A fact from Quoit brooch appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that only about 40 objects in the fifth-century Anglo-SaxonQuoit Brooch Style of metalwork (example pictured) are known?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
WP:CITEVAR is completely clear. I would be amazed that such an experienced editor thinks he can get away with this, if I had not encountered such behaviour before. If you don't want your time wasted, get consensus before you make these changes. Anything to say before I revert again? Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The citation format is better and cleaner, and worked seamlessly. Johnbod got rid of a lot of additional information in the citations, including useful wikilinks, wholesale. Other than wp:own and 'because it was there, he has given no cogent reason. He is right that I should have discussed this first—procedurally he is correct {I won't make that mistake again, it happened incrementally over many edits)— but on the merits this is ill thought out. 7&6=thirteen (☎)11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh! What is it about "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change" you don't understand? There is no "additional information" at all, merely arguably more convenient links for the tiny minority of readers who want to follow the refs (very few of which are open access online in fact) to the page numbers etc. But like the vast majority of editors, I have no idea how to use sfn, so at the least using such a format makes expansion more difficult. The format I used is entirely accepted up to FA. If nobody has told you before these sort of edits are not acceptable, then it's about time. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. Will reform my conduct in the future. You have made your point. Thank you.
I don't understand your contention that "it makes expansion that much more difficult." To the contrary, I think it makes it easier. All (and more of) the material is still in the references section. And the citations link to those, which is much more elegant. It is cleaner and more efficient from the reader's viewpoint. That you cannot see the utility is your own personal blind spot. As I've said, you made your point, and I don't want to start an edit war over big-endian and little-endiancontroversies (See Gulliver's Travels by Jonathon Swift) between established editors. 7&6=thirteen (☎)12:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it harder because I can't work the things, like most editors (and no-one else is likely to attempt an expansion). I might well be able to work it out, but why should I need to? There are arguments both ways on what's best but don't let's go there. There are plenty of articles with very inconsistent styles mixed up, that nobody cares about, or where editors would welcome a change. I expect there's a tag category. But this wasn't one of them. Anyway thanks for your acceptance. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't doing this out a sense of perverseness. Honest. Once you get used to it, SFN is really easy, and it produces such clean product. I've only gotten into using it recently, I might add. But I will heed your wise counsel in futuro. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
