Talk:Additive model

Changing citation style

I like to implement citation templates within this article. Does any of the contributors of this article disagree? --bender235 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to do so - the arguments for and against templates are all well known and have been repeated hundreds of times. It comes down to personal preference, and since this article was started without them, we might as well leave it that way. If you want to develop a consensus that templates are better in general (there is no such consensus), that is a discussion that has nothing at all to with this article, and you should raise it at WT:CITE. But it is a perennial discussion, so it seems unlikely that the guideline would change. We can just leave this article as it was. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it comes down to personal preferences. So if nobody says "I prefer citations w/out templates", there is no argument about the style, and we can easily switch. Easy as that. --bender235 (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are well aware that many people dislike citation templates. You cannot go around on an article-by-article basis to subtly make a widespread change that you already know does not have widespread consensus – namely, changing articles that you have never edited to use citation templates solely because you prefer them. Take it to an appropriate talk page, such as WT:CITE or a village pump, rather than trying to light lots of individual "forest fires" on individual article talk pages. — Carl (CBM · talk)

I am aware of that. Where ever people don't like my changes, they may revert them. Over time, I noticed 99% of editors appreciate my citation clean-up. The 1% that doesn't may, like I said, revert them. I have no intention to start any ideological dispute over the usefulness of citation templates, especially since over the past couple of years I realized that this 1% is unreceptive to arguments. So thanks for trying to drag me into a Sisyphean challenge to have MOS changed, but no. I simply don't care for Wiki bureaucracy. I only get offended by policy trolls that destroy my contributions (you still haven't restored the issue numbers I added) just to get their point accross. Like reverting articles for the sake of reverting them, only to claim the existence of a "dispute" when there never was one in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that there has never been a dispute about citation templates is somewhat humorous - citation templates are one of the well-known "classic" disputes that played out over several years. A site-wide compromise consensus eventually developed, which is to generally leave each article in the original style. Content creators should not have to deal with editors who randomly appear at an article to go against that consensus - if you don't like the sitewide consensus, you can work to change it, but you cannot simply ignore it. I don't think there is much else to say here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When I said "there is no dispute", I meant none among the editors of this article. I wasn't refering to Wikipedia in general.

What you refer to as a "site-wide consensus" to "leave each article in original style" is a product of your imagination. Such thing does not exist. --bender235 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)