# Talk:Perth Underground railway station

@Steelkamp: The {{Citation style}} documentation says "The most common correct use of this template is to identify an article that uses more than one major citation style". Currently this article uses "more than one major citation style" (in contravention of WP:CITESTYLE), which is why I provided the reason as "article uses predominantly full citations but also some short ones. Move the short to full citations", and my adding of {{Citation style}} to this article both (1) correctly identifies this article as using "more than one major citation style" in contravention of WP:CITESTYLE and (2) is unquestionably valid.
Whether or not I have a citation style preference and what that preference might be in which circumstance is irrelevant, and I am certainly not attempting "to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles" in contravention of WP:CITEVAR (although there isn’t one, only a predominant one). I regularly work in either of the two citation styles found in this article, and don’t really mind which style is used here, but for this article to satisfy WP:GACR and to not WP:QF it cannot have nor need cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. You simply removing this cleanup banner without addressing the problem that it unquestionably identifies correctly isn’t going to change that.
If you need help addressing the problem, let me know. It’s not a large problem. There are just two sources for which it uses short citation style. Shouldn't take very long at all to fix. Elrondil (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Its not a problem to use long citations and short citations on the same article. Many featured articles do this. For some featured articles promoted in December 2024 that use both long and short citations, see Merchant's House Museum, Fearless (Taylor Swift song), 2004–05 Gillingham F.C. season, Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, Boot Monument, and Voss (Alexander McQueen collection). If it is a rule that this can't be done, evidently its not an enforced rule and in my opinion it is a bad rule.
Mixing long and short citations is quite useful, as short citations are useful for citing multiple pages from the same source, but using entirely short citations just makes the references section a whole lot longer and is not necessary for sources without pages or sources where only one section of pages needs to be cited. Steelkamp (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: Other articles having multiple styles is something to be resolved for those other articles. Let us focus on THIS article here. WP:CITESTYLE is unambiguous, stating clearly that “standard practice[s]” include "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles [...]: an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit" and “making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any)”. Furthermore, {{Citation style}} is a valid cleanup template that exists for the purpose of identifying “an article that uses more than one major citation style” that may be removed from that article “by anyone who fixes the problems with confusing citation styles”. That template is unquestionably valid in this article currently (whether you remove the template or not).
Not that it matters, but I don’t follow your “whole lot longer” angle. First, I am suggesting that all citations be made full (as in using <ref>{{cite … }}</ref>, which is the predominant style currently), but if you don’t like that then go all short (as in using {{sfnp}} (see "His Majesty's Theatre, Perth" article for example) or {{sfn}}, or one of the <ref>{{harv* }}</ref> sub-variants), as long as the article is consistent. If the source is a lot of material, you need to identify the spot within it, usually a page number, whether you use full or short style, so no diff there except how it's done. Whether you plonk the {{cite …}} between <ref></ref> directly inline or at the end is neither here nor there … same work, same code, same amount of visual space occupied in rendered article, it just lives in a different part of the article. However, I agree with you that the extra level of indirection (the reference “jump” section) in the short citation styles does add additional bulk of questionable value to the presented article … but I get that it looks neater, in the text they’re easier to use because of mature template support, especially editors with backgrounds in humanities seem to struggle with full citation style, and the sources get to be beautifully sorted alphabetically without numbers and []s adding additional typographic colour. But in the grand scheme of things, the extra “jump” reference section in the short styles … meh … they’re automatically generated. What makes articles IMO look shoddy is inconsistencies (such as mixed citation styles) … this isn’t kindy and if you wouldn’t get away with it at a reputable university why do it here? You clearly take pride in your work, caring about good article ratings etc, and the article is just two sources away from this no longer being a weakness. Elrondil (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: can you please state clearly by replying to this message here if you (1) just don't want to do the work, (2) don't agree with using full citations instead of short citations for the two sources for which short citations are currently used in this article (and therefore do not agree with following WP:CITESTYLE), or (3) I am misunderstanding? Elrondil (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with using full citations for all sources, and don't believe it violates WP:CITESTYLE. I genuinely believe this article is better off under its current citation formatting, which is why I wrote it this way in the first place. Changing every citation to a long citation is disadvantageous for the sources which have multiple pages cited, as Template:RP will have to be used, which is not ideal when used many times as it is quite ugly and puts large gaps in the prose. Changing every citation to a short citation is disadvantageous because most sources do not have separate pages, or when they do, only one group of pages is cited, so shortened citations would be overkill and result in the references section being far longer than it needs to be. I am not going to give in on this article, because this affects so many more articles written by me and many other people, including many which have passed the strict reviews at WP:FAC. Steelkamp (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
(Here from WT:GAN) @Elrondil: We use long citations for online articles, print newspapers, and the like, and short citations for longer print sources such as books; this seems consistent to me. WP:CITESTYLE doesn't require us to use only long citations or only short citations, and the existence of a number of recent FAs which do things this way indicates that this isn't a standard to which articles, including our very best, are actually being held. This seems to me to essentially be a matter of personal preference. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This doesn't agree with WP:CITEVAR, which says a helpful standard practice is imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. If what you say is true, WP:CITEVAR needs to be updated to reflect what you're saying, and {{Citation style}}, whose most common correct use [...] is to identify an article that uses more than one major citation style, needs to be retired. Elrondil (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If the current citation style were inconsistent, then that recommendation at WP:CITEVAR would apply. For example, if we were using long citations with Template:RP for half of the page, and Template:Sfn for the other half, then this would be something requiring rectification. But I don't see that the current citation style is inconsistent; the article uses a single style, one which incorporates both long citations and short citations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I am no longer interesting in moving this article to a consistent citation style, and a consistent citation style is not required at Good Article level. I don't buy your "but a mix of styles is a style as well" angle, although I respect your right to believe that. Elrondil (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the discussion at WT:GAN too deeply, as that seems to have turned into a discussion about whether the GA criteria mandate a consistent citation style. I still believe that this article has a consistent citation style, and thus this dispute is a question for WT:Citing sources rather than WT:GAN. Steelkamp (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Correct, I asked a question there about what their guidelines mean, and whether or not this article needs to be reassessed. The answer is a consistent citation style is not required at Good Article level, and I am now suggesting that the guidelines say exactly that.
That ends my interest here. Yes, the style in this article is consistent with itself (which is meaningless), and it remains a hybrid of short and full. Elrondil (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)