Talk:Henry Cole (minister)

Sfn templates[edit]

Given that Popular Geology subversive of Divine Revelation appears to be the only source cited more than once, there seems to be little point (and much duplication) in converting the article to full, automated, shorted referencing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for using template SFN are a. The template call is both concise and readable. b. It allows any editor to identify the reference while looking at the wikitext. c. It minimizes clutter in the wikitext by using only the smallest possible amount of (meaningful) information to identify the source. d. Text containing sfn can be cut and pasted without any danger of accidentally deleting the original named reference; any call to sfn can define the named reference. e. It allows the detection of errors using bots (i.e. it has machine readable semantics). (From the sfn template page.) It is used throughout WP. It makes everything much easier to read. I have been converting many, many pages as I'm able. It is a very simple conversion. I see your complaint as backward and unproductive. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SFN: "Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style." From my POV, {{sfn}} (i) is just another template synatax to remember, (ii) serves no real purpose in short articles & (iii) only serves to create unnecessary duplication on sources cited only once. I prefer a KISS approach. I see your unilateral conversion of articles as unproductive overcomplication.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is very simple, easy to read, length of article is irrelevant. SmittysmithIII (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only backward dinosaur I've met here that can't see a good thing for a out-house. SmittysmithIII (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly "simple", with 4 main variations, before you even get into the "more exotic" templates and "variations", let alone a whole host of "possible issues". The documentation for this "simple" template is over 5 times the length of this article (though you have to wade through multiple transclusions to find it -- hardly evidence of a bunch of coders with streamlining first in their mind). Length of article IS relevant, as the benefits of an automated system increases the larger the article gets (or did you really think that "danger of accidentally deleting the original named reference" is a compelling argument in an article only 6k long)? May I return the 'compliment' of your calling me a "backward dinosaur" by calling you an unthinking, blurb-regurgitating zombie, who thinks that 'one size fits all'? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

primary[edit]

And as Cole is cited 6 times, and his contemporary Sedgwick, twice, out of eleven citations, I'm tagging this article for excessive primary sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]