 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing edit
The formatting of all the references in this article have been changed from using the more usual citation and Harv templates. Why wasn't this change discussed here on this talk page? To quote from WP:CIT: "Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus."
I don't believe the changes are an improvement. Although the MOS doesn't specify a particular format for references, I believe that a consistent style would make Wikipedia easier to use. The Citation/Cite templates are used in many thousands of articles. I see no advantage in introducing small caps.
I have additional problems with the changes. The citations to the Hakluyt edition in the Footnotes now use what I believe is one of the editor's first names – Pasfield. The normal convention is to use the last name which in this case would be Oliver. However, I had used instead Luguat as the first author of the Hakluyt edition – the editor supplied footnotes but I believe the text is exactly as in the English edition of Luguat's original publication – for this reason I kept Luguat as the author but included "Edited and annotated by S. Pasfield". But I'm pleased that we now have more links to Google books – I searched but didn't find these. I notice that the books were scanned in August 2009. Aa77zz (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)