This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@SimplyLouis27: I was wondering if there was any specific reason why the citations in this article have been completely gutted, such as a particular MOS guideline I'm unaware of? — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quote parameter, because as far as I am aware it is optional to use and is only used if using a direct quotation from an article etc. In doing this I removed the Harvnb as without the quotes it is not needed. An excessive use of the quote parameter can make the article difficult to edit if using the source editor as it can clog up the source. Also from a consistency point a very large number of articles don't use the parameter at all. Hope this explains my reasoning. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I find thorough use of quotes to be a reliable way of keeping editors honest in ensuring a citation actually verifies a fact. I don't see any harm to readers by giving them the most direct citations possible, even if it makes things a bit harder for us editors. At the very least, would you be willing to let me restore all the quotes from the paywalled articles (), since those would be difficult for most readers to access? — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this at WP:HD, the response I got "quotations should be only be used when the wikitext is controversial and the source is protected by a paywall. In general, heavy reliance on quotations suggests that editors have not given enough thought to summarizing their sources. When quotations are necessary to the understanding of the article topic, those (few) quotations should be made part of the article body and properly cited. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations". SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "yes" to my request. @Trappist the monk: I'd like to know what your thoughts are on my reasoning for thorough use of quotes, since my point of view was completely lost when the issue was raised at the help desk. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they answered it by saying that "Quotations should be only be used when the wikitext is controversial" and "When quotations are necessary to the understanding of the article topic, those (few) quotations should be made part of the article body and properly cited." SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[K]eeping editors honest? The only way to truly verify a fact is to go to the source. Transcriptions (and all of the other bits, pieces, and parts of a complete citation) are subject to transcription error – usually typos but sometimes omission or addition. I think that quotations are also susceptible to loss of context or to an editor's particular points of view; where one editor may read one thing from the source, another editor may read something different. Best in my mind to provide accurate references to the sources and let the readers decide for themselves what the sources say in context.
), since those would be difficult for most readers to access? — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
