Talk:Antony Bek (bishop of Durham)

message: From the history of the article
* Revision as of 13:06, 2 January 2016  Ealdgyth (do not change a referencing style without discussion - retaining the "attribution" change (although the 1911 was already here, but whatever))
1) The referencing style was not changed, because it was inconsistent before my edit, but even if you think it was changed, what you are referring to is from WP:CITEVAR which states "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style," so if you think there was a style that was change what was it?. It was not using a particular citation style before I edited it, but it was by the time I finished (so your revert changed from a consistent style to an inconsistent one).
2) You have removed the inline citation that are required for EB1911 which is a breach of the WP:PLAGIARISM guidline see this proof 
Whatever the outcome of this discussion please put back the inline EB1911 citations and put the Attribution line back to bold, so that the article meets the requirements of [[WP:PLAGIARISM] and WP:V for the use of public domain text within and artilce.
You need to give a substantial reason for the rest of your revert as "do not change a referencing style without discussion" is guidance and without a substantial reason is no better than "I don't like it". 
--PBS (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article's reference style is slightly inconsistent - it is common sense to fix the references to the style most in use - not to switch the whole article over to a completely unused reference system. That's really against the spirit of the whole thing. If you want to put the EB1911 references back in - you're welcome to do so - but really it seems to me that by folding those sorts of edits into a wholesale change of referencing style, it was hoped that it would be too much bother to have someone else add them in later - so that maybe other editors wouldn't object to the style change. That seems a bit gaming of the system to me.  Just don't completely change the reference system to a system not in use at all. That smacks of "I don't like it" too, you know. And the attribution statement IS in bold - it's just in a nested heading. I wasn't aware we had a specific style format for attribution sections - wouldn't it make more sense to put it in a nested heading (with, I might add, a larger bolded statement???). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

text: However, I've added in the 1911 refs - taking the opportunity to reword completely one long statement in that classic Edwardian writing that is now out of place in an encyclopedia. Please do not in the future bundle such large reference changes in with other substantive edits - it makes it much more difficult for people to object to reference changes as too often if the changes are reverted, the reply is exactly what happened here - adding more work to someone who didn't do anything but object to a change that is against the spirit of the guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please quit fidding with the refs - and don't insert harv refs into an article with a different citation style. And I'm still not seeing where the attribution header cannot be in a headline style - can you please point to where on WP:Plagarism the requirement is to be done by bolding alone not by a header? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

text:  I see that two MORE refs have been changed to harv. Please stop and revert yourself - the citation style prior to those changes was consistent - and it's being wholesale changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "please quit fidding" is contrary to much Wikipedia guidance. You see "two MORE" references that were inconsistent and so there was no reason not to change them. As to Plagarism guideline, if Attribution is a separate section header then the attributed source is not in the references section. What you have now done is place the same source twice into the references section. What is your objection of linking short citations to long ones? -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a common system to use Author, Short title, and Page for citations in history. This allows the reader to mouse over the citation in the body of the text and see exactly which reference it is without ever having to go to the references section. It doesn't matter, quite honestly, you don't need to be changing an article to a totally different citation system. Currently it has a perfectly valid citation style. I don't go to articles and start suddenly changing citation styles to other styles just because I like one style better - I conform any additions I do to the style in use in the article. Is that common courtesy so hard to understand? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution