Template talk:R:Gaffiot

Consistency

In the last change to the template, consistency was used as an argument. I think this is generally a good argument, but we need to make sure the consistency is being made with a relevant example, and that the example is actually mentioned.

Let's take the use of 's: this is consistent with Template:R:Webster 1913.

I believe the template is good as is, showing a minimalist appearance that still uniquely identifies the work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

But we generally don't use ’s in other citations and quotations. Why adopt a different format just for dictionary-related citations? What if a dictionary is not produced by a single author but by a number of authors? What if it has an editor rather than an author? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Some templates use 's, some don't. And as for what we do with attesting quotations, these use generally different format anyway. And your previous changes made the appearance inconsistent, which is how I noticed the changes in Latin entries in the first place. Recently, you changed one template to place the linked word at the end, contrary to our long-standing practice. Then it is not really clear that it is consistency that you are after. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall the specific template you mentioned, but I suspect it was because we simply applied the {{cite-book}} template to it. I've accepted the placement of the linked word at the beginning of such templates, but I don't see why we shouldn't strive to minimize other formatting differences. Perhaps we should take this to the Beer Parlour and see if a consensus can be reached. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There are and have been for a long time many templates that do not follow Dan's "traditional" short template format. I'm honestly not going to list them for fear that he'll go on a rampage of ruining correct academic citations because of his stylistic preference. —JohnC5 21:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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. That would be a start to see what is really going on in the real world out there, outside of the wishful minds, mine or yours. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the title

The title of the work is Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français. Someone added Illustrated Latin-French Dictionary in angle brackets. While I think translations of titles are generally often useful, in this case it is unnecessary, and, consistent with identification minimalism, I removed it. The original title is (1) in Latin script, and (2) in Romance language, fairly easy to understand even without translation. In case there is still doubt, Google translate is the user's friend.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because you easily understand French does not mean everyone does, though, in this case, the information is not too difficult. But as a matter of principle, your dead horse of "identification minimalism" does not refer to any particularly policy and parallels a long history of templates that give detailed bibliographic information. I would point out example templates to you, but I honestly don't trust you not to go on a mad rampage defacing perfectly good templates. —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 11:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I grow weary of your misuse of "status quo ante" to mean "Dan doesn't like this change and feels it's his right to decide what is an is not established practice." —*i̯óh₁n̥C^[5] 11:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To repeat myself from the above of this very talk page: "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."

It is a verifiable fact that the English Wiktionary has a long-standing practice of using minimal identification in a broad varienty reference templates. This very template has started with a simple identification:

“pagename” in Félix Gaffiot’s Dictionnaire latin-français, Hachette (1934)

That was perfectly fine and I do not see why it must have been changed; at least, the current identification is reasonably compact.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)