Template talk:R:Reference-meta

Comma after |entry=
I really appreciate this template for reference templates. Can you remove the comma after the entry as seen in T:R:Gaffiot? It looks very strange. — JohnC5 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to keep the formatting consistent with and . Is it really that strange? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * “foobar”, in Blahblah
 * “foobar” in Blahblah
 * Yeah, the first one looks really wrong. Also, it certainly breaks with the style we've been using before, and if you don't fix that then Dan Polansky will almost certainly revert it without a second or probably first thought. — JohnC5 18:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it looks wrong, but I've removed it anyway. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any chance you will be converting all of CAT:Latin reference templates and CAT:Ancient Greek reference templates over? — JohnC5 18:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't planning to do so personally in the near future – please help out if you can. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotes around the term referenced
I have tried to remove the quotes as a proposal. It is a mere proposal; I know there is no consensus. Rationale: I am looking at entry caput where this is used, and Douglas Harper using this is the only template having them; sources not having them are L&S 1879, Lewis 1891, Gaffiot 1934, Harry Thurston Peck 1898, Ramminger, and William Smith et al. 1890; in English entries, Webster 1913 and Century 1911 do not have them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it worth trying to get some consensus among editors on this? As I mentioned in my edit summary, I see little point in there being formatting differences between these "reference templates" and the and  families of templates, which do place in quotation marks the article title or the book chapter. I would argue that the entry is functionally the same as these elements of a citation. But if there is some reasoned consensus that they should be treated differently, then so be it. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus either way, as far as I know. I tried to address caput entry in this way; since it met with resistance, I now edited Template:R:Online Etymology Dictionary to make sure caput look sane. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which you reverted. Well, caput will have to wait for better times. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Making a change is not a "proposal". If you were "met with resistance", then it means people don't agree with you. Also, you point out that they don't agree in terms of quotation marks, but then you yourself had removed the quotation marks from Webster 1913. As per usual, you make changes that reinforce your view of the "status quo ante" then complain when other templates don't align with your fabricated story line. I personally would prefer all such templates to have quotation marks for consistency. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 17:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do make some changes as proposals, and indicate them as such using the keyword "proposal". That means that I find it more likely than on other occassions that I will be reverted. As I said, caput will have to wait for better times. There is another discussion at Template talk:R:Gaffiot. There I asked the following, never getting an answer: 'Then again, if you claim these to be "correct" academic citations, please show us real online academic article whose manner of reference identification approaches what you want to do.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A similar style to the one we use may be found at the end of this dissertation. Similarly full online citations (though in a different citation style) may be found at Iranica online. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * YATES-diss.pdf has e.g. this: "Strong, William D. 1929. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Berkeley: University of California Press." That's not too bad, not too ornamental. Could be shorter, but is not too bad. No ISBNs or OCLCs anywhere. I don't see any quotation marks in other references, but maybe I am not looking at the right place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are not any examples of quotation marks because it does not cite any dictionary entries. We'd be hard pressed to find examples of our exact dictionary entry citation format as academic articles tend to list them like chapter, article, or section titles (i.e. internally to the citation). —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I posit that what you and SGconlow have been pushing is not a usual academic practice, and no one has shown me otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (with edit confict) The whole Template:R:Reference-meta is a formatting coup, created in 2017; new status quo ante is established on a template level, and then the template is being rolled out to other templates, with no preceding discussion. An attempt to remove the 2017 template from R:Online Etymology Dictionary is then admin-locked. Not pretty. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Template:R:Reference-meta does diverge somewhat from the cite-book, etc. templates., could you align these in terms of formatting (namely Template:R:Reference-meta to the others)? This does not remove the point that we should move towards templatic standardization, not away. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Via a coup. And admin tools. Enjoy yourself, I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposed martyrdom would be more convincing if anyone ever agreed with your point of view. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not a martyr; I am fine. The R:Webster 1913 case was absolutely spectacular. How desperate must one be to resort to such measures? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And then there was that attempted coup on R:Webster 1913 in 2016, with template deleted to make place for new content, history lost, then restored. Not pretty at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've removed the quote marks from a few (Ancient Greek? I cannot remember) reference templates recently, as an effort towards standardisation. But I'd be fine with adding them everywhere too. --Per utramque cavernam 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecation
“Applied &lcub;&lcub;deprecated&rcub;&rcub;; &lcub;&lcub;cite-meta&rcub;&rcub; has been updated, so this template is now redundant”; as does not have in, on, and source how can the templates using  be converted? J3133 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , like, etc., now accepts newversion, title2, etc., so those can be used instead of in, on, and source. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you convert, for example? J3133 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd do so like this. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)