Talk:Khamsa of Nizami (British Library, Or. 12208)

Proposal for citation format

I propose that the article moves to the standard {{citation}} format rather than the current non-standard and undefined format. This would have the benefit of enabling cross-reference links from the notes section to the sources section (recently removed in this rollback), making it easier for the reader to click from the relevant footnote to the full citation. Using the template is the most common standard used in Featured and Good quality articles across Wikipedia and is an easy way of ensuring that new additions of citations stay consistent compared to the randomness of free text citations which will remain a constant maintenance burden. The inevitable consequence of not using the template can be seen in the current article (permalink) where there is inconsistent use of full stops and commas, and an unlinked ISBN even though there are only 3 sources listed. Fæ (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a myth that there is any "standard" format. Policy and guidelines are perfectly clear on this. The current format is found in many recent FAs, and there is no need to change it. Citation templates are actually harder to maintain and add to. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I said the "most common standard". Looking at articles in the Art, architecture and archaeology section of the FA list (the most relevant for this article), 75 use citation templates and 22 do not. Verifiable statistics are not myths. Fæ (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you said (2 inches above) "I propose that the article moves to the standard {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) format rather than the current non-standard and undefined format". There is strong feeling at FAC against sentiments like that. I don't think we are going to agree on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was my mistake, my intention was to refer to the most common practice rather than a defined consensus or policy and consequently to propose a local consensus for this article which would be based on more opinions than mine or yours. Fæ (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the current citations are fine. The main point of a citation is that you can go and check out the source yourself, and the current citations do allow that.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Khamsa of Nizami (British Library, Or. 12208). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629214353/http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=011309 to http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/results.asp?image=011309

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)