent citation style. As such, I'm following WP:CITEVAR by seeking consensus on the article's Talk page. That is all. Clearly, you are a solid no on the consensus seeking. That's fine. But by the same token, I have the right to ask & seek consensus on article Talk as required by WP:CITEVAR.
Let me know if you open a discussion anywhere else. =) I'm going to continue working on individual articles as my attention finds them. If I feel they could benefit from a switch from one style to another, I'll open discussion on those articles' Talk pages. If they are part of your watchlist, I look forward to productive discussion with you. If not, perhaps we might meet again at a policy RfC on this subject somewhere. Kind regards.  — sbb (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)